This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The prosecution of President Donald Trump by New York City District Attorney Alvin Bragg over misdemeanor bookkeeping offenses disregarded by multiple prosecutors years ago that suddenly have become felonies now is rife with questionable behaviors.

There's the question of why the case was brought now, just as Trump is running for president, when earlier prosecutorial decisions discounted anything problematic. Then there's Bragg's manipulation of the system to make the charges now felonies.

And there's his oblique references to another crime, without specifying what that is.

Further, there's the judge, Juan Merchan, whose obvious anti-Trump bias has been documented over and over by commentators observing his handling of the case.

His bias is compounded by the fact his daughter runs an anti-Trump operation that is making money off of her father's courtroom antics.

Now there's a fault being found with the New York court system, for allowing Merchan to handle the case.

U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., posted a note that she has filed an official misconduct complaint with the New York State Unified Court System.

It's because its alleged "random" selection of Merchan for the Trump case doesn't appear to be random at all, as he's already handled other Democrat lawfare cases against Trump.

Her letter to Kay Ann Porter Campbell, the inspector general for the state system, said, "I am writing to alert you to potential misconduct by Justices and employees of the Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County."

She continues, "One cannot help but suspect that the 'random selection' at work in the assignment of Acting Justice Merchan, a Democrat Party donor, to these cases involving prominent Republicans, is in fact not random at all. The simple answer to why Acting Justice Merchan has been assigned to these cases would seem to be that whoever made the assignment intentionally selected Acting Justice Merchan to handle them to increase the chance that Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and Steven Bannon would ultimately be convicted."

She is asking that "both the Commission and the Inspector General investigate this anomaly to determine whether the required random selection process was in fact followed in the assignment of these criminal cases to Acting Justice Merchan. If Acting Justice Merchan or any other Justices of the Court are found to have violated these rules, I would hope that the Commission would subject them to the required discipline. And if any non-judicial employees of the Court are involved in such a scheme, I would hope that the Inspector General subject them to the appropriate sanction."

She pointed out that Merchan, "a Democrat Party donor," already has handled a case against the Trump Organization and will be presiding over a case against Trump's onetime senior adviser Steve Bannon.

She points out that the rules for the court system require "that criminal actions be assigned to a judge 'pursuant to a method of random selection authorized by the Chief Administrator.' If justices were indeed being randomly assigned in the Criminal Term, the probability of two specific criminal cases being assigned to the same justice is quite low, and the probability of three specific criminal cases being assigned to the same justice is infinitesimally small. And yet, we see Acting Justice Merchan on all three cases."