The Trump Arrest: Update By Charles Taylor (Florida)
Things change fast in news land. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung has said that there has been no notification of the indictment that Trump himself warned about on posts to Truth Social. Things are proceeding as business as usual, until, I suppose Trump is clapped in irons and led away to be Epteined.
But, some legal experts believe that the case against Trump is weak and will get overturned on appeal, even if it goes to trial. The case against Trump was rejected by the feds, and only taken up because the Soros-backed Democrats thought that New York would deliver a jury against him. But, even so, there are strong arguments that the statute of limitations has run in this case. But, when has the rule of law ever stopped crazed Leftists?
“GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy immediately reacted to Trump’s statement by announcing that he has directed House committees to probe whether federal funds are being used for “politically motivated prosecutions”:
“Here we go again — an outrageous abuse of power by a radical DA who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump,” McCarthy tweeted.
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called the probe into Trump “persecution, not prosecution” and urged Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis to join him in a condemnation of this action. Nikki Haley earlier officially tossed her hat into the ring of the 2024 election, while DeSantis has not announced his plans yet.
“A Trump indictment would be a national disaster. It is un-American for the ruling party to use police power to arrest its political rivals,” Ramaswamy tweeted.
What Does the US Constitution Say About Indicted & Convicted Presidential Candidates?
Trump can’t be barred from running for re-election even if he is indicted and marched into prison, unless he strikes a plea deal that includes foreswearing public office, according to the US mainstream press. The crux of the matter is that the US Constitution does not list the absence of a criminal record as a qualification for the presidency.
As per constitutional experts, the US Supreme Court earlier ruled that Congress cannot add qualifications to the office of the president. What’s more, a state cannot ban an indicted or convicted individual from running for federal office. This means that neither the US Congress nor New York state authorities can prevent Trump from proceeding with his 2024 bid over the “hush money case” or other cases.
Previously, Trump condemned all probes underway against him and vowed that criminal charges wouldn’t stop him.
“Oh, absolutely, I won’t even think about leaving,” Trump told reporters earlier this month. “Probably, it’ll enhance my numbers.”
The US mainstream press admitted that an indictment or even conviction of the former president wouldn’t dishearten his base. Quite the contrary, it could give him additional political points. The media has drawn attention to the fact that Trump benefited from both of his congressional impeachments among MAGA Republicans. However, the ongoing legal scandal might not go over well with US swing voters, and may become a source of additional strength for DeSantis (should he run), the media presumes.
Trump’s ‘Hush Money Case’ is Deeply Flawed
Meanwhile, legal experts argue that Trump’s case is based on shaky legal and ethical ground.
While the exact charges in the “hush money case” have not been announced so far, legal scholars allege that the Manhattan DA’s indictment would cite falsifying business records under New York Section 175 in relation to payments to his former attorney, Michael Cohen. Cohen served jail time after pleading guilty to using campaign finances in relation to Daniels. The DA’s potential charge could be based on Trump’s labeling his reimbursement of Cohen as a “legal expense,” as prosecutors argue that it actually was not.
11 days prior to the 2016 presidential election, Cohen, approached Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) and asked her to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) about an alleged affair with Trump between 2006 and 2007. He paid her $130,000. Supposedly, Cohen was later reimbursed. Trump has repeatedly denied having had an affair with the adult movie star.
“The payments were made to a lawyer, not to Stormy Daniels,” Trump’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, argued last week, talking to a US broadcaster. “The payments were made to Donald Trump’s lawyer, which would be considered legal fees. Michael Cohen … was his lawyer at the time and advised him that this was the proper way to do this to protect himself and his family from embarrassment. It’s as simple as that.”
However, prosecutors could say that the money Trump paid to Cohen went to Stormy Daniels and was therefore not a legal fee. Thus, by qualifying it as a legal fee in its books, Trump’s organization could have falsified business records.
There are also speculations that the DA could convert the case, which is currently considered a misdemeanor, into a Class E felony, if he can prove that the former president’s alleged “intent to defraud involved further criminal intent to either hide the commission of another crime or to assist in the commission of that other crime.”
Jonathan Turley, a renowned criminal defense attorney, tweeted on March 18, that “this is a flawed case if it is based on a state charge effectively prosecuting the federal election violation. That federal case was rejected by the Justice Department. There are also statute of limitation questions that could come into play.” Turley also quoted “considerable challenges for a conviction.”
Previously, federal prosecutors reportedly did not consider charging Trump over the payments, as the Justice Department instructed them that a sitting president can’t be indicted, according to the US press. Federal prosecutors also looked into the case after Trump left the Oval Office, but decided not to seek an indictment considering the issue “trivial and outdated.”
Another US prominent lawyer, attorney and law professor Alan Dershowitz, stated on Saturday that Trump may be convicted in New York, “because the jury pool will be very much against Trump and the judges will be very much against Trump,” but that the former president will probably ultimately win on appeal. “There is no crime here,” Dershowitz told the US media in relation to Trump’s case.
Meanwhile, legal experts warn Trump against resorting to inflammatory rhetoric, citing his call for protests. These calls have already been used by Trump’s antagonists to draw parallels with the Capitol Riots.
“It’s eerily similar to the battle cry that he put out just prior to the January 6th insurrection, you know, especially including the call, you know, for protest,” ex-Trump lawyer Cohen, who later turned against his former client, said in an interview with the US media on Saturday. “And I agree … it would have been smart for Donald to write ‘peaceful protest,’ but he doesn’t want a peaceful protest.”
Comments