Alvin Bragg and Democrats’ ‘Election Interference’
Mahnattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg
His theory in the New York State Trump case is crazier than you think.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
One big election question is whether voters will again fall for Joe Biden’s 2020 pitch: Elect me because Republicans are a “threat to democracy.” If they don’t, Democrats can blame the growing insanity of the Donald Trump prosecutions, which every day look less like fair or sober justice.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s court case—which hinges on the claim that Mr. Trump falsely labeled seven-year-old business records about a nondisclosure-agreement payment to an adult film star—was always tenuous. To elevate this somewhat nonsensical issue to a felony, Mr. Bragg had to claim further the entries were mislabeled with intent to commit or conceal a secondary crime. After months of indecision, Mr. Bragg finally settled on a gotcha, suggesting the NDA payment made by lawyer Michael Cohen was an illegal campaign contribution—even though the money came from the candidate—that Mr. Trump criminally concealed from voters, amounting to election “interference” or “fraud.”
If it is felony “election interference” for a candidate to try to keep private the details of a seamy relationship, what other candidate concealments—of a lawful and entirely personal nature—must be reported? Must the out-of-pocket settlement for that fender-bender be disclosed, since it conceals a candidate’s bad driving skills?
Consider the sheer nuttiness of this argument, especially when spooled to its natural conclusions. Campaigns exist to present a candidate favorably to the public—to highlight good things, hide unpleasant things. If it is felony “election interference” for a candidate to try to keep private the details of a seamy relationship, what other candidate concealments—of a lawful and entirely personal nature—must be reported? Must the out-of-pocket settlement for that fender-bender be disclosed, since it conceals a candidate’s bad driving skills? How about plastic surgery, since it masks the true ravages of age or health? Let’s raise donation caps now, since this will cost a lot.
Better yet, let’s march the entire political class to their jail cells now and save donors and the courts the costs. Many should already be there under the Bragg “concealment” theory. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid an opposition-research firm to produce a bogus dossier that accused Mr. Trump of collusion with Russia. They fed it to the FBI and leaked it to the public prior to the 2016 election. The DNC and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign reported the expenditures to the Federal Election Commission but concealed their true nature by describing the payments as “legal” services, as Mr. Trump did with his NDA. The FEC fined them for the deception, but under Mr. Bragg’s theory it should count as criminal election interference.
The Bragg argument also fails on the facts of the Trump case. The claim is that by concealing his hush-money payment, Mr. Trump improperly influenced and interfered with the 2016 vote. Even had Mr. Trump reported all this to the FEC, the public wouldn’t have known until long after the election.
The Bragg argument also fails on the facts of the Trump case. The claim is that by concealing his hush-money payment, Mr. Trump improperly influenced and interfered with the 2016 vote. Yet had the payment been made and disclosed via the campaign, the final pre-election FEC reports that year were made public on Oct. 27, 2016, and covered transactions only through Oct. 19. Mr. Cohen wired the money to Stormy Daniels’s team on Oct. 27, and the agreement wasn’t signed until the next day. Even had Mr. Trump reported all this to the FEC, the public wouldn’t have known until long after the election.
Critics will insist that Trump campaign would have been legally obligated to report Mr. Cohen’s “last minute” contribution within 48 hours. But of course that couldn’t have happened, since the $130,000 Cohen sent to the Daniels camp would have vastly exceeded individual contribution limits. If the Trump team had truly viewed this as a campaign-finance issue, Mr. Trump surely would have counted the money as his own contribution to the campaign, since there are no limits on self-financing. Top to bottom, left to right, the Bragg argument is absurd, a desperate effort to turn a baseless case into an ominous and buzzy “election interference” charge.
Such legal contortions leave nobody feeling safe. If they can be applied to a prominent politician—with stacks of money to pay lawyers, and tens of millions of supporters—they can more easily be applied to the average Joe. Who’s the threat to democracy? And given the silliness of the case—brought entirely with the aim of influencing the voting public—who is actually “interfering” with the election?
The Bragg headlines must be added to other newsy onslaughts, few of which smell much like “representative government.” This week alone, the Biden administration unilaterally invalidated 30 million contracts (non-compete agreements, which the Federal Trade Commission now deems illegal), removed 13 million Alaskan acres from use, imposed sweeping regulations on power plants, and commandeered the internet with a new “net neutrality” rule. Congress was consulted on none of this. The Supreme Court just heard arguments over whether—among other power grabs—this administration is allowed to prosecute Mr. Biden’s opponent for things he did while president. Politico reports that a regular cabal of liberal activists and commentators huddle every Friday to dictate the nation’s headlines.
Recent polls show more Americans this time think Democrats are a threat to democracy than think that of Mr. Trump. If Mr. Biden’s “threat” arguments fall flat this election, it will be another political collapse of his party’s own making.
Original Here
|
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
