Donald Trump's Manhattan hush money trial continues apace, but with each passing day, the proceedings brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg seem to attract even more criticism from legal experts that even include some on the ideological left.
As Newsweek reports, one noted legal commentator, George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley, has gone so far as to declare the evidence proffered in the case thus far to be “truly insane.”
Initiated back in March of last year, the case against Trump is based on allegations surrounding falsified business records related to money paid to adult entertainer Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The purpose of the payments was to quash potential media reporting of Daniels' claim of an affair with Trump, something which he has denied ever took place.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the case and opined that the entire prosecution is a politically motivated witch hunt orchestrated in Washington, D.C.
Of the four criminal matters in which Trump is currently a defendant, it is the New York hush money case that many legal observers have said has the weakest foundation, and that assessment appears to be gaining steam as the proceedings have unfolded thus far.
Writing over the weekend for The Hill, Turley held forth on what he views as Bragg's utterly convoluted case against Trump, suggesting it was something akin to a Rube Goldberg machine that does not – or at least should not – succeed in reaching its desired end.
Turley explained, “I have long been a critic of the Bragg indictment as legally incomprehensible. However, I must confess that after a week of testimony, some of us have developed a weird fascination with the utter madness of the scene unfolding in Manhattan.”
“It was not until the second week of proceedings that Bragg even revealed part of his theory of criminality,” Turley added incredulously.
Critiquing the premise used by Bragg to revive a claim rejected by his predecessors as well as federal prosecutors and also to convert a state misdemeanor past its statute of limitations into dozens of felony counts involving federal law over which he has no jurisdiction, Turley moved on to blast the evidence introduced so far to support the already “creative” theory.
“Bragg decided to start with a witness to discuss an affair that is not part of the indictment,” referencing the testimony of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, noting that he will soon call as his star witness, disgraced former lawyer and serial perjurer Michael Cohen who “will effectively ask the jury to send his former client to jail for following his own legal advice.”
Some might suggest that in light of his regular appearances on Fox News, Turley is not the impartial observer he would like Americans to believe, but the fact is that he is not the only one who has offered a scathing review of Bragg's case.
As Newsweek notes, prominent Democrat attorney Julian Epstein has declared the hush money case “an embarrassment to the legal system,” adding that “the theory we heard on Monday from the prosecution is that this is about election interference because the Trump campaign was trying to suppress that story. Suppressing that story is not election interference. Everyone does it.”
Whether any of the glaring weaknesses cited by these and other legal experts are recognized and acted upon by what is likely the very liberal Manhattan jury hearing the case, however, only time will tell.
