The Daily Signal - Why Criminal Case Against Trump Is 'Bogus,' Legal Expert Explains

Episode Date: April 15, 2024

Among all the legal charges facing former President Donald Trump, the criminal case out of New York City that begins Monday “is the most bogus,” according to legal expert Hans von Spakovsky.  Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump in 2023 with 34 counts of falsifying business records supposedly to cover up “hush money” payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.  “This case is just bogus from start to finish,” Von Spakovsky says, adding, “It's in Manhattan. It's a Manhattan jury, and I'll tell you, quite frankly, I think if the DA charged Donald Trump with eating a ham sandwich, the jury would find him guilty.”  Jury selection in the case begins on Monday, but concerns have been raised as to whether it’s even possible to find an unbiased jury in Manhattan. Von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow and manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, says he thinks the jury is “going to find him guilty, regardless of the facts and regardless of the law.”  If Trump is found guilty, and even if he faces time in prison, that will not legally impede the former president from continuing to run for reelection, or even serving as president, given that the Constitution does not address that, the legal expert explains.  Von Spakovsky joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain what he expects to see during the case, and what will happen next if the jury does find Trump guilty.  Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Daily Signal podcast. It's Monday, April 15th. I'm Virginia Allen. Jury selection and former president Donald Trump's alleged hush money case begins today. This case is significant for some very obvious reasons. This is actually the first time that a former president is standing trial in a criminal case. And because of the nature of this case, Trump is expected to be in the courtroom every single day. In fact, he's required to do so in this what could be. six to eight week case ahead of us. So what kind of precedent is the case setting and is it actually possible to select an impartial jury out of New York City? Heritage Foundation's senior legal fellow and manager for the election law reform initiative Hans von Spakovsky joins us on today's show

to answer these questions. Stay tuned for our conversation after this. Hi, I'm John Carlo Canaparo. And I'm Zach Smith. And we host SCOTUS 101. It's a podcast where you'll get a breakdown of top cases in the highest court in the land. Hear from some of the greatest legal minds. And, of course, get a healthy dose of Supreme Court trivia. Want to listen? Find us wherever you get your podcasts or just head to heritage.org slash podcasts.

Heritage Foundation, senior legal fellow Hans Von Spakovsky, joins us now to discuss this case. Hans, thanks so much for being with us. Sure. Thanks for having me. Former President Donald Trump's criminal trial in New York City begins this week. Jury selection begins specifically today, Monday. This is being called Trump's hush money case. What is Trump accused of in this case?

Well, I do have to say, look, of all the cases against Donald Trump, this one is the one I would lay. I mean, all of them are questionable, but this one in particular, I think, is the most bogus of the cases. That doesn't mean it's not serious. It's very serious. almost three dozen felony charges under state law. The claim is that Donald Trump concealed payments intended to influence an election outcome on their business records. Now, an error or putting something falsely down on a business record in New York is normally a misdemeanor. But by bringing in the supposed violation of federal campaign finance,

law because what they're claiming is is that these payments should have been listed as a campaign expense. And by not doing that, this turns it into a felony. Okay. Well, the whole problem with this is that those payments, it was a $130,000 payment made to a woman who claimed that she'd been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump. Stormy Daniels, correct? We've heard that name. Yeah, we have had. But look, there's 130,000.

That's a nuisance settlement. That's the kind of nuisance settlement that celebrities enter into all the time so that they don't have to go to trial in a bogus case. If she had a real claim, it would be worth 10, 20, 30 times that amount of money. The fact that she settled for such a small amount indicates that she had no evidence whatsoever of this. But here's the point. this was not a federal campaign expense as these state prosecutors are alleging. How do we know that? Well, I used to be a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, and it's the FEC that's

responsible to civilly enforce federal election campaign law. The FEC looked at this payment and said it was not a violation of federal law. The U.S. Department of Justice has criminal enforcement authority over this federal law. The U.S. Justice Department also did not charge Donald Trump because they also didn't consider it a campaign expense. In fact, under the rules that govern whether or not a candidate can use campaign money for an expense, this is what to be considered a personal expense. It's not a campaign expense. And in fact, I can tell you this, Virginia, if Donald Trump had actually used campaign funds that he had raised to pay off this personal claim, he would have been criminally charged by the Justice Department. He would have been charged with using campaign funds to pay a personal expense, which is a huge crime.

You may not remember this, but about 10 years ago, remember, former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., went to Jay. because he was using campaign money for personal expenses. So this case is just bogus from start to finish, but it's in Manhattan. It's a Manhattan jury. And I'll tell you quite frankly, I think if the DA charged Donald Trump with eating a ham sandwich, the jury would find him guilty. Who are the key players? Who are the names that we should be watching for in this case, the people we need to be watching as this plays out? Well, look, the prosecutor in Manhattan is a guy named Alvin Bragg.

And if you want to know all about Alvin Bragg, he takes up an entire chapter in a book, released by my colleagues in the legal center, Cully Stimson and Zach Smith, on rogue prosecutors. These are the far-left radical prosecutors who've been elected in cities across the country with huge amounts of money from George Soros and his foundations. and these are folks who believe in not prosecuting felonies. In New York, Alvin Bragg has quit prosecuting more than 50% of the felonies in the city. He won't prosecute misdemeanors. So if you wonder why crime rates have skyrocketed in Manhattan, it's because of this prosecutor

and what is he doing instead of going after the kind of everyday crime that affects people, on the streets, wasting his money going after Donald Trump in what is clearly a political prosecution. Well, and because so many people do see this as a political prosecution and Trump is such a political figure, everyone's wondering, are they going to be able to select a jury that is not biased? That's not coming in already having made up their mind. What are your thoughts on that?

Well, two things. One, the judge in this case shouldn't be the judge in this case. I mean, that already shows you the uphill battle that Trump has. This judge should have recused himself. Why? Well, because his daughter is a Democratic Party political consultant. She runs her own firm and does work for Democratic candidates, including apparently the vice president of the United States, who will be the political opponent, along with her boss, against Donald Trump. He clearly has a conflict of interest, and he should have recused himself.

Donald Trump's lawyers try to get a change of venue. You know, they said, look, we can't get an unbiased jury here. You should transfer this case to a different part of New York where we can do that. The judge refused to do it. That, again, I think, shows the bias of the judge because I think it's very obvious that Donald Trump can't get a fair trial. So I just don't think that the trial will be conducted fairly. and I don't think he's going to be able to get an unbiased jury.

This is obviously very unprecedented. It's the first time that a former president is standing trial in a criminal case. Right. And this means that there's not really a lot of precedent for what's happening. So how is the judge in this case, which you've already explained in your view, and I think many of Americans' views, is biased. But how is the judge going to handle that when this is such a unique situation and there really is unprecedented? Oh, I think he's just going to override any objections made by Donald Trump, even legitimate ones, to the conduct of the trial.

I think anyone watching the trial is going to see the bias evident in almost everything that's done from the selection of the jury to the judge's rulings on objections. And the only hope I think that the president really has in this case is going to be on appeal once they get bad decisions from the trial court judge and a bad decision. from a Manhattan jury. So you do expect that Trump will lose this case in the Manhattan courts? I do. And that's because, again, I expect a jury in an area that voted, what, 95% for Joe Biden? They're going to find him guilty regardless of the facts and regardless of the law. Because as I said at the very beginning, there's no legal case here.

There was no violation of federal election campaign law, which is a key element. of this case. And like said, you know, both the FEC and the U.S. Justice Department think there was no violation of federal law. So how can a local DA claim to the contrary? Yeah. So then if the case was appealed by Trump and his team, where would it go? Well, it would be the next step. Well, this is in the state court. So it would go through the state court appeals process in New York. If he got bad decisions from those courts once it got to the highest court in New York, he could try appealing it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would only come in if he, Trump, is able to make a claim that some portion

of the trial, some portion of the charges are a violation of the federal law or the federal constitution. Okay. Okay. What is at stake here for Trump? If he's found guilty and it's appealed, or maybe he's not guilty. or maybe he's not guilty again, and the Supreme Court doesn't take it up. What does he stand to lose?

Well, look, three dozen felonies. That's the charge in the indictment. He could get sentenced to spending literally many years in prison, which would be quite something if a Manhattan jury found him guilty. The judge sentenced him to going to jail, and he then potentially actually got elected to be the president of the United States. And there's no law in my understanding that prevents someone from being elected who is in prison, correct? That is exactly right.

If, let's assume just a second, Donald Trump was convicted, but was elected president. The only way he could be removed from office is if he was impeached by the House and convicted in the United States Senate. But otherwise, a state conviction like this does not prevent him from getting elected, does not prevent him from being sworn in. as president. And then could he acquit himself if he was elected and he was in prison? Is that how that works? Well, I mean, he could potentially be acquitted. But the other key thing about this is, you know, the president under our Constitution has a pardon power. Right. Pardoning himself, yeah. Yeah. But that only applies to federal offenses. So even if he was elected president, he could not pardon himself for a state crime. Okay.

Isn't it? It's bizarre. This whole thing is so bizarre. We've never faced this in the entire history of the United States. This kind of partisan use of law enforcement to go after a political presidential candidate, because that is really what seems to be happening here. Does this open the door for more of this, do you think? Yes.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. And in particular, look, in the midst of all this, yeah, the trial starts Monday, But on the 25th of April, we're going to have arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court on presidential immunity. This is in the cases that have been filed by the federal government where the president is saying, look, I can't be prosecuted criminally for official actions I took while I was president. And again, that is a very crucial issue that could affect how presidents conduct themselves in the future. Well, I've seen reports that this could be a six-week to eight-week long case.

We're looking at kind of a long road ahead, so we will be following this closely. But Hans, thank you for your time. We really appreciate it. Well, sure. Thanks for having me. Boy, we're unfortunately living in very interesting times. Interesting times, indeed. I appreciate you breaking down these times for us.

Thanks so much. And make sure for all of our listeners to check out Hans's work at the Heritage Foundation, that's heritage.org. Hans Fons-Bikovsky of the Heritage Foundation. And with that, that's going to do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for being with us this Monday morning. Make sure you check out our afternoon show, evening show, right here in the same podcast feed, where every weekday, around 5 p.m., we bring you the top news of the day. And if you have a minute, make sure to leave us a five-star rating and review on the Daily Signal podcast. We're across all platforms. And make sure you hit that subscribe button so you never miss out on new shows. Thanks again for being with us today. We'll see you right back here at 5 p.m. for our top news. News edition. The Daily Signal podcast is made possible because of listeners like you. Executive producers are Rob Bluey and Kate Trinko.

Hosts are Virginia Allen, Brian Gottstein, Mary Margaret O'Lehan, and Tyler O'Neill. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more or support our work, please visitdailySignal.com.