After a Manhattan jury voted to convict Donald Trump on a slate of dubious criminal charges, pundits and legal scholars far and wide shared their concern that the trial represented a weaponization of the justice system.
Even though she didn’t support him in the Republican presidential primary, longtime TV personality Judge Judy Sheindlin expressed her opposition to the way he was treated by prosecutors in the case.
As Fox News reported:
Judge Judy Sheindlin has delivered a verdict on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s successful prosecution of former President Trump, calling the case “nonsense.”
The famous TV arbiter told CNN host Chris Wallace that as a “taxpayer in this country,” she resents Bragg for “using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement.”
“And that’s what you think the DA did in Manhattan?” Wallace asked in an interview that streamed Friday on Max.
“That’s what I think. I mean, if you look — you had to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was,” said Sheindlin.
A jury convicted former President Trump last month on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records during his 2016 campaign to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic performer, to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.
Sheindlin’s take on the matter received significant support on social media:
Judge Judy! goes off on how ridiculous she thinks it is to spend millions of taxpayer dollars prosecuting Trump when New York City residents aren’t safe from actual criminals: pic.twitter.com/McY36lmeiI
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) June 22, 2024
Judge Judy absolutely ROASTS Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for his political prosecution of Trump.
Any sane person knows the justice system is corrupt. pic.twitter.com/WKDRhSWspp
— Zaki Solja (@zakisolja) June 21, 2024
Trump hater Chris Wallace was expecting Judge Judy to go along with the fake lawfare narrative against Trump, and she came back with some fire‼️ pic.twitter.com/QtEeFXyQsv
— RealAF Patriot (@RealAF_Patriot) June 21, 2024
Prior to the announcement of the verdict, a pair of former federal prosecutors penned an opinion piece for The Hill in which they detailed how weak the case against Trump actually was:
The prosecution in Trump’s trial has yet to reveal their specific theory of criminality against the former president. In order to prevail, the prosecution must prove that Trump falsified business records with the intent to aid or conceal another crime. As the state’s case draws to a close, it seems all but certain that the “other crime” they allege Trump tried to conceal is Cohen’s alleged campaign finance violation.
Putting aside whether a state district attorney can incorporate a federal offense to prove up an expired state misdemeanor (an appealable issue in its own right), the evidence adduced in the trial thus far begs the question of whether this was ever a campaign contribution in the first place — especially from Trump’s perspective.
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!