Op-ed by Elad Hakim | Photo: Alamy
The Manhattan grand jury considering whether to recommend charges against President Donald Trump, for allegations that Trump paid hush money payments as a presidential candidate in 2016, will not hear evidence in the case for a least one month, according to Politico.
The break is apparently due, in large part, to a “previously scheduled hiatus.”
Trump has consistently called the case unfounded and has denied any wrongdoing. Many legal experts, including Gregg Jarrett, and Alan Dershowitz called the case weak, questionable, and feeble.
Even The New York Times acknowledged the weakness of the possible case:
“Even if Mr. Trump is indicted, convicting him or sending him to prison will be challenging. The case against [him] hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony.”
According to various reports, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was even having trouble convincing the grand jury on potential charges.
As previously reported by Fox News:
“Two sources familiar told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that the grand jury was canceled amid ‘major dissension’ within the district attorney’s office. One source claimed the district attorney is having trouble convincing the grand jury on potential charges due to the ‘weakness’ of the case.”
The weakness of the case and the possible decision to indict a president on such charges reeks of personal animus and is yet another example of how some Democrats have politicized and weaponized the justice system. As a matter of fact, Bragg’s predecessors who reviewed the evidence decided against bringing charges.
Despite the apparent holes in this case, Bragg has not provided any timeline as to when a final decision will be made in this matter. Rather, he continues to hold a possible indictment over Trump’s head in a case that has been thoroughly vetted and disregarded by his predecessors and many legal experts.
Trump recently praised the grand jury in this matter on Truth Social, where he noted:
“I HAVE GAINED SUCH RESPECT FOR THIS GRAND JURY, & PERHAPS EVEN THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. THE EVIDENCE IS SO OVERWHELMING IN MY FAVOR, & SO RIDICULOUSLY BAD FOR THE HIGHLY PARTISAN & HATEFUL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THAT THE GRAND JURY IS SAYING, HOLD ON, WE ARE NOT A RUBBER STAMP, WHICH MOST GRAND JURIES ARE BRANDED AS BEING, WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE AGAINST A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE OR AGAINST LARGE NUMBERS OF LEGAL SCHOLARS ALL SAYING THERE IS NO CASE HERE. DROP THIS SICK WITCH HUNT, NOW!”
Mr. Hakim is an attorney and columnist. His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, American Thinker, and other online publications. He is also a regular guest on OANN’s Tipping Point, and has appeared on Newsmax, The Jenna Ellis Show, Steadfast and Loyal Podcast with Allen West, The Dave Weinbaum Show, and Real America’s Voice. The views expressed herein are the author’s own and do not constitute legal advice.
