BREAKING: Major Hole Found In Trump NYC Case

Written by: Clayton Keirns



Time to read 2 min

Last week, Judge Juan Merchan announced that Donald Trump’s hush money case will begin on April 15. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s lengthy investigation.

The case, which has garnered significant attention, involves 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to former adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The payment was made ahead of the 2016 election, purportedly for her silence about an alleged extramarital affair with Trump.

In a segment on Fox News on Wednesday, legal analyst Jonathan Turley provided an in-depth analysis of the legal challenges facing former Trump .

Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, shared his perspective on the complexities surrounding the case, including the Trump legal team's efforts to have the judge overseeing the hush money trial recused.

Trump's team has argued that the judge's impartiality could be compromised due to his daughter's employment at a political consulting firm with Democratic clients.

Trump is also concerned that there is "an unacceptable risk that the court's family relationships will influence judicial conduct," a sentiment echoed by his lawyers who argue that the case has implications beyond the courtroom, potentially affecting Trump's ability to run his campaign.

"It shouldn't be hashed out in social media," Turley explained. "Attorneys all the time raise not just conflicts, but the appearance of conflicts. Some involve family members. Indeed, many on the left have long attacked Supreme Court justices over their family members and their activities."

"But with two weeks to go, it would probably be easier to move the courthouse than the judge in this case. And the reason is that they are very reluctant, unless you have something quite direct and sort of unassailable," said Turley.

The case involving Trump and allegations of hush money payments centers on payments made to two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had affairs with Trump.

Trump has denied these affairs. The payments were made before the 2016 presidential election, ostensibly to prevent the women's allegations from becoming public and potentially affecting the election's outcome.

Turley suggested that the case against Trump, which he described as "very weak," serves as an example of how legal proceedings can be manipulated for political purposes.

Turley warned of the detrimental effects of gag orders and other judicial measures that could influence the election's outcome, concluding that such actions could "not be worse for our country."

"I think these judges have gone too far with some of these orders," said Turley.