Prof. Jonathan Turley Decimates the 'Hush Money' Case Against Trump

Red State ^ | 04/22/2024 | Nick Arama

[SeekAndFind]

The hush money case against former President Donald Trump got underway with opening statements on Monday and the first witness in the case. 

George Washington law school professor and Fox contributor Jonathan Turley said that the case has left him in "utter disbelief" that they've pursued this case against Trump. He noted some of the problems with the case.

“What is clear, is in this case, Trump is right. I mean, this is an embarrassment. I mean, the fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom, leaves me in utter disbelief. I mean, the the arguments today did in fact capture all the problems here,” Turley said Monday afternoon on Fox News. 

"You had this misdemeanor under state law, that had run out, this is going back to relate it to the 2016 election. And they zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violation under the federal laws that doesn't exist," he said.

He noted the Department of Justice didn't view it that way (they didn't pursue any violation). 

Turley made it clear he thought the case "should not have been brought." 

He also questioned it happening before the election like this, saying there was "no reason" for that and he called out the weaponization of the system against Trump. 

But this is becoming the split screen election,” Turley said. “Earlier it was pretty damaging to see the split screen between Trump in different courtrooms. This is even more effective when the other side of the screen shows Biden campaigning in key states like Pennsylvania, while he's held in this courtroom."

“It really brings home something that bothers a lot of Americans, including people don't particularly like Trump, that this is the weaponization of the criminal legal system. It's something we should all be able to condemn."

Turley also tweeted about how the first witness, former media publisher David Pecker, was "telling."

The fact that Bragg is starting with David Pecker to discuss an affair not directly involved in the alleged crimes is telling. With a dubious criminal theory, defuse facts, and delayed charges, the case will focus on a different alleged affair and hush money payment...— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 22, 2024

.....It is reminiscent of the old story about a man who comes upon another man in the dark looking for his wedding ring. Sympathetic, the man joined the stranger on his knees and looked for almost an hour until he asked if the man was sure that he dropped it here. “Oh, no,” the…— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 22, 2024

The fact that Bragg is starting with David Pecker to discuss an affair not directly involved in the alleged crimes is telling. With a dubious criminal theory, defuse facts, and delayed charges, the case will focus on a different alleged affair and hush money payment. 

It is reminiscent of the old story about a man who comes upon another man in the dark looking for his wedding ring. Sympathetic, the man joined the stranger on his knees and looked for almost an hour until he asked if the man was sure that he dropped it here. “Oh, no,” the stranger admitted, “I lost it across the street but the light is better here.”

If Trump is constantly tied up in lawfare and money, then attention has to go there. It cannot be spent on campaigning, and it's also played up in the minds of the voters as an issue. In this case, for something that should never have been charged to begin with. 

---

Related: 

Turley Points Out the 'Poison Pill' in the Trump Fraud Case and How Unjust It Is

[TornadoAlley3]

He will be found Not Guilty. Then the media will smear the jurors too. Demand a retrial for alleged juror misconduct.

[ClearCase_guy]

"It's something we should all be able to condemn."

The problem is that the Other Side thinks that Trump IS Hitler. To prevent Hitler from taking over America and imposing a brutal totalitarian dictatorship with millions of deaths ... well, they are willing to approve absolutely any measure against Trump. No tactic is off limits.

[Mr. Lucky]

There could be no retrial after a not guilty verdict.

[Bullish]

Only really weak and very sick minds believe that.

Never forget... There’s more of us.

[Verginius Rufus]

Cyrus Vance, Jr., who declined to pursue the case before Alvin Bragg, was an extremely partisan Democrat, which says something about the weakness of the case.

But that doesn't mean the jury will find Trump innocent. The E. Jean Carroll case was equally ludicrous and the NY jury still decided that Trump was guilty of sexual harassment (for an incident that never happened).

[TornadoAlley3]

Won’t stop the libs from demanding one.

[libertylover]

He will be found Not Guilty.

I doubt it. Kangaroo courts rarely find someone not guilty.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Trump could find himself in and “endless loop” of lawfare retrials even if not convicted, for the rest of his life. This is not rational justice.

[sauropod]

.

[TigersEye]

To prevent Hitler from taking over America and imposing a brutal totalitarian dictatorship with millions of deaths ... well, they are willing to approve absolutely any measure against Trump.

That's one way to put it. Or you could say ...

To prevent Hitler from taking over America and imposing a brutal totalitarian dictatorship with millions of deaths ... well, they are willing to impose a brutal totalitarian dictatorship with millions of deaths.

[Verginius Rufus]

I saw an anti-Trump ad on Fox News this morning from a PAC with “Republican” in the name (couldn’t tell if really Democrat or just NeverTrumper Republican) which hammered away at Trump having been charged with 88 felonies and found guilty of sexual assault. So the imaginary incident is proving useful in attack ads. Of course if the current jury finds Trump guilty of anything that will feature prominently in ads from now until election day.