Judge Allows Prosecutors to Use Unproven Claims During Summation

 May 30, 2024

Donald Trump’s hush-money case was already controversial and appeared ripe for appeal, but Judge Merchan may have just sealed its fate.

Merchan made several decisions during the closing arguments that raised some flags, but none more so than allowing the Bragg team to push unproven narratives.

Talking Points…
- Closing arguments are in
- Response to Bragg closing arguments
- Analysis

Closing Arguments Raise Some Red Flags

This case was different in most in that the prosecution was able to make its closing argument after the defense (that order is usually flopped). This did not allow the defense to defend itself against any claims made by the prosecution that were questionable, and there were definitely some questionable claims. For instance, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass claimed the AMI purchase of the Karen McDougal story for Trump was a political contribution. He stated:

“It turned out to be one of the most valuable contributions anyone ever made to the Trump campaign.

“This scheme cooked up by these men at this time could very well be what got President Trump elected.”

Legal pundits shredded this claim and others made by prosecutors after the closing arguments were over, and rightfully so. Merchan should have never allowed these claims to make the light of day.

Response to Bragg Closing Arguments

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy was among the first to shred Bragg and Merchan for allowing this to be unchallenged during closing arguments. McCarthy stated:

“It is impossible to draw any conclusion other than that Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg knew that, as a state prosecutor, his enforcement of federal law would be incredibly controversial since he has no such authority; the federal agencies that do have such authority investigated Trump and opted not to prosecute; and to get this prosecution done, Bragg is simply making up his own version of federal law.”

Attorney Alan Dershowitz added:

“The other claim is that he was intending to defraud the voters of New York, who obviously thought Donald Trump would never do anything wrong sexually and they would have been shocked to learn that maybe he paid hush money to a porn star.

“They would have yawned, ‘This is New York, ho hum, so he paid money to a playmate. So he paid money to a prostitute, big deal.’ He was sparing his wife some embarrassment, but you know everybody knows who Donald Trump is and nobody’s voting for him on the grounds that he’s celibate.”

George Washington University law professor, constitutional expect, and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley also commented, stating:

“Merchan seems to have kept the defense in a small neighborhood while allowing the prosecutors to go globe-trotting with prejudicial and, in my view, improper references.”


Since the outset of this trial, I have stated that the case seemed ripe to be overturned, and this really sealed the deal for me. Merchan is leaning into a guilty verdict here, pushing the jury hard, which will not sit well on appeal. Having said that, I still do not feel as though there is any way a full jury can vote to convict based on the evidence presented. I still feel a hung jury is the most likely outcome.

About Jerry McConway

Jerry McConway is an independent political author and investigator who lives in Dallas, Texas. He has spent years building a strong following of readers who know that he will write what he believes is true, even if it means criticizing politicians his followers support. His readers have come to expect his integrity.

Top Articles



Receive information on new articles posted, important topics and tips.
Join Now
We won't send you spam. 
Unsubscribe at any time.

Recent Articles

Recent Analysis

Copyright © 2024 - CapitalismInstitute.org
A Project of Connell Media.