Op-ed by Elad Hakim | Photo: Alamy
During a recent interview with Megyn Kelly, attorney Alan Dershowitz referenced a famous quote by Justice Robert H. Jackson, where he said:
“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.”
Justice Jackson’s statement was a clear warning about the risks associated with weaponizing criminal laws and the criminal justice system to go after a specific person.
According to multiple reports, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is preparing to indict President Donald Trump for alleged hush money payments Trump made as a presidential candidate in 2016. The alleged case is weak and feeble, as reported by Gregg Jarrett.
Even The New York Times admitted 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.”
Various other legal experts shared the same sentiment.
The weakness of the case and the ludicrous decision to indict a president on such charges reeks of personal animus. Bragg’s predecessors who reviewed the evidence decided against bringing charges. The credibility of some of the prosecutor’s “star” witnesses is weak, at best. Bragg’s alleged legal theory is untested and highly unusual. Notwithstanding, Bragg is determined to indict Trump.
Forget about the fact that Hunter Biden has not been charged. Forget about the fact that people can intimidate Supreme Court Justices in front of their homes without consequence. Forget about the fact that various prosecutors around the country refuse to prosecute certain crimes and let criminals walk free.
When discussing Bragg, Jarrett noted:
In his progressive manifesto issued the moment he assumed office, he announced his refusal to prosecute certain crimes. For example, he told his staff lawyers to treat armed robbery as a misdemeanor. Retail thefts should be ignored. He refused to bring felony charges in several violent attacks. The requirement of bail was tossed out the window. Prison sentences were discouraged. He handed criminals a roadmap to freedom.
None of this seems to matter. Rather, the only thing that matters is getting Trump at all costs. All that matters is picking a target (Trump in this case) and to find some crime to pin on them. This has been the goal since the day Trump first announced his candidacy years ago.
Trump reiterated this on Truth Social this morning where he ripped the Manhattan DA’s office for having “no crime being able to be proven,” he said.
All Americans should be incredibly concerned with this approach. If it can happen to a president, no American is immune. This is exactly why Justice Jackson’s words are so powerful. The laws are not there for prosecutors to satisfy some personal vendetta. They are not meant to be weaponized. Finally, they are not there to further some personal or other political agenda.
Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, should strongly condemn any efforts to use the laws for this purpose. If it is Trump this time, it could easily be any other American the next time around.
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.
10 comments