A Prosecution In Search of a Crime, Part 2

I wrote last night about the absurdity of Alvin Bragg’s criminal prosecution of Donald Trump. Today both Andrew McCarthy and Jonathan Turley made similar points.

Andrew went into considerably more detail. He writes:

As I’ve related a few times, Alvin Bragg, Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney, is trying to hoodwink the jury into believing that (a) it is a crime for a candidate for public office to conspire with others to suppress politically damaging information, and (b) that Donald Trump was charged with such a conspiracy in the indictment that has resulted in the ongoing trial. In point of fact, there is no such information-suppression conspiracy crime in the law and the indictment against Trump does not charge a conspiracy — it charges 34 counts of falsifying business records with fraudulent intent to commit or conceal another crime.

In court on Tuesday, Bragg’s prosecutors became a bit more transparent in arguing that this “other crime” is a New York election statute that contains a conspiracy provision. But the theory is ridiculous. The statute does not criminalize what Bragg claims Trump did — again, suppress politically damaging information. The invocation of it still calls for Bragg to enforce federal election law, which he has no jurisdiction to do. It is plainly intended for state elections because Congress enacted federal campaign law — which is not Bragg’s remit — to control federal elections. And, cherry on top, the election law Bragg invokes is a misdemeanor — that is, Bragg is trying to exacerbate a single misdemeanor falsification of business records into 34 felony counts by rationalizing that Trump was trying to commit or conceal another misdemeanor.

Much, much more at the link.

In the New York Post, Turley writes: “Alvin Bragg has his Trump trial, all he needs now is a crime.”

It’s not a crime to pay for the nondisclosure of an alleged affair. It’s also not a federal election offense (the other underlying crime Bragg alleges) to pay such money as a personal or legal expense. Federal law doesn’t treat it as a political contribution to yourself.

Yet somehow the characterization of this payment as a legal expense is an illegal conspiracy to promote one’s own candidacy in New York.
***
The statute of limitations for this case’s misdemeanors, including falsifying payments, has expired. But Bragg (with the help of counsel and former top Biden Justice Department official Matthew Colangelo) zapped it back to life by alleging a federal election crime that the Justice Department itself rejected as a basis for any criminal charge.

It’s not clear Trump even knew how this money was characterized in records. …

Besides running for president, Trump was married and had hosted a hit television show. There were ample reasons to secure an NDA to bury the story. Even if it was done with the election in mind, it is not unusual or illegal. There is generally no need to list such payments as a campaign contribution because the federal government doesn’t see them as a campaign contribution.

Like the Democrats’ other prosecutions of Trump, Bragg’s case is a naked political act, undertaken for no reason but to interfere with the 2024 presidential election. With their ridiculous prosecutions of Trump, the Democrats have turned the United States into a banana republic.

And, of course, a Manhattan jury that is probably hopelessly biased against Trump may, misled by an equally biased trial judge, return a guilty verdict. Polls suggest that such a verdict could change the outcome of the election. Bragg charges Trump, in effect, with stealing the 2016 election–he is the ultimate election denier. I am sure Bragg is well aware that the real theft in progress is of the 2024 election. He fervently hopes that his election interference will succeed.