Throughout the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump has been the subject of “selective and vindictive prosecution.” Naturally, the case involving the classified materials is the most well-known example of this “arbitrary prosecution,” as Judge Aileen Cannon described it.
Judge Cannon discussed the numerous concerns regarding the charges brought against former President Donald Trump on Thursday. These charges stem from his willful and voluntary resignation on January 20, 2021, and his prosecution for violating the Espionage Act and other US statutes against mishandling classified documents. In contrast, former Vice President Joe Biden, former Vice President Michael Pence, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are not facing charges because they are not covered by the Presidential Records Act.
However, there are other instances of this kind of selective prosecution, which is incompatible with fairness and legal equality. Judge Arthur Engoron fined Donald Trump $354 million in civil court at the end of February; the case was decided without the involvement of a jury of his peers. Judge Engoron also imposed a number of limitations on Trump’s ability to conduct business in the State of New York.
The main problems with this decision are numerous, but they basically amount to this: First off, there were no real victims of Donald Trump’s purportedly exaggerated appraisal of the assets he claimed in talks with cooperative lenders; second, the methods he employed in his loan agreements are nearly always employed by well-known real estate developers.
In the legal lawsuit involving E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump, the plaintiff was granted a $83 million award for liability, even though the jury did not find Trump guilty of rape. Carroll’s account of events closely resembled a plot from a Law & Order television series, she misrepresented important elements like the clothing she reportedly wore at the time (which was not yet on the market), and she was unable to recall fundamental facts to support her case.
In an odd move, the State of New York even amended the legislation to allow for the civil rape case of E. Jean Carroll. This is the epitome of a “selective and vindictive” legal abuse.
She shamelessly gushed on Maddow’s show that she wanted to take the MSNBC host shopping following Judge Engoron’s decision.
Then there is the “racketeering” case against Donald Trump in Fulton County, Georgia. The legal foundation for accusing co-defendants of engaging in a criminal racketeering conspiracy is lacking—that is, there is no convincing evidence that Donald Trump intended for anyone in Georgia to break the law.
The genuine transcript of Donald Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find the votes” was improperly taped and made public without Trump’s knowledge because Georgia is a two-party consent state. This was not disclosed in the Washington Post’s original story on the call.
Despite multiple recorded ethical transgressions, Judge Scott McAfee of Fulton County decided on Friday to keep Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis on the case and instead have her fire and replace her lover, special prosecutor Nathan Wade. He had already dismissed six allegations of “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer” against Trump and his associates.“If Fulton County simply accepts the decision and moves forward, it should have very little impact,” Atlanta-based attorney Andrew Fleischman said. “Much of the same conduct is covered in the RICO count already, it doesn’t have a meaningful impact on punishment, and frankly, it was already really hard to prove that Donald Trump intended to cause elected officials to violate the constitution.”
It should be mentioned that Judge McAffee collaborated with Fulton County senior assistant district attorney Fani Willis and even contributed to her campaign financially.
Fani Willis had previously brought legal action in Georgia against alleged “fake electors,” even though she had proof to clear their names and show their goals were perfectly legal and compliant with the US Constitution.
Willis asserted in her August 14 indictment that the Republican Trump electors were part of an illegal “conspiracy” to rig Georgia’s 2020 election results.
Shafer and the other alternate electors “unlawfully falsely held themselves out” as Georgia’s “duly elected and qualified” presidential electors, according to Willis’s precise argument. She went on to say that these electors purposefully tried to “mislead” officials including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger and then-Vice President Mike Pence “into believing that they actually were such officers,” with Smith’s help.
Nevertheless, a transcript of a meeting that refuted Willis’s claims was discovered among the records she obtained over her extensive inquiry into Republicans.
The Federalist obtained a transcript of the Georgia Republican electors’ meeting on December 14, 2020, which unequivocally shows that the purpose of designating alternate electors was, contrary to Willis’s assertion, to legally uphold Trump’s challenge to the state’s election results. Shafer made it clear early in the conference that he and the other Republicans were not serving as “duly elected and qualified” presidential electors, but rather as “Republican nominees for Presidential Elector.”
“[President Trump] has filed a contest to the certified returns. That contest — is pending [and has] not been decided or even heard by any judge with the authority to hear it,” Shafer said. “And so in order to preserve his rights, it’s important that the Republican nominees for Presidential Elector meet here today and cast their votes.”
It should be mentioned that since the 2000 presidential contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the Democratic Party has launched multiple election challenges. There has never been a single accusation against a Democrat for engaging in a criminal conspiracy to “overturn” election results.
This also applies to the 2020 election lawsuit that partisan Judge Tanya Chutkan is trying in Washington, D.C. Judge Chutkan has blocked transparency in the case by denying Trump’s legal team access to records required for his defense, implicated him in crimes without following due process, attempted to revoke his presidential immunity, approved “gag orders” against him despite his candidacy, and scheduled hearings for politically inconvenient times (before other legal proceedings upended these plans).
This statement by Judge Chutkan in her landmark ruling denying Trump exec privilege protections from House Democrats J6 committee alone should be disqualifying.
There is no way she can objectively oversee Jack Smith's J6 case against Trump. pic.twitter.com/VDIbIQnyJ5
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 6, 2023
Then there is the “hush money” case in New York. Regarding the situation involving adult film actress Stephanie A. Gregory Clifford (also known as Stormy Daniels), federal prosecutors declined for years to prosecute Donald Trump.
But Alvin Bragg took an immediate interest in the case, especially after the Biden administration sent Matthew Coangelo, an attorney in the Justice Department, to “advise” the Southern District of New York’s legal team. It would be reasonable to conclude that there has been blatant political collaboration in the prosecution of a rival Biden campaign member with the intention of influencing the election.
The well-known Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz stated on Friday that there ought to be an inquiry of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s actions in filing this “made-up case” against former President Donald Trump.In a court document filed on Thursday, Bragg said he would be willing to postpone Trump’s trial by thirty days on allegations arising from an indictment obtained in March 2023 over a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016. In a “Mornings with Maria” interview, Dershowitz described Bragg’s argument as “the weakest possible.”
“That’s a made-up case. He should be investigated for bringing that case,” Dershowitz told host Maria Bartiromo. “Nobody in history has ever been charged with failing to disclose in a corporate form the fact he paid hush money. The reason you pay hush money is not to disclose it. Alexander Hamilton paid hush money.”
“Hush money” payments aren’t illegal. Even CNN knows this basic fact about Alvin Bragg’s New York case. Bragg is alleging Trump falsified records to cover up a “crime” — but still doesn’t know what crime that is.
“This is the first case in history anybody has ever been tried on this kind of made-up case, so it’s the weakest case of all, and now he is prepared to have a delay, but that case may get tried first, and it’s New York so there will be a conviction in Manhattan, you know, a jury in Manhattan will convict a ham sandwich if its name is Trump,” Dershowitz continued. “So I think there will be a conviction and, very likely, a reversal on appeal, but the reversal on appeal may not come until after the election.”
Several of the “selective and vindictive” prosecutions against Donald Trump might be like this. It may take till after the election to reverse the court decisions made by partisan judges at the request of politically driven prosecutors.
If so, the damage will have already been done, making the objective “achieved.”
