Breaking: Bragg’s Conviction Against Trump May Collapse at SCOTUS!

In a landmark decision, District Attorney Alvin Bragg secured a guilty verdict against former President Donald Trump on all 34 charges in a highly publicized hush-money case. This victory, however, might spell trouble for Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is pursuing Trump on an additional 44 charges across federal courts in Florida and Washington, D.C. The conviction of a former president—a first in American history—could influence the judicial landscape as these new charges unfold.

The recent conviction could indeed embolden Smith, but it also presents significant challenges. The very act of convicting a former president sets a complex legal precedent that could affect subsequent cases, potentially causing federal judges and justices to tread carefully in their rulings.

This development coincides with the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberations on whether former presidents should enjoy “absolute” immunity for actions taken while in office. According to Special Counsel Smith, such immunity should not shield acts deemed criminally prosecutable, such as alleged election interference. The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter will be pivotal, especially since Trump has suggested that the hush money was a private matter, as indicated during his trial.

Judge Juan Merchan of New York noted that the case’s circumstances largely pertained to Trump’s campaign activities rather than his presidential duties, pointing out that Trump’s legal team did not adequately raise the immunity issue during the trial. Similarly, Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein emphasized that the payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels were personal in nature, aimed at covering up a potentially embarrassing incident, rather than related to official presidential actions.

Trump’s conviction could paradoxically strengthen his case for presidential immunity. In his submission to the Supreme Court, he argued that prosecuting former presidents could lead to “years of post-office trauma,” used as a political weapon by opponents. This argument was acknowledged during the Supreme Court hearings, where Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted the “legitimate concern about prosecutorial abuse.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, further cautioned that if Smith’s perspective prevails, it could expose current and future presidents to political blackmail and extortion. This argument finds resonance in the context of a state conviction initiated by an elected prosecutor, potentially influencing the Supreme Court’s decision on the extent of presidential protection.

However, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that any narrow interpretation of immunity would apply only to federal crimes, not state offenses. This distinction means that Trump’s case must navigate through New York’s appellate system, adhering to federalism principles which generally prevent federal courts from intervening in state cases unless absolutely necessary.

Trump might benefit from the unique approach taken by DA Bragg, particularly the utilization of federal election laws as a basis for a state crime conviction. Although the jury did not need to establish guilt based on violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, this aspect could serve as grounds for an appeal.

Moreover, Trump might argue that the overall prosecution infringed upon his federal rights. The jury instructions allowed a wide scope for conviction, which could be interpreted as undermining the impartiality and due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

The claims of selective prosecution echo historical abuses, reminiscent of Lavrentiy Beria’s infamous “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

Amidst these legal battles, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has called for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and another senior state prosecutor to testify about the case. This hearing is set to probe the alleged political motivations behind Trump’s prosecution, with significant implications for the legal treatment of federal officials.

This case not only challenges legal precedents but also stirs significant political and public discourse, indicating a complex legal journey ahead for all parties involved.