Prominent Democrat Eviscerates Bragg’s Case Against Donald Trump


Julian Epstein, former Democrat Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary, is a Democrat political strategist. He made some remarkable comments during Rob Schmitt’s Newsmax show last night. So you understand, he never voted for Donald Trump and is a lifelong Democrat.

“They [the prosecutors] had to twist themselves into pretzels to come up with legal theories that have never been used before,” Epstein began. He added that “they have gone way, way too far. This is an outrageous case.”

“This is a selective and politically motivated use of the law in an unprecedented way,” Epstein said.

He is shocked by the Prosecutor’s conflict of interest in the Bragg and James cases. Both prosecutors “campaigned on going after Trump and then used theories never before used in the law: “This is Joseph Stalin. You show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

Epstein is deeply concerned that more Democrats aren’t “outraged” and “are going along with this….It’s just unbelievable.”

The transcript continues below.


Epstein also discussed the timing. “The alleged conduct in question occurred in 2016. That’s eight years ago. The alleged reporting violation occurred in early 2017…. The fact that the prosecutors in almost all of these cases are waiting to the eve of the election, and then strapping Donald Trump down … into a courtroom during the height of the election season is just…” I don’t understand how more people on the left don’t see this as complete abuse and a complete breakdown of the system. And the fact that they’re going along with it, I just think, is outrageous.”

Mr. Epstein believes only 6% of Democrats are hard-left, but they have an outsized influence on social media and media. Rob Schmitt puts it higher at about 20% or 30%. Epstein didn’t mention that Biden and his advisors are hard left.

Epstein said, “The reporting requirement that they are alleging Trump violation occurred in 2017, which was after the election. They also sort of skip over the fact that the incredible efforts that were made to suppress the Hunter Biden story in 2020. I mean, if that’s not election interference.”

Epstein said all the efforts by former intelligence officials to say it was Russian interference, “Why isn’t that election interference? I mean, that would seem to be election interference on a much greater scale.”

“What Bragg is attempting to do here is to bootstrap a misdemeanor bookkeeping violation and, you know I think a lot of people would put this in, sort of without thinking much about it, into a legal expense category. In any case, I don’t think people are all that careful when it comes to sort of making the distinctions when you sort of have a legal issue or a political issue that you’re trying to make go away but that that’s not the big point.

“The big point here is that they are attempting to bootstrap this to a federal election law, namely the failure of the Trump team in 2017 to report the hush money as a campaign expenditure.

“OK, so first of all there is no precedent in the law that says hush money in a context like this would be considered a campaign expenditure so the failure to report it in 2017, by definition, can’t be a violation of the law, even if you were to accept the absurd attempt on the part of Bragg to bootstrap the bookkeeping account to a federal election law violation. But there’s a very important point about this your viewers have to understand.

“There is a former FCC chair and a former FEC commissioner who have both said, and they’ve written it, wrote a beautiful piece in the Wall Street Journal … explaining why hush money would not be required to be reported on the Federal Election Commission reporting forms that you do quarterly. So if you have the officials who are in charge of enforcing the law saying that hush money expenditures are not reportable campaign expenditures, then by definition, Trump cannot have violated it because you have an intent requirement.

“So how can Trump have intended to violate a reporting requirement when the officials in charge of enforcing that requirement have said there’s no such requirement?

Epstein continued, “So you know you can go down multiple levels of absurdity on this thing. You can just sort of keep going down.”

“If Donald Trump’s last name was not Trump, this case would never be brought, and the fact that more people on the left, that’s one thing that everyone on the left and right should agree to, that you do not use the law in a political way against your political opponents. And that’s exactly what’s being done here.

“It’s completely egregious. I think there’s a lot about some of the other cases are egregious as wel.l James’ case was just outrageous. The award was outrageous, the theory was outrageous, there again no precedent for it.

“You know, I’ve been critical of Donald Trump and certain things he’s done, but the use of the law and this sort of lawfare strategy, it’s just scary. This is ‘Katie bar the door.’”

Republicans could do the same thing to Biden and others. Then we’re really in trouble.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments