The House Judiciary Committee released a report criticizing the conduct of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan in the New York criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, alleging constitutional and legal rights violations and suggesting political motivation.

The report, obtained by Fox News Digital, claims that Bragg and Merchan violated Trump's rights and suggests that the prosecution was politically motivated, as The Blaze reports.

Committee Questions Conduct of DA, Judge

In May, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges were filed by Bragg, leading to significant controversy and debate.

The report by the House Judiciary Committee delves into the actions of Bragg and Merchan, with House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan sending a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Jordan's letter questioned the appointment of Matthew Colangelo as a lead prosecutor, suggesting it gave "the perception that the Justice Department is assisting in" the "politicized prosecution" of Trump.

The report also examined broader concerns, describing "lawfare tactics" and a "two-tiered justice system." It asserts that Bragg’s prosecution was politically motivated and unethical.

Report Alleges Political Motivation

In June, the committee listened to testimony alleging multiple legal and procedural defects in Bragg's case against Trump. The report highlighted that Bragg ran for office on a platform of prosecuting Trump and faced political pressure to bring charges.

The committee accused Bragg of employing an "unconstitutional and unprecedented Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminal liability." This theory, according to the report, prevented the jury from reaching unanimity beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of the criminal offenses.

The report asserted that Trump did not receive a fair trial in Manhattan due to perceived bias in the jurisdiction. The committee's oversight work is ongoing, with the interim report presenting facts about the conduct of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and a Manhattan judge.

Committee Claims Unfair Trial

Jordan's letter and the committee's report argue that Bragg's decision to bring charges was influenced by political pressure. The report stated, "Although Bragg was initially hesitant to bring charges once he became district attorney, he faced intense political pressure to do so, including a leaked resignation letter from a special assistant district attorney who attacked Bragg for being too timid."

The committee further claimed that Trump's trial in Manhattan was fundamentally unfair. It described the jurisdiction as "anything but a neutral" venue for such a high-profile case.

The report concluded, "The Committee's and Select Subcommittee's oversight work is not done, but this interim report presents the facts about how the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and a Manhattan judge worked together to deprive President Donald J. Trump of his constitutional and legal rights."

Calls for Appellate Court Action

As a result of the findings, the committee believes that the defects in the case should prompt New York appellate courts to reverse the verdict. The report emphasized that the case was "riddled with defects" and thus warrants reconsideration at the appellate level.

The allegations in the report suggest a broader concern about the potential for politically motivated prosecutions in the future. "Bragg's prosecution of President Trump was politically motivated, unethically and likely unlawfully focused solely on one person, and 'opened the door for future prosecutions of a former president -- or current candidate -- that would be widely perceived as politically motivated,'" the report stated.

Political Pressure and Prosecution

The report also highlighted Bragg’s campaign platform, which included a promise to prosecute Trump. It noted, "A fundamental principle of the American system of justice is that no individual is above the law. But just as important is the precept that prosecutors prosecute conduct, not individuals."

The committee's investigation remains active, and the interim report serves as a preliminary presentation of their findings. The final conclusions and recommendations are expected as the investigation progresses.

Ultimately, the committee's report calls into question the integrity of the judicial process in this high-profile case. It underscores the need for impartiality and adherence to constitutional principles in the prosecution of any individual, regardless of their political status.

Conclusion

In summary, the House Judiciary Committee's report criticizes the conduct of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan in the New York trial of former President Donald Trump.

Alleging violations of constitutional and legal rights and suggesting political motivation, the committee urges New York appellate courts to reverse the verdict due to numerous defects in the case.