Angela Weiss/Pool Photo via AP & NDZ/STAR MAX/IPx
The first conviction of a former president in American history will forever be defined by the political stink around it.
While much of Donald Trump’s legal strife is the fair consequences of a selfish, careless man’s selfish, careless actions, the 34 counts of falsification of business records he was found guilty of will forever carry an — if not several — asterisk(s).
Shortly after the verdict was announced, the personality cult right exploded in hyperbole, declaring it the end of the American justice system, lamenting the United States’ descent into the Third World, and even calling for reprisals against Democratic officials. This collective gnashing of teeth was mocked by many who took note of the contrived outrage on display.
Still others went further, though, denying that there was anything at all untoward about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Trump.
“For the past few hours, prominent public figures like Susan Collins to many Trump fans on this app, and others have said that Alvin Bragg campaigned on a promise to prosecute Trump. I cannot find a single example of Bragg saying that during his campaign or anything close to it,” insisted independent journalist Yashar Ali, expressing a common refrain of left-wingers on Thursday.
The truth is that while Bragg didn’t explicitly promise to prosecute Trump, he repeatedly discussed the possibility of bringing charges against the former president while winking at the electorate to indicate that he was the man best-suited to take Trump down.
Bragg declared his candidacy for his current position in 2019. In the time between then and his election in 2021, he addressed the topic numerous times, as a helpful PolitiFact article noted.
In a December 2020 forum with other candidates, Bragg was sure to bring up Trump in his opening statement.
“Let’s talk about what’s waiting for the new DA. The docket. We know there’s a Trump investigation. I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation,” said Bragg. “I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times for (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the travel ban, separation of children from their families at the border. So I know that work.”
“I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable,” he concluded, mixing a half-hearted attempt at feigning even-handedness with a hint that he would be inclined to prosecute.
In a January 2021 interview, Bragg boasted that he was “the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump” and that he knew “how to litigate with him.”
Again, he tried to walk the tightrope between prejudicing the case and showing his winning hand with voters. It’s not exactly subtle:
So, I’m ready to go wherever the facts take me, and to inherit that case. And I think it’d be hard to argue with the fact that that’d be the most important, most high-profile case, and I’ve seen him up front and seen the lawlessness that he could do…
…So I have seen a pattern of lawlessness over 20 years and so I am inclined to believe all I have seen in the public domain and believe that there’s a path forward there to make the case.
Then in another interview from March 2021, he repeated his stock line about “follow the facts” before outright saying where he thought those facts led.
“What I’ve seen in the public domain is deeply troubling, this misvaluation of assets to me sounds like the basis of a case that can be criminal,” said Bragg. “And, as you said, I need to be judicious, as someone who may inherit this case. But what I can say is you look at my record of not just white-collar crimes generally, but specifically with Donald Trump and people can have confidence that I’m going to go where the facts take me.”
Then all of a sudden, that May, Bragg decided that he couldn’t “comment on something I might inherit” but couldn’t resist adding that “In all these things, look to what I have done.”
This dance was too clever by half. Adding in a disclaimer about how you’ll “follow the facts” while preemptively declaring conduct criminal and waxing about your ability and desire to target an individual is utterly meaningless. It’s a**-covering, not an expression of high-minded principle.
It may not be accurate to say Bragg promised to prosecute Trump, but it’s also wrong to argue that he did not make a point of campaigning on the implication that he was inclined to.
Moreover, once he was in charge of the investigation, Bragg continued to take steps that were indicative of his politically-motivated desire to charge Trump.
The statute of limitations on the falsification of business records charges that Trump has been convicted on had already expired when Bragg announced that he had been indicted. But those charges were resurrected by Bragg’s argument that they were committed in furtherance of a felony. According to The New York Times, Bragg’s predecessor was skeptical of this theory, but Bragg “pushed his prosecutors to scour the penal code for a workable theory” and ended up deciding to use a “novel and untested theory” by “applying a state election law to a federal campaign.”
This isn’t blind justice and you should beware anyone who would tell you it is. Scouring the penal code to find some way, any way to wield the power of the state against an individual is the act of a an illiberal man unsuited for any office, much less the powerful one he holds.
Barring a successful appeal, it’s true that this conviction — in no small part due to Donald Trump’s abhorrent personal behavior — will stand the test of time. But so too will the unmistakable, ugly stench of the political motivations and machinations behind it.
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
