The prosecutors trying to convict Donald Trump are facing significant problems. They are struggling to prove that he broke any laws. Let’s take a look at what’s happening.
Here are the key points:
- Prosecutors trying to prove Donald Trump committed crimes are having trouble
- A key witness contradicted the main argument against Trump in court
- Legal experts say the prosecution’s case looks very weak so far.
- Will the jury believe there was any actual crime committed?
Do the prosecutors have enough evidence to convict Trump? Let’s take a closer look.
Witness Creates Big Problems for Prosecution
The first witness called by the prosecution was David Pecker, who used to be CEO of a media company that helped Trump.
Pecker testified that he worked with Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen to hide negative stories about Trump from going public in 2016 before the presidential election. The prosecution argues this was an illegal scheme by Trump to influence the election.
However, under cross-examination from Trump’s defence lawyers, Pecker admitted some very damaging things:
- Trump did not want to pay money to hide one of the stories
- Pecker’s company had hidden stories about celebrities like Tiger Woods, too, not just Trump
- The hidden stories about Trump weren’t even new – they had been published before
These admissions severely undercut the prosecution’s argument that Trump’s intent was specifically to influence the 2016 election illegally.
“What are we doing here?”
Legal experts were stunned by Pecker’s testimony, seeming to contradict the core of the prosecution’s case.
“If Trump didn’t want to pay for one of the stories, how can the prosecution claim he masterminded an illegal scheme?” asked constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. “What are we doing here if there’s no real criminal case?”
Another expert said the defence was just asking basic questions the prosecution should have anticipated but failed to address, leaving massive holes in their argument.
Will the Jury Buy It?
Both in the courtroom and on television commentary, the emerging narrative is head-scratching – it’s becoming hard for many to see exactly what crime is alleged.
Veteran legal commenter Andrew McCarthy said on Fox News, “At this point, you have to wonder how the judge will be able to give the jury coherent instructions about exactly what crime Trump is supposed to have committed.”
As the defence continues dismantling the prosecution’s argument piece by piece, conviction seems increasingly unlikely to many observers.
A “Stunning” Acquittal?
Over the first few days of the trial, the possibility of a full acquittal for Trump has gone from far-fetched to plausible.
Conservative commentator Marc Thiessen said an acquittal “may end up being a stunning, legacy-defining event that validates what Trump has been saying – that this is a legal witch hunt intended to interfere with the next election.”
The flaws exposed in the prosecution’s case have led some Trump supporters to believe his popularity could increase if he is cleared of charges. Only time will tell how the jury interprets the evidence as the trial continues.
The Bottom Line
While the legal drama plays out day-by-day in court, the more significant political implications remain murky:
- What happens if Trump is acquitted – a big win or rally cry for his supporters?
- Could an acquittal improve his chances in the 2024 presidential election?
- If convicted, does this cripple Trump’s campaign viability or enrage his base further?
There are still more questions than answers so far. But one thing is increasingly apparent – the prosecution faces an uphill climb to prove their case to the jury’s satisfaction. What will the final verdict be?
