Conspiracy Theorists Are Conspiring to Be Stupid
Of Course, Politico Says Christmas Is a Right Wing Boogaloo
NBC News Pushes Pity Piece for Judges Who Have Ruled Against Trump
Ghanaian 'Prophet' Cons Followers Into Building Arks After Predicting Another Great Flood
Former Voice of America Reporter Accused of Assassination Plot Against Exiled Iranian Lead...
Slouching Toward Open Season on Jews
Leftist College Professor Declares This Classic Christmas Movie 'Bigoted'
Michelle Wu Rewrites Boston’s History to Virtue-Signal at Trump
Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste: Aussie Pols Ram Through Bondi Beach-Inspired...
The White House Rejected Catholic Bishops' Immigration Christmas Wish
Nicki Minaj Faces Massive Backlash After Pro-Trump, Pro-Christian Speech at AmericaFest
17,500 Illegal Immigrants Arrested Under the Laken Riley Act
Justice Department Challenges Illinois Laws It Says Endanger Federal Agents
These Cringey Trans Terrorists Just Got Handed Federal Charges
Former USDA Worker Owes $36M in Restitution for Selling SNAP Data to Criminals
Tipsheet

Turley Has Some Thoughts on Manhattan DA's Trump Probe

Bonnie Cash/Pool via AP

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley blasted the “made-for-TV Trump prosecution,” calling the case by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office “legally pathetic.” 

Advertisement

In an opinion piece published in The Hill, Turley reminded readers that the “hush money” case against the 45th president was already rejected by the Department of Justice and even Bragg himself essentially shut it down when he took office. 

Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of “hush money” to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws. Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.

It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity’s reputation to preserving a marriage.

In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission chair also expressed doubts about the theory. (The Hill)

Advertisement

Related:

DONALD TRUMP

The state charges in the expected indictment are still unknown, but Turley suspects they would “fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records," which is typically a misdemeanor. Turning it into a Class E felony "requires a showing that the 'intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.' That other crime would appear to be the federal election violations which the Justice Department previously declined to charge," Turley said. 

The linkage to a federal offense is critical for another reason: Bragg’s office ran out of time to prosecute this as a misdemeanor years ago; the statute of limitations is two years. Even if he shows this is a viable felony charge, the longer five-year limitation could be hard to establish.

However, all the legal problems with the case won't matter in the "coming frenzy," he argued. "The season opener of 'America’s Got Trump' might be a guaranteed hit with its New York audience — but it should be a flop as a prosecution."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement