As Manhattan’s District Attorney Alvin Bragg starts his historic prosecution of a former president today, the stakes could not be higher.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Not least of all because legal professionals have long disagreed on the merits of his case against Donald Trump and whether it ought to have been undertaken at all.
It will be the first time ever that a current or former US president is being tried on criminal charges.
It is anticipated that the trial will take at least six weeks, the first one or two of which will be devoted to the difficult process of choosing a jury.
Trump is charged with attempting to conceal a $130,000 hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, which he won. Daniels alleges that after they had sex in 2006, Trump’s then-attorney Michael Cohen paid her to keep quiet about it.
Trump is charged with fabricating his financial records to indicate that the money he reimbursed Cohen for legal bills.
One former prosecutor from Bragg’s own office has also voiced their opinion. Its success or failure appears to depend on an as-yet-unproven legal theory: the ability of a state prosecutor to bring up a federal crime that was never established. Put otherwise, may Bragg claim that Trump fabricated financial documents to hide infractions of federal election laws for which he was never prosecuted?
As of right now, the judge has agreed with the district attorney that he can.
However, former federal prosecutor Shane Stansbury notes that lower courts, including the US Supreme Court, may have an opinion on the matter if Trump is found guilty and then appeals the verdict.
Donald Trump’s hush-money case is only part of the legal and political drama playing out in what’s shaping up to be a very busy election year.