Trump's Indictment Perniciously Weaponizes Justice

Weaponization of the justice system for progressive political purposes has become a common playbook for Democrats.

Biden’s Department of Justice targeted (and labeled) parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists.

The FBI sent dozens of heavily armed federal agents to arrest an anti-abortion dad at his home in front of his children even after the local authorities had decided not to prosecute him for his peaceful presence at an abortion clinic.

Then, DOJ moved forward with a malicious prosecution that rightfully ended in his acquittal.

Now this weaponization of the justice system has reached an unimaginable historical crescendo: a grand jury indictment of Donald Trump, a former president and a current candidate for president.

The indictment alleges a felony of falsifying business records related to the $130,000 that former Trump associate Michael Cohen paid to quiet Stormy Daniels from publicizing her alleged affair with Mr. Trump.

All the circumstances and the anemic legal theory suggest that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s pursuit of this indictment was maliciously motivated for political purposes.

For the sake of the integrity of the judicial system, the court should dismiss the indictment.

Prosecutors rightfully exercise discretion on whether to pursue cases and on the specified charges based on the circumstances and evidence.

Bragg himself, who asserts that his Trump prosecution is about enforcing the law, has downgraded over half of his felony cases to misdemeanors and declined to prosecute a substantial percentage of misdemeanors during his tenure.

His claim that he will not "normalize" crime as his justification for the Trump indictment reeks of hypocrisy given his own dismal record of not prosecuting violent crimes as felonies.

When a district attorney is considering whether to pursue a historic criminal prosecution of a former president of the United States and current candidate, prosecutorial discretion dictates that such a momentous decision should involve a serious crime, a clear well-established legal basis, and overwhelming evidence.

Otherwise, the case is nothing more than rank manipulation of the judicial system for partisan political purposes; and any trial will devolve into a polarizing, divisive political drama.

None of these prudential factors warrant prosecution of former President Trump.

The alleged crime under New York law is the purported falsification of a business record.

This is a mere misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of two years.

The business record allegations against Trump date back to 2017.

Accordingly, the time to bring the case has long since passed.

This misdemeanor can be converted to a felony only if Bragg can prove the business records were falsified to commit “another crime.”

In this case, Bragg’s apparent "theory" is that the other crime is a violation of election law. There are several material flaws with this proposition.

First, the indictment is defective on its face.

It fails to charge Trump with any violation of any election law or any other secondary crime necessary to convert the misdemeanor to a felony.

In fact, it does not even mention any specific election statute nor identify any other crime.

Second, the election law applies to campaign expenditures not personal expenditures.Trump’s defense will likely be that the Daniels payment was a personal expenditure not subject to campaign finance law.

Further, two years ago, the Federal Election Commission, having investigated these very same allegations, decided to close their investigation by a 4-1 vote, finding no violation of campaign finance law.

Likewise, the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York investigated the case.

It also decided not to bring charges.

Bragg’s decision to proceed anyway defies any rational explanation.

Finally, even if there was a legal basis for the allegations, the statute of limitations for this alleged felony is five years. Like the misdemeanor, the time for prosecution has passed.

Bragg’s case also suffers from dubious evidence.

Presumably, Bragg will be relying on Michael Cohen.

Mr. Cohen has a serious credibility problem as a witness given that he has already been convicted as a perjurer who lied in past legal proceedings.

In short, there is no allegation of a serious crime; no valid factual or legal basis alleged for converting the misdemeanor to a felony charge; no well-established substantive or even marginally credible legal basis supporting the indictment; and only highly dubious evidence.

The indictment is pathetically weak. Bragg should have followed the judgment of the FEC and the U.S. Attorney, and not pursued such a frivolous indictment.

The Trump indictment is an affront to our justice system.

Worse, it is an assault on our elections.

Democrats will go to any extreme to discredit Mr. Trump as a candidate for president.

In 2016, it was Hillary Clinton and the bogus Steele Dossier.

Today, it's Bragg with an insidious, unprecedented, unsupportable indictment.

The court should end this travesty of the judicial process and promptly dismiss the case.

Let’s instead leave the election to the voters to decide.

Michael Clancy is a lawyer, member of The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, and former congressional candidate. He provides incisive, analytical commentary on political and constitutional law issues; and is a frequent guest on political news programs. Mike is a graduate of The George Washington University Law School and Notre Dame. Twitter: @MikeClancyVA. Read More Mike Clancy — Here.