If they can do that to TRUMP, they can do that to YOU

Original Content | 6/1/2024 | By Laz A. Mataz

[Lazamataz]

(At the end of this editorial, I'm offering the opportunity to get a bumper sticker to spread this message)

A long time ago, in 2005, I saw something George W. Bush had done, and I remarked: "First we beat the Soviet Union, then we became them." Little did I know that in under twenty years, we would see Soviet-style Show Trials. We just witnessed the most high-profile Show Trial in American history, where the President (and current candidate for a second term) was put through a trial where all of the elements were crafted to ensure a guilty verdict on manufactured crimes.

Consider the following elements:

• This judge was specifically selected to handle this case. This case was judge-shopped.
• The venue was specifically selected to ensure a Trump-hating jury.
• "Judge" Merchan took over Federal jurisdiction of election law, even though this was a state court.
• Further, Trump stood accused of a crime in which he had zero personal participation. Some nameless accountant filled out the expense information offered as evidence.
• Merchan refused to allow the defense to present witnesses that could refute the prosecution claims, most notably, one of the nation's foremost experts on Federal election law)
• The New York law (falsifying records) requires a predicate crime, none of which were proven or even formally alleged.
• Merchan instructed the jury to ignore the above fact and assume that a predicate crime exists.
• Multiple federal and state prosecutors passed on even charging Trump with any of those predicate crimes.
• The state crime that Trump was accused of, falsifying business records in pursuit of any other fraud, had long passed the Statute of Limitations, and could not legally be used as a charge.
• During the entire fraudulent trial, he out a gag order on Trump to ensure Trump could not defend himself in the court of public opinion.
• Merchan allowed elements of character assassination to be entered as evidence. How, exactly, was the Access Hollywood tape pertinent to this case?
• Merchan allowed a convicted perjurer and serial liar (Michael Cohen) to be the lead prosecution witness.
• The timing of the prosecution and sentencing of this case was carefully timed to inflict maximum political damage.

In short, a "hanging judge" was selected in a politically-hostile jurisdiction, wherein which the judge defied nearly every rule of evidence and law, muzzled the defense, and promoted every prosecution request, no matter how outrageous.

This harkens back to the Soviet Show Trial era that Josef Stalin used to eliminate his opponents. Joe Biden personally showed that this fake trial was politically motivated by flashing a demonic grin when he was asked about the verdict, as he shuffled away from reporters.... and he sent a Trump-hating actor (Robert DiNero) to the courthouse to further assassinate Trump's character.

The so-called judge in this case, Juan Merchan, Merchan violated President Trump's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in so many ways.

• Trump's Sixth Amendment right to "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" was denied to him by Bragg and Merchan by not moving the venue to a more balanced location outside of New York City.
• Trump's Sixth Amendment right to a trial in "which district shall have been previously ascertained by law" was denied to him by Bragg and Merchan by trying a federal campaign finance law in a county court in New York.
• Trump's Sixth Amendment right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations" against him was denied to him by Bragg and Merchan by not revealing what the underlying charge that bootstrapped the misdemeanors was. Even after conviction, nobody knows what the underlying crime was.
• Trump's Sixth Amendment right to "have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" was denied to him by Bragg and Merchan by not letting Trump put the former Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission on the witness stand to give expert testimony on what constitutes illegal campaign spending.
• Trump's Sixth Amendment right to have a unanimous jury verdict was denied to him by Bragg and Merchan by letting the jury pick from several possible underlying crimes without all agreeing on what that crime was.
• Trump's Fifth Amendment right to "due process of law" was violated when Bragg and Merchan instructed the jury to presume guilt of the underlying crime that resuscitated misdemeanors that were past their statute of limitations.

To point out the motivations of this so-called judge (besides, of course, Trump Derangement Syndrome), it was revealed that Merchan's daughter (a Democrat consultant) is poised to receive $125 Million in fees, and was given unlimited access to his court.

If such a political, Soviet-style Show Trial can happen to a former President who also is a billionaire, is most certainly can happen to you.

[TheWriterTX]

Let me add the following:

304 attempted to extort money from Trump on bogus claims (an actual crime for which she was never prosecuted).

Cohen engaged in a NDA to shut 304 up (not a crime).

Cohen billed this as legal fees (not a crime...if it was, Hillary’s payments to Perkins Cole were then also a crime).

Trump sued 304 and won. 304 admitted that they never had a relationship. Judge did not allow defense to introduce this as evidence, violating Trump’s rights. 304 still has to pay Trump damages.

If election interference was an actual crime, Hillary would be in jail.

This was not a “bookkeeping” crime. There was no crime to begin with.

[joesbucks]

You have proof all 12 jurors were Hillary loving, Trump hating people? What about the person whose news source was Truth Social?

[kiryandil]

Did they ever release the political affiliation of the jurors?

LOL!

When the New York City mob would have lynched any juror who didn't goosestep in sync with Merchan's orders to convict, here you are, deflecting and apologizing for the lynch mob and back-handedly smearing their prospective victims - any juror who didn't toe the line.

This is right up there with your "I believe Trump has had a fair trial."

[kiryandil]

You're wasting your breath.

joesbucks has already said that "I believe Trump has had a fair trial".

Now, he's trying to advance the notion(s) that the New York City jurors were of mixed political persuasions (doubtful) and that if Trump wasn't "guilty", one of them would have destroyed his or her own life, livelihood and the lives of his or her family to defy the Democrat lynch mob.

[UCANSEE2]

Makes one think that they had the Judge picked out before charges were even filed. Maybe he is the only one who would agree to discard all semblance of morality and the Constitution in order to ensure Trump would be found guilty.

I wonder what are the chances that the Judge that got picked for all 3 Trump cases would have a daughter making millions off of a story-line about the “Trial of Trump - A Real Insider’s Story” ???

[joesbucks]

I know. Support a non substantiated position. As long as it fits the narrative.

[Lazamataz]

I know. Refuse to address positions I put forth, and bring up ones I do not put forth. As long as it fits the liberal narrative.

[joesbucks]

may whip up a forum-wide petition for his removal.

I thought you were against kangaroo courts.

[353FMG]

>>It is time for a call to arms<<

Oh please no more 2nd Amendment boastings and threats. we have heard them all for years. Large number of citizens are already marching behind a foreign flag that represents a nation that hates America.
A call to arms!!?? Get real. Start closing the border and deport all invaders before you want to save the country.

[Lazamataz]

"may whip up a forum-wide petition for his removal."

I thought you were against kangaroo courts.

This isn't court.

And please alter my quote. Change it from MAY to WILL.

[UCANSEE2]

It’s not a debate if you don’t have an opponent.

[Lazamataz]

Respectfully submitted, a “call to arms” has taken a colloquial meaning in these times, more to mean a call to action.

[Lazamataz]

It’s not a debate if you don’t have an opponent.

We don't need rabid liberals on this forum, and our opponent is the "mainstream" media.

[joesbucks]

A kangaroo court may exist in court of law or the court of public opinion which you are planning to use. Would like to again wish a long term painful bout of pancreatic cancer on me again?

[joesbucks]

It was a cut and paste.

[Lazamataz]

Would like to again wish a long term painful bout of pancreatic cancer on me again?

Yes, please.

[redangus]

If do a little research you will find that this is how Obama won most of his elections in Illinois. They took out the opposition so he could run unopposed or against a compromised opponent.

[joesbucks]

The position was stated by Verginius Rufus. It seems to be a popular position that should be debunked. No one knows the beliefs or politics of the jury. Just assumptions.