Turley Criticizes Bragg’s Evidence in Trump Hush Money Trial
Legal analyst Jonathan Turley has sharply criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s evidence against former President Donald Trump in his criminal hush money trial, calling it “truly insane.” In an opinion column published by The Hill, Turley questioned the basis of the prosecution’s arguments and compared Bragg’s indictment to the convoluted machines invented by Rube Goldberg.
Turley highlighted the testimony of David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, as an example of the prosecution’s weak case. Pecker testified about three hush money payments made ahead of the 2016 presidential election, but Turley argues that Pecker’s testimony actually bolsters Trump’s defense.
Turley also criticized the prosecution’s reliance on Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, as a star witness. Turley noted that Cohen has a history of exaggerating and is likely to face credibility challenges during the trial.
Turley concluded by suggesting that Bragg’s indictment is politically motivated and that the prosecution’s case is unlikely to result in a conviction. He described the trial as a “Rube Goldberg attraction” and questioned whether the public will appreciate the “satirical quality” of the prosecution’s evidence.
