And one of the weakest in recent memory.
On Monday, April 15, President Donald Trump will become the first former president and the first major presidential candidate in American history to face a criminal trial. Not only is this unprecedented, it’s happening with one of the weakest criminal cases in recent memory.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office searched for any way to charge the former president since 2017. The investigation poured over President Trump’s personal and business life, and they settled on charging the former president with 34 felonies for the non-felony of his attorney Michael Cohen settling a nuisance claim.
The case is so weak that The New York Times and The Washington Post both acknowledged that it’s a stretch. The New York Times reported: “The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws.”
Meanwhile, The Washington Post wrote that the prosecution left some “legal experts . . . scratching their heads” as “they describe it as an unusual case.”
Indeed, it is unusual.
Soros-funded Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg says that President Trump “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”
Bragg’s indictment, however, shows that this is a false accusation from the DA.
The 34 counts of “falsifying business records” all allegedly occurred in 2017, well after the presidential election and when President Trump was already in office. --->READ MORE HERE
 |
| 23 ABC News / Youtube |
No reasonable jury in America would convict anyone of the charges laid out against Trump, but this is New York City.
The weakest of the four politically motivated criminal cases against former President Donald Trump goes to trial on Monday, as the left’s lawfare season heats up.
Legal experts on both sides of the political coin agree that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s trumped up case against Trump stretches to snapping the thin legal premise the Democrat is pushing. No reasonable jury in America would convict anyone of the charges laid out against the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, nationally recognized attorneys say.
But this is New York City. With four liberals per square inch, Trump could expect a more impartial jury pool in Havana.
“If Alvin Bragg had charged Donald Trump with illegally eating a ham sandwich, they would find him guilty,” constitutional law expert Hans von Spakovsky told me this week. “He is going to get a totally biased jury.”
How did we get here? Short answer: Politics. Longer answer, a pornography peddler and a “novel legal theory” that metamorphosized a bogus state misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records into an incredible federal election law felony. Thirty-four separate felony counts, to be precise, carrying a maximum combined sentence of 136 years in prison.
Bragg, who on the campaign trail bragged about suing Trump “more than a hundred times” gets the first crack at the left’s No. 1 political enemy on the criminal charges front. And the Democrat prosecutor is throwing everything he’s got — even if he’s got very little — at Trump to deliver a prosecution against President Joe Biden’s November opponent.
Legless Lawfare
The saga began years ago. Aging pornographer Stormy Daniels claimed to have had an affair with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the allegations. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 to sign a nondisclosure agreement about the alleged affair. The money did not come from campaign funds. Cohen, who covered the payments up front, sought reimbursement from the Trump Organization. He noted the invoiced reimbursements as “legal services” as opposed to something more direct like “reimbursement for settlement payment re: extra-marital sex,” as law experts John Yoo and John Shu put it.
Bragg, as von Spakovsky wrote upon the indictment, has elevated a New York State misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records (a suspect charge as well) by allegedly doing so to cover up a federal crime of hiding campaign expenditures. Trump did so, Bragg contends, “in order to influence the 2016 presidential election.” --->READ MORE HERE
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