Why the Trump Indictment Is Worse Than We Thought

With the arrest of Donald Trump, we’ve entered into a new era of country’s history. The kind of corruption we’ve long believed was limited to third-world countries has made it to the Land of the Free. Thanks to Alvin Bragg’s precedent, prosecutors are now emboldened to misuse their power to punish political rivals with fabricated charges. Worse yet, roughly half the country condones it because they care more about punishing Trump than the rule of law or blind justice.

We’ve long anticipated that the case against Trump would be weak, but according to Andrew McCarthy, a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a former assistant U.S. attorney, it’s even worse than experts predicted. He argued that the case against Trump should be dismissed quickly.

“If the judge does his job right here, the case should be dismissed and it actually should be dismissed quickly,” he told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto on Tuesday. “I agree with what my friends have said, but I think this is actually worse than what we anticipated. Because what we anticipated was that they were trying to bootstrap a misdemeanor—which, by the way, they’d have a good deal of difficulty proving if it was just a misdemeanor—but they need to show that he concealed another crime in supposedly falsifying the business records.”

If you’ve read the indictment, you know that McCarthy is correct.

“And what we’ve thought up until now is that … he was going to use that as an avenue to enforce federal campaign finance law,” McCarthy continued. “Now, maybe that’s what he’s planning to do, but he’s got to tell us what he’s planning to do, and more importantly, he’s got to tell Donald Trump. So I think this indictment—even before you get to the statute of limitations and whether he’s got jurisdiction to enforce federal law—I would dismiss it on its face because it fails to state a crime. Here it fails to state a crime 34 times!”