Can Alvin Braggs and His Ludicrous Case Against Donald Trump Survive the Hope Hicks Debacle?

She was supposed to help bring down Donald Trump, but the prosecutor clearly miscalculated.

(America First Report)—When Hope Hicks was announced as a witness for the prosecution against Donald Trump, many were concerned that this former insider into the President's sphere would deliver damning evidence against her former boss. After all, only the most idiotic prosecutor would call a witness that could damage the foundation of their case.

It turns out Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is an idiot. Hicks not only delivered testimony that undermined his case, but did so as one of his own witnesses. The only thing he has going for him now is a New York jury that is notorious for ruling against Republicans in general and Donald Trump in particular.

Now, the Manhattan hush money trial of Donald Trump took a dramatic turn. As the former press secretary during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hicks provided testimony that undermined the prosecution's case.

Hicks explained that Trump's motive for suppressing salacious stories was to protect his wife, Melania, stating, "Absolutely…I don’t think he wanted anyone in his family to be hurt or embarrassed about anything on the campaign. He wanted them to be proud of him." This directly contradicted District Attorney Alvin Bragg's primary claim against Trump, that he paid porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence with the intent to benefit his campaign and influence the election by "unlawful means."

The account by Hicks supported the findings of a federal investigation that no crimes were committed or campaign finance laws broken. Furthermore, Hicks disparaged Bragg's planned star witness, Michael Cohen, Trump's one-time personal lawyer, by saying, "He used to like to call himself Mr. Fix-It, but it was only because he first broke it." Cohen, a convicted liar who went to prison, has been a target of ridicule from other witnesses as well.

Hicks' testimony confirmed that Trump was aware of the payments made to Daniels but did not contest it, stating that he followed his lawyer's advice. However, the payments made were not illegal, and killing negative stories violates no statutes. Moreover, it is not a crime for Trump to know about a non-crime.

The only crime here appears to be Bragg's politically driven prosecution of Trump, in which he conjured up expired misdemeanors and used a garbage state statute that doesn't apply to a federal election. The legal wrangling between two lawyers over a legal contract executed on behalf of their clients is what attorneys do every day. Bragg's charges that Trump falsified business records in 2017 do not amount to a crime since the presidential contest occurred in 2016, making it impossible to complete the intended crime.

The case has been marked by the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial information, such as the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape, which has no bearing on the case. This only serves to smear Trump with information that has no relevance to the charges at hand.

The trial has highlighted the weakness of Bragg's case and the potential for a boomerang effect, with voters seeing this as a politically motivated attack on Trump. The hope is that the jurors will recognize this as well and deliver a fair verdict.