The hush money case involving former President Donald Trump and adult film star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, has taken some interesting turns recently.
Surprisingly, Michael Avenatti, the attorney who represented Daniels, has stated that previously unseen evidence will actually favor Trump. Given the twists and turns this case has seen, one must question whether the prosecution has a solid case against the former president.
Avenatti tweeted earlier this month, “There are many critical facts and pieces of evidence (texts, emails, etc.) relating to the hush money scandal that has yet to see the light of day. And they will, unfortunately, be very damaging to the prosecution if Trump stands trial. At this point, you simply can’t build a case on the testimony of Cohen & Daniels.” These words from the attorney who previously represented Daniels raise doubts about the strength of the case against Trump.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was reported to have plans to indict Trump for allegedly violating state campaign finance laws. Bragg believed Trump oversaw a payment of $130,000 to Daniels before the 2016 election to buy her silence over a potential affair in 2006. Bragg’s office considered this payment an in-kind campaign contribution, which is illegal in New York.
However, if Avenatti’s claim about the unrevealed evidence is true, it could significantly weaken the prosecution’s case. Moreover, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney who made the payment, has been referred to as a “convicted perjurer” by Robert Costello, a former legal advisor to Cohen. Costello suggested that Cohen’s previous testimony to the grand jury is unreliable, echoing Avenatti’s earlier tweet.
In light of these revelations, one must ask whether the case against Trump is strong enough to stand on its own merits. If the prosecution’s evidence hinges on the testimony of individuals with questionable credibility, it may be difficult to secure a conviction.
WATCH:
🚨BREAKING: Michael Cohen’s former legal advisor Robert Costello, who appeared before the Trump grand jury today calls Cohen a “convicted perjurer” and says he “is far from solid evidence”
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 20, 2023
Furthermore, in a letter from 2018 that was shared by Trump on his TruthSocial account, Daniels denies that any affair ever occurred between them. She stated, “I am not denying this affair because I was paid ‘hush money’ as has been reported in overseas-owned tabloids. I am denying this affair because it never happened.”
Considering the inconsistencies and unreliable testimonies, it is crucial to question if the case against Trump is, in fact, airtight. The justice system must operate on solid evidence and credible testimonies, not on hearsay or the unreliable accounts of convicted perjurers.
WATCH the video below for more details:
As the investigation continues and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office attempts to build its case, it is essential to uphold the principles of justice and ensure that any charges brought forth are based on substantial and verifiable evidence. With conflicting accounts and testimonies from potentially unreliable witnesses, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine the truth in this complex case.
Ultimately, it is crucial that the justice system operates with integrity and diligence to ensure that any charges or convictions are based on irrefutable evidence. In the case of the hush money scandal, it is necessary to critically examine the facts and consider whether the prosecution’s case against Trump is truly strong enough to warrant legal action.
Sources: ConservativeBrief, The Wall Street Journal