Former President Donald Trump -- along with most of his supporters -- have long argued that the cases opened up against him are a type of politically-motivated prosecution to hamstring his 2024 presidential ambitions. 

While those claims are routinely disputed by most of the mainstream media, a recent Reason piece admitted that at least two of the cases against him make a strong case that at least some of the charges he faces could fall within the bounds of those claims.

Interestingly, both cases cited are the cases Trump faces out of New York, one brought against him by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) and the other by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg (D) -- both of whom happen to be raging, anti-Trump politicians.

While James' case was civil in nature, Bragg's was the first criminal indictment against the former president, and many believe it's easily the weakest of all the cases.

Where are the victims?

The piece pointed to the fact that in both of the aforementioned cases, there's no clear victim.

It also noted the rabid, anti-Trump activism that both James and Bragg engaged in prior to filing the cases against him.

It wrote:

Bragg and James, both Democrats, argue that Trump was dishonest, which will not come as news to anyone who has been paying attention to the persistent gap between reality and his public statements on matters large and small. But neither Bragg nor James has been able to explain exactly who was victimized by the misrepresentations they cite.

Shockingly, Reason went on to acknowledge the fact that in Bragg's case, which involves charges of "falsifying records," such charges are typically misdemeanors.

The outlet explained:

Bragg says the "criminal activity" that Trump sought to "conceal" included "attempts to violate state and federal election laws." That claim is based on legal interpretations so iffy that Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., rejected them after lengthy consideration.

You know it's bad when left-leaning media outlets and other lefty-types in the news admit that the case is flimsy, at best.

James' case

Although Trump was slapped with a massive judgement in the civil case brought against him by James, in which she accused him of overvaluing his properties to gain favorable loan terms, the major argument is that there were literally no victims in the case.

The banks that made the loans to Trump and the Trump Organization were paid back, with interest, and they were not involved in suing Trump for obvious reasons.

James had gone on record many times promising to bring him to trial one day. Trump has argued that she only used her position to bring the case against him for political gain.

Like Trump or not, it's obvious that the justice system has been leveraged against him, and political lawfare is being waged every single day, yet he has still managed to dominate as he moves closer to claiming the title of the Republican nominee.