Even for those of us who have long been critics of the “hush money” case against Donald Trump and its dubious legal theory, it has been surprising to see that the prosecutors had no more evidence than we previously knew about.
The assumption was that no rational prosecutor would base a major criminal case almost entirely on the testimony of Michael Cohen, who was recently denounced by a judge as a serial perjurer peddling “perverse” theories in court.
The calculus of Alvin Bragg is now obvious. He is counting on the jury convicting Trump regardless of the evidence.
Which is also why Bragg likely fears that the judge, not the jury, will decide the case. After the government closes its evidence this week, the defense will move for a direct verdict by the judge on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Many of us agree with that assessment. After three weeks of testimony, there is still confusion on what crime Trump allegedly committed.
Bragg has vaguely referred to the labeling of payments to Stormy Daniels as “legal expenses” as a fraud committed to steal the election.
However, the election was over when those denotations were made. Moreover, many believe that such a characterization for payments related to a nondisclosure agreement is accurate. (Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed in the same election that hiding the funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly accurate.)
Judge Juan Merchan, in my view, has failed repeatedly to protect the rights of the accused in this case.
But if he wants to show he is truly neutral, Merchan should grant the motion for a directed verdict.
Read the Full op-ed over at The New York Post:
This may be the week Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump falls apart: https://t.co/rLjIxzpORZ
— Ned Ryun (@nedryun) May 13, 2024
Thank you for visiting