'Story of a cover-up': Expert expects this Trump trial will now be first heard

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg could end up leading the charge of prosecutors who’ve accused Donald Trump of criminal conduct — and that may not be a bad thing, a Harvard University law professor contends.

Mounting delays in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case could push that trial past Bragg’s March 25 court date, when Trump will face charges that he falsified records to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, writes former federal prosecutor Lawrence Tribe.

“For all who believe in Trump’s legal accountability for his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, disappointment will be natural if the D.C. case can’t go first,” Tribe writes in his MSNBC opinion piece.

“Fortunately, the consolation prize is nothing to sneer at. While some observers have minimized the significance of the New York prosecution, there’s far more to it than meets the eye."

Tribe urges his readers to look beyond the tabloid-tastic charges and consider the implications behind the headlines of Bragg’s 34-count indictment, which he describes as a "crucial backstop to guard against Trump’s sordid legal strategy.

ALSO READ: ‘Too preposterous to be real’: College hires ‘pink slime’ publisher as journalism prof

“Lest you think, ‘Ho, hum, nothing but sex there,’ context always matters,” Tribe wrote. “Bragg’s case is the story of a cover-up that may have gotten Trump, the man who would be king, into the Oval Office.”

While Tribe admits the ideal line-up would see Smith’s case come first, he also credits Bragg with crafting a case that will tell a bigger picture beyond sex, lies and videotape.

“Buying a sex partner’s silence weeks before an election was a crime against democracy, and falsifying business records was but a continuation of that crime,” says Tribe.

“Good prosecutors will explain all these things and more to a jury. They will be heard across America.”

Despite looming delays in the form of Supreme Court tasked with deciding on Trump’s immunity argument, it still remains possible Smith’s case could continue on track toward its scheduled court date of March 4, Tribe notes.

“No one should give up hope that an early resolution of Trump’s federal appeals will block his attempts to manipulate the judicial process,” Tribe writes.

“But if it turns out that they stall his D.C. prosecution for more than four months, there is a strong Plan B.”