Bragg’s Conviction Against Trump Could Backfire At SCOTUS, Impact Jack Smith’s Case

Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney, prosecuted former President Donald Trump on all 34 counts in his hush-money case.

This short-term victory could have potential repercussions for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s efforts to pursue 44 additional charges against the 45th president in federal courts in Florida and Washington, D.C.

While this initial guilty verdict against an American president may bolster Mr. Smith’s confidence after a period of legal deadlock, it also carries certain risks for the prosecutor.

The conviction could prompt judges and justices to weigh the precedent established by presidential prosecution.

The ruling in New York County comes at a time when the US Supreme Court is considering Trump’s argument that presidents should enjoy perpetual “absolute” immunity for their official actions.

However, according to the special counsel, there is no such protection for illegal activities such as election tampering, which are always subject to criminal prosecution.

The question of immunity does not immediately impact the hush-money verdict. It appears that Trump has acknowledged the private nature of the conduct in question.

Judge Juan Merchan noted that many aspects of the case related to campaigning rather than holding office, and Trump’s attorneys “failed to raise this issue promptly.”

A federal judge, Alvin Hellerstein, has ruled that, in respect of the payments to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, the “evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event. Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president’s official acts.”

The justices could determine that Trump’s case for immunity is bolstered by his conviction.

In his submission to the Supreme Court, the former president cautioned that holding a president accountable to prosecution could lead to prolonged post-presidency distress caused by political adversaries.

He contended that the prospect of impending prosecution and incarceration could be exploited as a tool for political manipulation.

“Mr. Smith would respond that the threat of criminal prosecution for official acts is not a credible threat to what Justice Antonin Scalia called the ‘boldness of the president,’ because it will happen only rarely. At oral arguments before the Supreme Court, though, one of the liberal lions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acknowledged a ‘very legitimate concern about prosecutorial abuse.’ Will Bragg’s boast diminish or deepen that concern?” the New York Sun reported.

Trump’s lawyer at the oral arguments, John Sauer, warned the court that if Smith’s argument prevails, “every current president will face potential blackmail and extortion by their political opponents.”

A state conviction by an elected prosecutor could make this prediction more credible to the justices, who will decide how much protection the president should have.

Nonetheless, the justices’ ability to assist Trump is constrained. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s argument about the potential repercussions of a limited interpretation of immunity pertains strictly to federal offenses and does not extend to state-level crimes.

“The case would have to make its way through New York’s appellate system — the tenets of federalism mandate that, in all but the rarest of circumstances, federal courts will only intervene in state prosecutions as a last result. Trump would also have to argue that there is a federal issue at stake that warrants federal judicial consideration,” the outlet reported.

“Trump, though, could be helped by the unusual — almost unprecedented — nature of Mr. Bragg’s case, in two ways. First, the district attorney’s use of federal election law — violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act — as a possible predicate for securing a state crime conviction. While the jury was not required to find Trump guilty on that head, it could emerge as a hook on which to hang an appeal,” the outlet added.

Trump might assert that his federal rights were violated by the entire prosecution. For instance, he could argue that the broad jury instructions allowed for a potential breach of impartiality and due process under the Constitution.

Additionally, the 45th president may claim that the specific nature of the allegations against him amounts to selective prosecution, drawing a parallel to Lavrentiy Beria’s infamous quote about tailored accusations.

Amid this, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has asked Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and another top state prosecutor to testify about Trump’s prosecution.

In letters to Bragg and Matthew Colangelo, senior counsel to the DA’s office, Jordan urged them to appear before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on June 13.

Colangelo previously held a significant role in President Joe Biden’s Justice Department before joining Bragg’s team.

“This hearing will examine actions by state and local prosecutors to engage politically motivated prosecutions of federal officials, in particular the recent political prosecution of President Donald Trump by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office,” Jordan wrote, as reported by NBC News.

ICYMI: Pelosi Rages, Claims Vid of Her Admitting Responsibility for J6 is “Revisionist History”