Ever since the New York Attorney General’s indictment of Donald Trump was released (following a now-understandable attempt to keep it sealed) the media has been excitable over the former President facing charges, but gradually a welling tide in the press has been that this case is a mess. Make that, an utter disaster. Now we have the New York Times agreeing that this indictment is a fiasco, but it does so by delivering a telling caveat.

The flaws in this are so obvious that many in the media have been grudgingly admitting so. I saw at The Atlantic, its assessment of the case was a litany of personal grievances about Trump, but it carried a tacit admission. As writer Quinta Jurecic expounds on how bad of a character Trump is, there is this line: “Separate from the legal merits of the Manhattan case against Trump, the underlying conduct at issue (paying hush money to improve Trump’s chances in the 2016 election) is … actually quite bad.”

Translation: This case has no legal merits, but I don’t like him! This is a dawning that is coming over the press. Alvin Bragg’s case is more than flimsy; it is built upon insinuated charges, amassed to get that glaring “34 charges” number, without firm legality. It is a fabricated case manufactured from desperation. Call it a Potempkin Indictment

Bragg – whose brief tenure has been all about lowering felony charges on criminals – attempts to make a felony out of a misdemeanor charge, one that normally is met with a fine. But he needs to do so because that initial crime has expired from the statute of limitations. (The NDA with Stormy Daniels was crafted before Trump was even nominated.) His solution is to build this into a federal felony, something that faces two problems. The first is that the feds already looked into this episode and passed on it. The second, making this federal means it is out of Bragg’s jurisdiction.

At the New York Times Jed Handelsman Shugerman, who is a law professor at both Fordham and Boston University wrote a guest essay that eviscerates this case. Calling this a “legal embarrassment” in the headline he goes on to display the problems.

The 34-count indictment — which more accurately could be described as 34 half-indictments — was a disaster. It was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors. The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption — only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements. 

Then, just to underscore his impressions, he gives us this assessment.

Instead of the rule of law, it would be the rule of the circus.

Agreed. It is becoming more evident that this is not a case based on justice and finally taking crimes to task, it is a political hit job, and nothing more. But does Professor Shugerman deliver a rebuke to Bragg or condemn the biased political machinations of the New York AG’s office? Not exactly. Instead, he veers to a bout of legal victim-blaming.

This legal embarrassment reveals new layers of Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States: Mr. Trump’s opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms.

Amazing. Bragg and the legal system were provoked into bastardizing the law because of Trump. Even while attesting that through this deeply partisan process, and how they are corrupting the legal standards while they should be aware of the unprecedented damage they are visiting upon the legal system, he still manages to go with a “But Trump!” cop-out.

To adhere to that as a cause, the professor has to ignore how Bragg is on the list of radical DAs who have been fostered into power by the radical George Soros. He had to overlook Bragg’s campaigning on the premise that he was going to indict the former president. Shugerman also sidesteps that this man who Politico tried to say was a by-the-book DA who is “non-political” (all while describing him as a liberal DA) essentially threw out that book when he was installed.

As Politico noted, Bragg turned heads and had people questioning his tactics in his first week. He began altering charges, downgrading crimes, releasing suspects, and other stark moves. This is not a balanced individual when those acts are contrasted with the taking of a minor crime and elevating it to dozens of federal charges in a vendetta-like fashion.

To lay the blame for this at the feet of Trump is pathetic pandering to the liberal-Democrat base. What is unrealized is that if your argument is that Trump’s behavior provoked the actions of Bragg which creates the erosion of the legal system you have just described a man who is even more unfair for the office. 

This is where they have to go when this unprecedented step in our legal system has been taken. In the same fashion as the hysterics who are calling to silence enemies – in the name of combating fascism – this has been a banana republic move and the best they come up with as an explanation is, “Well just look at what YOU made me do!”