On Monday, the US Supreme Court ordered New York to respond to a lawsuit filed by Missouri against New York alleging that state prosecutors and the Department of Justice colluded in the prosecution of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey argues that Missourians and the nation have a right to know the extent to which the prosecution of a prominent presidential candidate is being coordinated by the federal government.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a long-time vocal critic of Trump, asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to block the case, calling Missouri's claims “clearly without merit” and saying that intervening in the case would set a “dangerous precedent” that would undermine the court's integrity.
Missouri lawsuit
Bailey spoke about the lawsuit on Timcast on Tuesday.
The Supreme Court took note of the lawsuit we filed against the state of New York, which has a judiciary that conspired with corrupt prosecutors to indict Donald Trump on false legal grounds. The prosecution was riddled with constitutional, procedural and ethical errors. This should never have happened. I have never seen such an egregious false accusation.
He also argued that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Trump was merely a campaign ploy. Announcing the lawsuit against New York, he said:
Given the timing (Bragg filed his complaint against Trump after Trump announced his candidacy for president), the apparent weakness of the complaint, and its effect on removing Trump from the campaign trail, there is good reason to suspect that the Biden administration is working with Bragg and others to prosecute Trump.
Is that a matter for the High Court?
“The Founding Fathers anticipated that disputes would arise between the states and provided a means for those grievances to be resolved in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution,” Bailey said. He noted that state lawsuits have their own dockets, separate from the appellate dockets we usually hear about.
But James argued that the Supreme Court should block the lawsuit because it's not actually a state-vs-state case. His office wrote in a 48-page response to the Supreme Court:
“The Missouri lawsuit is based entirely on an ongoing criminal case between the Manhattan District Attorney and former President Trump, and does not raise any actual dispute between sovereign states. Moreover, former President Trump has already raised the same issues that Missouri seeks to raise, and a New York court has already ruled on them, making Missouri's claims clearly without merit.”
gag law
Bailey further argued that the gag order issued by Judge Juan M. Marchan violated his freedom of speech.
“The gag order issued by the New York court is unconstitutional. It violates President Trump's right to speak and it violates our right to hear from him,” he told Timcast.
When gag orders are issued, they are usually used to ensure that the accused has the right to a fair trial, but Mr Bailey said: “They can be used to sue the accused for their wrongdoing.
Here, the state and prosecutors were subject to a gag order. If Donald Trump wants to put himself at risk by speaking publicly about the trial, he should be allowed to do so, and we have a right to hear him.
Bailey also argues that Missouri's electors have been denied access to Trump while the trial is ongoing, and that if Trump is forced to serve prison time, the electors could be denied access to him.
Trump was ultimately convicted of 34 counts of first-degree falsifying business records, a felony in New York state, where Democrats are currently allowed to run ads claiming that Trump is a felon running for president. In reality, the court found Trump guilty of minor paperwork violations related to how he reimbursed lawyer Michael Cohen for $130,000 in “hush money” paid to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2017.
The Missouri lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to find that New York illegally interfered in the presidential election. It also asks that a ruling be ordered to be delayed until after the election in the Trump case, while Trump's lawyers are appealing the original conviction.
