Trump hush-money payoff to second woman could help prove key element in Stormy Daniels case

Donald Trump will appear in court Tuesday on charges related to a hush money payoff to an alleged mistress, but a second similar arrangement could pose an even bigger threat to him.

The ex-president was indicted last week and is expected to face more than 30 charges related to business fraud in connection with his payoff scheme to porn actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election. But one legal expert pointed to an earlier payment involving then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker and former Playmate Karen McDougal, reported The Daily Beast.

“[That is] is the beginning of the conspiracy," said Norm Eisen, a legal expert and senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “That conspiracy culminated in the Stormy Daniels payments, and in the false bookkeeping and campaign finance violations. All of it followed from what went on in that meeting.”

Representatives of the tabloid that Pecker led later pleaded guilty to an illegal campaign contribution for the $150,000 payment to McDougal for the rights to her story about an alleged affair with Trump, but that report was never published as part of an apparent "catch and kill" scheme. The Manhattan grand jury investigating the Daniels payoff also heard evidence about the earlier arrangement in August 2015.

“One of the most contested issues is going to be Trump’s intent to covertly benefit his campaign," Eisen said. "That’s critically important because it takes the false books misdemeanor up to a felony, which is hiding campaign contributions.

Eisen said prosecutors could be able to show Trump intended the payments to benefit his campaign but did not report them as contributions.

“The McDougal story would apply to Trump’s state of mind when they got to the next chapter, which is Stormy Daniels,” Eisen said.

Prosecutors face some obstacles to presenting evidence of crimes for which the defendant hasn't been charged, but the McDougal evidence could allow them to demonstrate intent -- which is often difficult to prove -- and lessen their reliance on testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who was convicted of various crimes related to the Daniels payment.

“It’s not uncommon in cases like this one, where intent might be difficult to prove, for the DA to provide evidence of other instances of similar behavior,” said Emily Bradford, a former prosecutor who handled fraud cases in New York. “Prosecutors cannot present evidence of uncharged wrongdoing to prove that a defendant has a propensity to commit the type of crime actually charged. But evidence of similar behavior may be admissible for other purposes, such as to prove intent."