GREGG JARRETT: New York lawsuit against Trump should be dismissed after Merchan’s decision is delayed

As the left’s powerful campaign against Donald Trump continues to falter, New York Judge Juan Merchan delayed his scheduled ruling Tuesday on whether the President-elect’s conviction in Manhattan should be overturned based on the Supreme Court’s recent immunity ruling.

But there is more to it than that.

Merchan now wants to hear from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg how prosecutors believe the case should be handled given Trump’s victory last week in the Electoral College and the popular vote. The judge does recognize that there are constitutional factors in favor of dismissal.

‘UNTOLD CIRCUMSTANCES’: NY JUDGE IN TRUMP HISTORY STOPS ALL COURT DETAILS, GIGABYTE

It is well established in law that a sitting president is not completely immune from impeachment, prosecution, or or any criminal process in federal and state cases. This doctrine was enunciated long ago by the US Supreme Court and has been strictly followed by the Department of Justice. The reason is simple: Presidents have a unique responsibility under our Constitutional framework and should be free to carry out their duties without interference.

The same principles of immunity from criminal process should extend to the President-elect during the critical and time-consuming transition as he forms a new government and prepares for official acts affecting the national interest before he is sworn in. This is reinforced by the Presidential Reformation. A law prohibiting “interference…in the delegation of executive power.”

Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, states have no legal right to prohibit such an organization. A single local prosecutor is not authorized to interfere with the activities of the Executive Branch. It can be a dangerous illegal entry. For this reason, Bragg should voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit against Trump. The DA waited years before filing charges and did so after Trump announced his candidacy for President.

If Bragg refuses to withdraw, Judge Merchan must dismiss the case in the interests of justice. He cannot now legally impose restrictions on the President-elect before taking office or at any time thereafter. This renders the scheduled sentencing of November 26th a legal suspect, if not appropriate.

JUDGE MERCHAN IS SUED FOR MONEY ALONG WITH CONCERN FOR THE ACTIVITY OF VIRGIN DEMOCRACY

Others have suggested that the sentence or suspended sentence could be postponed until Trump leaves office in 2029. But that would violate state law (CPL 380.30) that requires “a date specified within twelve months of the conviction. ” However, it would still have a negative impact on the president while he is still in office. The Constitution does not tolerate such interference.

The motion pending before Judge Merchan is based on the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts while in office. At trial, Bragg’s prosecutors misrepresented the type of evidence and testimony that was protected. The seller has approved it. This is prejudicial and constitutes reversible error. Knowing very well that the high court was considering this matter, Merchan should not have allowed it to happen.

This was one of the many mistakes in the wrongful prosecution.

The case against Trump was always mixed and illegal, mainly because it is not a crime to hide a legal non-disclosure agreement. But that legal charm didn’t stop Bragg from reviving outdated business records and turning them into spectacular election hacks. Without authority as a local prosecutor, he pursued federal violations that federal prosecutors refused to bring.

Democrats hoped their legislative campaign would smear Trump as a criminal and thus end his election. Instead, the opposite happened. The Republican nominee has deftly turned the tables by making it the right issue for voters who continue to see him as a victim, not a criminal. He made his case in the court of public opinion and the majority of Americans ruled.

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH GOES TO DROP TRUMP’S ELECTION INTERFERENCE CHARGE

Ultimately, Trump’s impeachment deepened public distaste for how Democratic prosecutors rigged the law for political gain.

Trump did not get a chance for a proper trial in New York. In a place where 90 percent of people voted against him in the 2020 election, a correction was made.

Given the results of the presidential election, both the prosecutor and the judge have a unique opportunity to finish this case before enduring the humiliation of being overturned by the higher courts.

Merchan’s oldest daughter helped raise millions of dollars for Democrats and undoubtedly had a financial interest in the outcome of her father’s case. All this created, at least, the appearance of an illegal conflict of interest, which the judge ignored.

So it’s no surprise that Merchan’s evidentiary rulings from the bench have always been one-sided. Prejudicial evidence with little or no value is somehow considered admissible against Trump.

Throughout the trial, Merchan did not neglect his duty to protect the rights of the defendants and refused to allow a key witness to testify for his attorney that no federal election violations ever occurred because the “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels were not qualified under the law. campaign contributions.

Every day, Merchan violates a defendant’s due process rights by committing dozens of reversible errors. These decisions were driven by Trump’s bias which the judge seemed to be proud of.

As if all that wasn’t bad enough, Merchan then overturned the sacred principle of unanimity in verdicts by instructing jurors that they didn’t have to agree unanimously on a single illegal act. They may openly disagree while condemning Trump.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW MORE FOX NEWS

We still don’t know (and neither does Trump) what election crimes were allegedly committed and how the judges voted for each one. They could be divided between three options offered by the prosecutor. If so, how that would lead to a “guilty” verdict remains a mystery.

The jury’s instructions were flawed and erroneous. He successfully tore through the fundamental right enshrined in the provisions of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has previously held that consent extends to all substantive matters, including all the necessary elements of the primary crime and, in this case, the establishment of the secondary crime.

Bragg and Merchan must know that Trump’s judge’s decisions will never stand up to court scrutiny on appeal. From start to finish, the case was riddled with errors that made a reversal of the results a near certainty.

CLICK HERE FOR THE NEWS PROGRAM

Given the results of the presidential election, both the prosecutor and the judge have a unique opportunity to finish this case before enduring the humiliation of being overturned by the higher courts. Their strategy of legal revenge failed at the ballot box.

Dismissing the case now gives them an off-ramp. They have to take the exit.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT