The New York "hush money" criminal trial for former President Donald Trump got underway last week and some of the initial doubts expressed by legal experts about the charges pressed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have seemingly been confirmed.

In fact, one legal expert opined this week that while he initially viewed Bragg's case against Trump as a "legal embarrassment," he is now convinced that the prosecutorial effort is a "historic mistake," Newsweek reported.

The "mistake," it would seem, is the focus on Trump's 2017 reimbursement of "hush money" payments in 2016 to silence accusers ahead of the election -- none of which was illegal -- and then alleging those repayments constituted falsification of business records ... a mere misdemeanor elevated to a felony through vague allegations that they improperly influenced the election that had already occurred.

Prosecutors allege hush money payment reimbursements were "election fraud"

DA Bragg's escalation of misdemeanor crimes to felonies was criticized from the beginning because of the Manhattan prosecutor's vagueness in describing what sort of other alleged crime the supposedly falsified reimbursement payments to his then-personal attorney were intended to cover up -- a necessary predicate to justify the elevation of charges.

In the prosecution's opening statement, according to The Hill, things were only made slightly more clear when former federal prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued that Trump's reimbursement of earlier hush money payments in 2016 constituted "election fraud, pure and simple," in that they were part of "a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election" by hiding from the general public information that might have been "devastating to his campaign."

In response, Trump's defense attorneys countered that influencing an election is not illegal -- all politicians attempt to do so at all times -- and nor were the reimbursements to then-personal attorney Michael Cohen, which they argued were properly labeled as legal fees given Cohen's role as Trump's lawyer.

Bragg's prosecution of Trump is a "historic mistake"

In a guest essay for The New York Times, Boston University law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman explained that he had initially thought DA Bragg's case against former President Trump was an "embarrassment" to the legal profession but now, after hearing the prosecution's opening statements, he is convinced that Bragg's case is a "historic mistake."

"Their vague allegation about 'a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election' has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud," he wrote.

The law professor said that calling Trump's alleged falsification of business records "election fraud" was a "legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet."

Shugerman went on to point out several "red flags" that raised concerns of "selective prosecution" that Trump could appeal, and observed, "Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law. This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America -- and promote bipartisan reforms of our partisan prosecutorial system."

"This case is still an embarrassment, in terms of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selectivity. Nevertheless, each side should have its day in court," he concluded. "If convicted, Mr. Trump can fight many other days -- and perhaps win -- in appellate courts. But if Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories, and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all."

Other legal experts share similar views of Bragg's case

Professor Shugerman is not alone here, as he cited a recent op-ed for the Los Angeles Times by UCLA law professor Richard Hasen that was similarly dismissive of DA Bragg's case being nothing more than a "minor" crime at best that didn't impact the presidential race and "may actually make that situation worse."

"I certainly understand the impulse of Trump opponents to label this case as one of election interference -- that could resonate with voters and make them less likely to vote for Trump," he wrote. "But any voters who look beneath the surface are sure to be underwhelmed. Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases."

Newsweek also reported that Syracuse University law professor Greg Germain said that Bragg failed to establish in the opening statements that any violations of the law actually occurred, as "the DA has never explained what law would make the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels illegal."