The prosecution in the Trump trial claims that hush money was "pure election fraud."

The prosecution in the Trump trial claims that hush money was "pure election fraud."

In the hush-money trial, the prosecution charged the former president of engaging in a criminal conspiracy and cover-up to conceal a scandal before to the 2016 presidential election.

"It was election fraud, pure and simple," an attorney said to the jury in the opening remarks of the landmark New York trial on Monday.

Presenting the defense, Mr. Trump's attorney claimed that his client was innocent and that it was lawful to attempt to sway an election.

"He's hiding behind innocence," he continued.

Before he was elected president in 2016, Mr. Trump is accused of attempting to conceal a $130,000 (£104,500) payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels.

In addition to contesting the allegations of having a contact with Ms. Daniels—whose actual name is Stephanie Clifford—he has entered a not guilty plea to 34 charges of manipulating company documents.

Each side presented its argument to the jury at the beginning of the second week of the first-ever criminal trial of a former US president in Manhattan. David Pecker, the tabloid publisher who was the first witness, also made a short appearance on the witness stand and will continue on Tuesday.

Attorney Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, said the court that Michael Cohen, the former attorney and confidant of Mr. Trump, collaborated with Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, to "cook the books" under the president's orders.

The prosecution said that three different types of records—invoices, ledger entries, and checks—were falsified as part of the plot to conceal how Cohen was paid back for the payment to Ms. Daniels.

Mr. Colangelo told the jury that Mr. Trump had stated in his company records that such payments were "for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement" with Mr. Cohen.

"Those were lies," the prosecutor said.

All the information you want regarding Trump's hush-money trial

Witness whirlwind and unproven legal theory: How solid is the first Trump case?

What the public thinks of Trump's trial

Crucially in this instance, he said that Mr. Trump was driven to provide the payment in order to keep voters unaware of the purported meeting with Ms. Daniels.

The prosecution claimed that this cover-up amounted to a second felony since it interfered with the election. This made the accusation of fabricating company documents into a more severe crime rather than a lesser misdemeanor.

They said that the notorious Access Hollywood video, which made headlines only weeks before the 2016 election and featured Mr. Trump boasting about how he can have with anybody because of his fame, had scared the hell out of his campaign.

"The defendant and his marketing staff were deeply concerned that it would seriously harm his standing amongst female voters in particular," Mr Colangelo told the court.

However, Mr. Colangelo said that when Ms. Daniels came forth the next day, claiming to have had a encounter with Mr. Trump, it made the issue brought about by the video much worse.

Mr. Colangelo told the jury that the public revelation "would have been devastating to his campaign, so at Trump's direction Cohen negotiated a deal". The prosecution claims that Mr. Cohen and Mr. Pecker, the former CEO of American Media Inc., the company that runs the National Enquirer, spoke about how to keep it quiet.

In contrast, the defence's answer was quite straightforward.

Mr. Blanche seemed determined to portray Cohen, the prosecution's lead witness, as an unreliable former worker who had a grudge against the former president.

Regarding Cohen, Mr. Blanche said, "He's an admitted liar, a convicted felon, and a convicted perjurer."

He also focused on Ms. Daniels, claiming that her allegations had brought in "hundreds of thousands" of money. She is a witness, but the defense attorney advised the jurors to ignore her.

He continued, calling the instances of purportedly fake documents "34 pieces of paper" that had nothing to do with his client.

In response to the prosecution's case for election meddling, Mr. Blanche insisted that his client did not violate any laws, even if it was his intention to influence voters.

"Attempting to sway an election is perfectly acceptable," Mr. Blanche said. "It's called democracy."

Although the trial is anticipated to go on for around six more weeks, legal experts believe that opening comments have special significance in influencing jurors' opinions.

In a case like this, veteran federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told the BBC, "you need to start out strong."

Mr. Rahmani pointed out that with two attorneys on the jury, the prosecution's attempts to turn this into an election meddling case could be difficult.

"It's apparent the documents were fraudulent business records, but to go that next step to say they were in furtherance of, or to cover up, a campaign finance donation, is a very challenging legal case and they're going to need to demonstrate a lot more than that in my judgment.

He stated, "This is going to come down to Michael Cohen," and whether or not his testimony supports his prior statements and whether or not he has the documentation to support them.