Alvin Bragg vs. American Democracy | Opinion
By: Will Scharf (Newsweek)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
....Under the guise of "Resistance" to Trump, political actors in the FBI and Department of Justice engaged in an unprecedented effort to surveil a political campaign—and after that, a far-reaching cover-up when their measures did not yield any usable evidence of the conspiracy they sought to uncover.
Leftist prosecutors such as Bragg, all too often funded and brought into power by George Soros and his sprawling network of political organizations, have prioritized politics over sound prosecution. In doing so, they have turned many of our nation's once-vibrant urban areas into sanctuary cities for crime, refusing to prosecute violent criminals, and under the guise of "bail reform" releasing even those they do prosecute back onto the streets to reoffend. The downward spiral of crime begetting more crime has led to tragic lawlessness on our streets of the sort this country has not seen in decades.
Meanwhile, conservative Americans have become law enforcement targets for such offenses as daring to speak out against their local school boards—for exercising, in other words, their First Amendment rights to speak freely and to petition their government for the redress of very real grievances.
To the modern Left, fundamentally totalitarian in its outlook and aims, all of this and far, far more is justifiable, as a means to the end of enacting more leftism. As Stalin-apologist Times bureau chief Walter Duranty famously put it, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
It is in this context that we must view Alvin Bragg's rush to indict President Trump over the political equivalent of a traffic ticket—seven-year-old alleged bookkeeping offenses that federal prosecutors have repeatedly declined to prosecute, and which are now time-barred anyway. Bragg's objective is clear, and it has nothing to do with enforcing state or federal law regarding business records and campaign finance reports. He intends to substitute himself and his view of President Trump for that of the American people, handicapping President Trump's efforts to seek re-election right as the 2024 election cycle gets underway. This is nothing more than a naked power grab, and it is one that all Americans, Republican and Democrat, Trump supporter and Trump detractor, should reject.
Political prosecutions are anathema to the functioning of democracies. ... Alvin Bragg's show trial may play out initially in a New York grand jury room or courthouse, but its ramifications will be felt by all of us for many years to come.
Will Scharf is a former federal prosecutor and candidate for attorney general of Missouri. Twitter: @willscharf.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Tags
Who is online
126 visitors
First of all one of the conservatives here said a few days ago that Newsweek is a leftist publication. LOL.
This article is a good example of what passes for conservatism in America today - misinformation, propaganda, and denial.
The article argues for Trump as an innocent martyr. Not a single word in this article about Jan 6th, or any other of the numerous Trump offenses against the American way. Not a single word. You'd think that Trump has never done anything but mind his own business but the commies in America want to take him down because he is so justifiably popular.
Goebbels would be proud of this article.
Do you think people get prosecuted as some sort of lifetime achievement award? That's not how our criminal system works, at all.
None of those things are relevant to Bragg's selective prosecution. None.
Somewhat dated info since they were sold around 30 months ago.
How well did you know him?
"It is in this context that we must view Alvin "Bragg's rush to indict President Trump over the political equivalent of a traffic ticket."
Most people with a lick of sense recognize this coming clown show for what it is....partisan political prosecution.
I doubt if this abuse of the legal system will even make it to trial, let alone result in a conviction.
Of course Trump will fight it every step of the way and delay it as much as possible...starting with asking for a change of venue...he certainly can't get a fair trial in in NYC.
To be fair, it genuinely was left-leaning for a long time. That perception is changing, but really only within the last few years. It’s not surprising people wouldn’t know that.
Which part of it do you think is inaccurate? What he writes about Trump being investigated was true. The FEC did decline to prosecute him for this issue, and it would generally be considered their jurisdiction. You can think Trump is a bad guy, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean any and all prosecutions of him are valid.
Probably because he isn’t being indicted for any of those things. They aren’t relevant to today’s event. Again, you don’t need to support Trump to see this prosecution as politically motivated.
You can think whatever you want, but when you say in public that the prosecution is "political' you ARE supporting Trump. That is his line and his explanation for his persecution complex. When people affirm him by agreeing with him, they are supporting him whether they realize it or not.
By the way, if Trump wasnt running for president would it be "political" in your opinion? It was widely and accurately predicted that he would try and hide behind his candidacy.
OK, well I don’t support him, so you’re wrong. Even Hitler and I could agree on whether or not the sun is shining, eyes are blue, or water is wet. It’s profoundly stupid to suggest that would mean I “support” him.
You want to see the government use its power against someone just because you don’t like them, not because the law supports it. You don’t care what he gets prosecuted for, so long as he gets prosecuted. That’s corruption, and it’s tyranny.
As I said, when you say the prosecution is political you are supporting Trump. I'm not necessarily saying that you intend to support Trump, but you are doing it.
If Trump were not running for president would the prosecution be ''political"?
You do recall that before Trump even left office there were predictions that there would be prosecutions down the road for these various things, including the Stormy Daniels thing. The only 'surprise' is that it has taken so long. He is hiding behind his candidacy now, and people are enabling it, wittingly or not.
And that's the rub, because that's really your opinion rather than fact. You remind me of one of the three blind guys who met an elephant for the first time and were describing what they knew. Your vision is just too narrow here and you refuse any other view that may be larger than what you are looking at.
You do recall that before Trump even left office there were predictions that there would be prosecutions down the road for these various things, including the Stormy Daniels thing. The only 'surprise' is that it has taken so long. He is hiding behind his candidacy now, and people are enabling it, wittingly or not.
You remind me of someone who has supported Trump on this forum time after time, but doesnt want to admit it for whatever reason.
I'll take "This wouldn't have even happened" for $1000
Since the day Trump was identified as "individual #1" in the Michael Cohen case it was widely believed he could be prosecuted for his involvement. I believe that was in 2018.
Of course there were, Trump has done things that deserve to be investigated and when found to be illegal he deserves to be prosecuted for them. Doesn't mean that this one is not political in nature, hell Bragg campaigned on "getting Trump". As I've said several times I'm waiting for the indictment to be made public but from what's been reported this is really not a case that a local DA should be working, couple that with the actions of Bragg to downgrade over 50% of his felony cases to misdemeanor cases, and this one where he's prosecuting a misdemeanor while attempting to upgrade to a felony most definitely makes this case look like it's politically motivated.
But if you want to hang your hat on this case feel free.
Of course I've supported him from time to time, not everything he did during his presidency was bad or wrong. But again (as I've said many times before) his actions after the 2020 elections have lost him my support. Plain and simple. You just refuse to see that somebody could dislike what Trump has done since then with concern over another piece around Trump.
And the next time your cheering section actually brings something of value to the conversation will be it's first.
The feds passed on it (whose primary jurisdiction campaign law is)
Bragg's predecessor passed on it.
Bragg initially passed on it before the left wing twitter mob went nuts.
But by all means, go ahead and argue that Bragg would be prosecuting Chuck Schumer if he did the exact same thing.
If there is no merit to the case the judge will throw it out, even though Trump has been calling him names. Its amazing how devoted you people are to the worst president in American history. Is your devotion to Trump political?
Trump was unfit for office long before 2020, and long before 2016. He was an out of control liar and conspiracy theorist during his period as the king birther. Or do you think pathological liars and conspiracy mongers are fit to hold high office?
I get a kick out of all these talking heads on tv now saying this is a "sobering moment" in American history.
Not sobering, inevitable given his horrendous personal character and lack of ethics.
Since when are criminals facing justice sympathetic figures? Insanity.
That is opinion only. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but by now perhaps the only ones who do not know your opinion may be monks up in the Himalayan mountains.
We have one in the Oval Office now.
We’d be speculating, of course, but consider a timeline of events.
Feb 2018: Michael Cohen says he paid off Stormy Daniels using his own money and the Trump campaign was not involved.
Nov 2020: Trump loses the presidential election to Joe Biden. In Manhattan, where the indictments will ultimately be handed down, Trump gets only 12% of the vote.
Jan 2021: Trump leaves office.
May 2021: FEC declines to prosecute Trump for the Stormy Daniels payments.
Nov 2022: Trump announces he will seek reelection for president in 2024.
Jan 2023: New York prosecutors begin to make their case against Trump to a grand jury.
And, in general, New York prosecutors have been going after Trump ever since he first ran for office. You kind of have to close your eyes to not see a pattern.
Now you don’t have to believe this particular prosecution is politically motivated, but if you won’t even consider it, you’re either in denial or just naive.
Alvin Bragg is doing far more to support Trump than I ever could. Even if convicted, nothing in what he is likely to be charged with is anything that could bar him from office. The political nature of all of this (they are, after all, indicting a former president and current candidate for president) is rallying his base. He is already raising millions of dollars as a result.
And it’s stupid. No one actually cares about the bookkeeping behind paying off a porn star. No one. It’s far less scandalous, in my view, than something like the Clinton/Lewinsky case. At least Trump wasn’t banging an intern . . . in the White House . . .while he was president.
Why must it automatically be so that just because someone says an action against Trump is politically motivated, they must be “devoted” to him? Is there no action a government official (or anyone else) could take against Trump that you would consider out of line?
Spot on.
Joe McCarthy would be proud of you.
I notice this question remains unanswered.
If it is something he is guilty of I suppose not.
Bingo!
Like what?
read something
I'll read whatever you put up. Have at it...........................
In the 8 years Trump has been in presidential politics there have been hundreds of articles put up about Trumps wrongdoing. Some put up by me, some put up by others.
It is trolling to continue to suggest there are no credible evidence based allegations against Trump.
Sadly, NT permits trolling.
Make it easy on yourself and just give me 5
Nope, you've already been given hundreds. If you dont want to be a troll stop asking pointless questions that have already been answered.
Don't sell yourself short.
You've put up thousands by yourself.
Not going to happen. The only thing you will see is most likely projection, deflection, and/or denial. There is no middle ground here. You either see things all their way or you are automatically a Trump supporter plain and simple. Very sad.
Why do you say that? I have posted hundreds of articles that spell out Trumps wrongdoing over the past 8 years. Its not my problem if you and others ignore them.
Anytime you want to debate me about Donald Trump let's go.
Sorry John, but as far as Trump is concerned, there is no honest debate with you. You want complete acquiescence to your views only. As I said above, there is no middle ground for you. You refuse to accept anybody else's views but yours. You and I have gone round and round and it's the same every time, We are just never going to agree on this. You have a good day John.
Its not going round and round its going to the facts. I'm still waiting for a single one of you on the right on this site to demonstrate that you know a damn thing about Trump.
Facts are subjective John, you know that. Thank you for proving m point.
Some are, some arent.
Sorry, my bad. I meant to type sometimes subjective. My apologies.
ok
From the Opinion Article:
Biden’s numbers are so bad he has asked Alvin Bragg to indict him for something.
Will Scharf seems to have placed all of the 'right' words in his little screed ... anyhoot, Scharf is following the culture war footsteps of Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt while working on a Stephen Miller hairdo.
Actually, Bragg is simply following the findings/suggestion of a Grand Jury. If anyone has a problem with Bragg they should first take their grievance to the 23 people on the Grand Jury that heard the evidence.
Exactly, Bragg is a victim of his Grand Jury.
No. There aren't any victims, only evidential findings from the Grand Jury.
I'm sure they drove the DA on the legal theory nuances between misdemeanor and felony charges.
Interesting article this morning that had me re-read the indictment and the statement of fact from Bragg. Before the indictment had been released I thought that the "novel theory" may have been either election law which was a stretch as federal election law supersedes state/local election law or tax evasion. After reading the statement of fact the first time I thought he was using state election law as the second crime. The second crime is needed to move what is normally a misdemeanor to a felony. But after reading this article I went back and re-read both the indictment and the statement of fact and it's obvious that the second crime is not listed. There are some "hints" that might point to something but as this article states, Bragg is required constitutionally to present the crimes to the defendant. If Trump and his lawyers do not have the details around the second crime they may have a good chance to have this all tossed out.
If this holds up it is a major failure on the part of Bragg. Will wait to see what the court has to say on this.
I know it's Alternet but Ms Vance is herself a former US Attorney and now teaches law. I think her words are credible
I have heard that Bragg has not yet named the "second crime" because he wants to keep his options open until he has to name it. That time has not come yet. Its probably smart lawyering on his part.
Because he hasnt named it yet does not mean he doesnt have one in mind.
Although Alternet is definitely well to the left, it is not another Infowars.
Yeah, credible but from what I can find "catch and kill" is not an illegal act. So while Bragg is using the term, it is still tied to the bookkeeping issues that are in the indictments. Those bookkeeping issues are normally misdemeanors and to elevate to a felony requires a second crime which is not named in the charging docs. Add to that the Statute of Limitations is expired as it's only 5 years for those felonies which all occurred according to Bragg between August 2015 to December 2017.
Your link indicates the statement of fact seems to suggest there is a conspiracy. It also seems to suggest tax fraud and election law violations but doesn't lay out any of it. Now I'm not a lawyer but I do believe that due process requires the prosecution to provide all crimes and charges and evidence to the defendant and his legal team and withholding such evidence can seriously taint a prosecution. I think what you posted is just as credible as what I posted. What will matter is what the court does.
And unlike some on this site, I don't discount information based on what source posts it. I review what I can find about the person making the claim and how truthful they have been in the past as well as the organization they are currently associated with for a bias reference, but I don't just automatically discount based on the source.