The case that is most similar to the current case is the John Edwards case from 2011. Edwards had an affair with a female staffer during his 2008 presidential run, and paid her off with funds solicited from campaign donors. It is not exaclty the same as the current case, but there are significant similarities.
Edawards was charged with campaign finance violations, but at his 2011 trial he was found not guilty on one count, and the jury hung on the other counts. The DOJ decided not to retry him. The charges agianst Edwards seem more significant than the curernt ones against Trump, which doesn't augur well for the prosecution in this case.
In the current case, the prosecution has surely proved that Trump paid the hush money by reimbursing his "fixer" Michael Cohen for the $130,000 Cohen paid from his personal funds to buy the silence of Stormy Daniels. But it seems doubtful that the jury will unanimously find that Trump was guilty of falsifying his business records. Yes, he signed the checks, but where is the evidence that he falsified his records?
Falsifying buiness records is a relatively minor, non-violent crime. It would be alomost inconceivable that any defendasnt with no prior criminal record would be sent to prison for such a crime. This calls into question the wisdom, or lack thereof, of devoting huge chunks of government resources to prosecuting this relatively minor crime.
The same could be said for the prior case in which the New York AG prosecuted Trump for civil fraud for inflating values of his properties. Trump's argument that the loans obtained were repaid in full, and thus there were no victims, is quite strong. The state's response that the victims were other potential borrowers who might have recieved loans but for Trump's fraud, is quite weak. I look for the huge judgment to be reduced on appeal.
The other pending cases against Trump are stronger, but unfortunately it appears none will come to trial before the November election.
No comments:
Post a Comment