Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett argues that former President Trump faces a double standard of justice, with prosecutors using vague statutes and biased judges to target him politically.
Gregg Jarrett, a Fox News legal analyst, has decried the "double standard of justice" faced by former President Donald Trump in various criminal trials. According to Jarrett, prosecutors are exploiting vague statutes and collaborating with biased judges to pursue politically motivated cases against Trump.
Jarrett's analysis stems from the ongoing trial in New York, where Trump is accused of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Jarrett contends that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has exhumed expired statutes that do not apply to the conduct charged.
Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, has also been criticized by Jarrett for his anti-Trump bias. Merchan has imposed an unconstitutional gag order on Trump, among other questionable rulings.
Jarrett further argues that prosecutors are attempting to link Trump to the sleazy dealings of the National Enquirer, but that this strategy does not establish any criminal offense. He argues that candidates have always promoted positive stories and concealed negative ones, which is not illegal.
Moreover, Jarrett maintains that purchasing the rights to someone's salacious story with no intent to publish it is also lawful, as there is no victim and mutual assent by both parties. He cites the example of Stormy Daniels receiving $130,000 for her silence, which did not constitute a crime.
Jarrett also criticizes Bragg for misconstruing the "unlawful means" statute, which is a misdemeanor with an expired statute of limitations. He explains that Bragg has attached a dead misdemeanor to another dead misdemeanor, creating a state law that has no application to a federal election.
Assistant D.A. Matthew Colangelo's argument that Trump violated federal campaign laws is also rejected by Jarrett, who points out that only the federal government has jurisdiction over federal elections. Both the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department concluded that Trump's payments to Daniels did not qualify as campaign expenditures.
Jarrett draws parallels between Bragg's tactics and the antics of Bullwinkle J. Moose, who attempted to pull a rabbit out of his hat but instead revealed a roaring lion. He warns that Manhattan jurors may be predisposed to see a white bunny instead of the lion that actually appears in Trump's case.
In conclusion, Jarrett believes that Trump is facing a double standard of justice, where prosecutors and judges are willing to bend the law and ignore constitutional protections to pursue him politically. He warns that this sets a dangerous precedent for the rule of law and undermines the integrity of the justice system.
