newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
In Quiz Show, a movie about match-fixing on a 1950s TV game show, the character Mark Van Doren tells his corrupt son, “If you look around the table and can’t tell who’s the culprit, it’s you.” warns.
As former President Donald Trump’s trial draws to a close, one can’t help but wonder if the jurors are wondering the same question.
To discerning jurors, the trial lacked a clear statement from the prosecution about what crime President Trump was attempting to commit by misidentifying the payments as “legal fees.” There is. As the government rests on litigation, even liberal legal experts continue to express doubts about what crimes are being alleged.
Prosecutors also have not been able to prove that Trump knew how to label the payments or that the labeling of payments to lawyers as legal fees was actually fraudulent.
Michael Cohen faces cross-examination by Trump lawyer in New York criminal trial
The judge allowed this dangerous and undefined case to proceed without requiring further clarification from prosecutors.
Jurors may also suspect that there is something more noteworthy about the players themselves. The jury probably doesn’t know these facts, but everyone “around the table” has controversial connections. In fact, to many, the judges, prosecutors, and witnesses seem as random or coincidental as the cast of “Ocean’s Eleven.” Let’s look at three important things.
1. Prosecutor
First, there are the prosecutors: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg initially rejected the absurd legal theory (like his predecessor) and went on to say he could not imagine bringing a case against Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, let alone prosecuting him.
After Mr. Bragg dropped the case, prosecutor Mark F. Pomerantz resigned. He then wrote a book on prosecutors, despite Pomerantz’s objections that it undermined the work of his colleagues. Many of us considered this book unethical and unprofessional, but it worked. This pressure campaign led Mr. Bragg to give prosecutors the go-ahead.
Mr. Pomerantz also met with Mr. Cohen as he pursued the lawsuit.
Jurors may also suspect that there is something more noteworthy about the players themselves. The jury probably doesn’t know these facts, but everyone “around the table” has controversial connections.
Bragg then selected Matthew Colangelo to lead the case. Colangelo was number three at the Justice Department, but he gave up his senior position to lead the case against Trump. Colangelo is from the Democratic National Committee.political consulting” That means a former senior Biden Justice Department official and former DNC adviser is leading the prosecution.
2. Judge
Judge Juan Marchand has been criticized not only for being a political donor to President Biden, but also for having a daughter who is a high-ranking Democratic political operative who has raised millions of dollars for campaigns against President Trump and the Republican Party. However, Marchand was not chosen at random; he was specifically selected for this case because he has previously handled Trump-related cases.
3. Star Witness
Michael Cohen’s turbulent history as a convicted and disbarred serial perjurer is well known. Currently, Representative Dan Goldman (D.N.Y.) is under fire for revealing, “I have met the following people.” [Cohen] Many times for his preparation. ”
Meanwhile, Goldman paid Mr. Marchan’s daughter, Lauren Marchan, more than $157,000 in political consulting fees.
Outside the courtroom, there is little effort to avoid or hide such conflicts. Democrats would be furious if Biden’s indictment upsets the situation, but the mutual conflict between the Justice Department, the Democratic National Committee, and Democratic operatives has been dismissed as irrelevant by much of the media.
For more FOX News opinions, click here
Moreover, there is little outrage in New York that Mr. Trump is not allowed to discuss Mr. Cohen or Mr. Colangelo or their conflicts in a presidential campaign where the weaponization of the justice system has been a key issue. do not have. New York State Supreme Court justices literally control what the president-elect can say about the alleged lawsuits being filed against President Trump.
May 14, 2024, in Manhattan State Court in New York City, USA, Donald Trump faces charges of falsifying business records to conceal funds paid to hush porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 Michael Cohen testified at the president’s criminal trial. This courtroom sketch was taken on May 14, 2024. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
The most striking aspect of these controversial connections is that little was done to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. There were also a number of judges who were not donors or whose children had significant political interests in the case. Mr. Bragg could have chosen someone who was not imported by the Biden administration or who was not paid by the DNC.
There were no concerns about the appearance of a multi-layered criminal case that was clearly politically motivated. Whether these figures are contradictory or compromised, no effort has been made to assure the public that such controversy will be avoided in the selection of the key players in this case.
What will be interesting is how jurors react when they learn of these hidden connections after they have reached a verdict. This entire piece was constructed in their interest to convict Trump despite no clear crime or direct evidence.
They were marks, and like any good stain, prosecutors thought their desire to convict Mr. Trump would blind them to fraud.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Bragg, Colangelo and others may be wrong. Aside from the possibility that Judge Machan musters up the courage to end the case before it goes to a jury, the disagreement may have been a little too obvious.
New Yorkers are a curious breed. Yes, they overwhelmingly hate Trump, but they also universally hate being treated like a bastard. When faced with this lawsuit, they may look around the table and decide they are the suckers in a rigged game.
Click here to read more about Jonathan Turley