Writing in an op-ed for the New York Times, legal expert and Boston University law professor Jed Handelswman Shugerman argued that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s attempt to prosecute Trump over the alleged misreporting of the “hush money” payment to Stormy Daniels is a “historic” mistake. He did so in an op-ed for the New York Times.
In the op-ed titled “I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake,” Shugerman argued that attempting to prosecute Trump for a federal election offense constituted severe overreach and that the allegations against Trump are “vague.” Further, he argued that the prosecution is yet, in his view, to even specify “an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.”
Explaining in the op-ed that, in his opinion, DA Bragg could have a valid case if he argued that Trump falsified business records in an attempt to cover up the payment, something that could have defrauded regulations, Shugerman goes on to note that that does not appear to be what DA Bragg is alleging. Explaining what the DA is alleging instead, Shugerman noted:
Instead of a theory of defrauding state regulators, Mr. Bragg has adopted a weak theory of “election interference,” and Justice Juan Merchan described the case, in his summary of it during jury selection, as an allegation of falsifying business records “to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.”
Explaining why that theory of DA Bragg’s is “weak,” Shugerman noted that a political candidate legally can pay someone to sign an NDA, the action described as being a “hush money” payment. He wrote, “As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement.” He adds, “Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal.”
Shugerman then goes on to explain that, in his opinion, DA Bragg is stretching the law by attempting to try a federal crime in state court, arguing that the case is a federal one and, in any case, appears to be a “federal campaign finance filing violation,” not “election fraud,” as DA Bragg and his team allege. Explaining that and describing it as a “strategic mistake,” Shugerman noted:
None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. 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.
Continuing, Shugerman explains the three “red flags” he sees with DA Bragg’s case. The first is that he could find no other examples of the Federal Elections Campaign Act being relied upon to show a direct or predicate crime. The second is that, in his estimation, DA Bragg did not effectively rebut the contention from the Trump team that the New York statute under which he is trying Trump requires the underlying, or predicate, crime be a state crime, not a crime in another jurisdiction. The third red flag Shugerman sees is that the “election interference” claim is “unprecedented,” and so even if DA Bragg gets a conviction, it “may not survive a state appeal.”
Concluding, after noting that this case appears to be “more about Manhattan politics than New York law,” Shugerman notes, “This case is still an embarrassment, in terms of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selectivity.”
Watch Trump speak about the trial here:
"*" indicates required fields