New York Times Still Manages to Blame Trump After Destroying Alvin Bragg’s Indictment


Ever since the New York Attorney General’s indictment of Donald Trump was released, the media has been excitable over the former President facing charges, but gradually a welling tide in the press has been that this case is a mess. Make that, an utter disaster. Now we have the New York Times agrees that this indictment is a fiasco, but it does so by delivering a telling caveat.

These flaws are so obvious that many media professionals have been reluctant to admit them. Quinta Jurecic, who is a writer, says, “Separately from the legal merits in Manhattan against Trump, the underlying conduct (paying hush funds to improve Trump’s chances of winning the 2016 election) is actually quite bad.” “Separately, from the legal merits of Trump’s case in Manhattan, the underlying conduct (paying for hush money to increase Trump’s chances of winning the 2016 election) actually is quite bad.”

Translation: Even though this case has no legal merits, I don’t like the man! It is built on insinuated allegations, assembled to get the glaring number “34” without firm legality.

Bragg, who spent his short time trying to lower the felony charges against criminals in the first place, now wants to make a misdemeanor into a felony. Bragg, whose short tenure was all about lowering the felony charges against criminals, proposes to make a misdemeanor a felony.

Jed Handelsman Shugerman, a Harvard Law Professor, wrote a guest essay in the New York Times. This essay examines the case and continues to highlight the problems.

The 34-count indictment (or 34 partial indictments) was a disaster. Federal preemption means that the case could lose because a state judge could dismiss the case and reduce the harm. Federal preemption could mean that the case may be dismissed because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing.

To emphasize his impressions, he gives us the following assessment.

It would not be the rule of law, but the rule of the circus.

Agree. This case is not based on justice or taking criminals to court. This is a political hit job. Shugerman does not condemn the biased political actions of the New York AG’s Office.

This legal embarrassment exposes Trumpian damages for the legal foundations of the United States. Trump’s enemies respond to his norms violations and provocations by increasing and accelerating the erosion of legal norms.

Amazing. Trump provoked Bragg, the legal system to bastardize law excuse.

He cannot follow this cause if he doesn’t consider Bragg on it, which also includes radical DAs brought to power by George Soros. Shugerman ignores the fact the man whom Politico tried to label a “nonpolitical by the book DA” while describing him as a liberal DA, essentially threw that book away when he was installed.

Politico reported Bragg’s arrest and made headlines. Bragg took a minor offense and elevated it to federal charges in a vendetta-like fashion.

It is pathetic for liberal Democrats to try and place the blame on Trump. This is a description of a man unfairly appointed to this office.

Once the unprecedented step has been made in our legal systems, they will have to follow this path. “