Alvin Bragg's infamous indictment

Alvin Bragg's indictment of President Trump is likely to live in infamy. It's an indictment in search of a solid legal foundation. George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley put it most eloquently in this blog post when he wrote "Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has finally made history. He has indicted former President Donald Trump as part of an investigation, possibly for hush money payments. We are all waiting to see the text of the indictment to confirm the basis for this unprecedented act. But history in this case — and in this country — is not on Bragg’s side."

Turley continued, saying "The only crime that has been discussed in this case is an unprecedented attempt to revive a misdemeanor for falsifying business documents that expired years ago. If that is still the basis of Thursday’s indictment, Bragg could not have raised a weaker basis to prosecute a former president. If reports are accurate, he may attempt to “bootstrap” the misdemeanor into a felony (and longer statute of limitations) by alleging an effort to evade federal election charges."

Alvin Bragg and his Soros-funded colleagues (Kim Foxx, Kim Gardner, Larry Krasner, George Gascon, et al) are giving lawyers a terrible name. While real criminals run free in New York City, some without being prosecuted, Alvin Bragg invents a charge to indict a former sitting president. That's the definition of being a disgrace to his profession.

Bragg had a choice to make. He cannot be the defender of the rule of law if he is using the legal process for political purposes. That is what would be involved in a formal accusation based largely on the bootstrap theory. The underlying misdemeanor could pale in comparison to the means being used to prosecute it.

Too late Jonathan. Bragg already chose the path that he's comfortable travelling. Another famous liberal law professor weighed in on the indictment:

As disgusting as Bragg's behavior is, he isn't the only Democrat whose behavior is disgusting. Here's the despicable Nancy Pelosi:

The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law.

No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.

Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) March 31, 2023

Pelosi said "everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence." To think that she's sworn to uphold the Constitution for 30+ years is frightening. Notice that Cornell Law School corrected Ms. Pelosi, saying "Law in the US assumes the innocence of a defendant and the prosecution must prove guilt for a conviction." This isn't something that requires a law degree. That's something that's taught in grade school civics classes.

I guess it's too much to ask elderly Democrats to remember the basic principles of the Constitution. Then again, Alan Dershowitz isn't in his youth but he's still making legitimate points.