From the moment Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed criminal charges against former President Donald Trump, he found himself on trial in a court of critics, who condescendingly concluded that Bragg's case was weaker than water. Bragg was nearly convicted before the first witness was called.
Not surprisingly, Trump filed his own lawsuit against Bragg, calling the 34-felony indictment “political persecution” and slamming Bragg as a “thug” and a “depraved psychopath.” Trump also unleashed his attack dogs, with his sycophant Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) calling Trump's indictment “a shocking and dangerous day for the rule of law in America” ​​and “one of the most irresponsible decisions by a prosecutor in American history.” Graham predicted that Trump would win in court.
That was to be expected from Trump and his MAGA supporters, but they received support from commentators on both the left and the right who dismissed Bragg's case against Trump as baseless and convoluted.
“Disappointed” Sentence “This is not a matter of fact, this is a matter of law,” New York Times reporter David French elaborated. John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser and now an ardent critic of the president, said, “This is even weaker than I feared, and I think it could be easily dismissed or President Trump could be quickly acquitted.”
Follow this author Colbert I. King's Opinion
Bragg, Manhattan's first black district attorney, was widely portrayed as an ambitious Democrat seeking to launch himself onto the national stage to defeat a former Republican president, but he found himself, legally speaking, untouchable.
That was essentially the story until late Thursday afternoon, when 12 Manhattan jurors testified. After hearing the five-week trial and sorting through a mountain of evidence and witness testimony, they found Trump guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide hush money payments to porn stars.
But, but, but what about the 34-count indictment that many opinion-makers said was nothing to be proud of? What about the legal flaws that almost certainly doomed Bragg's case?
Did they know something about the case that Bragg didn't? Or perhaps the other way around: What did they know, or not know, about Bragg's insight and expertise before he was subjected to months of legal smear campaigning? The question may not be what you know, but what you value.
As this case unfolds, here are a few things I've found useful to keep in mind: Bragg was born and raised in Harlem, attended Trinity, a prestigious private school on New York City's west side, and went on to earn a bachelor's degree from Harvard University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.
Mr. Bragg had extensive skills and experience in public corruption and white-collar crime. As Manhattan District Attorney, he led the conviction of Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weiselberg on 15 felony counts; he prosecuted former Trump strategist Stephen K. Bannon on money laundering and conspiracy charges, winning six indictments that have yet to go to trial; and, together with the New York State Attorney General's office, oversaw the investigation into the Trump Foundation, which was dissolved by court order to resolve allegations of misuse of charitable funds.
Some skeptics might say Thursday wasn't the end of the story, that Trump could appeal and that Bragg's job may not yet be restored.
But Bragg is no stranger to Trump world. He, and New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Marchan, always knew that an appeal of the defendant's conviction was inevitable. The prosecution is unlikely to be caught off guard in that regard. Bragg is no stranger to the criminal realm, having prosecuted armed robbery, assault, gun possession, and gun trafficking cases as an Assistant Attorney General for New York and an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Bragg was not a street lawyer dabbling in white-collar business. He had the integrity, the wisdom, and the backing of top staff to craft a legal strategy and reasoning that would win the first prosecution of a former president in U.S. history. An impartial jury voted in his favor. Will the critics?
