NewNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
“Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”
These are the words of the famous lawyer John Henry Wigmore in 1923: sixth amendment, A defendant has the right to confront his accusers; To shed light on the false statements of witnesses and the dark distortions that conceal the truth by overzealous prosecutors. This is an effective way of testing the veracity of evidence.
It was tested on Friday and failed by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. But that won’t stop them from pursuing former President Donald Trump in a legally twisted case.
Trump NY trial Day 8: AMI CEO David Pecker’s testimony ends, Trump requests removal of gag order
Defense lawyer Emile Bove vigorously cross-examined the prosecution’s first witness, david pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer. Prosecutors sat uncomfortably as important truths came into the light.
Under questioning, Pecker confessed that his tabloid routinely suppressed negative stories and promoted positive stories involving candidates for political office because it was financially profitable. The witness agreed that other, more mainstream news organizations did the exact same thing. He acknowledged that paying for stories and sometimes killing them was common practice at the Enquirer, especially when celebrities were involved. This was not unique to Trump.
It may seem strange, but rejecting stories is not illegal. Nor is it illegal to pay someone for his or her silence.
it was something like this Bragg and his team of prosecutors Spent most of a week hiding from the jury pending trial. The irony—and the hypocrisy—is obvious. Bragg accused Trump of suppressing information to win the election. But the DA suppressed testimony crucial to winning its case against Trump.
New York, New York – March 21: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Bragg accused Trump of suppressing information to win the election. But the DA suppressed testimony crucial to winning its case against Trump.
Trump praises prosecution’s first witness in criminal trial: ‘Very good’
Pecker also revealed in cross-examination that Trump did not want to buy the scandalous story spread by former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal that she once allegedly had an affair with Trump. Then-candidate Trump said that such scams keep coming to light all the time.
On its own, the National Enquirer eventually gave McDougal $150,000, but Pecker insisted that “cash was not the primary focus of the deal.” Instead, she was hired to write advice columns, blogs, and other articles for the tabloid.
Keep in mind that the whole McDougal saga has nothing to do with the criminal charges against Trump. He did not give him any money. Nevertheless, prosecutors convinced Judge Juan Merchan to allow it under the doctrine of “similar bad acts”. Translation: Let’s discredit Trump with irrelevant and biased information. It’s the same questionable strategy that led to this week’s reversal Harvey Weinstein’s strong belief in sex,
Trump trial day 7: DA Bragg’s legal strategy is dirty by association
For four days on the witness stand, Pecker provided no direct evidence that Trump had ever asked him to eliminate stories. But even if he did so, where is the crime in it? It may seem strange, but rejecting stories is not illegal. Nor is it illegal to pay someone for his or her silence.
Furthermore, whatever money was exchanged did not qualify as campaign expenditures under relevant election laws, which makes a mockery of Bragg’s claim that Trump tried to influence the election by “unlawful means.” Was. The term is derived from a state statute that is a mere misdemeanor and has no application to federal elections. But assuming for the sake of argument that this happens, where is the illegal act? There isn’t even one.
Prosecutors have been shameless in tossing around inflammatory words like “conspiracy” and “fraud.” But as I argued in an earlier column, there is no blame on Trump. Bragg and his assistant DA are deliberately trying to stir up mud to fool the jury by implying otherwise. Predictably, the biased judge, Juan Merchan, is letting them get away with it.
Which leads us to the original 34 charges that Trump falsified business records, all of which are retired misdemeanors. Pecker, McDougall and Stormy Daniels have no knowledge of personal bookkeeping. Still, they have been at the center of Bragg’s three-ring circus during the first week. Questionable transactions by a tabloid do not equate to crimes.
Click here for more Fox News opinion
This is a smart move. Confuse the jury with jargon and give the impression of illegality that does not actually exist. This is an unconscionable breach of ethics and a breach of the prosecutor’s core duty to see that justice is administered fairly and impartially. Sadly, many prosecutors think their job is to obtain a conviction by any means necessary. Bragg stands as a poster child for immoral cruelty.
Years earlier, the FBI and prosecutors had put pressure on Pecker. They dangled a non-prosecution agreement in front of him in exchange for his cooperation in testifying about the payment to McDougall and stormy daniels, Out of fear and dread he signed it. However, his signature on that document acknowledging that a campaign violation had occurred was not legal acknowledgment that such a violation had in fact occurred. It was merely a means of relieving undue pressure.
Naturally, Bragg’s prosecutors misrepresented that document to the jury. This is a dirty trick because an admission of wrongdoing by one person – even a fake confession like this – does not determine the guilt of another person. This is irrelevant and biased. In a normal case, no responsible judge will allow this. But Judge Merchan is presiding over a parody of a trial.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Adversarial cross-examination, long a centerpiece of our justice system, has so far proven useful to the defense in the Manhattan DA’s absurd case against Trump. The deception has been exposed and the distortions exposed.
But the question is, can the jury sift through the ugly mess of the prosecution’s case and see the light of truth? At this early stage, it is impossible to know.
