Based on Supreme Court Ruling, New York DA Bragg Case Against President Trump Should Be Thrown Out | Joe Hoft


Get The Latest


Get The Latest

Based on Supreme Court Ruling, New York DA Bragg Case Against President Trump Should Be Thrown Out

We all know it that the New York case against DA Bragg is a total sham.  A Supreme Court ruling today should be the end of it. 

The US Supreme Court announced today interpretations and ruling on multiple cases.  One ruling should be the end of the Bragg/Merchan case against President Trump.

Attorney Paul Ingrassia believe that the Supreme Court’s ruling today will be the end of the BS Biden-Colangelo case against President Trump in New York.

Sean Davis reports:

In 6-3 decision issued today, the Supreme Court ruled that 1) a jury must be unanimous in its findings on criminal convictions, and 2) sentencing enhancements cannot be arbitrarily implemented by judicial fiat.

The ruling and the rhetoric in the opinion have obvious implications for both the illegal Bragg witch trial against Trump in New York City and the bogus J6 1512(c) charges and sentencing enhancements that corrupt federal judges have announced they will implement if the Supreme Court nukes 1512(c).

Attorney Ingrassia argues the following:

The flagrantly unconstitutional gag order Judge Merchan imposed on President Trump is another example of how rogue Leftists are weaponizing the justice system, bucking every convention in the books, to give them an unfair advantage in a critical election year, by quashing freedom of speech.  The idea that Merchan would so brazenly trample over President Trump’s free speech rights is a telltale that he would also be willing to resort to other unprecedented – and downright unlawful – methods to attempt to sabotage President Trump in his tracks.

This is something that should distress every single American.  However one might feel personally about President Trump, the damage a power-hungry and vindictive judge can do to the rule of law is unquantifiable – and should not be taken for granted.  Indeed, already, Judge Merchan – in having allowed this baseless case to be brought in his courtroom in the first place – has already done tremendous (and potentially irreparable) damage to the integrity of New York’s criminal justice system, which in turn sets an ominous precedent – one that gives the green light to prosecuting anyone on the basis of their political views – for the rest of the justice system.

We observed Merchan run roughshod over the rules of evidence; he admitted hearsay and prejudicial evidence of purported prior bad acts committed by President Trump for no other reason than to smear his reputation in the eyes of jurors.  He prevented testimony from election experts, such as Bradley A. Smith, former FEC Commissioner, even though his court had absolutely no knowledge of – and arguably no jurisdiction over – prosecuting federal election law, or FECA, cases.  He allowed Stormy Daniels to spread salacious gossip that served no purpose other than to besmirch President Trump’s image, with no bearing whatsoever over the underlying charge.

At the same time, Judge Merchan admonished President Trump’s only witness and veteran of the New York State criminal court system, Robert Costello, from the stand – lashing out at him in an unhinged tantrum because Costello was not a Merchan sycophant.  The disrespect shown against Costello, as well as President Trump’s entire legal team, in particular Todd Blanche, was completely out of line for any judge, let alone a judge tasked with presiding over a case implicating the man most likely to be the next leader of the free world.

Finally, the jury verdict was plainly riven with reversible errors: no jury verdict, but especially on a felony charge, is allowed to mix-and-match a smorgasbord of crimes (which is exactly what occurred here), to tamper with the evidentiary threshold needed to arrive at a guilty verdict.  The Supreme Court has been crystal clear, in its decision Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), that non-unanimous jury verdicts violate the Sixth Amendment (while also raising a slew of attendant due process concerns), and are therefore unconstitutional.

In the Ramos case, Justice Gorsuch remarked: “So if the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court.”  What Merchan permitted in his courtroom: a sampling of at least three crimes – all of which were only vaguely defined and, with some controversy, felonious – and let the jury pick-and-choose amongst themselves which of the three they individually felt met the burden of proof, is plainly a violation of well-settled law.

The jury instructions, which have been hidden under a cloak of anonymity, to protect the court from further scrutiny – can serve as adequate grounds for an emergency appeal.  There are many advantages to President Trump’s attorneys filing, what is called “a writ of habeas corpus,” a rarely used judicial remedy that was recently proposed by John Eastman in Newsweek, to appeal directly to the Supreme Court before the July 11th sentencing.


Leave a Comment