Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has received funding from Soros, has allegedly gathered close to $1 million in donations after following through on his pledge to bring charges against Trump.
Per the New York Times, “Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan D.A., campaigned as the best candidate to go after the former president.”
Jury selection continues for Bragg’s legal battle against Trump for alleged election interference. Last April, Trump faced 34 felony charges related to falsifying business records and conspiracy.
The far-left judge overseeing the Stormy Daniels case severely restricted Trump’s First Amendment rights by issuing a strict gag order.
Earlier this month, Juan Merchan expanded Trump’s gag order, preventing him from making factual statements about the judge’s left-leaning family members.
This decision came after revelations that the judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is associated with the far-left and had worked for the Biden-Harris campaign. She received substantial funding from Democrats aiming to oppose Trump, amounting to tens of millions of dollars.
Reports indicate that the initial seven jurors in Judge Juan Merchan’s trial are all reportedly avid readers of the liberal-leaning New York Times. Critics argue that the trial is biased and predetermined.
As reported by Right Side Broadcasting Network:
Amid the start of President Donald Trump’s now-infamous “hush money” trial in a Manhattan Criminal Court, disturbing allegations have emerged that paint a picture of District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s possible financial boons for prosecuting the 45th president.
According to a report from Newsweek, based on campaign finance data, Bragg has raised more than $800,000 since indicting the 45th president in 2023. If he is not reelected in 2025, his term as DA in Manhattan will end in 2026.
The outlet stated that the money was raised between March 2023 and the last reporting date of January 2024.
In 2022, Bragg drew attention when he downgraded 52% of felony charges to misdemeanors. Later, he raised a misdemeanor charge against Donald Trump to felony status, despite the statute of limitations having already expired, in the previous year.
Bradley Smith, Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, law professor at Capital University, and former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, points out in an opinion piece for The Federalist that the fabricated felony charges against Trump lack any merit, disregarding the evident conflicts of interest within the prosecution and the judge.
DA Alvin Bragg asserts that Trump manipulated business records to “cover up crimes, keeping vital information from voters during the 2016 presidential election” and to “boost his chances of winning.”
Bragg’s argument suggests that Trump breached campaign finance regulations by failing to disclose purported campaign expenses aimed at influence the 2016 election’s outcome.
As previously reported by The Federalist:
Misreporting business expenses is normally, at most, a misdemeanor. Bragg seeks to ratchet it up to a felony here by arguing that the misreporting was done to cover up a crime. That alleged crime is a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The theory is that Trump’s payments to Daniels were campaign expenditures and thus needed to be publicly reported as such. By not reporting the expenditure, the theory goes, Trump prevented the public from knowing information that might have influenced their votes.
But let’s think about this for a minute. Political candidates do things all the time that are “for the purpose of influencing an election,” but that, nonetheless, are not considered campaign expenditures. For example, a candidate cannot buy a new suit, get his teeth whitened, or pay for cosmetic surgery with campaign funds, even if he does so for the purpose of looking good on the campaign trail.
That’s because, in campaign finance law, these types of expenditures are known as “personal use.” FECA specifically prohibits the conversion of campaign funds to personal use, defined as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”
Does anyone really think a candidate should be able to use campaign funds to settle lawsuits, or threatened lawsuits, arising from activities that occurred long before his candidacy? It’s stressful being a candidate, and a little relaxation may make the candidate more effective on the stump. Does that mean your campaign contribution should pay for a candidate massage? How about a country club membership, or tickets to the Super Bowl (after all, the candidate might take along a potential donor)?
Herein lies the most frightening part of this prosecution: Had Trump made these payments with campaign funds, it seems a near certainty he would now be facing criminal charges for a knowing and willful diversion of campaign funds to pay personal obligations.
If Bragg’s prosecution is successful, it will mean a candidate can use campaign funds to pay almost any obligation that, the candidate might argue, would benefit his candidacy.
Perhaps worse, zealous prosecutors could get a candidate coming or going — falsification of records if campaign funds are not used, and illegal personal use if campaign funds are used.
