Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg could be treading on thin ice if he hinges his case against former President Donald Trump primarily on his ties to the National Enquirer, according to a CNN panel dissecting the ongoing trial.
In the wake of the second day of arguments in Trump’s hush money trial, analysts like former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore cautioned against over-reliance on the Enquirer’s involvement. Prosecutors had sought to introduce David Pecker, the former publisher of the tabloid, who testified about a strategy known as “catch and kill” used to bury potentially damaging stories about Trump during the 2016 election.
Parlatore, cited by the Daily Caller, warned of the risks inherent in pursuing a line of inquiry that delves into salacious but legally dubious territory. He suggested that dwelling excessively on such matters could backfire, potentially prejudicing the jury and undermining the core case focusing on fraudulent business records.
Echoing similar sentiments, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig cautioned against veering too far off course, emphasizing the importance of maintaining focus on the central issues at hand. He highlighted the prior decisions by both the Southern District of New York and Bragg’s own office to decline prosecution in this matter, suggesting that excessive emphasis on tangential matters could derail the case.
'BE CAREFUL': CNN Panel Warns Alvin Bragg Of HUGE Mistake..,https://t.co/kOCx3O3Lfr
— JOSH DUNLAP (@JDunlap1974) April 24, 2024
At the heart of the trial are allegations that Trump manipulated business records to conceal payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, amounting to a campaign finance violation. Trump contends that the funds were part of a legal settlement paid to his former attorney Michael Cohen and properly classified as a legal expense. Notably, the Federal Election Commission has supported Trump’s position on this matter.
As the trial unfolds, observers remain keenly attuned to how Bragg’s team navigates the delicate balance between captivating storytelling and legally sound arguments. With the stakes high and public scrutiny intense, the outcome of this high-profile trial remains uncertain.
"*" indicates required fields
