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!