[The delay in Braggs hush money case against Donald Trump is a
victory for democracy. It makes room in the schedule for perhaps the
most important of the criminal cases against the former president:
his federal election interference trial.]
[[link removed]]

ALVIN BRAGG KEEPS WINNING IN THE TRUMP HUSH MONEY CASE  
[[link removed]]


 

Norman Eisen, Andrew Weissmann and Joshua Kolb
September 13, 2023
MSNBC
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The delay in Bragg's hush money case against Donald Trump is a
victory for democracy. It makes room in the schedule for perhaps the
most important of the criminal cases against the former president:
his federal election interference trial. _

,

 

New York Judge Juan Merchan signaled this week that he would most
likely delay
[[link removed]] the
trial start date in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s
criminal case against Donald Trump. Usually such a development is a
setback for a prosecutor. In this case, which had been set for trial
in March
[[link removed]],
the delay is a win for democracy and for Bragg himself — the latest
in a series of overlooked victories for the district attorney.

The delay makes room in the schedule for perhaps the most important of
the criminal cases against the former president: his federal election
interference trial now set to commence that same month
[[link removed]] in
Washington, D.C. Even before that trial was scheduled, Bragg
had publicly signaled
[[link removed]] that
he was willing to give up his pre-existing March trial date in the
2016 hush-money case if that was “what justice requires.”

This is only the latest in a series of shrewd and successful moves by
Bragg.

Of course, it’s ultimately up to the judge, not the prosecutor, to
move a case. We already had some inkling that Bragg’s strategy had
succeeded: After he announced his willingness to move the trial date,
the judge who is overseeing the federal case, Tanya Chutkan, said that
she had spoken with Merchan about scheduling, though she didn’t
provide more details. Now we have a strong additional indication
Bragg’s offer had its intended effect. 

This is only the latest in a series of shrewd and successful moves by
Bragg that have largely gone unnoticed by the media and the
public. From the moment he took office, he has faced significant
public criticism related to his handling of Trump investigations. It
appeared to some (including one of the authors
[[link removed]])
that he was moving too slowly — or even tacitly deep-sixing the
Trump investigation.

He also had to withstand an unflattering insider account by a former
lead prosecutor
[[link removed]] in
the case. Bragg soldiered on, absorbing the flak that often comes with
the job of being a prosecutor — and never let it affect his judgment
or actions. He announced that he would bring charges if and when they
were ready.

He did just that — and now with this latest sign of his wisdom, it
is time for a reappraisal. The concerns that Bragg was pulling his
punches were unfounded. In fact, within his first 12 months in office
he secured convictions of two of Trump’s companies and Trump’s
former CFO Allen Weisselberg. 

Moreover, in evaluating the strength of evidence the Manhattan DA’s
office had marshaled against Trump, Bragg focused on the allegations
of secret payments to Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016
election — and the alleged subsequent cover-up. This decision
sidestepped the complexities and defenses that might arise in
connection with other business fraud allegations. In our view, with
over a half-century of collective experience as criminal law
practitioners, the resulting 34-count indictment makes a simple and
strong case.

Not only are these types of charges regarding false business records
the bread and butter of the Manhattan DA’s office, but this case is
also, at its heart, a democracy case. Paying Daniels hush money to
keep quiet about an affair in the weeks leading up to the 2016
election was a form of election interference; its whole goal was to
keep truthful information from the electorate. By bringing this case,
Bragg is defending and enforcing the integrity of our elections and
democracy. His case paved the way for election interference cases
brought by special counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County, Georgia,
District Attorney Fani Willis. By filing the initial indictment, Bragg
also relieved some of the pressure of going first, drawing some of the
criticism that Smith and Willis otherwise might have faced.

And draw it he did. After he charged Trump, Bragg came in for even
more vociferous criticism from some legal experts. These
voices claimed
[[link removed]] that
the case was “preempted” by federal law because it related to a
federal campaign, so it would be removed to federal court for that and
other reasons and caught up in years of delay. 

Bragg’s willingness to push his case back to allow Smith to go
first, in the public interest, is remarkable.

Those criticisms
[[link removed]] got
enormous airtime when the charges were filed, but little attention has
been paid to the fact that they have since rightfully withered on the
vine, as they should have. In July, U.S. District Judge Alvin
Hellerstein ruled against Trump’s attempt to remove the case to
federal court
[[link removed]],
because the acts charged were personal and not, as required for
removal, official. The judge also held
[[link removed]] that
the collateral impact on a federal election wasn’t a sufficient
basis for federal law to pre-empt the state criminal charges. 

Hellerstein treated Bragg’s case with the respect that it deserves.
All signs are that the evidence establishes Trump’s leadership of
the scheme to falsify documents and conceal a multitude of payments as
legal fees as part of a plan to keep damaging information from the
electorate at a critical time in the election. Trump’s own signature
appears on many of the allegedly false documents. The Manhattan
district attorney and other prosecutors across the state
have regularly secured convictions
[[link removed]] on
like charges 
[[link removed]]and
with equal or lesser evidence.

Moreover, when the case does get to trial, Trump faces a genuine
prospect of incarceration. The sentences for each of the 34 counts run
up to four years. Even if all are concurrent (served simultaneously),
a maximum sentence would still be a substantial period. And the judge
may provide that not all run concurrently, so two or more of them may
be “stacked” or consecutive.

The strength of the case shouldn’t be surprising. It would have made
no sense for a career federal and state prosecutor like Bragg to bring
a weak case. As Bragg said
[[link removed]] when
he was criticized publicly for not having brought the case earlier, it
wasn’t yet ready.

In light of the strength of Bragg’s case and his court success
defeating Trump’s effort to remove the case to federal court, his
willingness to push his case back to allow Smith to go first, in the
public interest, is remarkable, particularly for an elected official.
His actions — from the investigation he led to the public spirit
that infuses both his indictment and his willingness to cede the
spotlight — exemplify the legal profession at its best.

Not many would show such gravitas. But throughout, Bragg has
demonstrated true statesmanship — staying the course, continuing the
investigation, pushing forward in spite of external (and some
internal) sniping and, ultimately, stepping aside temporarily. He has
transcended parochialism and politics, focusing only on the public
good. He deserves our thanks. 

_Ambassador Norman Eisen
[[link removed]] (ret.) was
former President Barack Obama’s ethics czar and impeachment counsel
to the House Judiciary Committee in 2019-20._

_Andrew Weissmann
[[link removed]] is a
legal analyst for MSNBC and a professor of practice with the New York
University School of Law's Center on the Administration of Criminal
Law. Previously, he was a lead prosecutor for Robert Mueller’s
special counsel’s office and led the Justice Department’s Fraud
Section. He co-hosts MSNBC’s podcast “Prosecuting Donald
Trump.”_

_Joshua Kolb is a former law clerk for the Senate Judiciary
Committee._

Get the latest from MSNBC [[link removed]].

* Alvin Bragg
[[link removed]]
* hush money indictment
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]