Has Trump’s Conviction Politicized the Courts?

Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records has provoked a discussion over the judicial system’s fairness and its broader effects on the United States. The case, centered on payments made to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress, during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, raises significant questions about due process, political motivations, and the precedents being set.

Trump allegedly falsified business records to conceal payments meant to suppress damaging information and mislead voters. However, relying on Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and fixer, as the prosecution’s key witness is highly questionable. Cohen testified that Trump orchestrated the payments and falsified records to hide their purpose. Yet, Cohen’s credibility is incredibly flawed.

In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. His admission of dishonesty, particularly in matters involving Trump, highlights an alarming weakness in the reliability of his testimony. Building a case so heavily reliant on a witness with a documented history of perjury unequivocally undermines its integrity.

Robert Costello, a lawyer who previously advised Cohen, contested Cohen’s claims and alleged that Cohen once said he acted independently in arranging the payments. Costello testified that Trump was not involved, but the court unfairly restricted his testimony, preventing him from fully rebutting Cohen’s narrative.

Legal experts have pointed to this as a significant issue. Alan Dershowitz, a prominent legal scholar and activist for Israel, criticized the judge’s handling of the trial, arguing that the defense was denied the opportunity to confront Cohen adequately. Such limitations, he said, compromised Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.

The legal framework of the case also raises serious questions. Under New York law, falsifying business records is typically a misdemeanor. To elevate it to a felony, prosecutors must prove that the falsifications were made to conceal or further another crime.

In this case, that crime allegedly violates federal election law. This approach introduces a flawed legal argument: a state prosecutor can enforce federal election laws. Legal scholars have debated whether this is permissible, with many warning it sets a dangerous precedent by blurring the lines between state and federal jurisdiction.

Federal prosecutors initially dropped the hush money case, finding insufficient evidence of any election law violation, as the payments could be viewed as personal rather than campaign-related. Now, state prosecutors are overstepping by pursuing charges that failed federally: proving no wrongdoing of a crime.

Prosecutors argued that the payments to Daniels were misclassified as legal expenses in Trump’s business records with intent to defraud. Yet, the defense contends that hush money payments could legitimately be considered legal expenses for protecting Trump’s reputation—a common practice among public figures.

The political context of the case has further fueled skepticism. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pursued the charges in a highly polarized environment, leaving no doubt that partisan motivations influenced the prosecution. Bragg, a Democrat, campaigned to hold Trump accountable, a promise that is evidence of bias. The timing of the charges—years after the alleged offenses occurred and during Trump’s bid for the presidency in 2024—has also raised concerns about whether the case is politically motivated.

Public trust in the justice system is at stake when legal actions against political figures appear to be driven by partisan considerations. The prosecution of Trump risks creating a dangerous precedent, one where political retribution undermines the impartiality of the courts. A civil rights attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, warned that cases perceived as politically motivated erode public confidence in the rule of law and damage the justice system’s credibility.

If upheld, these convictions could have far-reaching consequences for Trump. As a convicted felon, he could also lose certain privileges, such as Secret Service protection. The DISGRACED Former Protectees Act, introduced by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, would terminate Secret Service protection for individuals convicted of a federal or state felony. There is little doubt this bill targets Trump, which is particularly concerning in light of the two assassination attempts on the former and future president. Legislation like this could not only strip protections but also endanger Trump’s life.

Similarly, the emergence of The 65 Project, an initiative aimed at disbarring or disciplining attorneys representing Trump or his allies, threatens fairness in the legal process. Named after the lawsuits filed challenging the 2020 election results, The 65 Project has targeted high-profile lawyers like Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and John Eastman. It undermines the foundational principles of the legal profession and the adversarial system.

Dershowitz has described The 65 Project as a direct attack on one’s constitutional rights, including the right to legal representation. Punishing attorneys for representing controversial clients would discourage lawyers from taking on politically sensitive cases. Such a chilling effect would weaken the adversarial system, which depends on legal advocacy on all sides.

Jenna Ellis was recently criticized for making public statements about election integrity, even though such arguments are expected in legal and political discourse. Rudy Giuliani, another target of The 65 Project, has faced disciplinary actions for his role in Trump’s post-election legal efforts.

Initiatives like The 65 Project risk ending the legal profession’s independence by discouraging attorneys from defending a client. This independence ensures that everyone can access robust representation regardless of political affiliation. The targeting of Trump’s attorneys highlights the broader challenges facing the legal system in politically charged cases.

New York’s conviction of Donald Trump and the broader efforts to discipline his legal team reflects a troubling trend: the politicization of the justice system. From questionable witness credibility to manufactured legal theories and the targeting of attorneys, significant concerns about the impartiality and fairness of the legal process must be raised.

Today’s concerns about our judicial system go beyond Donald Trump. They are a critical test of the justice system’s commitment to impartiality, the rule of law, and fairness for all, regardless of political allegiance. Anything less would undermine the very foundation of justice itself.