Gregg Jarrett: Bragg's case against Trump founded on 'hocus-pocus'

 April 23, 2024

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg has launched his arguments in his "hush money" payments trial against President Trump. He's alleging conspiracy, election interference, and all sorts of other felonies in the case now being heard by a jury in the ultra-leftist and avowedly anti-Trump enclave of New York City.

But it's all based on "hocus-pocus," explains an analysis from respected legal commentator Gregg Jarrett.

He's a Fox News legal analyst and commentator.

"Hocus-pocus is a meaningless distraction or illusion that is intended to fool. That neatly summarizes District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Donald Trump," Jarrett explained. "The D.A. hopes to snooker a Manhattan jury into convicting the former president with a bag of legal tricks."

And he warns such "chicanery" might even work in New York, a "Trump-hating venue."

He explained the "sleight of hand" appeared immediately during opening arguments, presented for the prosecution by Matthew Colangelo, who was Joe Biden's pick at the DOJ.

Colangelo claimed the case is "about a criminal conspiracy," but Jarrett pointed out it's not.

"The word 'conspiracy' can be found nowhere in Bragg’s indictment. It’s not there because there was no criminal conspiracy. But that didn’t stop the prosecutor from deceiving the jury by arguing about an uncharged crime. Like a skilled magician, he hopes his pretense will fool them. "

Then Colangelo slipped in another canard.

"More than once, he accused Trump of 'election fraud,' conveniently ignoring the fact that the Federal Election Commission examined Trump’s payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and determined there was no fraud because the money conferred did not qualify as a campaign donation. Federal prosecutors who investigated reached the same conclusion. So did Bragg’s predecessor. There was no crime."

Jarrett also noted Colangelo ignored the fact non-disclosure agreements are "perfectly legal and routine."

"None of this stopped the prosecutor from informing the jury that all of this constitutes 'an illegal conspiracy to undermine a presidential election.' Like most illusions, it seems plausible on the surface. But wait. Let’s check the indictment again. Every single one of the 34 charges against Trump took place in 2017. You’ll note that this is after the 2016 election," Jarrett pointed out.

Trump's defense informed the jury that election "influence" has been going on for centuries: "It's called democracy."

"Trump had nothing to do with the bookkeeping or the 34 invoices reflecting the same number of charged counts. He assigned his lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, to resolve the demands for money, which he did. Cohen booked the cost as legal services and expenses, which they were," the commentary said.

Bragg "accuses Trump of 'conspiring to influence the 2016 presidential election' without recognizing the obvious hypocrisy. It is Bragg, himself, who is guilty of election interference in 2024 by bringing a legally absurd case designed to take Trump off the campaign trail while his opponent, Joe Biden, freely blankets key states in advance of the November balloting."

A report at Just the News this week pointed out how justices on the U.S. Supreme Court now are concerned about "the increasing prevalence of political prosecutions in the United States."

The report noted two justices cited "the apparent contradictions in the Biden administration’s selective enforcement of certain provisions against January 6 protestors. The high court’s ruling in this case may have implications for Trump too. He is charged with the same crime, obstructing an official proceeding in one of his federal cases."

Trump has described the latest Democrat attacks as lawfare that continues the attacks that started even before he was president.

"They had the Mueller hoax, the Mueller report and that came out, no collusion after two and a half years…that was set up by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats," he has said.

"But this is what they do. This is what they do so well, if they would devote their energies to honesty and integrity, to be a lot better for our country, they could do a lot better," he added.

Just the News noted celebrity lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz., a longtime leftist, said he sees "partisan purposes" in the prosecution of Trump.

"I just don't understand what the crime is. And I've been doing this for 60 years, I have more experience than all the prosecutors combined, in this case, in terms of teaching, writing, and litigating criminal cases. And if I can't even find the crime, you know, what they say the crime is, it's a misdemeanor, that was expired under the statute of limitations a long time ago. And they turned it into a state felony by saying that the purpose of the misdemeanor was to violate a federal felony, which the federal government didn't go after," he told Just the News.

"[If] the defendant's name weren't Donald Trump, and he wasn't running for president, no sane prosecutor in a million years would ever bring this case, and none has in the nearly, you know, 200 whatever years of American history, this is a first and it's a terrible mark on the American justice system,": he added.

Latest News

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts