Bragg’s legal argument is intricate, yet it originates from a straightforward incident: prior to the 2016 election, Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, paid $130,000 in hush money to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors claim that Trump, who denies any involvement with Daniels, falsified 34 business records — including 12 ledger entries, 11 invoices, and 11 checks — to conceal his reimbursement to Cohen as legal fees.
Falsifying these documents on its own would constitute misdemeanors, relatively minor offenses. Bragg upgraded each charge to felonies by arguing that they were committed to conceal or advance another crime, which he did not formally charge. He asserted that specifying the crime was unnecessary, suggesting it could relate to state or federal election laws. The reliance on testimony from Cohen, a disgraced lawyer with a criminal record, further complicates the case.
Following the indictment, critics from various political backgrounds questioned the legal basis, strategy, and likelihood of success in the hush-money case. However, experts now view Bragg’s legal approach as stronger, supported by federal and Manhattan judges who have allowed the case to proceed to trial.
Despite these developments, the case remains contentious, particularly in the political sphere. Trump and his supporters dismiss it as a partisan attack orchestrated by a Democratic district attorney allegedly influenced by George Soros. Conversely, some Democrats fear that Trump’s portrayal of victimization could bolster his political campaign, especially considering the trivial nature of this case compared to other indictments related to his presidency and the democratic system.
“We’re all kind of like, ‘I can’t believe Alvin is at the center of this,’” remarks Erin E. Murphy, a NYU law professor and close friend of Bragg. She emphasizes his non-partisan demeanor, highlighting the contrast with the political controversy surrounding the case.
