How Andy McCarthy managed to find the time to cover the Alvin Bragg trial with such a level of depth and insight while also keeping up with the demands on his time from the television and radio programs eager for his analysis, I may never understand.
Proceeding with integrity and objectivity, Andy applied invaluable scrutiny to the almost incomprehensible charges brought against Donald Trump and the sordid way his pursuers conducted themselves throughout the trial. His work stands as a model to which anyone who writes for a living should aspire.
That's why you should consider supporting his work and National Review's.
It's because of Andy that so many observers of the farce that took shape in Manhattan over the last several weeks — laypeople and professional pundits alike — saw through the procedural flimflam with which Bragg's prosecutors and Judge Juan Merchan bombarded them. "Bragg is trying to convict Trump of a charge he hasn't actually brought and that he cannot prove because the allegation is neither true nor a crime," Andy wrote back in April — a conclusion that even some of Trump's indefatigable critics have now conceded.
To the extent that we could connect the dots between Bragg, Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, and Joe Biden — connections the latter has done his utmost to obscure — it's because of Andy. "To be his lead prosecutor, Bragg recruited Matthew Colangelo," he wrote at a time when Colangelo, who "comes to the DA's office from a stint as one of the very top lawyers in the Biden Justice Department," was known only to his fellow prosecutors. "To put it mildly, it is highly unusual for a lawyer in so lofty a federal perch to decamp to a county DA's office for a line-prosecutor post," he added. Unusual, perhaps, but not unforeseeable given a proper appraisal of how Democrats behaved throughout this affair.
It's because of Andy that we understood the rationale that should have led not just to a hung jury but an acquittal in the Bragg case based on the prosecution's own arguments. As he wrote, "While Bragg can arguably establish that at least some of the records at issue are false, there is scant evidence of fraudulent intent." But it's also because of Andy that we knew in advance that Trump "will be convicted of multiple felonies." Why? Not just because the fix was in from the start but also due to the substandard defense Donald Trump's lawyers pursued, likely at the direction of the former president himself.
"Why deny the undeniable?" Andy asked of the Trump legal team's dogged refusal to concede any of the sleazy but by no means prosecutable conduct in which the former president allegedly engaged, including his affairs and the attempts to bribe his paramours into silence. "A defense lawyer who consciously misleads the jury in the opening statement and then gets blown up by evidence as soon as the prosecution starts presenting its case loses precious credibility."
Without Andy's vital analysis, the events that transpired in lower Manhattan would have been impenetrably obtuse. Those without his wealth of experience and perspicacity would have been lost, likely to throw their hands up in frustration. Indeed, that's probably what Trump's prosecutors and their robed ally were counting on. We're fortunate that Andy McCarthy didn't let them get away with it. If you, too, are grateful for his work, we hope you'll consider a donation to National Review.
Thank you all, as ever, for your support and your readership.
Yours truly,
Noah Rothman
Senior Writer
National Review
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire
Thank you to leave a comment on my site