Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr said Wednesday on Fox News that the guilty verdict in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case would likely be “overruled” and could lead to people questioning the fairness of the 2024 presidential election.
Legal analysts have sounded the alarm on Bragg’s trial against former President Donald Trump and the nature of how Bragg brought the case, noting it was unprecedented for a state to prosecute alleged federal election law violations. Barr insisted higher courts would overturn the “travesty” of a case after the 2024 election, which might lead to the public believing the case directly interfered with the outcome if President Joe Biden wins re-election.
“I said from the very start that this was an abomination, and I actually was surprised that they went ahead with the case because there really was nothing there. There was no crime there, and they really weren’t able to articulate it until after the defense rested its case,” Barr, who has criticized Trump on several occasions, said. “So I thought the whole thing was a travesty.”
Bill Barr says no crime was committed, verdict will be overturned before election pic.twitter.com/LpGqjTz2J1
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 5, 2024
He said the lack of “discipline” in the case and the prosecution’s lack of presenting the specific elements of the crime committed led to the guilty verdict.
The prosecution alleged Trump interfered in the 2016 presidential election by having his then-lawyer Michael Cohen pay $130,000 in hush money to former porn actress Stormy Daniels, who alleged she and Trump had an affair in 2006. New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who oversaw the case, did not require the jury to unanimously agree on which “unlawful” means Trump used to allegedly influence the election.
Merchan required the jury to consider between three “unlawful” means: a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), the falsification of other business records or violations of tax fraud. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy branded the judge’s instructions as the “antithesis of standard” given that the jurors did not need to agree on the alleged “unlawful” means used. (RELATED: Turley Says Higher Courts Likely Won’t Let Trump Verdict Stand)
“This will be eventually overruled after the election. But what if there’s a close election? And Biden squeaks through, and then the case is overruled? Half the country is gonna feel this was a stolen election and again, this is a grave injustice and disservice to the country,” Barr continued.
Elie Honig, a former colleague of Bragg’s, called the case an “ill-conceived, unjustified mess,” lamenting the “unprecedented” and “obscure” nature of the “inventive” and “inflated” charges in a Friday piece for New York Magazine. He criticized the judge’s $35 donation to a pro-Biden operation as a “plain violation” of a New York rule for judges.
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge,” Honig wrote.
Barr expressed hope that the judge doesn’t impose a “severe gag order” on Trump during his July 11 sentencing to avoid affecting Americans’ attitudes toward the election. He said Trump has the right to attack the case as a candidate for the presidency, and thus should not have a gag order placed on him following the conclusion of the trial.
“It would sort of affect people’s attitude toward the ultimate fairness of this election,” Barr added.
Trump’s legal team is slated to appeal the case, which could ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
