The Trump Indictment Is Worse Than We Previously Thought


We are now entering a new period in our country’s history with the arrest of Donald Trump. We’ve believed that corruption was only found in third-world countries, but it has now made its way to the Land of the Free. Alvin Bragg’s precedent has given prosecutors the power to inflict fabricated charges on political opponents. Even worse, half of the country supports it, as they are more concerned with Trump’s punishment than the rule or blind justice.

Although we knew that the case against Trump was weak, Andrew McCarthy, a Senior Fellow at National Review Institute and an ex-assistant U.S. Attorney, says it is worse than what experts had predicted. He said that Trump’s case should be dismissed immediately.

He said that if the judge does his work right here, the case should not be dismissed. Although I agree with my friends, I believe this is worse than we expected. We thought they were trying to bootstrap a misdemeanor, but they would have difficulty proving it was a misdemeanor. But they must prove that he committed another crime by allegedly falsifying business records.

McCarthy is right if you have read the indictment.

McCarthy said, “And what we have thought up to now is that… He was going to use it as an avenue for enforcing federal campaign finance laws.” McCarthy said, “Maybe that’s what it is, but he has to tell us what his plans are, and, more importantly, what he intends to tell Donald Trump. This indictment, even before you get to federal law enforcement jurisdiction and the statute of limitations, I would reject. It fails to state a crime. It fails to state a criminal offense 34 times!

Furthermore, an indictment is required to accomplish two things in the criminal justice system. It must inform a defendant of what he is being charged with. This is by stating the specific crimes. Then it gives him the second part of his vehicle. If he is ever charged with those again, he can use that first indictment to plead double Jeopardy.

He continued, “So to make that work you must tell the defendant what you are accusing him of.” “And if you want to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was concealing another crime, then you must tell him what that other crime is.”

McCarthy concluded, “This indictment fails that.” This is the core of the case. If he was concealing another crime, it’s not a crime. And if they don’t know what the crime was, how can that alert him and help him prepare his defense?