An Examination of the Trump Hush Money Case
Segment # 160
Every center-left and independent voter should be concerned about the NYC Trump case brought by Alvin Bragg, who campaigned for office vowing to get Trump. Allowing our legal system to be this corrupt is a threat to us all in the future. As boring as the details are of this case, we should try to understand them in order to clearly appreciate how sick this system has become.
Deshowitz stated bluntly that this is "the weakest criminal case" he has seen in his 60-year career, stating there is "no misdemeanor, no felony, no federal crime" and that the charges are an unprecedented "made-up, trumped-up" case. Describing the judge Merchan Dershowitz has launched blistering attacks on Judge Merchan's conduct, accusing him of tyrannical bias, unethical threats, and violating Trump's constitutional rights to a fair trial through his actions and evidentiary rulings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Cshjm5kwY&t=8s
The Bragg case against Trump depends first on a convoluted theory of wrong-doing that has never been charged before against any citizen much less a former President. I have provided the Bragg argument for justifying the indictment which is tedious, to say the least. From a global view, the case hinges on Michael Cohen, a convicted liar and now a self-described thief of tens of thousands of dollars. Bob Costello, Cohen’s former attorney has commented both in and out of court that Cohen admitted to him that Trump was innocent. Judge Marchan has severely curtailed the Costello testimony and refused to allow the testimony of expert witness, Bradley Smith former Chairman of the Federal Elections Committee was prepared to testify that Trump’s payment was not a campaign contribution. Judge Marchan blocked the testimony.
Jonathan Turley is a highly accomplished and renowned legal expert, scholar, commentator and litigator who has played a prominent role in major legal cases and congressional proceedings over the past few decades
Jonathan Turley has criticized Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the hush money case against former President Donald Trump, for his perceived bias and controversial actions during the trial proceedings. Turley expressed concerns about the optics and fairness of the case, stating, "The optics are horrendous. I mean, this is a very weak case. In my view, it is weaponization of the system." He argued that Merchan's gag orders on Trump, prohibiting him from commenting on the case and mentioning family members of those involved, were excessive and harmful to the country, especially before an election. Turley also questioned Merchan's impartiality, pointing out that the judge's daughter, Loren Merchan, has worked on campaigns for President Biden and other Democrats, and Trump had claimed she posted a photo on social media expressing a desire to see him jailed. Turley suggested that Merchan should recuse himself from the case due to these potential conflicts of interest. Furthermore, Turley criticized Merchan's handling of the case, describing it as a "circus" and an "obscene case of bias." He highlighted public discontent with Merchan's actions, with some accusing the judge of unfairly targeting Trump due to personal animosity. Turley's comments reflect a broader skepticism among some legal experts about the impartiality and fairness of the hush money case against Trump, particularly regarding Judge Merchan's perceived bias and controversial decisions during the trial proceedings.
Michael Cohen Suffered 'Dramatic Implosion' on Witness Stand—Legal Analyst
https://www.newsweek.com/michael-cohen-suffers-dramatic-implosion-jury-treated-like-chumps-1901957
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump
Understanding this emphasizes the importance of the underlying FECA violations to Bragg’s case. The wrongdoing under federal campaign finance law supports two out of three remaining object offenses. Seen in a certain light, that makes it all the stranger that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York itself never brought federal charges against Trump under FECA—a decision for which there has never been a public explanation.
Summing It All Up
Let’s return to our chart for a moment. Once we incorporate the “unlawful means” needed to reach the § 17-152 object offense, it looks like this:
Clear as mud?
In all seriousness, what this deep dive has hopefully shown is that Bragg’s legal theory is genuinely tangled—though the district attorney’s office is doing its best to clarify matters. The next few weeks will show whether he’s able to walk the jury through it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html
Bragg’s legal argument is complicated, but it stems from a simple episode: In the days before the 2016 election, Trump’s personal attorney and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid $130,000 in hush money to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors argue that Trump, who denies that he had sex with Daniels, then lied on 34 business records — 12 ledger entries, 11 invoices and 11 checks — to disguise his repayment of Cohen as legal fees.
Who Are Key Players in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial?
On its own, falsifying those documents would be misdemeanors, relatively minor crimes. Bragg elevated each of the charges to felonies by arguing that they were committed to hide or further another crime — which, in an unusual move, he did not charge. He said he wasn’t required to specify that crime, but added that it might have been a violation of state or federal election law. What may further complicate the case is that it relies heavily on testimony from Cohen, a disbarred lawyer who served prison time after pleading guilty to violating campaign-finance laws, evading taxes, making false statements to a bank and lying to Congress.
After the indictment, a chorus of critics — some but not all on the right — questioned the legal reasoning, wisdom and winnability of the hush-money case. Today, many experts believe that Bragg’s legal strategy looks considerably stronger, validated by a federal judge who rebuffed Trump’s effort to delay or even kill the case by having it moved to federal court, and by the Manhattan judge presiding over the case, who in February officially greenlit Bragg’s premise by setting a trial date.
Bragg’s case against Trump hits a wall of skepticism — even from Trump’s critics
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/05/alvin-bragg-case-against-trump-00090602