Legal Analyst Warns Alvin Bragg Of Huge Mistake In Trump Trial
President Donald Trump stands as the first former president in U.S. history to be criminally tried, but the prosecutors’ case in Manhattan has some legal analysts concerned about its prospects. The case, led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, hinges on charges that Trump falsified business records relating to alleged hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign.
As the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, Trump’s trial has been a crucible of public opinion, with significant implications for both his political future and issues of accountability in office. Legal analyst Rebecca Roiphe called attention to a critical challenge faced by Bragg’s prosecution: the complexity of the case may confuse jurors, potentially obscuring the central issues at stake.
In a New York Times opinion piece, Roiphe warned that while the details of financial transactions and corporate law might be legally pertinent, they can easily become bewildering for a jury not versed in the nuances of business law. The potential confusion could undermine the prosecution’s efforts to present a clear, compelling narrative of wrongdoing.
“It’s not surprising that the lawyers on both sides are trying to make this about something sexier,” Roiphe wrote. “This is a narrative device used to make the jurors and the public side with them, but it has also created confusion. On the one hand, some legal experts claim that the conduct charged in New York was the original election interference. On the other hand, some critics think the criminal case is a witch hunt, and others claim it is trivial at best and at worst the product of selective prosecution.”
The allegations against Trump involve creating false invoices and ledger entries to disguise payments that prosecutors argue were meant to influence the election by silencing Daniels. The timing of these payments—just after the release of the damaging “Access Hollywood” tape and shortly before the 2016 election—plays a crucial role in the prosecution’s narrative, suggesting that these were not just routine financial transactions but part of a deliberate effort to mislead the public and regulatory authorities.
“For the prosecution, the elements of the crime in this case do not require a finding that Mr. Trump interfered with the 2016 election. Nor does it matter whether he had sex with Ms. Daniels. Instead, the real elements concern the way Mr. Trump used his business for a cover-up. By emphasizing the crime he was intending to conceal rather than the false business records, the prosecution also risks confusing the jury into thinking about whether the lies affected the election. It might lead them to wonder why Mr. Trump wasn’t charged with this alleged election crime by the federal government — a talking point that he has promoted publicly.”
Adding to the case is the credibility of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, whose testimony is central to the prosecution. Cohen himself carries significant “baggage” due to his own legal troubles and history of lying. Cohen’s credibility and the documentary evidence he provides must therefore be weighed carefully against the defense’s narrative that the payments were personal matters intended to protect Trump’s family from embarrassment, rather than campaign-related expenses.
Trump is scheduled to host campaign rallies in Wisconsin and Michigan on Wednesday, two critical states in the upcoming presidential election. These events will coincide with a day off from his criminal trial in New York.
