Boston University law professor Jed Handelsman Sugarman believes Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump was a “historic mistake.”
Sugarman made that conclusion after witnessing Monday’s opening argument in which prosecutors argued that President Trump “orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”
In other words, prosecutors allege that President Trump falsified business records to interfere in the 2016 election.
Problems with their paper, Sugarman wrote in the New York Timesthe “unprecedented application of state law” and “consistent avoidance of identifying election crimes or legitimate theories of fraud.”
“As a reality check, it is legal for candidates to pay for nondisclosure agreements. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal,” Sugarman wrote.
He continued:
In opening arguments Monday, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo avoided details about what was illegal about influencing the election, but then argued that “this was election fraud, pure and simple.” There is no relevant state or federal law that refers to reporting violations as fraud. Calling this “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake that exaggerates the case and sets jurors with higher expectations than prosecutors can meet.
According to Sugarman, there are “three red flags in the case that raise concerns about selective prosecution,” all three of which are related to the unprecedented and novel legal theory that prosecutors are using against Trump. It is said that it is related to
“Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is fair to ask whether this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law,” Sugarman wrote. “This case should serve as a wake-up call to widespread prosecutorial abuses in the United States.”
He added: “This case remains a disgrace to prosecutorial ethics and clearly a selective prosecution.”
Still, Sugarman said the legal process should run its course, but predicted that Trump could ultimately prevail.
“If Monday’s opening is a harbinger of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories, and issues that remain unaddressed, prosecutors may not be able to win a conviction at all,” he said. Stated.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School, has a similar view of the case.
Turley said Monday that he was “absolutely incredulous” that Bragg chose to prosecute the case and called it “embarrassing.”
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Register here!
