Case Against Donald Trump Is 'Absurd'—Law Professor

The hush money case against former President Donald Trump is “absurd” as the elements necessary for a conviction are just not there, a law professor said.

Greg Germain made his comment as the prosecution was closing its case in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024, is the first former president in U.S. history to stand trial in a criminal case. He has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records. He has continually said that this case and other criminal and civil challenges involving him are politically motivated.

Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media after his day in court for allegedly covering up hush money payments, at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 20 in New York City. Trump faces 34 felony…

Mark Peterson/Getty Images

The prosecution seeks to prove that before the 2016 presidential election, Trump paid or discussed paying two women—adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal—to not disclose his alleged affairs with them. He denies affairs with both women.

Prosecutors claim that then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s payment to Daniels was an illegal campaign contribution because it was intended to silence Daniels and thereby influence the election.

Cohen was later jailed for illegal campaign contributions, tax fraud and other charges. He is now a Trump critic and they have attacked each other’s character on social media posts.

Newsweek sought email comment from Trump’s attorney on Tuesday.

Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University in New York, told Newsweek that paying hush money is legal, as is disguising a hush money payment.

He said prosecutors are trying to label the payment of $130,000 to Daniels as a political campaign contribution, but the elements for a crime are not there.

He said Cohen’s payment to Daniels would have to be considered a loan to Trump, as loans to an election campaign are subject to a federal contribution limit.

Additionally, Trump would had to have conspired with Cohen to make the unlawful loan and conspired to illegally influence the election.

“But [the prosecutor] still has to prove that the documents were falsified to cover up that crime,” Germain said. “It all seems rather absurd since Trump would not have violated the law by paying the money himself, but by arranging to make the payment through Cohen it may have become an unlawful payment.”

Germain said that Judge Juan Merchan will have to show courage in correctly instructing the jury.

“If the judge glosses over the elements [of the crime], it will likely be overturned on appeal,” he said. “If the judge doesn’t gloss over the elements, then they won’t convict.”

“In the end, the outcome may turn on the integrity of the judge, not on the credibility of the witnesses. And having gone down this long and very public road, it will take a courageous judge to do an about-face and present the jury with proper and careful legal instructions.”