Former President Donald Trump is appealing his conviction in New York for falsifying business records, arguing that the prosecution violated his presidential immunity. Trump’s lawyers claim that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg used evidence related to Trump’s official acts in office, which they argue is protected under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity. This case hinges on the interpretation of the line between official and unofficial presidential acts.
Former President Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York on Thursday. The unprecedented conviction marks a dark chapter in the history of the American criminal justice system, according to legal experts. Trump is now the first former president to ever be convicted of a crime. He is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11 and could face prison time.
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz has called the conviction an “absolute joke” and warned that it could lead to a “war of weaponization” of the criminal justice system. Trump’s critics argue that the conviction was delivered by a jury of his peers and that Trump was presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Trump and his supporters maintain that the conviction was the product of a blatantly political prosecution. They point to the fact that the case was brought by Democrat District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who campaigned on a pledge to “get Trump,” and that the judge, Juan Merchan, previously donated $35 to an anti-Trump political committee.
The Assistant Attorney General has denied any political motives and said that his office “did their job.” The only voice that matters is the voice of the jury. And the jury has spoken.
However, Staten Island criminal defense attorney Louis Gelmorino said that Bragg and other Democratic officials should have recused themselves from the case because of the campaign promises they made to prosecute Trump.
Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump reacts as the verdict is read in his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, at Manhattan state court in New York City, on May 30, 2024 in this courtroom sketch.
James had called Trump a “con man” and “carnival barker” and promised to shine a “bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings” before she was elected in 2018. She led a successful prosecution of the Trump Organization for fraud by falsely inflating the value of its assets.
Willis brought charges against Trump and 14 co-defendants in an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. After winning the Democratic primary for her office in March, she said “the train is coming” for Trump and his co-defendants.
“It’s quite obvious they are using the law to prevent Trump from running for office,” said Gelormino. He criticized Bragg’s prosecutorial decisions in New York, noting the district attorney has taken a soft approach towards violent crime while ferociously pursuing Trump.
David Gelman, a New Jersey-based criminal defense attorney and a former deputy district attorney, said anyone who looks at how the Trump case was handled in New York and doesn’t think it was “weaponized” against Trump is “lying to themselves”.
“This is the first time in New York an individual has ever been tried for this type of crime. Is it a coincidence that it happened to President Trump smack-dab in the middle of a presidential campaign where he is the front-runner?” he asked. “I think not.”
In a letter to a New York judge, a Republican congressman has expressed concerns about the ongoing prosecution of former President Trump, claiming that it suffers from “fatal flaws” and could undermine federal authority. The congressman argues that the case should be referred to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for review, as the alleged violations relate to federal campaign finance laws.
Michael Cohen, a key witness in Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump, has confessed to stealing $60,000 from the Trump Organization by claiming reimbursement for a false tech company expense and inflating his own salary. Despite this revelation, Cohen was allowed to testify as the central witness in the case, leading to accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. Former prosecutor Robert Costello further discredited Cohen’s testimony by revealing that Cohen had previously admitted to lying about Trump’s involvement in hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. The defense has moved to dismiss the charges against Trump, arguing that there is no evidence to support the allegations and that Cohen is an unreliable witness. However, Judge Juan Merchan has deferred his decision, raising concerns about his impartiality and the potential for political motives behind the prosecution.
The defense in Donald Trump’s Manhattan trial faces the challenge of exposing the deceit of District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the dishonesty of star witness Michael Cohen. Davidson’s testimony described Cohen as profane, offensive, and threatening, revealing Cohen’s bitterness and obsession with Trump. Cohen’s recent TikTok videos and fundraising efforts, combined with his past fabrications and the extortion investigation against him, raise doubts about his credibility. Bragg’s persistence in prosecuting Trump despite Cohen’s unreliable testimony highlights the political nature of the case. The defense argues that Trump’s reimbursements to Cohen did not violate election laws, and that Bragg is twisting statutes to support his charges.
Former President Trump’s ongoing criminal trial has taken a turn with the judge imposing fines for gag order violations. Judge Juan Merchan fined Trump $9,000 and warned of potential jail time for future violations. Prosecutors allege Trump violated the order 14 times, while the Trump defense team maintains he was responding to attacks against him. Despite Trump’s claims of a rigged trial and a conflicted judge, the case continues with witness testimony resuming this morning.
The Manhattan district attorney’s case against former President Donald Trump is a politically motivated prosecution that ignores a panoply of evidentiary matters that severely undermine its credibility. The prosecution relies on flimsy assumptions, ignores exculpatory evidence, and conveniently overlooks the fact that there are no victims in this matter. This case is a clear example of the danger posed by prosecutors who pick the people they think they should get, rather than pick the cases that need to be prosecuted.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump for falsifying business records has been met with skepticism by many legal experts. The prosecution’s theory, that Trump violated New York law by listing Stormy Daniels payments as a “legal expense” in order to promote his own candidacy, is seen as ambiguous and undefined. The statute of limitations for the misdemeanors in the case has expired, but Bragg has revived it by alleging a federal election crime that the Justice Department has rejected. The prosecution’s focus on Trump to the exclusion of any implications for the legal system or legal ethics is also seen as problematic.
Matthew Colangelo, a former acting associate attorney general in the Biden Department of Justice, is now a senior counsel in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, where he is playing a key role in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump on charges related to the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election. Colangelo has a history of working on investigations involving Trump, and his appointment has raised concerns about potential political motivations.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump is being criticized as a ‘historic mistake’ by a law professor who argues that the prosecution is overreaching. The professor argues that Bragg should instead center his argument around the idea that ‘it’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up’ and points to allegedly falsified business records.
