Long before Donald Trump’s hush-money trial concluded, I predicted that his conviction was a foregone conclusion — despite the obvious weakness of the case against him.
If the prosecution had been brought in another part of the country, or even in another part of New York State, that was more fairly balanced between anti- and pro-Trump voters, I have no doubt that the outcome would be different would have been.
But instead, Trump on Thursday became the first former president to be found guilty of a crime — convicted on all 34 flimsy charges of “falsifying corporate records.”
Why? Because this case was tried in Manhattan, where virtually every man on the street wants to keep one Donald Trump out of the White House.
Perhaps the most important function of an independent jury in criminal cases is to monitor the biases of prosecutors and judges.
But for these constitutional protections to work, jurors must not themselves be biased against a defendant.
It is quite clear that this essential protection was absent.
Long before Donald Trump’s hush-money trial concluded, I predicted that his conviction was a foregone conclusion — despite the obvious weakness of the case against him.
If the prosecution had been brought in another part of the country, or even in another part of New York State, that was more fairly balanced between anti- and pro-Trump voters, I have no doubt that the outcome would be different would have been.
This case also did not appear to be based on the evidence or the law. In fact, I saw no credible evidence of a crime.
The case brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg – voted “Get Trump” – was so woefully weak on facts and law that it makes convicting Trump even more dangerous.
It now means that future prosecutors can build extremely weak cases against political opponents and be assured of a conviction – provided they choose the right venue and select the right jurors.
This process had no precedent.
Never in American history has anyone been prosecuted for — as Trump’s defense argued — improper accounting by a company subordinate who failed to disclose the payment of “hush money.”
What there is a precedent for is the payment of hush money.
Since the 1790s, when Alexander paid Hamilton to keep his adulterous affair secret, many such payments have been made by politicians across the spectrum.
The case brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg – voted “Get Trump” – was so woefully weak on facts and law that it makes convicting Trump even more dangerous.
And of course, none of these things would have been disclosed on company forms – which would undermine the point of keeping anything secret – and no one has ever been prosecuted for failing to make such a disclosure.
The infamous conversation between Stalin and the head of his KGB, Lavrenty Beria, is often quoted: “Show me the man, and I will find the crime for you.”
This prosecution was even worse because District Attorney Bragg desperately tried to find a crime to accuse Trump of, but failed to find one, just like his predecessor Cyrus Vance.
So Bragg went a dangerous step further than Stalin ever did: he invented a crime.
He found a crime that had exceeded the statute of limitations – making a false accounting entry on a company form – and magically turned it into a crime that fell within the statute of limitations by claiming that the false entry was intended to cover another crime to cover up.
During the trial, many people concluded that this crime was an alleged attempt at election interference. But Bragg never said that explicitly.
In his closing instructions, Judge Juan Merchan laid bare his already obvious bias once again, telling jurors that they didn’t actually have to agree on the details of Trump’s illegal conduct.
The infamous conversation between Stalin and the head of his KGB, Lavrenty Beria, is often quoted: “Show me the man, and I will find the crime for you.”
In fact, the prosecution didn’t tell the court what Trump’s other “crimes” were until their closing arguments on Wednesday — at which point the defense had no further opportunity to respond.
And even then, the alleged crimes outlined were vague.
In his closing instructions, Judge Juan Merchan laid bare his already obvious bias once again, telling jurors that they didn’t actually have to agree on the details of Trump’s illegal conduct.
How can anyone defend themselves against such vague accusations?
It was then that I became convinced that the jury would find him guilty.
And that conviction could mark the beginning of a new era of partisan weaponization of our justice system.
DA Bragg has shown how easy it now is to get a conviction against a political opponent. Other ambitious prosecutors are likely to follow suit. And the ultimate losers will be the American public.