Donald Trump is in the fight for his life. But he’s been thrown a lifeline.
And the Trump criminal case has taken this wild turn that has Americans gasping.
Plenty of Americans smelled the bologna that is the Donald Trump “hush money” criminal case being brought by the Manhattan District Attorney office in which they allege that Trump tried to pay off the former adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Today, pretty much everyone knows just how obvious that is. The case has been laughable thus far, and everyone knows it’s not going well for the prosecution in the court room. Every time they turn to their bag to corner Donald Trump, it just backfires. Most notably the Michael Cohen witness testimony.
With Donald Trump being the defendant, you’d think the prosecution could at least rely on the mainstream media giants like MSNBC and ABC to be running the propaganda machine on the trial to help them out.
These Fake News Media outlets are always champing at the bit to paint Donald Trump as an evil reincarnation of Hitler himself, so if they aren’t playing in the favor of the prosecution thus far, that’s extremely significant.
Just consider what’s happening over at CNN. You could argue that CNN is the number one Trump-hating news network out there. There must be a requirement to suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome to work there because it’s just absolutely insane how obsessed they are with him.
But despite that, CNN is largely defending Trump on this criminal case. Including one of CNN’s top hosts remaining, Mr. Jake Tapper.
In a significant moment during the trial of former President Donald Trump, CNN host Jake Tapper aligned with attorneys in expressing doubts about the strength of the prosecution’s case presented by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump faces 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal a reimbursement to his former attorney Michael Cohen. This reimbursement was for a payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair, just before the 2016 election.
Tapper highlighted the key issue at hand: whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that Trump was aware of the nature and intent of the payment to warrant a guilty verdict. Attorneys on the panel unanimously agreed that the evidence fell short, leaving room for reasonable doubt.
“It’s not even about that he didn’t know about the reimbursement,” former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore noted. “It’s that he didn’t know that the bookkeeper used the drop-down menu to say ‘legal fees.’ That was not something that Donald Trump said, ‘Yes, use that drop-down menu so that we can conceal this and lie.’”
Tapper concurred with Parlatore’s assessment, questioning the prosecution’s ability to prove Trump’s knowledge. “What Tim just said to me makes sense because I don’t know that they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that … even if you believe the prosecution’s theory of the case … I don’t know that they’ve proven that Donald Trump knew,” he said.
Defense attorney Randy Zelin echoed this sentiment, telling CNN, “There is reasonable doubt all over this case,” pointing to the absence of clear evidence linking Trump to Cohen’s actions. Cohen, who admitted to stealing from Trump, complicated the prosecution’s narrative by implicating others within Trump’s organization but without solidifying Trump’s direct involvement.
Brandi Harden, a criminal defense lawyer, further criticized the prosecution’s case, emphasizing the gaps in evidence. “Time and time again, people keep talking about what might be missing or what’s not quite there,” she remarked. “That is, in fact, reasonable doubt when things are missing, when there are facts you want to hear and you look to the prosecution and say, ‘So where is that thing?’ Unfortunately here, he should be acquitted. The government has to prove specific knowledge, and they have not established those things in this particular case.”
Cohen’s testimony did reveal that Trump had approved payments totaling $420,000 over a 12-month period in a January 2017 meeting with Cohen and Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg. However, Weisselberg was not called as a witness, which raised questions about the thoroughness of the prosecution’s approach.
Tapper referenced Trump’s writings as circumstantial evidence of his knowledge of company payments. Yet, Tom Dupree, a former principal deputy assistant attorney general, criticized the prosecution for relying on inference rather than direct evidence. “It’s circumstantial. It’s inferential. It’s asking the jury to draw conclusions over books that were probably ghostwritten,” Dupree said.
He further criticized the prosecution’s presentation style, likening it to a complex narrative that failed to deliver the necessary clarity. “They needed to come in with a Hemingway-like presentation. Instead, they came with a Tolstoy-like presentation, one that was too long, one that was unnecessarily complex and frankly, one that may well have omitted the critical facts they need to prove that Donald Trump committed these felonies.”
As the trial progresses, the question of whether the prosecution can overcome these perceived deficiencies remains pivotal. The lengthy and complex closing arguments proposed by the prosecution could be a red flag, indicating a potentially convoluted case that might not resonate clearly with the jury.
If even the major mainstream media outlets are being forced to change their tune, the political outlook for the Trump-haters isn’t good whatsoever. That spells doom for Joe Biden and his Democrat lackeys who have aligned themselves as the primary Trump opposition.
The Conservative Column will keep you updated on any major developments coming from this court case.
