Missy Skeeter
Elite Refuge Member
There is an old saying, a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich.
That is because the only evidence presented is from one party, the District Attorney.
An the bar is relatively low, vote True Bill if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. All that is needed is a majority vote and it is uncommon for a Grand Jury not to vote True Bill. There is no conviction of guilt, only that there is enough evidence to proceed to trail.
The case is weak from a legal perspective:
1) The legal theory likely is violation of NY State law prohibiting falsification of business records.
The problem is that is only a misdemeanor.
The mechanism to indict as a felony is problematic.
NY State has no jurisdiction over Federal election laws.
And the campaign was for a federal election, so NY State election laws would be moot.
2) The prime witness, Michael Cohen has been convicted of perjury.
In 2018, he plead guilty to lying to Congress.
It could be argued that the prime witness has a history of lying under oath, and is vindictive towards Trump. In March 2019, Cohen sued the Trump Organization to cover the $1.9 million in financial penalties plus an additional $1.9 million in his unpaid defense costs. He argued that the Trump Organization—which had already paid $1.7 million for his defense—had agreed to indemnify him.
3) There is no evidence that the hush money was a campaign expense.
It could be argued it was simply hush money so Trump's wife would not learn about the affair with a porn star.
From a political perspective the case may not be significant.
The hush money was looked into previous federal and Manhattan prosecutors, and has been well know since January 2018 when the Wall Street Journal published details of the payment to Daniels.
Since for 5+ years several prosecutors declined to take the case to a Grand Jury, and the Manhattan DA is elected in a Democratic district, there is the perception of political bias rather than pursuit of justice.
That is because the only evidence presented is from one party, the District Attorney.
An the bar is relatively low, vote True Bill if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. All that is needed is a majority vote and it is uncommon for a Grand Jury not to vote True Bill. There is no conviction of guilt, only that there is enough evidence to proceed to trail.
The case is weak from a legal perspective:
1) The legal theory likely is violation of NY State law prohibiting falsification of business records.
The problem is that is only a misdemeanor.
The mechanism to indict as a felony is problematic.
NY State has no jurisdiction over Federal election laws.
And the campaign was for a federal election, so NY State election laws would be moot.
2) The prime witness, Michael Cohen has been convicted of perjury.
In 2018, he plead guilty to lying to Congress.
It could be argued that the prime witness has a history of lying under oath, and is vindictive towards Trump. In March 2019, Cohen sued the Trump Organization to cover the $1.9 million in financial penalties plus an additional $1.9 million in his unpaid defense costs. He argued that the Trump Organization—which had already paid $1.7 million for his defense—had agreed to indemnify him.
3) There is no evidence that the hush money was a campaign expense.
It could be argued it was simply hush money so Trump's wife would not learn about the affair with a porn star.
From a political perspective the case may not be significant.
The hush money was looked into previous federal and Manhattan prosecutors, and has been well know since January 2018 when the Wall Street Journal published details of the payment to Daniels.
Since for 5+ years several prosecutors declined to take the case to a Grand Jury, and the Manhattan DA is elected in a Democratic district, there is the perception of political bias rather than pursuit of justice.
