Bragg spends $1M on attorneys for Trump case during city budget cuts, new documents reveal
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has been under scrutiny after it was revealed that they spent a staggering $1 million in response to congressional oversight of their investigation into former President Donald Trump. Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request shed light on the allocation of these funds and the decision-making process behind hiring outside counsel.
An interoffice memo from April 2023 disclosed the appropriation of $1 million for outside counsel, sourced from a 2019 settlement with a financial institution that allegedly violated U.S. sanctions. The memo highlighted the necessity of this expense to address inquiries from Rep. Jim Jordan and others in Congress.
The document also revealed a signed engagement letter with the prominent law firm Gibson Dunn, indicating the firm’s involvement in responding to the congressional inquiry. Despite potential conflicts of interest, an approved waiver from the New York City Conflict of Interest Board allowed a member of Bragg’s counsel to participate in the case.
At a time when New York City faced budget cuts and growing concerns over crime and economic challenges, the decision to allocate such a substantial sum to legal fees raised eyebrows. Mayor Eric Adams had issued a directive to cut $1 billion over four years citywide, adding to the backdrop of fiscal constraints.
The timing of this allocation also came under criticism, with observers questioning the prioritization of resources at a time when the city grappled with pressing issues. Critics pointed to the allocation of funds as evidence of misplaced priorities in the pursuit of prosecuting Trump.
Further investigations by watchdog groups like the Oversight Project aim to delve deeper into the decision-making processes within Bragg’s office. Concerns have been raised regarding the expenditure of resources and the apparent imbalance in focus between prosecution and defense in cases involving high-profile political figures.
The revelations surrounding the allocation of $1 million for legal fees have sparked debates over the handling of resources within the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Critics argue that the decision to hire outside counsel at such a substantial cost reflects a skewed set of priorities and raises questions about the motivations behind the allocation.
As the controversy unfolds, stakeholders from various quarters have weighed in on the implications of these findings. Calls for increased transparency and accountability within the legal system have grown louder, with demands for a full inquiry into the decision-making processes driving such resource allocations.
In the midst of legal battles and political wrangling, the true impact of these revelations remains to be seen. However, one thing is certain – the allocation of significant funds for legal fees has brought the spotlight firmly onto the practices and priorities of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
