Donald J. Trump’s best defense in his ledger-entry case could come from the unlikeliest source: prosecutors.

Local and federal prosecutors and law-enforcement officials fathom the stunning shallowness of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s “case” against Trump. Why? They repeatedly decided not to prosecute Trump for the actions on which he now stands trial. These prosecutors, who left Trump untouched, include none other than Alvin Bragg himself! (READ MORE: Just How Sleazy Is the Democrat Party? Take a Look at Nevada.)

Once the persecution rests, Trump’s legal team should call the following prosecutors and authorities as defense witnesses. I suggest questions to ask them and below, in italics, indicate what they might say, if they told the truth.

Damian Williams, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York

Mr. Williams, do non-disclosure agreements violate federal law?

No.

To your knowledge, sir, do non-disclosure agreements violate New York state law?

No, they do not.

So, NDAs are perfectly legal, including when people sign them in exchange for payments not to speak with journalists, as routinely happens with out-of-court settlements and confidentiality agreements. Isn’t that true?

Yes, that is true.

Your office, that of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, could have filed criminal charges against Donald J. Trump for violating federal election law via the now-infamous “hush money” payment to pornographess Stormy Daniels. Did your office do so, either on your watch or before?

No, our office filed no such charges against Mr. Trump.

So, Donald J. Trump could have faced federal charges for his relevant actions in 2016 and 2017, but he has not. Isn’t that true, Mr. Williams?

Yes, that is true.

No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Lisa J. Stevenson, Acting General Counsel for the Federal Election Commission

Ms. Stevenson, has the FEC investigated the so-called hush-money allegations against Donald J. Trump and his associates?

Yes. The FEC probed that question.

And on Dec. 7, 2020, the FEC reported its findings. According to page six of the report that bears your name and those of three other attorneys, “the Trump Committee’s payment of those expenses did not constitute the personal use of campaign funds; accordingly, we recommend that the Commission dismiss the allegation that Cohen, Trump, and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b) by converting campaign funds to personal use.”

Was that, in fact, your recommendation to the full FEC?

Yes. That is what we recommended.

And what did the FEC do with your recommendation?

The Federal Election Commission met on Feb. 23, 2021, to decide whether to file charges against Trump and his associates. The four voting members of the commission — of whom the Democrats and Republicans appointed two each — reached a stalemate. Absent a majority vote to charge Trump, the matter went no further.

So, Ms. Stevenson, is it true that Donald J. Trump could have faced federal civil charges related to this case, but the FEC chose not to file such charges against him?

Yes, that is true.

Thank you, ma’am. No further questions.

Cyrus Vance Jr., Former Manhattan District Attorney

Mr. Vance, were you Alvin Bragg’s immediate predecessor?

Yes, I was.

When did you serve as Manhattan D.A.?

I was in that post from 2010 to 2021.

During that time, sir, you had the opportunity and the capacity to prosecute Donald J. Trump for the charges that he faces today, in this courtroom. Is that true?

Yes, that is true.

And, yet, despite (at the time you left) a $458.9 million budget and 4,507 employees, you never filed any charges against Trump related to “hush money,” ledger entries, business records, or anything else pertinent to the case unfolding right here, today. Is that true, Mr. Vance?

Yes, that is true.

So, how many charges did the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office file against Donald J. Trump?

We filed zero charges against Trump.

No further questions, Mr. Vance.

Mark Pomerantz, Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney

Mr. Pomerantz, did you once work for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg?

Yes, I did.

In your tenure, sir, did you encourage District Attorney Bragg to charge Donald J. Trump in the so-called hush money matter?

Yes, I urged him to indict Trump.

Did Mr. Bragg follow your advice?

No. At least while we served together, he filed no such indictment.

How did that make you feel, Mr. Pomerantz?

Alvin Bragg’s refusal to indict Trump left me enormously frustrated.

So, what did you do?

I told Bragg that he “was responsible for ‘a grave failure of justice.’” I resigned, along with my colleague, Carey Dunne. Then I wrote a book titled People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account. I hoped that embarrassment and outside pressure would push Bragg to indict Trump.

So, is it true to say that, despite whatever arguments and evidence you presented to him, Alvin Bragg refused to indict Trump for the same charges that he faces today, in 2024, an election year.

Yes, that is true.

And this bothered you so much that you quit your job and authored a book about all of this, in hopes of humiliating your former boss into action?

That is absolutely right!

Do you believe your strategy of ridiculing Alvin Bragg into action has succeeded?

Well, we’re all here today, aren’t we?

Thank you very much, Mr. Pomerantz. No more questions.

Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney

Mr. Bragg, please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury: What statute makes it illegal in New York state to ask someone to sign a non-disclosure agreement?

There is no such statute.

So, wait a minute: Are you saying that NDAs are legal in this state?

Yes, they are legal.

Mr. Bragg, please tell the jury what part of the criminal code makes it illegal to pay so-called hush money to encourage someone not to discuss any topic, especially with journalists.

There is no such passage in the criminal code.

So, is it legal to pay “hush money” in the state of New York?

Yes, it is legal.

You have charged Donald J. Trump with masterminding a “scheme” to “catch and kill” potentially embarrassing stories by asking his friend, David Pecker, to buy the rights to those stories for the National Enquirer and then not publish them. Is that true?

Yes, that is true.

Mr. Bragg, please tell the jury the name of the law that this “catch and kill scheme” violated.

“Catch and kill” does not violate any law.

Now, Mr. Bragg, you claim that Mr. Trump tried to influence the 2016 election via this “catch and kill scheme” that you now concede is perfectly legal. Would you please tell the jury what law is broken when candidates try to influence elections by discouraging news coverage of stories that they might find inconvenient or embarrassing?

There is no law against trying to influence an election.

Mr. Bragg, you claim that Donald J. Trump falsified business records by logging his checks to his former attorney as “legal expenses.” This included reimbursement for the payment to Stormy Daniels as well as Michael Cohen’s retainer and other legal costs. If not “legal expenses,” what entry should Mr. Trump’s bookkeepers have entered in their records?

Um, I’m not sure. Hush money? Porn-star payments? Let me get back to you on that one.

Mr. Bragg, is it against the law to record one’s legal expenses in one’s ledger as “legal expenses?”

No, that is not illegal.

Mr. Bragg, do you believe in time travel?

What do you mean?

According to your indictment, Donald J. Trump engaged in a hush-money plot to influence the 2016 presidential election. But in the “conspiracy” that your assistants have mentioned in this court (with no actual indictment for conspiracy, by the way), Trump gave no money to anyone until his first reimbursement payment to Michael Cohen. That check was dated Feb. 14, 2017. Subsequent checks from Trump to Cohen bore later dates. Mr. Bragg, how can checks dated on or after Valentine’s Day 2017 influence an election that already had occurred — at least 98 days earlier— on Nov. 8, 2016?

Hmmmmm. Let me guess: E = MC²?

Mr. Bragg, you indicted Donald J. Trump on April 4, 2023. Unfortunately for you, on Dec. 5, 2022 — 120 days earlier — the statute of limitations expired on the Class E felonies with which you charged him. So, to defibrillate these dead statutes, you claimed that Trump’s actions violated federal law. However, neither the Justice Department nor the Federal Election Commission chose to prosecute Trump for what you consider crimes. Isn’t that true?

Yes, that is true.

Moreover, Mr. Bragg, according to an April 25, 2023, U.S. Justice Department Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Election Commission, those two federal agencies have “exclusive jurisdiction,” respectively, over criminal and civil enforcement of federal campaign-finance laws. This federal rule gives local prosecutors precisely zero authority to enforce federal election laws. Isn’t that true, Mr. Bragg?

I cannot argue with that.

You have tried to turn this into a federal case, but you have no power as a local district attorney to prosecute federal campaign-finance laws, do you?

Now that you mention it, no.

So, to recap: The U.S. Justice Department, Federal Election Commission, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg could have indicted Donald J. Trump on these charges earlier. None of them did so.

Non-disclosure agreements, “hush money” payments, “catch and kill schemes,” and registering legal expenses as “legal expenses” are all perfectly legal.

Mr. Trump’s checks written in 2017 could not influence an election in 2016, unless he owns a time machine. And only Trump’s time machine could save your indictment from getting gobbled by the statute of limitations that expired on the state felonies on which your indictment rested when you filed it four months too late.

And the DOJ and FEC left unwielded the federal crime that you hijacked to resuscitate these deceased state felonies. Even worse, as a local prosecutor, you have no legal authority to enforce federal campaign-finance laws.

Mr. Bragg, is this true?

Yes. It’s all true.

Considering all of this, Mr. Bragg, you have no case against Donald J. Trump, do you?

Well, I would love to disagree with you, but I am under oath. So, you got me.

No further questions, Mr. Bragg.

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor.