Donald Trump has faced a relentless onslaught of what can only be described as “selective and vindictive prosecution” throughout the 2024 campaign season. One glaring example of this egregious targeting, as Judge Aileen Cannon pointed out, is the classified documents case.
In a recent development, Judge Cannon highlighted the glaring inconsistencies surrounding the charges brought against former President Donald Trump under the Espionage Act and other U.S. statutes for mishandling classified documents. This, she noted, commenced on the day Trump voluntarily relinquished his presidential duties on January 20, 2021, while figures like former Vice Presidents Joe Biden and Michael Pence, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, remain unscathed, despite lacking the legal safeguard of the Presidential Records Act.
But the saga of selective prosecution doesn’t end there. In late February, Judge Arthur Engoron imposed a staggering civil penalty of $354 million against Donald Trump without the benefit of a trial by his peers. Additionally, Judge Engoron imposed various restrictions on Trump’s business operations in New York State.
The fundamental flaws in this ruling are manifold, but they essentially boil down to this: Firstly, there were no tangible victims of Trump’s purportedly inflated asset valuations in negotiations with willing lenders. Secondly, the lending practices employed by Donald Trump in his contracts are commonly utilized among prominent real estate developers.
Then there’s the E. Jean Carroll civil case against Donald Trump, where despite a jury declining to find Trump guilty of rape, the plaintiff was awarded a staggering $83 million for libel. Carroll’s case was fraught with inconsistencies and lacked substantial evidence to support her claims, including basic details such as the attire she purportedly wore at the time.
Even more alarmingly, the State of New York went so far as to modify laws to facilitate E. Jean Carroll’s civil rape case. This level of “selective and vindictive” exploitation of the legal system is beyond reproach.
Following Judge Engoron’s ruling, she astonishingly expressed her admiration for MSNBC host Rachel Maddow during a segment on her show, expressing a desire to accompany Maddow on a shopping trip.
Then there’s the Fulton County Georgia “racketeering” case against Donald Trump. There’s scant evidence to suggest that Trump actively encouraged anyone in Georgia to breach the law, a prerequisite for charging co-defendants in a criminal racketeering conspiracy.
The Washington Post’s initial reporting on Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find the votes” misrepresented the actual transcript of the call, which was illegally recorded and released without Trump’s consent.
In a recent development, Judge Scott McAfee declined to remove Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis from the case, despite numerous documented ethical breaches. Instead, he ruled that Willis should terminate her romantic involvement with special prosecutor Nathan Wade and appoint a replacement. Interestingly, prior to this ruling, McAfee excised six counts against Trump and his associates for “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer.”
“It’s unlikely that Fulton County’s acceptance of the decision will have much impact,” remarked Atlanta-based attorney Andrew Fleischman. “The RICO count already covers much of the same conduct, and it won’t significantly affect the punishment. Plus, proving that Donald Trump intended to induce elected officials to violate the constitution was already a tall order.”
It’s worth noting that Judge McAfee previously served as senior assistant district attorney in Fulton County alongside Fani Willis and even contributed to her campaign.
Earlier, Fani Willis had filed charges against so-called “fake electors” in Georgia, despite possessing exonerating evidence that their actions were entirely legal per the United States Constitution.
In her indictment issued on August 14, Willis alleged that Republican electors for Trump were part of an illicit “conspiracy” to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. However, documents obtained during Willis’s investigation contradicted her claims.
A transcript of the December 14, 2020, meeting of Georgia Republican electors revealed that their intent was not to impersonate public officials, as Willis alleged, but to legally challenge the state’s election results. During the meeting, Shafer explicitly stated that they were acting as “Republican nominees for Presidential Elector,” not as “duly elected and qualified” electors.
Moreover, it’s pertinent to note that the Democratic Party has initiated numerous election challenges since the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, yet no Democrat has ever faced charges of criminal conspiracy to “overturn” election results.
Similarly, in the ongoing 2020 election case in Washington D.C., Judge Tanya Chutkan has demonstrated clear bias against Donald Trump, implicating him in alleged crimes without due process, seeking to strip him of presidential immunity, and imposing “gag orders” against him despite his candidacy. Additionally, she has obstructed transparency in the case by denying Trump’s legal team access to essential records and scheduling hearings at politically opportune times.
"*" indicates required fields
