Facts are mostly 'not going to be in dispute' in Trump's first criminal case: legal expert

Donald Trump will not really be able to dispute the basic facts in the New York hush money case being brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, argued former federal prosecutor Elie Honig on CNN Thursday.

Rather, he argued, it's all going to be about trying to convince the jury to make sense of the facts in a way that benefits the former president.

"In a piece you have publishing tomorrow in New York Magazine and the Cafe Law blog, you're going to argue that this case is a Rorschach test, or a Rorschach trial," said anchor Jake Tapper. "Explain."

ALSO READ: Who will Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hurt more in Election 2024? History has an answer.

"So Jake, there's a couple of ways you can look at this trial, both of which are completely accurate," said Honig. "You can look at this as an eight-year-old paperwork offense on a case that the famously aggressive feds across the street turned down. We're looking at either a misdemeanor or a low felony where the star witness is a convicted perjurer. Or you can look at this as an attempt to interfere with the 2016 election to hide information from the American voters. And I think the facts here are largely not going to be in dispute. However, the payments made, who did what, who had what conversations with who? I think the central struggle that we're about to see between the lawyers is convincing the juror of which categorization is more accurate and more fair. And I think they're going to be aiming for the jurors' brains. Of course, but it always comes down to that... and the heart as well."

"There's also been a bit of a branding war about this case," Tapper continued. "We often refer to it as a hush money case, as do many others in the news media. But the district attorney's office, they call it election interference because Trump, in their view, was trying to hide information from voters before they cast ballots in 2016. What do you think is the best way to describe the case?"

"Well, neither of those are fully accurate," said Honig. "I usually call it the hush money case as well because it's an easy shorthand, but hush money is not the crime here. It's really important to know the crime is falsifying business records. On the other hand, it's a reach, I think, to say 2016 election interference. The charge is falsifying business records in order to commit campaign finance violations. It's a leap from campaign finance violations to trying to steal an election."

Watch the video below or at the link.

Elie Honig says facts won't be in dispute at Trump trialwww.youtube.com