Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is in a dilemma over whether to indict former President Donald Trump for his involvement in the Stormy Daniels payoff. This follows Michael Cohen’s testimony before the grand jury in the hush money scheme probe, which could now implicate Trump.

Cohen, Trump’s former fixer, has already pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including tax evasion, bank fraud, and campaign finance violations. He admitted to paying Daniels, a porn star, $130,000 in 2016 to keep quiet about her alleged affair with Trump.

Bragg’s decision to indict Trump would be unprecedented, as no former president has been indicted in the history of the United States. However, he faces pressure from Democrats who want Trump held accountable for his alleged crimes, while Republicans argue that such a move would be politically motivated.

Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters have criticized Cohen’s testimony, calling it a “witch hunt” and a fabrication. Trump himself has denied any wrongdoing and called Cohen a liar.

The situation has reignited the debate over the extent of a president’s immunity from criminal charges. Some legal experts argue that a sitting president is immune from indictment, while others believe that immunity should not extend to alleged crimes committed before taking office.

As the case continues to unfold, the public eagerly awaits the district attorney’s decision, which could have far-reaching implications for the future of American politics.