The American justice system used to be about finding criminals and prosecuting crimes. Those were simpler times. Now we’re watching a made-for-TV legal drama where the script gets written after they pick the target.
Today, we’re living in an era where prosecutors first pick their target, then desperately search law books trying to find – or invent – a crime to pin on them. Just ask the army of Democratic district attorneys who’ve been working overtime to craft novel legal theories against their political opponents.
It’s like watching a chef trying to bake a cake without ingredients – lots of mixing and stirring, but nothing actually there.
But sometimes, even the craftiest legal gymnastics can’t hide the empty core of a politically motivated prosecution. That’s exactly what happened when renowned legal scholar Alan Dershowitz challenged a former Democratic mayor to do one simple thing: name the actual crime Donald Trump was convicted of in his May 2024 New York case.
The Challenge That Exposed Everything
During a heated exchange on “American Agenda,” Dershowitz put former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin on the spot, demanding he specify the exact crime behind Trump’s 34 felony counts. The result? Like a student caught without his homework, Bronin’s response was all hand-waving and no substance.
“Tell me what the crime was he was convicted of. I challenge you to describe the crime,” Dershowitz pressed. “You can’t do it. There is no crime. It doesn’t matter that he was convicted by a jury.”
Bronin’s response? He mumbled something about “a jury of his peers” – which is politician-speak for “I have no idea.”
A Race Against the Inauguration Clock
In what legal experts are calling an unprecedented rush to judgment, Judge Juan Merchan ordered the president-elect’s sentencing for January 10th, 2025 – just ten days before his inauguration. The timing has raised eyebrows across the legal community and drawn sharp criticism from constitutional scholars.
“This is the worst instance of Stalinism in my 60-year career,” Dershowitz declared on Fox News. “Stalin was told, ‘Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.’ So Letitia James, the Democratic attorney general, and Alvin Bragg, the Democratic DA, tried to find a crime to convict Trump of, but they couldn’t.”
The Math Doesn’t Lie
Here’s a simple equation that even a fifth-grader could understand: 34 times zero equals zero. That’s what happens when you multiply 34 felony counts by zero actual crimes. The prosecution’s case is like a hamburger with no meat – all bun and condiments, trying to convince you there’s substance.
Even CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig has indicated Trump is expected to receive “an unconditional discharge, meaning no prison time, no probation, no fine, no community service, no nothing.” When your opponents’ own experts admit there’s no punishment warranted, you might want to question the substance of the case.
“A Sham Trial”
Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett didn’t mince words about the proceedings: “He was found guilty by a biased jury of crimes that don’t even exist under the law. He was all but framed by a politically driven DA who worked in concert with a hostile judge who was required to recuse himself but refused to do it.”
The jury instructions themselves, provided by Judge Merchan in May 2024, didn’t even require jurors to agree on what underlying crime prosecutors alleged Trump was trying to conceal. It’s like being convicted of covering up a crime that nobody has to specify exists.
Trump himself blasted the proceedings as a “Rigged Charade,” pointing out that even legal scholars from across the political spectrum have condemned the prosecution’s legal theory.
The president-elect’s statement highlighted a crucial point: “This illegitimate political attack is nothing but a Rigged Charade. ‘Acting’ Justice Merchan, who is a radical partisan, just issued another order that is knowingly unlawful, goes against our Constitution and, if allowed to stand, would be the end of the Presidency as we know it.”
Key Takeaways:
- Top legal expert Alan Dershowitz claimed the NY case against Trump invented a crime that doesn’t exist.
- Judge’s rush to sentence Trump before inauguration reveals partisan political motivation.
- Even liberal media admits prosecution will result in “no punishment” because there’s no actual crime.
Sources: Daily Caller, BizPac Review, Daily Caller
Leave a Comment