Why Trump should win his NY hush money trial

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

55% : But he is entitled to a jury of his peers, and the judge has to ensure there is a fair spread of political viewpoints in the makeup of the jury that will decide this case.
50% : The prosecutors are mum about what Trump should have put in his register.
50% : While Trump could have been more clear in his accounting register, to call his conduct criminal -- and especially "felonious" -- is almost unprecedented.
48% : Trump is entitled to fire his defense team -- even on the morning of trial -- and recruit an entirely new team to take his case.
46% : Instead, Trump entered into a contract with Daniels that was entirely permitted under the law.
39% : Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg does have a plausible argument that the timing of these payments suggests the possibility that Trump was doing it to avoid such requirements.
36% : If things are fair (and we'll see how that goes), Trump should be able to count on at least one or two jurors favorable to the plight of MAGA -- and he only needs one.
34% : It isn't hard to imagine that a reasonable juror could see the possibility that Trump was not trying to commit a crime, but, rather, was simply inserting a minimal amount of information in the accounting register to avoid unnecessary attention to Daniels's extortion attempt.
29% : However, Bragg has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump wasn't doing it to protect his own image or the image of his companies.
29% : Trump is not likely to face a sympathetic jury in the heavily blue Manhattan courtroom.
29% : (Most of us have seen the classic movie "12 Angry Men.")And while his efforts to delay the case have largely failed, Trump may have one last trick up his sleeve.
28% : While it's impossible to predict the outcome of a criminal trial, if we were representing Donald Trump in his New York hush money case, we would be aiming for a full acquittal -- and for good reason.
26% : Prosecutors must not only prove it was wrong to enter these payments in the manner Trump did, they must prove it was done with criminal intent.
25% : Trump never sought a tax deduction on the payments, and was apparently following the legal advice of his now-discredited and convicted fraudster lawyer, Michael Cohen.
22% : But in order to convict, prosecutors must also prove a second criminal intent in logging the payments as Trump did for the purpose of avoiding campaign finance reporting requirements.
21% : Trump is not charged with any wrongdoing in reaching a "hush money settlement" with Daniels.
21% : Perhaps this difficult task of proving two layers of specific intent is the reason why other prosecutors at the DOJ, FEC and the State of New York previously balked at prosecuting Trump for these very same allegations.
21% : If Trump wants his trial delayed, he could do so simply by uttering his most famous line: "You're fired."
20% : The infamous Stormy Daniels repeatedly threatened that unless she was paid a chunk of money, she would go to the media reporting an alleged affair with Trump.
12% : Trump, for his part, could have reported this extortion plot to the FBI, but that would have meant putting this salacious story in the hands of his political opponents at the Obama/Biden Justice Department -- a terrible position in which to voluntarily place himself.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.