Why the “Hush Money” Case Against Trump May Not Hold Up

As the case against former President Donald Trump in New York draws to a close, questions arise over the validity and weight of evidence presented against him. Experts contend that while Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, may have entered into a plea agreement to avoid a trial on felony charges for violating campaign finance laws, this charge may have been included with others to entice him into a deal, and may not be strong enough to prove criminality on Trump’s part.

The Weakness of the Prosecution’s Theory

In order to convict Trump, prosecutors must prove that he falsified business records with the intent to aid or conceal another crime. While they have yet to reveal their specific theory of criminality against the former president, it appears that the “other crime” they allege Trump tried to cover up was Cohen’s alleged campaign finance violation, also known as the Stormy Daniels payment.

Has a Crime Really Been Committed?

The “hush money” case against Trump raises questions about whether one of the crimes to which Cohen pled guilty was even a crime at all. In count eight of Cohen’s federal indictment, he was charged with “making an excessive campaign contribution on or about October 27, 2016” in violation of campaign finance laws. However, there is debate over whether this was ever a campaign contribution in the first place, particularly from Trump’s perspective.

Questions Over Cohen’s Reliability as a Witness

As the linchpin in the New York district attorney’s office case against Trump, Cohen’s testimony has been called into question. While he has testified to alleged conversations and agreements made with the former president, experts maintain that one cannot conspire to not break the law. Cohen’s credibility as a witness has also been undermined by the fact that he is a convicted fraudster.

Other Legal Implications

The failure of proof in the prosecution’s case raises legal questions about whether a state district attorney can incorporate a federal offense to prove up an expired state misdemeanor. It also begs the question of why legal expenses routinely fronted by lawyers for their clients and paid after the fact should be considered a crime without testimony that this is improper.

The Bottom Line

Despite Cohen’s plea deal and testimony presented against Trump, the evidence adduced in the trial thus far indicates that the prosecution’s theory of criminality against the former president is weak. Without compelling evidence to prove that a crime has been committed, the prosecution’s case is unlikely to hold up in court and could result in a not guilty verdict.

Long-Tail Keywords

New York Case Against Donald Trump, Michael Cohen Plea Deal, Campaign Finance Violation, Stormy Daniels Payment, Federal Indictment, State District Attorney, Legal Expenses, Directed Verdict, Not Guilty Verdict

Originally Post From https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4662514-trumps-new-york-trial-wheres-the-crime/

Where’s the Crime in Trump’s New York Trial?