Are we back to this nonsense again? Remember the hush payments Stormy Daniels was receiving, which led to her soliciting the legal advice of now-ex-attorney Michael Avenatti, which ended with her losing her lawsuit against Donald Trump, including paying the former president’s attorney fees? Yeah, that’s back in the news because someone at The New York Times went off half-cocked and said that criminal charges would likely be filed against the former president. It’s ‘the walls are closing in’ part LXXXVII, and it’s not happening, according to NYT reporter Maggie Haberman (via Mediaite):
ANDERSON COOPER: I mean, how do you expect him to react to this? Does it affect his campaign at all?
MAGGIE HABERMAN: So we don’t — we’re entering uncharted territory here. And I think it’s important to note about this case, as Kara said, this is a misdemeanor that they’re trying to push up to a felony. It’s an —
ANDERSON COOPER: Which is a really kind of —
MAGGIE HABERMAN: Exotic, it’s an exotic case. And a judge could decide, no, we’re going to get back to a misdemeanor. That is difficult for a prosecutor when it’s a former president. I understand, you know, justice is supposed to be equal, you know, for all. But, you know, people take into consideration factors like this. I think we could see a rallying effect from his supporters. It could be that more people are turned off by this. I just don’t think we know. We know how he will use it, which is that he will say he’s being attacked and victimized. And we have seen that over and over again. We’re going to continue to.
…
ANDERSON COOPER: And, Maggie, I mean, it’s interesting because, you know, the same office was looking at other potential charges against the former president. They the district attorney chose not to pursue those two of those prosecutors resigned in the wake of that. And this is now what they have.
MAGGIE HABERMAN: Yeah, look, and what I think Michael Cohen would say as a witness, and has said before is that he, you know, he lied on Trump’s behalf. And I think you would hear him say that in this case. You did have Alvin Bragg decide not to bring a prosecution against Trump in connection with his actual business despite proceeding against his business. And they got a conviction across the board in 17 counts in that case, I don’t know. It’s different when you’re prosecuting a faceless company than it is prosecuting a man. I do think it’s worth noting here, putting aside issues of Michael Cohen specifically, or that the prospective thinness of the case, take it all together. It requires 12 people and it just takes one person to have reasonable doubt. And even in pretty progressive Manhattan, I think probably a defense lawyer could find one person. And that’s a risk here.
The publication added that Haberman thinks the Georgia election interference investigation has a better chance of indicting Trump. In some ways, Maggie has learned, evidenced here by being realistic about this Daniels case. But the Georgia probe is also riddled with issues. First, there are reports that members of the grand jury had ice cream parties with the prosecuting office. Where does that fall within the realm of legal ethics? Second, the jury forewoman, Emily Kohrs, might have destroyed the body's credibility with her overt bias in the case. The woman came off as unhinged, and even liberal legal analysts were wondering what the hell this woman was doing going on television.
I really wish Emily Kohrs would just keep her mouth shut! Trumps Defense right now is drooling over these interviews. You dont talk about this now….If she wants to blabber..wait until AFTER an indictment at least. Total airhead! 😒 #GeorgiaGrandJury #EmilyKohrs. pic.twitter.com/aDlLkr06F9
— AC (@ACinPhilly) February 22, 2023
Georgia grand jury foreperson: "I will be sad" if the DA decides against bringing charges against Trump ... I will be frustrated if nothing happens." pic.twitter.com/9RfusUCjUX
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 22, 2023
The foreperson, Emily Kohrs, then continued her media tour on MSNBC, joking about how "awesome" it would be to personally subpoena Trump. pic.twitter.com/x36YqWWD59
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 22, 2023
Join the conversation as a VIP Member