The indictment and trial on a thin charge, the gagging of a presidential candidate in the middle of a campaign, and the judge’s consistently biased rulings amount to deliberate judicial interference in the 2024 election.
The process was led by a Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who ran on the campaign platform of going after Donald Trump. Not going after a crime. Going after a person. That fundamentally contradicts the basic principles of Anglo-American law and justice.
No one else in New York City would have been indicted, as Donald Trump was, on what amounted to two expired misdemeanours, turned into a felony. One alleged felonious act became 34 counts. The prosecution said Trump was really guilty of election interference. The idea was that the catch-and-kill payments about the Stormy Daniels story, made to the National Enquirer and handled by Michael Cohen, changed the outcome of the 2016 election.
There are some glaring problems with that approach.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in