Commentary: Forget Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen – it’s accountants who could seal Trump’s fate

TRUMP’S CHEQUE TO COHEN

Accountants could simply present this record to the court during Trump’s New York trial and ask a simple question: If Trump constantly refuses to pay his bills and consistently stiffs people he does business with, why did he instantly whip off a cheque to Cohen for US$130,000 without so much as a request for an itemised bill?

In his first public remarks on the scandal in 2018, Trump denied any awareness of the payment to Daniels. Not long after that, he changed his story, acknowledging the US$130,000 payout to Daniels, but said a non-disclosure agreement was “used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair”.

Regardless of Trump’s change of tune, the case against him isn’t so much dependent upon Cohen’s testimony about the purpose of the US$130,000 payment – it’s that Trump failed to ask for any documentation about it.

Cohen would have had to work a lot of hours to drum up US$130,000 in billable fees. It stretches credibility that a man like Trump, whose dollars apparently must be figuratively pried from his hands, asked no questions, demanded no details, no breakdown and no documentation about a US$130,000 bill and other pricey payments.

Forget Stormy Daniels. Forget Michael Cohen. Accountants will be raising this potentially damning question during the legal proceedings against Trump: Why would a US$130,000 bill be so quickly and unquestionably paid and then reported only – and vaguely – as a lawyer’s fee?

Jerry Paul Sheppard is Associate Professor of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University. This commentary first appeared in The Conversation.