Donald Trump was indicted, but the conviction was no slam dunk

[ad_1]

WASHINGTON: The historic case against Donald Trump faces several legal hurdles if it results in the first conviction of a US president on criminal charges, legal experts said Wednesday. on Tuesday at the high-profile arraignment in New York of the 76-year-old real estate tycoon. “This case is going to fall on its merits.” Even some of Trump’s fiercest critics were unimpressed with the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat who Trump and other Republicans accused of conducting a “political witch hunt. .”The former adviser to Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton, now one of his most outspoken opponents, told CNN that the accusation was “weaker than I feared.” the Republican presidential nomination, I’m extraordinarily distressed by this document,” said Bolton.” I think it’s an easy dismissal or a quick exoneration for Trump.” The indictment charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records over a $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, arranged the payment to Daniels and Trump subsequently paid in installments, totaling 34 charges. The payments increased from from a misdemeanor to a felony because, the indictment says, they were allegedly committed with “intent to commit another crime.” The indictment, however, failed to specify what the other crime was and that could be difficult matters. At a press conference, Bragg said the payments were part of a scheme orchestrated by Trump, Cohen and others to “suppress negative information” and boost his election chances.” The method violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to advance a candidacy by unlawful means,” he said. It is legally questionable, however, if Trump is found to have violated in New York election law while he is running for president and not for a state office. Ellen Yaroshefsky, a law professor at Hofstra University, said prosecutors may find it difficult “to prove that the wrongdoers business records with the intent to influence the election.” Andrew McCabe, a former deputy director of the FBI, told CNN that the indictment was a “failure.” “What is the legal theory that ties together a very strong case misdemeanor… for the purpose of concealing another crime, which makes it a felony?” he asked. “If all our legal friends are reading this indictment and can’t see a way around a felony, it’s hard to imagine to convince a jury that they should get there.” Another potential obstacle for prosecutors could be Cohen, who has previously been sentenced to prison for Daniels’ payments, tax evasion and other crimes. . Cohen’s credibility as a witness will certainly come under attack by Trump’s lawyers because he is now a convicted felon and a bitter critic of his former boss. William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University, said the case was “fraught” with difficulties and the charges paled in comparison to the legal danger Trump could face elsewhere. Banks specifically mentioned Georgia, where prosecutors are investigating Trump’s efforts to throw back the 2020 election results in the southern state. A special counsel is also looking into Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress by his supporters and a cache of classified documents taken from the White House to his Florida home. Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said prosecutors will have to prove Trump knew he was violating campaign finance laws with the payments.” Proving intent can always be tricky, ” Hasen wrote in Slate magazine, citing the case of John Edwards, who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Edward was tried in 2012, accused of campaign finance violations for paying hush money to a housewife, but the jury was not incarcerated. Not all legal experts are so bullish on the case. Barbara McQuade, a former district attorney who now teaches at the University of Michigan, said she believes it’s “very solid.” “This case is based on a lot of documents, which usually makes for a very strong case because, unlike witnesses, documents don’t lie and documents don’t forget,” McQuade told AFP.

[ad_2]