In his remarks to the media before his court appearance, Trump claimed that he did not know about the hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal during his 2016 campaign. However, CNN fact-checks this claim by highlighting court documents that show Trump’s involvement in directing the payments. This contradicts Trump’s assertion that he was unaware of the situation, suggesting that he may have been more involved than he claims.
Furthermore, Trump stated that the hush money payments were made by his lawyer, Michael Cohen, without his knowledge. However, CNN points out that Cohen testified in court that he made the payments at Trump’s direction. This discrepancy raises questions about Trump’s level of involvement in the situation and whether he was aware of the payments being made on his behalf. The fact-checking process provides important context and clarifies the details surrounding Trump’s statements before his court appearance.
Another claim made by Trump was that the hush money payments were not campaign contributions but rather personal expenses. CNN fact-checks this statement by noting that the payments were made with the intention of influencing the election, which would classify them as campaign contributions under federal law. This highlights the potential legal implications of the payments and raises doubts about Trump’s characterization of them as personal expenses.
Moreover, Trump asserted that the hush money payments were not illegal and that he did not commit any crimes. However, CNN fact-checks this claim by citing legal experts who argue that the payments may have violated campaign finance laws. This discrepancy suggests that Trump may face legal consequences for his involvement in the hush money scheme, despite his insistence that he did nothing wrong. The fact-checking process sheds light on the potential legal ramifications of Trump’s actions.
In response to a question about whether he would pardon Steve Bannon, Trump stated that he had not thought about it. However, CNN fact-checks this claim by pointing out that Trump previously pardoned Bannon for his alleged involvement in a fundraising scam. This discrepancy raises questions about the consistency of Trump’s statements and his willingness to consider pardoning individuals implicated in legal matters. The fact-checking process highlights Trump’s previous actions and underscores the potential implications of his statements before the court appearance.
Overall, CNN’s fact-checking of Trump’s remarks before his court appearance provides important context and clarification regarding the hush money payments made during his 2016 campaign. By highlighting discrepancies between Trump’s statements and court documents, CNN sheds light on the potential legal implications of his actions and raises questions about his level of involvement in the situation. The fact-checking process serves to inform the public and hold Trump accountable for his statements, offering valuable insight into the ongoing hush money trial and its implications for the former president.
