House Panel Reveals Trump's Constitutional Rights Were Violated In New York Hush Money Case

 July 9, 2024

A key GOP-controlled House committee leveled significant criticism against the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, accusing the judicial process of undermining former President Donald Trump's constitutional rights.

Just The News reported that according to the report released on Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee and its Weaponization Subcommittee described a series of biases and legal missteps during Trump's recent felony trial.

In April 2023, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg formally charged Donald Trump with 34 felony counts. These charges were linked to allegations of falsifying business records associated with payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. By May 2023, a jury found Trump guilty, leading to a convulsion of political and legal debates.

The report from the House committees argues that the charges were based on a murky and novel legal theory.

It suggests that this so-called new legal approach did not just blur lines but potentially stomped over them, failing to provide Trump with a transparent understanding of the charges against him.

Judiciary Committee's Scathing Critique

Specific critiques were directed at Judge Juan Merchan, whom the report accused of leaning into bias with his legal decisions. The document characterizes these decisions as "egregious," charging that they tilted the scales of justice unfavorably against Trump. Such accusations from the GOP-led committees escalate an already charged political atmosphere surrounding the trial.

Focusing on the procedure, the House report outlines several instances of what it calls procedural irregularities.

A key issue highlighted is the jury’s mandate. The report criticizes that jurors were not required to be unanimous about which specific illegal act Trump committed, a point the committees argue is against due process as defined by the Supreme Line Court.

Following the conviction, Donald Trump sharply criticized the trial and the judge overseeing his case. "We're going to be appealing this scam," Trump declared, framing the legal process and its overseer with severe disapproval. His pronouncement not only asserted his plans to challenge the verdict but also reiterated his ongoing political message, promising to 'Make America Great Again.'

He further depicted Judge Merchan as a "tyrant," a harsh critique that underscores his dissatisfaction with the handling of his trial. This sentiment resounds with his supporters who view the trial and its outcome as part of a broader political witch hunt.

Debate Over Legal Theories

The committee's paper spends considerable time dissecting the legal theories that underpinned the prosecution’s case.

It describes them as "unconstitutional and unprecedented," a stance suggesting a serious overstep by prosecutors in applying federal law in a state court, a method the report indicates should concern any American mindful of constitutional boundaries.

"The testimony that the Committee and Select Subcommittee have received makes clear that President Trump’s trial was riddled with constitutional defects – defects that should prompt the New York appellate courts to reverse the verdict.

The trial violated basic principles of due process,” the report detailed, amplifying the committees' staunch disapproval of the legal handling Trump encountered.

Beyond the sharp accusations, the report defends its position by stating, “Because President Trump had no notice of the specific charges against him, in particular the underlying crime and its essential elements, he did not have a meaningful opportunity to defend himself from those charges,” highlighting perceived violations of legal norms.


This comprehensive critique, nestled in a politically polarized environment, casts long shadows on the judiciary's impartiality and prosecutorial discretion.

With Trump's conviction now set to enter the appeal process, these contentious discussions are far from over. The House Judiciary Committee’s report challenges the fairness of the trial proceedings with robust constitutional arguments, suggesting an uphill battle for judicial review. Whether these claims prompt any change or reconsideration in the appellate courts remains a focal point of national attention.

Copyright 2024 Patriot Mom Digest