Legal scholar and Fox News analyst, Jonathan Turley, who is also a professor of law at George Washington University, has expressed concern over Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s approach to controversial legal proceedings. In a New York Post opinion piece, Turley discusses Bragg’s case which centers on claims of a covert payment scheme.
Turley labels Bragg’s lawsuit against former President Donald Trump as ‘legally absurd’. He highlights the dilemmas this case poses to those involved in the practice of law, projecting the case as a politically biased pursuit based on a theory that even esteemed legal experts are rejecting.
Stepping into the week, the controversy took a turn towards what Turley defines as ‘obscenity’. He did not acquiesce to the introduction of unrelated, unproven allegations regarding Trump’s interactions with former model or the expected divulgence of an earlier relationship with an adult entertainer.
The essence of the prosecution’s proof rests on their claim that Trump manipulated business documents furthering another crime. The case, subjected to several months of ambiguity, finally saw the prosecution propose a new, yet vague and ill-defined theory.
The prosecution contends that Trump, in cataloging payments to Stormy Daniels as a ‘legal expense’, is in conflict with a New York legal statute. The law in question pertains to the illegal arrangement to encourage or impede someone’s public office selection through illegitimate methods, resulting in a misdemeanor.
Elaborating on the allegation, they claim Trump had illicitly advanced his candidacy by paying money to contain a potentially humiliating revelation, then reimbursing his legal counsel, Michael Cohen, under lawful expenditure.
Turley, in his critique, dissects the charges as being unreasonable. He emphasizes that it is not illegal to pay for preventing public exposure of a speculated liaison. Moreover, paying such money as a personal or legal expense is not deemed a federal election offence, a claim which the prosecution also makes.
He states that the phrase ‘political contribution’ is not applicable when making such a payment. Yet, the prosecution somehow manages to ascribe illegality to Trump by asserting that denoting this payment under legal expenses implies an illicit scheme to enhance his candidacy.
Turley comments on the prosecutors’ fixation with targeting Trump, to the exclusion of understanding the consequences their actions could have on the broader legal system and its ethics. Notably, Bragg and his office have never witnessed such aspecs of a criminal case with any other defendant.
The unique aspect of this case is the revival of a misdemeanor charge from 2016, on the cusp of the 2024 election. Though the deadline for this misdemeanor allegation, including fraudulent payouts, has passed, Bragg, assisted by counsel and ex-Biden Justice Department official Matthew Colangelo, managed to reactivate it.
This revitalization comes through the allegation of a federal election crime that the Justice Department itself discarded as groundless for any lawsuit. Turley writes: ‘In addition to being a presidential candidate, Trump was a married man and a successful television host. Many reasons could have lead to securing an NDA to hush the story.’
He explains that such maneuvers are neither unusual nor illegal, even if they were executed with electoral goals in mind. Payments like these are not habitually presented as campaign donations because they are not perceived as such by federal law.
Turley concludes: ‘The entirety of this case appears legally ridiculous… Essentially, a state misdemeanor that had passed its statute of limitations has been resurrected’. He follows that Bragg, who initially refused to charge this case, was pushed to do so. ‘They took a dead misdemeanor and repurposed it into an attempt to try a federal crime. However, even the federal crime under election law was denied under the Department of Justice’, Turley wraps up.
