Posted on 06/02/2024 1:34:55 PM PDT by bitt
1. Unconstitutional Gag Order that prevented President Trump from criticizing the trial, exposing the many conflicts that should have forced the judge to recuse himself, and the railroading of his fundamental due process rights.
2. Judge Merchan’s many, many conflicts of interests – all of which were disqualifying. His daughter, Loren Merchan, is President of Authentic Campaigns, a political consulting firm that hires the likes of the Biden-Harris Campaign, Adam Schiff, Ilhan Omar, and many other far left Democratic lawmakers. Loren’s firm has made tens of millions off these clients – Juan Merchan, through his daughter, had a direct financial stake in the outcome of this trial, a flagrant breach of the canons of legal ethics, both under the ABA and NY State, that under any other judge would have been grounds for a recusal.
3. Judge Merchan’s wife was previously employed by Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York State who campaigned on “getting” Donald Trump.
4. Bragg’s Lead Prosecutor was Matthew Colangelo, the former #3 official at the DOJ. We are told Colangelo graciously decided to step down from his prestigious office to work for a lowly state DA’s office – of course, a reasonable inference would be that he was directed to do so by the Biden Regime to persecute his leading political opponent in Donald John Trump.
5. Statute of Limitations (2 years, NY State) had long expired for the business records falsification scheme that served as the primary charge brought against Trump. For this reason, the case was passed over by the DOJ and even Alvin Bragg over seven years because it was so weak. Only once Bragg felt political pressure, externally via Clinton attorney Mark Pomerantz, who previously worked in Bragg’s office, and internally via Colangelo, a Biden lackey, did Bragg buckle under the political weight and press charges.
6. Venue in bright-blue Manhattan, a borough that voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump at almost a 9 to 1 clip, prevented the President from ever getting a fair trial, because the pool of jurors was naturally biased against the 45th President, and could not possibly rule fairly and impartially (8 of the 12 cited the NY Times as their main source of news). Any pro-Trump jurors who were considered chose to self-select out themselves because they claimed they “could not rule fairly.” Case in point: no way in hell is the burden of proof met on any of these charges, and yet the jury pool consisted of two lawyers, who evidently believed just that. No reasonable juror, and especially no reasonable lawyer-juror, would have found that the elements of every single crime brought against Trump met the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.
..more
I wonder of Juan Merchan owns any stock in his daughter’s company. Or if his wife does.
Is there a way to find that out?
Many months from now we will have already found out what the future holds as to the November election and the battles over vote counting and certification.
Only one hope is a loophole for the SCOTUS to intervene earlier than the appeals courts on one of the points according to a couple of analysts. But that is a longshot. They otherwise will wait until long after the slow months of New York appeals and the election are over.
House Speaker Johnson and the attorney for Trump are not actually saying the SCOTUS will do anything but wait, however.
Yahoo News:
Trump’s defense attorney, Todd Blanche, told CNN on Thursday that his client had not received a fair hearing. He said that it was not possible to assemble an impartial jury in Manhattan and that it had not been “normal” to bring a case concerning events that occurred eight years ago.
Blanche also suggested that Trump’s appeal of the conviction might center on those accusations of bias, the location of the trial, its timing during a US election year and the salacious testimony of Daniels.
Trump should not fall into the trap of making the election about this. Stay onessage, border, inflation.
I hope those reasons for appeal would only be within the NY system. The SCOTUS appeal should be for due process reasons.
I don't know. A North Korea style banana republic motivates me.
Libtards have to cheat or jail their opponents to win
Take Trump out of this, if they did this to Obama or Biden I would not like it, it just seems patently corrupt...why can’t people see this?
My major grip is I saw the evidence and testimony...there is nothing presented that rises to the level of “without a reasonable doubt” talk less of the credibility of Mr. Cohen...but when you are biased you don’t know it, that is why people where shocked at the verdict.
They even convicted Trump for checks in did not sign...when the law says he as to be directly involved in the falsification of the business records...even the checks he signed was a massive stretch...yet they convicted for checks he did not sign...the jury are partisan hacks and gave themselves away.
thenationalpulse.com
Biden’s Vindictive Jan 6 Prosecutions Could Fall Apart in huge numbers THIS MONTH, Here’s Why
The United States Supreme Court is set to decide Fisher v. United States, a case in which January 6 Capitol riot defendant Joseph W. Fisher is challenging a federal felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding. Justices heard oral arguments in the case in mid-April, and are likely to rule by the end of June.
Joe Biden‘s Department of Justice (DOJ) has used the felony charge against over 300 individuals who allegedly participated in the 2021 riot in Washington, D.C. Additionally, the obstruction charge forms the core of DOJ special counsel Jack Smith‘s January 6 prosecution against former President Donald Trump.
Fisher and his attorneys contend the obstruction felony — a provision enacted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal — represents an abusive application of what was supposed to be a statute addressing document destruction in the course of committing a financial crime. U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols ruled in Fisher’s favor in March 2022, dismissing the obstruction charge against three of the January 6 defendants. But the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Nichols’s ruling in a 2-1 decision in April 2023 — setting up the showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
SARBANES-OXLEY.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted after the 2001 Enron financial accounting fraud scandal, which saw the Texas-headquartered energy firm abruptly declare bankruptcy and dissolve its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP. Congress swiftly moved to address gaps in financial regulations, which they believed allowed Enron executives to perpetrate fraud.Sarbanes-Oxley passed in June 2002 and contained 11 financial reporting provisions aimed at the board of directors for U.S.-based companies.. Additionally, the bill enacted enhanced charges for private corporations accused of destroying documents to obstruct a federal investigation.
The statute, found in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), reads:“Whoever corruptly—(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”This provision is what Biden’s DOJ used to file enhanced felony charges against the January 6 defendants and former President Trump after congressional proceedings were delayed for a few hours on January 6, 2021.
SCOTUS SHOWDOWN.
April’s oral arguments saw the Supreme Court‘s six originalist justices probe the Biden government over the broad application of Sarbanes-Oxley’s obstruction provision. Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged the DOJ on why the obstruction charges were needed, pointing out that Fisher faced six other charges for his actions on January 6, 2021 — including assaulting a U.S. Capitol Police officer.“Why aren’t those six counts good enough?”
Kavanaugh asked the Biden government attorneys, while Justice Clarence Thomas inquired if the Sarbanes-Oxley provision had ever been used in a case prior to the January 6 trials to prosecute “violent protesters.”Even Justice Elena Kagan — one of the court’s more liberal members — appeared to agree with Thomas, noting the intent of Sarbanes-Oxley was to address financial crimes, not protests at the Capitol, which caused a short-term nuisance.Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden regime, stressed the unique nature of the January 6 cases.
“The fundamental wrong committed by many of the rioters, including petitioner, was a deliberate attempt to stop the joint session of Congress from certifying the results of the election,” Prelogar said. She added: “That is, they obstructed Congress’ work in that official proceeding.”
‘PULLING A FIRE ALARM.’
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the Biden government the most piercing questions and pressed them to determine the extent to which they believed activities could be prosecuted under the enhanced provisions of the law on financial crimes.In his questioning, Gorsuch made specific references to several recent incidents, one where a Gold Star father was arrested for shouting at President Joe Biden from the House gallery during the recent State of the Union Address. The other regarded Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who pulled a fire alarm while the House of Representatives voted on a government funding bill in September last year.
“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” the Justice asked before probing further: “Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”
IMPLICATIONS FOR TRUMP.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications beyond the over 300 individuals charged under Biden’s DOJ’s use of the enhanced obstruction provision.
If the Justices rule against using Sarbanes-Oxley in the Jan 6 prosecutions, it would also invalidate two of the four felony charges brought by DOJ special counsel Jack Smith in the Washington, D.C.-based prosecution of former President Trump.
Smith alleges the former President illegally attempted to interfere in the 2020 presidential election and overturn its results.In addition to the potential impact of Fisher v. United States, the Supreme Court also heard a ‘presidential immunity’ challenge brought by Trump against Smith‘s prosecution in April. Trump and his defense attorneys contend that he is immune from prosecution as his actions challenging the 2020 election results were committed in his official capacity as President of the United States. If the Court rules in favor of broad legal protections for current and former U.S. presidents, it could result in most of the state and federal charges against him — in at least three current prosecutions — being dismissed.
<><>the J6 case,
<><>almost all of the classified documents case
<><>Fani’s Fulton RICO case in its entirety.
A broad immunity ruling could also impact the Bragg case.
The Limbo Rock. How low can they go?
An illegitimate Judge should be toward the top of the list.
The two lawyers were plants. The jury pool was largely pre-selected and the two attorneys were there to steer the jury towards the desired outcome. I’m surprised that nobody has theorized this yet.
Bookmark
Add denying the defense ability to use witnesses, the demeanor from the bench, erroneous instructions to the jury, omitted instructions, permitting improper questions by the prosecutor, and many many other items.
But there will be no successful appeal in the courts because the syndicate also put the appellate court judges in place, there there is no objective enforcement mechanism for policing the judiciary in the State of Minnesota, IMHO (am I allowed this opinion?)
Eh, so what? It’s Trump!
I not only want Trump CLEARED.......I want EVERYONE INVOLED in his PERSECUTION to be INDICTED!
That would make sense. Or maybe they were all brainwashed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.