NY vs. Trump: DA Bragg’s web of deceit starts to unravel

Liars can’t win in court. The truth is. Anyway, that’s how it works.

Fulfilling this maxim will be the challenge for Donald Trump’s defense in his Manhattan trial. The former president’s lawyer is tasked with exposing District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s legal deceptions and the chronic fraud of his star witness, Michael Cohen. Compounding the problem is the disgraced presiding judge, Juan Melchán, with a pronounced anti-Trump bias.

On Thursday, the Beverly Hills lawyer returned to the stand to negotiate payments to two women who demanded exorbitant cash payments from President Trump in exchange for silence about their alleged extramarital affairs. However, witness Keith Davidson admitted he had no contact with the defendant and had never met him. He corresponded only with Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, Mr. Cohen, who appeared to be acting entirely on his own. His testimony did not implicate Trump in any of the crimes he is accused of committing.

NY vs. Trump: A trial exploring fictitious crimes

Davidson’s portrayal of Cohen was both accurate and scathing, profane, aggressive, perpetually angry, and often threatening. Importantly, he painted Cohen as a liar who became bitter toward Trump when the newly elected president refused to accompany him to Washington. Jurors learned that Cohen had delusions of grandeur, and that he envisioned himself as White House chief of staff and even federal attorney general. state.

When the bubble burst, Cohen’s anger at his former boss exploded into a maniacal obsession. He was furious with Davidson, saying, “Jesus, can you believe I’m not going to Washington after all this I’ve done for that guy?” Cohen appeared suicidal. This helps form a defense theory that Cohen’s real purpose in testifying against Trump was revenge, not truth.

It’s hard to imagine an intelligent, ethical prosecutor putting his case on the shoulders of an unstable, habitual liar like Cohen. He was sent to prison on charges of perjury and fraud after confessing under oath to a series of shameful fabrications in 2018. He is exactly what a federal judge recently called him a “serial perjurer.” He is Mr. Ripley with talent… without talent.

Michael Cohen’s TikTok video stuns legal watchdogs over fundraising: There may be an ‘unjust lawsuit against Trump’

Cohen, who has repeatedly appeared on TV shows to bash Trump and call him a criminal, escalated his attacks on Trump by commenting on his testimony on TikTok during the trial. His social media rants are financially profitable, which means he is now more financially motivated to lie than ever before. Indeed, his livelihood depends on it. The prosecutor’s head must have exploded when he found out what he was doing. What little credibility Mr. Cohen may have brought to the court has disappeared.

The mere mention of Cohen’s name in court should amount to “reasonable doubt.” He is the definition of untrustworthy. Without him, there would be no legitimate case to prosecute. But instead of admitting that their central witness has cheated and self-destructed and throwing in the towel, Mr. Bragg continues his despicable pursuit of Trump. DA is like an attack dog that won’t let go.

If Mr. Bragg thought Mr. Davidson would be an excellent witness for the prosecution, it may have backfired. He declined to call the payments to Stormy Daniels “hush money or quid pro quo,” but insisted the proper definition was “compensation.” This is a fancy legal term in contract law that simply means an exchange of benefits. Here, the compensation was in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement. It is therefore clearly appropriate to account for it as a legal expense.

Morning Glory: The Show Trial of Donald Trump

This key testimony blows a gaping hole in all 34 charges against Mr. Trump that Mr. Bragg falsified personal business records. What was the lie? The deal with Daniels was a legal settlement negotiated by two attorneys that ultimately resulted in the execution of legal documents. Of course there were legal fees involved. What else is there?

Under cross-examination, Davidson melted like Joe Biden’s ice cream cone when confronted with evidence that he had previously been investigated by law enforcement for criminal racketeering, although he had not been charged. He admitted that much of his own conduct involved “extracting” money from celebrities (he preferred to call it “settlement money”). He also “mediated the sex tape.” For the defense, this fits into a pattern of extracting cash from celebrities during vulnerable times. People like Donald Trump.

If there is a sleazy element to this trial, it has more to do with Mr. Bragg’s witnesses than Mr. Trump’s. Defendants increasingly resemble victims of extortion, defined by law as the extortion of money through threats. In 2016, as the presidential election approached, cash ultimatums intensified and, in Daniels’ case, Trump reluctantly capitulated.

For more FOX News opinions, click here

But that doesn’t mean Trump himself committed any crimes. The personal reimbursement to Cohen did not violate election law, as Bragg claims. The two government departments with exclusive authority over such matters, the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice, correctly concluded that the payments to Mr. Daniels did not constitute illegal contributions.

In other words, it’s not there. But Alvin Bragg doesn’t need to worry too much. He deliberately usurped a state law that doesn’t apply to federal elections, twisted it into a pretzel, and made ridiculous accusations against Trump that are completely unsupported by facts and law.

What’s troubling for defense attorneys is that jurors could be convicted in a politically charged case involving a presidential candidate they might dislike. Will they be able to put aside their personal beliefs and see through the prosecutor’s deception? Or will we be fooled into believing there is an election crime when there is none?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

When unscrupulous prosecutors distort statutes and place nefarious or lying witnesses in order to mislead juries and convict innocent defendants, it is an attack on the rule of law and an abuse of the judicial system. is. In Manhattan, the cards are stacked against Trump.

Let’s see if the liar wins in court or if it’s the truth.

Click here to read more about Greg Jarrett