Ever since the Trump verdict was announced, I’ve been doing radio and TV interviews, and we were requested to submit an Op-ed to The Telegraph (UK) on the verdict. So I haven’t had a chance to comment here.
If I can find audio of my interviews I’ll post it at the bottom as an update.
Here is The Telegraph Op-Ed Kemberlee and I submitted, which within the 650 word limit expresses our view, Love or hate Trump, this rotten trial is an assault on justice [archive]:
Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in a trial in Manhattan on May 30. Democrats are singing with joy, but it was a truly sad day for America.This was a prosecution that never would have been brought had the defendant not been Donald Trump, and had Trump not run for reelection in 2024. Rather than prosecuting an obvious crime, prosecutors set out to prosecute a political opponent. And to do so, they invented a criminal theory to pursue.For many years this case, involving alleged bookkeeping issues in recording payments to ‘Stormy Daniels’ to buy her silence, had lingered unprosecuted for so long that the charges, low-level misdemeanors, no longer could be brought because time had expired.But then along came Alvin Bragg, a Left-wing prosecutor who ran for office on the promise that he would do what prior prosecutors had failed to do, to get Donald Trump. The case was politically motivated from the start. To get Trump at all costs to try to stop his presidential campaign.Yet to get the case to court, Bragg had to turn the charges into felonies, with longer time limits. So he invented a novel and untested legal theory, maligned even by liberal legal commentators, that the bookkeeping issues were to illegally influence an election – his own 2016 winning election.There is nothing illegal about paying money to buy silence. It happens every day in court cases and business deals, where money is paid for non-disclosure agreements. And there is nothing illegal about politicians hiding their dirty laundry, happens every campaign. The bookkeeping issue was the hook to turn lawful political activity into a crime.This case born in politics then turned into a circus. The trial judge, whose family had strong political ties to Democrats, issued ruling after ruling hamstringing Trump’s defense. The prosecution was allowed to play hide and seek with its legal theory of criminality, so much so that Trump never really knew what he was defending until the very end.Then the judge issued jury instructions that seemed to fly in the face of our jurisprudence, by allowing the jury convict on felony charges without unanimous agreement as to what were the specific illegal acts to influence the election.If you insist on charging a former president and clear front-runner in a presidential election, then you better be sure those charges are clear, concise, and legitimate. This was certainly not the case here. The jury was drawn from one of the most heavily Democrat jurisdictions in the country. So the likelihood of Trump prevailing always was slim.A politically motivated prosecution by Democrat prosecutors presided over by a politically connected Democrat judge in a politically Democrat jurisdiction against the likely Republican presidential nominee in an election year. It smells rotten because it was rotten. The whole thing stinks.Whether you love or hate Trump, this conviction should appall you. This is not about Donald Trump. It’s about the weaponisation of the criminal justice system against a political opponent. It’s the type of prosecutorial and judicial conduct we expect in Putin’s Russia. Prior to this case, America was deeply divided. Now it’s tearing at the seams.Lawfare very easily can become warfare when people lose trust in the institutions that are supposed to protect against political persecution. There were so many errors in the trial proceedings that the likelihood of the case being overturned on appeal is high, but that will come after the November election. The damage to the legitimacy of our system has been done regardless of how the appeal turns out.This is not what America’s founders envisioned, it’s not what the framers of our constitution intended, and it’s anathema to everything that made America great. Faith in our systems has been broken for at least half the country. Things are about to go from bad to worse.
For those of you interested, you can read the full Jury Insructions. This is the part that has generated a lot of controversy, and to which we referred in the Op-ed:
Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws. [at p. 31]
(added) This multiple choice non-unanimous option is not inconsequential, as some have claimed. It’s not as if the jury found a defendant shot someone, but disagreed on how many shots were fired. Here, whether and what unlawful means were used to interfere with an election is an essential element of whether this was a felony (which is the only way the case could be brought). To have a non-unanimous verdict on this essential element of the felony should be reversible error.
More to follow, for sure.
I appeared last night, looking a little haggard, on The First TV with Mike Slater discussing not only the conviction, but my view that the judge will give Trump at least a symbolic jail sentence, even though for an almost 80 year old non-violent first offender that would not be the norm.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY