Internet divided as Gregg Jarrett claims Hope Hicks' testimony ruined Donald Trump's hush money case
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett explained how prosecutors of former President Donald Trump in the New York hush money trial sabotaged their own case by calling his former aide Hope Hicks as a witness on Friday, May 3, in an opinion piece for Fox News.
Slamming the move as "an epic miscalculation," Jarrett claimed that Hick's testimony showed that Trump's actions were simply an effort to protect his wife, Melania, not to cover up negative stories about himself ahead of his 2016 presidential campaign.
Gregg Jarrett on Hick's testimony
Jarrett claimed that the courtroom account of Hicks, who reportedly said, "I don’t think he (Trump) wanted anyone in his family to be hurt or embarrassed about anything on the campaign. He wanted them to be proud of him," refuted the primary claim of District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Bragg had argued that Trump "paid porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence with the intent to benefit his campaign and, thereby, influence the election by 'unlawful means.'" His claims were adamantly refuted by Jarrett in his piece, who stressed that "no crimes were committed, or campaign finance laws broken because there was another purpose for the non-disclosure agreement that Daniels signed."
"It was foolhardy for Bragg’s legal team to call Hicks. A rank amateurish mistake. Her testimony was redundant and unnecessary," stated the legal analyst, as he later added, "The payments made were not illegal. Non-disclosure contracts in exchange for silence are not unlawful. Killing negative stories violates no statutes. More to the point, it is not a crime for Trump to know about a non-crime. That would be a senseless syllogism."
He further reinforced the accusation of Trump followers that the prosecution of the presumptive GOP nominee of the 2024 election was "politically driven" and a "grotesque abuse of the law."
Internet reacts to Gregg Jarrett's stance
Internet users were not sure of the acquittal of Trump despite Jarrett's claims, as the following comments to his opinion piece on Facebook demonstrate.
"Does not matter the Jury will still find him guilty," wrote a user.
"With a New York jury. They’ll convict him anyway," echoed another.
"Kangaroo court… election interference plan and EVERYONE knows it!" jibed a third.
"The level of confirmation bias here is absolutely wild," commented a fourth.
"The jury has the final say not fix it fox," stated a fifth.
"It doesn’t matter because the whole thing is rigged against him. They are still going to find him guilty," read a sixth comment.
This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.
