Donald Trump allies have no doubt rushed to the ex-president’s side as he faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. But so have some of his critics—including several who supported impeaching him—who are claiming that Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s case is “weak,” “flimsier” than expected, and a stretch, legally.
Peter Meijer, a former Republican lawmaker who voted to impeach Trump after January 6, called Bragg’s case “Not just weak sauce––the weakest of sauces,” adding that it was not a good day for American institutions intended to be “neutral arbiters.” Senator Mitt Romney, in a Tuesday statement, said, “I believe the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda.” The Utah Republican, who in 2020 became the first senator in history to vote to remove a president from their side of the aisle, went on to accuse Bragg of setting “a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and [damaging] the public’s faith in our justice system.” Likewise, former congressman Justin Amash, who was the first Republican to support Trump’s impeachment in 2019, tweeted that he was “stunned any prosecutor would move forward with this. It’s even flimsier than we were led to believe. Thirty-four stacked counts, bootstrapped to an unstated crime, to manufacture felony charges.”
Trump pleaded not guilty Tuesday to criminal charges stemming from a hush money scheme to silence adult film actor Stormy Daniels (Trump has acknowledged the payments but denied any wrongdoing). He has been charged with allegedly falsifying business records to cover up attempts to violate campaign finance law and other criminal activity. Bragg’s indictment listed each false invoice, false check and check stub, and false general ledger entry of Trump’s reimbursement plan to Michael Cohen, the former aide who delivered the Daniels payment, as its own count, since each came with its own falsified invoice. Bragg is arguing that Trump violated New York’s false-records law in order to cover up another crime, amounting to a felony charge—a legal theory that has come under heavy debate.
Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, whom Trump fired, raised doubts about the indictment, calling it “unimpressive.” Meanwhile, former US attorney general William Barr wrote it off as “a pathetically weak case,” a sentiment that’s also been featured on the pages of many news sites, from Vox to The Atlantic. No “normal businessman,” according to Atlantic staff writer and former Republican speechwriter David Frum, would ever likely be caught for such an “awfully technical” violation, regardless of its illegality. “This Manhattan indictment may, through its sheer pettiness, inadvertently diminish Trump’s misdeeds,” Frum wrote.
Former Manhattan chief assistant district attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Brookings Institution senior fellow Norman Eisen attempted to dispel this notion in a piece for The New York Times. “There’s nothing novel or weak about this case,” they wrote, listing comparable cases. “Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.”
