Mark Levin, a renowned conservative radio host and attorney, appeared on Fox News to strongly critique Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
According to Conservative Brief, Levin claims that Bragg's handling of the legal case regarding former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has been deeply flawed, alleging violations of fundamental legal principles.
On Sean Hannity’s show, Levin expressed his concerns that DA Bragg might have breached the Brady rule— a principle requiring the disclosure of all exculpatory evidence to the defense. The allegations also extended to claims of suborning perjury. Levin feels these actions, or lack thereof, could justify severe disciplinary measures.
Levin told Hannity, “It’s my opening argument on why Alvin Bragg should be disbarred, facing charges for suborning perjury, which I’ve talked about on my radio show for the last three days, and also why he violates the Brady [Rule].”
Levin criticized Bragg's handling of the evidence and constitutional compliance, but he also pointed to procedural errors and ambiguous legal references, particularly regarding the application of a defunct state statute and unclear federal campaign laws in the proceedings.
Levin underscored the testimony of Robert Costello, Michael Cohen’s former attorney, to augment his argument against Bragg. Costello has openly criticized Cohen's reliability, supported by a substantial trail of over 300 emails.
“Robert — has been here — Costello — on all these shows... And he said, ‘Look, this guy's a liar, I was his lawyer, I have 300 emails, I have contemporaneous information, I'm telling you he's a liar, on top of all the other lies the guy has told,’” Levin shared on air.
Levin argues that such testimonies reveal inaccuracies that should have deterred the DA’s office from relying on Cohen as a witness.
Yet, DA Bragg chose to proceed, a decision that Levin finds questionable. He emphasized the broader implications of the case involving serious constitutional concerns, such as the right to be informed of the charges against one.
Regarding the essential legal principles at play, Levin elaborated:
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 prosecutor must not withhold exculpatory evidence, must be given to the defense and, if they know that evidence is false or might be false, they’re not supposed to use it.
That doesn’t mean you don’t have impeachment in these other things taking place if a prosecutor affirmatively knows that there is materially false information that this witness may give or any lawyer for that, they are not to present that person.
The presentation by Levin also included a broader critique regarding the legal community's frustration with the case. “We have very smart lawyers, some fairly smart lawyers who are talking about this case. They’re all saying the same thing differently because the case is so outrageous. We’re running out of words and explanations for it. None of us have ever seen anything like this,” Levin said, expressing a shared dismay among legal professionals.
In conclusion, Levin has depicted this case not just as a matter concerning the former president's lawyer but as a substantial reflection of DA Bragg's professional conduct and respect for legal norms. Allegations of disregarding the Brady rule and suborning perjury are serious and point to potential judicial and prosecutorial malpractices that may cloud the integrity of the justice system.
