Honest Liberal CNN Commentator Obliterates Bragg’s Case

Donald Trump raised $54 million in under 24 hours because people know this Manhattan “fraud” trial was a completely biased show trial, and they disapprove. Elie Honig is a liberal attorney who appeared on CNN to analyze the Trump trial. Shockingly, he’s honest. His essay in The Intelligencer doesn’t spare the critique of the Stalin trial of Donald Trump.

I know it’s a lot people that’s *not* good at their job.
But how the hell @CNN continue to put @eliehonig on air, he’s terrible. How many times can your legal analysis/predictions be so completely wrong & you get to spew this bullshit #RealKLOWN pic.twitter.com/E6ab7TznwD

— LoMrBlackManLA (@LA2Ing) May 31, 2024

Elie Honig points out that the case is a legal deviation at the highest level for our nation’s justice system, and it sets a precedent that some may well regret celebrating in the future.

Under the headline “Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Contorted the Law,” Honig obliterated Bragg’s case. He indicates the trial was rigged.

Bragg publically said that this case was won on “evidence, law alone.” No one believes that. Bragg is the Soros-DA who turns 60% of the felonies brought to him into misdemeanors, but this insane case is the law? But in Trump’s case, he ran a Soviet operation against a former president on trumped up charges.

Honig didn’t hold back.

“Reasonable minds could have come out either way, and this jury found that the prosecution carried its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury’s work, and their verdict, deserve respect,” he began. “But that doesn’t mean that every structural infirmity around the Manhattan district attorney’s case has evaporated. Both of these things can be true at once: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess.”

“Sure, victory is the great deodorant, but a guilty verdict doesn’t make it all pure and right. Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place. “But they won” is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to “win” now, by any means necessary, and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later.

“In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else,” wrote Honig. “The Manhattan DA’s employees reportedly have called this the ‘Zombie Case’ because of various legal infirmities, including its bizarre charging mechanism. But it’s better characterized as the Frankenstein Case, cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator.”

“‘No man is above the law.’ It’s become cliché, but it’s an important point, and it’s worth pausing to reflect on the importance of this core principle,” concluded Honig. “But it’s also meaningless pablum if we unquestioningly tolerate (or worse, celebrate) deviations from ordinary process and principle to get there. The jury’s word is indeed sacrosanct, as I learned long ago. But it can’t fix everything that preceded it. Here, prosecutors got their man, for now at least — but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey.”

Do we want to live in a country where politicians throw their opponents in prison, and the people can’t vote for the candidate they want?

It’s virtually impossible to believe Trump’s convictions will be upheld on appeal, the deficiencies are so overwhelming https://t.co/QVUsacvDzH

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) May 31, 2024

This guy looks demonic:

“Donald Trump refers to himself as a political prisoner and blames you directly. What’s your response to that, sir?”

BIDEN (CONFUSED):

*stops*

*smirks*

*shuffles away* pic.twitter.com/0GKm327Qy1

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 31, 2024

PowerInbox