Two lawsuits were filed against Bragg for his refusal to comply with Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests, raising questions regarding his office’s possible communication with the Justice Department, White House, and Democrat lawmakers with regard to his prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
In March, Bragg indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, charging him with “conceal[ing] damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election.” This led to the filing of the two lawsuits by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation.
The first lawsuit asks the court to declare requested documents as “subjects to release under the New York Freedom of Information Law”. Without Bragg’s cooperation, Heritage believes that Bragg and his team “coordinated or communicated” with President Trump’s political opposition, thus leading to investigations by several House committees.
The second lawsuit focuses on the pro bono assistance Bragg and his team received from big–name law firms. Heritage asks the court to declare that Bragg and his team provide asked documents, and to stop the team from “seeking costs and fees for the request at issue in this case.”
Mike Howell, director of Heritage’s Oversight Project, expresses concern regarding “the longstanding history of President Trump’s political opponents coordinating their activities to systematically weaponize the criminal justice system against him and thereby pervert the course of Justice.”
Howell goes on to say that Bragg’s refusal to comply with FOIL requests is proof of “another dual standard of justice at play in this country.” After the taxpayer money used to defend this case, Howell believes Bragg was “just [being] a hypocrite.”
The question remains whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is hiding something from the American public. His refusal to comply with requests is concerning, and it is essential that his cooperation is taken into account. It is the people’s right to know the truth, and if this truth cannot be accessed through standard ways, it is essential that the court is provided with the facts.