DA Bragg, Judge Merchan Violated Trump’s ‘Constitutional and Legal Rights’: House Judiciary Committee

The House Judiciary Committee declared in a new report that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Judge Juan Merchan violated Donald Trump’s rights.

According to the report, the officials “worked together to deprive President Donald J. Trump of his constitutional and legal rights.”

“A fundamental principle of the American system of justice is that no individual is above the law,” the committee wrote. “But just as important is the precept that prosecutors prosecute conduct, not individuals.”

Bragg’s prosecution of Trump had “severe legal and procedural defects,” the report says, stating, “These infirmities include, but are not limited to:

  • “Bragg’s unconstitutional and unprecedented Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminal liability, in which the jury never had to reach unanimity beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of the criminal offenses;
  • “Bragg’s usurpation of the federal government’s exclusive authority to prosecute alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws and the Biden-Harris Administration’s refusal to intercede to protect federal interests; and
  • “Judge Merchan’s egregious legal rulings before and during the trial that all cut against President Trump’s rights.”

Discussing Judge Merchan’s failures, the report claims the judge failed “to recuse himself for manifest political bias against President Trump” and imposed an “unconstitutional gag order.” It also condemns Judge Merchan’s “admission of plainly inadmissible, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial testimony against President Trump” and his “refusal to permit former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith to testify as to the meaning and complexities of the Federal Election Campaign Act.”

“President Trump never had a real shot at a fair trial in Manhattan,” the committee declares.

In a press release for the report, the committee asserted their belief that an “honest review of the facts and the law will likely lead appellate courts to vacate the conviction and dismiss the indictment with prejudice.”