President-elect Donald Trump took a step toward overturning Alvin Bragg's law violations against him on Tuesday, as Judge Juan Marchand deferred ruling on a politically motivated motion to vacate New York's conviction. Although it has come close, it is also possible that this is an attempt to trick the president into making this unconstitutional ruling. Indictment.
Bragg's prosecution of former President Trump and current President-elect Trump is plagued by numerous constitutional violations, starting with his indictment. The Sixth Amendment gives every defendant the right to be “fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” against him. But Mr. Bragg's indictment alleges that Mr. Trump committed the felony of falsifying business records with “intent to commit, or to aid or conceal, another crime.” It is not clear what it is. This violates the Sixth Amendment, as recognized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes New York.
At the end of Trump's trial, Marchand and Bragg revealed that the second crime was a New York state law that “facilitates or prevents election to public office by unlawful means.” However, the jury instructions did not specify any “unlawful means.” In other words, the second crime is dependent on the third crime.
But then Mr. Marchand's jury instructions continued to allude to a third crime, a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Specifically, Mr. Bragg alleges that he made the payments as part of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to keep quiet about the interlude allegations, which President Trump adamantly denies, and Mr. Marchan told the jury that this It instructed that it could be considered an illegal federal election expense.
But that would also be unconstitutional. NDAs are not violations of FECA under federal law. Only the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Federal Election Commission (FEC) can say otherwise, but they do the opposite. County prosecutors, who are responsible for enforcing New York state law, cannot create new federal crimes by interpreting federal laws differently than the federal government. It violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Marchand later appealed Mr. Trump's appeal that he did not allow former FEC Chairman Brad Smith to testify at trial to explain to the jury that the NDA payments were not illegal campaign expenses. He made another error that led to the cancellation of the charges at trial. If the factual allegations are true, they do not violate federal law.
But Mr. Marchand's presiding over this case is also unconstitutional and violates due process. Marchan has made political contributions to President-elect Trump's opponents, particularly the Democratic Party and Joe Biden. Federal judges would never make such contributions, and if they did, they would be asked to recuse themselves from the issue. That's because the Constitution gives every defendant the right to a fair and impartial judge, and a state judge presides over the prosecution of a politician who has donated money to that politician's opponents. This is because it violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Marchan then again violated the Constitution by giving the jury multiple crimes to choose from regarding the “unlawful means” aspect of the case. He said each juror could consider a menu of options and if they found one crime they liked, they could vote to convict Trump, resulting in 34 felonies. said.
However, the Sixth Amendment mandates that when a person is charged with a felony, 12 jurors must vote unanimously to convict the defendant of that crime. Marchand's “choose your own adventure” instruction to still convict Trump despite the possibility that jurors may differ on the nature of the crime is a shock to his constitutional rights. This is a serious violation.
President-elect Trump's lawyers have also argued for additional legal grounds for revocation, but you get the point. This was a completely illegal prosecution from the beginning, weaponizing Banana Republic-style law enforcement and court systems to criminalize political opposition.
For all of these reasons, many people want this case to leave Marchand's courtroom, as Trump's conviction could be overturned on appeal if Marchand refuses to withdraw his conviction. Of course, they were waiting for it.
Then, a watershed Supreme Court decision was handed down. trump vs usa July 1, Regarding Presidential Privileges. This court decision merely formalizes what constitutional scholars have always believed has existed, but the left is going crazy over it and gaslighting voters with ridiculous lies about the court's decision. This is a new reason to throw out Trump's conviction. Mr. Trump's lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emile Bove, also immediately presented their case to Mr. Marchand.
Marchand was scheduled to issue a ruling on November 12 on Trump's motion to vacate the conviction and dismiss the charges. If he rejects all of these allegations, the president-elect was scheduled to be sentenced on November 26, which would also begin the appeals process for this travesty.
President Trump's lawyers wisely protected their client by lobbying for a delay in possible incarceration, given that the Constitution does not allow a sitting president to be imprisoned.
But one of two things is happening, and it's not clear which. One is positive for the president, the other presents challenges.
On the other hand, perhaps Melchan could see the writing on the wall. This legal action amounted to election interference and failed. Trump was elected to a second term in a modern-day landslide, and the government was unified. The charges remain illegal, as does the conviction, and this suspension could be the first step toward landing the plane. Bragg and Machan have been beaten and should know it.
On the other hand, this could also be an attempt to ensnare the president. Until Mr. Marchand makes a final judgment in this case, there are only a few ways to move this case away from Mr. Marchand and into a court that follows the law. If the lawsuit can be frozen under the current circumstances, they could wait until the end of President Trump's second term, bring him back to court after January 2029, and potentially try to imprison him for life as a civilian. be.
The president has options, but only a few. And his lawyers are now attempting to exercise one such option.
The method is to withdraw the charges in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442. The facts alleged against Trump in this case date back to a period of time before he became president, specifically 2016, but some of the (ridiculous) evidence presented against him courtesy of then-White House, disgraced criminal liar Michael Cohen.
Mr. Trump's lawyers are trying to move the case to federal court, citing that federal defense. (Initial attempts to prosecute failed, but that was before the Supreme Court formally granted presidential immunity.)
A federal trial judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York incorrectly rejected the removal based on a so-called “legal action.” Luker Feldman doctrine (misunderstood) Luker Feldman does not apply to ongoing state court litigation, including litigation pending appeal). However, Mr Trump's lawyers have appealed the ruling to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which means the case will not be challenged for at least several more months.
If that appeal is successful, the president will join the federal system, and he must win decisively, even if that means first going to the U.S. Supreme Court. And there are other potential routes to victory as well, given the extraordinary circumstances created by the left's unprecedented legal action against President-elect Trump.
The coming weeks will tell whether this is a slow capitulation or an attempt to end the case. If it's the latter, Donald Trump and his team will definitely be ready.
The case is: People vs. TrumpNew York County Supreme Court No. 71543/23; new york vs trumpNo. 24-2299 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
