Mark Levin, Landmark’s Chairman of the Board, has proposed a unique theory as to how Donald Trump should appeal yesterday’s verdict in the New York falsification of business records case. Mark noted that that the verdict of guilty on all counts is “criminalizing events and activities that are not illegal, to the point we don’t know what they are.” In addition to following the normal appeals process, he suggests that the Trump legal team should: 

“[F]ile applications for common law writs with the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court can take action if it chooses, and legitimately claim the harm is immediate and ongoing not just to a presidential candidate, but to the federal electoral system, federal campaign jurisdiction (reverse federalism), and the precedent that might otherwise be set and spread throughout the country.” 

Mark relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore¹ to support this theory.  While he points out that the Supreme Court “warned that Bush v. Gore not be relied on as a precedent—on the merits,” he does state “it can and should be relied upon as the Supreme Court acting to preserve American democracy from an imminent threat.” In Bush v. Gore, the Court relied on the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause to intervene in lower court proceedings over a presidential election to “preserve American democracy from an imminent threat.” The Supreme Court there concluded that the Florida Supreme Court was unequally applying election law depending on the county voters lived in, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

Mark argues the New York trial and conviction involves an even graver violation of the Equal Protection Clause and poses an imminent threat to our democracy. As it stands, New York has opened the door for state prosecutors to derail nationwide presidential elections at will on trumped-up charges. In this case, Democrat District Attorney Bragg and Democrat-appointed Judge Merchan both had massive, well-documented conflicts of interest and brought charges that even federal prosecutors declined to pursue. Mark notes that former prosecutors and defense attorneys alike are stunned at the miscarriage of justice in this case. He further argues the case is obviously political, stating “[t]he Manhattan case is intended to interfere with the normal and routine campaign process to Trump’s detriment and Biden’s advantage.”  

Given the enormous implications of the verdict on the election, the myriad ways in which the judge and prosecutor violated Trump’s rights and pushed a case, Trump’s legal team should seek immediate intervention and review from the Supreme Court, Mr. Levin argues.  

Mark closes by stating “[i]n the end, the Supreme Court will not be able to avoid this forever.  Better to deal with now than later, when it will get worse.”  

_________________________________
[1] 531 U.S. 98 (2000).