Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’

Second Circuit to Hear Trump Appeal from New York Criminal Case


By: Jonathan Turley | June 11, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/06/11/second-circuit-to-hear-trump-appeal-from-new-york-criminal-case/

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear oral arguments on a threshold issue in the criminal case against President Donald Trump in New York. The case is still pending in the New York court system after his sentencing, but  President Trump wants the case removed to federal court. He is relying on last year’s presidential immunity decision and arguing that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg tripped a wire by calling former White House aides as witnesses.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a historic decision in Trump v. United States defining the scope of presidential immunity.

The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority,” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.

The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress.

Here, the Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions.  Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling.

Trump is arguing that he is protected by presidential immunity and that this matter should be heard in federal court. He is citing Bragg’s calling of former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout as witnesses to discuss matters occurring in the White House and during Trump’s first term.

Bragg is arguing that it is too late for such removal. Trump’s prior efforts at removal have failed.

The argument will be heard before Judges Raymond J. Lohier, Susan L. Carney, and Myrna Perez.

This is a difficult case to make at this stage of the case. If Trump loses, the criminal case will continue through the state system and may eventually find its way to the Supreme Court.

I have long been a critic of the case and there are strong grounds to appeal.

For example, Judge Juan Merchan effectively guaranteed a conviction by telling jurors that they did not have to agree with specificity on what had occurred in the case to convict Trump. The only way to get beyond the passage of the statute of limitations on the dead misdemeanor for falsifying business records had been to allege that the bookkeeping violation in question occurred to conceal another crime. Bragg did not bother to state clearly what that crime was, originally alluding to four different crimes.

It was not until the end of the case that Merchan would lay out three possible crimes for the jury. All the way up to the final instructions in the case, legal analysts on CNN and other outlets expressed doubt about what the actual theory of the criminal conduct was in the case.

Despite spending little time on these secondary crimes at trial, Merchan told the jury that they could convict if they believed that invoices and other documents had been falsified to hide federal election violations, other falsification violations or a tax violation.

Those are very different theories of a criminal conspiracy. Under one theory, Trump was hiding an affair with a porn actress with the payment of hush money before the election. Under another theory, he was trying to reduce a tax burden for someone else (that part was left hazy). As a third alternative, he might have falsified the documents to hide the falsification of other documents, a perfectly spellbinding circular theory.

If those sound like they could be three different cases, then you are right. Yet Merchan told the jurors that they did not have to agree on which fact-pattern or conspiracy had occurred. They could split 4-4-4 on the secondary crime motivating the misdemeanors and just declare that some secondary crime was involved.

Many of us are eager to see the New York system move this case, as well as the equally grotesque case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The cases, however, continue to move forward at a glacial pace in the notoriously slow New York legal system.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:


Merchan’s Monster: Judge’s Attempt to Calm the Townspeople Fails Spectacularly in Trump Trial

By: Jonathan Turley | January 13, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/11/merchans-monster-judges-attempt-to-calm-townspeople-fails-in-trump-trial/

Below is my column in the New York Post on the statement by Acting Justice Juan Merchan in the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump. Merchan’s effort to justify the handing of the case sounded like the second defense argument made in the hearing. It likely changed few minds in the court of public opinion.

Here is the column:

This week, the sentencing of President-Elect Donald Trump saw one of the most impassioned defense arguments given at such a hearing in years . . . from the judge himself. Acting Justice Juan Merchan admitted that the case was “unique and remarkable” but insisted that “once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique, and extraordinary than the other 32 cases in this courthouse.”

If so, that is a chilling indictment of the entire New York court system. Merchan allowed a dead misdemeanor to be resuscitated by allowing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively prosecute declined federal offenses. He allowed a jury to convict Trump without any agreement, let alone unanimity, on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the jury did not have to agree on why Trump committed an alleged offense in describing settlement costs as legal costs. Neither the defendant nor the public will ever know what the jury ultimately found in its verdict.

I once described this case as a legal Frankenstein: “It is the ultimate gravedigger charge, where Bragg unearthed a case from 2016 and, through a series of novel steps, is seeking to bring it back to life…Bragg is combining parts from both state and federal codes.”

Even liberal legal experts have denounced the case and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently called it total “b—s–t.”

Now, Merchan seemed to assure this Frankenstein case that he was just like any other creature of the court. It did not matter that he was stitched together from dead cases and zapped into life through lawfare.

Merchan knows that there is a fair chance this monstrosity will finally die on appeal, and he was making the case for his own conduct. The verdict, however, is likely to last far longer than the Trump verdict. It is a judgment against not just Merchan but the New York legal system, which allowed itself to be weaponized against political opponents.

In the Mary Shelley novel, Frankenstein says “I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel.”

Trump can now appeal the case as a whole. Prior appeals in the New York court system were unsuccessful, and hopes are low that the system will redeem itself. However, Trump can eventually escape the vortex of the New York court system in search of jurists willing to see beyond the rage and bring reason to this case.

Notably, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass cited Chief Justice John Roberts in his argument before Merchan, noting that Roberts recently chastised those who attack the courts. (Roberts just the night before joined liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in refusing to stay the sentencing). Steinglass portrayed Trump as an existential threat to the rule of law.

Roberts, however, is everything that Merchan is not. You can disagree with him, but he has repeatedly ruled against his own preferred outcomes in cases, including rulings against President Trump and his campaign and Administration. For his part, Trump declined to criticize the court and declared that “This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion.”

Indeed it is. Merchan’s monster will now go on the road and work its way back to the Supreme Court. Outside of New York this freak attraction will likely be viewed as less thrilling than chilling.

The election had the feel of the townspeople coming to the castle in the movie. In this case, however, the townspeople were right about what they saw in the making of a creature that threatened their very existence. Lawfare is that monster. It threatens us all, even those who hate Trump and his supporters. Once released, it spreads panic among the public which can no longer rely on the guarantees of blind and fair justice. That includes businesses who view this case and the equally absurd civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James as creating a dangerous and even lawless environment. Many are saying “but for the grace of God go I” in a system that allows for selective prosecution.

In the sentencing proceeding, Merchan was downplaying his hand in creating this Frankenstein. However, the case is the fallen angel of the legal system. While heralded in court by Bragg’s office as the triumph of legal process, it is in fact the rawest and most grotesque form of lawfare. Many will be blamed as the creators of this monster but few will escape that blame, including Merchan himself.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

“Are You Staring Me Down?”: Judge Merchan Becomes an Oddity in his Own Courtroom


By: Jonathan Turley | May 21, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/21/are-you-staring-me-down-judge-merchan-becomes-an-oddity-in-his-own-courtroom/

C-Span/YouTube Screenshot

Below is my column in the New York Post on the meltdown of Michael Cohen on the stand in the Manhattan trial of former President Donald Trump.  In a trial careening out of control, Judge Juan Merchan seemed to be furiously working to just get the matter to the jury as fast as possible. Judge Merchan seems in open denial of the legal farce playing out in his courtroom. He is only the latest person pulled into the vortex of the swirling corruption around Michael Cohen.

Here is the column:

The completion of the testimony of Michael Cohen left the prosecution of Donald Trump, like its star witness, in tatters. In the final day of cross-examination, Cohen admitted to committing larceny in stealing tens of thousands of dollars from his client. Even more notably, he admitted to the larceny on the stand — after the statute of limitations had passed. There will be no dead felony zapped back into life against Cohen, as it was for Trump. Cohen clearly has found a home for his unique skill as a convicted, disbarred serial perjurer. 

It was not the first time that prosecutors looked the other way as Cohen admitted to major criminal conduct: In a prior hearing, Cohen admitted under oath that he lied in a previous case where he pleaded guilty to lying. If that is a bit confusing, it was just another day in the life of Michael Cohen, who appears only willing to tell the truth if he has no other alternative. The result is truly otherworldly. You have a disbarred lawyer not only casually discussing lies and uncharged crimes, but prosecutors who proceeded to get him to remind the jury that he is not facing any further criminal charges.

If any one of those jurors had stolen tens of thousands of dollars, they would be given a fast trip to the hoosegow. Yet Cohen then matter-of-factly said he plans to run for Congress due to his “name recognition” — the ultimate proof that it does not matter whether you are famous or infamous, so long as they spell your name right.

As a legislator, Cohen would have the unique ability to say he will not be corrupted by Congress — because he came to Congress corrupted. While most members wait to take office to commit felonies, Rep. Cohen would show up with a self-affirming criminal record. He could then take one of the few oaths that he has not previously violated as the Honorable Rep. Michael Cohen.

At the end of the day, Cohen is the ultimate shining object for prosecutors to use as a distraction from the glaring omissions in their case.

Prior witnesses testified that Trump’s payments to Cohen were designated as “legal expenses” not by Trump but by his accounting staff. Moreover, Cohen admitted that he worked for Trump for years in his murky capacity as a fixer. References to payments as a retainer were approved by Allen Weisselberg, a retired executive with the Trump Organization. The “legal expense” label was a natural characterization for a lawyer who was paid monthly and was on-call as Trump’s personal counsel.

In any other district, this case would never have been allowed in trial. It certainly now should be facing a directed verdict by the court. Indeed, with any other defendant, a New York jury would be giving a Bronx cheer in derision. Even CNN hosts and experts have admitted that this case would never have been brought against another defendant or in another district. That is what Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is counting on.

The biggest problem facing the defense is not the evidence, but the judge: Judge Juan Merchan seems to be channeling George Patton’s warning, “May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.”

Merchan has not given any indication that he is seriously considering a directed verdict, which he should clearly grant before this goes to the jury. Merchan’s rulings have largely favored the prosecution, including some rulings that left some of us mystified. Judge Merchan continues to allow the jury to hear references to campaign-finance violations that do not exist.

After gutting any use of a legal expert to testify on the absence of any such violations, the judge allowed the jury to hear Michael Cohen state that the payments to Stormy Daniels were clearly campaign violations. All that Merchan would offer is a weak instruction telling jurors not to take such statements as proof of a violation.

The alleged campaign-finance violations allowed Cohen to try to implicate Trump. However, it is doubtful that Trump could have been convicted on such a charge in any other venue.

It is precisely what the Justice Department tried and failed to do with John Edwards, a Democratic candidate. After that unmitigated failure, the Justice Department dropped this theory of hush money as a campaign contribution. Indeed, after reviewing the Trump payments, not only did the Justice Department decline any charges but the Federal Election Commission did not even seek a civil fine.

On Monday, Judge Merchan’s orders became even more inexplicable when Cohen’s former attorney Robert Costello took the stand. Merchan immediately started to sustain a flurry of prosecutors’ objections as Costello basically accused Cohen of multiple acts of perjury. At one point, Costello — one of the most experienced lawyers in New York and a former prosecutor — exclaimed that one of the judge’s rulings was “ridiculous.” The judge chastised Costello and even challenged him: “Are you staring me down?”

In fact, it was hard not to stare. What is happening in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan is anything but ordinary.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

Category:

corruption, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Trump’s expected ‘arrest’: The politics and power plays behind these legally feeble charges


 By Gregg Jarrett | Fox News | Published March 20, 2023 4:00am EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-expected-arrest-politics-power-plays-behind-legally-feeble-charges

With word from former President Donald Trump that he will “be arrested” on a criminal indictment engineered by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over alleged hush money payments made during the 2016 campaign, it is essential to examine what motivated the charges.  

At its core, the case represents an egregious abuse of power and the corrupt weaponization of the law for political gain. Bereft of any credible evidence, Bragg is contorting the law in a brazen attempt to inflate his case. His actions constitute serious prosecutorial misconduct. It is the culmination of a years-long effort by the District Attorney’s Office to target Trump for something – anything.     

It doesn’t seem to matter to the progressive DA that his case against the former president is the definition of flimsy and stale as month-old bread. Bragg is determined to hack off the mold and sell it as something fresh and new.  

Former President Trump said he will "be arrested" on a criminal indictment engineered by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg,
Former President Trump said he will “be arrested” on a criminal indictment engineered by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, (Associated Press)

Forget about the statute of limitations that expired years ago. Or that his predecessor declined prosecution because the law does not support a criminal charge. Or that the feds who investigated the case determined that the evidence just wasn’t there. Never mind that Bragg’s legal theory is novel, if not bizarre. Or that his star witness, Michael Cohen, is a confessed liar who went to prison and whose name is synonymous with sleaze and dishonesty.

LEGAL EXPERT TORCHES MANHATTAN DA’S POTENTIAL TRUMP ARREST: ‘BANANA REPUBLIC SORT OF STUFF’

In a sensible world, all of that should matter. But it doesn’t because Trump is the Democrats’ eternal boogeyman. Since he’s running again for president, he has to be stopped – by hook or by crook.  

So, Bragg exhumed a seven-year-old corpse of a case and appears to have snookered a grand jury into indicting the former president. The end justifies any malevolent means.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg during a press conference in New York on Sept. 8, 2022.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg during a press conference in New York on Sept. 8, 2022. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In Bragg’s twisted book, Donald Trump should be treated like a hardcore criminal because money was given to porn star, Stormy Daniels, in exchange for keeping her mouth shut in the run-up to the 2016 election. Bear in mind, such agreements are legally permissible. Silence that is conditional upon payment is not against the law. Non-disclosure agreements with pecuniary benefits attached are a common method of maintaining confidentiality. Even if it involves consensual sex, which Trump vigorously denies. 

The DA’s only impediment was the law and how to circumvent its narrowly defined language to trump up a case against Trump. That’s when Bragg was forced to get creative. He dreamed up a legally cockamamie plan to supercharge a misdemeanor into a felony by bootstrapping a supposed secondary crime to it.  

Here’s how it works, at least in Bragg’s brain. It is a mere misdemeanor under New York law to falsify business records. But by claiming that the Stormy payment was somehow calculated to violate arcane campaign reporting laws, viola! A second crime that elevates it to a felony.  

Michael Cohen leaves his apartment to report to prison in Manhattan on May 6, 2019.
Michael Cohen leaves his apartment to report to prison in Manhattan on May 6, 2019. (Reuters/Jeenah Moon TPX Images of the Day/File Photo)

Bragg’s scrutiny of campaign laws must have been cursory. In his zeal to nail Trump, he apparently skipped over the part about “dual purpose” contributions. That is, if money paid serves a double or ancillary function then it is not a reportable expense or donation to the campaign. Hence, no crime was committed. This has been Trump’s argument all along. He did it primarily for personal and commercial reasons.  

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE SAYS REPUBLICANS DON’T NEED TO PROTEST POTENTIAL TRUMP ARREST

There are a few other pesky problems with Bragg’s strategy. First, it would have to be shown that Trump himself was involved in falsifying records. Second, Bragg would have to prove that Trump not only understood the complex and convoluted campaign laws that few people comprehend, but that he intended to violate them. Third, which set of campaign laws applies? There’s the rub.   

Video

It’s been reported that Bragg is considering citing New York’s campaign statutes as the “second crime.” But wait, the presidential contest was a federal election. Moreover, state campaign laws are preempted by federal campaign laws. So, that’s a stretch. What about using those same federal laws as the second crime? Can someone be charged under state law for violating a federal law? Not likely. Prosecutors would be exceeding their jurisdictional authority. The DA can only charge under state statutes. 

Video

It is obvious that Bragg doesn’t give a hoot about the law. He’s banking on the likelihood that a liberal New York judge will let the case go to a Manhattan jury stacked with biased Trump-haters anxious to ignore all the legal constraints and convict the former president despite the paucity of incriminating evidence. However, I wouldn’t bet on any conviction being upheld on appeal.  

Also, don’t be fooled by the theatrics of an expected grand jury indictment. That was a cinch. There are rarely any enforceable rules of evidence because the proceedings are secret and lopsided. Double hearsay, unauthenticated documents, and all kinds of sketchy stuff that is otherwise inadmissible at trial can be introduced without objection.  

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels
Adult film actress Stormy Daniels (AP)

No one from the defense is present to contest the purported evidence or to challenge the witnesses. Jurors tend to accept as gospel the pablum prosecutors spoon-feed them. It’s the equivalent of a turkey shoot. And a charade. Hence the old saying, “You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

The tortured history of trying to criminalize the Stormy episode undermines Bragg’s entire rationale. The Justice Department, as well as the Federal Elections Commission, long ago examined whether Trump violated election laws. They summarily dropped the matter after concluding there was no viable case. But Bragg won’t let a dead horse remain unbeaten. He is resolved to resurrect a feckless and moribund case.

As the chief prosecutor in a city reeling from rampant crime, you would assume that Bragg is preoccupied with public safety instead of pursuing a politically motivated case. Wrong assumption. The lawlessness that plagues New York City doesn’t seem to interest him in the least. 

Video

The great irony is that Bragg has spent most of his tenure in office downgrading felonies to misdemeanors. But now he wants to upgrade a misdemeanor to a felony because his target’s name is Trump. His selective prosecution is an affront to the principle of equal justice under the law.  

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

I suspect that the district attorney’s real goal is to interfere in the upcoming presidential election by knocking out Trump. In a democracy, that important decision should be left up to voters, not a local prosecutor doing the bidding of his political party. Fortunately, most Americans are smart enough to see through the veneer of a sham case.  

Indeed, Bragg’s actions may well have the unintended consequence of rallying even more support for Donald Trump. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, and formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud