The radical leftist Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has found himself embroiled in a political firestorm, and it seems the heat may only intensify in the coming days.
In a recent development, a Manhattan grand jury has indicted former President Trump on 34 criminal charges related to allegedly falsifying business records concerning adult film actress Stormy Daniels. It is claimed that Trump sent a payment to Daniels prior to the 2016 election, purportedly to silence her regarding an affair they had in 2006. Nevertheless, Trump has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Despite the indictment, numerous legal experts have come forward to argue that Bragg’s case against Trump is anything but strong. This weakness has not gone unnoticed by those familiar with the case.
Brad Smith, an ex-chairman of the Federal Election Commission, weighed in on the matter by stating, “Bragg’s decision to prosecute is as common as clay. The criminal case against Donald Trump lacks a necessary element: there is no federal campaign finance violation.” This sentiment is echoed by others who see flaws in the case’s foundation.
Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, expressed his disappointment with Bragg’s indictment of the former president:
“There is something painfully anticlimactic about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of former President Trump. It concerns not Trump’s efforts to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States, but his alleged effort to cover up a possible extramarital affair with a porn star. And there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax. It is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him.” This critique further emphasizes the inadequacy of the charges brought against Trump.
In a similar vein, Mark Stern, a writer for the liberal-leaning Slate, published an article with the telling title, “The Trump Indictment Is Not the Slam-Dunk Case Democrats Wanted.” This admission from a writer at a left-wing outlet further underscores the fragility of the case.
Politico, a publication known for its left-leaning bias, even pointed out that Bragg’s own allies believe he has mishandled the indictment. This level of skepticism from his supposed supporters is quite telling.
Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul did not hold back when criticizing Bragg after Trump’s indictment, suggesting that the embattled district attorney may be forced from office and find himself in court. The fact that even prominent conservative figures are questioning Bragg’s competence speaks volumes about the shaky nature of the case against Trump.
Here’s what Senator Rand Paul said, referring to Nifong, the district attorney in the 2006 case accusing Duke University lacrosse players of rape. The three players were exonerated and Nifong even spent one day in jail.
“Wonder if DA Bragg remembers Durham DA Mike Nifong who withheld exculpatory DNA tests on the Duke lacrosse players. He was subsequently forced out of office, disbarred, and convicted of contempt of court.”
“A Trump indictment would be a disgusting abuse of power. The DA should be put in jail,” Paul said in a separate statement just before news late last week about the indictment.
More details of this report from Conservative Brief:
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy declared that Congress will take action after Trump appeared in Manhattan on Tuesday for his arraignment in the case brought against him by Bragg.
John Bolton — who served as a national security adviser in the Trump administration and has since come out against Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign — appeared on CNN and blasted the charges filed against his ex-boss, former President Trump, saying the indictment was “even weaker than I feared it would be.”
“Speaking as someone who very strongly does not want Donald Trump to get the Republican presidential nomination, I’m extraordinarily distressed by this document,” Bolton said on CNN. “I think this is even weaker than I feared it would be.”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the case is “outrageous.”
“[Bragg] is attempting to bootstrap [a] federal crime into a state case. And if that is the basis for the indictment, I think it’s rather outrageous,”the professor said.
“I think it’s illegally pathetic,” he said. “There’s a good reason why the Department of Justice did not prosecute this case: Because it’s been down this road before. It tried a case against former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards arguing that hush money paid to another woman, who bore a child out of that relationship, was a campaign violation. That was a much stronger case, but they lost,” Turley said.
“Bragg’s betting on a motivated judge and a motivated juror. You couldn’t pick a better jurisdiction…. [But] under Bragg’s theory, he can take any unproven federal crime, revive a long-dead misdemeanor, and turn it into a felony. That’s going to raise concerns for a number of judges. But once it gets to the appellate level, he’s going to have a particularly difficult time,” he said.
WATCH the video below for more details: