In a stunning turn of events, former Trump communications director Hope Hicks' testimony in the Manhattan hush money trial has severely undermined the prosecution's case, highlighting their gross miscalculations and the political motivations behind the charges.
In an epic miscalculation that has backfired spectacularly, prosecutors in the Manhattan hush money trial of Donald Trump called Hope Hicks to the witness stand. The moment cross-examination began, their misbegotten case against the former president began to collapse.
Hicks, who served as press secretary during the 2016 presidential campaign, explained that Trump's motive for suppressing salacious stories was to protect his wife, Melania. She testified that "He wanted them to be proud of him" and "didn't want anyone in his family to be hurt or embarrassed."
Hicks' account demolishes District Attorney Alvin Bragg's primary claim against Trump that he paid porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence with the intent to benefit his campaign and influence the election by "unlawful means." Instead, it corroborates the findings of a federal investigation that no crimes were committed or campaign finance laws broken because there was another purpose for the non-disclosure agreement that Daniels signed.
Like the prosecution witnesses before her, Hicks disparaged Bragg's planned star witness, Michael Cohen, Trump's one-time personal lawyer. She described him as someone who "used to like to call himself Mr. Fix-It, but it was only because he first broke it."
It was foolhardy for Bragg's legal team to call Hicks, a rank amateurish mistake. Her testimony was redundant and unnecessary, but prosecutors seemed determined to have her tell the jury what they already knew.
Hicks confirmed that Trump was aware that Cohen paid off Daniels to end what can fairly be described as aggressive blackmail demands. Daniels threatened to go public about a supposed affair, which Trump denied, in the run-up to the election. Ironically, she later recanted her repudiation of the affair, then recanted her recantation.
Despite the payment, Hicks testified that other news outlets published Daniels' story before the election, rendering the payment a waste of money. Ultimately, it didn't seem to matter much to voters, who were more interested in policy ideas than personal issues.
Of course, Trump knew about the payments. He doesn't contest it, saying he followed the advice of his lawyer, who handled everything.
The payments made were not illegal. Non-disclosure contracts in exchange for silence are not unlawful, and killing negative stories violates no statutes. Moreover, it is not a crime for Trump to know about a non-crime.
So, where exactly is the crime? To quote a memorable line from "Shakespeare In Love," "I don’t know…it’s a mystery!"
However, there is no mystery behind Alvin Bragg's politically driven prosecution of Trump. Out of thin air, the DA conjured up expired misdemeanors, tossed them into a legal blender, added a garbage state statute that doesn't apply to federal elections, and poured out an absurd concoction of faux felonies.
The only crime here is Bragg's grotesque abuse of the law. The legal wrangling between two lawyers who executed a legal contract on behalf of their respective clients is what attorneys do every day. It was booked in Trump's private business records as "legal expenses" because that is what they were.
Nothing was falsified, as Bragg claims in his indictment. But the D.A. wants to put Trump in prison for following his attorney's legal advice.
With Hicks on the stand, prosecutors dwelled interminably on the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape, which has no bearing on the case except to smear Trump with irrelevant and prejudicial information. Judge Merchan's ruling to permit it as admissible evidence is a reversible error.
Bragg should turn himself in to authorities for impersonating an honest lawyer. To fulfill his campaign promise to nail Trump, the D.A. has manipulated the law and mangled evidence to engineer a wrongful conviction. He targeted Trump in a textbook case of selective prosecution, an affront to principles of fairness and equal justice.
Polling data suggests that Americans are offended by this spectacle and resent seeing the leading candidate for president taken off the campaign trail and tied up in court by a partisan enemy.
Bragg's legally anemic case only accentuates the injustice. Voters see this for precisely what it is: a weak case designed to damage Trump politically to the benefit of President Joe Biden's reelection chances.
Let's hope the jurors see that, too.
