Liberal talker Mark Levin explained why Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor in New York, may have intentionally violated former president Donald Trump’s legal rights throughout his prosecution of Trump, according to Mark Levin on FNC’s” Hannity.”
Levin called for Bragg’s excommunication, referring to him as a violent federal official and citing the many violations as rationale.
HANNITY: Mark, we had a conversation last night. I asked you to explain what your closing claims would be and what your closing arguments would be to this market.
LEVIN: Well, you do n’t want to hear my closing argument because I’d be held in contempt, but instead what I’d like to do if that’s right, Sean, is giving my opening argument why Alvin Bragg should be disbarred, why he should be facing a — charges for suborning perjury which I’ve talked about on my radio show for the last three days, and also why he’s in violation of the Brady Act.
We have some very bright attorneys who are speaking out about this case, and some very wise attorneys who are also here. Because the situation is so absurd, we are running out of comments and theories for it, they are all saying the same thing in a different way. Nobody in our lives has previously witnessed anything similar.
You have money proof which is illegal, you have someone being charged and he’s not certain what he’s charged with which is illegal. You have all kinds of claims being made which are totally absurd, not important. You have a lifeless state legislation that’s remains deceased today that’s being used. Nothing is aware of the specifics of the national strategy law that you are referring to.
So I do n’t want to talk about Alvin Bragg as much as I do about other people.
There’s a Supreme Court case called Brady versus Maryland, and the Supreme Court ruled, and I’ll keep it tight, that the government, the attorney may not deny circumstantial evidence, must be given to the defense and in fact if they know that evidence is fake or might be misleading, they’re not supposed to use it. If a prosecutor affirmatively believes that there is materially false information at this witness ‘ testimony or any lawyer, they are not going to present that person, that does n’t mean you do n’t have to be impeached for these other things that are happening.
Then, circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court says, effectively, we have circumstantial evidence. Robert — has been here — Costello — on all these shows, appearance, he’s no Stormy Daniels. Does this guy’s status as the previous deputy chief of the legal section of the Southern District of New York get any higher than that?
And he was Cohen’s attorney for a crucial period of time, and he’s been on my present, Saturday, he’s been on another shows, he was on a show this morning, he testified before Congress under oath, and he said, appearance, this guy’s a hypocrite, I was his attorney, I have 300 emails, I have historical information, I’m telling you he’s a liar, on top of all the other lies the guy has told.
And nobody wants this guy as a witness. That’s why the U. S. attorney’s office did n’t want him. That’s why Vance did n’t want him. That’s why Bragg initially did n’t want him.
So what happened? What happened is Mr. Bragg. Mr. Bragg should be disbarred. Mr. Bragg has violated the Brady rule. That’s a half a century old rule.
He has access to the emails, and Costello claimed he only showed six to the grand jury, but he had access to all of them. Mr. Costello obtained a waiver for that type of communication between the attorney and his client. This is a very, very big case, a very, very big matter.
So when a government witness is on the stand, the district attorney and the government are vouching for the witness’s testimony, even though the government already knew that Mr. Costello is a liar, according to the emails that were sent to him.
And even if it was n’t a Brady violation, you do n’t have your main witness as somebody who is a complete reprobate and he does n’t go to prison for a thousand different reasons, he goes to prison because he’s a liar, now suborning perjury. Judge Jeanine mentioned it earlier, touched on it, and U.S. Attorney Tolman brought it up briefly on radio, and we’ve been talking about it for a while.
I want to expand on this. We lawyers — we need to police what’s going on here. We ca n’t just ring our hands, this is terrible. It is terrible, and these people need to be held to account.
After they worked with him, Bragg put Cohen on the witness stand. They were aware of what he was going to say. Any prosecutor follows that instruction, knowing what kinds of inquiries will be made. In other words, this is performance art.
Bragg was aware of Cohen’s significant circumstances. He was aware of it, information, contemporary emails, Mr. Costello’s testimony among others. That directly contradicts what his own attorney and other people have said, and he still has to appear on the witness stand because this is important information. Look at the texts, we still do n’t know about the texts.
Well, that’s an important issue, too. Did this administration not have his texts? If they had the text, did they give it to the defense? How were the texts obtained by the defense?
And this is n’t the first time. Remember when 30, 000 pages of documents just arrived from the US attorney’s office two or three weeks before the case started, the judge said that was sufficient time to prepare or that it was not giving the defense any notice when witnesses were called, and the judge decided that if they were called for five hours, it would constitute a due process violation.
What we have in Mr. Bragg is a lawless government official, and I think the Supreme Court’s Brady decision was violated. I assert that he and his staff have been pro-perjury.
Before my time is up, one more thing. Brad Smith, the former FEC chairman. Brad Smith has twice appeared on my show, and he has said what he would. He claimed that the Trump attorneys might refer to him as an expert witness.
He said this is bogus. He is knowledgeable about this federal campaign law. He said there’s no way a non- disclosure agreement in any way is an illegal campaign contribution, and he’ll go through it soup the nuts.
That’s why the judge does n’t want him to testify. That is a torpedo into the side of the good ship Bragg here that will take it down, that the jury will understand, when an expert, not Stormy Daniels, not all these people off the street that they’re bringing in to confuse the jury, when an expert on federal campaign law gets up there and says, you know what, jury, there is no campaign violation. It’s impossible. Then that case right there, you do n’t even need an appeal, will be dead.
So my takeaway is this, this case now is about Alvin Bragg. It’s about the Brady Act, suborning perjury, and this judge who wo n’t let this expert witness in because he will permanently torpedo this case. That’s it!
HANNITY: Wow. Well done. The great one, that’s why we call you the great one. Mark Levin, thank you.
