June 18, 2024
Former President Donald Trump was convicted by a jury in New York last month on 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to influence the 2016 presidential election.
It is the first trial on four crimes of which Trump has been accused.
This conviction represents the first time in the nation’s history that a former president has been found guilty of a crime. And it has the added element of interest because Trump is the Republican candidate in the November presidential election, where he is seeking a second term.
Democrats and other anti-Trumpers are ecstatic over the verdict, rendered on the second day of jury deliberations. Sentencing on the crimes is scheduled for next month, and there is the hope among his non-fans that he will receive jail time.
That’s the story of one side of this highly controversial topic. On the other side are supporters of the former president who disagree with the verdict and believe this trial should never have occurred.
Critics of the trial have many complaints about the way Trump has been treated, including a long list of “irregularities” and questionable things with the initial charges and the actual courtroom process.
They cite the huge effort to keep Trump from running for reelection that includes states trying to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot. This effort was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that states cannot make this decision.
Several legal authorities, including present and former law professors as well as former prosecutors and defense attorneys, have cited a list of problems with this entire process, from the filing of the charges all the way to the rendering of the verdict.
Let’s consider Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s role in this. During his successful campaign, he noted his past experience and desire to go after Trump and his sons to “hold them accountable.” And he has satisfied his supporters on this point.
On the Sean Hannity show on Fox News Channel, former Harvard law professor — and proud Democrat — Alan Dershowitz heavily criticized Bragg’s accusing Trump of falsifying business records to allegedly pay porn star Stormy Daniels hush money, saying that it’s the “weakest” case he has seen in his 60 years of being an attorney.
“There is nothing here,” Dershowitz told Hannity. “There is no misdemeanor, there is no felony, there is no federal crime. The feds refused to prosecute — even Bragg refused to prosecute until some of his young progressive woke prosecutors demanded that he prosecute.”
He criticized Bragg for “trying to elevate it to a felony by claiming that the only reason that he paid the nondisclosure funds was to prevent voters from learning about it. Obviously, he did it because he didn’t want to embarrass his family, he didn’t want to embarrass his wife. And the idea that you can prosecute somebody — they could have gone after Alexander Hamilton on this theory,” Dershowitz said.
Appearing on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria” Dershowitz told host Maria Bartiromo that Bragg ought to be investigated for bringing this case under the existing circumstances. “Nobody in history has ever been charged with failing to disclose in a corporate form the fact he paid hush money.” Dershowitz said. “The reason you pay hush money is to not disclose it. Alexander Hamilton paid hush money.”
More problems with the trial have been cited by Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School. Turley lists several things done during the trial by Judge Juan Merchan. Here are a few of them.
“For many of us, the Trump trial has seemed otherworldly, a vaguely familiar proceeding where common elements of a trial seem to have been flipped,” he wrote for The Hill.
“At the start of closing arguments, most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records,” Turley wrote, alluding to the fact that defense attorneys cannot adequately defend their client if the alleged crimes are not specifically named.
He noted that “the prosecution engaged in flagrant violations from offering testimony on unestablished facts to directly contradicting prior instructions,” with no interference from Merchan.
A guilty verdict needs a unanimous vote by all 12 jurors. But Turley wrote that Merchan told the jurors that “they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict.”
“Given the instructions and the errors in this trial, it would seem that an acquittal is almost beyond the realm of possibility,” Turley wrote before the verdict had been reached. “That leaves either a hung jury or a conviction. However, the framing of this case and failure to protect the rights of the defendant have undermined the perceived legitimacy of the proceedings and any possible verdict.”
There are several other salient points Turley, Dershowitz and others have made, and other factors highlighting the blunders in this trial, but there isn’t enough space in this column to cover them all.
Apparently, the left believes doing anything to prevent Trump from winning the election is okay.
No comments:
Post a Comment