Just a day after former President Donald Trump was formally arrested and arraigned on 37 federal charges, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that the state’s legal efforts against Trump will take a backseat to the DOJ case, as will Alvin Bragg’s.
“In all likelihood, I believe that my case, as well as DA Bragg and the Georgia case, will unfortunately have to be adjourned pending the outcome of the federal case,” James said during a recent podcast appearance.
“So it all depends upon the scheduling of this particular case. I know there’s gonna be a flood, a flurry of motions, motion to dismiss, discovery issues, all of that. So it really all depends. Obviously, all of us want to know what Judge Cannon is going to do and whether or not she’s going to delay this particular case.”
James previously campaigned on using her office to investigate and prosecute Trump. She has been unable to find a crime to pin on the former president, though Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg used several obscure legal theories to bring felony charges against the former president.
Legal experts have repeatedly poked holes in the case against Trump brought forward by Bragg. The Manhattan D.A. used COVID-era policies to expand the statute of limitations on an administrative payment error, which is generally a misdemeanor. Bragg then upgraded the charge to a felony, citing a “conspiracy” to commit another crime. The other crime has never been specified by Bragg.
He then copy/pasted the same charge 33 times, one for each administrative error, and charged the former president with 37 felonies.
“He used this analogy: If a person was accused of a bank robbery, instead of charging him with robbing one bank, the prosecutor would load up 33 other charges, such as ‘he crossed the street against the red light, was double parked, shot off his gun, and he carried a gun when he shouldn’t,’” John Banzhaf III, a professor emeritus at George Washington University Law School, told the Epoch Times.
“I think even a jury which may not have too much legal expertise is going to look over at this and say, ‘Well, this is repetitious,’” Banzhaf said.