This event scores low on constitutional damage (A=5.14) but very high on distraction/hype (B=34.31), yielding D=-29.17, clearly qualifying as List B. The A-score reflects genuine rule_of_law concerns (4.5) about prosecutorial targeting of a state AG and corruption implications (3.5) of the charges themselves, but the rapid dismissal-reindict-refusal cycle within 10 days suggests the charges lacked merit. Severity multipliers are low (0.8/0.9/0.85) because the system self-corrected quickly. Mechanism modifier (0.7) reflects that judicial action blocked rather than enabled damage. Scope modifier (0.85) for single-state, narrow population. The B-score is elevated by exceptional Layer 1 metrics: outrage_bait (8) from targeting prominent Trump critic, media_friendliness (9) from simple narrative, novelty (7) from unusual rapid cycle. Layer 2 shows strong strategic indicators: mismatch (9) between dramatic charges and swift rejection, timing (8) suspicious for 10-day cycle, pattern_match (8) with political targeting narratives. Intentionality score of 11 (0.55 weight) reflects clear indicators of weaponized prosecution attempt that failed. This is a textbook distraction event: manufactured controversy around a political figure that generates massive attention but represents judicial system functioning correctly to reject baseless charges.