'Historic mistake': Law professor takes apart Alvin Bragg's case against Trump — then predicts the outcome



Jed Handelsman Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, thinks Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Donald Trump is a "historic mistake."

Shugerman made that conclusion after witnessing opening arguments on Monday in which prosecutors alleged Trump "orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election."

In short, prosecutors claim Trump falsified business records to interfere in the 2016 election.

The problems with their thesis, Shugerman wrote in the New York Times, are obvious: an "unprecedented use of state law" and a "persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud."

"As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal," Shugerman wrote.

He continued:

In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet.

According to Shugerman, there are "three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution" in the case, all three of which concern the novel legal theory prosecutors are using against Trump for which there is no precedent.

"Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law," Shugerman wrote. "This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America."

He added, "This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution."

Still, Shugerman said the legal process should play itself out — but predicted Trump may ultimately win.

"If Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories, and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all," he said.

George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley holds similar views about the case.

On Monday, Turley said he is left in "utter disbelief" that Bragg chose to prosecute the case, which he described as "an embarrassment."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Law professor destroys Alvin Bragg's 'legal embarrassment' of a case — but still finds a way to blame Trump



A law professor argued Wednesday that the case Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg constructed against Donald Trump is a "disaster." Somehow, though, it is still partially Trump's fault, the lawyer claimed.

Fordham Law School professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman wrote in a New York Times essay that the 34 indictments Bragg secured against Trump are "more accurately" described as "34 half-indictments," suggesting the charges are weak and not easily defensible.

The case is even "a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutor," according to Shugerman, who added:

The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption — only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements. Even if it survives a challenge that could reach the Supreme Court, a trial would most likely not start until at least mid-2024, possibly even after the 2024 election.

But the damning assessment did not stop Shugerman from blaming Trump for what he called a "legal embarrassment."

"This legal embarrassment reveals new layers of Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States: Mr. Trump’s opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms," Shugerman wrote.

The thesis of the article, then, is that Bragg has constructed a legally questionable case — with an "open-ended indictment" that doesn't specify "the core crime that would turn a filing misdemeanor into a felony" — as a response to Trump's alleged "norms violations."

Unfortunately, Shugerman does not clarify in his essay how Trump violated legal norms; he simply stated it as an a priori fact.

What Shugerman does do, however, is examine in damning fashion just how poor a case Bragg has constructed, touching on the indictment itself, potential Sixth Amendment violations, Bragg's convoluted legal theory, and the legal doctrine of pre-emption, thus calling into question whether Bragg even has the jurisdiction to prosecute alleged federal crimes.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!