Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg's relentless pursuit of former President Trump in a legally questionable case has hit a roadblock as vigorous cross-examination exposes inconsistencies and questionable tactics.
"Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." These words, uttered by legendary lawyer John Henry Wigmore over a century ago, underscore the critical role of cross-examination in our justice system. It is a powerful tool that allows the defense to test the credibility of witnesses and challenge biased or misleading testimony.
In the ongoing trial of former President Donald Trump, cross-examination has proven to be a double-edged sword for the prosecution. Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, in his dogged pursuit of Trump, has encountered significant hurdles as the defense team has effectively exposed the weaknesses in the prosecution's case.
Defense attorney Emil Bove's vigorous cross-examination of the prosecution's first witness, David Pecker, the ex-publisher of the National Enquirer, has shed light on some uncomfortable truths. Pecker admitted that his tabloid routinely suppressed negative stories and promoted positive ones involving political candidates for financial gain. This practice was not unique to Trump but was common among other news organizations.
What's more, Pecker revealed that Trump was reluctant to purchase the salacious story peddled by Karen McDougal regarding an alleged affair. Pecker insisted that cash was not the primary focus of the agreement, and McDougal was hired to contribute articles to the tabloid.
These admissions directly contradict the prosecution's claim that Trump suppressed information to win an election. But Bragg, in a hypocritical move, has concealed vital testimony from the jury during direct examination.
Furthermore, prosecutors have been using inflammatory language like "conspiracy" and "fraud" despite the fact that Trump is not charged with either. This tactic is intended to mislead the jury by implying otherwise. Judge Juan Merchan, known for his bias, has allowed the prosecution to get away with these tactics.
Bragg's prosecution of Trump rests on the dubious theory of "similar bad acts," allowing prosecutors to introduce irrelevant and prejudicial information. This strategy is similar to the one that led to the reversal of Harvey Weinstein's sex conviction.
The key charges against Trump revolve around falsified business records, all of which are expired misdemeanors. However, prosecution witnesses, including Pecker, have no knowledge of these records. The prosecution's attempt to connect shady dealings by the National Enquirer to crimes committed by Trump is a clever subterfuge designed to confuse the jury.
Cross-examination has thus far proved useful for the defense, disassembling deceptions and exposing distortions. But the jury still faces the challenge of wading through the prosecution's murky case and discerning the light of truth.
The prosecution's tactics in this case raise serious concerns about the ethics of modern-day prosecution. Bragg's relentless pursuit of a conviction by any means necessary is a breach of his duty to ensure fairness and impartiality. His conduct serves as a grim reminder of the dangers of prosecutorial overreach.
