“Trump is a convicted felon!”

Who hasn’t heard this attack line made constantly by critics of President Donald Trump? For them, Trump’s conviction settles the debate about his character and fitness for office.

But consider what one prominent legal analyst — not from Fox News, Newsmax or a conservative publication — wrote about the case.

The charge against Trump brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg boils down to this. Trump recorded payments connected to the Stormy Daniels matter as legal expenses. Bragg transformed that into 34 felony counts and secured a conviction in a jurisdiction where Trump remains unpopular.

Elie Honig, CNN’s senior legal analyst, outlined his objections in New York Magazine. He was brutal. Honig wrote:

“The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the Judge earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.’ Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to ‘Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!’? Absolutely not.

"District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) boasted on the campaign trail that ‘(i)t is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times. …’

"Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.

”… (T)he 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.

“Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

"So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed ‘with intent to commit another crime’ … Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the Constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the charges against him in advance of trial. …

”… Manhattan DA’s employees reportedly have called this the ‘Zombie Case’ because of various legal infirmities, including its bizarre charging mechanism. But it’s better characterized as the Frankenstein Case, cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator. …

“‘No man is above the law.’ It’s become cliche, but it’s an important point, and it’s worth pausing to reflect on the importance of this core principle. But it’s also a meaningless sentiment if we unquestioningly tolerate (or worse, celebrate) deviations from ordinary process and principle to get there. … Here, prosecutors got their man, for now at least — but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey.”

To sum up, CNN’s senior legal analyst describes the prosecution as a “Frankenstein Case,” says prosecutors “contorted the law in an unprecedented manner” and warns about “deviations from ordinary process and principle.” It appears shouting “convicted felon!” isn’t quite the conversation-ending argument Trump’s critics think.

This does not mean My Cousin Vinny could win this on appeal. But based on Honig’s objections, Trump’s odds look pretty darn good.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM