Why 'skeptics are wrong' to underestimate Manhattan DA’s Trump case: analysis

21 February 2024

Of the four criminal indictments Trump is facing, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.'s hush money payments case has often been described as the least problematic for the former president. Bragg alleges that Trump falsified business records when hush money payments were made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during Trump's 2016 campaign, and jury selection in the case is set to start in late March.

Journalist Jill Lawrence analyzes Bragg's indictment in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on February 21, laying out some reasons why she believes "skeptics are wrong" to underestimate the Manhattan DA's case against Trump.

"Trump poses terrifying risks to national security and democracy, as two federal indictments, the Georgia case and what we saw with our own eyes on January 6th, have made clear," Lawrence explains. "The case now scheduled to go to trial first — Bragg's prosecution stemming from hush money payments to porn actress and aspiring 'Apprentice' contestant Stormy Daniels, now scheduled to begin on March 25 — seems like it's a lesser order of magnitude. Yet in its own way, it is just as dangerous and fundamental."

Lawrence continues, "Trump paid big bucks to hide dirt on himself at a key moment in the 2016 campaign. And he succeeded."

The journalist stresses that Bragg's case is about much more than sex —the Manhattan DA is alleging "falsified business records" and "election law violations."

One of the most important witnesses in Bragg's case is Michael D. Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney and fixer. Cohen's involvement in those hush money payments, in fact, led to him serving time in federal prison.

Cohen pled guilty to violating campaign finance law and criminal tax evasion. That case was not prosecuted by the Manhattan DA's Office for New York State, but rather, was a federal case prosecuted by the Southern District of New York for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

"We can't know for sure what would have happened on Election Day if Trump and his friends had not paid off women who might have turned some Americans against him, persuaded some people to vote for (Hillary) Clinton, and made others think twice about voting third party," Lawrence argues. "What we do know is that Trump and his friends apparently used illegal means to keep voters in the dark at a moment when a nation's fate hung in the balance. If that's not election interference, I can't imagine what is."

Jill Lawrence's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles