Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

BREAKING: Missouri Sues The State of New York For “Hijacking The Presidential Election”!

✅ PRO TIP: use the Email button above to email yourself this article so you don't lose it!

Ok folks. Missouri’s Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, just went to bat for Trump in a big way.

He’s suing the state of New York, claiming they’re muzzling President Trump.

Not only that, they’re infringing on Missourians’ First Amendment rights.

Bailey argues that New York’s legal maneuvers were a gut punch to our Republic and it’s laws.

According to Bailey, this isn’t just about Trump.

It’s about putting an end to this election interference.

The drama in politics never seems to end. But with Democrats behaving as they do, what else can we do?

Fox News reports

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit against the state of New York, alleging it violated Missourians’ First Amendment right to hear from former President Trump during the 2024 election.

Bailey’s lawsuit alleges New York’s “illicit prosecution, gag order, and sentencing” of Trump has undermined his ability to campaign for president, sabotaging Missourians’ ability to hear from him and cast a fully informed vote for a presidential candidate mere months before the election.

His lawsuit petitions the Supreme Court to declare that New York’s restrictions on President Trump’s ability to campaign unlawfully interfere with the presidential election, to remove any gag orders against the former president and to halt his pending sentencing until after the presidential election.

“Right now, Missouri has a huge problem with New York. Instead of letting presidential candidates campaign on their own merit, radical progressives in New York are trying to rig the 2024 election by waging a direct attack on our democratic process,” said Bailey.

“I will not sit idly by while Soros-backed prosecutors hold Missouri voters hostage in this presidential election. I am filing suit to ensure every Missourian can exercise their right to hear from and vote for their preferred presidential candidate.”

The lawsuit alleges three specific violations, including interference with the presidential election in other states, violation of the First Amendment and the unlawful change of election rules in the months leading up to an election. It comes just one month after New York’s Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, won a guilty verdict against Trump.

Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts. Each count carries a maximum prison sentence of four years. Trump faces a maximum sentence of 136 years.

“This lawfare is poisonous to American democracy. The American people ought to be able to participate in a presidential election free from New York’s interference. Any gag order and sentence should be stayed until after the election,” Bailey said.

In the lawsuit, Bailey lays out the timeline of how Bragg brought charges against Trump, alleging he did it to boost President Biden’s campaign and keep Trump out of the White House.

Bailey noted Bragg was previously involved in a lawsuit against Trump while working for the New York Attorney General’s Office and then campaigned for his current position by promising to use that experience to prosecute Trump.

The Federalist adds:

Bailey alleges that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought charges against Trump “for the purpose of assisting Joseph Biden’s campaign by trying to inflict political damage against Trump and trying to restrain Trump’s ability to campaign.”

The suit first argues that the “gag order and impending sentence unlawfully impede the ability of electors to fulfill their federal functions.” More specifically, the lawfare threatens Missouri electors’ ability “to become fully informed before casting their ballots.”

Bailey’s second argument is that the gag order and sentencing “violate the Purcell principle,” established when the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 in Purcell v. Gonzalez that “Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” According to Bailey, the lawfare against Trump creates confusion for both electors and voters.

Bailey’s final argument is that the gag order and impending sentencing “violate the First Amendment rights of Missouri citizens to listen to the campaign speech of a specific individual on specific topics.”



Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!