Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — the same prosecutor who’ll turn a blind eye if you assault someone but throw the book at you for defending yourself — spent more than a year and millions of taxpayer dollars going after then-private citizen Donald Trump. His crusade? Thirty-four flimsy felony charges of “falsifying business records” that legal experts across the spectrum called a stretch from day one.
And yet, in the left’s favorite city for political theater, Bragg got his convictions.
Late Monday night, Donald Trump struck back — filing an appeal with New York’s Appellate Division demanding that his conviction be overturned, calling it “the most politically charged prosecution in our Nation’s history.”
In the 111-page filing (some reports list it at 96 pages), Trump’s legal team blasted Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s case as nothing more than “Radical Democrat Lawfare”:
“President Trump’s legal team filed a powerhouse appeal in the Manhattan DA’s Witch Hunt, as the President continues his fight to put an end to the Radical Democrat Lawfare once and for all,” a spokesman for the president’s legal team told Fox News Digital.
“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately overturned and dismissed,” the Trump spokesman continued.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — the same prosecutor who’ll turn a blind eye if you assault someone but throw the book at you for defending yourself — spent more than a year and millions of taxpayer dollars going after then-private citizen Donald Trump. His crusade? Thirty-four flimsy felony charges of “falsifying business records” that legal experts across the spectrum called a stretch from day one.
And yet, in the left’s favorite city for political theater, Bragg got his convictions.
Late Monday night, Donald Trump struck back — filing an appeal with New York’s Appellate Division demanding that his conviction be overturned, calling it “the most politically charged prosecution in our Nation’s history.”
In the 111-page filing (some reports list it at 96 pages), Trump’s legal team blasted Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s case as nothing more than “Radical Democrat Lawfare”:
“President Trump’s legal team filed a powerhouse appeal in the Manhattan DA’s Witch Hunt, as the President continues his fight to put an end to the Radical Democrat Lawfare once and for all,” a spokesman for the president’s legal team told Fox News Digital.
“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately overturned and dismissed,” the Trump spokesman continued.
“President Trump will keep defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn as he focused on his singular mission to Make America Great Again.”
GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney (NY-24) said Trump’s legal team’s characterization of Bragg’s prosecution is spot-on:
Bragg’s case was shaky from the very beginning, hinging on so-called “hush money” payments to a former adult film star — the kind of transactions that, while salacious, are not inherently illegal and are actually routine in corporate America, where NDAs are a standard practice. But that didn’t stop Bragg from twisting the narrative, portraying Trump like some kind of mob boss straight out of “The Godfather”:
…Bragg argued that those payments violated New York’s statute against falsification of business records. Such falsifications are usually punished as misdemeanors, but Mr. Bragg contended that since they were transacted in the service of an unspecified second crime they amounted to felonies. Judge Merchan ruled that such a prosecutorial approach was valid and that jurors need not agree on the second crime to convict.
Now Democrats are crying foul about Donald Trump supposedly “weaponizing” the justice system — the same Democrats who cheered on the actual weaponization of justice every step of the way. They sat back and applauded as New York Attorney General Letitia James chased Trump over victimless “crimes,” as disgraced Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis launched her corruption-plagued case over Trump’s alleged 2020 “election interference,” and as Special Counsel Jack Smith embarked on his Don Quixote–style crusade to nail Trump over classified documents and political speech.
The political tensions surrounding Representative Ilhan Omar reached a boiling point during the recent Minneapolis mayoral race, revealing deep, entrenched
The electoral result has exposed the pervasive role of “tribal politics” in local U.S. governance and triggered a raw public confrontation where Omar was verbally attacked by a Somali rival who questioned her loyalty and identity.
The recent Minneapolis mayoral election has brought to light the internal fragmentation within the city’s significant Somali-American community, where political alignment appears to follow traditional tribal loyalties rather than simple party lines.
Reports suggest that the victory of incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey was achieved by strategically exploiting existing rivalries within the Somali electorate.
Political Fragmentation: The core issue is the breakdown of the Somali vote, with reports indicating that different Somali clans actively campaigned for opposing candidates. As one commentator noted, this is a clear case where “Somali clans wouldn’t vote for that Omar guy because he was from a different clan,” underscoring the dominance of kinship ties over ideological unity.
The frustration over this political division boiled over in a public confrontation where Representative Omar was attacked by a Somali rival.
The Direct Challenge: A woman, speaking in Somali (with English phrases interspersed), directly challenged Omar’s status and influence, shouting,
The revelation of this divisive political strategy underscores the challenges of integrating diverse immigrant populations whose political allegiances are dictated by historical and ethnic ties that often override American political norms.
Representative Omar, who is often a vocal proponent of immigrant rights and anti-deportation policies, recently gave a controversial answer regarding her own potential deportation, which critics swiftly deemed hypocritical.
When asked in an interview about the persistent threats from conservative figures to strip her of American citizenship and deport her, Omar adopted a dismissive posture:
She emphasized her adulthood and financial stability: “I’m not the eight-year-old who escaped war anymore. I’m grown. My kids are grown. Like I can go live wherever I want if I wanted to.”
Critics immediately seized on this statement, pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in minimizing the severity of deportation:
Contradiction: Omar is a leading voice for policies that treat deportation as a profound human rights tragedy and a life-destroying event. Yet, when applied to her own situation, she makes deportation sound like “it’s not that big of a deal,” suggesting she “can go live wherever I want.”
The segment concluded with a brief note on the political chaos impacting other Democratic aspirants, referencing the federal indictment of a Chicago congressional candidate, Kate Abba Gazali.
The Charges: Gazali, who was running for Congress in Chicago, was federally indicted for allegedly preventing ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers from doing their job while protesting deportations.
The Visuals: The visual evidence presented showed Gazali and a crowd protesting deportations, chanting “Down with deportation” and “We save our siblings,” directly confronting federal officers.
The reference to this incident, which led to a federal indictment, serves as a final example of the legal and ethical boundaries being tested by radical progressive activists who are attempting to translate activism into congressional power, often resulting in direct confrontations with the law.