Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Give Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg his flowers NOW.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.

We begin today with Katie S. Phang of MSNBC and the novel legal theory behind the successful prosecution of the shoe salesman by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The Manhattan DA’s office has prosecuted a number of falsification of business records cases. These are usually straightforward, run-of-the-mill paper crimes. Bragg has even referenced them as the “bread and butter” of his office’s white-collar work. But it’s the added element of the “another crime” that raised eyebrows. And this is the heart of the novel legal theory that Bragg chose to employ in this trial. The Washington Post reviewed the New York State Law Reporting Bureau as far back as 2000 for any relevant case law regarding this specific statute. The report found “two entries in which a judge issued legal opinions on the statute. Both were from [Judge Juan] Merchan last year in rejecting Trump’s motions to have the case dismissed.” That’s how rarely Section 17-152 is prosecuted in New York. And that fact makes Bragg’s decision to primarily premise the prosecution of a former president of the United States on that statute even more novel. [...]

Bragg had the right combination of book smarts and street smarts to bring this indictment against Trump, and the wisdom to see this case for what it truly was. In an interview with WNYC, he declared: “The core is not money for sex. ... it’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election.”

Honest question: How should I interpret Ms. Phang’s use of “street smarts” in reference to DA Bragg?