Student opinion: An unlikely conviction – The case against former President Trump

F\ormer President Donald Trump was indicted on April 4 by Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin Bragg, on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. This indictment serves as the first of many former presidents. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges at his arraignment hearing. 

The unveiling of these charges confirms what many had suspected from the beginning. This is not a legitimate criminal prosecution — this is political persecution. 

The first observation is that the case seems to have surpassed the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations of a charge of falsifying business records in the first degree is five years. The alleged crime happened in 2016, more than seven years ago. 

On this basis alone, a reasonable judge would dismiss this case following a motion to do so. There was an opportunity for these charges to be brought before the statute of limitations ran out and after Trump left office. However, former Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance refused to do so and reportedly advised against Bragg doing so as well. 

Why did Vance refuse to prosecute Trump? It was likely due to a lack of evidence that would make it hard to prove the former president’s guilt. The case hinges on the testimony of Michael Cohen, a former Trump lawyer, a testimony that has been previously and repeatedly proven as unreliable.  

Cohen claims that Trump signed off on a $130,000 hush money payment to adult actress Stormy Daniels. Multiple sources, including a 2018 letter signed by Cohen and the testimony of a former aide to Cohen, all point to this being untrue, and that Cohen got the money without Trump’s knowledge or approval. This is another factor that sinks the case’s credibility. 

Finally, Bragg claims that the falsifications of records were to help cover up a much larger, more sinister crime. What crime exactly? No one knows, because it is not mentioned in the indictment and Bragg refuses to expound upon it. 

The fact that the leading district attorney prosecuting a case hinging on a larger crime that he can’t even name would reasonably lead one to believe the larger crime doesn’t actually exist. Even if there was a larger crime tying all of this together, the evidence for it must be shaky at best for Bragg to be so secretive as to what it is. 

This further proves this case is not built upon a solid foundation. This case is not the honest attempt of a humble district attorney seeking to prove that no one is above the law. This case is the personal vendetta of a prosecutor whose main objective when running for district attorney was to “get Donald Trump,” the man Bragg sees as a threat to democracy, a concept held as sacred to the Left. 

This case exemplifies the setting aside of law and order for the purpose of fueling pride and playing politics, something that has become unfortunately all too common in the American criminal justice system. We need a change, and we need it fast. 

Hughes is an opinion writer for the Liberty Champion. Follow him on Twitter