 |
| Screenshot, Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AP, AP Photo/Andrew Harnik |
George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley called the Manhattan District Attorney’s potential case against former President Donald J. Trump “legally pathetic” after the 45th president announced he expects to be arrested next week.
George Soros-tied Manhattan District Attorney Bragg is allegedly preparing to indict the leading GOP presidential candidate “for alleged hush money payments Trump made as a presidential candidate in 2016” to Stormy Daniels, Fox News reported.
In a series of tweets, Turley said he is “highly critical of this case,” which he called potentially “flawed.”
…Bragg may be able to expect highly motivated judges and jurors in New York. However, the novelty and questions in this case would present difficult appellate issues for the prosecution.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2023
“This is a flawed case if it is based on a state charge effectively prosecuting the federal election violation,” wrote Turley. “That federal case was rejected by the Justice Department. There are also statute of limitation questions that could come into play.” --->READ MORE HERE
“The moment that we are waiting for, we made it to the finale together” — those familiar words from “America’s Got Talent” — could well be the opening line for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg next week, when he is expected to unveil an indictment of former President Trump. With Trump’s reported announcement that he expects to be arrested on Tuesday, it would be a fitting curtain raiser for a case that has developed more like a television production than a criminal prosecution. Indeed, this indictment was repeatedly rejected only to be brought back by popular demand.
Trump faces serious legal threats in the ongoing Mar-a-Lago investigation. But the New York case would be easily dismissed outside of a jurisdiction like New York, where Bra can count on highly motivated judges and jurors.
Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of “hush money” to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws. Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.
It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity’s reputation to preserving a marriage. That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.
In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission chair also expressed doubts about the theory.
Prosecutors working under Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., also reportedly rejected the viability of using a New York law to effectively charge a federal offense. --->READ MORE HEREFollow link below to a relevant story:
+++++Former U.S. Attorney Argues Trump Could Be Indicted for Same Thing Clinton Was Fined For+++++
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment