Boston University law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman wrote a scathing op-ed in The New York Times calling out Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for his "hush money" case against former President Donald Trump.
Shugerman's piece, titled "I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think it's a Historic Mistake," argued the prosecution's case delved into absurdity. The Boston University law professor's op-ed further cited the prosecution's opening statements on Monday as his reasoning for the case being a giant blunder.
“Their vague allegation about ‘a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election’ has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud,” Shugerman wrote, claiming prosecutors appeared to be incorporating state laws into a case that should be relegated to federal courts.
“It is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal," he added.
“None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud," Shugerman continued. "Calling it ‘election fraud’ is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet."
The law professor noted both sides should be allowed to make their case, though said the "hush money" case was demonstrative of the judicial system's partisan weaponization.
“Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law," Shugerman concluded. "This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America — and promote bipartisan reforms of our partisan prosecutorial system."
Fellow law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University similarly referred to Bragg's case as an "embarrassment" to the judicial system.
“What’s clear is in this case, Trump is right. I mean, this is an embarrassment," Turley said during an appearance on Fox News. "The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief.”
The law professor said the arguments presented during Monday's opening statements captured "all the problems" of Trump's case.
"You had this misdemeanor under state law where, that had run out, this is going back to relate it to the 2016 election, and they zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violation under the federal laws that doesn’t exist," Turley continued. "The Department of Justice doesn’t view it this way.”
"Keep in mind, this is what Hillary Clinton’s people did. Remember, when they funded the Steele dossier — which they denied to reporters — they put it as a legal expense. And then they fought the eventual fine they received from the federal government saying that it was a legal expense," Turley added.
