Here's why the case against Trump should end in 'not guilty'

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

61% : Witnesses testified that Trump would sign checks prepared by others and that the specific checks in this case were signed while Trump was serving as president.
52% : Trump's team needs to drive home that a non-disclosure agreement is common in political, business and entertainment circles.
49% : There is no dispute that there was a NDA or that Trump signed checks on these payments.
47% : The government also cites the designation of payments to Cohen as part of his "retainer," which included reimbursement for the payment of the Daniels non-disclosure agreement.
43% : If it were, he would have told Trump.
42% : Pecker detailed how killing such stories was a common practice at the National Inquirer and that he had done so for Trump for over a decade before he ran for president.
41% : That presumption is even more difficult to discern when the defendant is named Trump and the jury sits in Manhattan.
41% : She recounted how Trump even "wanted me to make sure the newspapers weren't delivered to their residence that morning.
40% : It is not clear that there was such falsification or that Trump has any knowledge or role in any falsification.
39% : The supervisor in charge of processing payments said that permission to cut Cohen's checks came not from Trump, but from Weisselberg and McConney.
37% : Cohen said that he stole tens of thousands from the Trump corporation, a crime far more serious than the dead misdemeanor or even the felonies alleged against Trump.
35% : Once again, there was no evidence that Trump knew of how the payments were denoted.
32% : Another alleged perjury came with the key telephone call in which Cohen claimed Trump was informed that the Daniels deal was concluded.
30% : In addition to being a married man, Trump was the host of a major television program subject to a scandal clause.
30% : Many of us guffawed when Cohen claimed that he secretly taped Trump to protect him and keep Pecker honest.
28% : Most importantly, Jeffrey McConney, the Trump Organization's retired controller and senior vice-president, testified that it was not Trump who designated these payments as "legal expenses."
28% : Trump's White House secretary, Madeleine Westerhout, testified that it was common for Trump to sign checks in the White House without reviewing them.
28% : Cohen's lack of credibility and his admitted financial interest in attacking Trump only highlight again the absence of Weisselberg, whom Cohen references repeatedly as the key person making decisions on how these payments were made and described.
27% : It was then zapped back into life in the form of roughly three dozen felonies by claiming that bookkeeping violations -- allegedly hiding payments to Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about a supposed affair with Trump -- were committed to hide another crime.
26% : In this case, the government needs to show that there was a falsification of business records, that the records were falsified to conceal another crime and that Donald Trump had the specific intent to use such "unlawful means" to influence the election.
20% : "Pecker testified that he previously killed stories about Trump going back over a decade.
20% : Hope Hicks, a former aide to Trump, said that Cohen "used to like to call himself Mister Fix It, but it was only because he first broke it.
19% : They may have come to this case with little doubt about Donald Trump, but the question is whether there is not any reasonable doubt about the crimes alleged against him.
16% : Other witnesses trashed Cohen as unprofessional, prone to exaggeration, bitter against Trump, at times suicidal over being denied positions like attorney general and simply "a jerk."
10% : Various witnesses, including former Trump aide Hope Hicks, testified that Trump was motivated to protect his family from embarrassment.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.