Geraldo Rivera Rips 'Unfair' Trump Indictment by Manhattan DA: 'This Sucks'
Geraldo Rivera apparently finds just as much validity in the indictment of former President Donald Trump as he found during his infamous live televised foray into Al Capone’s vault — which is to say, absolutely nothing.
Rivera — often the token Democrat on any Fox News panel and an outspoken critic of Trump — tweeted after the indictment was first reported that it was judicial overreach and that “this sucks.”
The news first broke on Thursday. While the indictment is still sealed, it’s known that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — a high-profile progressive out of the George Soros stable — was able to convince a grand jury to indict Trump on dozens of charges related to paying adult film star Stormy Daniels in a non-disclosure agreement prior to the 2016 election.
While these would normally be misdemeanor charges, as National Review notes, Bragg has taken them to be violations of federal campaign finance law; how this translates legally will be interesting to see once the indictment is unsealed, since Bragg does not have federal jurisdiction.
In his tweet, the normally anti-Trump Rivera quoted noted lawyer and former law professor Alan Dershowitz — usually a reliable liberal, but someone who frequently came to Trump’s defense during his presidency, accusing the left of legal overreach on numerous occasions.
“NYT reporting former President Donald J Trump has been indicted by Manhattan grand jury, a terrible idea, unfair,” Rivera tweeted.
“I’m with Prof Alan Dershowitz right now who just told me, ‘this stretches criminal statues beyond any plausible constitutional boundaries,’” he continued.
“He’s right, this sucks.”
NYT reporting former President Donald J Trump has been indicted by Manhattan grand jury, a terrible idea, unfair.
I’m with Prof Alan Dershowitz right now who just told me, “this stretches criminal statues beyond any plausible constitutional boundaries.”
He’s right, this sucks.
— Geraldo Rivera (@GeraldoRivera) March 30, 2023
Ever since the news began circulating that an indictment might happen, Dershowitz has been a vocal critic.
A week before, when news of the indictment was merely a well-sourced rumor, he told Fox News he had “never seen a case in my 60 years of practice which has so many holes in it.
“Start with the statute of limitations. It’s seven years before he committed the crime. The New York state statute says the only exception for that is if his whereabouts are unknown. I have to tell you, even Bragg could have found that he was in the White House … and New York, well, there are photographs of him at his house on the street.
“He was not continuously out of New York. I don’t see how you can twist and turn to make the statute of limitations disappear. And then you have all the other — How many holes are there? Shall I count the ways?
“I have never seen a weaker case,” he continued. “And in the end, I really do think Bragg is worried about his own bar card. I think he’s worried that if he brings this case and he uses a witness who he has to know is lying [former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, a convicted felon], there are going to be investigations of him and there should be investigations.”
Now that it’s clear the indictment will happen, the question shifts to whether it would backfire. At least judging by Rivera’s Twitter feed, there was a divide.
Some in the comments section were clearly in Rivera’s — and Trump’s — corner regarding the charges.
I did not want him to run again for president. Now I’m gonna do everything within my power to get him elected so he can go on a revenge tour.
— Jennifer (@jennboymom) March 30, 2023
— Chris LHW (@clhwi2017) March 30, 2023
Alan Derschowitz should join the defense team
— Reason and analytics in Dallas (@DallasAnalytics) March 30, 2023
Even Geraldo knows this is highly illegal. This is pure communism. Also fascism. This is political persecution. The statute of limitations doesn’t allow this
— Duckzgo (@duckzgo) March 30, 2023
Others celebrated, meanwhile, or said that it was impossible to comment because the indictment had yet to be unsealed — even though it is known roughly what it deals with.
Cry more, Jerry.
— Tim Williams (@timwilliamsart) March 31, 2023
Most folks want to see the indictment before opining on it, your biases are showing.
— Charles E. McClung 🌻 🙏 🍑 🌈 he/him (@fornewhope) March 31, 2023
Yet you have no idea what is inside the 34 count indictment, do you?
— Jeff Grabelle (@SportsJefe81) March 31, 2023
How is it “unfair” – no American is above the law. This particular indictment is the least of Trump’s worries. If he committed crime(s), he should be prosecuted. That’s not vengeance – it’s justice.
— FirstAlto (@FirstAlto1) March 30, 2023
And some noted that Rivera’s constant anti-Trump drumbeat had enabled an indictment like this:
Too late, @GeraldoRivera. You opted to choose politics over what was right for our country. We’ve passed the time of no return. It’s over. Congratulations on the furtherance of our police state.
The justice system is co-opted and done, as is our police state government.
— 🕊Cyndee🕊 🇺🇲 🇮🇹 (@Liberty_Belle04) March 31, 2023
🥱🥱.. you can’t have it both ways ..
— Bobby (@JoeSchmoe6597) March 30, 2023
I’d argue that, in the grand scheme of things, options No. 1 and No. 3 are both right.
Yes, “this sucks,” and Pandora’s Box has been opened in a huge way by a little man, at least in the whole scheme of the American judicial system. Yet, the reason this even happened in the first place is because the left staked out a tent from day one of Trump’s campaign that the man was a criminal — despite the lack of any evidence and no shortage of investigations or impeachments.
Now, a Manhattan DA has managed to score an indictment on a minor charge elevated due to federal campaign regulations he might not even have jurisdiction to enforce — and the left is celebrating. So what if this is what happens in banana republics? They got him!
Rivera is very right on one thing: If this is the future of our democracy, “this sucks,” indeed.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.