Trump Attorney obliterates the prosecution with just three words in court
The prosecutors of Donald Trump believe they have the former president cornered. But the tables have turned.
Because Trump’s Attorneys have obliterated the prosecution with just three words in court.
According to numerous sources, the defense team for former President Donald Trump contended in his opening statement on Monday that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s 34-count indictment was no more than 34 “pieces of paper.”
In all 34 counts of the indictment, Bragg accuses Trump of fabricating financial records to show payments he made to his former lawyer Michael Cohen, purportedly to make up for a $130,000 hush money payment he made to adult film star Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election. According to several accounts, Todd Blanche, the defense attorney, claimed that Trump is “innocent,” persuading the jury that he is an innocent man, a husband, and a parent in addition to being a former president and television personality.
According to CNN, Blanche remarked, “The 34 counts, ladies and gentlemen, are really just pieces of paper. None of this was a crime.”
Trump's attorney Todd Blanche begins his first lines:
"President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes. The Manhattan District Attorney's office should never have brought this case."
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) April 22, 2024
Blanche clarified that the funds were not intended as repayment for Daniels’ $130,000. As indicated by Blanche, Trump “signed the checks” but had “nothing to do” with the payments made to Cohen, the outlet reported.
“Think for a moment of what the People just told you. President Trump did not pay Mr. Cohen back $130,000. President Trump paid Michael Cohen $420,000,” attorney Blanche said in defense of Trump. “Would a frugal businessman, would a man who ‘pinches pennies,’ repay a $130,000 debt to the tune of $420,000?”
In his opening remarks on Monday, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo attempted to characterize the payments as a component of a larger “conspiracy” to taint the 2016 election. According to CNN, Blanche admitted that Daniels paid $130,000 for a nondisclosure agreement and stated that this type of transaction is legitimate.
“There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy. They’ve put something sinister on this idea, as if it was a crime,” Blanche added in his statement. “President Trump fought back like he always does, and like he’s entitled to do. To protect his family, his reputation and his brand. And that is not a crime.”
In addition, Blanche severely criticized Cohen’s trustworthiness as the lead prosecution witness, referring to him as a “liar who has admitted to lying” and having “spoken extensively about his desire to see President Trump go to prison,” Politico reports.
In 2018, Cohen entered a guilty plea to several offenses, including tax evasion, campaign finance crimes, and making false representations to a bank.
According to the publication, Blanche stated, “He cheated on his taxes. He lied to banks. He lied about side businesses he had with taxi medallions and other things, and, as the people alluded to, in 2018, he got caught.”
The reliability of Cohen as a witness to crimes supposedly committed by Donald Trump is critical to the prosecution team, but is most obviously a dubious one, as attorney Blanche points out.
Simply put, there’s not enough evidence right now to prove that Donald Trump committed any crime. Legal experts largely agree that the case of the prosecution is weak and that Donald Trump will likely be walking away unscathed by the court or jury.
A Boston University legal professor, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, recently published a piece in The New York Times that suggested the New York prosecution has an extremely weak case and that they’ve overplayed their hand.
“Their vague allegation about ‘a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election’ has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud,” the Boston University professor wrote for The New York Times.
That being said, crazier outcomes have happened. If OJ Simpson can be let off the hook, you’d think it’s not all that crazy that Leftist jurists could be blinded by their hate of Donald Trump and try to convict him of a crime that’s lacking evidence to support.
That’s ultimately what the Left wants. Even if there’s a remote possibility of Donald Trump being convicted, the Left will take that as a win. They’ll say that the fact that the jury was split at any point is evidence to prove that Donald Trump is “unfit” for the office of the President of the United States.
Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.
