Former President Donald Trump faces a trial in New York over hush money payments, but the case has been marred by questionable charges and a biased judge, leading to allegations of political persecution.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's pursuit of former President Donald Trump in a trial over hush money payments has descended into a spectacle of questionable charges and a biased judge, raising concerns about political persecution.
The trial, dubbed "Waiting for Godot" by some legal observers, has been marked by an absence of clear criminal offenses, with jurors left waiting in vain for charges that do not exist in the law. The DA's strategy has been to weave a narrative of wrongdoing around Trump's associations with figures like Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, despite a lack of evidence implicating him in any crimes.
Witness testimony has been particularly revealing of the flimsy nature of the prosecution's case. Gary Farro, Cohen's former banker, testified that his client created a shell company to pay Daniels $130,000, but shell companies are legal, and there is no evidence that Trump knew about it. Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker claimed that Cohen acted alone, without Trump's knowledge.
The inclusion of Karen McDougal in the trial has been deemed irrelevant and prejudicial, as Trump refused her demands for money and committed no crime in connection with her. However, prosecutors have exploited the McDougal-Daniels imbroglio to introduce salacious evidence designed to tarnish Trump's reputation.
Prosecutors have also attempted to introduce the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape, despite its lack of relevance to the charges. Such evidence is highly prejudicial, but Bragg has seized upon it as a means of creating a negative impression of the defendant.
The prosecution's strategy is clear: overwhelm the jury with sensational stories and create a false impression of Trump's character. In a fair trial with an impartial judge, such evidence would be excluded, but Juan Merchan, the presiding judge, has allowed it into the courtroom.
Merchan's bias has been evident in his unconstitutional gag order preventing Trump from commenting on witnesses. While Cohen and Daniels are free to spread misinformation about Trump publicly, the judge has silenced the defendant from defending himself. Merchan's vague and semi-literate orders are a prior restraint on free speech, further undermining the legitimacy of the trial.
Bragg's relentless pursuit of Trump, coupled with Merchan's questionable rulings, has created the appearance of a politically motivated prosecution. Bragg campaigned on the promise of targeting Trump, and Merchan, who presided over two other Trump cases, appears to be cooperating in the effort.
Even the judge's refusal to recuse himself despite a conflict of interest raises ethical concerns. His adult daughter's political consulting firm has profited from solicitation mailings citing the Trump trial, but Merchan has ignored ethical rules requiring his recusal.
The jurors in Trump's trial are tasked with determining his guilt or innocence. However, the fix appears to be in. A biased judge and a politically motivated prosecutor have stacked the deck against Trump, undermining the principles of justice and fairness. The Manhattan D.A.'s trial has become a theatre of the absurd, a disgrace to the American judicial system.
