Legal Expert SCORCHES Alvin Bragg In Epic Takedown: ‘Twisting The Law’

In the highly charged political atmosphere surrounding former President Donald Trump, Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett sharply criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Thursday, accusing him of bending the law to target the former president.

Jarrett’s comments came ahead of Trump’s upcoming trial for allegedly falsifying business records related to payments made to Stormy Daniels, which is set to begin with jury selection next Monday. Once dismissed by left-wing pundits and legal analysts as the weakest of the four cases brought against the former president, D.A. Bragg’s case has emerged as the most likely to go to trial before election day.

Legal experts have repeatedly poked holes in the case against Trump brought forward by Bragg. The Manhattan D.A. used COVID-era policies to expand the statute of limitations on an administrative payment error, which is generally a misdemeanor. Bragg then upgraded the charge to a felony, citing a “conspiracy” to commit another crime. The other crime has never been specified by Bragg.

According to Greg Jarrett, what Trump is accused of does not rise to the level of a criminal offense. Instead, he argued that Bragg is pursuing the case more for political reasons than for legal merit. Jarrett made these remarks on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” saying, “You know, instead, the DA Alvin Bragg accuses Trump of falsely accounting for it. At best that’s a mere misdemeanor as you point out. That was barred long ago by the statute of limitations. So Bragg is trying to circumvent that by twisting the law and claiming oh it’s an illegal campaign donation and thus a felony. No, it’s not.” The trial’s timing and surrounding circumstances have sparked debate with some viewing the prosecution’s efforts as a strategic political move. Jarrett highlighted bias in the trial’s setup, particularly in the selection of a jury in Manhattan, where sentiments against Trump might influence the outcomes.

“Yeah and Trump is fighting for a fair trial Brian and an impartial jury that’s his constitutional right under the sixth amendment but in Manhattan as you say the deck is stacked against him,” Jarrett commented.

WATCH:

Adding to the controversy, Jarrett raised some concerns about the impartiality of the trial judge, suggesting a conflict of interest that should disqualify him from presiding over the case. “He’s right, I think, to demand that the trial judge recuse himself because his adult daughter has a vested interest in her father’s case. She runs a Democrat consulting firm that solicited tens of millions of dollars by citing her father’s case. She has a financial interest in the outcome and under ethical rules, that’s a disqualifying conflict of interest,” said Jarrett.

During his television appearance, Jarrett also reflected on the broader implications of the case and its timing close to the presidential election, hinting at a rush to judgment. “Why not wait until the high court decides that issue? Oral arguments are in just a couple of weeks, but there is a rush to convict Trump in advance of the election,” he noted.

Trump’s legal challenges are not limited to this case. He faces various legal battles, including those related to his actions while in office, which are currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Jarrett expressed his concerns about these challenges and their potential to interfere with Trump’s campaign activities. “Which will not help his campaign,” he concluded, reflecting on the six-week duration Trump is expected to spend in court.

The case involving Trump and allegations of hush money payments centers on payments made to two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had affairs with Trump. Trump has denied these affairs. The payments were made before the 2016 presidential election, ostensibly to prevent the women’s allegations from becoming public and potentially affecting the election’s outcome.