'This is weird': Trump's new argument in hush money case baffles legal expert

Former President Donald Trump has filed a motion in his hush money case that one legal expert is calling "weird."

Trump's Monday filing in New York City criminal court — where he stands accused of falsifying business records to pay off Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election — shows he plans to present an advice-of-counsel defense, court records show.

"Trump's legal argument is his intent can never meet the requisite criminal threshold by virtue of the fact that lawyers were involved," explained attorney Bradley Moss, dubbing it an, "'I gave orders, I assume the lawyers do everything lawfully, I am now covered'" argument.

In the filing, Trump's attorneys Susan Necheles and Todd Blanche alert Judge Juan Merchan that their client indeed lacked intent because his lawyers were involved in the exchanges at the heart of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case.

But they also admit that their advice-of-counsel defense — which typically argues that a defendant was misled by legal advice — will not run the normal course in court.

"At the outset, we emphasize that there is a marked difference between the commonly referred to 'advice-of-counsel' defense; and the defense that President Trump expects to raise at trial," the attorneys write.

"While President Trump intends to elicit evidence concerning the presence, involvement and advice of lawyers in relevant events giving rise to the charges in the Indictment, he does not intend to assert a formal advice-of-counsel defense."

ALSO READ: Haley’s campaign is over, but she still needs to clean up a money mess

Such a defense would require Trump to prove he told his lawyers everything, sought and received advice that his actions were legal, and relied on their advice "in good faith," the lawyers write.

Because this will not be a formal defense, the attorneys argue they are allowed to skip the requirement that they give prosecutors the basic details.

"Accordingly, there is no privilege waiver requiring production of communications protected by the attorney-client privilege," the lawyers write, "and there is no basis for the People to demand a preview of our defenses at trial."

Moss, a national security attorney and MSNBC legal expert, admitted he was flummoxed by the filing and was curious how Bragg's office would respond.

"This is weird and I would like to hear from NY lawyers if Trump can play this game," wrote Moss. "He actually isn’t invoking the defense: he is sort of informally doing it."