Ex-federal prosecutor: Why 'criticism' of Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump 'lacks merit'

21 February 2024

As former President Donald Trump awaits the start of the his March 25 trial for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against him, The Daily Beast's Shan Wu — a former federal prosecutor — offers several reasons "why so much of the criticism about Bragg’s prosecution lacks merit."

Bragg indicted Trump on 34 felony counts alleging he falsified business records in order to hide the fact he made "hush money" payments to adult actress Stormy Daniels.

Wu argues, "The Daniels story is the strongest aspect of Alvin Bragg’s case. Why? Because it will be very easy for a jury to understand that Trump wanted to conceal his affair with an actress known for starring in adult films at a time he was worried about his voter appeal to women. Really, it’s one of the oldest stories in the world: a rich man wanted to buy silence. The jury will get that."

A former sex crimes prosecutor, Wu emphasizes, "Criticizing the case because it involves money paid to Daniels is not only weak but also smacks of misogyny. Dismissing Daniels’ narrative by reducing her to the category of 'porn star' is understandable when coming from Trump—a man found liable for rape—but inexcusable when repeated as a supposed criticism of the case. Sex is always an appealing angle whether in commercials, true crime or the porn industry, but the fact that a witness in court works in a sex-related industry or even the sex trade has no place in assessing their credibility."

Furthermore, Wu writes, "Misplaced criticism of Bragg’s case coalesces around two areas of supposed weakness: legal arguments that the case should be removed or that it’s preempted by federal law and weak evidence in the form of witnesses former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and Daniels."

He adds:

Trump’s arguments for removal to federal court revolve around his convoluted and internally contradictory claim that the case should only be heard in federal court because he was acting as a federal officer and/or that the federal court needs to assert jurisdiction to protect him against a politically motivated prosecution.

Trump’s argument that he is an officer of the United States clash with his own argument that he is not an officer of the United States and therefore cannot be disqualified from the Presidency under the Disqualification Clause of the 14thAmendment because that provision applies only to officers of the United States.

Wu emphasizes Trump and his fans can be expected "to endorse these supposed weaknesses in the case. But here’s what is important to remember: those arguments are all moot for now until and if Trump is convicted. If he is convicted, then he may again raise them on appeal but until then any regurgitation of the criticisms are just wasted breath. The case is going to trial and criticisms of the prosecution’s legal theories now have zero relevance."

Wu's full op-ed is available at this link (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles