CNN legal analyst and globalist hatchet man Norman Eisen has argued it is “wrong” to describe George Soros-backed District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump in Manhattan as a “hush money” case.
“We should call it an ‘election interference’ trial going forward,” Eisen said, echoing a sentiment often expressed by Trump himself – though the CNN employee believes it is Trump, not his Democrat prosecutors, who may be responsible for the interference.
Eisen noted that Democrat-linked Judge Juan Merchan, describing the case to potential jurors, said the allegations “that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.”
“Paying hush money by itself is not a crime. The crime alleged in this case is felony document falsification, as the judge detailed. That requires intent to conceal, aid or commit another crime,” Eisen explained.
“Here, the prosecution alleges that the intent was to violate federal campaign finance laws and also the state statute prohibiting the ‘unlawful influence’ of an election — i.e., election interference.”
NOVEL APPROACH.
This approach by Bragg, which has allowed him to elevate the charges against Trump from misdemeanor to felony, is novel and, in the eyes of many legal experts, dubious, as the “other crime” the former president supposedly committed is not being prosecuted.
Eisen conceded the alleged accounting issues with so-called “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels to settle claims of an affair, which Trump denies, date from 2017, after the 2016 election had concluded.
The CNN analyst argues the payment was itself election interference, however, claiming “no one can seriously dispute that the reason… Trump allegedly hatched the scheme was to deprive voters of information that could have changed the outcome of an extremely close election.”
“When information is withheld from voters, as Bragg alleges happened here, that undermines democracy… It is an election interference [trial] and we should say so,” he concluded.
He did not touch on whether censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 would qualify as election interference on behalf of Biden under this definition.