The far-left Guardian newspaper’s opinion section this morning leads with an admission that securing a criminal prosecution in Alvin Bragg’s case against Donald Trump is “a big stretch” thanks to the key witness being serial perjurer Michael Cohen.
After first blasting Cohen as someone she “wouldn’t hold up… as an example of a great American,” columnist Margaret Sullivan explains that the charges against Trump fail to represent “an airtight case.”
“Can jurors find [Cohen] credible, given his checkered past? Even if they do, is it possible to make the leap to criminal violations of campaign-finance law? And could every one of them then agree to convict?
“That’s an Everest-high mountain to climb. Trump’s lawyers are sure to bombard Cohen with his foibles during cross-examination later this week.”
She concludes: “As for a jury then connecting that credibility to criminal election-law interference? And then, unanimously, deciding to convict the former president? That’s a big stretch.”
Her concerns differ wildly from those of POLITICO author and former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori, who claims Stormy Daniels’s testimony was compelling enough for the jury to find President Trump guilty, even though what she alleged was scarcely criminal, let alone felonious.



