Because the left once had a powerful legal campaign against Donald Trump New York Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday postponed his plan to rule on whether to throw out the President-elect’s conviction in Manhattan, citing the Supreme Court’s recent immunity decision.

But there’s more to it than that.

Merchan now wants to hear from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg about how prosecutors believe the case should be handled in light of Trump’s victory in both the Electoral College and the popular vote last week. The judge is acutely aware that there are constitutional concerns that support dismissal.

‘EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS’: NY JUDGE IN TRUMP CASE PAUSES ALL COURT TIMES, GIVES JUDGMENT

a sitting president from indictment, prosecution, or any criminal proceedings in state and federal situations. This doctrine was stated a long time ago. US Supreme Court It is closely monitored by the Ministry 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 necessarily apply to the president-elect during the critical and time-consuming transition when forming a new government and preparing for official actions in the national interest before being sworn in. This is reinforced by the Presidential Transition. Law prohibiting “disruptions … in the transfer of executive power.”

Under Supremacy Clause of the Constitutionstates have no legal right to impede such federal authority. No single local prosecutor has the authority to interfere with the functions of the Executive Branch. This would be a dangerously impermissible intrusion. That’s why Bragg must voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit against Trump. The prosecutor waited years before bringing any charges, and only did so after Trump announced his candidacy for President.

If Bragg refuses to surrender, Judge Merchan must dismiss the case in the interest of justice. He can no longer legally impose restrictions on the president-elect before or after he takes office. This makes the sentencing, scheduled for November 26, legally dubious, if not improper.

JUDGE MERCHAN FILED A LAWSUIT FOR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES OVER CONCERNS ABOUT HIS DAUGHTER’S DEMOCRATIC WORKS

Some have suggested that the sentence or sentence could be delayed until 2029, when Trump leaves office. However, this violates state law (CPL 380.30), which requires “a specific date not later than twelve months after the conviction becomes final.” “Whatever happens, this will still have the net effect of negatively affecting the president during his term in office. The Constitution does not allow such encroachments.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. and his legal team held a press conference in New York, NY, on May 30, 2024, following Trump’s decision. (Washington Post via Ricky Carioti/Getty Images)

The motion, which is still pending before Judge Merchan, is based on the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling that former presidents enjoy substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. At trial, Bragg’s prosecutors incorrectly presented the types of evidence and testimony that were protected. Merchan allowed this. This damaged the case and constituted a reversible error. Knowing very well that the Supreme Court was considering the matter, Merchan should never have allowed this to happen.

This was one of many mistakes in a misguided investigation.

The case against Trump was always complicated and legally unsound; The main reason for this was that it was not a crime to conceal a perfectly legal non-disclosure agreement. But this legal sophistication did not stop Bragg from reviving expired business registration misdemeanors and turning them into fictitious election crimes. Without authority as a local prosecutor, he pursued violations of federal law that federal prosecutors rejected.

Democrats hoped their legal campaign would smear Trump as a criminal and thus end his candidacy. Instead, the opposite happened. Republican candidate He deftly turned the tables, making it an important issue for voters who increasingly saw him as a victim, not a villain. He presented his case publicly, and the majority of Americans made up their minds.

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH TAKES ACTION TO DROP TRUMP’S ELECTION INTERFERENCE

Ultimately, the Trump case reinforced people’s disgust at how Democratic prosecutors were weaponizing the law for political gain.

Trump never had a chance at a fair trial in New York. The problem was solved in a venue where 90 percent of the population voted against him in the 2020 elections. The president was a judge hand-picked by the DA’s office who donated to President Biden while contributing to stopping the Trump organization.

Given the outcome of the presidential election, both the prosecutor and the judge now have a unique opportunity to finish this case without suffering the embarrassment of having it overturned by higher courts.

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

Therefore, it was no surprise that Merchan’s evidentiary decisions from the bench were consistently one-sided. Prejudicial evidence with little or no probative value was somehow deemed admissible against Trump.

Throughout the trial, Merchan disregarded his duty to protect the defendant’s rights and did not allow a key witness to testify on behalf of the defense: no federal election violations The “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels occurred because they did not qualify as campaign contributions under the law.

Merchan was committing countless reversible errors on a daily basis, destroying the defendant’s due process rights. These decisions stemmed from the judge’s proud anti-Trump bias.

As if all this wasn’t bad enough, Merchan eliminated the sacred principle of unanimity in verdicts by instructing jurors that they did not have to agree unanimously on a single illegal act. They can freely disagree while still condemning Trump.

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

We still don’t know (nor does Trump) what election crimes were committed and how the jurors voted for each one. They may be divided into three options presented by the prosecution. If so, how this could result in a “guilty” verdict remains a mystery.

The judge’s instructions were flawed and wrong. It effectively destroyed a fundamental right enshrined in constitutional principles. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that unanimity covered all material issues, including all necessary elements of the primary offense and, in this case, the determination of the secondary offense.

Bragg and Merchan should know that Trump’s jury verdicts will never withstand judicial review on appeal. From start to finish, the case was riddled with errors that made it almost certain that he would eventually return.

CLICK TO REACH THE FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Given the outcome of the presidential election, both the prosecutor and the judge now have a unique opportunity to finish this case without suffering the embarrassment of having it overturned by higher courts. Their vindictive legal strategy failed at the ballot box.

Now dismissing the case gives them a way out. They should make the exit.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT