Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio is now calling for a formal federal investigation into Judge Juan Merchan, alleging that the judge deprived former President Donald Trump of his First Amendment rights when he placed an extremely broad gag order on him in the “hush money” trial. Vance’s demand likely comes too late, as the jury began deliberations on the day he announced the letter.
The showboat nature of the letter led some to argue that Vance is, rather than trying to get an investigation started, trying to angle for the Vice President position, one that he is on the shortlist for. In any case, Sen. Vance sent the letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday, May 29. In the letter, he calls for a probe into Merchan over what he alleges were potential violations of sections 241 and 242 of Title 18, the provisions of which he explained in the letter.
Beginning the letter, Sen. Vance said, “I write to bring to your attention a possible criminal deprivation of rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–42. The public evidence suggests that an investigation is warranted at least. And all indications are that the responsible parties have their sights set, not only on rights protected by the Constitution, but on rightsholders of core federal concern, including the leading candidate for the presidency.”
Then, explaining those provisions of the US Code and how they apply, Sen. Vance said, “You should be well acquainted with the relevant statutes. Prosecutors in your Department of Justice included Section 241 in a misguided indictment of President Trump last year. Section 241, which criminalizes conspiracies to ‘injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate’ others in the enjoyment of federally protected rights, was enacted during Reconstruction in an effort by Congress to stamp out race-based violence in the former Confederacy. When your prosecutors revived it, even sympathetic media ‘were surprised by the inclusion of § 241 in the indictment.’ That is because few jurists had any clue that a Reconstruction-era law designed to protect newly freed slaves had any bearing on the dispute between Republicans and Democrats after the 2020 election. Nevertheless, DOJ prosecutors defied the critics. They argued then as they argue now that President Trump engaged in a conspiracy to “threaten” voters, though the details of the alleged threat have not been forthcoming.”
Continuing, and explaining Section 242, he said, “Section 242 may not have featured as notoriously in the indictment of President Trump, but it is just as well known to the prosecutors you oversee. The statute even has its own write-up on your agency’s website. As the DOJ reads it, ‘Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a personacting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.’ This includes both state officials acting ‘within their lawful authority’ and those acting ‘beyond the bounds of [their] lawful authority.’ The deprivation of rights need not be motivated “by animus toward the race, color, religion, . . . or national origin of the victim.'”
Then, using those statutes to attack Judge Merchan, Vance said, ” These statutes would seem to have quite a lot to say about the conduct of Juan Merchan, the New York trial judge and Democratic political donor who has set up a kangaroo court for Donald Trump in Manhattan. It makes no difference that Merchan is a judge, or a “justice” as trial judges are called in New York. ‘Whatever may be the case with respect to civil liability generally,’ the Supreme Court has ‘never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivation of constitutional rights.’ In fact, Supreme Court precedent expressly declares that judges are proper subjects of prosecution under Section 242. And even your website acknowledges that state judges who trample over constitutional rights are proper targets for prosecution in an appropriate case.”
Continuing, he went on to say, “Well, Merchan’s inquisition of Donald Trump has all the markings of an appropriate case. Merchan has imposed a prior restraint on the protected speech of a former president who is now leading presidential polling of the next election. On Merchan’s orders, a Republican presidential candidate has been made powerless to question the credibility of the witnesses testifying against him, the motivations of the prosecutors pursuing him, or the impartiality of the apparently conflicted judge fining him. That would be disfavored in the best of circumstances. It was not long ago that even the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court denounced so-called “gag orders.” Justice Brennan once said that “even a short-lived ‘gag’ order in a case of widespread concern to the community constitutes a substantial prior restraint and causes irreparable injury to First Amendment interests as long as it remains in effect.” Merchan has imposed a gag order in the first-ever criminal prosecution of a former president and leading presidential candidate at the hands of the opposing party. Talk about a “case of widespread concern to the community.” Merchan has not been content to deprive President Trump of only his First Amendment rights, either. As a criminal defendant, President Trump is entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury.12 Merchan has done his best to deprive Trump of both. During jury selection, Merchan refused to dismiss prospective jurors with obvious bias. One had scoffed on social media that “Republicans [were] projected to pick up 70 seats in prison.” Another posted a video on social media showing her participation in an anti-Trump street demonstration. But Merchan was willing to impanel them anyway, forcing President Trump’s attorneys to burn critical peremptory strikes.”
Then, after further laying into Judge Merchan, he attacked DA Bragg as well, saying, “Prosecutors in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg—from Christopher Conroy to Matthew Colangelo to Bragg himself—have also shown themselves to be plausible coconspirators. After all, they have repeatedly urged Merchan to deprive President Trump of his First Amendment rights in court filings and oral advocacy. One can only wonder what sort of ex parte communications might have led Merchan to so enthusiastically embrace a prior restraint on speech that he would have known to be repugnant to the Constitution.”
Then, giving AG Garland a deadline, Sen. Vance said, “To ensure that you are faithfully and evenhandedly applying federal criminal law, please tell me by June 28, 2024, whether you will open a criminal investigation into the conduct of Juan Merchan and his possible coconspirators. If you will not open an investigation, please let me know whether you will consider issuing a document-retention request to allow a future administration to consider taking up the case.”
Watch Vance sound off on the trial here:
"*" indicates required fields