There are a few people at CNN whose analyses sometimes seem to contain a grain of truth.
One of them is data analyst Harry Enten, who reported on the major problems in Joe Biden’s election campaign.
The other is legal analyst Elie Honig, who has not shied away from calling out the problems in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump. This is particularly compelling because he was a colleague of Alvin Bragg when they both worked for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and he calls Bragg a friend.
Honey, in a fascinating article titled “The prosecutors got Trump – but they twisted the law” did not hold back after the verdict when it came to the problems in the case.
First, he made it clear that he did not think the problem was with the jury. He said the prosecutor’s charges “exceeded the bounds of the law and due process.” He said the blame lay with the prosecutors and “the judge who let it happen.”
But just because the prosecution won, it was no less a “ill-conceived, unjustified mess.”
“‘But they won’ is no defense to a strained, convoluted trial unless the goal is to ‘win’ now by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the consequences later.”
Oops. That makes the goal very clear.
He pointed out some problems with the judge in this case and with Bragg.
The judge donated money – a tiny amount of $35, but in clear violation of a Rule Prohibit New York judges from making any kind of political donations to a pro-Biden and anti-Trump political organization, including funds that the judge earmarked for “opposing the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s right-wing legacy.” Would people have been OK with the judge continuing the case if he had donated a few dollars to “re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.
He explained how Bragg had touted his “Trump-hunting skills” by saying he would “bizarre (and wrongly) boasted during the election campaign: “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.”
He then addressed some issues surrounding the charges.
The allegations against Trump are obscure and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact no prosecutor No one—in New York, Wyoming, or anywhere else—has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or antecedent state crime against anyone or anything. No one. Ever. Even leaving aside the details of the election law, the Manhattan District Attorney himself hardly ever brings all cases in which falsification of business documents is the only allegation.
However, since the charge for a minor offense was time-barred, the prosecution decided to try to revive the case.
To pay the fees until Crimes of the lowest level (Class E, on a scale of Class A to E) – and bringing her back to life within the longer statute of limitations for electroshock crimes – the prosecutor alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with the intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to the prosecutor, the “other crime” is a New York State Election Law violation, which in turn includes three different “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsifying other documents. Inexcusably, the prosecutor refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge refused to force them to pay until shortly before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional requirement to inform the defendant of the charges against him before trial. (That, folks, is what charges are for.)
On these crucial points, the allegations against Trump are not only unusual. They are tailor-made and appear to be tailored specifically to the former president and no one else.
Honig felt that because of all these problems, Trump had a good chance of having the conviction overturned on appeal, and I think he’s definitely right.
He wrote about how people say, “No one is above the law.”
In fact, Joe Biden posted the same thing, again attempting to justify the impeachment against Trump.
No one is above the law.
– Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 31, 2024
However, Honig wrote in his article: “But it is also meaningless mush if we uncritically tolerate (or, worse, celebrate) deviations from normal procedures and principles along the way.“
And that was the problem in this case.
Related:
Trump’s team nails Biden’s vicious response to the verdict as he digs deeper into the crisis with novel remarks to Doocy
WATCH: Megyn Kelly criticizes Democrats’ joy over Trump verdict and warns they have opened Pandora’s box
