Missouri AG suing New York over Alvin Bragg's 'unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump'

Despite their routine concern-mongering about threats to democracy, Democrats have worked hard in recent months to eliminate President Joe Biden's rival from contention ahead of the 2024 election. Some have referred to this effort to deny voters a choice and thereby decide the election by undemocratic means as "lawfare."

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) revealed Thursday that such attacks will not go unanswered.

Bailey noted on X that he would be "filing suit against the State of New York for their direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump. It's time to restore the rule of law."

According to the Republican, the efforts of "rogue prosecutor" New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg to "take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail ... sabotages Missourians' right to a free and fair election."

Last week, Bailey testified before the House Judiciary Committee. He noted in his written statement that the "left has prioritized its hatred of President Trump above the rule of law."

'The prosecution was politically motivated and replete with legal error.'

"Government officials at the federal and state levels have censored President Trump, filed civil suits in order to sanction him, illegally removed him from the ballot, and perverted the law in order to prosecute him," wrote Bailey.

The Missouri AG indicated further that Bragg's prosecution of Trump, in particular, "represents one of the most morally abhorrent volleys in the left's on-going barrage of lawfare. The prosecution was politically motivated and replete with legal error."

Among the issues Bailey highlighted with Trump's prosecution in New York — which are likely to be raised in his forthcoming lawsuit — were:

• Bragg's "disqualifying impropriety," reflected in part by his refusal to recuse himself despite an obvious self-interest in the case;
• the indictment charges' "reference to an unspecified and unidentifiable other crime," which altogether "constitutes a deprivation of due process by denying the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the crimes with which he is charged";
• the prosecutor's efforts to have Trump silenced with an "unconstitutional gag order";
• Bragg's perversion of "the law to meet the facts rather than objectively apply the facts to the law," namely through the expansion of the charges beyond the text of the statute at issue in order to criminalize "that which he does not like rather than that which the law forbids"; and
• Bragg's failure to "correct the Court's error in instructing the jury that unanimity was not required as to the predicate offense that forms the basis for the fallacious charges."

Bailey further highlighted in his testimony the apparent "collusion" between the Biden Department of Justice and the New York District Attorney's Office regarding the initiative to take Trump off the board.

Bailey's office expects that lawsuit will go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court and will be titled "Missouri vs. New York," reported Fox News Digital.

Extra to announcing that Missouri would be suing New York Thursday, Bailey filed an amicus brief with 23 other red states urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which is overseeing Trump's classified documents case, to reject Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's request for an "unconstitutional gag order" on Trump.

Smith asked Judge Aileen Cannon that the conditions permitting Trump to await trial outside of jail should be updated to include a gag order, prohibiting him from commenting about details of his case, particularly about the raid on his Mar-a-Lago residence.

Trump's attorneys said in a filing last week, "Like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Smith seeks to restrict President Trump’s campaign speech as the first presidential debate approaches at the end of this month," reported CNN.

The amicus brief filed by Bailey and other Republican attorneys general, stressed that fair and free elections "depend on candidates' ability to speak about important issues of the day."

"When agents of one candidate seek a court order to muzzle discussion on matters relating to important electoral issues, that restraint raises even more fundamental First Amendment concerns," continued the brief.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!