Former prosecutor explains why Manhattan case against Donald Trump is a “slam dunk”

Various political pundits have tried to scare people into staying tuned in by insisting that the Manhattan criminal case against Donald Trump is “weak” or a “long shot” or based on a “tortured legal theory” or “too dependent on Michael Cohen.”


But former prosecutor Nick Akerman appeared on MSNBC on Monday evening and pointed out that the case isn’t dependent on just Cohen’s testimony. Akerman said that when he was prosecuting cases, he considered having two witnesses to be a “solid case,” and three or four witnesses to be a “slam dunk.”


In the Manhattan criminal case against Donald Trump, the known witnesses for the prosecution include Michael Cohen, David Pecker, Kellyanne Conway, Hope Hicks, Jeff McConney, and more. That easily meets Akerman’s definition of a “slam dunk” case.

There are also potentially witnesses that we don’t know about, because the media never spotted them entering or leaving the building. In fact CNN reported last week that there was indeed one still-unnamed witness who testified for thirty minutes just before the indictment vote happened.

So yeah, this many witnesses for the prosecution is considered a slam dunk. With this many people telling the same story, they end up corroborating each other’s accounts in the eyes of the jury. That means the jury doesn’t have to decide whether to take any one witness’ word for it.

Keep up to date with the latest Liberal Agenda content via email.

We respect your privacy.

Similar Posts