WATCH: CNN LEGAL ANALYST MOCKS STORMY DANIELS’ ‘DISASTROUS’ TESTIMONY
Daphne Moon May 9, 2024 0 1 min read
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig strongly criticized the recent developments in the trial against former President Donald Trump, saying that the testimony of porn star Stormy Daniels was “disastrous” for the prosecution’s case. Honig argued that the cross-examination by Trump’s attorneys went poorly for Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Honig highlighted Daniels’ responses to questions from Trump’s attorneys, stating that they were “disastrous” for the prosecution. He pointed out that when the witness openly expresses hatred towards the person whose liberty is at stake, it significantly undermines their credibility. In this case, Daniels has made public statements and tweets expressing her dislike for Trump and even fantasizing about him being in jail. This, according to Honig, is a significant red flag and raises doubts about her reliability as a witness.
Moreover, Honig also noted other pertinent issues that emerged from the cross-examination of Daniels, including her outstanding debt of $500,000 to Trump and her defiance of a court order to pay it. He argued that this could also be used by the defense team to discredit her testimony and question her integrity. If Daniels is willing to defy a court order, why should she be trusted to uphold the oath she took in court?
On further examination, it seems that the cross-examination by Trump’s attorneys is making significant inroads in the case. While Daniels’ direct testimony may have initially seemed beneficial for the prosecution, the defense has effectively challenged her credibility and raised doubts about her reliability as a witness. Honig admitted that at the end of the direct examination, it seemed like the prosecution had gotten what they needed. However, the cross-examination has seemingly turned the tide in Trump’s favor.
The trial, led by Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, has indicted Trump on 34 felony counts related to the alleged falsification of business records regarding a $130,000 payout to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016. However, with the current developments in the courtroom, it seems that the prosecution’s case is crumbling. Honig himself admitted that the cross-examination was a “big damn deal” for the prosecution, as Daniels’ responses have severely damaged her credibility as a witness.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/how-donald-trumps-manhattan-criminal-trial-epitomizes-lefts/

‘Trial by Ambush’!?
(
5MinNewsBreak.com
) – In an unusual twist for a criminal case, former President Donald Trump’s “hush money” case has been labeled a “trial by ambush” since the specific allegations against him were not made clear until recently, a full year after his indictment.
According to former federal prosecutors, this departure from normal procedure has left Trump’s defense in the dark and struggling to prepare against vague charges.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records concerning a $130,000 payment intended to prevent Stormy Daniels from publicizing her alleged affair with Trump before the election.

To elevate these misdemeanors to felonies, Bragg suggested they were part of a larger crime, likely a federal campaign finance violation, but no details were known until a recent court revelation.
It all came to light in response to an objection from Trump’s lawyers that the prosecution’s claim rests on a violation of New York Election Law § 17-152.
This law criminalizes conspiracies to influence elections through unlawful means, defined in the courtroom as the supposedly falsified records tied to Daniels’ payment.
Matthew Colangelo, a senior counsel for the district attorney, argued that these records were part of a broader conspiracy to impact the 2016 presidential election involving Trump, his former attorney Michael Cohen and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.
This conspiracy is linked to the specific New York election statute but was not explicitly named in the indictment.
5 Min News Break | Concise. Conservative. Conversational.
5minnewsbreak.com

FORMER PRESIDENT ARRIVES AT COURT, BUT WHAT HAPPENED NEXT WILL LEAVE YOU SPEECHLESS!
Daphne Moon April 23, 2024 1 2 min read

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley expressed disbelief at the opening statements of the trial led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Turley, along with many others, were stunned that the trial was even taking place, let alone the serious accusations brought forth against former President Donald Trump. The trial revolves around a 34-count indictment accusing Trump of falsifying business records in an effort to cover up an alleged hush money payment to former porn actress Stormy Daniels. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, is accused of paying Daniels $130,000 to keep an alleged extramarital affair with Trump secret just before the 2016 presidential election.

Turley pointed out that Trump may have a valid point in this case. He remarked that the fact that this case is being presented in a New York courtroom is an embarrassment. He also brought attention to the fact that the case involves a misdemeanor that has long since expired, but has been resurrected with a new campaign finance violation allegation that does not hold up under Federal Law. Turley also mentioned that the Department of Justice does not see this as a valid case. Turley went on to compare these allegations to those against former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s campaign had funded the Steele Dossier, which accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election. Turley questioned the objectivity of those who supported this case, given their previous support for a similar questionable theory.

Commentator Fox News’ John Roberts noted that Michael Colangelo, a former U.S. Associate Attorney General under President Joe Biden, is a prosecutor in Bragg’s office. Turley saw this as further evidence that the case against Trump is coordinated and biased. He noted that any other court would have raised concerns about having a former Biden Justice Department attorney lead this case, but in New York, the only thing that seems to matter is the name of the defendant, Donald Trump.
During his opening statement, Colangelo called Trump’s actions a “long-running conspiracy” to influence the 2016 election. He accused Trump of orchestrating a criminal scheme and then covering it up by falsifying New York business records. This was followed by statements from defense attorney Todd Blanche, who maintained that Trump is innocent of all charges and that the case should not have been brought forth by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
WATCH

BY CONSERVATIVE PATRIOTS — APR 19, 2024
Barr Makes Stunning Announcement Trump Will Be Pleased to Hear

Former Attorney General Bill Barr called Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s hush-money case against former President Donald Trump an “abomination” on Wednesday.

Additionally, Barr revealed, despite past differences and concerns about a Trump second term, that he plans to vote for the presumptive GOP nominee in November.

The apparent theory of Bragg’s case is that then-Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen made an in-kind contribution to the Trump presidential campaign in excess of federal limits.
According to Bragg, Cohen paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 as part of a nondisclosure agreement ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Nondisclosure agreements are very common and generally legal. Daniels has alleged that she and Trump had a sexual encounter in 2006.