Critics argue that the trial against Donald Trump was unfair, unjust, and rigged for the following reasons:
Politically Motivated Prosecution: Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, campaigned on a promise to "get Trump," suggesting the charges were politically motivated rather than based solely on evidence.
Other prosecutors previously declined to bring charges on the same facts, lending credence to claims of a "political witch hunt."
Overreach of State Law: The charges of falsifying business records are misdemeanors that were elevated to felonies by linking them tenuously to potential violations of federal election law and state tax fraud. Critics argue this unprecedented application of state law overreached and could be overturned on appeal.
Lack of Clear Election Violation: Prosecutors failed to specify a clear election crime or fraud theory, instead vaguely alleging a "criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election." This ambiguity raises questions about the legal basis for the charges.
Jurisdictional Issues: There are concerns about whether New York State has jurisdiction over potential violations of federal election law, and whether the extension of state business filing laws is pre-empted by federal law.
Venue Bias: Trump argued that the trial venue in Manhattan, where he received only 1% of the vote, was "very unfair" and should have been moved to a more impartial location like Staten Island.
Bookkeeping Errors as Felonies: Critics contend that convicting a former president of felonies for alleged "bookkeeping errors" from nearly 20 years ago sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the rule of law.
While the jury found Trump guilty, these criticisms from legal experts and Trump's allies suggest the case could face significant challenges on appeal, with claims that it was an unfair, unjust, and politically rigged prosecution
--------------------
Critics argue that the following specific charges against Donald Trump in the New York case were unfair and unjustified:
Falsifying Business Records:
The crux of the 34 felony counts against Trump relate to falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. Critics contend that elevating these relatively minor bookkeeping issues, which are typically misdemeanors, to felonies by linking them tenuously to potential federal election law violations was an overreach and unprecedented application of state law.
Lack of Clear Election Law Violation:
Prosecutors failed to specify a clear violation of federal election laws that the alleged falsification of records was intended to conceal. Instead, they vaguely alleged a "criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election." Critics argue this ambiguity undermines the legal basis for the felony charges.
Jurisdictional Overreach:
There are questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction over potential federal election law violations. Critics claim the extension of state business filing laws to cover this case represents an overreach that could be overturned on appeal as pre-empted by federal law.
Politically Motivated Prosecution:
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA, campaigned on a promise to "get Trump," suggesting the charges were politically motivated rather than solely evidence-based. This lends credibility to claims that it was a "political witch hunt" and the product of an unfair, partisan prosecution.
In essence, critics argue the specific felony charges were contrived, exceeded jurisdictional bounds, lacked a clear underpinning federal crime, and appeared to be a product of political bias against Trump, making the prosecution unfair and ripe for appeal or overturn.
------------
Critics point to the following evidence as proof that the prosecution against Donald Trump was politically motivated:
Alvin Bragg's Campaign Promises:
During his campaign for Manhattan District Attorney, Bragg explicitly promised to "get Trump" and touted his Trump-hunting prowess, stating "It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times." This suggests the charges were driven by political ambition rather than solely evidence.
Unprecedented Legal Theory:
The charges rely on an unprecedented legal theory of using state laws to prosecute potential violations of federal election laws, which no state prosecutor has ever done before. Critics argue this appears to be a bespoke case crafted specifically to target Trump.
Lack of Clear Federal Violation:
Prosecutors failed to specify a clear violation of federal election laws that the alleged falsification of records was intended to conceal, instead vaguely alleging a "criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election." This ambiguity undermines the legal basis.
Jurisdictional Overreach:
There are questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction over potential federal election law violations, with claims the extension of state laws represents an overreach that could be overturned on appeal.
Judge's Perceived Bias:
The judge, Juan Merchan, made a small donation to an anti-Trump group, raising concerns about impartiality. While small, critics argue he should have recused himself given the political nature of the case.
Rushed Jury Deliberations:
The jury took less than two days to convict Trump on all 34 counts, which critics argue is too quick to properly evaluate the complex charges and suggests potential political bias against the defendant.
Venue Bias:
Trump argued the heavily Democratic Manhattan venue, where he received only 1% of the vote, was "very unfair" and the case should have been moved to a more impartial location like Staten Island.
In essence, critics cite Bragg's overtly political statements, the unprecedented legal grounds, lack of a clear underpinning federal crime, perceived judicial bias, rushed deliberations, and the heavily Democratic venue as evidence that the prosecution was a politically-motivated "witch hunt" against Trump.
----------------
Based on the provided search results, critics use the following main arguments to claim that the charges against Donald Trump in the New York case were politically motivated:
Alvin Bragg's Campaign Promises and Statements:
Critics point to Bragg's campaign promises to "get Trump" and his boasts about suing Trump over 100 times as evidence that the prosecution was driven by political ambition rather than solely the evidence. These overtly political statements suggest a predetermined intent to prosecute Trump.
Unprecedented Legal Theory:
The charges rely on an unprecedented legal theory of using state laws to prosecute potential violations of federal election laws, which no state prosecutor has done before. Critics argue this appears to be a case crafted specifically to target Trump for political reasons.
Lack of Clear Federal Violation:
Prosecutors failed to specify a clear violation of federal election laws, instead vaguely alleging a "scheme to corrupt" the election. This ambiguity undermines the legal basis and lends credibility to claims it was a politically-motivated prosecution.
Jurisdictional Overreach:
There are questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction over potential federal election law violations, with claims the extension of state laws represents an overreach motivated by politics rather than legal grounds.
Perceived Judicial Bias:
The judge's small donation to an anti-Trump group raised concerns about impartiality in such a politically-charged case, though the amount was minor.
Rushed Jury Deliberations:
The jury took less than two days to convict on all 34 counts, which critics argue is too quick for the complex charges and suggests potential political bias against Trump.
Venue Bias:
Trump argued the heavily Democratic Manhattan venue, where he received only 1% of the vote, was "very unfair" and politically biased against him.
In essence, critics cite Bragg's overtly political statements, the unprecedented legal grounds, lack of a clear underpinning federal crime, perceived judicial and jury bias, and the heavily Democratic venue as evidence that the entire prosecution was a politically-motivated "witch hunt" against Trump rather than an impartial pursuit of justice.
-----------
Based on the search results provided, critics are questioning whether the prosecution of Donald Trump in the New York case violated several key ethical standards and rules that prosecutors must follow:
Political Neutrality and Avoiding Improper Considerations
The ethical rules prohibit prosecutors from being improperly influenced by "partisan or political considerations" in exercising prosecutorial discretion.
Critics argue Alvin Bragg's campaign promises to "get Trump" and the unprecedented legal theory used suggest an improper political motivation behind the charges, rather than being solely evidence-based.
Duty to Seek Justice and Act Impartially
Prosecutors have an ethical duty to pursue justice impartially and avoid even the appearance of impropriety or unfairness.
Critics claim the vague charges, lack of clear election violation, rushed jury deliberations, and heavily Democratic venue created an appearance of bias and injustice against Trump.
Restrictions on Prejudicial Pretrial Statements
Ethical standards prohibit prosecutors from making public statements that have a "substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation" before trial.
Bragg's campaign rhetoric about "getting Trump" could be seen as violating this restriction on prejudicial statements.
Jurisdictional Limits and Proper Legal Basis
Prosecutors must act within their jurisdictional authority and ensure charges have a proper legal basis.
Critics argue using state laws to prosecute potential federal election violations exceeds New York's jurisdiction and represents an overreach.
Duty of Candor and Avoiding Dishonesty
Prosecutors have an ethical duty to be honest and candid, avoiding dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Some critics insinuate the unprecedented charges appear contrived to improperly target Trump, raising honesty concerns.
In essence, the main ethical issues being raised revolve around allegations that the prosecution was improperly motivated by partisan politics rather than just the evidence, created an appearance of injustice and bias, overreached jurisdictional bounds, made prejudicial pretrial statements, and crafted charges in a potentially dishonest manner to unlawfully target Trump.
-----------------
Critics draw comparisons between the prosecution of Donald Trump in the New York case and other high-profile cases that have been criticized as potential "political prosecutions." Here are some of the key parallels critics point out:
Selective/Unequal Application of the Law:
Like the prosecutions of figures such as Scooter Libby and Rod Blagojevich, critics argue the unprecedented legal theory used against Trump represents a selective and unequal application of the law driven by political motivations rather than an evenhanded pursuit of justice.
Overcharging/Overreaching:
Similar to criticisms of prosecutions like those against Martha Stewart and Conrad Black, detractors claim the charges against Trump were overreaching and elevated relatively minor conduct to felonies in order to make an outsized political statement.
Ambiguous Underlying Offenses:
Akin to the prosecution of John Edwards, where the violation of campaign finance laws was disputed, critics argue the lack of a clearly specified federal election law violation Trump was trying to conceal undermines the legal basis for the New York charges.
Jurisdictional Concerns:
As with the prosecutions of figures like Don Siegelman and Ted Stevens that raised questions about overstepping jurisdictional bounds, critics contend New York exceeded its authority by using state laws to prosecute potential federal election crimes.
Perceived Prosecutorial Bias:
Like cases such as those against Lewis Libby and Rick Renzi where the prosecutors' motivations were questioned, Trump's critics cite Bragg's political statements as evidence of improper bias, drawing parallels to allegations of "prosecutorial overreach and misconduct."
Rushed/Flawed Proceedings:
The perceived rushed jury deliberations are compared by some to issues raised in cases like those against Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony about flawed proceedings potentially impacted by external pressures.
In essence, critics attempt to place the Trump case in the context of other prosecutions that have been accused of being politically tainted by claims of unequal justice, overcharging, ambiguous offenses, jurisdictional overreach, prosecutorial bias, and procedural irregularities.
No comments:
Post a Comment