On Thursday, on FNC’s “Hannity,” conservative speaker Mark Levin said that New York state prosecutor Alvin Bragg had questioned former President Donald Trump’s constitutional rights and other issues during his prosecution of Trump. We explained why we may have intentionally violated established legal precedent.
Mr. Levine called Mr. Bragg a lawless government official and called for his disbarment, citing numerous violations as justification.
HANNITY: Mark, we talked last night. I asked you what your closing argument would be, and I asked you to tell this audience what your closing argument would be.
LEVIN: Well, you don’t want to hear my closing argument because I’m disrespected. But instead, what I would like to do, if that is correct, is to give my opening argument, Sean, as to why Alvin Bragg should be disbarred. Why he has to face — the perjury charges that I’ve been talking about on my radio show for the last three days, and why he’s violating the Brady Act.
We have some very smart lawyers and some pretty smart lawyers who have been talking to us about this case. They are all saying the same thing in different ways because this incident is so outrageous that we are running out of words and explanations. None of us have ever seen anything like this.
You have a constitutional violation and someone is being indicted, but that person doesn’t really know what they’re being accused of. All sorts of allegations are being made that are totally outrageous and irrelevant. There are dead state laws that are dead and still in use today. There’s something called the Federal Election Campaign Act, but nobody knows exactly what part of the Federal Election Campaign Act we’re talking about.
So instead of continuing to talk about the same thing, I’d like to talk about Alvin Bragg.
There was a Supreme Court case called Brady v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court held that the government, prosecutors, may not withhold exculpatory evidence, but provide it to the defense, and if they actually have knowledge of the evidence. It was decided that it must be done. If it is false or could be false, it should not be used. It is impeachable in these other events if the prosecutor affirmatively knows that there is materially false information that this witness may provide, or if the attorney for that person fails to bring that person into court. This does not mean that it is not done.
Now, the evidence of innocence, the Supreme Court said there is evidence of innocence. Robert’s been here, Costello’s been on all these shows, you know, he’s not Stormy Daniels. This man is a former deputy chief of detectives for the Southern District of New York, but is he even better than that?
And he was Cohen’s lawyer at a critical time, and he was on my show on Saturday, he was on other shows, he was on the This Morning show, he testified under oath before Congress, and He said, look, this guy’s a liar, I was his lawyer, I have 300 emails, I have information from that time, I’m his is a liar, in addition to all the other lies the man has told.
And no one wants this man as a witness. That’s why the U.S. Attorney’s Office didn’t need him. That’s why Vance didn’t want him. That’s why Bragg didn’t want him initially.
what happened? What happened was Mr. Bragg. Mr Bragg should be disbarred. Mr. Bragg violated Brady’s rules. That’s a rule from half a century ago.
Costello, who has access to the emails, said he had access to all of them, though he showed only six to the grand jury. Mr. Costello described the exchange between his attorney and his client at the time that resulted in Mr. Costello obtaining his waiver. This is a very big incident and a very big problem.
Therefore, the presence of that government witness on the stand means that the district attorney and the government are vouching for the truthfulness and integrity of that witness’ testimony, and that the government knows from these emails that Despite the fact, the witness was put on display there. Regarding testimony that Mr. Costello is a liar.
And even if it wasn’t Brady’s violation, there’s no main witness who’s a complete non-probate, and he’s not going to jail for a thousand different reasons, it’s not like he’s going to jail for a thousand different reasons. Because he is a liar, now quasi-perjury. I’ve talked about this on the radio, and Judge Janine brought this up and touched on it earlier, and U.S. Attorney Tallman also brought it up a little bit.
We would like to expand on this. We as lawyers need to police what’s going on here. We can’t just clap our hands, this is terrible. It’s terrible and these people need to be held accountable.
Mr. Bragg apparently collaborated with Mr. Cohen before putting Mr. Cohen on the stand. They knew what he was going to say. Any prosecutor will do it and let you know what questions will be asked. In other words, part of this is performance art.
Mr. Bragg knew there were important matters involving Cohen. He was aware of the information, the emails from the time, Mr. Costello’s testimony, etc. It directly contradicts what his own lawyers have said and what others have said, and he still put him in that position, and this is important information, and this is what they is an important witness. Look at the text, we don’t know about the text yet.
Well, that’s also an important issue. Didn’t this government have his papers? If they had the texts, did they give them to the defense? How did the defense get the texts?
And this is not the first time. A couple of weeks before the case starts, the U.S. attorney’s office sends us a 30,000-page document and the judge says, “Okay, that’s enough time to prepare, and don’t raise your head against the defense when the witnesses are called.” Remember when I said, “That’s enough time to do that.” They will likely receive a five-hour jail sentence for a due process violation.
The Mr. Bragg we know is a lawless government official, and I argue that he is in violation of the Supreme Court’s Brady decision. I contend that he and his staff have supported perjury.
One more thing before time runs out. Brad Smith is a former FEC chairman. Brad Smith was on my show twice and he said what he wanted to say. He said he could be called as an expert witness by Trump’s lawyers.
He said this is fake. He is an expert on this federal election law. He said the non-disclosure agreement could not constitute illegal campaign financing in any form and that he would thoroughly review it.
That’s why the judge doesn’t want him to testify. It was a torpedo hit on the side of the good ship Bragg, and it was going to sink, and the jury would understand, and it’s not Stormy Daniels that they’re bringing in to confuse the jury. When a federal election law expert, not an expert and not all the people on the street, comes in there and says, “Juror, as you know, there are no campaign violations.” That’s impossible. Then the case will be invalidated without even needing to be appealed.
My conclusion is this, this case is about Alvin Bragg. It’s – it’s about the Brady Act, it’s about perjury, it’s about this judge who won’t allow this expert witness to come in because it will destroy this case once and for all. that’s it!
HANNITY: Wow. well done. Great man, that’s why we call you great man. Thank you, Mark Levin.
