Legal professionals have expressed concern regarding the ability of prosecutors to obtain a conviction in the Stormy Daniels trial against former President Trump. Several experts have highlighted the absence of substantial evidence indicating Trump’s involvement in election fraud. Trump, the first former president in American history to face criminal charges, has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made to Daniels, an adult film star, and former model, Karen McDougal. The Manhattan District Attorney contends that Trump paid or discussed payments to both women prior to the 2016 presidential election in an attempt to suppress the disclosure of alleged affairs, thereby swaying voters’ perception of his character. Trump denies having affairs with either woman. Newsweek reached out to Trump’s attorney for comment via email on Wednesday. Jed Handelsman Shugerman, a legal professor at Boston University, expressed his belief in an op-ed published Tuesday that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has made a “historic mistake” in pursuing the case. Under the headline “I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake,” Handelsman Shugerman asserted that the case lacks clear instances of election fraud. “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,” he 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,” Handelsman Shugerman stated. “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 by Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, published in Slate, where he argues that the case diminishes genuine election interference cases. Hasen wrote, “Although the New York case gets packaged as election interference, failing to report a campaign payment is a small potatoes campaign-finance crime.” “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 Bragg’s opening statement failed to demonstrate the illegality of Trump’s actions. Germain noted, “the DA has never explained what law would make the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels illegal.” Newsweek contacted the office of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg on Wednesday for an email comment.
Legal Experts Question Viability of Stormy Daniels Case Against Trump Amidst Lack of Election Fraud Evidence
