The wrong case to indict Trump
No one will argue that the Manhattan district attorney doesn’t have the authority to prosecute a former United States president.
He certainly does.
And plenty of us left and right will argue that Donald Trump is an unprincipled man who cuts corners and plays with dynamite.
He certainly does.
But it is a reckless abuse of authority for the Manhattan district attorney to pursue a possible misdemeanor violation against Trump that is seven years old and so thin the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission dropped it. The case deals with a $130,000 hush payment via a fixer to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The New York Times, no friend of Trump’s, said this of the accusations:
“While the facts are dramatic, the case against Mr. Trump could hinge on an untested legal theory. And a conviction is far from assured.”
No man is above the law, but no man should be prosecuted because he is the enemy of the party in power.
District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg was one of a number of far-left district attorney candidates funded by George Soros to pursue progressive and highly controversial criminal-justice reforms. The Soros-backed Color Of Change PAC gave Bragg $1 million. Soros-funded prosecutors have become some of the most radical in the country.
When Bragg ran for district attorney in 2021, he boasted that one of his qualifications for office was that he had sued the Trump family more than 100 times.
His zeal to get Trump was so over the top, one of his Democratic primary opponents, Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a former federal and state prosecutor, criticized his lack of professionalism – his demonstrated bias.
“I have repeatedly declined requests to discuss a hypothetical argument that a current subject of an investigation in the Manhattan D.A.’s office might make,” she said. “That’s the only proper approach for open matters the next D.A. will inherit.”
So if Bragg’s continued pursuit of Trump looks like a political hit, well, it walks like a duck. Is this really the case to indict a former U.S. president for the first time in history?
If it is, as legal scholar Jonathan Turley has pointed out, it means the two key witnesses would be a former porn star and a disbarred lawyer.
The latter, Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen, “is one of the most repellent figures in New York,” Turley added. It will make getting a conviction especially difficult.
Many historical forces are responsible for the highly charged political era we’re living today. We have gone through presidential elections punctuated with violence, a turbulent and fiery summer protest and a disgraceful attack on the U.S. Capitol. We’ve seen some of the worst Americans imbued with awesome power.
Today it seems we’re coming down from our peak anxiety, with Americans craving normalcy after years of fear and dread. If the American justice system is going to again poke that bear, it had better do so with reluctance and with a powerful case against a man who only a few years ago won 74 million votes.