House Judiciary Committee Republicans are appealing to New York appellate courts to overturn the verdict in New York v. Trump. They allege that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan “worked together to deprive” former President Trump of his constitutional and legal rights.
The Committee began investigating Bragg’s indictment of Trump in March 2023. They concluded that a “two-tiered justice system” exists, alleging that Trump is being treated differently for political reasons.
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee released a report. It claims there were many “significant legal and procedural flaws” in Trump’s prosecution and that there were clear political motivations. Republicans argued that the New York County District Attorney’s Office used the criminal justice system unfairly to target Trump.
A fundamental principle of the American justice system is that no one is above the law. Equally important is the idea that prosecutors should focus on conduct, not individuals. However, the report states that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office on a platform centered on investigating and prosecuting President Trump, boasting about his extensive experience suing him. The report implies that prosecutors chose Trump as a target first and then looked for legal reasons to prosecute him.
According to the Committee’s findings, Bragg used an unfair and unusual legal approach. They called it a “Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminal liability,” meaning the jury didn’t have to agree on every part of the criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
During the hearing, Professor Bradley Smith from Capital University Law School criticized how the trial was handled in New York. He particularly noted prosecutors’ misuse of campaign finance rules and the trial judge’s alleged mismanagement.
Smith warned that if the verdict stands, it could set a dangerous precedent. He said states might pass laws like New York Election Law 17-152 to prosecute federal candidates using questionable legal theories.
The report highlights several issues in Trump’s prosecution. These include the jury’s inability to reach a unanimous verdict on criminal counts and Bragg’s overstepping federal jurisdiction regarding campaign finance laws.
Additionally, the report accuses Judge Merchan of making significant legal errors that harmed Trump’s rights. These include:
– Not recusing himself despite having political bias against Trump
– Imposing an unconstitutional gag order on Trump during the trial
– Allowing irrelevant and prejudicial testimony against Trump
– Not allowing former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith to testify on complex federal election law issues
The report argues that Trump didn’t get a fair chance to defend himself. Prosecutors didn’t reveal the specific charges against him, including the alleged underlying crime, and Judge Merchan didn’t force them to do so.
Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) of the House Judiciary Committee released documents showing the political motivations behind Matthew Colangelo. Colangelo, a former senior Biden Justice Department official, played a key role in Trump’s prosecution in Manhattan. According to Jordan, Colangelo’s connections to left-wing figures like DNC Chair Tom Perez and Biden’s Chief of Staff Jeff Zients show the partisan nature of the case. Jordan called the prosecution “a political hit job” led by Letitia James’s office, which celebrated Colangelo’s involvement.
The House Judiciary Committee is asking New York appellate courts, which they call the “13th juror,” to step in. They argue that Trump’s indictment and trial were filled with legal and constitutional errors that worsened during the proceedings.
The Committee’s report ends on a hopeful note. If the appellate courts thoroughly review the facts and law, they may vacate the conviction and dismiss the indictment with prejudice. This would help restore public trust in the justice system, but it acknowledges that there is still more work to be done.
