A legal analyst writes in a new op-ed that the hush money case involving Donald Trump is “substantially more serious” than what was initially expressed by commentators and pundits.
As of Friday afternoon, jury selection has been concluded. Seven men and five women have been seated in anticipation of Monday’s opening statements in the highly-anticipated and unprecedented trial in which a former president is charged with a crime.
Trump is accused of falsifying business documents in connection with a payment made to pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels throughout his 2016 presidential campaign, which carries 34 felony counts. Trump has maintained his denial of any misconduct and stated that the case ought to be dismissed.
Trump once more lambasted New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan on Friday, prior to entering his Manhattan courtroom, in reference to his “extremely unjust” gag order prohibiting him from publicly discussing the judge, courtroom personnel, and any other person in any way connected to the case—including his former “fixer” Michael Cohen, a crucial prosecution witness.
“The integrity of our electoral processes is fundamental to the integrity of American governance.” Democracy is undermined when information is withheld from electors, as Bragg asserts occurred in this instance. In a new op-ed, CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, who previously advised the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s initial impeachment trial, expresses his views.
To refer to this trial as a “hush money” case is to diminish the gravity of the issues involved. It is indeed an instance of election interference, which warrants our acknowledgment.”He stated that this case, which is one of four criminal cases the former president is facing in total, is more severe than the allegation of record-keeping falsification and a payment to an adult film celebrity.
On Monday, he referenced Merchan’s opening statements in the trial, in which he stated: “The accusations are substantive: Donald Trump fabricated business records to obscure a conspiracy with others to influence the 2016 presidential election in an unlawful manner.”
Eisen asserts that the case surpasses its apparent simplicity due to the payment made to Daniels, which was allegedly in violation of federal and state legislation and clearly intended to sway the 2016 election. This is the reason why Cohen ultimately entered a guilty plea for federal campaign finance violations, along with other offenses, which resulted in his incarceration.
Eisen wrote, “Therefore, the fundamental nature of the charges in this instance is equally significant in its own regard as the ones pertaining to election interference in the 2020 campaign, which have received more attention—a federal case initiated by special prosecutor Jack Smith and a Georgia case initiated by Fulton County DA Fani Willis—concerning election interference.”
“The purported 2020 endeavor by Trump to depose our government distorts the gravity of the allegations pertaining to the 2016 presidential election. We cannot permit the subsequent aberrant behavior exhibited by Trump to alter the standard for a purported grave offense. The Manhattan case more than satisfies that criterion.
