We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

For months, the left pounded the drum that the lawfare waged against then-former President Donald Trump was all about “upholding the law” and had nothing to do with the impending election. They insisted Trump was some kind of criminal mastermind and claimed that this narrative was confirmed when a jury of “peers” convicted him in May in a Manhattan show trial.

But now that Trump won the election, the Manhattan case brought against him is falling apart at the seams. On Tuesday, New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed to indefinitely delay Donald Trump’s sentencing — previously set for next week — after the former president was re-elected in a landslide victory.

But certainly there should be no hesitation about sentencing a 34-time “felon” like Trump — unless the case was never about “justice” or the “law.”

Bragg claimed Trump made payments to his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, who then allegedly paid pornographer Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about an alleged affair — but Bragg failed to clarify exactly how such alleged actions were illegal. It’s a case that the Federal Elections Commission, Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to bring.

Bragg, in his zeal to destroy Trump, enlisted the help of Colangelo (who was formerly No. 3 in President Joe Biden’s DOJ and was hired to reportedly “jump-start” the investigation) and argued that Trump should have classified the alleged payments as a campaign expense rather than a legal fee. He claimed the payments were made to influence the 2016 election. Cohen, however, blew up Bragg’s argument while on the stand, confirming to the court that when the allegations first surfaced in 2011, Trump was concerned about how the story would affect his family.

Trump’s sentencing was scheduled for Nov. 26. Just over a week ago, Colangelo asked Judge Juan Merchan to delay proceedings until his team could figure out its course of action following Trump’s victory. Merchan gave prosecutors until Nov. 19 to make a decision.

In his Tuesday letter to the court, Bragg acknowledged the possibility of delaying the sentencing until after Trump’s upcoming term.

“[C]onsideration must be given to various non-dismissal options … such as deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of Defendant’s upcoming presidential term,” Bragg said.

Tuesday’s letter from Bragg and his team agreeing to delay proceedings means one thing — this case wasn’t about “justice” or “the law.” It was about interfering in the 2024 election and trying to toss Trump in jail so that he couldn’t land in the White House.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2