>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Levin did not mince words when condemning the New York legal system and its role in the trial. He called the case against Trump a product of “lawfare,” a strategy he described as weaponizing the legal system to target political opponents. He noted that Merchan’s instructions to the jury were emblematic of a corrupted judicial process.
“This will be remembered as an absolute injustice from the beginning,” Levin declared. He underscored the gravity of the situation, stating that the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene sets a dangerous precedent.
While Levin was scathing in his criticism of Roberts and Barrett, he praised conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas for their dissent. Levin credited these four originalist justices for recognizing the constitutional stakes and pushing to take up the case.
“The problem here…was crucial the Supreme Court take up this case the way they took up Bush versus Gore because it is the most extraordinarily outrageous case in modern times,” Levin said.
Levin warned that the Court’s decision not to intervene could have far-reaching consequences, including impacting Trump’s political future. By allowing the sentencing to proceed, Levin argued that the Left’s ultimate goal—to brand Trump as a “convicted felon”—was dangerously close to realization.
“They effectively gave their imprimatur to the process,” Levin said. “The process. They said let the process play out. That’s all we know from this order, three sentences or whatever it is.”
Levin was particularly concerned about the implications of this decision for Trump’s potential presidency. With appeals likely to drag on, Levin noted that Trump could find himself embroiled in legal battles while serving as President of the United States.
Levin’s sharpest criticism was reserved for Roberts and Barrett, whom he accused of lacking the courage to address a blatantly flawed case. He lamented that with more steadfast conservatives on the Court, such as the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist or Justice Antonin Scalia, the case would have been handled differently.
“This court, if it had Rehnquist as the chief justice or had Scalia on this court, it would have been a six-three, taken the case and fixed it,” Levin stated.
Just Released: Trump White House Collector’s Bobblehead!
Despite the setback, Levin expressed hope that Trump’s appeals would eventually reach the Supreme Court, forcing the justices to confront the case’s constitutional implications. “What’s the Supreme Court going to say? We aren’t going to take it? Of course, they’ll take it. What will they say then?” Levin asked rhetorically.
Levin concluded with a stark warning: the Court’s decision not to intervene now has set a dangerous precedent. By validating what he sees as a corrupt legal process, the Supreme Court has enabled a broader assault on political figures through judicial overreach.
“This court had an extraordinary responsibility…to set this straight. And now the precedent is set,” Levin said, leaving no doubt about the stakes of this ongoing legal battle.
This story underscores the deepening divide within the judiciary and the intensifying political warfare surrounding Donald Trump’s legal troubles.
