newYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has finally made history. He indicted former President Donald Trump as part of an investigation, possibly for paying hush money. We are all waiting to see the text of the indictment to see the basis for this unprecedented act.
The only crime discussed in the case is an unprecedented attempt to reinstate a misdemeanor charge for tampering with business documents that expired years ago. If that’s still the basis for Thursday’s indictment, Bragg couldn’t have raised a weaker basis for indicting the former president. may attempt to “bootstrap” a misdemeanor into a felony (and a longer statute of limitations) by claiming efforts to do so.
Trump will be the first ex-president to be indicted, but he won’t be the last if that’s the criteria for indictment.
It remains hard to believe that Bragg would proceed primarily on such grounds. The other crimes haven’t been discussed in months, but we’ll have to wait to read the indictment to see the basis.
Trump indicted after Manhattan Da investigated hush money payments
What we do know is a tumultuous history leading up to this moment.
The Justice Department itself has refused to prosecute the federal election allegations against Trump.
The Justice Department has gone down this road before and it hasn’t worked out. They tried to indict former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on stronger grounds (I also criticized) I failed. In that case, campaign officials and donors were directly involved in covering up the incident that gave birth to the child.
At the time, Edwards’ wife was suffering from cancer. The prosecution still collapsed. The reason is that it is necessary to show the sole purpose of paying hush money with such a scandal.
In Trump’s case, there was an upcoming election, but he was also a married man who was allegedly involved in an affair with a porn star. were also television celebrities subject to standard “morality clauses” caused by conduct that resulted in “death.” These clauses were widely written to protect the press and its “brands.”
Unprecedented Trump indictment watered down as ‘legally pathetic’
Various presidents, from Warren Harding to Bill Clinton, have been involved in efforts to silence the incident. They also had various reasons for covering up such scandals, including politics. It’s hard to believe that Trump acted with only a future election in mind, not his current marriage or TV deal.
That is why using the “bootstrap” theory as the primary accusation would be an indictment against the prosecution and its own conduct.
Two prosecutors, Carrie R. Dunn and Mark F. Pomerantz, resigned from the Manhattan DA office when Bragg initially resisted the theory and dropped the investigation. Pomeranz then did what some of us consider highly unprofessional and inappropriate. , is an unindicted person, let alone convicted.
done. Bragg ran on a promise to sack Trump, while Pomerantz strengthened his political base to call for criminal prosecution. It didn’t really matter what the crime was.
No other crimes have been discussed in leaks or press reports for months, but it’s always possible Bragg charged Trump with something other than a hybrid state/federal issue in his indictment. Other business or tax record charges may apply. Ironically, the issue of banking and tax evasion was also the Department’s focus, but the Department never again prosecuted those theories. , may face similar statute of limitations concerns.
Click here to get the opinion newsletter
Finally, Bragg could stack multiple tampering allegations to strengthen the prosecution. There have been 34 reports of falsification of business records. But when he multiplies a flawed theory by 34, it doesn’t make it 34 times more powerful. Continuous repetition is no substitute for actionable criminal charges.
Bragg may have something more than an anemic bootstrapping theory, which is more defensible. competition. It’s something that could have been mostly avoided in this country.
Bragg had a choice. He cannot be an advocate for the rule of law if he is using legal process for political purposes. The underlying misdemeanor may pale in comparison to the means used to prosecute it.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
We have already seen the unsightly display of Bragg’s former chief prosecutor when he published a book and publicly called for indictments during an ongoing investigation. It’s going to be a very ignorable moment for the Manhattan District Attorney.
What is clear is that Trump will not be the only one facing the judgment of history next week, regardless of what comes out of that gate.
Click here to read more about Jonathan Turley
