Law Professor Writes Op-Ed About Bragg

0
724

A high-profile New York Times guest essay has trashed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump.

Written by esteemed legal scholar Jed Handelsman Shugerman from Boston University Law School, the essay titled “I thought the Bragg case against Trump was a legal embarrassment. Now I think it’s a historic mistake” is causing a stir in the legal world.

In his scathing essay, Shugerman makes a compelling argument against Trump’s prosecution, stating that the case is based on flimsy evidence and is nothing short of a “historic mistake.” What’s even more concerning is the way in which the prosecutors have gone about building this case. Instead of sticking to the facts, they have resorted to using vague and inappropriate language, hoping to sway the jury with emotional appeals.

Shugerman’s main issue with the case is that it seems to be an attempt by Bragg’s office to use state laws to go after Trump, when in fact, the case belongs in federal jurisdiction. Not only is this a blatant misuse of the legal system, but it is also an attempt to paint Trump as a criminal without any solid proof. As Shugerman points out, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement, and hush money, as distasteful as it may be, is still within the bounds of the law.

Furthermore, the prosecutors’ argument that Trump committed “election fraud” by trying to “unlawfully influence” the 2016 presidential election is nothing short of absurd. As Shugerman rightly points out, none of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud, and calling it “election fraud” is a misguided attempt to exaggerate the case and mislead the jury.

“Their vague allegation about ‘a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election’ has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud,” Shugerman wrote.

What’s truly concerning is the timing of this case. It’s been eight years since the alleged crime, and with no new evidence or developments, it is reasonable to question the motives behind bringing this case to court. Is it just another attempt by Manhattan politicians to go after Trump or is there a valid legal basis for the charges? Shugerman’s essay raises important questions about prosecutorial abuse in America and highlights the need for bipartisan reforms in our legal system.

“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,” Shugerman stated.

“Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law. This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America — and promote bipartisan reforms of our partisan prosecutorial system,” he continued.