Staff Reports
The Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, may be making a big mistake by focusing on President Trump’s ties to the National Enquirer in his legal case, a panel of experts discussed recently. The panel highlighted concerns that the prosecution’s emphasis on salacious gossip stories may not hold up in court, as these stories are not necessarily criminal and could prejudice the jury unfairly. Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore pointed out that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United has shifted the boundaries of campaign finance, potentially weakening the allegations against Trump.
The panelists emphasized that the case's core should be Trump’s alleged fraudulent business records, specifically regarding payments to Michael Cohen. They cautioned that dwelling on sensational but tangential stories could distract from the prosecution’s main argument and ultimately harm their case. The analysts suggested that Bragg and his team might be overreaching by attempting to sway the jury with scandalous narratives rather than focusing on concrete evidence related to campaign finance violations.
'BE CAREFUL': CNN Panel Warns Alvin Bragg Of HUGE Mistakehttps://t.co/kOCx3O3Lfr
— 🇺🇸🇺🇸Josh Dunlap🇺🇲🇺🇲 ULTRA-MAGA (@JDunlap1974) April 24, 2024
President Trump is currently facing multiple felony charges related to the alleged misreporting of business records to conceal a campaign contribution made to Stormy Daniels. Trump has defended the payment as a legal expense handled through his former attorney Cohen, a stance supported by the Federal Election Commission. Critics have pointed out the inconsistency of Democrats who rejected FEC’s decision on Hillary Clinton’s payment for the Steele dossier while urging legal action against Trump for a similar issue.
In conclusion, the experts raised doubts about the strength of the case against Trump based on the National Enquirer partnership, suggesting that the prosecution may jeopardize its chances of success by prioritizing scandalous details over concrete evidence. This approach could backfire in court and ultimately benefit Trump, especially considering the precedents set by previous FEC rulings.
