Columns, Criminal law, Politics

Bragg’s Legal Slurpee: The Trump Indictment is Designed for Instant Satisfaction Without Substance

Below is my column in the New York Post on the release of the indictment against former President Donald Trump. Warning: it has no legally nutritional content…

Here is the column:

“We cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said of his indictment of former president Donald Trump.

Yes, the man who has routinely knocked down felony crimes to misdemeanors — or dismissals — actually suggested that he had no alternative but to charge Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records.

He insisted, our “business integrity” is at stake. After all, as Bragg intoned with no sense of self-awareness, he has always believed that “the bedrock of the basis for business integrity and a well-functioning business marketplace is accurate record-keeping.”

It is all about a well-functioning business marketplace — not his campaign pledge to bag Trump on some (unnamed) crime.

When people think Bragg, they think business.

The first indictment of a former American president was a historical moment, and Bragg failed to rise to that moment.

Bragg released an indictment that was so vague on key elements that it is unclear what the grand jury thought it was voting on. He vaguely referenced state and federal election laws and later refused to add any details on how they relate to the prosecution.

The result is an indictment with the substance of a legal Slurpee: it was immediately satisfying for many with virtually no legal substance.

Bragg solved the problem over his uncertain authority by avoiding any specificity on that authority. He could have put “details to follow” in the caption of the indictment.

Legal experts went immediately into a frenzy over what this could mean and exactly what was the crime that Trump was allegedly covering up with payments to cover up alleged affairs with three women.

If these experts were left scratching their heads on such key elements, how did laypersons on a grand jury understand the basis for this indictment?

We may learn more from the bill of particulars, but this indictment is unintelligible from a legal perspective in understanding the basis for the prosecution.

After the arraignment, Bragg made sweeping references to state and federal election laws before saying that he didn’t have to give such details. He just filed the first charges against a former president and refused to specify the basis for the felonies.

He then held a press conference and refused to answer questions about this basis because he “doesn’t have to.”

What is particularly maddening is that, while Bragg refused to explain the basis for the indictment, he did undermine his own case . . . whatever it may prove to be.

He insisted that Trump could not be allowed to use “fictitious legal services” for political purposes. As with his claimed intolerance for criminal conduct, Bragg’s professed outrage was bizarre given analogous conduct by Democrats like Hillary Clinton on campaign-finance allegations.

The Clinton campaign had previously denied funding the dossier, which was used to push false Russia collusion claims against Trump in 2016, and it buried the funding in the campaign’s legal budget through former Clinton campaign General Counsel Marc Elias.

Last year, the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign for funding the Steele dossier as a legal expense. Those fictitious legal services did not produce the same revulsion in Bragg or other prosecutors.

This is no time for the niceties of reason in an age of rage. Bragg showed that the only important thing was the name on the indictment caption rather than its basis.

That reality was evident in a new CNN poll. Over half (52%) said that politics had played a “major role” in the indictment. Over three-fourths (76%) said that the move was at least somewhat political. More importantly, only one-third (37%) thought that Trump’s alleged payments to Stormy Daniels were illegal. However, 60% said that they still supported charging Trump. So it is a political prosecution and most do not see a crime, but it is still supported by many citizens.

In Manhattan, the basis for charges against Trump is largely irrelevant. This is a thrill kill case and Bragg just delivered on his campaign promise to bag Trump on something . . . anything. We still do not know what that was, but it does not matter.

Bragg knows his audience. The question is whether he knows this judge. Bragg is counting on Judge Juan Merchan being intimidated or distracted by the historical moment. Even if he is right, Merchan will not be the last judge who will have to review this case.

At some point, Bragg will have to state the actual criminal basis for these 34 counts.

Until then, history — and Trump — will simply just have to wait for Alvin Bragg.

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

287 thoughts on “Bragg’s Legal Slurpee: The Trump Indictment is Designed for Instant Satisfaction Without Substance”

  1. Leftist prosecutors up and down the east coast know they have little chance of sending Trump to prison. Their objective is to win in 2024 by tainting Trump’s image among swing voters. The prosecutors will not be happy when they find their efforts overwhelmed by waves of new voters attracted to Trump’s fight against tyranny.

  2. Professor Turley, it’s even worse than what you describe. It’s half a slurpy left out in the hot sun for a couple of hours. I hear that Bragg drank it anyway. Poor boy is now getting a tummy ache because even his friends on CNN are now saying that he shouldn’t have sucked down the yucky slurpy. He should have known that melted slurpy results in too many bats in the belfry.

  4. Alvin Bragg, like Joe Biden, is a tool of his handlers, unable to answer the most basic of questions.

  5. When CNN hacks admit that the indictment is shaky you know you got some splaining to do. Braaagg you got some splaining to do.

  6. The irony being that the trumped-up case of “election interference” against Trump is, in itself, election interference of horrifying magnitude. Even if the charges were to be dropped today, irreparable damage has already been done, both to Trump the candidate and to the American system of justice which will burn on the funeral pyre of Trump’s candidacy. Not to mention Trump’s family, especially Barron, who do not deserve this. How did we get here? We got here by letting so many things slide, starting with Peter Strzok and his “insurance policy” and going on from there.

  7. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to what they have to say about how weak the indictment is on CNN.https://rumble.com/v2giusp-cnn-trashes-trump-indictment.html. I have a prediction. Four years from now Bragg will be sitting in a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He will be welcomed with open arms by the Democrats. He is only making his future more secure by gaining favor with his Democratic friends. It used to be that such things were only done under the table. Now he believes that he can demand his lucre right out in the open. Hey, the mans got a family to take care of just like Don Corleone.

      1. Thinkitthrough: My Gomer Pyle, “Thankyou, Thankyou, Thankyou” to you.

      2. Still waiting for Clarence to amend *his*. I know, your memory may not be so good.

        1. yeah, for a SCOTUS justice, memory is important. It took Sotomayor four years.

          2. It’s been going on with Thomas and Crow for 20 years. By comparison, 4 years is quick.

            1. You conveniently left out two important considerations:
              (1) The propublica article that you cite expressly states: “Crow met Thomas after he became a justice. The pair have become genuine friends, according to people who know both men.” Conversely, Sotomayor was at arms length from the institutions that paid for her trips.
              (2) The propublica article that you cite expressly states, “In his statement, Crow said that he and his wife have never discussed a pending or lower court case with Thomas.” Conversely, Sotomayor exhorted students to protest and advocate on pending abortion cases/issues.
              I can list additional dissimilar considerations, if you like.

              1. None of that changes the fact that Thomas has never declared hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from Crow. Being friends does not exempt him from this.

                And Sotomayor exhorting students to protest is not a “converse” to Crow’s claim that he never discussed his own pending cases with Thomas. The parallel would be whether the institutions that paid for Sotomayor’s trips discussed their own pending cases with her.

                1. Methinks you are a little confused here.
                  The law (Ethics in Government Act) provides an exemption for “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality.”
                  Just now (March 2023) Judicial Conference regulations have redefined disclosure exemptions under “personal hospitality,” which is the loophole now being addressed and does NOT cover past exemptions utilized by either Thomas or Sotomayor.
                  Why don’t you take the time to review the Judiciary Conference’s new amendments?

                2. Clarence Thomas has rich white friends? How is that possible?

                  Remember when sitting U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez D-NJ was defending bribery and corruption charges a number of years ago? Probably not, because he’s a Democrat.
                  Being a Democrat corruption trial, the media did its best to keep it out of the news.
                  If the corruption trial had been a Republican senator it would have been wall to wall news coverage.

                  Menendez’s defense was essentially that the extravagant gifts were not bribery.
                  He said, “No silly, that’s friendship, don’t you see?”
                  He should have been convicted, but he got lucky with a hung jury.
                  Feds declined to retry the case.
                  And then NJ promptly reelected him.

                3. Do you know what Thomas has declared? No. You don’t even know what he is supposed to declare.

                  As usual your mouth is engaged but has no connection to a brain.

    3. Congress and the Supreme Court are co-equal branches of government. Congress cannot regulate the S Ct. and the S. Ct, cannot regulate Congress.

      1. “The Court has often acquiesced to congressional attempts to subject Justices to specific ethical standards. For example, when Congress decided to subject the Justices to financial disclosure requirements, the Justices opted to comply with those provisions rather than challenge their constitutionality in court. Justices have likewise implicitly accepted the validity of 28 U.S.C. § 455, discussed above, and recused themselves pursuant to that statute without questioning whether Congress possesses the constitutional authority to enact a judicial disqualification statute.”
        https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/LSB10255.pdf

  9. There is a lot of anger being directed at Alvin Bragg, but the more important point is that he was elected by the residents of the City, who approved of his promise to “get Trump.” We should be more angry at them. I suggest that if we were planning to travel to NYC, we should cancel those plans, and write a letter to the Mayor telling him why. Maybe the entire country should boycott NYC.

    1. Well writ and hardly cited even by the media which supports Trump. I was born and raised in NYC/Metro. I have family living in Manhattan and NJ. I will not cross the river. It’s not just the Westside limo libs. Bragg received 80+% of the AG vote. Much like Chicago, they have what they voted for.

    1. He needs something to keep his gullible readers satiated until there’s something more concrete to analyze.

      1. Apparently he is doing a good job, since you breathlessly appear here, several times a day, to take in more…

      2. Atleast on NYT opp ed from a left wing law professor excoritated Bragg for bringing this hot pile of Dog Schiff.

        There are very few people of eithe rparty that think this is not a big loser for democrats.

        And most prominent democrats are keeping their mouths shut.
        This was a big mistake.

  11. There is a huge difference between public servants with significant character flaws, which we all have, and public servants who spend every waking moment corrupting our political system, our system of justice, our law enforcement agencies, our intelligence agencies, our religious institutions, the authority of parents regarding their children, our schools, our military, our borders, and capitalism. God bless Trump.

  12. 6th Amendment violation for failing to inform the defendant in the indictment what law was violated, isn’t it?.

    1. Upstate – and the fine against Clinton was just $8000! She personally started the three year long hoax of Putin-Trump Collusion and was only penalized $8000. The sytem is rigged here, there and everywhere. Of course, in fairness to the FEC, it probably shows that they did not regard the bookeeping entry to be a very serious offense.

  14. Many are repulsed by Trump, but it is hoped not to the extent they would weaponize the justice system against him like the most rabid and vehement of his critics are hell bent to do. With so few (37%) seeing it as a crime and yet so many (60%) supporting prosecution, the politics is glaring. Take it as a poll on the 2024 election and even the most hostile and malicious Trump haters should be able to rest themselves pleased that they will prevail. Hubris and boisterousness are character flaws Trump has shown himself unable to overcome and even for many who otherwise have appreciation for his positions on what and how government should be it’s enough to discourage their votes. That should surely be received as enough solace for all misanthropes to let up on their blood thirst for a crucifixion. I say, “Should be”, but will not hold my breath on it.

    1. Anyone who opines about the integrity of the Manhattan DA without seeing evidence is talking out of their rectum. Claiming that our justice system has been “weaponized” is groundless until all of the evidence is disclosed. Bragg has a good reputation for being honest and hard-working. He methodically gathered documentary evidence and witness testimony before proceeding, knowing the sh*t storm that was coming. Among today’s revelations is proof that Tacopina’s “Trump did this to protect Melania’s feelings” defense is pure bunk–Trump structured the Stormy Daniels payout such that if he lost the eleciton, as polls predicted, he could just skip out on paying Stormy and let her go publlic– so sparing Melania won’t work as a defense. Furthermore, the sexual encounter happened 10 years before, so why the payout in 2016, other than the election? Trump’s “character flaws” do not consist merely of “hubris and boisterousness”–they are malignant narcissism, sociopathy, misogyny, womanizing, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, racism, and being a chrnoic, habitual liar. Most of the American people see him for what he is and would have rejected him a third time, regardles of the prosecutions that have happened and are likely to come. And, Americans might have been willing to overlook all of this if Trump had done a good job, but he didn’t. Anyone with eyes can see that this country was in the crapper when Biden took over–schools, businesses and restaurants shut down, new daily records of COVID deaths and infections, no leisure travel, worst recession since the Great Depression, shortages of consumer goods and computer chips, and fractured relations with EU and NATO allies. Biden has done a stellar job of getting the US back to work, back to school, infrastructure improvements, repaired relations with our allies, and set a record for low unemployment. Yet, every single day, Trump manages to steal the limelight–something most Americans are sick of, too.

      1. It seems you have it all decisively wrapped up for yourself as well as the majority of others. No way can Trump, with so many character flaws, ever be elected again. Why then is that not enough for you? Why such extreme emotion and hysteria? Why the lust for his eradication?

        I have heard of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). While it is not an officially classified mental disorder, many social scientists have nevertheless stipulated that lack of official recognition does not mean that TDS is not a real mental condition.

        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201901/is-trump-derangement-syndrome-real-mental-condition

  15. The whole thing reeks. Yet questions abound

    Change of venue is essential for a fair trial, if there is still such a thing.

    Does NY State allow a motion to quash the indictment?

    If they are alleging violation of federal election rules, can Trump move that the case be moved to a court with federal jurisdiction?

    Will there ever be a suit for malicious prosecution?

  16. Victor Davis Hanson has a very good article out today about just how close we are to the Reign of Terror following the French Revolution. We should pay heed to just how destructive an uneducated and angry mob can be when prodded on by ideology that barely comprehend while filled with stoked anger. We are in grave peril.

  17. Alan Dershowitz is right to emphasize the improbability that any Manhattan judge could be impartial in a case involving Trump. If Trump were acquitted in a Manhattan courtroom, the presiding judge would become a pariah among family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Also becoming a pariah would be the members of any Manhattan jury that would dare to acquit Trump. With a pre-determined verdict looming, Trump has nothing to lose by observing that the presiding judge has made anti-Trump campaign contributions and that the judge’s daughter has been engaged in anti-Trump political activities.

  18. Red Flags:

    DA Bragg has a net worth of $41 million. How did Al get that rich off of government paychecks?

    Judge Merchan family members are involved in democratic fund raising & strategies.

    The political strategies are called “boiler room operations”. That is to localize, isolate, neutralize & destroy the political opponent.

    1. RE:”DA Bragg has a net worth of $41 million..” You have to dig deep to find Bragg’s roots, but he is, if one can borrow a phrase, a beneficiary of black privilege, given the accomplishments of his parents, and the educational track he was placed on. As to his net worth, one would need to know how he managed his assets. I came to learn that, two NYC college professors, whose course in Embryology I was enrolled in some 60 years ago, left an impressive to the Woods Hole Laboratory. Go figure that! http://comm.archive.mbl.edu/publications/labnotes/2002/02_summer02.htmlhttp://comm.archive.mbl.edu/publications/labnotes/2002/02_summer02.html

      1. ZZDoc, Says go figure that!

        Yeah, how about insider stock trading. S&P put option trading after an indictment.

  19. Nothing new from Turley, lets move on, nothing to see here. Especially if it has to do with anything Trump.

    1. I see you are one of the people who are a problem in this nation. Those who acknowledge that the actions against Trump are politically motivated, and still want a conviction. Common action by fascists.

    2. “Common action by fascists” I agree, no different than the fascists attempting to control the world that brought on WWII. Decent people will eventually fight back against this as they always do.

      1. I cannot feeling that you are being a bit unfair to the fascists because they actually had a program, unlike the people suffering from TDS, who have only a grievance supported by a burning hatred for the man who denied Hillary her presidency.
        Just a thought, but I wonder how many people who use the word ‘fascist’ actually have any idea of what real-life fascists were like, and, no, I do not mean Nazis. For those who don’t — fascists sought to do away with the corrupt liberal (yes, Liberal) politics of Italy and create a system of corporate (economic) government. The original Italian Fascists were all left-wingers (Mussolini was a Socialist firebrand who made Avanti! into a major newspaper), but they allied with the Nationalists, some industrialists, some large landowners, and a number of other groups with different agendas. When Mussolini was appointed PM in 1922, he had had relatively little power. He consolidated that in 1925, then went on to become a dictator with broad powers. Italian fascism had several variants, but the goal was to reclaim Italy’s dignity, raise the country to an equal status with France among the great powers, and share the Mediterranean basin with France and Britain, and simultaneously expand its imperial holdings. Fascist Italy was, in essence, not much different from most of the imperial (yes, imperial) powers, and the British only turned on it in 1937 because Italy’s conquest of Ethiopia and its increasing strength made it the most direct threat to the British empire, which had been less than stable since 1929. Fascists were not racist (or at least no more than any other people was in that era), Nazis were. Fascist sought to build a new system for a new ‘man’; Nazi sought to expand in East-Central Europe and replace inferior races with their own superior “Aryan” breed. Nazis built concentration camps, Fascists did not . . . . and on and on.
        There is more to history than an epithet and name-calling.

        1. An Old Guy – you are correct that it is unfair to compare Democrats with facsists. At least, Mussolini could make the trains run on time. Pete Butttigieg can’t even keep them on the rails.

          1. Indeed he did! Prior 1939, Italians held most of the speech, distance, and altitude records, and Italo Balbo made the first ‘mass’ crossings of the South and North Atlantic, and was greeted by tens of thousands of cheering Americans (and a lot of Italian-Americans) when he landed in New York and made his way to Chicago in 1931. Britannica (on-line) does not mention this, but Claudio Segre does in his biography of the Italian fascist. Hard to imagine many contemporary heads of air ministries risking their lives to prove a point.

        2. “Fascists were not racist . . .”

          You’re not even close.

          “It is time that Italians proclaim themselves to be openly racist.” (From Mussolini’s “Manifesto of Race”) As a result of that widespread racism in Italy, there was institutional anti-Semitism, including racist decrees that revoked the citizenship of Italian Jews.

          “Nazis built concentration camps, Fascists did not . . .”

          You are either woefully ignorant or a wicked apologist for Italian fascism. Italian fascists created concentration camps throughout the territories they controlled, with all of the barbaric practices of the Nazi concentration camps.

    3. FishBrain
      FishCult
      FishSlurpeeBrain
      FishFascist
      FascistFishySlushBrain

      1. I want to thank you for taking the time to translate from your Russian to English just for that witty response.

    4. Plenty to see here: This is nothing more than a political witch hunt.
      Bragg, and by extension, the Biden admin has turned America into a banana republic. Even long time Trump critic Mitt Romney sees it as such.
      Legal anti-Trump lawyers are even calling the indictment dumb. Some anti-Trump lawyer wrote an opinion in the WaPo saying the same.

      Just as a reminder, deli meat is more appealing then Biden!
      Ham sandwich, 2024!

Comments are closed.