Mark Levin calls DA Alvin Bragg 'lawless', accuses him of supporting perjury in Trump trial on 'Hannity'

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: In a riveting exchange on Fox News' 'Hannity' segment, the show's host, Sean Hannity was joined by Mark R Levin from the show 'Life, Liberty & Levin', with the latter calling District Attorney Alvin Bragg 'lawless', accusing him of 'supporting perjury' in Donald Trump's hush money trial.

According to Axios, Bragg has made history as the first prosecutor to initiate a criminal trial against a current or former US president, concerning allegations of hush money paid to an adult film actress.

Mark R Levin highlights Brady v Maryland to structure his criticism

The conversation kicked off with Hannity addressing Levin directly: "Mark, in our conversation last night, I asked you what would your closing arguments be and I asked you to tell his audience."

Conservative commentator, Levin detailed how New York prosecutor Bragg might have knowingly infringed upon former President Donald Trump’s constitutional rights and other established legal precedents during the prosecution.

Levin began by addressing the core of his argument: "And so, I want to talk about Alvin Bragg rather than keep talking about the same thing."

He referenced the landmark Supreme Court case Brady v Maryland to frame his critique, explaining that the ruling requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.

If the prosecutor knows that evidence is false or might be false, they are not supposed to use it. Levin emphasized that this standard applies to any lawyer and that presenting a witness known to provide materially false information is not permissible.

Highlighting the significance of exculpatory evidence, Levin pointed to a specific individual involved in the case, saying, "Now, exculpatory evidence, the Supreme Court says, well, we have exculpatory evidence. Robert Costello has been here on all these shows, look, he’s not Stormy Daniels. This guy is the former deputy chief of the criminal division of the Southern District of New York, does it get any higher than that? And he was Cohen’s lawyer for a critical period of time, and he’s been on my show, Saturday, he’s been on other shows, he was on a show this morning, he testified before Congress under oath, 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 also criticized the decision to use Cohen as a witness despite his questionable credibility: "And nobody wants this guy as a witness. That’s why the US attorney’s office didn’t want him. That’s why Vance didn’t want him. That’s why Bragg initially didn’t want him."

He then delivered a damning verdict on Bragg's conduct, asking "So what happened?"

Replying to his own question, he said, "What happened is Mr. Bragg. Mr. Bragg should be disbarred. Mr. Bragg has violated the Brady rule. That’s a half a century old rule. The emails — he has access to the emails, Mr. Costello said he only showed six to the grand jury, but he had access to all of them. Mr. Costello gave that’s contemporary communication between the lawyer and his client for which Mr. Costello got — got a waiver. This is a very, very big case, a very, very big matter."

Levin elaborated on the implications of Bragg's actions: "So when that government witness is on the stand, that means the district attorney and the government are vouching for the truth, the integrity, for the testimony of that witness and that witness was put up there despite the fact that the government knew from these emails of Mr. Costello’s testimony that he’s a liar."

Mark R Levin claims Alvin Bragg is in violation of the Brady Act

Levin pointed out the ethical breaches in the case, emphasizing that the main witness is unreliable and has a history of lying, which raises concerns about perjury.

He mentioned discussing these issues on his radio show and noted that both Judge Jeanine and US Attorney Brett Tolman had also addressed them.

He called for accountability within the legal profession, noting, "I want to expand on this. We lawyers — we need to police what’s going on here. We can’t just ring our hands, this is terrible. It is terrible, and these people need to be held to account."

He then detailed Bragg's manipulation of witness testimony, "Bragg put Cohen on the stand after obviously they worked with him. They knew what he was going to say. Any prosecutor does that, they let them know what kind of questions are going to ask in other words part of this is performance art. Bragg knew that there were material matters that implicated Cohen. He was aware of it, information, contemporary emails, Mr. Costello’s testimony among others. That’s directly contradicted what his own attorney said and what others have said, and he still put him on that stand and this is material information, this is their key witness. Look at the texts, we still don’t know about the texts."

Levin also raised critical questions about the handling of evidence: "Well, that’s an important issue, too. Did this government not have his texts? If they had the text, did they give it to the defense? How did the defense get the texts."

Before concluding, he condemned Bragg's overall approach, observing, "And this isn’t the first time. Remember when 30,000 pages of documents just showed up from the US attorney’s office two or three weeks before the case started and the judge said that’s fine, that’s enough time to prepare or not giving a heads up to the defense when witnesses are going to be called maybe they’ll get a five hour that’s a due process violation. What we have in Mr. Bragg is a lawless government official and I contend that he’s violated the Brady ruling of the Supreme Court. I contend that he and his staff have been supporting perjury."

Levin summarized his point by stating that the case now revolves around Alvin Bragg, the Brady Act, suborning perjury, and the judge's refusal to allow an expert witness who could potentially dismantle the prosecution's case.

What is the Brady Act? 

The Brady Act, officially known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, is a significant United States federal law enacted on November 30, 1993.

This Act mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases until the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was established in 1998. The Act was introduced by US Representative Chuck Schumer and was a crucial legislative achievement during the Clinton administration.

Its primary goal was to prevent individuals with serious criminal convictions from purchasing firearms.

During the ongoing hush-money trial, Donald Trump’s lawyers took their best shot at Michael Cohen with the defense cross-examining the prosecution's key witness.

The defense, led by Todd Blanche, is focusing on challenging Cohen's credibility by highlighting past inconsistencies in his testimonies and questioning his motives.

Backlash erupts as Mark Levin and Sean Hannity call Alvin Bragg a 'lawless' official

Levin calling for Bragg's disbarment, labeling him a lawless government official and citing alleged violations as grounds for his removal received major backlash from the online community.

Not only so, Hannity also faced a similar criticism having supported Levin's claims. 

One viewer expressed, "They are trying too hard, but they keep failing. Trump is going no where he is the man for a better America."

Another viewer shared, "Babbling is not admissable in court."

One viewer pointed out, "Sean Hannity - Fane News hustler!"

A follower observed, "I’m tired of X putting your lies in my feed. To stop I will block. I don’t follow your tweeted lies."

One comment stated, "Levin and Hannity, when propoganda need another spin cycle."

Another comment read, "You're an international embarrassment and a shady little excuse of a man."

"Projection. The lawsuits that are coming your way will shock the world," explained an individual.

This article contains remarks made on the internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.