TRUMP Given VERDICT in What Experts Call “Salem Witch Trial”

Earlier this year, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged former President Donald Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records.

The charges all started when a $130,000 payment was made from Trump to former pornography actor Stormy Daniels to silence her about their alleged affair prior to the 2016 election. Trump has and continues to plead not guilty of the charges since 2016, despite being found guilty this past May. Trump says he plans to appeal the verdict.

With the final verdict, several critics have come out to criticize how Bragg built his case against Trump, saying that it deviated from standard legal practices. The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, even held a hearing against the prosecution, stating that Bragg was overcharging the misdemeanors as serious felonies.

Legal experts from the Heritage Foundation, including Charles “Cully” Stimson and Zack Smith, agree that the former President Trump’s case shows just how easily officials can weaponize the legal system to suit their own political agenda. They even go so far as to say that the charges wouldn’t have been pursued if it was another defendant. 

This was also discussed in a recent op-ed by Stimson and legal scholar John Yoo. In their article, Stimson and Yoo infer that this incident could lead other district attorney’s to overstep their boundaries and pursue legal action against other presidents. 

Stimson and Yoo point out that while Trump’s opponents may celebrate his conviction, there could be negative long-term consequences to political stability and the rule of law in the United States.