Some legal experts suggest that if former President Donald Trump would simply admit that he had an affair with Stormy Daniels, it would benefit him if the case ever goes to trial if only for no other reason than for Trump to use his marriage to Melania as a defense, Business Insider reported.
Trump has long denied that he had a sexual relationship with the former porn actress. But since the alleged affair is central to the indictment, it could provide the perfect defense for Trump, if only he would admit to it, according to former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani.
Rahmani told Business Insider that if the jury believes that he paid Stormy to spare his family the embarrassment of the affair becoming public and not to help his election, then the crime isn’t the felony District Attorney Alvin Bragg is claiming it is. Instead, it is just a misdemeanor. She said admitting the affair was the reason he paid Daniels would be a “pretty reasonable defense” since no one wants his family to know he is having an affair.
Former prosecutor Josh Ritter echoed Rahmani’s position, telling Business Insider that the defense could “smartly” frame Trump as a man who “happened to be accused of infidelity” rather than a man afraid of losing an election.
Ritter said the defense wouldn’t even need to call Melania Trump as a witness to pursue this defense tactic.
Ritter said while Melania’s visible support for her husband could help Trump’s case from a public relations perspective, her testimony at the trial is unnecessary and unlikely. He explained that although his marriage to Melania “may be the impetus” for Trump paying off Stormy Daniels, Melania’s “thoughts or understanding” of what transpired are “irrelevant” to the case.
The legal experts also believe that this defense strategy would play well with the jurors, especially if Trump can portray himself as a successful businessman who, facing a unique risk of extortion, chose to pay Daniels off to protect his personal life.
Ritter told Business Insider that if Trump can maintain that “kind of tone,” the jurors could be left wondering why this is a crime.
