For all the Democratic outcry over Donald Trump's perceived threat to democracy, their own legal maneuvers against him represent a formidable challenge in their own right.
Among the cases, some appear tenuous, such as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's effort to resurrect hush-money allegations against Trump that his predecessor and federal authorities deemed insufficient.
Dems’ lawfare war on Trump is its own threat to democracy https://t.co/TW7PbzAAi4 pic.twitter.com/wHFQxy3NvC
— NY Post Opinion (@NYPostOpinion) March 30, 2024
Bragg accuses Trump of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels to silence an alleged affair. The charges rely on a legal interpretation never previously applied to anyone, raising concerns about the statute of limitations given that the alleged incident occurred eight years ago, conveniently coinciding with Trump's 2024 presidential campaign.
The star witnesses for Bragg include convicted lawyer Michael Cohen and Daniels, a former adult film actress.
In a civil fraud case led by State Attorney General Letitia James, Trump's actions are portrayed as routine in his industry, with the judge acknowledging no harm to anyone. Trump faced a staggering $454 million penalty, payable even before he could appeal.
Trump's motions have already yielded successes in this case: he and his sons are no longer barred from leading their company, and the required appeal bond has been reduced to $175 million.
Similarly, election interference charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis face skepticism. While Trump's denials of election results and actions on January 6 are widely condemned, proving real crimes in a fair trial presents a significant challenge.
Bragg, James, and Willis, all elected Democrats, pursue prosecutions seemingly aimed at pleasing their party's base. Democratic-leaning judges and juries further raise questions about impartiality.
The case involving classified documents may appear the strongest, with evidence of Trump removing sensitive material to Mar-a-Lago.
Inconsistencies arise when comparing prosecutions to similar actions by figures like Hillary Clinton, who destroyed evidence.
These prosecutions, marked by double standards and political motivations, feed into the perception of Democrats weaponizing the judicial system against Trump. Such actions risk undermining the democratic process by impeding Trump's political ambitions.
These tactics, alongside past episodes like the Russiagate probe and efforts to suppress media reporting, may inadvertently bolster Trump's appeal to voters disillusioned with such tactics.
If Democrats hoped to capitalize on Trump's alleged threat to democracy, their own legal battles against him risk undermining their credibility on the issue.
