As a strong campaign against the law of the left Donald Trump continues to crumble, New York Judge Juan Merchan delayed his plan to rule Tuesday on whether the Manhattan president-elect’s conviction should be thrown out based on the Supreme Court’s recent immunity ruling.

But it is more than that.

Merchan now wants to hear from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg how prosecutors think the case should be handled going forward in light of Trump’s victory last week in both the Electoral College and the popular vote. The judge certainly recognizes that there are constitutional concerns that militate in favor of dismissal.

‘EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES’: NY JUDGE IN TRUMP CASE STOPS ALL COURT TERMS, SENTENCE

It is well established in law that a sitting president is completely immune from impeachment, prosecution or any criminal process in state and federal cases. This doctrine was enunciated long ago by US Supreme Court and was strictly adhered to by the Department of Justice. The reason is simple: Presidents have a unique responsibility within our constitutional framework and must be free to carry out their duties without interference.

The same principles of immunity from criminal prosecution necessarily extend to a president-elect during the critical and time-consuming transition as he forms a new government and prepares for official acts in the national interest before being sworn in. This is reinforced by the presidential transition. Act prohibiting “disturbance … in the transfer of executive power.”

Under The Supremacy Clause of the Constitutionthe states have no legal right to prevent such federal authority. A single local prosecutor is not authorized to intervene in the functions of the Executive. That would be a dangerously impermissible intrusion. Because of this, Bragg must voluntarily dismiss his case against Trump. Prosecutors waited years before filing charges and did so only after Trump announced his candidacy for president.

If Bragg refuses to capitulate, Judge Merchan should dismiss the case in the interest of justice. He cannot now legitimately impose restrictions on the president-elect before taking office or at any time thereafter. This makes the sentencing scheduled for November 26th legally suspect, if not inappropriate.

JUDGE MERCHAN SUED FOR FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENTS BASED ON CONCERN WITH DAUGHTER’S DEMOCRATIC WORK

Some have suggested that either the conviction or a sentence imposed could be delayed until after Trump leaves office in 2029. But that would violate state law (CPL 380.30), which requires “a specified date no later than twelve months after entering a conviction. ” Regardless, it would still have the net effect of adversely affecting the president during his term. The Constitution does not tolerate such violations.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. and his team of attorneys hold a news conference after Trump’s verdict on May 30, 2024 in New York, NY (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The motion still pending before Judge Merchan relies on the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. At trial, Bragg’s prosecutors improperly introduced exactly the type of evidence and testimony that is protected. The merchant allowed. This prejudiced the cause and constitutes reversible error. Knowing full well that the high court was considering the matter, Merchan should never have let it happen.

This was one of many mistakes in a botched prosecution.

The case against Trump has always been complicated and legally unsound, mainly because it is not a crime to hide a perfectly legal non-disclosure agreement. But that legal nicety didn’t stop Bragg from resurrecting misdemeanors from expired business records and turning them into phantom election crimes. Without authority as a local prosecutor, he prosecuted violations of federal law that federal prosecutors declined to bring.

Democrats hoped their campaign to defend the law would smear Trump as a criminal and thereby end his candidacy. Instead, the opposite happened. The Republican candidate he deftly turned the tide by making him a relevant issue to voters who increasingly saw him as a victim rather than a villain. He made his case in the court of public opinion and most Americans gave their verdict.

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH MOVES TO DROP TRUMP’S ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

Ultimately, the Trump trial reinforced people’s revulsion at the way Democratic prosecutors weaponized the law for political gain.

Trump had no chance at a fair trial in New York. In a place where 90 percent of the population voted against him in the 2020 election, the fix happened. The presidency was a judge handpicked by the DA’s office and who donated to President Biden while helping to shut down the Trump Organization.

Given the outcome of the presidential election, both the prosecutor and the judge now have a unique opportunity to end this case before they suffer the embarrassment of being overturned by the higher courts.

Merchan’s grown daughter helped raise millions of dollars for Democrats and likely had a financial interest in the outcome of her father’s case. All of this created, at the very least, the appearance of a disqualifying conflict of interest, which the judge ignored.

It was therefore no surprise that Merchan’s evidentiary rulings from the bench were consistently one-sided. Prejudicial evidence with little or no probative value was somehow deemed admissible against Trump.

Throughout the trial, Merchan ignored his duty to protect the rights of the accused and refused to allow a key witness to testify for the defense that no federal election violations ever took place because the “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels did not qualify as campaign contributions under the law.

Daily, Merchan destroyed the defendant’s due process rights by committing a multitude of reversible errors. Those rulings were driven by an anti-Trump bias that the judge seemed to wear proudly on his sleeve.

As if all that wasn’t bad enough, Merchan then overturned the sacred principle of unanimity in verdicts, instructing jurors that they must not agree unanimously on a single illegal act. They can freely disagree while still condemning Trump.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

We still don’t know (and neither does Trump) what election crimes were allegedly committed and how the jurors voted for each. They could have been split between three options offered by the prosecution. If so, how that might lead to a “guilty” verdict remains a mystery.

The judge’s instructions were flawed and wrong. He effectively broke a fundamental right embedded in constitutional principles. The Supreme Court has previously held that unanimity extends to all key issues, including each necessary element of a primary offense and, in this case, establishing a secondary offense.

Bragg and Merchan must know that Trump’s jury verdicts will never stand up to judicial review on appeal. From start to finish, the case was riddled with errors that make an eventual reversal almost certain.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Given the outcome of the presidential election, both the prosecutor and the judge now have a unique opportunity to end this case before they suffer the embarrassment of being overturned by the higher courts. Their vengeful strategy of the law failed at the polls.

Closing the case now gives them an exit ramp. He should take the exit.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT