In the indictment he brought last year, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg accused former President Donald Trump of falsifying business records by listing hush-payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels as a legal expense.

Yet as the trial began this month, Bragg exposed the fact that his arguments actually center on the 2016 election. 

Prosecutors say Trump conspired to influence 2016 election

That's according to Slate editor Jeremy Stahl, who noted in an article published last week how reporters were "somewhat let down" by Bragg's approach.

What's more, Bragg did not initially make clear what underlying crime the alleged business falsification was made in furtherance of.

Such a move would be essential for him to transform the misdemeanor charge into a felony and thus beat its statute of limitation.

However, Stahl explained that Bragg now says Trump's actions were part of "a criminal 'conspiracy' to illegally manipulate voters and win the 2016 election."

Former attorney and media publisher named as coconspirators

"The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election," Stahl quoted prosecutor Matthew Colangelo as saying in his opening statement.

"Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again," the prosecutor continued.

Colangelo further asserted that Trump, along with his former attorney Michael Cohn and media mogul David Pecker, "formed a conspiracy" with the goal of "concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected."

That line of reasoning has met with opposition from some legal scholars, including George Washington George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley.

Law professor calls case "an embarrassment"

Turley slammed Trump's prosecution as "an embarrassment" during an interview with Fox News last Monday. He added, "The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief."

“Trump is right. This is an embarrassment. The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief."

-Professor @JonathanTurley pic.twitter.com/JZ0Hznwr4A

— GOP (@GOP) April 22, 2024

"You had this misdemeanor under state law that had [the statute of limitations] run out. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violations under the federal laws that doesn't exist. The Department of Justice doesn't view it this way," Turley pointed out.

Turley was alluding to the fact that the DOJ opted not to charge Trump in 2021 after the Federal Election Commission (FEC) failed to find evidence that his payment to Daniels was illegal.