“It’s like the Soviet Union in the Stalin era” – Trump’s former legal representative on the lawsuit against the presidential candidate

You can listen to the full conversation here:

“What has never happened before has now begun, also as a criminal trial.” It is the trial of Donald Trump’s first criminal trial. If we start from the tradition of the American legal system, which is the jury and its selection, this is also part of the unprecedentedness here: the fact that a criminal trial against a former president is taking place for the first time, and this is really unexplored territory. Is it possible to find jurors in this case as well in the traditional way?

“Indeed,

the entire criminal prosecution against the former president is unprecedented and a politically motivated prosecution. It wouldn’t happen if Donald Trump didn’t run for president in the election.

And the prosecutor vowed in his own election campaign that if he becomes a prosecutor, he will indict Donald Trump. It’s like the Soviet Union during the Stalin era. Then they said to show the man, and I will find charges against him. This is not how it should work in the United States and in a democracy.

The whole lawsuit has no legal basis. And if we are talking about whether there can be an unbiased jury for the trial? Not at all, because more than 85 percent of Manhattan, New York voters support Joe Biden. This whole thing is ridiculous, we could start from here. So I don’t think a fair jury can be assembled, but I do hope there will be at least one person who finds Donald Trump not guilty of these silly, frivolous allegations against him. In such a case, there is no verdict, we are talking about a so-called split jury, and then everything can be started again.

– You mentioned that it is about a politically based prosecution. However, the legal process is already underway, so what can be the basis of the defense’s arguments from a legal point of view, the actions of the defense attorneys?

– First, the prosecution will present the case, and they will start with this, they will present a number of witnesses with whom they will try to tarnish Donald Trump’s reputation. After that comes the defense and their arguments. Donald Trump has said he wants to take the stand, although I don’t think that will happen, because in such a case it would be an opportunity for prosecutors to bring up previous cases to try to destroy Trump’s reputation.

I believe that the defense should primarily present legal arguments here, starting from the fact that no crime was committed in the case. Because what was brought against him as a crime is that Donald Trump paid silence money to that woman, but paying this is completely legal in the American legal system, confidentiality agreements of this kind are made every day. Part of the charge is that he described this payment as a business expense, but according to New York state law, it can only be a minor offense and could have been prosecuted as such. On the other hand, this prosecutor, in his intention to catch Donald Trump, brings him to court with a fine, saying that Donald Trump made the payment in defense of his 2016 election campaign, which means that the amount is considered a campaign expense. But one is that it could be a federal violation under election law, but the prosecutor is a New York state attorney, so he can’t act under federal law. And the other is that

the federal authorities – both the Federal Election Commission and the Ministry of Justice – investigated the case and found that no crime had been committed and no charges were warranted.

– The way the judge imposed a partial statement ban on Donald Trump is also unprecedented. Which is key, critical, and questionable in the sense that it’s happening in a political season, during a campaign, and it’s hindering Donald Trump in his political campaign activities to get his messages across. Along with the fact that for the judge, such prohibitions must be a tool of the law, they serve.

– The statement ban that the judge imposed in this case is completely unconstitutional because it violates his right to freedom of expression. After all, anyone can attack him, but according to the judge, he cannot retaliate or defend himself publicly, he can only answer in the closed room of the court. This is one thing, and the other is that the judge himself is biased and prejudiced against Donald Trump. He gave money to Joe Biden’s campaign and to a progressive liberal political action organization.

This judge should have been thrown out of this case a long time ago.

This includes the fact that his daughter runs a political consulting campaign committee that represents Joe Biden and an American liberal congressman, managing large sums of money. It’s unbelievable that this judge can take the case, because there are ethical rules in this country that state that if a judge is biased, or appears to be biased, that’s a reason to take the case away from him. So you have a biased judge, a biased jury, and a biased prosecutor making a legally frivolous case to catch Donald Trump.

– What we are seeing now is that Donald Trump is sitting in the courtroom while Joe Biden is going to campaign events, this week for example in the state of Pennsylvania, that is, he is continuing his election tour without any restrictions, while Donald Trump is sitting in the trial, he cannot carry out a full campaign.

– That’s right. Donald Trump can’t go on a campaign tour. What you can do is stand in front of the public for a few minutes during breaks in the negotiations, explain how unfair it all is, and that means media exposure, but that’s not what a campaign should look like. So his opponents are hoping that even if there is no conviction against him, they will manage to keep him out of the campaign in order to give Joe Biden an advantage in terms of votes. I think this is what backfires, because more and more people see that it is a political process, so they stand by it. At the same time, the whole thing is a violation of the regularity of the election, interference in elections.

Such a thing could really be imagined somewhere in the third world, but not in the democracy of the United States.

– Then it is inevitable and necessary that Donald Trump somehow connects his campaign and the court hearing? He has no other option in these weeks, while it lasts, to formulate a campaign message while he is in court. Of course, you can go campaigning on weekends.

“Yes, you can go campaigning on weekends, but then you have to return to the New York courthouse for the hearings, so you can’t travel long distances.” You have to adjust to what happens in court. And the procedure itself really becomes part of the campaign. His message is that I am being persecuted by Joe Biden and his administration of justice, who is trying to stand up for the voters. In terms of political issues, the central element of Donald Trump’s campaign is the restoration of border security. At the same time, he can use the court hearing itself and show the American public how unfairly they are treating him when they try to obstruct him in the election campaign.

Polls show that Donald Trump is currently leading Joe Biden in many swing states.

This shows that for the time being, the intention to convict him and remove him from the race is backfired. However, according to the majority of independent voters, the procedure is based on politics, who are therefore more on the side of Donald Trump.

Featured image: Former US President Donald Trump arrives in a Manhattan criminal courtroom on the second day of his trial, April 16, 2024, as jury selection continues in the criminal case against him. Trump was indicted in 2023 by Alvin Bragg, the district attorney elected for the Democratic Party. (Photo: MTI/EPA pool/Justin Lane)