April 15 2024

  • Alvin Bragg campaigned on targeting President Trump.
    • During several interviews on the campaign trail, Bragg said that he had the best background of any DA candidate to go after President Trump.
      • "I’m the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump... I believe we have to hold him accountable."
    • New York Times: "Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan D.A., campaigned as the best candidate to go after the former president."

 

  • Alvin Bragg’s weak case against President Trump has been widely criticized
    • The New York Times reported: "The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws."
    • The Washington Post wrote that the prosecution left some “legal experts . . . scratching their heads” as “they describe it as an unusual case.”
    • Never-Trumper Jonah Goldberg said, “if President Trump’s ‘name were John Smith, Alvin Bragg would not be bringing this case.’”
    • The DOJ, FEC, and Alvin Bragg’s predecessor Cy Vance all declined to prosecute President Trump for this matter.
    • Boston University law professor Jed Shugerman described Bragg's indictment as a "legal embarrassment." 

 

 

  • The key witness in the case, Michael Cohen, is a felon, a convicted perjurer, and a disbarred lawyer.
    • George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley: "Everything about this case is, in my view, legally absurd... So you have this crazy case that’s going to go forward, and it’s going to turn on the testimony of people like Michael Cohen. And Michael Cohen just recently had a judge call him a serial perjurer."

 

  • Alvin Bragg lets criminals run free and terrorize New York.
    • Bragg has a record of downgrading felony charges and criminals are eager to take advantage of his weakness.
    • Shoplifting, for example, has increased 64 percent in recent years in New York, more than any other big city.
    • Here is the New York Post editorial board on Bragg's disgraceful tenure as DA: "Starting with his disgraceful 'Day 1' memo to his office, Bragg has emphasized a 'decarceral' agenda that treats prosecution as a major threat to society.
    • “Along with state criminal-justice 'reforms' pushing the same misbegotten approach, that’s produced a steep rise in shootings and other violent crimes — as well as record shoplifting that’s forced many retailers to close and left the rest locking up most of their shelves, even the toothpaste.”
    • “The DA’s lowlights include a sweet-heart plea deal last December for a gangbanger with a history of robbing high-end Madison Avenue boutiques (Bragg said his office had too much on its plate), the aborted murder charge against bodega worker Jose Alba in a clear case of self-defense as well as charging Marine Corps vet Daniel Penny with manslaughter in the death of Jordan Neely, a mentally unhinged vagrant threatening other straphangers."

 

  • Judge Juan Merchan is a Biden donor and has a massive conflict of interest. 
    • His daughter actively profits from the case. The New York Post reported: "Dem clients of daughter of NY judge in Trump hush-money trial raised $93M off the case"
      • His daughter, Loren Merchan, receives a cut of those fundraising proceeds.
    • A former federal judge agreed on CNN that this judge has a conflict of interest.
      • Retired federal judge Shira Scheindlin: "As you already said, the daughter does work with many, many high- profile Democratic candidates. She works on their social media. They put out a post. They get contributions. She, as an owner, gets a percentage of those contributions. So, there is a statute, in New York, which says a judge must disqualify himself, if a person known by the judge, be within the sixth degree of relationship, and a daughter is the first degree, has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. So, the question here is, is this daughter likely to profit, to benefit, from the outcome of this proceeding? And you have to understand, it's not actual conduct that's worrisome. It's the appearance, the appearance to a reasonable person, that this judge cannot be fair and impartial, given that relationship. So ordinarily, I would think that a benefit, financially, would be to a spouse, because they share the income. This is an independent adult daughter. They don't share income. But according to this -- according to this statute, according to this statute, the judge must recuse if she would substantially benefit from the outcome. So that's one thing that concerns me."

 

Back to News