All The Other ‘Get Trump’ Cases Are Just As Weak
The corrupt press’s effort to focus our attention away from Bragg’s case tells us they know just how weak that case is.
The grand jury indictment against former president and 2024 contender Donald Trump hasn’t even been unsealed yet. But the corporate press has already moved on, redirecting the public’s focus to the other pending investigations — a subtle acknowledgment that the forthcoming charges by the Manhattan district attorney will be both weak and properly perceived as political persecution. But the Fulton County, Georgia investigation and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probes of Trump are equally weak.
Later today, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will unseal the indictment returned last week by a grand jury against Trump. Selective leaks suggest the former president will be charged with more than 30 criminal counts of business fraud related to hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels.
Since news of the indictment first broke last week, legal pundits have called out Bragg, who ran for prosecutor on a “tough on Trump” platform, for pushing the questionable criminal case against the former president. With all but the hard left and the intransient Never-Trump right viewing the indictment as the political targeting of the former president, the press quickly pivoted to the other still-pending investigations, leaning into the Fulton County D.A.’s investigation and special counsel probes as the real crimes of concern.
While it seems likely Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis, a Democrat, will soon follow Bragg’s lead and indict Trump on state law grounds, that move will only make the targeting of Trump look more political — and pathetic. The media rounds by forewoman Emily Kohrs following the release of portions of the special purpose grand jury report guarantee that result.
Not only did Kohrs come off as unserious, at best, but her public statements confirmed Willis’ criminal targeting of Trump rests on the false premise that Trump had asked the Georgia secretary of state to find him 11,780 votes. Trump, however, did no such thing. The transcript of his call with Brad Raffensperger confirms that fact, no matter how much the corrupt press and prosecutor repeat the lie.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is handling the other two investigations into the former president, one concerning Trump’s conduct related to Jan. 6, 2021, and the second probe focusing on the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago.
Smith will be hard-pressed to concoct a crime Trump committed related to Jan. 6, with the former president’s speech constitutionally protected and his legal theories, even if flawed, insufficient to create criminal liability.
The investigation into Trump’s retention of presidential documents faces problems as well, first because two of the three supposed crimes relied on by the government in the search warrant application crumble upon reflection.
For instance, in obtaining the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, the Department of Justice relied on the Espionage Act. But, significantly, the Espionage Act does not prohibit the retention of classified documents. Rather, it prohibits the “unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over” national defense information. To establish a crime, the special counsel would also need to establish Trump had reason to believe the information illegally possessed would harm the United States or help an adversary.
Not only would it be difficult for the special counsel to establish that fact, but here, given Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents, indicting Trump for violating the Espionage Act would only confirm the political targeting of the Republican, unless Biden were also indicted.
The search warrant application also suggested a potential violation of Section 2017 of the criminal code, which criminalizes the removal, destruction, or concealing of government records. Section 2017, however, seeks to protect the government’s access to its own records, and merely possessing a copy of a government record is insufficient to create criminal liability.
As I wrote in August, “Yet from the search warrant affidavit and the search warrant, it appears the government sought to recover from Trump hard copies of information it already had within its possession, either through various agencies or the electronic copies maintained by the relevant authorities.” Trump is unlikely, then, to face any liability under Section 2017 either — again, the Biden snafu would make charging Trump, but not Biden, proof of political persecution.
What remains, then, is the obstruction of justice accusation. Here the legacy press thinks it has a winner, as demonstrated by The Washington Post’s article on Sunday claiming the special counsel’s office has “amassed fresh evidence pointing to possible obstruction by former president Donald Trump,” concerning the investigation into the documents seized by the FBI at Trump’s home.
Then, based on unnamed sources, the Post suggests Smith’s team has gathered extensive evidence that could be used to indict Trump for obstruction of justice. The Post takes care to stress that the special counsel’s “emphasis on obstruction marks a key distinction so far between the Mar-a-Lago investigation and a separate Justice Department probe into how a much smaller number of classified documents ended up in an insecure office of President Biden’s, as well as his Delaware home.”
Until Smith’s investigation concludes, it will be impossible to know whether evidence exists that Trump obstructed justice. But the Biden case, rather than distinguishing the Mar-a-Lago situation, actually illustrates the ease with which documents marked classified could be overlooked in a review of documents. Just as Trump’s attorneys missed some classified documents in their search for materials with the markings, so too did Biden’s attorneys.
If that is all the special counsel’s office has against Trump, it will be just as weak as the other cases. More importantly, by that point, the American public will have witnessed the clear witch hunts against the former president, first in Manhattan and then in Georgia. Those criminal cases followed years of the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax and others, while Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden’s mishandling of documents went ignored.
So, no, the other investigations into the former president are no more serious than the Manhattan D.A’s targeting of Trump, but the corrupt press’s effort to focus our attention away from Bragg’s case tells us they know just how weak that case against Trump is.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent
WaPo ‘Fact-Checker’ Humiliated After Smearing Criticism Of Soros-Backed DA As ‘Antisemitism’
The left’s hatred of former President Donald Trump is so severe they’re willing to use the scourge of antisemitism to defend against a clear abuse of prosecutorial power.
The fact-checker got fact-checked, and it didn’t end well for him.
The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler frequently manages to make himself the story, often due to his not-so-subtle left-wing partisan bent. It was on full display over his handling of accurate portrayals of billionaire George Soros backing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. And it was so egregious he was hit with two community notes on Twitter for his misleading spin.
Bragg is expected to indict former President Donald Trump on 34 charges connected to campaign finance violations around so-called “hush money” payments to two women during the 2016 presidential campaign. Private transactions like this are not illegal. Yet despite federal prosecutors and Bragg’s predecessor being unable to make misdemeanor charges in good faith, Bragg, known for downgrading over half of his felony cases into misdemeanors, is doing the opposite against Trump.
The left’s hatred of Trump is so severe they’re willing to use the scourge of antisemitism to defend against a clear abuse of prosecutorial power. Bragg’s indictment is detestable not merely because it effectively fabricates charges against his party’s leading presidential political opponent. It also tears apart the legal system at its seams, politicizing the system that is supposed to be blind to these biases. But should we be surprised? Bragg is part of a network of George Soros-backed district attorneys who believe the criminal justice system is broken and must be dismantled. Here, Bragg and his political enablers are using the “broken” system to their advantage.
But dare any of us to mention that Soros, a radical left-winger seeking to undo American political and justice systems, helped elect Bragg. Apparently, this criticism leveled against Soros is antisemitic because he’s Jewish and, well, that’s about it. Far-left partisans and political hacks who toe a party line for clicks and a steady paycheck have weaponized fraudulent claims of antisemitism for political purposes. It explains how little these people care about actual antisemitism, which is why they’re so often quiet as their leftist colleagues back the boycott, divest, and sanction movement against Israel and advocate for its destruction.
Soros Did Back Bragg
Kessler dishonestly offered “three Pinocchios” to what he calls an “incendiary claim” that Soros funded Bragg. He framed the connection as antisemitic, laughably claiming it “plays into stereotypes of rich Jewish financiers secretly controlling events.” It was an interesting claim given Kessler’s own newspaper had a fascination with Jewish conservative billionaire Sheldon Adelson. WaPo called him a “mega donor” who gives for “many motives,” though it wasn’t labeled antisemitic at the time (since, of course, it’s not).
Here, Soros did fund Bragg through the far-left Color of Change PAC and, despite Kessler’s claims, they’re not “tenuous.” The New York Times reports that “Soros contributed $1 million to the group, which intended to help Mr. Bragg with the money.” The PAC ended up officially donating half of it to Bragg. This isn’t tenuous — it’s direct and clear.
Kessler’s original tweet was tagged with a community note explaining the truth: Soros funded the PAC that pledged support to Bragg. The fact-checker wasn’t happy, retweeting the community note to call out his “trolls.”
“Twitter trolls who posted a ‘community note’ to this tweet apparently have not read the actual fact-check. Click the link and you will find that Color of Change did not spend $1 million in independent expenditures on Bragg, as people often claim,” Kessler tweeted, failing to note that Soros did back Bragg.
It was a childish response to valid criticism. Most people who say “Soros-backed Bragg” don’t mention a specific amount, either. Kessler’s fact-check wasn’t merely misleading, it missed the point, all in an effort to defend Soros and Bragg
Others Attack Those Mentioning Soros Connection
It’s not just WaPo coming to Soros’ defense, given that newsrooms across the country buy into the billionaire’s destructive worldview. Yahoo! News called the mere mention of Soros funding antisemitic, a claim elevated by CNN and derided as a “conspiracy” in Forbes. These same outlets ran myriad pieces critical of the Koch brothers funding various candidates or campaigns, but that’s treated differently since they funded conservatives and aren’t Jewish. Would the left permit criticism of Soros if he weren’t Jewish, or would they cling to some other identity they can exploit for political gain? As a Jew myself, I find this all so odious and the hypocrisy is almost too much to handle.
Joy Reid attacked Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for noting Soros’ connection to Bragg. She accused him of “throwing out … dog whistles … this meme, this idea among the right that African-Americans, that black folks in positions of power are controlled by some Jewish overseer who is pulling the strings.” Suddenly, Reid pretends to care about antisemitism. Perhaps she forgot one of her blog posts where she said Israel was pulling the strings of the federal government to get the U.S. to invade Iraq in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks or when she sympathized with Hamas, a terrorist organization seeking Israel’s destruction? Or is she still pretending a mythical hacker posted those comments?
NBC’s leftist reporter Ben Collins, meanwhile, arguably offered the most laughable response to Soros backing Bragg. Quoting a CNBC story, Collins says Soros can’t back Bragg because the two never met. Lol...
“Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ron DeSantis have all claimed Alvin Bragg is ‘Soros-backed’ or aligned since the news of the indictment dropped,” Collins tweeted. “In reality, Soros has ‘has never met or spoken to Alvin Bragg,’ according to a CNBC story from last week.”
It’s hard to imagine a more bad-faith argument than this. You don’t have to meet candidates you financially back. There are hundreds of millions of donations to candidates from Americans whose only contact with the candidate is via an online donation form.
Suddenly, basic reporting and commentary about Soros’ long-established mission of donating to causes and candidates who will pursue far-left reforms is considered “antisemitic.” If only the media showed this much passion after antisemitic Squad members pushed for the end of Israel. How utterly shameful.
Jennifer Rubin, a former mediocre conservative columnist who turned into a liberal for an MSNBC paycheck, tweeted a quote from Kessler’s article: “the repeated mention of Soros plays into antisemitic conspiracy theories that Soros, a Hungarian American Holocaust survivor, is a wealthy puppet-master who works behind the scenes.” She demanded that every article mentioning Soros should explain it as Kessler has.
Rubin hopes we suffer memory loss so we don’t see her as the hypocritical sell-out we all know her to be. She criticized Soros before she pretended it was antisemitic.
Writing for Commentary back in 2010, Rubin offered a deep dive into “unmasking” Soros as a “sugar daddy” for the far-left, anti-Israel groups J Street, Human Rights Watch, and MoveOn.org. There was no mention of Soros being a Holocaust survivor — or even a Jew. She labeled him “a billionaire whose animosity toward Israel is well documented and who figuratively and literally bets against the West.”
“The pattern is clear here: where there is a well-funded group seeking to undermine the U.S.-Israel relationship, delegitimize Israel, or push for America’s retreat from the world, it’s a good bet Soros is behind it,” Rubin noted at the time.
Soros is rightly demonized by conservatives and anyone else with a disinterest in destroying American institutions. And his connection to Bragg only highlights the D.A.’s destructive nature. It’s why Rubin tweeted a link to Kessler’s discredited fact-check.
Rubin once asked: “Will those who receive Soros’s money — think tanks, organizations, politicians — become concerned that they will be viewed as weapons in Soros’s personal arsenal?”
The answer, in 2023, is obviously no. With media outlets openly embracing partisan coverage, they are now firmly in Soros’ corner. But pointing that out must make me a self-loathing Jew.
Why Donald Trump Is Not Going To Trial Anytime Soon
From now until this case ends, people should disbelieve most of what is reported. Due process is in the Constitution, and it even applies to Donald Trump.
The Secret Service will always protect the former president. No one will press Donald Trump against the trunk of a car and cuff him. No one will frog-march him anywhere. Trump will not be denied bail for his heated rhetoric in a city that releases by lunchtime people who shoot at police officers before breakfast. The fact that some people want that, over these allegations, is nothing short of bizarre.
New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg will yammer about no one being above the law as he charges a former president with the white-collar equivalent of littering and as he ignores countless felonies that will occur on the subway during that presser and photo op. To the hardest of the left, Bragg will take on woke folk hero status. To most everyone else, this indictment of Trump will be deemed buffoonery at its finest.
All lawyers are ethically required to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in their professional conduct. A prosecutor who promised he will find a way to convict a man and his family of yet unknown crimes, as Bragg has, is not a close ethical call.
But Bragg appears to have concluded there is a Trump exception to his questionable behavior. If you are fighting the devil, no action is out of line.
If there is ever a trial, and I do not expect to see one, the Manhattan DA’s selective prosecution will be front and center, relevant and admissible. Likely, Bragg would be called as a witness to explain why he went on talk radio to boast that he would find a way to nail Trump if the people of New York City voted for him. He would have to explain why he has not charged anyone else for similar alleged crimes. His bias will be clear and on display.
These Charges Are Obviously Absurd
Bragg has likely brought two kinds of charges against President Trump in an indictment that should have already been unsealed. The charges for allegedly bad paperwork are barred by the long-expired statute of limitations.
Bragg will argue that efforts to hide other alleged crimes extend the time for him to charge Trump. That’s ridiculous. If he were correct, a person could commit a crime, but not tell anyone, deny wrongdoing, and extend the criminal statute of limitations indefinitely by not turning himself in. The exception would swallow the rule.
Second, Bragg will try to fold federal campaign-related charges—over which he has no jurisdiction—into a state prosecution. No one has ever attempted this because it makes no legal sense and is blatant bootstrapping.
When a federal prosecutor passes on charging a case over which he has exclusive authority, that is not an invitation for an overzealous city prosecutor to step up. Bragg’s office has very limited jurisdiction over only certain people and can only charge them with limited crimes. The same goes for the city prosecutor in a sleepy Midwest town.
No, Trump Isn’t Going to Trial Soon
We hear from leftist media that “Trump will soon go to trial.” That is so naïve it almost hurts. Like any case, civil or criminal, there is a required process. It is called due process. It is right there in the Constitution and even applies to Donald Trump.
First, the defense will raise legal issues to be decided by a judge, not a jury. If the judge allows the case to proceed, which is unlikely, only then would a jury hear the facts and render a verdict.
Undoubtedly, President Trump’s team will seek to dismiss the charges as defective based upon grounds including the statute of limitations. If the judge does not buy Bragg’s transparent effort to extend the limitations period, the court will grant the motion to dismiss, and this case will end with a whimper. There is a strong likelihood of this result.
If still necessary, the defense will challenge how Bragg has counted offenses. A judge can dismiss counts that are duplicative and overcharged, or over which the prosecution lacks jurisdiction.
Lastly, team Trump will certainly argue Bragg cannot turn an unserious time-barred misdemeanor into a felony by claiming the document offense was intended to cover a federal campaign finance charge over which Bragg has no charging authority. That is another compelling argument.
When a New York mugger randomly shoves a person on the street, that is misdemeanor simple battery that Bragg would not charge at all. That conduct does not become the federal felony of tampering with the mail because the victim had a letter in his pocket when struck.
Novel theories bring aggressive legal challenges. The media will parade “legal experts” who have never seen a courtroom or filed, argued, won, or lost a motion to dismiss to misconstrue all of this for us. They will tell us “Trump is trying to get off on a technicality” as though they would just skip their own legal defenses were they the target of politically driven charges that stretched this far.
Can Trump Get a Fair Trial in NYC?
If the assigned judge is a conservative and dismisses any part of the case as legally defective, the media will tell us that he or she cheated for Trump and the judicial system is rigged for Republicans and must be dismantled. If the judge is a leftist and does not dismiss any claims, many will argue he or she is a political hack and the system is rigged against conservatives and must be destroyed and reconstituted.
If a far-left judge dismisses or a far-right judge does not, the media will be perplexed and paralyzed. In that instance, the judge will be called a traitor and incompetent by his or her own party. What we cannot know is whether the judge will be able to entirely avoid the visceral response to everything Trump and resist the immense political pressure to go one way or the other. Who on the bench would want this case?
If Bragg’s case survives legal and procedural challenges, there will be requests to change venue to get out of NYC. Those will likely be denied. A jury would then hear all the facts and render a verdict.
Jury trials are tough. Most of the time, if the lawyers present high-quality cases, juries get them right. Whether the Trump effect will change that is of course a critical unknown.
Bragg’s star witness is disbarred lawyer and convict Michael Cohen, who has proven to be loosely tethered to the truth, if not reality. All of this salacious testimony would relate to an extramarital affair Daniels now denies and a payment Cohen previously said he made of his own volition.
Don’t Believe Most Things You Read
From now until this case ends, people should disbelieve most of what is reported. President Trump is not going fly on Con-Air, get prison ink, or get shanked. If you hear that things are going so well in his defense that Trump need have no concerns, that is equally untrue. Trials are by their nature nerve-wracking, and outcomes are uncertain.
Regardless of what the next several months bring, remember that American leftists have a penchant for starting battles they are unprepared to finish. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid crammed through a 51-vote threshold for confirmation of federal judicial nominees. The result is a strong conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Hillary Clinton did worse than Trump is charged of doing and on a larger scale by buying and laundering through federal agencies the Steele dossier hit for $1 million, also characterized as “legal fees.” She paid a small fine and was not charged with any crime.
The feds raided Trump’s home and accused him of being careless with secret documents. Since then, a trail of Joe Biden’s classified materials with dates on them covering at least five decades has been discovered. There is credible evidence that many people named Biden sold influence for untold millions and the shoe with the “big guy’s” full name on it has yet to drop.
It is against this backdrop that Democrats have cast aside all acceptable conduct and norms to get one man who stands in the breach for half of the American population. Although all conservatives must respond peacefully, no quarter should be given within the bounds of the law, and the free pass routines given to Democrat politicians and lifer bureaucrats should no longer be paid any heed.
Conservatives must use the resources the law and congressional oversight allow to burn the proverbial ships, fight fire with fire, and even the playing field for the good of our republic. Only time will tell who will be standing after the sucker punch and counter both land.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/04/why-donald-trump-is-not-going-to-trial-anytime-soon/