
<p>Most political pundits and legal experts – including those former prosecutors who populate the cable news networks – have said that of all the cases brought against President Trump the campaign finance case is the weakest. And apparently so.</p>



<p>We need to keep in mind that it only takes one juror who believes that Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg did not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt and Trump walks. ; If that does happen, I bet Bragg would not attempt to re-try the case since a much later trial would have no influence in the campaign. ; The case is so bad that I think the odds favor a hung jury with more than one juror refusing to vote to convict. ;</p>



<p>The case is bad on two counts. ; It smells of partisan prosecutorial abuse. ; Bragg is a highly partisan Democrat prosecutor. ; He had to jump over numerous legal obstacles to trump up the case, so to speak.  ;He has taken on a number of unprecedented – and some argue improper – legal theories to bring the indictment. ; He has taken a single charge and expanded it into 31 counts by making each check a different count rather than compiled evidence of a single count.</p>



<p>Basically, the charge is violating New York campaign elections law. ; That is a misdemeanor that results in a civil fine if found guilty. ; The statute of limitations for that crime was long passed before Bragg even started his investigation – curiously timed to the campaign schedule.</p>



<p>To get passed the statute of limitations, Bragg had to connect the campaign finance charge to a felony. So, what is the coincidental felony? ; Trump has never been convicted of any felony. ; In fact, Bragg has not yet specifically identified the felony he used to elevate the case to a criminal felony.</p>



<p>Bragg seems to be trying both the former misdemeanor and a federal campaign finance crime that has never been adjudicated by the federal government. ; Bragg is not empowered to try federal crimes even though that is exactly what he is attempting to do.</p>



<p>You need to remember that federal prosecutors in New York’s very aggressive Southern District did not pursue the case under Attorney General William Barr or Attorney General Merrick Garland. ; If there is a federal crime to be pursued, it is the Department of Justice that is responsible for investigating, indicting and trying.</p>



<p>Not only was the case brought under Bragg’s creative methodology, but the charges themselves seem very weak. ; And that is the second reason, I see the case as getting very shaky.</p>



<p>Granted, we are only in the initial phases of the trial with only one witness – and a lot of procedural debate, most notably on the issue of gag orders.</p>



<p>I fully understand the power of a judge to impose a gag order, but they can be abusive. ; That is especially true of a gag order on a presidential candidate.</p>



<p>As the likely Republican standard bearer, Trump must be allowed to campaign – to make his case to the American people &#8212;  ;in the court-of-public-opinion. ; Restricting that right – or placing undue or unfair economic burdens to inhibit campaigning &#8212; is by definition campaign interference.</p>



<p>The fact that serial perjurer Michael Cohen has been allowed to use his fame and notoriety to constantly attack Trump as a person and a candidate – and that other Democrats and anti-Trump media can attack him unrelentingly &#8212; does not seem fair. ;</p>



<p>Even though the judge has a legal right to impose a gag order – and even though Trump does verbally attack his enemies &#8212; I think a fundamental sense of fairness wins sympathy for Trump with the public – and potentially with jurors.</p>



<p>Putting aside the mythical coincidental felony, the case against Trump is very weak. While Trump’s detractors in the court-of-public-opinion judge him guilty, that is yet to be decided by the jurors. And I am not sure that even with a jury chosen from a community of people who dislike Trump – and many passionately – the prosecutor can prove the charges beyond a lot of doubt.</p>



<p>Those following the trial from the anti-Trump news outlets are doing what they always do. ; They are only reporting what goes along with their political bias. ; They leave out certain portions of the testimony – and spin the rest.</p>



<p>However, if you look at the actual testimony – and we only have that of <em>The Enquirer</em> publisher David Pecker to analyze at this moment – the case is not a slam dunk.</p>



<p>Pecker, who has been granted immunity from prosecution in turn for turning on Trump, has not been as strong a prosecution witness as I would have expected. While he certainly said some things that appear damning, a lot of it did not rise to the level of crimes. Folks may think that purchasing scandal stories as a favor to Trump is bad journalism – even disgusting – but it is not necessarily a crime. Even the amount is not a crime. Although using corporate money in a federal election is a crime – but the case is not based on federal law. And the feds did not see an indictable crime when they investigated.</p>



<p>While Pecker seemed to be making it clear that the payments to the porn actress were to benefit the campaign, he also said that this was Michael Cohen talking, not Trump. When Pecker mentioned the payment to Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels, Trump replied that he was not aware of that. </p>



<p>I doubt that even Stormy Daniels will be able to testify as to what Trump said or thought – only what she heard from Cohen.</p>



<p>Apart from Pecker, the only other witness who has been involved in the patient conversation was Cohen. ; His credibility will be shredded under cross examination as a habitual liar and perjurer. ; His months of bitter and hateful attacks on Trump will be seen as sufficient motivation to lie. ; Cohen will be pictured as more interested in getting Trump than telling the truth &#8212; and I suspect that is exactly how members of the jury will see it.</p>



<p>Most of the other witnesses are there to make Trump look bad. ; They were not privy to the most critical conversations. ; Bragg’s challenge with them is to avoid the hearsay issue.</p>



<p>Bragg is attempting to take a common misdemeanor in terms of campaign financing and turning it into his personal ride to fame and fortune as a modern-day Clarence Darrow. ; ; Me thinks he has overreached by a long shot.</p>



<p>I could be wrong – and I know I am climbing out on a branch very early in the proceedings – but I now do believe the odds are against conviction.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Campaign finance case against Trump off to a shaky start for prosecutor Bragg
