
<p>Now that both sides have rested in President Trump’s so-called Hush Money Case, we will have to wait at least a week before we learn of the jury’s verdict.</p>



<p>Having followed all the testimony – and related issues – I personally believe the correct verdict is “not guilty.” ; Whether Trump was the mastermind of a criminal act or not criminally culpable is unknown. ; The hard evidence – the various exhibits presented by Manhattan Prosecutor Alvin Bragg do not close the loop. ; The various documents and text messages show the involvement of Michael Cohen, David Pecker, and Allen Weisselberg – but no direct link to Trump. ; (I omitted Stormy Daniels since her testimony – as salacious as it was – was irrelevant and inappropriate.)</p>



<p>The decision to bring this case at this time wreaks of politics. The alleged crime – a misdemeanor &#8212; happened eight years ago and the Statute of Limitations had expired. ; Bragg used a unique and dubious interpretation of the law to get around the Statute. ; If the misdemeanor can be tied to a criminal felony, the earlier Statute can be set aside.</p>



<p>In a legal nuance that can only be rational in the Dungeons and Dragons world of lawyering, Bragg argues that he does not have to reveal or point to that “other” felony. ; He even argued against doing so during negotiations over the establishment of jury instructions. ; Essentially, he says that the jury can assume the other crime on their own.</p>



<p>I do not claim to understand it, but it just does not seem right to me. ; Apparently, I am not alone. ; CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig said that Bragg’s interpretation of the law pushed prosecutorial appropriateness to the very edge. ; Fareed Zakaria put it bluntly, saying that this case would not be going on if the defendant was anyone other than Donald Trump. ; Others have suggested that this case would never have been pursued anywhere in America except New York City – and that speaks to the politics. ; It is a case that was deemed unworthy of prosecution by New York federal prosecutors appointed by both Trump and later by Biden. ;</p>



<p>Then there is that matter of the judge and jury pool. In filing his case, Bragg well understood the chance of getting a Democrat judge. But Bragg was not taking any chances. He circumvented the usual lottery system for assigning judges and handpicked Judge Juan Merchan – a person deeply involved in Democrat politics, with a daughter who is currently raising money for Biden. </p>



<p>Bragg also knew – based on polling and the 2020 presidential vote – that the jury pool was overwhelmingly Democrat &#8212; ; and so would the final jury.  ; ;These are folks who are not only Democrats, they voted against Trump. ; They did not want him to become President. ; It is more than likely that many of the jurors have very strong anti-Trump feelings. ;</p>



<p>Bragg also knew that getting an indictment from a grand jury is a given for any case a prosecutor wishes to pursue. ; It is so easy that they say that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.</p>



<p>The political culture of the jury pool is important in any case – but never more than in a case that is ALL about politics. This is a case motivated by the partisan politics of the day. It is essentially meddling in a presidential election by creating arbitrary political narratives &#8230;negative news stories &#8230; and preventing a presidential candidate from campaigning, fundraising and it limits his First Amendment rights with gag orders. That is election interference no matter what one thinks of Trump or the charges.</p>



<p>The jury will be asked to determine beyond a reasonable doubt Trump’s knowledge of the details of the internal accounting of the payments. Yes, he signed the checks – and he certainly knew he was paying hush money (not illegal), but that is not proof that he knew how the checks would be recorded in the books – in the event that it is criminal. (Even in my small business, I signed lots of checks that were presented and recorded by my secretary or accountants. I naturally assumed they were doing that part properly.)</p>



<p>There is yet another legal hurdle for the jury. ; It is the issue of intent. ; They must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knowingly intended to commit the alleged crime. ; That is no small evidentiary challenge for Bragg. ; From what I could garner from the testimony, I did not see Bragg establishing that.</p>



<p>If this case had followed normal legal procedures, at worst it might have been handled as a misdemeanor case by the Federal Election Commission – and resulted in a civil fine. ; Based on the decision by the FEC and the federal prosecutors in New York not to pursue the case, it should have been dropped and never resurrected by Bragg.  ;There is a reason why virtually every lawyer and former prosecutor on television has said that this case was the weakest of all the charges facing Trump today.  ;No kidding. ; It is a trumped up case – no pun intended.</p>



<p>The entire case depends on whether you believe “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Michael Cohen is telling the truth. His obsessive hatred and bitterness clearly establish a motivation to lie. And his history of lying to achieve what he wants should be evidence enough to have more than a reasonable doubt in anything he says. He even misrepresented the facts in his court testimony.</p>



<p>Because of the political culture of the venue, I do not believe an acquittal is possible. ; But I do believe that there can be enough jurors who will see all the reasons for reasonable doubt – and maybe even two or three who are not anti-Trump Democrats – to result in a hung jury. ;</p>



<p>Bragg could then refile the case, but any trial would happen long after the election. I think he would not. Winning in the future would be no better than today – and his obvious political motivation would be gone. And if Trump were to win reelection, Bragg could not file the case until he left office four years later.</p>



<p>I have to believe that even in New York, there are enough folks who can set aside political biases to reach a just and fair decision in this case – hopefully, at least one. ; However, if the jury does convict on any of the charges, then the trial and final determination would come long after the November presidential election. ; The case would be locked up in the appeal process. ; There are more than sufficient grounds for an appeal, but I will deal with that issue if there is a conviction. ;</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Trump cannot be convicted unless jury votes New York politics
