The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a selective prosecution claim is not a defense to a criminal charge, but rather an assertion that the prosecutor has violated the Constitution by bringing the charge for discriminatory reasons. This was established in United States v. Armstrong (1996), where the defendant must prove that the prosecution was motivated by a discriminatory purpose and had a discriminatory effect. This includes discrimination based on the Equal Protection Clause, race, religion, sex, gender, or political affiliation. I believe that Donald Trump is correct in his defense against the four criminal cases and the civil fraud case brought against him by New York State. However, I also believe that these legal actions are politically motivated and constitute a witch hunt by New York State Attorney General Letitia James and District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump’s First Amendment rights are being violated by these discriminatory legal actions, which are targeting him solely because of his political views. The civil fraud case, in which Trump faces a potential fine of $370 million and a ban from doing business in New York State, is a victimless crime. No bank or lender has accused Trump of fraud, and the allegations made by the Democratic State Attorney General are common practice in the New York real estate market. The banks that loaned Trump money already took into account the true value of his assets, as they do with all real estate moguls in New York. Letitia James brought this case for political gain, as she suffers from Trump derangement syndrome and hopes to win a future Democratic primary. In doing so, she is violating Trump’s First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. James should be required to show that another New York businessman has been prosecuted for similar conduct and faced the same consequences. However, this is not the case, as the politically charged lawsuit against Trump is unique. Similarly, District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Trump for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels and not reporting it as a campaign expenditure is also an example of selective prosecution. In contrast, former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards used over $1 million in campaign funds to conceal his own affair, yet the U.S. Justice Department has guidelines against prosecuting such cases. This highlights the discriminatory nature of the charges brought against Trump.
