Is it true that federal prosecutors didn’t want to bring the Hush Money case against Trump? Is Trump telling the truth?

[Dante]

Trump as well as many MAGA apologists do, keep claiming that federal prosecutors didn’t want to bring the case against him. "This is not true. They were barred from doing so while he was president."

Live Updates: Trump Spews False Claims and Fury in Wake of Conviction

Donald J. Trump, speaking from the gilded lobby of his Midtown Manhattan tower, excoriated prosecutors and the judge in his criminal case and ran through a litany of false statements. President Biden called the remarks reckless, dangerous and irresponsible.

www.nytimes.com

This claim by Trump is one of the real reasons, probably the main reason for his defense team not putting him on the stand. One of his other claims is that Judge Merchan would and had allowed questioning of everything he was ever involved in. which is a misrepresentation.
"A misrepresentation of the scope of the trial."

There is more. But one thing is clear, a jury of American citizens from his hometown, who know him better than anyone else, sat in judgment of the accusations against him and they found him 100% guilty of the crimes alleged by the prosecution.

A New York State, District County District Attorney out of Manhattan -- Trump's home town, brought the charges to a grand jury comprised of loyal, patriotic US citizens called to perform a civic duty. They issued an indictment. A jury comprised of loyal, patriotic US citizens were then called to perform a civic duty. Everybody did their jobs and the Jury spoke: Guilty, on all charged.

 

[Dante]

What I've been referencing to people this past week: "In New York Times/Siena College battleground polls in October, about 7 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters said they would vote for Mr. Biden if Mr. Trump were found guilty in an unspecified criminal trial."

 

[Dante]

See this observation --
By Randall D. Eliason
Mr. Eliason is a former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

When it came to the New York prosecution of Donald Trump, I was skeptical.
I was among the commentators who criticized the case. It was old, the so-called zombie case that had been kicking around for years. It appeared to rest on several untested and controversial legal theories. It seemed like a relatively trivial bookkeeping charge, unworthy of a prosecution of a former president.

But I have to hand it to the Manhattan prosecutors. Over the course of this trial, they convinced me — as they clearly and overwhelmingly convinced the jury. There will be an appeal, of course, and Mr. Trump may have some persuasive legal arguments.

But the jury’s quick decision reinforces the district attorney’s view that this was a righteous prosecution and about much more than mere accounting entries.

Every trial is a human story. The successful trial attorney presents that story to the jury in a way that’s internally consistent, supported by the evidence and aligns with the jurors’ life experiences and common sense.

Opinion | I Was Skeptical of the ‘Zombie’ Trump Case. I Stand Corrected.

The prosecutors convinced me — as they clearly and overwhelmingly convinced the jury.

www.nytimes.com