Dear Editor:
As expected, we got a hyperbolic reaction from Moshe Hill to former President Trump’s conviction. But for all the accusations of a politically-motivated prosecution, the response appears to just be political posturing. If not, why does Mr. Hill mischaracterize almost every aspect of the case?
To start, Mr. Hill claims that DA Alvin Bragg ran on going after Trump. It’s telling that all conservatives who have been claiming this have been able to dig up are some fairly innocuous quotes. To the extent it matters, he largely avoided the issue on the campaign trail. He did at times note that he had been unafraid to take on Trump, but never committed to prosecuting him. In fact, he even killed an ongoing investigation into Trump early in his term. Those pushing this claim seem to be erroneously conflating him with Letitia James, or, more likely, hoping that their readers do. (Mr. Hill does manage to throw in a mischaracterization of something that happened in her case for good measure.)
As for the case itself, it’s telling that Mr. Hill entirely avoids talking about the underlying facts, which he dismisses as a minor issue and much ado about nothing. The prosecution alleged that Trump had his fixer Michael Cohen pay off someone to keep some misdeeds quiet (I’ll refrain from the details as this is a family paper), and then falsified the records of paying Cohen back so that it would not be made public and hurt his campaign. Mr. Hill doesn’t dispute any of this but just goes after certain legal points. I’ve seen legal experts who disagree on those, but Mr. Hill, without a legal background as far as I can tell, seems quite sure of himself. I’m a little dubious.
One of his major complaints is that even if there was falsification of records, for it to be a felony it needs to be done with intent to commit another crime, and that is something obscure Bragg manufactured to charge Trump with. But Bragg has prosecuted that same charge many times! It’s hardly something he just dug up out of nowhere. Bragg said that other crime was a state election law to promote the election of a person to a public office by “unlawful means,” and laid out three different means, one of which is the violation of federal election law. Mr. Hill argues that the fact that the FTC and DOJ didn’t charge Trump is proof that there was no federal crime. But there appeared to have been a strong case to prosecute a federal crime, and decisions not to were almost certainly political. The FTC needed Republican votes to act and the number one motive of the Republicans seems to be to protect Trump, so that was never happening. The same goes for the Trump DOJ. And while it was somewhat perplexing that the Biden DOJ didn’t charge him, it seems that they were trying to “move on’’ and treated Trump with kid gloves in the immediate aftermath of January 2021, and only took action in other areas later when Trump’s behavior forced their hand. Additionally, Cohen himself pleaded guilty to federal charges related to this same scheme. Mr. Hill bizarrely tries to argue the judge should not have allowed that fact into the trial because it was not directly related to Trump, a point that seems self-evidently not true. The whole point is that everything was done at Trump’s direction!
Now I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that Michael Cohen is a known liar who ideally should not be relied upon to build a case. But let’s face it. Trump is a liar who surrounds himself with liars. That shouldn’t be a way for him to escape accountability. With that reasoning you would never be able to convict a mob boss. And Cohen was already punished for these same facts - it’s not like he was telling lies to escape culpability.
Back to the unlawful means. The felony is the falsification of records with intent to violate state election law. That law is violated through unlawful means, but that is not the felony itself. So that was reflected in the judge’s jury instructions - all jurors had to unanimously agree there was the specific felony, but since the unlawful means weren’t charges themselves and wouldn›t result in separate convictions, jurors didn›t have to unanimously agree on which of the three they were. Of course, Mr. Hill and other conservative commentators twisted this into saying the judge said the jurors didn’t have to agree on what felony was committed, something he says is “unheard of in legal circles.” Well, it wasn’t heard of here either, because that’s not what happened!
This isn’t to say that there aren’t legal analysts without agendas who don’t agree with all aspects of the prosecution, although I have seen a couple who initially criticized the case, but came around on its virtue once they saw the evidence presented during the trial. And who knows, it might get overturned on appeal. But if it is, it will likely be for a technical reason, or even ultimately a political one, and not because the underlying behavior was inconsequential and fitting for a president.
But that doesn’t matter to right-wing critics. It’s notable that this isn’t the only time they claim that the justice system has been perverted. It’s an accusation they make whenever there’s an attempt to hold Trump accountable. So that includes the prosecutions for the fake elector scheme, as well as his retention of classified materials and the obstruction related to that. The latter especially involves obvious felonious behavior (and unlike the bad faith arguments claim, it is not similar at all to what happened with Biden), but Trump has a judge he appointed running interference to make sure that case is not tried before the election. (Talk about a two-tiered system!) So they say everything is a hoax. The prosecutors and judges are all corrupt. Ultimately, they have to follow the lead of their dear leader who will never give an inch, even if it leads to Mr. Hill paradoxically writing that it is a “moral imperative” to put the man behind all this behavior back in the White House.
Regards,
Yaakov Ribner
Dear Editor:
I made an error last week; “PFLP” stands for Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine.
It is clear that Mr. Pecoraro has never read our constitution and doesn’t care to. Mr. Pecoraro’s disrespect for Justices Alito and Thomas is grotesque. His personal attacks against me in last week’s letter are as weak and pathetic as a house of cards. His, as well as Mr. Hecht’s “facts,” are distorted by their ideological blinders. All I will say is that none of the leftist judges in any Trump case recused themselves. Justice Brown-Jackson did not recuse herself in the Dobbs’ case. As someone who publicly acknowledged that she is not a biologist, she should not be trying cases involving any living beings, plants and animals included.
The only reason they and other leftists attack President Trump is because President Biden is feeble and frail. Our enemies see this. We see this. At the 80th anniversary commemoration of D-Day in Normandy, the President had no clue where he was or when to sit down. He bent over for several seconds and #poopypants was trending on line.
The most egregious occurrence though, was that he once again plagiarized a speech. This time from President Reagan. Of course, President Biden’s speech had political undertones laced throughout. Biden is not a leader and he’s definitely no orator. He doesn’t exude competent leadership. Israel is on the verge of wiping out Chamas in Gaza and then will have a real all-out war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Many will die. We shall see if Biden has Israel’s back or if the Anti-Semite in Chief will kowtow to Dearborn and Minneapolis.
Shalom Markowitz
Dear Editor:
It was amusing to watch fellow readers Jason Stark, Jonathan Goldgrab, Shalom Markowitz, Avi Goldberg, and Doniel Behar prove once again that they live in a fact-free zone as if they are boys in a bubble.
First, the amazing recovery due to Bidenomics continues. While respected economists predicted that we would gain a still-impressive 180,000 jobs, our red-hot economy that leads the entire industrialized world created an eye-popping 272,000 jobs. All this while the unemployed rate stayed at or below 4% for a new record length. 15.6 million Americans who were unemployed under the failing Hoover-esque leadership of Trump now have jobs. Workers are benefiting from strong wage gains that are well above inflation - up 4.1% in the past year and 0.4% in May alone. Month to month inflation was zero in March-April. Prime-age labor force participation highest in 22 years. Stores like Target and Walmart are listening to President Biden and are lowering their artificially high prices. Insulin is down to $35 a month and Medicare recipients will have their drug expenditures capped at $2000 next year.
As for Trump being a convicted felon, he did it the old-fashioned way - he earned it! My fellow readers have to know that criminals like Trump are convicted every single day by juries of their peers in New York County, even with the national violent crime rate going down to record lows under President Biden from record high spike under Trump. The difference is these other convicts would have already been behind bars for committing 1/10th the contempt of court shown by Trump. And to contrast the convicted felon Trump with Joe Biden, our President has said he would accept the decision of the court in the unconstitutional case being brought against his only surviving son (a Republican circuit has struck the law down in their jurisdiction) and he has publicly stated he would not pardon his son, though the normal penalty is a drug diversion program that he has already entered. Hunter has accepted responsibility like a grown man. Trump petulantly refuses to act like an adult after being indicted and convicted on the testimony of Republicans.
And while felon Trump’s minions in Congress refuse to pass a border security plan negotiated by arch-conservative Oklahoma Senator Lankford, President Biden this week issued an executive order to prevent illegal crossings.
And then there is D-Day. While President Biden honored the sacrifices of our brave soldiers at Normandy and defended democracy, Trump bemoaned his convictions like an infant in Arizona (though he told the crowd he was in Texas). One thing I am sure of: These IDF soldiers, just like our soldiers on Normandy Beach, never asked “what’s in it for them” as Trump did. Contrast that with President Biden, who told the world on Friday, “Democracy begins with each of us, begins when one person decides there’s something more important than themselves … when they decide the mission matters more than their life, when they decide that their country matters more than they do.”
I doubt that I can pierce the fact free zone of MAGA bubbleboys Stark, Markowitz, Goldgrab, Goldberg, and Behar, but I hope that my facts can help readers with open minds find their way to support the only choice to save our democracy from a felon who has said he would be a dictator on Day 1.
David S Pecoraro
Former Vice President
Rosedale Jewish Center
