Jun 17, 2024 By Dave Ball 5 min read

In first-world countries, the legal process stands as the final bulwark between civilization and totalitarianism. A nation’s constitution and laws, enforced by its executive branch, assures the rights of its citizens. When respect for the constitution, obedience to the laws and fair application by the legal system breaks down, a nation descends into the abyss.

As of last May 31, that appears to be the direction in which the United States of America is headed.

The charges and the verdict in the case against President Trump speak not to justice but, rather, to politics. It was a hit job.

The headlines loudly proclaimed “Trump guilty of 34 felony charges.” Even a cursory examination of the facts will show how far from the truth that is.

Who committed what crimes? Of the 34 charges levied, former Trump fixer Michael Cohen submitted every invoice in question, not Trump. He had no control over those. That took up 11 of the charges. Trump’s bookkeeper, and not Trump himself, made every ledger entry. That was the basis of 12 of the charges. So 23 of the 34 charges did not involve Trump and were not controlled by him. The remaining 11 charges only involved his signature on a check that was presented to him.

Because the 34 charged offenses are all misdemeanors under New York state statutes, and because they all were charged in 2017, the statute of limitations, normally two years, had run out on them. In order to extend the statute of limitations to a point they could be prosecuted in conjunction with the current election, they had to somehow be transformed into felonies. That magic carpet was to imagine that Trump had committed election interference by intentionally trying to keep the public from knowing in the 2016 election cycle about his alleged, and denied, sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels. This effort involved the highly contradictory testimony of Cohen, a proven liar, who tells the story of when payments were or were not made, why they were made and who knew about them several different ways at different times. Even his testimony under oath in court contradicted previous stories.

This presents a very major constitutional problem with this prosecution mostly involving the Sixth Amendment, as no crime is ever defined.

It was widely noted from the beginning of the trial that the indictment did not specify which crime the bookkeeping issues concealed. This is critical because it is this “crime” upon which the validity of the upgrading of the other charges from misdemeanor to felony depended. Trump’s legal team repeatedly asked for this information and was repeatedly denied by Judge Juan Merchan. That is absurd. Even more absurd is that in the Judge’s jury instructions, he gave them a list of several possible crimes and said that if they, members of the jury, thought Trump was guilty of any one of them, they could find him guilty. This despite no evidence having been allowed at trial. How could anything have been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

Then the final and most compelling reason that this whole trial was a sham is that the state law under which it was conducted had been superseded by the Supreme Court two months before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that presidential elections are federal elections and state courts have no jurisdiction over them. The Manhattan court had no right or jurisdiction to hear this case.

It should be noted that, even though the trial has been shown to be constitutionally defective and reversible, it is probably also reversible based on actions and decisions of Merchan during the trial. Many of his evidentiary decisions defied normal trial practice. For example, federal election law was a major point of discussion and Merchan refused to allow Brad Smith, a nationally regarded expert in the field, to testify the way he wanted. He limited the scope of testimony by Robert Costello, a lawyer and defense witness, who had potentially damaging information to the prosecution’s case. Time and again, Merchan made rulings that limited or damaged the defense’s case. The gag order against Trump was another example of bias, as was requiring Trump to sit in the courtroom day after day in the middle of an election campaign.

Then, of course, there are the outrageous conflicts of interest of Merchan and Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney. Merchan donated money to pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operations in clear violation of New York state judicial rules. The funds were clearly advertised as “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right wing legacy.” Bragg ran for his office on a platform proclaiming his “Trump-hunting” capability. The judge’s daughter is president of a Democratic fundraising group and is fundraising off the trial, raising millions of dollars for Democratic candidates.

There seems little doubt that this decision will be reversed on appeal. The question is when. The irony is that the focus of the trial is election interference while the trial and verdict itself amounts to massive election interference.

This decision must reach the U.S. Supreme Court as quickly as possible and be reversed with finality. There is nothing legal or constitutional about it. It is a blatant attempt by the Democratic Party that is out of ideas, at the bottom of the ocean in the polls and desperate for its own survival to take out its adversary by any means possible other than at the ballot box in a fair election.

We must not allow a corrupt New York City prosecution to possibly determine the outcome of a presidential election.

Dave Ball is the former chairman of the Washington County Republican Party.