Indicting Trump Will Usher In America’s Banana-Republic Stage

Reports suggest that a Manhattan grand jury is considering the indictment of former US President Donald Trump. This unprecedented move could mark the beginning of a new era in American politics where political prosecutions become the norm. Here’s what you need to know about the criminal charges that the ex-president could face and the implications of indicting a former president.

Although it is unclear what charges are being considered by the grand jury and prosecutors, many believe that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, a Democrat, is pursuing a criminal case against Trump for allegedly falsifying business records. According to Sections 175.05 and 175.10 of the New York Penal Code, falsifying business records can be considered a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the intent to defraud in the commission of another crime.

For instance, the underlying theory of the charges against Trump alleges that he caused the Trump Organization to falsely report payments made to Michael Cohen in 2017 as “legal expenses” when, in reality, the funds reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 he paid to Stormy Daniels. The Trump Organization reported $420,000 in legal expenses paid to Cohen that year, although he had provided no legal services. To prove a felony, prosecutors will need to show that Trump intentionally caused the Trump Organization to falsify its business records to conceal one or more federal election crimes or commit tax fraud.

Moreover, the statute of limitations might not prevent the indictment of one or more falsifying business records counts. If Bragg files a felony charge, the five-year statutory period applies, which New York’s former governor Andrew Cuomo extended by a year because of the pandemic. Alternatively, New York law provides that any time a defendant remains “continuously outside” the state is excluded from the statutory period. Since January 2017, Trump has been “continuously outside” New York, which means that the statute of limitations will only apply to the few times he was in the state.

However, some commentators argue that the case against Trump is exceptionally weak. The defense may argue that his intent was to protect his family’s reputation and deny the allegations made by Daniels, rather than to defraud anyone. Furthermore, prosecutors would have to show that Trump committed an election-law crime to establish that he intended to conceal a violation of federal law. Establishing Trump’s knowledge of the intricacies of the corporation’s tax filings will be equally challenging.

But beyond the legal arguments, there are political implications to indicting a former president. The public may perceive the prosecution as a politically motivated act. Those who have been following the allegations against Trump for “Russia collusion” and other supposed crimes may view this indictment as yet another way to target a political enemy. Additionally, the general public may question the merits of Bragg’s prosecution of Trump, given that federal US Attorney’s Office has reportedly rejected similar charges before.

While one could argue that “no one is above the law,” justice must be served impartially, and political prosecutions must be avoided. In this case, the evidence appears insufficient to indict Trump, and the public may view the indictment as a politically motivated move. Indicting a former president may have far-reaching implications, which could further polarize an already divided country.