Internet says Donald Trump has 'already lost' hush money case after defense's 'weak' opening arguments

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: Former President Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to the 34 felony charges in the hush money case against him. However, his legal team failed to highlight the innocence he claimed during the opening arguments of the hush money trial on Monday, April 22.

Following the opening statements by the prosecution and the defense in the historic criminal trial, the first against a US president, former or serving, the defense failed to score a point while the prosecution perfectly laid out the allegations.

"Opening statements in the Trump criminal trial are now over. The DA's opening was tight, practiced, and mostly chronological before they doubled back to cover perceived vulnerabilities of the case. But the defense's opening drew objections that were sustained," MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin wrote on X.

Prosecution has upper hand after opening arguments

In a series of threads, Rubin proved why the prosecution had the upper hand over Trump after the opening arguments made in front of Judge Juan Merchan and the 12-panel jury at the Manhattan courtroom.

"Why? For one, Blanche started to explain that Trump understood that the agreements he entered into were totally lawful because his attorneys were involved," she wrote, referring to the former president's lawyer, Todd Blanche.

"But that argument — a sort of 'advice of counsel' lite — was already rejected by the court on the legal bases that Sam Bankman Fried was largely precluded from doing the same," Rubin continued, citing the case against the  FTX cryptocurrency exchange founder Sam Bankman Fried who was recently convicted of fraud.

"Blanche also tried to tell the jury that Michael Cohen lied under oath in a court very near to here before the DA objected and all were summoned again to a sidebar," she added, referring to how the defense attorney tried to dismiss the potential key witness, Michael Cohen, who made the hush money payments for Trump.

"Based on how he cleaned up that point, it appears what the DA objected to — with the court's agreement — was the ambiguity about where and how Cohen lied," Rubin wrote.

"Blanche then told the jurors Cohen lied when he pled guilty to tax evasion, a crime he now says he did not commit but pled to for his family's sake," she added.

Trump faces 34 criminal charges for falsifying business records to cover up the $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election in exchange for her silence about their alleged sexual encounter.

The former president made the payment through Cohen, his then-attorney, and the prosecutors say it was falsely logged as legal fees to the latter. According to the prosecution, this was part of a scheme to conceal damaging stories about Trump that could adversely impact his 2016 race.

In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to violating election laws by making the payment to Daniels on behalf of his former client. He was sentenced to a three-year imprisonment.

Besides pleading not guilty to the felony charges, the White House hopeful has denied all allegations of his affair with the adult actress and accused Cohen of "lying" about it.

Internet reacts to opening arguments

Most netizens agreed that the defense's opening statement was weaker than the prosecution's. They also pointed out that Blanche was trying to please his client rather than proving his innocence to the jury.

One user wrote, "The defense already lost the case." Meanwhile, another argued, "Trump's learning that this isn't just another rally where he can lie to his heart's content and not be called on it. Reality must be painful."

"Seems perhaps Blanche’s opening statement was intended more to appease his client rather than impress the jury," a third user remarked. A fourth response read, "From the live feed Blanche’s defense came across as weak and underprepared."

Someone else said, "Blanche was speaking to Trump, the DA was speaking to the jury."

One opinion read, "Sustained objections from the judge will not go unnoticed by the jury. Blanche’s inflammatory statements are not doing Trump any favors!"

Another user wrote, "So, I'm hearing to same old inmateP01. Sure it was illegal but my attys said it was OK. Or in other words. They told me to do it."

An individual asked, "Can't even make it through the opening statement without objections. We are in for a long trial. Was the one objection because he was approaching the line of claiming advice of counsel?"

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.