George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley joins Fox Across America With guest host Paul Gleiser to shed light on how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg does not have a legitimate case against former President Trump.
“The problem is that the judge here seems to be ignoring the fact that there isn’t an actual crime. It is by no means established, and I think the the evidence heavily weighs against any federal election crime in this case. The Justice Department itself declined to prosecute. They had the full record in front of them, including Pecker’s testimony. And they didn’t even seek a civil fine against Trump or his campaign. The problem is the New York law. It’s the same problem that we saw with the Jane’s effort that got this really grotesque, half $1 billion, judgment against Trump. These New York laws are written in such an ambiguous way that judges are hard put to dismiss them. Because most anything would satisfy them. I mean, Bragg is alleging that Trump conspired to promote his own election. Well, he was running for election. But even if you look at this indictment on its face, in my view, the judge throwing this case out, I mean, putting aside the fact that they zapped two dead misdemeanors into life, putting aside the fact that there is no federal crime here that is allegedly being covered up. They’re saying that he used the wrong legal description for this money in an order to influence the election, but that didn’t happen until after he was elected. So everything about this case seems to be out of like, a Saturday Night Live skit. I mean, it, none of it makes sense.”
To hear everything they talked about, listen to the podcast!
