Manhattan Jury Would Convict Trump On Charge Of ‘Eating A Ham Sandwich’

'Bogus from start to finish' trial launched by partisan prosecutor in partisan court

It’s being trumpeted by Democrats as one sure-fire way to “get” President Donald Trump but experts have another opinion about the Manhattan trial starting Monday on claims he paid “hush” money to a woman and then called it a legal fee.

“This case is just bogus from start to finish,” legal expert Hans von Spakovsky said, “It’s in Manhattan. It’s a Manhattan jury, and I’ll tell you, quite frankly, I think if the DA charged Donald Trump with eating a ham sandwich, the jury would find him guilty.”

He comments came in an interview with the Daily Signal.

While Democrats have assembled a series of lawfare battles against Trump this election season, von Spakovsky called the Manhattan circus “the most bogus.”

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has claimed Trump committed 34 instances of falsifying business records.

Von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow and manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, says he believes the jury will “find him guilty, regardless of the facts and regardless of the law.”

He confirmed that, however, would not legally impede his run for re-election.

There is a long list of untoward factors and influences regarding the case, some of which previously convinced prosecutors to ignore it.

For example, Bragg campaigned on targeting President Trump, and said during several interviews he had the best background to accuse Trump.

“I’m the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump… I believe we have to hold him accountable,” he once charged.

But the New York Times pointed out, “The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws.”

And the Washington Post wrote that the prosecution left “legal experts . . . scratching their heads” as “they describe it as an unusual case…”

The DOJ, FEC, and Alvin Bragg’s predecessor, Cy Vance, all looked at the same set of facts, and all declined to prosecute President Trump.

In fact, Boston University law professor Jed Shugerman said Bragg’s agenda was no more or less than a “legal embarrassment.”

Further, a key witness on which Bragg has built his case, Michael Cohen, is a felon, convicted perjurer and disbarred lawyer.

Meanwhile, Bragg has a record of downgrading felony charges that has been criticized publicly by the New York Post, and that included, reports confirm, “a sweet-heart plea deal last December for a gangbanger with a history of robbing high-end Madison Avenue boutiques (Bragg said his office had too much on its plate), the aborted murder charge against bodega worker Jose Alba in a clear case of self-defense as well as charging Marine Corps vet Daniel Penny with manslaughter in the death of Jordan Neely, a mentally unhinged vagrant threatening other straphangers.”

Then there’s the judge, Juan Merchan, who is a Biden donor and has been accused of a huge conflict of interest because his daughter is a political activist who works with Trump’s antagonists and makes money from the case, reportedly receiving a cut of some $93 million in fundraising proceeds raised on the case.

Retired federal judge Shira Scheindlin said, “The daughter works with many, many high- profile Democratic candidates. She works on their social media. They put out a post. They get contributions. She, as an owner, gets a percentage of those contributions. So, there is a statute, in New York, which says a judge must disqualify himself, if a person known by the judge, be within the sixth degree of relationship, and a daughter is the first degree, has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. So, the question here is, is this daughter likely to profit, to benefit, from the outcome of this proceeding? And you have to understand, it’s not actual conduct that’s worrisome. It’s the appearance, the appearance to a reasonable person, that this judge cannot be fair and impartial, given that relationship.”

In a column in the New York Post, constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said the assault on Trump comes “after an absurd $450 million decision courtesy of Attorney General Letitia James” in an earlier case against Trump in which not “a single victim … lost a single cent.”

“Lawyers have been scouring the civil and criminal codes for any basis to sue or prosecute Trump before the upcoming 2024 election. This week will highlight the damage done to New York’s legal system because of this unhinged crusade. They’ve charged him with everything short of ripping a label off a mattress.”

He pointed out that if there was an offense in what was done, it was a misdemeanor and it had expired under the statute of limitations already.

Even Bragg “scoffed” at the case originally, but then ramped up his case when he came under pressure from two anti-Trump activists who had worked in his office.

One, Mark Pomerantz, in fact, made all sorts of allegations about Trump in a book he released.

Turley explained, “Trump paid Daniels to avoid any publicity over their brief alleged affair. As a celebrity, there was ample reason to want to keep the affair quiet, and that does not even include the fact that he is a married man. It also occurred before the 2016 election and there was clearly a benefit to quash the scandal as a candidate. That political motivation is at the heart of this long-delayed case.”

But Turley also pointed out that the circumstances are closely aligned with a DOJ case against then-Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in 2012. But in that case he was acquitted and the DOJ “declined a repeat of the Edwards debacle.”

Bragg’s claim is that the misdemeanor was done to push further another crime.

“Once again, the contrast to other controversies is telling. Before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign denied that it had funded the infamous Steele dossier behind the debunked Russian collusion claims. The funding was hidden as legal expenses by then-Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias (the FEC later sanctioned the campaign over its hiding of the funding),” Turley explained.

“Likewise, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was called before congressional investigators and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress. Yet, there were no charges stemming from the hiding of the funding, though it was all part of the campaign budget.”

And he pointed out, “Cohen has a long record as a legal thug who has repeatedly lied when it served his interests. He has a knack for selling his curious skill set to powerful figures like Trump and now Bragg.”

Trump, on heading into court, said, “This is an assault on America. Nothing like this has ever happened before. There has never been anything like it. Every legal scholar says this case is nonsense and should never have been brought. There has never been anything like this. There is no case.

“People that don’t necessarily like Donald Trump say this is an outrage this case was brought. It is political persecution, a persecution like never before. Nobody has ever seen anything like it and again it is a case that should have never been brought. It is an assault on America and why I’m very proud to be here.

“This is an assault on our country. It’s a country that is failing. A country that’s run by an incompetent man very much involved in this case. Really an attack on a political opponent. That’s all it is. I’m very honored to be here, thank you very much.”

For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.


The post Manhattan jury would convict Trump on charge of ‘eating a ham sandwich’ appeared first on WND.

This article was originally published by the WND News Center.


Turn your back on Big Tech oligarchs and join the New Resistance NOW!  Facebook, Google, and other members of the Silicon Valley Axis of Evil are now doing everything they can to deliberately silence conservative content online, so please be sure to check out our MeWe page here, check us out at ProAmerica Only and follow us at Parler, SocialCrossSpeak Your Mind Here, and Gab.  You can also follow us on Truth Social here, Twitter at @co_firing_line, and at the social media site set up by members of Team Trump, GETTR.

Give a middle finger to unaccountable global censors and big tech fascists.  Bookmark this site, sign up for our newsletter, and check back often.

While you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!And be sure to check out our friends at Trending Views:Trending Views

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×