Missouri’s Attorney is suing New York, calling Trump’s hush money trial lawfare and election interference. What do you think of this lawsuit?

From The Federalist. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit Wednesday against New York alleging in part that the lawfare trial against former President Donald Trump violated Missourians’ First Amendment right “to hear from a presidential candidate in the 2024 presidential election,” as stated in a press release announcing the suit.

View Comments (2)

This content is supported by your donations.
Give today.

In a lawfare case brought by a D.A. who campaigned on taking on Trump, the former president was found guilty by a New York jury in May on 34 charges related to a crime that “nobody can quite articulate.” …

“New York has brought transparently weak charges for the transparent purpose of trying to impose political damage against Trump and trying to restrain his ability to campaign in advance of an election forecasted by the polls to be very close,” the suit alleges.

Bailey’s complaint also takes issue with a gag order placed on Trump by Judge Juan Merchan, who is a Biden donor. …

“This lawfare is poisonous to American democracy. The American people ought to be able to participate in a Presidential election free from New York’s interference. Any gag order and sentence should be stayed until after the election.” …

The suit first argues that the “gag order and impending sentence unlawfully impede the ability of electors to fulfill their federal functions.” More specifically, the lawfare threatens Missouri electors’ ability “to become fully informed before casting their ballots.”

Bailey’s second argument is that the gag order and sentencing “violate the Purcell principle,” established when the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 in Purcell v. Gonzalez that “Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” According to Bailey, the lawfare against Trump creates confusion for both electors and voters.

Bailey’s final argument is that the gag order and impending sentencing “violate the First Amendment rights of Missouri citizens to listen to the campaign speech of a specific individual on specific topics.” …

What do you think of this lawsuit, and how do you think it will affect Trump’s conviction? Discuss your thoughts with intercessors in the comments.

(Excerpt from The Federalist. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America – Donald Trump, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56646244)