Missouri AG suing New York over Alvin Bragg's 'unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump'



Despite their routine concern-mongering about threats to democracy, Democrats have worked hard in recent months to eliminate President Joe Biden's rival from contention ahead of the 2024 election. Some have referred to this effort to deny voters a choice and thereby decide the election by undemocratic means as "lawfare."

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) revealed Thursday that such attacks will not go unanswered.

Bailey noted on X that he would be "filing suit against the State of New York for their direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump. It's time to restore the rule of law."

According to the Republican, the efforts of "rogue prosecutor" New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg to "take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail ... sabotages Missourians' right to a free and fair election."

Last week, Bailey testified before the House Judiciary Committee. He noted in his written statement that the "left has prioritized its hatred of President Trump above the rule of law."

'The prosecution was politically motivated and replete with legal error.'

"Government officials at the federal and state levels have censored President Trump, filed civil suits in order to sanction him, illegally removed him from the ballot, and perverted the law in order to prosecute him," wrote Bailey.

The Missouri AG indicated further that Bragg's prosecution of Trump, in particular, "represents one of the most morally abhorrent volleys in the left's on-going barrage of lawfare. The prosecution was politically motivated and replete with legal error."

Among the issues Bailey highlighted with Trump's prosecution in New York — which are likely to be raised in his forthcoming lawsuit — were:

  • Bragg's "disqualifying impropriety," reflected in part by his refusal to recuse himself despite an obvious self-interest in the case;
  • the indictment charges' "reference to an unspecified and unidentifiable other crime," which altogether "constitutes a deprivation of due process by denying the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the crimes with which he is charged";
  • the prosecutor's efforts to have Trump silenced with an "unconstitutional gag order";
  • Bragg's perversion of "the law to meet the facts rather than objectively apply the facts to the law," namely through the expansion of the charges beyond the text of the statute at issue in order to criminalize "that which he does not like rather than that which the law forbids"; and
  • Bragg's failure to "correct the Court's error in instructing the jury that unanimity was not required as to the predicate offense that forms the basis for the fallacious charges."

Bailey further highlighted in his testimony the apparent "collusion" between the Biden Department of Justice and the New York District Attorney's Office regarding the initiative to take Trump off the board.

Bailey's office expects that lawsuit will go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court and will be titled "Missouri vs. New York," reported Fox News Digital.

Extra to announcing that Missouri would be suing New York Thursday, Bailey filed an amicus brief with 23 other red states urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which is overseeing Trump's classified documents case, to reject Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's request for an "unconstitutional gag order" on Trump.

Smith asked Judge Aileen Cannon that the conditions permitting Trump to await trial outside of jail should be updated to include a gag order, prohibiting him from commenting about details of his case, particularly about the raid on his Mar-a-Lago residence.

Trump's attorneys said in a filing last week, "Like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Smith seeks to restrict President Trump’s campaign speech as the first presidential debate approaches at the end of this month," reported CNN.

The amicus brief filed by Bailey and other Republican attorneys general, stressed that fair and free elections "depend on candidates' ability to speak about important issues of the day."

"When agents of one candidate seek a court order to muzzle discussion on matters relating to important electoral issues, that restraint raises even more fundamental First Amendment concerns," continued the brief.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kansas City 'apologies' for doxxing star kicker Butker over Catholic beliefs — but that's not enough for the Missouri AG



Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, 28, gave a commencement speech last weekend at Benedictine College wherein he dared to articulate beliefs anchored in the millenniums-old moral teachings of the Catholic Church, now codified in the Catechism and followed by millions of Americans nationwide.

The three-time Super Bowl champ drew the ire of radicals in the liberal media and political establishment for doing so — for echoing the late Pope John Paul II in noting that "abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for the degenerate cultural values and media all stem from pervasiveness of disorder."

The kicker further enraged leftists by celebrating the institution of marriage, the vocation of motherhood, the link between male weakness and cultural dysfunction, the sinfulness of pride and Pride month, and by highlighting the incompatibility of President Joe Biden's professed faith and his views on abortion.

After all, the Catholic Church has made clear that abortion "is gravely contrary to the moral law"; "formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense" carrying the canonical penalty of excommunication; and Catholic political leaders have an obligation to stand up for the rights of the unborn.

Besides upsetting talking heads on cable news shows, Butker's expression of Catholic views at a Catholic school evidently enraged the person running Kansas City's social media accounts.

Doxxed

Kansas City's X account posted, "Just a reminder that Harrision Butker lives in ...," then provided the location where the kicker could be found.

This tweet, which was posted at 7:41 p.m. on Wednesday, qualifies as textbook "doxxing," defined as the public identification or publication "of private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge."

There was a swift backlash against the city online as it was widely understood this tweet amounted to an effort to punish and possibly endanger Butker over his opinions.

'Use of government social media to retaliate against an individual based on their religious beliefs amounts to discriminatory behavior that is not tolerated under our Constitution or Missouri statute.'

Matthew Peterson, editor in chief at Blaze News, noted, "If our cities are revealing private information about the residents they are supposed to be serving simply because local government officials disagree with their political views and statements, that's a call to action. Solving this problem will take a lot more than complaining on the internet. Americans need to band together and work locally to hold their local governments accountable."

Just hours later, at 9:21 p.m., the Kansas City account posted, "We apologies [sic] for our previous tweet. It was shared in error."

That tweet ostensibly served to draw further attention to the now-deleted doxxing effort, prompting even more outrage.

Catholic conservative commentator Michael Knowles wrote, "@KansasCity: not only criminal but also illiterate."

Some social media users have suggested that the author of the tweet may have been Andrea Watts, whose LinkedIn profile similarly contained a rather glaring spelling error — "Social Media Mangement [sic]" — and was recently been deactivated.

Michael Caputo, a former Department of Health and Human Services official in the Trump administration, said, "The City of Kansas City, MO must fire its entire social media team immediately."

Twenty minutes after the initial apology, Mayor Quinton Lucas joined in the damage-control effort, writing, "A message appeared earlier this evening from a City public account. The message was clearly inappropriate for a public account. The City has correctly apologized for the error, will review account access, and ensure nothing like it is shared in the future from public channels."

Lucas' response was also met with ridicule.

'Your office apparently believes it is appropriate to denigrate a devout Catholic for comments he made about his own faith at a religious college.'

Garrett Henson, chairman of the Kansas Federation of College Republicans, mocked the mayor's response, writing, "'We now realize that it's bad to dox people with the Kansas City X account. Rest assured that there will be no consequences for this action moving forward.'"

Missouri AG weighs in

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey was not impressed by the city's apparent effort to intimidate a Christian over his deeply held beliefs — and he didn't need a tweet to know where to direct his ire.

Bailey indicated on Thursday, "My office is demanding accountability after @KansasCity doxxed @buttkicker7 last night for daring to express his religious beliefs. I will enforce the Missouri Human Rights Act to ensure Missourians are not targeted for their free exercise of religion. Stay tuned."

Bailey subsequently penned a letter to Mayor Lucas noting, "It has been reported that the city of Kansas City has retaliated against a well-respected local resident and member of the Kansas City Chiefs after he spoke about his religious views."

"Your office's X account likely publicly released residential location information on a private citizen, Harrison Butker, in an attempt to retaliate against him for expressing his sincerely held religious beliefs at a religious college's commencement ceremony — to an audience that largely shares his views," continued Bailey. "Use of government social media to retaliate against an individual based on their religious beliefs amounts to discriminatory behavior that is not tolerated under our Constitution or Missouri statute."

The AG underscored that America is founded upon a commitment to the free exercise of religion and that Missouri law "specifically prohibits faith-based discrimination against Missouri residents."

Bailey added, "Your office apparently believes it is appropriate to denigrate a devout Catholic for comments he made about his own faith at a religious college."

Extra to indicating the city may have violated state law, Bailey made abundantly clear to the NFL, without naming it outright: "I assure you that I am prepared to use the authority provided in statute to defend the principle of free religious expression."

"Mr. Butker was well within his rights to discuss his religious views — views which are shared by millions of members of his faith tradition," wrote Bailey. "Sadly, history is filled with examples of people of religious faith being targeted for their beliefs by government officials."

Radicals have targeted Butker, and the NFL has reportedly hung him out to dry. On the flip side, Butker's jersey is now reportedly among the most popular in the league.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!