Missouri's attorney general has filed suit against the State of New York. He says its prosecution of former President Donald Trump is a roadblock to Trump becoming the next president.
And that, Bailey told American Family Radio Wednesday, is unfair to the people of his state.
Missouri voters chose Trump over Joe Biden 56%-41% in 2020.
The lawsuit, filed last week, contends the New York trial in and of itself interferes with the presidential election and that it contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Purcell v. Gonzalez, which states that courts should generally refrain from changing election rules in the months leading to an election.
The lawsuit also contends the resulting gag orders, and the hindrance to Trump’s campaign, constitute a violation of First Amendment free speech rights.
Bailey believes he can get a quick hearing from the U.S. Supreme Court by invoking “original jurisdiction” in his lawsuit.
Roughly six weeks ago, Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Trump called the trial a sham, and many conservatives agree.
“This was a disgrace,” he said afterward. “This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt.”
Bailey told show host Jenna Ellis his lawsuit “is about fighting for Missouri’s sovereign interests to participate in a national presidential election on equal footing with other states. We can’t let a rogue prosecutor and a collusive judiciary in the state of New York hijack a national election, and that’s exactly what’s happening.”
The sentence was announced after 9 ½ hours of jury deliberations on May 30. The trial began April 15 leaving incumbent President Joe Biden’s lone competition for the job without freedom of movement for a month and a half.
A lot has changed since the verdict was announced.
Sentencing was originally scheduled for July 11 – four days before the start of the Republican Convention – but has been rescheduled for September.
Each count carries a maximum sentence of four years. Trump could be sentenced for up to 136 years for what is an accusation over business records.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 July 1 that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for official acts while exercising their “core Constitutional powers.” Also, the Court said presidents are entitled to presumption of immunity for official acts, meaning prosecutors face a high burden of proof to show that a president’s acts were not official.
The Court did not grant immunity for unofficial acts.
Bailey cites political 'poison' in courtroom
Bailey said the New York case is “injecting poison into our democratic process.”
The prosecution’s case was deeply flawed, he said.
“When a state rigs its system in order to attack a political opponent, and everyone can see the constitutional and legal errors inerrant in the process and the outcome, it becomes more evident that the objective was never to obtain a legally valid conviction. It was always to take President Trump off the campaign trail, tie him down in a Manhattan courtroom, silence him with a gag order and ultimately send him to prison or put him on house arrest or put him on probation with onerous conditions of community service that are going to take up his time and keep him off the campaign trail,” Bailey said.
In the lawsuit, Bailey alleges that District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s primary motivation in bringing the case was to boost Biden’s re-election prospects.
The lawsuit noted that Bragg was previously involved in a lawsuit against Trump while working for the New York Attorney General’s Office and that he promised Manhattan voters he would prosecute Trump if elected.
Bailey also noted that Bragg brought on Matthew Colangelo, the No. 3-ranking employee in Biden’s Department of Justice, to lead the prosecution of Biden’s chief rival.
Trump mentioned Colangelo in his debate with Biden, saying out loud what many others believe: The high-ranking DOJ prosecutor was sent to Manhattan on orders from the Department of Justice.
Bailey also contends that Judge Juan Merchan violated state judicial ethics rules by donating to the Biden campaign.
Bailey anticipates quick action
Bailey said his lawsuit is an “original action” of the Supreme Court pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution which addresses the method and process for resolving disputes among states.
He believes the Supremes will move quickly.
“We anticipate that the Court will order responsive briefings from the State of New York any time, and then we’ll get a chance to reply, but if I’m the Supreme Court I’m holding until September at the sentencing hearing. Whatever the sentencing the New York judiciary hands down, that could impact the outcome of this case,” Bailey said.
Editor's Note: Headline and story corrected to remove references to state of Ohio.
