I think Honig makes a few points worth thinking about, and is at least making criticisms in good faith. But I see three main problems with his analysis. First is the issue of whether and to what degree the resulting guilty verdict justifies the charge or legitimizes their allegedly strained, convoluted reach. He suggests it doesn't matte…
I think Honig makes a few points worth thinking about, and is at least making criticisms in good faith. But I see three main problems with his analysis. First is the issue of whether and to what degree the resulting guilty verdict justifies the charge or legitimizes their allegedly strained, convoluted reach. He suggests it doesn't matters at all, but this notion that the strength of the evidence or the resulting verdict doesn't matter when evaluating the nature of the charges seems incredibly silly to me and is easily the weakest claim here. It also ignores that even if there are questions about the legal basis, there is virtually zero dispute over his factual conduct. Very few of Trumps defenders even bother denying that he did exactly what the NYC DA charged him with doing and the evidence presented at trial established that conclusively. Likewise, few would claim that Trump's conduct wasn't immoral or wrong, and doesn't even make for a scandal, never mind a crime.
The only real debate here is a legal one over the outer parameters of the statute that Trump was charged with violating, and whether Trump's established conduct rose to a crime, or was merely a morally repugnant political scandal. This matters because it speaks to the simple fact that Trump is not and has never been an innocent man, who has been railroaded by the DA criminalizing lawful and ordinary conduct. Whatever the ultimate resolution of the legal issue, Trump will remain a vile charlatan who was hoisted by his own petard through no fault but his own.
As for the more nuanced legal issue, Honig attempts to diminish the legitimacy of the charge by minimizing the frequency with which they are filed and arguing that the NY DA developed a bespoke charge approach solely for Trump, but this ignores the incredibly bespoke nature of the conduct involved and doesn't remotely invalidate the charge. Granted, no one was ever charged by NYS with felony falsifying business records based on a cover up of a federal campaign finance crime before, but that's not because the charge is illegitimate. Its because nobody had ever presented such a fact pattern to the DA before because nobody had ever done anything like it. The rule of law requires that similar cases be treated similarly, and the fact that a case is so unique as to have no comparators does not remotely violate that principle. And lastly, Honig criticizes the political motives of Bragg by suggesting that he won election by talking up his Trump hunting bonafides. This frankly ignores the context of Bragg's campaign, which took place while this investigation was already ongoing, and people had questions about what the candidates running would do with it. What Bragg most directly and specifically said about the investigation of this case during his campaign for DA is exactly what an ethical DA should say when asked a question like that, which is to make no promises or commitments either way except to let the investigation play out and do what the evidence and law requires of him. Simple reality is that these statements weren't promises to get Trump and shouldn't even be viewed as inappropriate, but rather a credit to Bragg's ethical commitment to the rule of law.
I think Honig makes a few points worth thinking about, and is at least making criticisms in good faith. But I see three main problems with his analysis. First is the issue of whether and to what degree the resulting guilty verdict justifies the charge or legitimizes their allegedly strained, convoluted reach. He suggests it doesn't matters at all, but this notion that the strength of the evidence or the resulting verdict doesn't matter when evaluating the nature of the charges seems incredibly silly to me and is easily the weakest claim here. It also ignores that even if there are questions about the legal basis, there is virtually zero dispute over his factual conduct. Very few of Trumps defenders even bother denying that he did exactly what the NYC DA charged him with doing and the evidence presented at trial established that conclusively. Likewise, few would claim that Trump's conduct wasn't immoral or wrong, and doesn't even make for a scandal, never mind a crime.
The only real debate here is a legal one over the outer parameters of the statute that Trump was charged with violating, and whether Trump's established conduct rose to a crime, or was merely a morally repugnant political scandal. This matters because it speaks to the simple fact that Trump is not and has never been an innocent man, who has been railroaded by the DA criminalizing lawful and ordinary conduct. Whatever the ultimate resolution of the legal issue, Trump will remain a vile charlatan who was hoisted by his own petard through no fault but his own.
As for the more nuanced legal issue, Honig attempts to diminish the legitimacy of the charge by minimizing the frequency with which they are filed and arguing that the NY DA developed a bespoke charge approach solely for Trump, but this ignores the incredibly bespoke nature of the conduct involved and doesn't remotely invalidate the charge. Granted, no one was ever charged by NYS with felony falsifying business records based on a cover up of a federal campaign finance crime before, but that's not because the charge is illegitimate. Its because nobody had ever presented such a fact pattern to the DA before because nobody had ever done anything like it. The rule of law requires that similar cases be treated similarly, and the fact that a case is so unique as to have no comparators does not remotely violate that principle. And lastly, Honig criticizes the political motives of Bragg by suggesting that he won election by talking up his Trump hunting bonafides. This frankly ignores the context of Bragg's campaign, which took place while this investigation was already ongoing, and people had questions about what the candidates running would do with it. What Bragg most directly and specifically said about the investigation of this case during his campaign for DA is exactly what an ethical DA should say when asked a question like that, which is to make no promises or commitments either way except to let the investigation play out and do what the evidence and law requires of him. Simple reality is that these statements weren't promises to get Trump and shouldn't even be viewed as inappropriate, but rather a credit to Bragg's ethical commitment to the rule of law.