Legal Experts Trash Case Against Trump

As you guys know, I have always believed that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg overreached significantly in his case against Trump.

Even if Trump loses this case, I firmly believe that the verdict will either be vacated or the penalty reduced on appeal.

It would now appear I am not alone in that belief.

Not a Strong Case

For Bragg to win this case, prosecutors are going to have to explain a very complicated theory behind the charges, which will not be easy.

Then they are going to have to convince the jury that Donald Trump’s actions were felonies… again, a difficult task.

Even if they are successful, it is unlikely that this case will make it all the way through the appeals process before someone with a brain overturns the verdict.

In essence, Bragg is accusing Trump of election interference by paying hush money, which is not illegal, then having mischaracterized those payments as legal fees.

Boston University legal professor, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, shredded the case, writing, "Their vague allegation about 'a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election' has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

"As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal.

"The election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed, 'Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.'"

Richard Hasen, a University of California Los Angeles law professor, also slammed the case as an insult to real election fraud cases, writing, "Although the New York case gets packaged as election interference, failing to report a campaign payment is a small potatoes campaign-finance crime.

"Any voters who look beneath the surface are sure to be underwhelmed. Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases."

Greg Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University, went after the DA's office directly, stating that Bragg and his prosecutors “never explained what law would make the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels illegal."

Technically challenging cases never do well with juries because they simply lose interest, and this case is about as technical as it gets and built on a very flimsy and loose interpretation of the law.

This, as I stated the other day, will not be the case that takes Trump out.