Alvin Bragg Made 'Factually Impossible' Accusation Against Trump—Attorney

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's allegedly "twisted narrative" made "factually impossible" arguments against Donald Trump in the New York hush money criminal trial, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said.

The high-profile case is the first time in U.S. history that a former president has stood trial in a criminal case. Following an investigation by Bragg's office, Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was indicted in March 2023 on 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was accused of attempting to conceal hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels by Trump's then-lawyer and "fixer" Michael Cohen during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

Daniels had alleged she had an affair with Trump in 2006, which he has denied. The former president has pleaded not guilty to all charges and said the case against him is politically motivated.

In a Thursday morning Fox opinion piece, Jarrett took jabs at the prosecution's case against the former president, describing the trial as "a surreal 'Alice in Wonderland' farce." Many GOP leaders have called the trial a "sham," while Democrats refute the claims.

In the article, Jarrett repeatedly questioned the "so-called 'mystery' or second crime," alleging it was "never fully specified by the DA, even during the trial." He claimed that only during closing arguments "did the prosecutor finally reveal the enigma: it was a federal election crime. But wait. He then contradicted himself by claiming that it was a state crime."

In an email statement to Newsweek on Thursday, Jarrett reiterated: "In the indictment, Trump is charged only with 'falsifying business records'...with 'intent to commit another crime.' However, that so-called "secondary" crime is not identified and, therefore, not charged."

Several legal analysts, including Barbara McQuade, MSNBC legal analyst and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, countered Jarrett's claims, telling Newsweek in an email on Thursday: "This is a baseless argument.

"The charge is this: Trump caused business records to be falsified with intent to conceal another crime. That other crime is NY statute 17-152, conspiracy to promote the election of a candidate by 'unlawful means.' The unlawful means include violations of federal election law and tax laws."

New York Statute Section 17-152 states: "Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

In his article, Jarrett wrote: "The Sixth Amendment requires prosecutors to inform every defendant 'of the nature and cause of the accusations' against them. The deliberate refusal by the prosecution to do so in this case is an egregious violation of a hallowed constitutional right." McQuade again challenged Jarrett's statements, telling Newsweek: "The prosecutors disclosed their theory of the case months ago in court filings."

Cheryl Bader, an associate clinical professor of law at Fordham University, also disagreed with Jarrett's comments, telling Newsweek in an email Thursday: "Under New York law, the prosecutor does not need to provide in advance to the defense all of the particulars around their theory on the means of how the crime was committed. Judge Merchan had granted in part and denied in part Trump's motion for a 'Bill of Particulars' laying out the specifics for the way the crime is charged."

Jarrett claimed that "Bragg's twisted narrative," doesn't identify whom Trump defrauded, saying "It wasn't taxpayers...It couldn't be voters who had already cast their ballots by the time the 'legal expenses' were booked after the election." He concluded, "That's factually impossible."

In addition to her previous comments about the case and charges against Trump, McQuade said: "White collar crimes often are more complex than simple street crimes because of sophisticated or complex schemes to defraud. But sophistication or complexity of a scheme is no defense. The law is structured to hold them accountable."

Jarrett then discussed the recent jury instructions, saying the jury is "free to pick and choose whatever they like without consensus. Four jurors may adopt one crime, four more can select another, and still four others can settle on the third," adding: "Unanimous jury decisions are a bedrock constitutional principle derived from the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. That requirement extends to all key issues, including every necessary element of an alleged crime and/or the establishment of secondary crimes."

Bader said Judge Juan Merchan's instructions mean that the jurors "all need to agree on the verdict, but they can get to that result through different paths and reasoning," adding: "This is not an unusual concept in criminal law, particularly in the case of conspiracy."

In his statement to Newsweek, Jarrett wrote: "It is not typical for a judge to instruct jurors that they do not have to unanimously agree with each other on what that secondary crime is."

McQuade also clarified the judge's instructions, writing: "Under the law, the jury must find unanimously each element of the offenses, here, knowingly causing the falsification of business records and intent to conceal another crime, that is, 17-152, conspiracy to promote the election of a candidate by 'unlawful means.'"

She added that in order to do so, the "manner and means of committing a crime is not subject to the unanimity requirement because manner and means are not elements of the offense. Here, 'unlawful means' are manner and means and need not be found beyond a reasonable doubt. This is consistent with the law and due process."

Updated 5/30/2024 at 5:05 p.m. ET: This article was updated with comment from Gregg Jarrett.