Whenever things don't go his way in life, Donald Trump has a tendency to rail against the "unfairness" of a "rigged" system. Sometimes, that's bruised-ego blame-shift and childish self-pity. Sometimes, he's right. The disgraceful, politically-motivated case against him in New York City falls into the latter category. The legal theory, if you can call it that, behind Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution involves resuscitating lapsed, possible misdemeanors related to bookkeeping categorizations of (totally legal) 'hush money' payments. In order to bypass a pesky 'expired statute of limitations' problem, and to escalate the alleged offenses into dozens of felonies, Bragg says the bookkeeping scheme was undertaken in furtherance of an additional crime that he still has not revealed. The Biden donor judge in the case has somehow allowed this to move forward, which many legal experts (including longtime federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy) point to as a glaring basis for appeal. But the final outcome of such a process is beside the real point of this trial, which is to secure a conviction -- even if temporarily -- against Donald Trump before the November election.
Bragg's predecessor in the DA's office looked at these exact same facts and declined to pursue charges. The feds did the same. But hardcore partisan Alvin Bragg has decided run an experimental prosecution rooted in a novel approach, in the middle of an election cycle, against a leading candidate and former president, by chasing an episode that transpired two election cycles ago. The Biden donor judge agreed with the Democratic prosecutors (more on that below) that the sordid details of Trump's sexual liaisons with porn star Stormy Daniels were pertinent and probative to the case -- even though there is no dispute that Trump paid Daniels in exchange for her silence. The 'crime' doesn't involve the alleged affair or the existence of the payment, neither of which violated the law. It involves the way Trump and his lawyer listed the payment in documents. Nevertheless, the jury was treated to salacious specifics about sexual positions, etc. during Daniels' testimony. By contrast, the Biden donor judge will not allow a key defense witness to offer what seems to be highly relevant testimony that would refute an element at the heart of the prosecution's case. Byron York explains:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying bookkeeping records of a nondisclosure payment in order to commit or conceal another crime, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what that other crime is. It’s really the key to the whole case. Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this matter. The fact that we — and that includes the defendant — still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the great injustices of a felony prosecution that never should have happened...[Bragg's] theory is that if Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to keep her from going public with her story that she and Trump had a sexual encounter and then Trump repaid Cohen in 2017, then that was a campaign contribution and should have been reported to the FEC. The payments were made “for the purpose of influencing any election,” the theory continues, and the Trump campaign should have filed a document with the FEC listing among its campaign contributions and expenditures that it received and spent $130,000 for “hush money.”
If you think that sounds a little odd for an FEC disclosure, you’re right. That’s where one of the critical witnesses to be called by the Trump defense comes in. Bradley Smith is a former chairman of the FEC, and on many occasions, including long before Trump, he has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as “for the purpose of influencing any election.” ... Smith, having headed the FEC, has many examples from the commission’s enforcement of federal election law that illustrate his point. He knows what he is talking about, and it seems clear that his expert opinion is that paying off Daniels, no matter what one might think of it, is not a campaign expenditure or donation that FECA requires a candidate to disclose. The Trump defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has any personal knowledge of the Trump transaction but because he understands, and has enforced, the campaign law that Bragg’s prosecutors appear to be planning to use against Trump. But Merchan has forbidden Smith from testifying about most of the issues involved in the case.
Let's pause here for a moment. Bragg is trying to make the case that the allegedly falsified or mischaracterized records constitute a felony in the context of being done in service of FEC violations -- even though, again, the feds already examined all of this and didn't file any related charges. Trump's defense team wants to engage an expert witness, who literally ran the FEC, to explain why Bragg is wrong. But the Biden donor judge won't let that happen:
Among the things Smith might be able to testify about is the novelty of the current Trump prosecution. Merchan will not allow it. “Defendant seeks to elicit from Smith, among other things, that at the time Cohen paid Daniels, there had never been a case in which anyone had been convicted of a federal campaign finance law violation for the making of ‘hush money payments,'” Merchan wrote. Smith might also be asked about “the facts surrounding the trial of former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards, his subsequent acquittal, and that the case was heavily criticized.” Merchan will not allow it. Other things Smith might be able to testify about are the FEC’s decision to dismiss a complaint against Trump for this very matter and the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute Trump for the same set of actions. But Merchan said Smith cannot say a word about those matters. “That the FEC dismissed the complaint against defendant and the DOJ decided against prosecuting defendant for potential FECA violations are probative of nothing,” Merchan wrote on March 18. “These matters are therefore irrelevant and defendant is precluded from eliciting testimony or introducing evidence or both.” So Smith can talk about none of that. None of it.
The Biden donor judge -- who is threatening to put Trump in jail for talking about the case, while letting Trump's disgraced and discredited 'fixer' Michael Cohen mouth off about it at will -- determined that the mechanics of the sexual intercourse between Trump and Daniels has, um, probative value for the jury. But they cannot hear the former head of the FEC challenge the a lynchpin of Bragg's untested bank-shot theory. These rulings, nearly all of which go against the defendant, have been music to the ears of the prosecution team, including this man:
A Manhattan prosecutor heading up the “hush money” case against former President Donald Trump was a political consultant for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2018 — and once donated to Barack Obama. The DNC paid Matthew Colangelo $12,000 in January 2018 for “political consulting,” Federal Election Commission filings show, and the prosecutor also donated $400 to Obama’s first presidential campaign in 2008. Colangelo, formerly the third-ranking official in President Biden’s Justice Department, joined Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office in December 2022 as senior counsel in the criminal case against Trump.
Yes, the man prosecuting Trump on behalf of Democrat Alvin Bragg is someone the Democratic National Committee paid $12,000 during Trump's presidency, and who gave up one of the highest-ranking positions in Democratic President Biden's Justice Department in order to go to New York and prosecute Trump. And he's been given nearly every benefit of the doubt by the judge in the case -- who donated to Biden (Trump's current opponent, for crying out loud), whose daughter is a fundraiser for famously anti-Trump Democrats who have raised tens of millions off of the case, and who refused to recuse himself from this case in spite of these facts. I've been harshly critical of Trump over January 6th, even as I admit it's unclear whether his terrible conduct on and leading up to that day amounts to a crime. I have written about how serious the (now indefinitely delayed) federal classified documents and obstruction case is against him, while also acknowledging that the feds' refusal to charge Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden for related abuses certainly complicates the optics and perceptions surrounding that prosecution. And I've condemned Trump's scandalous pressuring and meddling in Georgia's 2020 election process, while also highlighting the absolute mess Naughty Fani Willis has made of her credibility.
All of which is to say, I'm not a reflexive Trump defender or sycophant by any stretch -- sometimes to the annoyance of large elements of my audience, admittedly. I call them as I see them, and I see the current New York trial the same way Trump does: Unfair and rigged. Waiting for a conviction to be overturned on appeal is not sufficient, given the transparently political goals of the partisan, anti-Trump prosecutors and judge. It would only take one juror to see through this charade and force a mistrial. A conviction would be a politically-manufactured travesty, given the facts, so I believe an acquittal or hung jury would be in the interests of justice.