It turns out Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is an idiot. Hicks not only delivered testimony that undermined his case, but did so as one of his own witnesses. The only thing he has going for him now is a New York jury that is notorious for ruling against Republicans in general and Donald Trump in particular.

Now, the Manhattan hush money trial of Donald Trump took a dramatic turn. As the former press secretary during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hicks provided testimony that undermined the prosecution’s case.

Hicks explained that Trump’s motive for suppressing salacious stories was to protect his wife, Melania, stating, “Absolutely…I don’t think he wanted anyone in his family to be hurt or embarrassed about anything on the campaign. He wanted them to be proud of him.” This directly contradicted District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s primary claim against Trump, that he paid porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence with the intent to benefit his campaign and influence the election by “unlawful means.”

The account by Hicks supported the findings of a federal investigation that no crimes were committed or campaign finance laws broken. Furthermore, Hicks disparaged Bragg’s planned star witness, Michael Cohen, Trump’s one-time personal lawyer, by saying, “He used to like to call himself Mr. Fix-It, but it was only because he first broke it.” Cohen, a convicted liar who went to prison, has been a target of ridicule from other witnesses as well.

Hicks’ testimony confirmed that Trump was aware of the payments made to Daniels but did not contest it, stating that he followed his lawyer’s advice. However, the payments made were not illegal, and killing negative stories violates no statutes. Moreover, it is not a crime for Trump to know about a non-crime.

The only crime here appears to be Bragg’s politically driven prosecution of Trump, in which he conjured up expired misdemeanors and used a garbage state statute that doesn’t apply to a federal election. The legal wrangling between two lawyers over a legal contract executed on behalf of their clients is what attorneys do every day. Bragg’s charges that Trump falsified business records in 2017 do not amount to a crime since the presidential contest occurred in 2016, making it impossible to complete the intended crime.

The case has been marked by the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial information, such as the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, which has no bearing on the case. This only serves to smear Trump with information that has no relevance to the charges at hand.

The trial has highlighted the weakness of Bragg’s case and the potential for a boomerang effect, with voters seeing this as a politically motivated attack on Trump. The hope is that the jurors will recognize this as well and deliver a fair verdict.

Sound off about this development on The Liberty Daily Substack.

Trump is confronting 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business documents relating to payments to porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence regarding an alleged affair ahead of the 2016 election. Aidala noted that Trump’s signature is present on a check while other key documents were never personally signed by the former president, suggesting the possibility a jury could find “reasonable doubt” over Trump’s involvement when compared to former attorney Michael Cohen, a key witness in Bragg’s case.

“You just have to attack, attack, attack those witnesses and look, what you’ve got to say is, Michael Cohen should be a co-defendant,” Aidala told host Anderson Cooper. “If you believe what the prosecutors just said, Michael Cohen should be a co-defendant, not a witness. He has so many reasons to lie, so many reasons to pin this on someone else, to keep himself out of jail, which he was unable to do in the federal case.”

Cohen, who is a crucial witness for prosecutors, pleaded guilty to giving false statements, as well as charges like tax evasion and campaign finance violations in 2018. Cohen first said he paid Daniels with his personal funds and that neither the Trump campaign nor the Trump Organization paid him back, but he subsequently testified to Congress that the former president directed him to make the payment, which he received reimbursement for, according to Reuters.

“I think [Cohen’s credibility] has a tremendous impact,” he added. “Look, there is paperwork that corroborates the people‘s evidence, and that‘s obviously hurtful for the president. But my understanding is, it’s not paperwork with Donald Trump‘s handwriting on it or his signature on it, except for a check. So the defense could merely be, hey, Michael Cohen did all of this. He never told his client. He just said, look, I need money for this, I need money for that. And you know, one of the witnesses who is going to testify at this trial testified for the feds and he said that the money that was given to Michael Cohen was for Stormy Daniels and for legal fees. That’s a reasonable doubt.”

Trump also faces charges for his handling of classified documents he allegedly kept despite requests to turn them over. The former president is also confronting election interference charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

Trump was also indicted in June 2023 over his alleged mishandling of classified documents retained at his residence in Mar-a-Lago. In early August 2023, the former president was hit with another indictment over his alleged attempt to interfere in the 2020 election and alleged role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

“This evening, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office withdrew its appeal in Bragg v. Jordan. Mr. Pomerantz’s deposition will go forward on May 12, and we look forward to his appearance,” Russel Dye, spokesperson for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to The Epoch Times in a statement.

“Bragg caved. Jim Jordan won,” the House Judiciary Committee wrote in a statement on Twitter Friday.

The development wrapped up a legal clash between Bragg and House Judiciary Republicans, whereby Bragg had attempted to stop the lawmakers from requesting testimony from Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor who investigated former President Donald Trump’s finances. Pomerantz left Bragg’s office in February 2022 in protest of Bragg’s initial unwillingness to bring an indictment against Trump.

A grand jury, encouraged by Bragg, brought an indictment against Trump in late March, prompting Jordan to initiate a probe into what he calls a “politically motivated” prosecution against a former president. Jordan subpoenaed Pomerantz to seek his testimony as a part of that probe. In response, Bragg sued the House Judiciary Committee and Pomerantz to prevent Pomerantz from testifying.

That lawsuit led to a hearing on Wednesday in the Southern District Court of New York, and a subsequent decision by District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ordered that the congressional panel has the authority to become involved in the investigation of Trump and declined Bragg’s request for a court injunction on the congressional subpoena.

Bragg wrote in a court filing that he intended to appeal the lower court’s decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19. On the same day, the court issued a temporary administrative hold on the return date of the House Judiciary Committee’s congressional subpoena of Pomerantz. This administrative hold did not reflect the court’s opinion on the merit of Bragg’s case, the court indicated in an April 19 filing, but serves as a short pause as the court considers whether to extend the freeze on the subpoena as Bragg appeals the case.

A three-judge panel was originally scheduled to decide early next week on this matter.

Bragg on Friday dropped the appeal, wrapping up the legal contention between him and the House lawmakers.

“Our successful stay of this subpoena blocked the immediate deposition and afforded us the time necessary to coordinate with the House Judiciary Committee on an agreement that protects the District Attorney’s privileges and interests. We are pleased with this resolution, which ensures any questioning of our former employee will take place in the presence of our General Counsel on a reasonable, agreed upon timeframe. We are gratified that the Second Circuit’s ruling provided us with the opportunity to successfully revolve this dispute,” Bragg’s office wrote in a statement on Friday on Twitter.

Judge’s Comments

During the district court hearing on Wednesday, the court affirmed the congressional lawmakers’ position that requesting Pomerantz’s testimony serves a valid legislative interest and that Pomerantz, due to his own conduct, is not protected by confidentiality privileges.

In her order, Vyskocil agreed with the congressional lawmakers’ reasoning that testimony by Pomerantz can help inform current and pending legislation. This includes a bill that, if enacted into law, would bar the use of federal funds to investigate a sitting or former president (the Accountability for Lawless Violence In our Neighborhoods, or ALVIN, Act) and another that would allow Congress to remove an action or prosecution against a former president (H.R. 2553).

“It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection,” the judge wrote, adding that the U.S. Constitution protects lawmakers from litigation when their actions serve a valid legislative interest.

She rejected Bragg’s attempt to use a Supreme Court decision (Trump v. Mazars) to justify his case. In that decision, the highest court ruled in Trump’s favor and stated that the congressional committees couldn’t subpoena Trump’s financial statements because doing so would violate the separation of power between the executive and legislative branches.

During the Wednesday hearing, Bragg’s attorneys said that the reasoning in Trump v. Mazars applies to this case, and that the committee’s subpoena is an unconstitutional intrusion of the legislative branch into a state executive branch prosecution. Vyskocil disagreed.

“The congressional subpoena in Mazars was directed at materials pertaining to the sitting President of the United States,” Vyskocil wrote in her ruling, noting that Trump clearly represented the executive branch then.

“In contrast, here, the subpoena was issued to a private citizen who is no longer employed by any state government and who has written a book and spoken extensively about the subject matter of the congressional inquiry,” she wrote. “The Court is not persuaded that Mazars applies to this case.”

In her ruling, Vyskocil also rejected Bragg’s reasoning that Pomerantz enjoys confidentiality privileges and thus must not be compelled to reveal information about his former employment at the Manhattan DA’s office. Vyskocil noted that because she cannot predict what Congress would ask and what Pomerantz would say, it is not logical to say that such hypothetical statements would violate privilege.

“Bragg’s throw-everything-at-the-wall approach to privilege is unpersuasive,” Vyskocil wrote. “This Court will not quash a subpoena based solely on Bragg’s seemingly endless string of ‘what ifs.’”

Pomerantz, in an April 17 court filing, wrote that he would be put in an “impossible position” if he were to testify in Congress because he could face criminal prosecution if he testifies—violating confidentiality laws—or if he refuses to testify—committing contempt of Congress.

The judge dismissed this concern.

“[T]he Court notes that Pomerantz is in this situation because he decided to inject himself into the public debate by authoring a book that he has described as ‘appropriate and in the public interest,’” Vyskocil wrote in her Wednesday order.

“[Bragg] cannot seriously claim that any information already published in Pomerantz’s book and discussed on prime-time television in front of millions of people is protected from disclosure as attorney work product (or otherwise).”

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

There and elsewhere, the arrest of 21-year-old Jack Teixeira, accused of leaking classified national defense material, claimed the limited attention spans of those in the Journalist-American community.

Trump and the indictment didn’t make the very top of The New York Times’ digital front page. Yet, the title of a subsection about a quarter of the way down, “The Trump Investigations,” offers some clues as to how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s controversial case may be recast—namely, as one of many legal quagmires through which the ex-commander-in-chief must trudge.

Fox News was accused in March of a soft ban on Trump appearing on its channel, yet hosted on April 12 Trump’s first interview since his indictment, which it featured partway down its digital front page. An article on Bragg also made the cut.

The former president was almost a total non-entity on the digital front page of CNN, famously dismissed by Trump as “Fake News CNN.” It’s part of a noticeable pattern over the past week. Although coverage of Trump has fluctuated, it has generally trended downward. Yet, the legacy media’s “indispensable man” has never fully exited the news cycle.

Weak Case Driving Coverage Downward: News Analyst

Kevin Tober, a news analyst with the conservative Media Research Center, has been monitoring coverage of Trump. His March 28 article, written before Trump’s indictment was released, noted that the four big Sunday news roundtable shows obsessed over that story while ignoring key new stories that could hurt President Joe Biden.

Those revelations included emails from Biden’s vice presidency suggesting that members of the Biden family sought to downplay coverage of Hunter Biden’s Burisma Holdings board membership in 2015, along with subpoenas from the House Oversight Committee that appear to link the Bidens to payouts from a Chinese energy company.

Tober has a theory about why the indictment has faded from view.

“I think the media looked at what’s in the indictment, and they realized there’s nothing there,” he told The Epoch Times in an April 12 interview. “Even they are embarrassed to be hyping this.”

Once the indictment was unsealed, legal experts quickly identified numerous flaws in it. Those issues range from the way it blends state and federal laws to its vagueness concerning Trump’s alleged second crime. Yet, even if the media is quietly backing away from a weak case, its powerful megaphone may have served the intended purpose.

Pro-Trump commentator John Doyle argued in an April 7 video that people who don’t follow the news closely will see the former president more negatively on average because of the indictment.

“They’re just going to remember that, you know, every time they turned on the news in the gym, whatever, it seemed like Trump was wrapped up in some scandal, which will just make them more likely to think, ‘Well, they finally got him,’” Doyle said.

The media, Tober said, is “always quick to report on anti-conservative or anti-Republican stories.”

In his view, one of the media’s biggest tricks is omitting or downplaying inconvenient information, sometimes in response to explicit instructions. He cited CBS News’ ban on the word “transgender” in its coverage of the shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville, as reported by the New York Post.

‘The Current Thing’

One useful concept for making sense of the news cycle originated over a year ago as a spinoff of the “non-playable character” (NPC) meme—”The Current Thing.”

The Current Thing is often the top story for days, weeks, or even months at a time. And not only are you forced to think about it—you’d better support it or risk paying the social price.

An early example comes from 2012, with the crusade against African warlord Joseph Kony. More recently, The Current Thing has ranged from COVID-19 to the war in Ukraine. For many, The Current Thing is becoming harder and harder to escape with each passing year.

“The Current Thing, at a fundamental level, is a distraction. Any distraction,” said Adam Ellwanger, an English professor at the University of Houston-Downtown, in an April 14 interview with The Epoch Times. “American society is at a very late stage in its degradation.”

Ellwanger wrote about what he sees as the elite-driven nature of The Current Thing for The American Conservative in 2022.

“Current Thingism is about freezing the public gaze on ONE problem, in the hope that they remain oblivious—or indifferent—to the rest, and thus remain ignorant of the bigger picture,” Ellwanger added. “Because the establishment is thoroughly leftist, the issues that become The Current Thing are ones that are conducive to advancing the agenda of the political and cultural left.”

For a few days, Trump’s indictment was The Current Thing. Yet, as Tober noted, the story lost momentum over the following week, though didn’t disappear completely.

The indictment-related stories that did emerge illustrate another powerful weapon in the media’s arsenal—namely, the framing of a specific story and the latest Current Thing.

On April 11, for example, Bragg’s lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) dominated many headlines. Jordan’s original subpoena, the trigger for Bragg’s reaction, hadn’t commanded anything resembling the same amount of attention.

“Framing is very often ideological,” Tober said.

Some argue that The Current Thing is more a product of financial incentives than of political belief. After all, journalists make money from the public’s attention. Why wouldn’t they capitalize on a snowballing story, regardless of ideology?

Despite its legendary self-obsession, the media itself might not give you the best answers.

“The media kind of goes back and forth like a ping-pong ball. They follow whatever the new thing is, the new controversy,” Tober said.

This writer ran a test using the most unscientific method possible: a Twitter poll.

What factor mostly determines "the current thing"? (Please retweet this one.)

— Nathan Worcester (@nnworcester) April 13, 2023

In the eyes of those who answered, ideology edges out money in establishing The Current Thing, leaving chance or other factors in the dust.

In fairness, it’s pretty hard to imagine that our media presents—and polices—the latest big stories without taking politics into consideration.

The current Current Thing, Texieira’s arrest, has been publicized as a national security risk for the United States and a possible justification for expanded government monitoring of social media by the Biden administration.

It comes just weeks after Congress proposed the RESTRICT Act, a putatively anti-TikTok bill that could greatly expand the government’s ability to clamp down on online communications.

The explosive content of the leaks, and what they reveal about the United States’ involvement in Ukraine, has remained a relative afterthought.

Trump vs ‘The Current Thing’

Trump has long had a complicated relationship with the media and its Current Things. Even as he supposedly “craved media approval,” the real estate mogul and reality show star had a knack for disrupting the press’s narratives while leading the country. He also captured clicks and eyeballs for legacy and non-legacy outlets alike.

“They [the media] just can’t get over their obsession with the president,” Tober said.

Even today, he said, “it’s always Trump, Trump, Trump” on the news.

“We always joke, ‘Well, who’s the president right now?’”

Many Current Things in the past few years have been driven wholly or in part by Trump.

Like other Republican leaders before him, he’s provided a focal point for leftist ire. In some ways, the Trump phenomenon—perpetually seen as an emergency, forever dominating the news cycle, and always demanding a politically safe response—was the most durable Current Thing of the past few years.

Yet, in Ellwanger’s view, Trump has offered Americans a path away from The Current Thing.

“He seeks to move the public’s attention away from The Current Thing in order to see the broader degradation,” he said.

“If the public were to get that broader panorama, they would recognize that some radical alternative is needed to the current establishment. Which, of course, would empower Trump. Therefore, he remains Public Enemy #1 according to Current Thingism.”

As of early Friday, Teixeira and the bombshell documents continued to dominate headlines, leaving the man from Mar-a-Lago in the shadows.

It’s hard to believe that will last, particularly given the unprecedented nature of what has happened with Trump.

The Current Thing comes and goes, but Americans’ polarized responses to the indictment of a former president don’t seem likely to vanish without a trace.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

As attorney Robert Barnes noted on Twitter after reviewing court documents, no law was cited:

The indictment is legally insufficient on its face. New York state law does not make it a crime to influence an election. Federal law does not make it a crime either. Maybe that’s why no law is actually cited in the indictment. Nor are the facts sufficient. #TrumpArraignment

The indictment is legally insufficient on its face. New York state law does not make it a crime to influence an election. Federal law does not make it a crime either. Maybe that's why no law is actually cited in the indictment. Nor are the facts sufficient. #TrumpArraignment https://t.co/CbOj27v41v

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) April 4, 2023

Seems like an important omission.

Prima facie, this indictment is a joke. It demonstrates the degradation of the United States of America under the Biden-Harris regime and Uniparty Swamp rule. Most importantly, both Alvin Bragg and this indictment are national embarrassments, as I noted on Twitter:

Alvin Bragg is a national embarrassment. This is ludicrous prima facie.

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) April 4, 2023

We look like the very banana republics we allegedly oppose.

One does not have to be a Trump supporter to appreciate the need to protest this illegal election interference against a valid political candidate. Even if Trump wasn’t running for office, this predatory use of the justice system would be tyrannical. This needs to end immediately.

Navarro made the comments during an appearance on NTD. Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg, who is leading the case against Trump, is poised to release the list of charges against Trump on the afternoon of April 4.

Trump is accused of making a “hush money” payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election. Daniels claims the two had an affair in 2006, a charge that Trump denies. Further, the charges against Trump are considered misdemeanors past the statute of limitations that Bragg has elevated to a felony.

During his appearance on NTD, Navarro suggested that the charges were so unjust that moving ahead with the indictment constitutes “a crossing the Rubicon kind of event” for Trump’s enemies.

“It’s pure persecution that stems from the clear weaponization of our government for partisan purposes,” Navarro said when asked his opinion on the issue.

“This is unprecedented,” Navarro said. “Today is a very historic day in the sense that they’ve really gone too far.”

Executive Privilege

A key aspect of Navarro’s comments focused on the U.S. legal principle of executive privilege.

Navarro is under federal investigation for contempt of Congress due to his refusal to appear before the Jan. 6 panel during the last Congress. Like other Trump advisers, Navarro has claimed that executive privilege protected him from cooperating with the probe. Executive privilege is a U.S. legal tradition whereby the president is immune to specific congressional inquiries and subpoenas because he is the commander-in-chief and key national security figure.

Navarro still faces criminal proceedings for alleged contempt of Congress and faces up to two years in prison if convicted.

“[Trump] is the first president in our history of our republic to ever be indicted on a criminal charge,” Navarro said. “I myself am the first senior White House adviser and alter ego to the President ever to be charged with contempt of Congress. So these are like crossing the Rubicon kind of events.”

Navarro denounced Biden’s effort to strip Trump and his advisers of executive privilege as part of the larger weaponization of the federal government.

“Executive privilege … is something that goes back to the days of George Washington,” Navarro said. “It’s an institution in this country designed to enhance effective executive decision-making by ensuring the separation of powers, and of course, Biden has attacked that one head-on.”

Specifically, Biden has attempted to retroactively withdraw the claims of Trump and his aides using executive privilege.

During the interview, Navarro was asked what concerns he has about the effort to undermine the doctrine of executive privilege.

“I want to again reiterate what executive privilege means,” Navarro replied. “The word ‘privilege’ has kind of got a sketchy connotation these days, the way it’s been bandied about by the woke left, but executive privilege, again, goes back to George Washington.”

Navarro explained, “When [Washington] was president, he noticed that the legislative branch, that is, Congress, was trying to encroach upon the executive branch’s responsibilities. So the principle of separation of powers says that the President himself and his top advisors, who are treated identical to the president … have this executive privilege, meaning that they cannot be subpoenaed by Congress to testify or provide documents.”

The move to strip Trump and his advisers of executive privilege marks a sharp departure from previous Department of Justice (DOJ) policy, Navarro said. For over 50 years, the DOJ has worked on the assumption of complete testimonial immunity for the president and his advisors.

During the last Congress, however, Navarro and former Trump aide Steve Bannon were indicted for contempt of Congress after refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 panel.

“There’s no precedent, there’s no case law, there’s nothing, not a zip” to justify the change, Navarro said. “It’s a ridiculous kind of thing, but for me, it was the tell in the whole case because it revealed the true partisan nature of it.”

Agent Provocateurs

During the interview, Navarro expressed concern that protests following the release of charges could be sabotaged by agent provocateurs working with the FBI, DOJ, or Antifa.

“I’m very concerned, in both New York and in Mar-a-Lago, that there will be agent provocateurs, Antifa, BLM, maybe even FBI informants trying to provoke a crowd to violence because one of the Democrats spins—for example, in the Jan. 6 thing—is that somehow we’re extremists and we incite violence,” Navarro said.

He cited reporting by Revolver News’ Darren Beattie that showed conclusively that FBI informants were in the crowd on Jan. 6. In the past, the FBI has evaded questions by Congress about its level of involvement during the Jan. 6 protest.

“If anybody tries to incite violence, take their picture, and let’s find out whether they’re there, whether they’re in Antifa, BLM, or the FBI,” Navarro said.

Many Republicans have expressed concern about protests taking a violent turn following the announcement of charges against Trump.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

That’s why the first poll taken since it was announced Trump would be indicted by Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is so funny. The poll had put Ron DeSantis over Trump in the GOP primary until mid-February, then had Trump with a very slim lead since then despite most polls showing him surging to a double-digit lead last month. Now, it’s showing a far-wider gap.

According to a clearly disgruntled Yahoo News:

In the previous Yahoo News/YouGov survey, which was conducted less than two weeks ago, Trump (47%) led DeSantis (39%) by eight percentage points in a head-to-head matchup among registered voters who are Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. As recently as February, it was DeSantis who was narrowly ahead of Trump, 45% to 41%.

But the new, post-indictment poll suddenly finds Trump lapping DeSantis by 26 percentage points — 57% to 31% — in a one-on-one contest. The former president even attracts majority support (52%, up from 44% previously) when pitted against a wider, 10-candidate field of declared and potential GOP challengers, while DeSantis plummets to 21% (down from 28%).

No one else cracks double digits.

It will be challenging for DeSantis or any of the current and prospective candidates to get traction while Trump is under such a direct attack in this partisan witch hunt. Perhaps they should listen to Ric Grenell and push off their ambitions to 2028.

“This evening we contacted Mr. Trump’s attorney to coordinate his surrender … for arraignment on a Supreme Court indictment, which remains under seal,” a spokesperson from Bragg’s office said in a statement, The Epoch Times reported. “Guidance will be provided when the arraignment date is selected.”

Trump is the first-ever U.S. president to face criminal charges.

The former president is accused of making a $130,000 payment to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, in exchange for her silence on an alleged sexual encounter with her. Trump has consistently denied having any extramarital relationship with the woman.

Joe Tacopina, Trump’s lawyer, told The Epoch Times that the former president is expected to be in New York City next week for arraignment. Tacopina suggested that April 4 could be the date of his arraignment.

Grew up in Harlem

Bragg, who took office in 2022, won the Democratic primary and then the general election in November 2021, making him Manhattan’s first black district attorney. New York City has five elected DAs—one for each borough.

He is the fourth elected Manhattan DA in the last 80 years. He was preceded by DA Cyrus Vance Jr., who retired at the end of 2021 after 12 years.

The 49-year-old grew up in Harlem, according to his official biography. He earned his B.A. from Harvard University and his J.D. at Harvard Law School.

Bragg has spent more than two decades working in the criminal justice system.

Before becoming DA, Bragg served as an Assistant Attorney General for the state of New York and as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

During his campaign, Bragg made promises to indict Trump, and when he took office, he inherited a yearslong grand jury investigation of the alleged payment to Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump was implicated by his former attorney Michael Cohen as part of a plea deal. In 2018, Cohen was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine after pleading guilty to eight counts, including criminal tax evasion and campaign finance violations. Under Vance, the case stalled. The Federal Election Commission also looked into the matter but dropped its investigation.

But after taking office, Bragg had concerns about the strength of the case against Trump, leading to the resignation of two lead investigators.

Earlier this year, Bragg convened a new grand jury and proceeded with the case.

High-Profile Cases

Bragg, who describes himself as a white-collar prosecutor, has been involved in a number of high-profile cases.

Since becoming DA, he announced an indictment against Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon who is accused of defrauding donors in a fundraising scheme to build the wall along the southern border.

He was also involved in two cases against the Trump Organization.

Allen Weisselberg, chief financial officer for the Trump Organization and the Trump Payroll Corp., was charged under Vance, Bragg’s predecessor. The companies were charged with tax fraud and accused of reducing payroll liability from executive salaries through untaxed bonuses and millions in luxury perks.

Weisselberg pleaded guilty to the charges. He was sentenced to five months in jail and agreed to testify against the Trump companies.

Bragg oversaw the case against the Trump Organization, which was found guilty late last year. The Trump Organization and Trump Payroll Corp. were fined $810,000 and $800,000, respectively. Trump, who denied involvement, was not personally charged in the case.

Bragg also represented the family of Eric Garner, who died after being placed in a chokehold by a police officer in 2014.

Bragg’s Campaign Backed by Soros?

Billionaire George Soros, 92, founder of Open Society Foundations, is known for putting millions of dollars behind liberal prosecutors and political candidates but has claimed no connection to Bragg.

Florida Gov. Ron Desantis called out Bragg as being “Soros-backed” in response to Bragg’s announcement of the indictment against Trump. Many Republicans, including Trump, have concurred with DeSantis.

“The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head. It is un-American,” DeSantis wrote on Twitter. “The Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct. Yet, now he is stretching the law to target a political opponent,” he said.

“Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda.”

When Soros was asked about his connection to Bragg, he denied contributing to the prosecutor’s campaign, adding that he did not know him.

“As for Alvin Bragg, as a matter of fact I did not contribute to his campaign and I don’t know him,” Soros wrote in a Twitter exchange with Semafor journalist Steve Clemons. “I think some on the right would rather focus on far-fetched conspiracy theories than on the serious charges against the former president.”

Soros also pointed to his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled “Why I Support Reform Prosecutors,” which he said explains why he has donated to “reform-minded” prosecutors.

In May 2021, Soros donated $1 million to the Color of Change PAC, according to Open Secrets.

During the same period, the Color of Change PAC endorsed and spent money backing Bragg’s campaign.

What Else?

After taking office, Bragg issued a “Day 1 Memo – FACT SHEET” with a list of his policy changes, including not charging people with resisting arrest for a non-criminal offense, fare evasion, prostitution, and other misdemeanor offenses. (pdf)

New York City police unions have accused him of being soft on crime.

“Criminals know that @ManhattanDA will bend over backwards to protect them, not law-abiding New Yorkers,” the Police Benevolent Association wrote on Twitter last summer, CBS News reported.

Paul DiGiacomo, president of the Detectives Endowment Association, has described Bragg as “a pro-criminal politician.”

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

Now, Trump’s supporters have responded. They didn’t riot like corporate media was hoping. They didn’t curl up in a ball or run to support Nikki Haley like Democrat strategists had wanted. They got firmly behind the next President of the United States with a massive infusion of campaign funds.

$4 million in 24 hours… not too shabby, patriots.

President Trump Raises Over $4 Million in 24 Hours After Indictment in Alvin Bragg Witch Hunt pic.twitter.com/aRzhv41hvW

— RSBN (@RSBNetwork) April 1, 2023

According to Conservative Brief:

The massive wave of cash follows the Thursday indictment over allegations of campaign finance violations ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign. The charges involve a “hush money” payment of $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels and a $150,000 “catch and kill” payment to Playboy model Karen McDougal, both of whom claimed they had an affair with Trump at various points in the preceding years. Trump has vigorously denied the allegations by both women.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose campaign was financed in part by left-wing billionaire George Soros, sought to have Trump arraigned in court the following day, but the U.S. Secret Service appeared to nix that.

Fox News reported: “The source told Fox News Digital that Bragg had requested Trump’s surrender to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office by Friday — the day after the indictment — but that timeline was extended due to arrangements needed to be made by Secret Service. The source told Fox News Digital Trump will ‘most likely’ surrender on Tuesday. Typically, a defendant who surrenders in a nonviolent case would surrender to a central booking location, legal experts have explained. However, special accommodations are likely being arranged because this indictment involves a former president of the United States. The Secret Service and the New York Police Department are expected to play a large role in the process next week.”

Some are already declaring that this fiasco will make Trump unbeatable. Whether that’s true or not is irrelevant. We have a nation to save and we must keep fighting no matter how confident we are that the end result will be positive.

“The case against Donald Trump is a legal disaster, a weaponizing the justice system against a political opponent,” Ellis, a former attorney for Trump’s 2020 campaign, told The Epoch Times after a grand jury in New York voted to indict the former president.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office has been investigating Trump in connection with an alleged hush money payment to adult performer Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump, who is the frontrunner in the field of 2024 presidential hopefuls, has denied any wrongdoing, describing the March 30 indictment as “political persecution and election interference.”

Ellis expressed the same view.

“The only reason DA Alvin Bragg is bringing charges is because Trump is running for the GOP 2024 presidential nomination,” she said, noting that such efforts are likely to backfire.

“The DNC and RNC want a post-Trump America, yet they are incentivizing donors and the MAGA base to rally support against Trump because no one deserves to be politically prosecuted.”

She pointed to Trump’s top potential rival for the Republican nomination in 2024, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who came out to denounce the indictment as “un-American.” He also declared that he will not assist in any extradition of Trump, a Florida resident, “given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda,” referring to controversial billionaire financier George Soros.

A throng of prominent Republicans have come to Trump’s aide in the wake of the indictment and criticized the charges against him as politically motivated.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), like Ellis, said that Bragg has “irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election.”

“As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump,” he wrote, vowing that the House will “hold Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.”

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the House GOP conference chair, released a statement saying the indictment was a “dark day for America.”

“The radical Far Left will stop at nothing to persecute Joe Biden’s chief political opponent ahead of the 2024 presidential election to suppress the will and voice of the American people,” she wrote.

Democrats, in the meantime, hailed the news, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) saying that Trump is “subject to the same laws as every American.”

The swift response from DeSantis is rewarding politically, Ellis noted. With such a statement, she said, he is positioning himself as “a champion for the rule of law” and an “executive officer who will not allow political games.”

“Voters will love that display of strength and backbone,” she said.

Trump’s lawyer Joseph Tacopina has told CNN that Trump, who is reported to be in Florida currently, will likely be arraigned early next week.

The Epoch Times has reached out to Bragg’s office for comment.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.