A guest essay published by The New York Times on Tuesday called Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s criminal case against former President Donald Trump a “historic mistake.”
Jed Handelsman Sugarman, a law professor at Boston University, said: claimed Prosecutors’ claim that President Trump committed a “criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” is an “unprecedented use of state law” and does not specify the crimes committed. He called Bragg’s prosecution “a disgrace to prosecutorial ethics and clearly a selective prosecution.”
Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal $130,000 in hush money he paid former porn actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair before the 2016 presidential election. He has been indicted.
“Even after listening to the prosecutors’ opening statements on Monday, I still believe the Manhattan DA made a historic mistake. With their vague claims about a ‘criminal plot to corrupt the 2016 presidential election,’ , I am more concerned than ever by their unprecedented use of state law and stubborn avoidance of identifying any election crimes or legitimate theories of fraud.”
Mr. Sugarman argued that Mr. Bragg’s office “avoided” potential evidence of alleged crimes by Mr. Trump, but argued that Mr. Trump’s actions amounted to “election interference.”
“A reality check: It’s legal for candidates to pay for non-disclosure agreements. Hush money is unseemly, but it’s legal,” Sugarman wrote. “Election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly pointed out that “calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly felonies in actual election interference cases.” (Related: Andy McCarthy says Mr. Bragg is “trying to spin” President Trump’s legal action into a “criminal conspiracy”)
in @nytopinion
The Manhattan district attorney’s case against Trump is “a disgrace to prosecutorial ethics and clearly a selective prosecution. Nevertheless, both sides should have their day in court,” law professor says. writes Jed Handelsman Sugarman. https://t.co/De0Ikbcnzv
— New York Times (@nytimes) April 23, 2024
Prosecutors reportedly said in opening statements Monday that the “hush money” payments amounted to “election fraud.”
“Calling this ‘election fraud’ is a legal and strategic mistake that overstates the case and sets jurors with higher expectations than prosecutors can meet.” The explanation is a federal campaign finance filing violation. Absent a federal violation (which is tied to state election law), Mr. Bragg cannot upgrade his misdemeanor charge to a federal crime. It is also unclear how the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” can be met without one. ”
Sugarman also cited Trump’s lawyers’ argument that New York does not intend to prosecute individuals for crimes committed in another jurisdiction. Mr. Sugarman questioned whether the charges were influenced by Manhattan politics rather than New York state law.
“Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it’s fair to ask whether this has more to do with Manhattan politics than New York law. This case serves as a wake-up call to widespread prosecutorial abuse in the United States. “It should work and encourage bipartisan reform of a partisan prosecutorial system.”
At a hearing on April 4, 2023, Trump pleaded not guilty to all 34 charges and denied having an affair with Daniels.
