Mark Levin reveals how Trump can take Bragg case straight to the Supreme Court if the jury finds him guilty…

Today the jury will deliberate over former President Trump’s fate after getting the jury instructions from this partisan clown show of a judge. I think most people expect either a conviction or a hung jury given that this is NYC and an acquittal seems most unlikely.

To that end, Mark Levin revealed last night how Trump can take a conviction by the jury in the corrupt Judge Merchan’s courtroom straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing even the appellate courts in New York state.

Here’s more from Levin:

HERE’S HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP MIGHT SEEK A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT DEPENDING ON THE MANHATTAN JURY’S DECISION

I asked my friend of nearly 45-years, Arthur Fergenson, who served as a law clerk to the late chief justice, Warren Burger, and one of the smartest lawyers I know, if he represented President Trump how he might seek a direct appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. This was his reply:

“The US Supreme Court can act by its statutory writs of certiorari to take a case from a lower appellate court, and the Court also has a host of other processes, often called common law writs. I became acquainted with these common law writs (actually authorized as a general matter by the Judiciary Act of 1789: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/13-power-to-issue-writs-the-act-of-1789.html ), when IBM sought review of a discovery order by a vindictive federal judge when I was clerking for Chief Justice Warren Burger. A total of six petitions were filed; all were denied, and rarely are any common law writs ever issued by the Supreme Court, but there are, nonetheless, multiple ways to offer the Supreme Court an opportunity to forthwith review a conviction by a rogue court, as would be the case here.

“The principle ground I would rely upon is the denial of due process by not informing Donald Trump of the underlying federal crime he was alleged to have committed—the predicate crime that NY law requires to prove the NY crime. That is a kangaroo court: to try someone for a crime that they are not informed of is as serious a breach of due process rights as we can possibly imagine. See, e.g., the Stalin show trials—Darkness at Noon. The timing of the trial and the blatant denial of fundamental rights can only be explained by an effort to interfere with the fair conduct of a presidential election, thereby, in effect, denying the American people the right to a Republican Government.”

“The Supreme Court warned that Bush v. Gore not be relied on as a precedent—on the merits. But it can and should be relied upon as the Supreme Court acting to preserve American democracy from an imminent threat. Consistent with that is the refusal of the Supreme Court to grant expedited review to the immunity controversy at the request of federal prosecutor Jack Smith. The NY trial court represents an imminent danger to the fair and untrammeled conduct of a federal election for the most powerful position in America and the world. The Supreme Court has the power to act to protect our democracy. And it should. If a guilty verdict is returned, it should act right away.”

I certainly hope it doesn’t come to this but if it does, would the Supreme Court even take the case? There are several on the court who most certainly would, but there are others who love switching sides…

Consider this your verdict watch thread today.


Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.