Part 7/11:
In New York, Judge Juan Merchán’s handling of the Trump civil case drew criticism after threatening jail for Trump but then turning to sensationalism by bringing out Stormy Daniels as evidence. Critics argue that the case is fundamentally flawed, especially since it hinges on alleged hush money payments that are legally complex.
Prosecutors have tried to portray the hush money as a campaign finance violation. However, experts clarify that payments for personal reasons—such as safeguarding Trump’s marriage or personal reputation—do not constitute illegal campaign expenses. This principle, historically upheld in similar cases like that of John Edwards, suggests that the New York case lacks the legal foundation to succeed.