Historic Trial Transcripts

OPENING STATEMENT BY THE DEFENSE

MR. BLANCHE: Good morning.

Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. BLANCHE: President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office should never have brought this case. You’ve heard this a few times already this morning, and you’re going to hear it a lot more during this trial.

The People, the Government, they have the burden of proof to prove President Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What that means, as Judge Merchan said a few minutes ago, is that President Trump is presumed innocent. He’s cloaked in innocence. And that cloak of innocence does not leave President Trump today. It doesn’t leave him at any day during this trial. And it won’t leave him when you all deliberate.

You will find that he is not guilty.

Now, President Trump, you’ve seen him, of course, for years and years and years. You’ve seen him on television. You’ve seen photos of him. You’ve seen articles written about him. He’s in some ways larger than life. But, he’s also here in this courtroom doing what any of us would do: defending himself.

You’re going to hear me, as I’ve done already today, and others, even witnesses, refer to him as “President Trump”.

This is a title that he has earned because he was our 45th President. We will call him “President Trump” out of respect for the office that he held from 2017 to 2021. And as everybody knows, it’s the office he’s running for right now. He’s the Republican nominee.

But—and this is important—he’s not just our former President. He’s not just Donald Trump that you’ve seen on TV and read about and seen photos of. He’s also a man. He’s a husband. He’s a father. And he’s a person, just like you and just like me.

What the People just did for about 45 minutes is present to you what appeared to be a very clean, nice story.

It is not. It is not “simple”, as the People just described.

For one, and you heard the People admit this, most of what you are going to hear about in this trial, most of the conversations, most of the documents are from 2015, 2016, 2017, years and years ago, pre-COVID. And you’re going to hear witnesses talk about conversations, meetings, people they met with from 2015.

The story that you just heard, you will learn, is not true.

And at the end of this trial, there will be plenty of reasonable doubt.

Here is what I expect that you will learn happened:

President Trump, for years, built a very large, successful company. He employs thousands of people. It’s a purely private company. Not like AT&T or FedEx, publicly traded.

And when he became President in 2017, he put up a wall between himself and his company, as the People just alluded to. He put his entire company in a Trust. He did this so that he could run the country, and he wouldn’t have anything to do with his company while he was President.

But, some of his employees, you’ll learn, continued to help record personal expenses that President Trump incurred while he was President. Not surprising. They had been doing that for many years. You’ll hear they’re still doing that today.

So, when—when President Trump became President, when he took the Office of the Presidency in 2017, in January, Michael Cohen, who you heard the People allude to, assumed the role of President Trump’s personal attorney.

And you will learn that each month in 2017, Michael Cohen sent an invoice to some of the employees at the Trump—at the Trump Tower, right here in Midtown, for $35,000. And on this invoice, Michael Cohen described his work as “payment to the retainer agreement for legal services rendered”.

The invoice was processed. Somebody at Trump Tower generated a check. The check was ultimately signed, and there was a record in a ledger on President Trump’s personal records that reflected the invoice.

For nine of the checks, the check made its way down to the White House, and President Trump signed it.

You’ll hear that he’s the only signatory on his personal checking account, which is why he signed the check.

So, what on Earth is a crime? What is a crime about what I just described?

This business records violation that the People have brought against President Trump, the 34 counts, ladies and gentlemen, are really just 34 pieces of paper, the 34 counts of the invoices that Mr. Cohen sent to the folks at Trump Tower, the checks that were generated because of that invoice, and then the ledger notation from the invoice that said “for retainer agreement and legal services”.

None of this was a crime.

Now, you just heard the People’s theory about that $35,000, that it really wasn’t a monthly retainer, that Michael Cohen was actually trying to cover up with President Trump the payback of this $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, who also goes by Ms. Clifford, Stephanie Clifford.

You’ll hear that Ms. Clifford/Ms. Daniels, did, in fact, sign an NDA in October of 2016 in exchange for $130,000.

But, think for a moment of what the People just told you. President Trump did not pay Mr. Cohen back $130,000. President Trump paid Michael Cohen $420,000.

And in the same breath, the People told you that President Trump is known as a frugal businessman, that he pinches pennies.

Ask yourself: Would a frugal businessman, would a man who pinches pennies repay $130,000 debt to the tune of $420,000?

More significantly than that, ladies and gentlemen, you’re going to learn that this was not a payback. The $35,000 a month was not a payback to Mr. Cohen for the money that he gave to Ms. Daniels.

He was President Trump’s personal attorney.

You will see documents, you will see emails. His signature block, Michael Cohen’s signature block in 2017 said “Michael Cohen, Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump”. You will hear that he told people that he served as President Trump’s personal attorney. You will hear that he did legal work for President Trump and the First Lady as his personal attorney.

Now, the People talk about the ledger. I mentioned the ledger a few times.

Listen, the ledger is just a fancy way of describing how folks at Trump Tower, employees that work for President Trump kept track of the money that came in and the money that went out. There’s nothing fancy about a ledger. It’s something, I suppose, like a checkbook, where you keep track of what you’re spending money on.

And I expect that you will learn that the record, the ledger that was used in this case that President Trump is charged in part with, that the information that was placed in that ledger was done by someone named Deb Tarasoff. I expect she will testify.

You will hear that she’s a woman who has worked for President Trump for decades.

Nobody is going to say she did anything wrong. I don’t expect the People will say she is part of this scheme.

What she will tell you is she had a conversation with another boss, someone who she worked for, another accountant, someone who has nothing to do with this; and she was told when she got the invoice from Mr. Cohen to call it “legal expense”, which is exactly what the invoice said. And that’s exactly what she did. And then, after recording it, she generated a check, which was her job.

And then, again, for nine of the eleven checks, the checks made their way from Trump Tower, here in Midtown, to 230 miles down south to the White House, where they were signed.

But—and you heard this again from the People. I am not saying anything controversial. President Trump had nothing to do, had nothing to do with the invoice, with the check being generated, or with the entry on the ledger.

Ms. Tarasoff isn’t going to say she had any conversations with President Trump: Hey, how should I book this? How should I book this to keep it secret and keep it quiet?

The invoice says it’s for services rendered. And it’s Michael Cohen. He’s a lawyer. He worked for The Trump Organization, you’ll learn, for many years.

You won’t hear any of that.

Her boss, the person who told her how to book it, he’s not gonna say he talked to President Trump about it. He’s not going to say that he called the White House and interrupted a meeting as President Trump was running the country and said: Hey, we got this invoice, I know we’re trying to cover it up here.

Absolutely not.

You’ll learn President Trump had nothing to do with any of the 34 pieces of paper, the 34 counts, except he signed on to the checks, in the White House while he was running the country.

That’s not a crime.

So—and some of you heard this last week during jury selection. What are the People going to do? I don’t expect they’re going to dispute what I just said. I don’t expect they’re going to call a witness that says that President Trump had anything to do with what was written on the ledger, with generating the check, with the invoice coming in.

So, you heard last week, and I expect you’ll hear it during this trial, this idea of “accomplice liability”; the idea that the People can get around the complete lack of knowledge or intent by President Trump.

And, look, the reality is, President Trump is not on the hook, is not criminally responsible for something that Mr. Cohen may have done years after the fact. The evidence will prove otherwise.

You also heard a lot of—a lot of communication about the 2016 election. The People just told you that the reason why these invoices were recorded the way they were recorded way after the election—President Trump was already in office—was to cover up for Mr. Cohen, suggesting that Mr. Cohen was somehow trying to influence—“influence” is the word they used—the 2016 election.

I have a spoiler alert. There is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy.

They put something sinister on this idea, as if it was a crime. You’ll learn it’s not.

Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels or Stephanie Clifford $130,000 in exchange for her agreeing to not publicly spread false—false claims about President Trump is not illegal.

I’m going to say that again. Entering into a non-disclosure agreement—

MR. COLANGELO: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLANCHE: Entering into a non-disclosure agreement is perfectly legal.

MR. COLANGELO: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLANCHE: You will learn that companies do that all the time with some regularity. Executives, people who are wealthy, people who are famous enter into non-disclosure agreements regularly, and there’s nothing illegal about it.

I expect that you will learn that when Ms. Daniels threatened to go public with her false claim of a sexual encounter with President Trump back in 2008 [sic], that it was, as the People just said, very close to the election. And it was almost an attempt by Ms. Clifford/Ms. Daniels to extort President Trump.

MR. COLANGELO: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLANCHE: It was sinister. And it was an attempt to try to embarrass President Trump, to embarrass his family.

Because, as the People alluded to, at that time there were all kinds of salacious allegations going out, going around about President Trump, and it was damaging to him and damaging to his family.

And you heard and you will hear during this trial that President Trump fought back, like he always does and like he’s entitled to do, to protect his family, his reputation and his brand. And that is not a crime.

You heard the People talk about this term “hush money payments”, and I expect you’ll hear that term used during the trial.

Again, entering into an agreement with another individual—you’ll hear this agreement was negotiated by lawyers.

MR. COLANGELO: Objection.

THE COURT: Please approach.

(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held at sidebar:)

THE COURT: Tell me what the objection is.

MR. COLANGELO: Your Honor specifically excluded presence of counsel defense.

MR. BLANCHE: Sorry, Your Honor.

There will be testimony from Mr. Cohen that he was a lawyer, and there will be testimony he was working with Mr. Davidson, also a lawyer.

THE COURT: I’ll direct you stay away from it.

MR. BLANCHE: Yes.

So, it is true that in their opening, the People talked about how Mr. Pecker is going to talk about his communications with the General Counsel as well, which is also the same issue.

THE COURT: Mr. Pecker is not on trial here.

MR. BLANCHE: I understand.

(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

That last comment is stricken.

MR. BLANCHE: There is nothing illegal about entering into a non-disclosure agreement. Period.

Now, the People talked about Michael Cohen. And there are going to be a lot of witnesses in addition to Mr. Cohen. You’re going to hear myself, the other folks that are working with President Trump cross-examine, as the judge talked about, these witnesses. Some we’ll cross-examine a lot. Some very little, if at all.

But, one witness who you will hear a lot about is Michael Cohen.

Mr. Cohen served as President Trump’s attorney for many years, long before President Trump became President. He served as his personal attorney, working at Trump Tower, being paid for by the Trump companies.

And then, as I mentioned, in 2017, he served as his—as the personal attorney to President Trump in 2017, after President Trump took office.

You will learn that shortly after the election in 2016, Michael Cohen wanted a job in the administration. He didn’t get one.

You’ll hear that he was loyal. He was very loyal to President Trump and the companies for years. He defended President Trump on television, in printed media, publicly, privately.

But, unbeknownst to President Trump, in all the years that Mr. Cohen worked for him, Mr. Cohen was also a criminal. Apart from his work for President Trump and the Trump companies, he cheated on his taxes, he lied to banks, he lied about side businesses he had with taxi medallions, among other things.

And as the People alluded to, in 2018, he got caught.

Now, shortly after getting caught in 2018, you will learn that he made a decision. The decision that he made was to blame President Trump for virtually all of his problems.

He had been eventually disbarred as an attorney. He’s a convicted felon. And he also is a convicted perjurer. He is an admitted liar.

For many, many years, going back before President Trump became President, even before Michael Cohen started working for The Trump Organization, you’ll learn that Michael Cohen was obsessed with President Trump. He is obsessed with President Trump even to this day.

Today, Michael Cohen has podcasts, two of them. He goes on TV, X, TikTok, other social media platforms, and he rants and he raves about President Trump. He criticizes President Trump. He has talked extensively about his desire to see President Trump go to prison. He has talked extensively about his desire to see President Trump’s family go to prison. He has talked extensively about President Trump getting convicted in this case.

As a matter of fact, you will learn that last night, 12 hours ago, Mr. Cohen, on a public forum, said he had a mental excitement about this trial and his testimony. He called President Trump, just last night, a despicable human being, among other things. And he said that he wanted to see President Trump in an orange jumpsuit. That was last night.

But, he says similar things multiple times a week during the entire pendency of this case and even before this case was brought.

You’ll learn that Mr. Cohen has misrepresented key conversations where the only witness who was present for the conversation was Mr. Cohen and, allegedly, President Trump.

He has a goal, an obsession with getting Trump. And you’re going to hear that.

I submit to you that he cannot be trusted.

Separately from his obsession with President Trump and his obsession to get President Trump, on multiple occasions Mr. Cohen has testified under oath and lied.

MR. COLANGELO: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLANCHE: He walked—he has walked into a courtroom very near here, raised his right hand, and swore to tell the truth. And now he will tell you, I expect, that he was lying.

MR. COLANGELO: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Please approach.

(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held at sidebar:)

MR. COLANGELO: There is no showing that Mr. Cohen testified falsely in any of the proceedings that Mr. Blanche is referring to.

MR. BLANCHE: What I just said is that he testified that he testified falsely. He will testify that when he pled guilty in front of Judge Pauley, he lied.

MS. HOFFINGER: That’s not what he said.

MR. BLANCHE: That’s what he said. He did say that.

THE COURT: That’s not what is standing.

I don’t know what you’re testifying about from the podium.

We’ll hear it from the witness stand.

MR. BLANCHE: They can use it against me.

THE COURT: That’s in dispute. I read it’s in dispute. I’ve heard it’s in dispute.

You’re not going into that.

MR. COLANGELO: Just to confirm, it’s disputed both in the Pauley trial and in Federal Court in front of Judge Furman.

MR. BLANCHE: It’s his words. He said—the question was asked, “Were you telling the truth when you testified before Judge Pauley?”

He said, “No.”

They asked, “Were you lying under oath?”

And he said, “Yes.”

MS. HOFFINGER: He said he lied across the street.

MS. NECHELES: It is across the street.

MR. COLANGELO: That’s not what Mr. Blanche said. He said he lied across the street.

Second, if you put the entire testimony in context and full—

MR. BLANCHE: It—

THE COURT: Relax. Relax.

Let him speak. I need to hear what he’s saying.

MR. COLANGELO: Both in his further testimony in that proceeding and in written submissions at his federal proceeding, he clarified and explained his testimony and said that he was not lying when he pled guilty, said he was prosecuted—believed he was prosecuted unfairly.

THE COURT: This is an opening statement. It’s not argument.

If you have this at the end of the trial, you can argue it at summations.

I don’t want to hear it now.

MS. NECHELES: Can’t Mr. Blanche say: I expect the evidence to say; we heard from the prosecutor; we expect the evidence to say; we don’t expect him to say?

THE COURT: It’s argument.

You can bring it up on summation.

(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

MR. BLANCHE: You will learn, ladies and gentlemen, that Michael Cohen has pled guilty to lying under oath.

That means, to be clear, that just like I expect witnesses will come in here and raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth and then testify, that means that Mr. Cohen did that, raised his right hand, swore to tell the truth, and then lied. And admitted that. Pled guilty to lying. Under oath.

So, you have two meaningful and significant issues with Mr. Cohen: His obsession with President Trump, and his desire to see President Trump go to jail in this case. His entire financial livelihood with podcasts. He’s written several books. He’s frequently on the media. His entire financial livelihood depends on President Trump’s destruction.

And, second, the fact—admitted fact that he has lied under oath.

I submit to you—and I will talk to you again, as Judge Merchan said, at the end of the case—that given this, you cannot make a serious decision about President Trump relying on the words of Michael Cohen.

There will be other witnesses.

I expect Ms. Clifford/Stormy Daniels will testify. She is, similarly, extremely biased against President Trump.

You will hear that he met her several years ago, in 2006. I may have said 2008 earlier. In 2006, some 18 years ago.

Then, at the time, as some of you may remember, President Trump was running a very popular TV show called The Apprentice, which was looking—always looking for new opportunities and had a series of communications with Ms. Daniels. But, ultimately, it did not work out.

Since then, Ms. Clifford has made a living off of these communications, even though she publicly denied any improper relationship in writing.

You will hear that in the weeks and months leading up to the 2016 election, she saw her chance to make a lot of money, $130,000. And it worked. She got an NDA, and Michael Cohen paid her that money. He did that in exchange for her silence. Which, of course, didn’t work.

And since this story came out in 2018, became public, she’s made hundreds of thousands of dollars because of it. She also wrote a book. She was paid for a documentary.

And you’ll also learn that courts have sided with President Trump in legal disputes between Ms. Daniels and President Trump and that she owes him somewhere around $600,000 as a result of those cases.

But, I’m going to say something else about her testimony, and this is important. It doesn’t matter.

What I mean by that is, I expect you will learn that Ms.—that Ms. Daniels doesn’t have any idea. She doesn’t know anything about the charged 34 counts in this case. She has no idea what Michael Cohen wrote on the invoice. She has no idea how it was booked at Trump Tower. And she has no idea about the checks that are also charged in this indictment.

So, her testimony, while salacious, does not matter.

Now, I want to talk to you for just a few minutes about what the People spent a long time talking about, which is this catch and kill scheme between Mr. Pecker at AMI and President Trump and Michael Cohen as the part of his lawyer. The People used the word “conspiracy”.

You will hear and see that there are 34 counts in this indictment. “Conspiracy” is not one of them. President Trump is not charged with any “conspiracy”. That’s a word the People have chosen to use.

The reality is, there’s nothing illegal about a scheme. There’s nothing illegal about what you will hear happened among AMI and National Enquirer and Mr. Pecker and President Trump.

It happens—I expect you will hear shortly, this sort of thing happens regularly, that newspapers make decisions about what to publish, when to publish, and how to publish. It happens with politicians, with wealthy people, with famous people.

It’s not a scheme. Unless a scheme means something that doesn’t matter, that’s not illegal, that’s not against the law.

As part of this, the People talked about a catch and kill idea. Catch and kill. That you purchase the rights to a story.

But, I encourage you to listen over the next couple of days—well, listen to the whole trial, but certainly over the next couple of days when you hear Mr. Pecker testify about this supposed catch and kill. Listen to what he says about his motivation to sell magazines, not surprising, and whether it really is a catch and kill, and whether what the People just told you lines up with what the witness is going to say on that stand.

So, I’m going to sit down.

Before I do, I am going to say the same thing that the People said to you. Please listen to the evidence. Listen to the testimony. Listen to the testimony of Michael Cohen. Listen to the communications that folks had, the meetings that people had, 2015, 2016, 2017, years and years ago. And think about whether it rings true that what they’re saying is accurate and lines up with the other evidence that you hear.

Listen to the folks that still work at Trump Tower, some of them, about what they did when they got those various documents that make up the 34 counts. Listen about whether that has anything to do with President Trump or anything to do with AMI or a catch and kill scheme or the 2016 election.

If you do that, I submit that you will reach the conclusion that it does not.

And, listen, use your common sense. We’re New Yorkers. That’s why we’re here.

You told all of us, you told the Court, you told me, that you would put aside whatever ideas you have of President Trump from the past eight years, the fact that he was President, the fact that he is running again for an election this November. And we trust you to do that. We do. We trust that you’re going to decide this case based upon the evidence that you hear in this courtroom and nothing else.

And if you do that, there will be a very swift, a very swift not guilty verdict.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Blanche.