In recent years, the Regime Media- the collective term used for mainstream media outlets that heavily promote and cover the actions of the current political administration- has been fixated on the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York City, known as the Bragg case. However, this coverage has been one-sided and biased, with an obsessive focus on the case. In a surprising turn of events, CNN has finally aired criticism of the basis for the Bragg case against Trump.
On Wednesday, August 24th, 2024, CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip featured Boston University law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman, who laid out three major red flags with the case. The first red flag is the unprecedented use of the Federal Election Campaign Act as the basis for a state prosecution. Through extensive research, Shugerman found that there have been no reported cases of a state prosecutor using this federal statute as the basis for a conviction. This raises questions about the legality and potential political motivations behind the case.
The second red flag is the broad interpretation and application of the statute. Shugerman argues that there is no precedent for using the statute to target election interference or alleged attempts to defraud the general public or voters. This expansive interpretation of a misdemeanor crime raises concerns about selective prosecution and the potential misuse of legal authority.
The final red flag is the use of the business filing violation, a misdemeanor offense, to upgrade the charges to a felony. According to Shugerman, there are only two examples of this being done in New York, and neither of them is a judicial interpretation. This means that this theory has not been tested in a legal setting, calling into question the validity and reliability of the prosecution’s case.
Shugerman’s critical analysis of the Bragg case is not new. In a recent op-ed published in The New York Times, he called it a “legal embarrassment” and a “historic mistake.” He also argues that the case appears to be more about political motives than actual violations of New York law. This case highlights the need for broader, bipartisan reforms in the American prosecutorial system.
Despite the issues surrounding the case, Shugerman believes that each side should have its day in court. However, the opening of the trial on Monday raised concerns about exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories, and unaddressed problems. If these issues persist, the prosecutors may not win a conviction at all.
It is worth noting that Shugerman is not a Trump supporter. During the CNN segment, he stated that he has never voted for a Republican and criticized Trump’s description of the case as “election interference.” This is further evidence that the criticism of the Bragg case is not a partisan attack on Trump, but a valid critique of the legal process.
Abby Phillip challenged Shugerman’s theories, but he held his ground and defended his arguments. This rare break from the media’s usual coverage of the case is significant, and it raises the question of whether more outlets will follow suit. Shugerman’s sound explanation of the red flags in the case highlights the need for fair and unbiased reporting of legal matters, rather than sensationalized and one-sided coverage.
In conclusion, CNN’s decision to air criticism of the basis for the Bragg case against Donald Trump is a promising development. It highlights the need for a more nuanced and balanced approach to covering legal proceedings and deters the media from blindly promoting and obsessing over cases without considering legal arguments and potential flaws in the prosecution. Shugerman’s arguments shed light on the issues surrounding the Bragg case and serve as a cautionary tale about potential prosecutorial abuses in America. In the end, both sides deserve a fair and just trial, and only time will tell how this case will unfold.