The pending arrest of President Donald Trump Part 1.— ChristianAction.org (@MartinMawyer) March 27, 2023
Watch the full episode here: https://t.co/8DQ6COmTsC pic.twitter.com/w206NVHJSd
Donald Trump’s potential arrest, plus other topics: DOJ wants another 1,000 J6 arrests; Theologian fired over homosexual invasion Tweet; Canada promotes assisted suicide for kids; SF considers $5M reparations for black residents
Watch the full episode here.
Martin: Speaking of why it’s great to have an attorney in the program, it’s the lead topic of tonight, and that is the pending arrest of former President Donald Trump.
What is going on here?
This is so confusing.
And I’m sure most Americans have no clue what these charges are about and why this president may spend up to four years in jail, or perhaps longer.
So we’re going to talk about that.
But first, let’s explain this to the American public, at least what I know about why President Trump is being charged or going to be charged.
So, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Braggs has investigated claims that Trump and his business associates hid the real purpose of a $130,000 payment to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, who, as everybody knows, is a jailbird himself.
So Trump listed the payment as a legal retainer, but attorney Alvin Bragg out of Manhattan says it was actually used to buy Stormy Daniels’s silence.
Alec: Remember her?
Martin: Regarding an affair. Yeah.
And her attorney, Malcolm Avenatti, who is currently in jail.
Alec: Also in jail.
Michael: Some corrupt attorneys here, ain’t they?
Martin: All right, but it’s not just this one charge that Trump might face from these New York prosecutors.
He also may be charged with violating state election laws.
And here’s where it starts to get really complicated and bizarre.
So, Bragg will likely claim that the payment to silence Stormy Daniels served the purpose of covering up the alleged affair to help Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign.
So, under this legal theory, Trump not only should not have marked this $130,000 payment as an attorney fee, but he should have claimed it as a campaign contribution to himself.
So he may face additional charges, meaning even more time in jail.
Now, David, I hope I did a decent job explaining these charges, but help me out here.
Where did I go wrong, and what can you clarify?
David: Well, I think you have them right.
And things are going on that I don’t entirely understand.
Something about how Bragg is trying to convert a minor state claim into a federal crime.
And it’s bizarre.
Martin: Well, the way I understand it is that the election law is a New York election law he violated, so it is not necessarily a federal one.
So I know some people have brought up well, didn’t John Edwards, when he was running for president some years ago, his payment to make a silence about some affair that he was doing that was ruled unconstitutional or thrown out of court?
But this isn’t a federal law Bragg is claiming that Trump violated.
He’s saying that he violated New York election laws.
Michael: Now, I have a question about that.
Since he was running for the federal government, would state election laws even apply to him that way?
Martin: Well, I don’t know, David.
That is a good question.
I hadn’t thought about that.
I don’t know.
This needs to be clarified.
I can’t imagine most Americans being able to parse their way through all of this.
David: I’m having trouble parsing my way through it, too.
I need clarification on what his theory is.
I think Michael’s question is really a good one since it’s
I think the state election law probably does apply because if you remember. We’ve gone through this issue in some other things; the United States Constitution says that the way elections are going to be handled is to be decided by the state legislatures.
It makes perfect sense that the state election law applies to this.
Michael: Yeah, but that’s how you vote, not funding, right?
That seems like two different things.
Mainly because you can get funding from California, even though he probably didn’t get that much from there.
But other states would come in as well.
And many contradictions or things would get caught up in the mix.
If you’re going by every state when you’re doing that.
Martin: The point you’re making is interesting, Michael, because, right, violating state election law by making his contribution.
If they can pass this off as a contribution to his campaign to silence Stormy Daniels, wouldn’t every state then be able to charge Donald Trump then?
Because wouldn’t he have violated a whole bunch of state laws by making that claim?
I don’t know.
But here’s my point.
This is so complicated.
This will be one horrible arrest for the nation because most people can understand that a former president went out there and committed a crime that everybody could comprehend as a felony.
But they’re going to have to figure out precisely what he is being charged with and why he might go to jail over an accounting error of writing something down as a legal expense rather than whatever it should have been written down.
And I’m not even sure what he was supposed to put down on his paper if he was buying off Stormy Daniels.
And let’s say he was.
I don’t know, but let’s say he was; what was he supposed to put down on a sheet of paper?
I have no clue.
Want to listen with the Audio version, click below: