'Legally Pathetic'

Also: Exercise Shown to Reduce Symptoms of Depression

‘Legally Pathetic’
On Saturday, the only topic of conversation for the media and politicos was the rumor that former President Trump would be arrested this week. It’s not known where Tuesday as the day of an arrest came from since there is still one more witness for the grand jury to hear today, as well as a vote on the indictment. According to the New York Times, “a Tuesday surrender was unlikely, given the need to arrange timing, travel and other logistics.”

On the case, Fox News reported:

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen allegedly sent $130,000 to Daniels to prevent her from publicizing her 2006 affair with Trump. Cohen was allegedly reimbursed by Trump through installments.

Prosecutors will likely argue that the $130,000 payment to Daniels was an improper donation to the Trump campaign, as Daniels' NDA helped his candidacy.

A court source informed Fox News Digital that members of Alvin Bragg's office will meet with law enforcement to "discuss logistics for some time next week, which would mean that they are anticipating an indictment next week."

Then, Republicans began to fight with one another about who should respond, who didn’t respond, why to protest, why not to protest, among many other things.

On the prosecution, Jonathan Turley wrote on The Hill:

Trump faces serious legal threats in the ongoing Mar-a-Lago investigation. But the New York case would be easily dismissed outside of a jurisdiction like New York, where Bragg can count on highly motivated judges and jurors.

Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of “hush money” to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws. Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.

It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity’s reputation to preserving a marriage. That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.

RELATED:
Legal expert torches Manhattan DA's potential Trump arrest: 'Banana Republic sort of stuff' (Fox News)

Trump and Hillary Have Been Accused of the Same Crime, but Hillary Never Faced Potential Arrest (PJ Media)

More Weekend Reads
The New Woke Order (A Pilgrin’s Progress on Substack)

On the Banality of A.I. Writing (Walter Kirn on Substack)

Pax Americana or Pox Multipolar? Only the “blame America first, last, and only” Left can think that rogue nations will behave better in a multipolar world. (American Greatness)

After two centuries, a dairy farm family near East Palestine worries for the future (The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

The 12 Lies That Keep People in Debt (Ramsey Solutions)