Alvin Bragg’s guilty verdict against Donald Trump may get thrown out far sooner than anyone thinks.
Bragg never anticipated this outcome.
And Alvin Bragg is about to get hauled to the Supreme Court for one shocking reason.
Missouri Attorney General announces his intention to sue New York
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced he would sue the State of New York over the lawfare against Donald Trump.
“I will be filing suit against the State of New York for their direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump,” Bailey posted on social media.
“It’s time to restore the rule of law,” Bailey continued.
Bailey accused Bragg of being a “rogue prosecutor” unconstitutionally meddling in the 2024 election.
“We have to fight back against a rogue prosecutor who is trying to take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail,” Bailey continued.
Why this lawsuit matters
The key to Bragg’s lawfare was that he waged it in state court.
That meant any appeal – and even liberal legal analysts like CNN’s Elie Honig thought this case was an unconstitutional perversion of justice that never should have seen the light of day – needed to work its way through the state court of appeals.
These courts move slowly and any decision overturning Trump’s conviction wouldn’t likely come down until 2025 at the earliest.
That’s way too late for Trump, as Democrats hoped a guilty verdict would lead Americans to think voting to make a convicted felon President was a bridge too far.
The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in two scenarios.
One is a dispute between two government officials.
The second is a dispute between the states.
Missouri suing New York over the lawfare against Trump opens up a pathway to get Trump’s conviction before the Supreme Court prior to the election.
Basis for the lawsuit
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Bailey identified several justifications for his lawsuit.
Bailey explained that Bragg failed to include a “reference to an unspecified and unidentifiable other crime,” which was necessary since Bragg bumped his falsification of business records charge up to a felony on the theory Trump falsified business records to conceal a second crime.
According to Bailey, not telling Trump what crimes the government accused him of “constitutes a deprivation of due process by denying the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the crimes with which he is charged.”
Bailey also accused Bragg of bending “the law to meet the facts rather than objectively apply the facts to the law.”
Bragg accused Trump of using unlawful means to influence the election by falsely claiming a perfectly legal nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels constituted an illegal federal campaign contribution, an offense Bragg had no authority to prosecute and one the federal government says doesn’t exist.
Bailey also said his lawsuit would allow the Supreme Court to “correct the Court’s error in instructing the jury that unanimity was not required as to the predicate offense that forms the basis for the fallacious charges.”
Supreme Court case law holds the jury must reach a unanimous verdict on every aspect of a criminal indictment, and in this case, the judge told the jury they could pick a choice from a menu of options of second crimes Trump allegedly intended to conceal by falsifying business records.
This case is Trump’s best chance to get this sham guilty verdict tossed before the election.
And Attorney General Bailey is fighting fire with fire by using his lawful powers to push back against the weaponization of the justice system.
