Jonathan Turley tears up Bragg’s potential case against Trump

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has called the Manhattan District Attorney’s potential case against former President Donald J. Trump “legally pathetic” after the 45th president announced he would expected to be arrested next week.

Manhattan District Attorney linked to George Soros, Bragg, is reportedly preparing to indict the leading GOP presidential candidate “for alleged silent payments Trump allegedly made as presidential candidate in 2016” to Stormy Daniels, has reported Fox News.

In a series of tweets, Turley said he was “highly critical of this case”, which he called “potentially flawed”.

… Bragg can expect highly motivated judges and jurors in New York. However, the novelty and issues in this case would present difficult appeal issues for the prosecution.

—Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2023

“It is a wrong case if based on an accusation of the state effectively prosecuting violation of federal elections,” Turley wrote. “This federal case was dismissed by the Department of Justice. There are also limitation issues that could come into play.”

“Bragg can expect highly motivated judges and jurors in New York. However, the novelty and issues in this case would present difficult appellate issues for the prosecution,” he continued.

Turley also called on Trump “to end all inflammatory rhetoric.”

Donald Trump says he will be arrested on Tuesday and calls for “protests” to “take back our nation”. https://t.co/pwl1nHJlhg I’m very critical of this case. However, given recent history, Trump needs to end any inflammatory rhetoric as we move forward…

—Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2023

In an opinion piece published in the Hill On Saturday, Turley wrote that the case was “legally pathetic” and highlighted issues with the “most discussed” potential charge in the case.

While we still don’t know the state’s specific charges in the expected indictment, the most discussed would fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal fees to cover up alleged silent payments that were allegedly used to violate federal election laws. While some legal experts have insisted that such a cover-up is clearly a criminal matter that should be charged, they have remained conspicuously silent when hillary clinton faces a no different campaign finance allegation.

…

A charge under section 175 would normally be a misdemeanor. The only way to convert it to a Class E felony requires proving that “the intent to defraud includes the intent to commit another crime or to aid in or conceal its commission.” That other crime would appear to be the federal election violations that the Justice Department had previously refused to charge.

He added that Bragg’s office could not prosecute the charge as a misdemeanor because the statute of limitations is two years. He should be prosecuting a crime.