Legal experts have exposed a fatal flaw in the prosecution’s case against President Donald Trump in the so-called “hush money” trial in New York.
They have expressed concern regarding the ability of prosecutors to persuade a jury to find President Donald Trump guilty.
Numerous authorities have cited the absence of conclusive evidence to support the claim that Trump committed election fraud, as Newsweek reported.
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has become the first former president to appear in a criminal proceeding in the history of the United States.
Upon being charged with the 34 counts of allegedly falsifying business records he entered a not-guilty plea.
The case is led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a George Soros-funded Democrat.
Bragg accused Trump of trying to conceal payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.
The DA is determined to establish proof that Trump paid or discussed paying two women prior to the 2016 presidential election.
Bragg claims that Trump paid the women so that they would not reveal alleged affairs with him, thus attempting to sway voters’ perceptions of his character.
However, Bragg has no evidence to support these claims.
Additionally, Bragg has yet to reveal which crime he claims Trump has broken.
Trump denies engaging in an affair with either of the women.
In a Tuesday report in the New York Times, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, a legal professor at Boston University, stated that Bragg committed a “historic mistake” by accepting the case.
Writing with the inconclusive headline, “I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake,” Handelsman Shugerman noted that there are no glaring instances of election fraud in the case.
“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,” Shugerman wrote.
“As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement.
“Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal,” he wrote.
“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.'”
This refers to an April 14 opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times by law professor Richard Hasen of the University of California, Los Angeles.
Hasen argued that the case devalues legitimate election interference cases.
“Although the New York case gets packaged as election interference, failing to report a campaign payment is a small potatoes campaign-finance crime,” Hasen wrote.
“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 in New York, stated to Newsweek that it has not been established that Trump’s actions were unlawful in Bragg’s opening statement.
Germain pointed out:
“The DA has never explained what law would make the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels illegal.”
