“I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment.  Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.” 

New York Times, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, April 23, 2024

Imagine my surprise when I discovered I agreed 100 percent with this statement in the New York Times.

Not that I think the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is going to lose this case against former President Trump. In fact, I believe that thanks to the ridiculous partisanship and left-wing propaganda that has brainwashed the New York jury pool, and because of the ridiculous bias of the presiding judge in the case, Donald Trump is likely to be convicted in this case, on whatever the imaginary crime is that he is actually being accused of.

But sometimes, a person can win the battle while actually losing the war.  And that is what Joe Biden, Alvin Bragg, and their allies are currently in the process of doing.  

When even the New York Times has an op-ed by a liberal law professor in good standing that the Bragg case is a joke, you can be sure that the real swing voters for this upcoming election will dismiss any conviction here as obvious partisan lawfare. And every day that this partisan farce continues, the left-wing mainstream media, which heartily believes its own propaganda that Donald Trump is some demonic, undemocratic, corrupt person, will continue to play it up, apparently in coordination with each other to develop anti-Trump talking points. This will allow Trump and his allies to legitimately campaign against the partisan lawfare by the Biden administration. After all, the opening statement in the prosecution’s case was made by the former third ranking Biden Department of Justice lawyer, who transferred to being a lowly line prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s Office. That is unprecedented; and it is not a good picture for Bragg.

And it gets worse.  

Summarizing the entire case, as the average voter would certainly do, the charge is that Donald Trump paid off a woman whom he may have had sex with to keep quiet, and that he reported the payments incorrectly and thereby did something illegal (although this violation is only a misdemeanor; how it becomes a felony is unclear). In other words, the case is all about trying to punish a former U.S. president for having sex with a woman who is not his wife and, maybe, lying about it.  

This should sound very familiar. In 1998, Democrat President Bill Clinton was impeached for having sex with a woman who was not his wife and for lying about it under oath. But despite Clinton having lied under oath, he was not removed from office or punished in any way (outside of the impeachment that was fought fiercely by the Democrats). And what did prominent Democrats say, at that time, about that situation, and the attempt to remove Clinton?   

They all said ignore the sex scandal and MOVE ON:

• Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “It is time we move forward, and not have the Congress and the American people endure a specter of what could be a yearlong focus on a tawdry but not impeachable affair.” He continued, “(t)he world economy is in crisis and cries out for American leadership, without which worldwide turmoil is a grave possibility. This investigation, now in its fifth year, has run its course. It's time to move on.”

• Former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a speech decrying “(i)n the investigation of the president, fundamental principles which Americans hold dear — fairness, privacy, checks and balances — have been seriously violated and why? Because we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton. ... Until the Republicans free themselves of that hatred, our country will suffer.”

• James Carville, prominent Democrat consultant and former adviser to President Bill Clinton, said publicly, and wrote: “(i)n my world, you don’t abandon a guy over sex. You stick with him.” (Stickin’: The Case for Loyalty, James Carville, 2000)

• ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, also a former high-level aide to President Clinton, who had created a whole command center designed to smear Bill Clinton’s sexual assault and rape accusers to elevate him to the presidency, said that Paula Jones (who was involved in another part of the scandal), who had claimed that Clinton had sexually harassed her, should be ignored because she was "just another woman seeking cash for telling a tabloid tale."

• And Joe Biden, a U.S. Senator at that time, came out against Clinton’s impeachment, decried the situation as a partisan hit job, claimed that public opinion should partly guide the result, and stated, “The American people are fully capable — without our guidance or advice — to determine what standards they want our President to meet… Spare me from those who would tell the American people what standard they must apply when voting for President.” He also concluded that a President is unique and the head of a political party, who should not be removed, and if so, it “should not result from the judgment of a single prosecutor — whether it be the Attorney General or special counsel — and a single jury. Prosecution or non-prosecution of a President is, in short, inevitably and unavoidably a political act.”

Bill Clinton and his Democrats won big in the 1998 elections, the Democrats unexpectedly gaining seats in Congress. So, it turned out that the American people, indeed, wanted to “move on” from the Clinton sex scandal.  

I think the same thing is going to happen here. The Democrats are going to achieve their pyrrhic victory by convicting Donald Trump of an imaginary crime. And then, as a result, and like poor King Pyrrhus, President Biden is going to lose his throne.

Adam Turner is a national security and political professional, with over two decades of experience on the campaign trail, and on Capitol Hill in Washington DC.  He can be followed on X @AdamEdwTurner.