Staff Reports
In a recent article, a Boston University law professor named Jed Handelsman Shugerman criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to prosecute former President Donald Trump in an editorial for a well-known newspaper. Shugerman believes that the charges against Trump related to payments made during the 2016 election are an overreach in the legal system. The professor thinks that pursuing Trump for federal election crimes is a mistake and worries about the lack of clarity in the allegations made by the prosecution.
Shugerman believes that the charges against Trump are vague and that the use of state law in this case is unprecedented. He questions the relevance of the alleged falsifications outside of the business context and remains skeptical of the prosecution’s attempts to link them to more serious offenses like federal election law violations and state tax fraud.
The law professor points out that it is legal for a candidate to make payments for a nondisclosure agreement and that this case might be more about Manhattan politics than actual New York law. He also raises concerns about prosecutorial ethics and selectivity in this case, suggesting that it could serve as an example of broader abuses in the American legal system.
Shugerman argues that only federal prosecutors might have the jurisdiction needed to address the alleged misreporting to the Federal Election Commission, casting doubt on the state’s ability to prosecute Trump effectively. He emphasizes that regardless of the outcome, this case will likely be viewed as a politically charged chapter in the ongoing scrutiny of Trump’s actions.
Renowned Legal Scholar Rips Alvin Bragg, Calls Trump Case 'Historic Mistake' https://t.co/InRS65byPE
— ACT For America (@ACTforAmerica) April 29, 2024
This sheds light on the potential overreach of the legal system in targeting a former president for actions that may not constitute crimes. It highlights concerns about vague allegations and the application of state law in a way that could be seen as politically motivated. It is crucial to ensure that legal proceedings are fair and just, rather than serving as tools for partisan agendas.
