During arguments over President Trump’s immunity claim in the January 6th case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about a “creative prosecutor” using vague statutes to target political opponents. This scenario is currently playing out with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump for alleged hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign. Alongside cases in Georgia and Washington, D.C., this situation represents a nightmare scenario where criminal law is being used to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives. Kavanaugh was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch who raised similar concerns over using “criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”
Bragg’s case against Trump stands out as the most egregious example of this issue, with prosecutor David Pecker taking center stage in court. While his testimony may appear crucial since he knew President Trump well, Fox News commentator Gregg Jarrett argues that it is immaterial and irrelevant to the charges brought by Bragg. In fact, Bragg’s strategy seems focused on tying Trump to seedy tabloid practices rather than establishing a crime related to falsifying business records. The prosecution has created vague statutes from expired ones in an attempt to charge President Trump with crimes that do not exist under the law.
Jarrett highlights how Bragg’s actions represent exactly what it appears: politically motivated cases designed by unscrupulous prosecutors to fulfill campaign promises against political opponents, such as Joe Biden’s rival Donald Trump. The case has been handled by Judge Juan Merchan who Jarret describes as displaying “anti-Trump bias” in his rulings. This is exemplified through the judge’s recent gag order on leading presidential candidates that goes beyond constitutional limits.
During Pecker’s testimony, Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass asked if he was aware of influencing an election being unlawful to which Pecker replied “yes.” However, as Fox News contributor and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy pointed out, it is not a crime for candidates or their supporters to attempt to influence an electoral process – this forms part of any standard political campaign. Moreover, according to Jarrett’s article published by FOX Nation (FOX NEWS), Completely legal acts like paying cash in exchange for silence and purchasing the rights to someone’s story without publishing it are also lawful because there is no victim involved or mutual assent between parties – Stormy Daniels pocketed $130,00 as a part of such an agreement.
The article further argues that Bragg’s case against Trump for hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign seems designed to be vague because real-life crimes related to such charges typically include some form of conspiracy by “unlawful means.” However, in this instance, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. Jarrett also highlights that it’s not a crime for candidates or publications to suppress politically damaging information as the DAs have tried to suggest regarding Trump’s case.
The author points out how Bragg has deliberately misconstrued New York Law 17-152, which is now an expired statute of limitations related to a dead business records misdemeanor attached to another misdemeanor under the state’s law that doesn’t apply in federal elections. Despite this issue being brought up by Bragg’s surrogates during opening statements regarding Trump potentially violating federal campaign laws, both the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department concluded that these payments did not qualify as a campaign expenditure – therefore no crime was committed.
Jarrett concludes his article with an analogy to Bullwinkle J. Moose from Rocky & Friends who would often say “Hey Rocky! Nothing up my sleeve!” before pulling out some unexpected animal or object out of a top hat – something Alvin Bragg represents – when speaking on unspecified criminal cases involving former president Trump that might involve fabrications like claiming presidential opponent’s did break laws even while existing data, evidences show nothing as such. Jarrett also points out how the Manhattan jury may be predisposed to side with Bullwinkle-esque deceptions from Bragg during Trump’s ongoing criminal indictment because of a long-held political stance they hold towards President Donald J.Trump and might not care about whether there’s any evidence or facts supporting such claims against him, which could lead them into wrong conclusions as the Bullwinkle cartoon often showed how the magician’s tricks would end up with unexpected results that were quite different from what he intended to display initially before revealing a tricked animal inside.
Leave a Reply