Alvin Bragg’s ‘Hocus-Pocus’ Case Was Exposed On Day One Of Trial, Expert Says

Critics pounced on arguments made by prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office on the opening day of former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial, alleging a series of “hocus-pocus” illusions meant to influence a jury to reach conclusions not substantiated by the charges.

Alvin Bragg's 'Hocus-Pocus' Case Was Exposed On Day One Of Trial, Expert Says

In an op-ed, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett characterized as such arguments made by Assistant DA Matthew Colangelo during an opening soliloquy where he told the jury, “This case is about a criminal conspiracy.” In fact, as Jarrett points out, President Trump is not facing racketeering charges, nor does Bragg’s indictment once refer to his alleged crimes as part of a conspiracy.

“But that didn’t stop the prosecutor from deceiving the jury by arguing about an uncharged crime. Like a skilled magician, he hopes his pretense will fool them,” Jarrett writes.

Most notably, Colangelo framed Trump’s culpability as “election fraud,” a move prosecutors previously admitted might play well with a jury that may look less gravely on what amounts to a salacious sex scandal with the payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. However, Jarrett adds, in doing so Colangelo conveniently left out that the Federal Election Commission concluded that payment to Daniels did not amount to a campaign donation. Similar conclusions were reached by federal investigators as well as Bragg’s predecessor.

Despite claims by Colangelo that the payment amounted to “an illegal conspiracy to undermine a presidential election,” Jarrett notes that all 34 charges in the case are based on actions taken in 2017 after Trump had been elected. “It’s quite the magic trick to have committed crimes before they allegedly occurred,” he quips.

“Colangelo must be new to politics or a neophyte reader of history. He’s under the mistaken impression that campaigns never try to bury negative stories or promote positive ones,” Jarrett writes.

“In truth, it’s been going on for more than two centuries. This prompted the defense in its opening statement to warn the jury, ‘I have a spoiler alert, there is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election; it’s called democracy.’ Trump attorney Todd Blanche then added, ‘They put something sinister on it.’”

During opening arguments by the defense, attorney Todd Blanche declared, “President Trump is innocent.” He added his client had nothing to do with the bookkeeping of the payment, actions which resulted in the 34 felony charges. Instead, the six-figure sum sent to Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen was the “cost as legal services and expenses, which they were.”

“Stormy was an attempt to try to embarrass Trump with all sorts of allegations damaging to him and damaging to his family. Trump fought back to protect his family, reputation, and brand…and that is not a crime,” Blanche told the jury.

Equating the hush money trial to “election interference” will backfire, Jarrett concludes.

“It is Bragg, himself, who is guilty of election interference in 2024 by bringing a legally absurd case designed to take Trump off the campaign trail while his opponent, Joe Biden, freely blankets key states in advance of the November balloting,” he finished.

“It’s a neat trick called ‘lawfare’ — weaponizing the law to persecute a political enemy under the guise of a legitimate prosecution. It doesn’t matter that any conviction will surely be overturned on appeal. By then, the damage will be done.”

“For now, we are left to watch and wait, wondering whether Manhattan jurors will fall for the legal illusions and distractions conjured up by an unprincipled trickster called Alvin Bragg.”