Topic: WorldNetDaily
Like the rest of the ConWeb, WorldNetDaily reacted to the idea that Donald Trump might be held criminally liable for his behavior by attacking the district attorney prosecuting him, Alvin Bragg. An anonymously written March 20 article was quick to play the Soros card on Bragg:
One of a slew of "Soros DAs" – prosecutors whose election campaigns have been bankrolled by far-left billionaire George Soros, and whose tenures in office are characterized by being radically soft on actual crime while often prosecuting innocent conservatives – Bragg was the recipient in 2021 of $1.1 million from Soros’ Color of Change PAC for his campaign, enabling him to win election as the district attorney of Manhattan. His term as DA began Jan. 1, 2022.
In fact, while Color of Change has received donations from Soros interests, it's not a "Soros PAC." Another article the same day, by Bob Unruh, spread more fearmongering about Bragg:
It's never happened before so the impact of a prosecutor's move to charge a former president with a crime remains uncertain.
But former congressman Trey Gowdy, now a commentator of Fox News, has a warning.
It's that the agenda Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg is pursuing against President Trump, charges that federal authorities and election officials both rejected, could bring down the nation.
"Now we’re a nation where politics reigns supreme," Gowdy said in a commentary. "The end justifies the means. Use the system to reward friends and punish foes. If this persists, the greatest experiment in self-governance the world has ever known will surely fail."
Gowdy didn't explain why it would kill America to hold Trump accountable for his actions.
Unruh mocked Bragg for responding to his (right-wing) critics in a March 21 article:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the far leftist who wants to take a case previously tossed out by multiple investigations and turn it into a felony against President Trump, has issued a statement claiming he is working "fairly" to apply the law.
Bragg reportedly has been developing a case against Trump over a lawyer's payment to a porn star – many years ago, purportedly as hush money to keep details of an affair with Trump secret.
Federal prosecutors and election investigators, during the 2016 race, both dismissed the claims as not prosecutable.
Those circumstances prompted members of the U.S. House to call for Bragg to explain to them what is going on with the apparently "political" prosecution, as Democrats have been working for years to find some allegations with which to prevent Trump from seeking the 2024 presidential nomination.
Their earlier work included ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's multiple failed attempts to impeach him and remove him from office. Further, they keep insisting the Jan. 6, 2021, events at the Capitol were an "insurrection" as they want to tar Trump with that label.
Now Fox News says Bragg's office has released a statement responding to Congress.
"We will not be intimidated by attempts to undermine the justice process, nor will we let baseless accusations deter us from fairly applying the law," the statement said.
"In every prosecution, we follow the law without fear or favor to uncover the truth. Our skilled, honest and dedicated lawyers remain hard at work," it added.
The statement didn't explain what accusations are "baseless," except that that is how Trump has described Bragg's allegations, which reportedly could result in an indictment as early as this week.
Unruh went on to rant that Bragg's "record in office has been scandalous."
WND's columnist defended Trump and attacked Bragg as well. Jonathon Moseley spent his March 20 column arguing that the hush money Trump paid to Stormy Daniels wasn't a crime, and even if it was the statute of limitations has expired. Joseph Farah used his March 21 column to huff that Bragg "is backed financially by Democrat mega-donor George Soros," adding:
Make no mistake – the Radical Left is trying to use this latest witch hunt to intimidate you.
We now know this entire investigation is about one thing and one thing only: It's an unprecedented attempt to intimidate Trump's MAGA base. They want to SCARE you into silence. But don't let them silence you! Because as Trump often says, they're really coming for you.
Andy Schlafly complained in his March 21 column:
Our Constitution provides ample remedies for the problems facing our nation. Instead of waiting for the impending indictment of Donald Trump by the New York County District Attorney, our elected representatives can and should act swiftly to smoke out how improper this prosecution is.
[...]
Bragg has reportedly based his charges on an incident that was well known to the Americans who elected Trump in 2016 and voted for him again in 2020. Other prosecutors who had already examined the same widely publicized facts found them not to be criminal, yet this Democrat D.A. has dredged up ancient history in an obvious effort to impede Trump's reelection in 2024.
The next day, Farah framed a Trump indictment as a career move ... for Trump:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says this about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg: "The prosecutor in New York has done more to help Donald Trump get elected president than any single person in America today."
Hype? Exaggeration?
Surely, Graham wouldn't intentionally give Bragg more credit than himself. It's clearly a good soundbite. But could Trump get a big boost for his renewed presidential campaign from Bragg's likely arrest and indictment?
That's the big question.
Could it be the best thing that ever happened in Trump's third bid for the presidency?
[...]
Is Bragg running scared? Has he been warned off filing an indictment? Are Democrats having second thoughts?
Trump leads Joe Biden in early polls for the 2024 race by between 5 and 20 percentage points. It's just possible Bragg could make it a runaway election.
Richard Blakley -- who we last saw engaging in a multi-column screed against evolution -- rantedin his March 23 column:
Is arresting President Trump on a twisted, fabricated charge, that is beyond its statue of limitations, so he can be put on trial an attempt to convict him of a federal crime to knock him out of the 2024 presidential race? Or is it really that Trump haters are trying to get their hands on the 45th president to permanently stop the MAGA movement by a heinous act that very likely could result in ending that movement, permanently? After all, Biden stated, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundation of our republic." If that is the opinion of mumbling, bumbling Biden, then what do you think is the opinion of all the little liberal Democratic "yes-men" in New York?
[...]
Is it really justice to allow President Trump to be surrendered and taken into the custody of people who hate him?
You know, I'll bet that if you cut the light on in the White House kitchen at night you would get to see Joe Biden scurry across the floor.
Carlier in his column, Blakley had called Biden, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren "roaches" who "potentially commit[ted] treason," either "for money or just out of hatred of America, or both."
