Tweet Share Share Comment As expected, Justice Juan Merchan—the judge overseeing New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels hush money case—on Thursday denied all defense motions to dismiss the indictment and ordered jury selection to commence, as previously scheduled, on March 25.
As is so often the case, the good news and the bad news is the same news.
On the positive side, no matter what happens in the other pending Trump cases, Americans will learn, comfortably before the November election, whether one of the two main candidates for the highest office in the land is a convicted felon. That will be true regardless of what happens in the Supreme Court cases regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and presidential immunity pending before it, the Georgia inquiry into the astounding lack of judgment by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, or Judge Aileen Cannon’s apparent efforts to kick the classified documents case can down the road.
After a lifetime of lying, cheating, and believing he could get away with murder—“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK!” —we are about to see whether that self-described immunity extends to 12 average citizens who have not consumed the Kool-Aid.
Also on the plus side are both the trial venue—if you see someone wearing a MAGA hat in Manhattan, he is either a tourist from Idaho or a resident of Staten Island—and the judge, who runs a tight ship. Indeed, Trump’s lawyers are so unhappy with Merchan that they moved, unsuccessfully, to have him recuse himself based on alleged conflicts of interest, such as a $15 political donation he made to President Biden’s campaign. Thursday’s sharp interchanges between Merchan and Trump lead lawyer Todd Blanche only underscore the courtroom challenges ahead for the former president.
Okay, so what is the downside?
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement
The Bragg prosecution deals with underlying conduct—the unlawful cover-up of hush money payments to an adult film performer with whom he allegedly had an affair—far less significant than the criminality alleged in the D.C. and Georgia election interference cases, or the Florida classified documents prosecution. While the conduct charged is, no doubt, criminal, it feels a bit like prosecuting John Gotti for shoplifting.
The Bragg prosecution is also clearly the weakest of the four outstanding indictments from an evidentiary perspective, especially when compared to the D.C. slam-dunk. To start the Trump prosecutions with the weakest case ignores a fundamental rule in the prosecutor’s handbook: You begin multiple prosecutions of a defendant with your strongest case. Winning the first case takes pressure off the others and severely weakens the defendant’s ability to continue the fight.
Advertisement
Losing the first trial has the opposite effect. This is especially the case for Donald Trump—a powerful, out-of-control defendant with millions of followers who fervently believe in his claimed victimization.
Related From Slate
Jeremy Stahl and Mark Joseph Stern
Welp, It Looks Like Fani Willis Torched Her Case Against Trump
Read More Popular in News & Politics
- Welp, It Looks Like Fani Willis Torched Her Case Against Trump
- Everyone Needs to Stop Freaking Out About Biden’s Age Immediately
- What, Exactly, Is This Mysterious “Serious National Security Threat”?
- The Real Takeaway From the “National Security Threat” Panic
That the prosecution relies to at least a reasonable degree on the testimony of former Trump lawyer, convicted felon, and recently revealed misuser of artificial intelligence Michael Cohen just adds to the hurdles to be overcome. I am not saying the case cannot be won. Indeed, you can cross-examine Cohen for days on end, exposing the many crimes he committed and lies he told on behalf of his client—the bottom line (and the DA’s redirect examination) remains the same: He was Trump’s lawyer because he was willing and able to lie and commit crimes on his boss’s behalf.
Advertisement Advertisement
Ironically, one of the stronger aspects of the prosecution’s case will likely be the former president himself. As he demonstrated in the E. Jean Carroll civil cases, Trump’s inability to control himself in the courtroom is neither missed nor taken kindly by jurors. His remarkable ability to testify against himself without taking the stand will surely be an asset to Bragg’s case.
In an ideal world the D.C. prosecution would be first, allowing the world to see just how close we came to having the 2020 election overturned and the frightening degree to which the former president is a threat to our democracy.
However necessary and appropriate that would have been, it is not where we are now. The Bragg case, while hardly the most desirable opening act, at least gets the show on the road.
Tweet Share Share Comment - 2016 Campaign
- Donald Trump
- Jurisprudence
- Michael Cohen
- Stormy Daniels
The Peril and Promise of the Trump Hush Money Prosecution Heading to Trial First
14
1
16.02.2024
Tweet Share Share Comment As expected, Justice Juan Merchan—the judge overseeing New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels hush money case—on Thursday denied all defense motions to dismiss the indictment and ordered jury selection to commence, as previously scheduled, on March 25.
As is so often the case, the good news and the bad news is the same news.
On the positive side, no matter what happens in the other pending Trump cases, Americans will learn, comfortably before the November election, whether one of the two main candidates for the highest office in the land is a convicted felon. That will be true regardless of what happens in the Supreme Court cases regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and presidential immunity pending before it, the Georgia inquiry into the astounding lack of judgment by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, or Judge Aileen Cannon’s apparent efforts to kick the classified documents case can down the road.
After a lifetime of lying, cheating, and believing he could get away with murder—“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK!” —we are about to see whether that self-described immunity extends to 12 average citizens who have not consumed the........
© Slate
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Donald Low
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
