Is There a Real Crime?
As the prosecution wraps up in Donald Trump’s Manhattan case, many are left wondering if there was ever a real crime to begin with. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s attempt to convert misdemeanor counts into felony charges lacks one crucial element: evidence of falsified records. Without proof, it becomes difficult to understand what crime Trump is being accused of covering up. The prosecution’s focus on Trump’s nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels, often referred to as “hush money,” is another questionable move. This case relies on enforcing federal election laws that Bragg does not have the authority to prosecute. It seems that the prosecution is grasping at straws, relying heavily on the testimony of Michael Cohen, a convicted felon and former Trump staffer.
The Unreliable Witness
Michael Cohen’s credibility has been called into question, even by his own former attorney, Robert Costello. Costello testified that Cohen has lied under oath in the Bragg trial, a claim supported by his testimony during Trump’s grand jury proceedings. With such a unreliable witness at the center of their case, it becomes increasingly clear that this trial is more of a political witch hunt than a genuine pursuit of justice.
A Dangerous Precedent
If the judge doesn’t dismiss the case once the prosecution rests, there is a genuine concern about the implications for future cases. Bragg’s pursuit of Trump seems motivated by political bias rather than a commitment to upholding the law. If he succeeds in convicting Trump without substantial evidence, it sets a dangerous precedent for anyone whose politics Bragg disagrees with. This trial may have larger consequences beyond the immediate outcome.
In conclusion, the lack of evidence and reliance on an unreliable witness call into question the legitimacy of the prosecution’s case against Donald Trump. The focus on non-existent crimes and politically motivated pursuits raises concerns about the fairness and integrity of the justice system. As the trial comes to a close, it is crucial for the judge and jury to carefully consider the evidence presented and the potential consequences of a conviction based on flimsy grounds.
