The Legal Lynching of Donald Trump

A look inside the tainted trial that exposed the Biden administration's war on Trump

Today's conviction of former President Donald Trump in a Manhattan courtroom raises concerns about potential long-term implications for American political life. Many observers fear that this verdict might be perceived as endorsing the use of the justice system to sway elections and prosecute political opponents.

Spearheaded by Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the trial revealed a litany of troubling issues, raising profound concerns about the Biden administration’s weaponisation of the Department of Justice.

A pivotal aspect of the prosecution's case rested on the testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney. Cohen, a self-confessed liar with a history of legal transgressions, including false statements to a bank, tax evasion, and campaign finance violations, was as a deeply compromised witness.

His credibility was tested when he confessed to pilfering $60,000 from the Trump Organisation via the same reimbursement mechanism he was testifying about. Defense attorney Todd Blanche adeptly highlighted additional discrepancies in Cohen's narrative, suggesting the possibility of perjury during the trial.

Hinging on such a dubious witness should have dismantled the prosecution's case, introducing substantial doubt regarding the fairness of the conviction.

The legal basis of the prosecution's case was vague and ambiguous from the start. To secure a felony conviction, the prosecution needed to establish that Trump falsified business records to conceal another offence, such as a violation of campaign finance or election laws.

However, this underlying crime was neither explicitly defined nor conclusively proven during the trial. The ambiguity surrounding the purported secondary offence created a conspicuous gap in the prosecution's argument.

Without a clear delineation of the crime that the falsified records aimed to obfuscate, the legal rationale behind the felony charges was flimsy, suggesting potential prosecutorial overreach.

The prosecution's strategy included presenting witnesses whose testimonies were inconsistent and seemingly geared towards generating sensational headlines rather than furnishing substantive evidence.

Stormy Daniels, for instance, admitted under oath that she possessed no direct knowledge of Trump's involvement in the $130,000 payment she received. Her testimony, laden with salacious details about her alleged encounter with Trump, seemed tailored to sway the jury emotionally rather than corroborate the charges.

The presence of sensationalism, particularly in a trial involving a former president and current presidential nominee, detracted from the solemnity of the legal proceedings and totally undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case.

The conduct and impartiality of Judge Juan Merchan throughout the trial raised serious apprehensions about judicial impartiality.

His rulings, such as allowing controversial testimonies from Cohen and Daniels while limiting the defence's ability to present expert witnesses to a degree that discouraged them from doing so, indicated a serious bias favouring the prosecution.

Not long after Mr Trump was arraigned, it emerged that Justice Merchan had donated $35 to the Democrats in 2020, including $15 to Joe Biden.

Despite the donations being small, they raised questions about his impartiality. According to federal election records, Justice Merchan sent $15 to the Biden campaign, as well as two $10 contributions to the Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans.

In New York state, judges are barred from making donations to political organisations or candidates, but the donation was viewed as trivial given its sum. Justice Merchan did not recuse himself from the case when the issue came to light.

Justice Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is the president of Authentic Campaigns, a firm that has worked on digital fundraising and advertising for Democratic clients.Her list of previous clients includes Mr Biden and Representative Adam Schiff, who led impeachment efforts against Mr Trump.

The revelation led Mr Trump to push, unsuccessfully, to have Justice Merchan removed from the case.

The instructions given to the jury by Merchan were highly irregular and controversial. Merchan told jurors they didn’t all have to agree on the specific crime Trump allegedly tried to cover up by falsifying business records.

Instead, jurors were told they could pick from three potential "other crimes" - violating federal election law, falsifying more business records, or violating tax law.

This went against the core principle that a jury must unanimously agree on the specific charges for a conviction. Allowing the jurors to justify a guilty verdict based on different perceived crimes undermined the idea of unanimous consensus required for a fair trial.

Legal experts from both sides of the aisle criticised this departure from judicial norms as "the antithesis of standard" procedure.

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley expressed dismay at jurors not having to agree on what "other crime" occurred.

The Vigilant Fox

reported this week that former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo criticised recent charges, stating, "This was a misdemeanour that was trumped up to felonies. To call it 34 counts is laughable because the 34 counts are simply different checks that were signed to pay back Cohen."

Even prosecutorial analysts like CNN's Elie Honig admit confusion over how Trump's conduct could constitute tax fraud or falsifying business records.

Irrespective of one's stance on Trump, the introduction of highly irregular jury instructions amplified concerns regarding the integrity of arguably the most high-profile case in US political history.

The conviction of Donald Trump, based on frail and nebulous evidence, questionable witness testimonies, and potential judicial bias, underscored the lengths to which the Biden administration is willing to go in order to prevent Trump from reclaiming the White House.

You don’t need to be a Trump loyalist to recognise Biden's significant challenges; he's viewed as a weak candidate who’s deeply unpopular among Americans voters. If an election were held tomorrow, Trump could potentially replicate Nixon's 1972 electoral landslide.

Biden's policy agenda remains elusive, casting doubt on his campaign priorities; notably, his first term seems predominantly focused on obstructing Donald Trump's potential presidential bid through various means, culminating in this trial.

Irrespective of political affiliations, anyone with even a passing concern for the rule of law should find this deeply troubling. The perceived criminalisation of political opposition has now set a dangerous precedent that could enable a cyclical escalation of retaliatory prosecutions with each change of administration.

Ultimately, it will be the American people and the sanctity of their democratic republic that bear the highest cost.