Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump in the hush money case has been called into question by attorney Jonathan Turley, who claims that the witnesses presented by Bragg contradicted the basis for the charges. The case alleges that Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006. Trump is facing multiple charges of falsifying business records related to these payments, which he denies, and has pleaded not guilty, claiming the case is politically motivated.
The star witness in the case, Michael Cohen, has faced credibility issues due to his criminal history, including charges of campaign finance violations related to the hush money scheme. To corroborate Cohen’s testimony, Bragg’s office presented other witnesses such as former National Enquirer owner David Pecker, Daniels’ former lawyer Keith Davidson, and former Trump aide Hope Hicks. However, Turley argues that these witnesses have contradicted the prosecution’s case. Pecker, for example, testified that he had killed stories for Trump for over a decade, potentially undermining the narrative that the hush money payments were intended to influence the 2016 election.
Pecker’s testimony also raised questions about the nature of the hush money deal, with Davidson stating that it was not a payoff or hush money, but a consideration in a civil settlement agreement. Hicks, who has remained loyal to Trump, depicted him as a family man who wanted to protect his family from political repercussions. Pecker, however, suggested that Trump was more concerned about the impact on his campaign or election than on his family. Turley highlighted these discrepancies in his analysis of the prosecution’s case.
The question at the heart of the case, according to Turley, is whether the payments to Daniels were intended to hide a crime or simply avoid bad press. He notes that NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) are common among celebrities to handle potentially damaging stories and that Pecker acknowledged this practice. While the details of the alleged crime remain unclear, Turley emphasizes that the prosecution must prove that Trump’s actions were criminal in nature, rather than simply a means to protect his reputation.
Overall, Turley’s critique of the prosecution’s case against Trump raises doubts about the validity of the charges and the credibility of the key witnesses. The conflicting testimonies of Pecker, Davidson, and Hicks suggest a complex and nuanced narrative surrounding the hush money payments, leaving room for interpretation and debate. As the case unfolds, the prosecution will need to address these discrepancies and provide a compelling argument to support their allegations against the former president.
