Regardless of how you assess its legal strength, the Manhattan DA's case against Trump was factually devastating

Jonah Goldberg's latest newsletter at The Dispatch — entitled "No, We Are Not Living in ‘Late Soviet America’: What Niall Ferguson’s recent Cold War analogy misses" — is superb, an excellent example of the shrewd analysis to be found in Dispatch Media's online writing, podcasts, and videos. At least as of the moment I'm writing this, it's not paywalled — although membership at Dispatch Media, the content it brings, and the commenting community to which that opens access, would be an incredible bargain at triple the price. 

What follows below (as slightly edited) is from a comment I left on that particular newsletter — a comment which has nothing to do with its main subject (which the title and subtitle succinctly describe), but instead expresses my frustration with Mr. Goldberg's continuing description (in passing here, but consistently lately in other essays and podcasts) of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's successful prosecution of Donald Trump as "weak." (For my position on the extent to which Bragg's prosecution was politically motivated, see my post from June 10, 2024.) For context, in my comment as reprinted below, I was responding specifically to this from Mr. Goldberg:

New York’s prosecution of Donald Trump was politically motivated, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s legal case was weak. Granted. But Trump was not detained in a “torture dacha” pending trial, and his family wasn’t threatened with execution or prison ... [continuing, persuasively, with other significant differences].

My response:

--------

It's very fair to say that the Manhattan prosecution of Trump was widely considered to be a weak legal case by legal pundits when it was first filed. I was one such.

But at the recommendation of my friend Patrick Frey aka Patterico, I invested the time to read Judge Merchan's pretrial order of February 15, 2024 — weeks before the trial began. In it, he comprehensively reviewed the relevant New York business records falsification statute, and he tested the evidence Bragg's team produced in response to Trump's motions to dismiss against that law. Trump's motion to dismiss was granted as to one of the prosecution's theories. But legally, Judge Merchan was on well-trod ground. The only thing that was novel wasn't the law, but the facts: "Wow, what a fraud! And for what a nationally consequential motive and possible effect!"

But as the trial itself established, Bragg's case on the facts turned out to be very, very strong. It was constructed from witnesses and documents other than perjurer and coconspirator Michael Cohen. Even on the absolutely key question of Trump's personal involvement so as to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had "made or caused" the falsifications, there was both direct evidence — Allen Weisselberg's handwritten notes calculating the "grossing up," essential to covering up the falsification of the hush money payment in Trump's own records — plus the overwhelming inference, including public brags from Trump himself, about how he squeezed every nickel while examining it under a microscope. Even without corroboration through Cohen, this other evidence, if credited by the jury, would have been enough to sustain a conviction on its own. But as it turned out, Cohen — like so many other flipped witnesses, including literal murderers and international terrorists — turned out to be very damned credible on the stand.

So please, Mr. Goldberg, if you are going to continue to insist that Bragg's case was legally weak, at least acknowledge that it was factually devastating. And of course, I trust you will agree that Trump was his own worst enemy —

• insisting on disputing the affair, thereby throwing open the evidentiary (relevance) door to salacious details;
• the stage-whispered comments ("Bullsh!t!"), and all the mugging and drama and then, disdain for the jurors by sleeping or simulating sleep;
• the conspicuous attempt to sway the jury by bringing powerful politicians kissing Trump's ring (or something);
• the disastrous decision to call Robert J. Costello as the only substantive defense witness;
• the ten criminal contempt convictions (each proved beyond a reasonable doubt);
• Trump's lawyers' overpromises in opening statement and insults to the jurors' intelligence;
• permitting a BigLaw civil litigator and BigLaw deal lawyer on the jury, where they likely functioned as teaching assistants for the prosecution team

— and I could go on and on.

Again, I know the Manhattan prosecution was not the subject of this newsletter. But I hope you and others will look at it afresh, post-verdict.