Matter of fact, in this piece Legal scholar Jonathan Turley lays out the legal reasoning, and why this case makes a mockery of all known Legal jurisprudence.
Turley: Utter disbelief...that this case against Trump is actually being prosecuted.
excerpt:
You had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out, this is going back related to the 2016 election. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violation under the federal laws that doesn't exist. On top of that, you got these tough factual issues that were laid out well by the Trump team. Saying someone else designated this as a legal expense. He was actually paid far in excess of this because this was a legal account.
...more
Keep in mind, this is what Hillary Clinton's people did. Remember, when they funded the Steele dossier -- which they denied to reporters -- they put it as a legal expense. And then they fought the eventual fine they received from the federal government saying that it was a legal expense. Now you've got some of the same Democrats supporting this bizarre theory.
...finally
It is not a crime to pay money for the nondisclosure of an alleged affair. Moreover, it is also not a federal election offense (which is the other crime alleged by Bragg) to pay such money as a personal or legal expense. It is not treated under federal law as a political contribution to yourself.
Yet, somehow the characterization of this payment as a legal expense is being treated as an illegal conspiracy to promote one’s own candidacy in New York. We have never seen a case like this one where a dead misdemeanor from 2016 could be revived as a felony just before any election in 2024.
The Trump cases have highlighted a couple of New York’s absurdly ambiguous laws. Under another law, New York Attorney General Letitia James secured an almost half of billion dollar judgment against Trump for loans where the alleged victims not only did not lose a dime but were eager for more business from his company. The law does not actually require any loss to a victim to impose a roughly $500 million penalty against a defendant that James pledged to bag in her campaign for office. While the over and under valuing of assets is common in the real estate area, James singled out Trump.
rear full Turley article here:
jonathanturley.org
Turley: Utter disbelief...that this case against Trump is actually being prosecuted.
excerpt:
You had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out, this is going back related to the 2016 election. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violation under the federal laws that doesn't exist. On top of that, you got these tough factual issues that were laid out well by the Trump team. Saying someone else designated this as a legal expense. He was actually paid far in excess of this because this was a legal account.
...more
Keep in mind, this is what Hillary Clinton's people did. Remember, when they funded the Steele dossier -- which they denied to reporters -- they put it as a legal expense. And then they fought the eventual fine they received from the federal government saying that it was a legal expense. Now you've got some of the same Democrats supporting this bizarre theory.
...finally
It is not a crime to pay money for the nondisclosure of an alleged affair. Moreover, it is also not a federal election offense (which is the other crime alleged by Bragg) to pay such money as a personal or legal expense. It is not treated under federal law as a political contribution to yourself.
Yet, somehow the characterization of this payment as a legal expense is being treated as an illegal conspiracy to promote one’s own candidacy in New York. We have never seen a case like this one where a dead misdemeanor from 2016 could be revived as a felony just before any election in 2024.
The Trump cases have highlighted a couple of New York’s absurdly ambiguous laws. Under another law, New York Attorney General Letitia James secured an almost half of billion dollar judgment against Trump for loans where the alleged victims not only did not lose a dime but were eager for more business from his company. The law does not actually require any loss to a victim to impose a roughly $500 million penalty against a defendant that James pledged to bag in her campaign for office. While the over and under valuing of assets is common in the real estate area, James singled out Trump.
rear full Turley article here:
Alvin Bragg has his Trump trial, All he Needs Now is a Crime
Below is an expanded version of my column in the New York Post on the start of the Trump trial and much awaited explanation of District Attorney Alvin Bragg on the underlying alleged criminal condu…
jonathanturley.org
