Something needs to be done about “judges” like this. I won’t bother to say what.
Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance. /1 — Brad Smith (@CommishSmith) May 20, 2024
The tweets are a doozy, he points out that his testimony would have clearly pointed out that there was no 'underlying crime' and the agency he once headed to regulate elections, the Federal Election Commission, never prosecuted such issues, because they simply weren't crimes.
This one stands out:
Picture a jury in a product liability case trying to figure out if a complex machine was negligently designed, based only on a boilerplate recitation of the general definition of “negligence.” They’d be lost without knowing technology & industry norms. /3
...and this...
/4 Someone has to bring that knowledge to the jury. That—not the law—was my intended testimony. For example, part of the state’s case is that they wrongly reported what they knew to be a campaign expenditure in order to hide the payment until after the election.
Juan Merchan and his political daughter should look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. Politicians are fair game for investigations when the right parties gain power. Since Merchan is Cuban, he understands this well.
“You must remember, the People are not required to prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, that reduces the need or the burden to define every term and every phrase,”
Well then, if ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is no longer a thing, I hearby charge hizonner with molesting little boys in his chamber. I can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but apparently that is no longer the criteria.
Merchan, or his family, is going to get a big payoff if the jury comes up with even just one guilty verdict of the thirty-something charges. This will not stand on appeal, but they don’t care.
Biden wanted a June debate so he could say Trump was a “convicted felon,” and the appeal would not have been heard yet.
Everyone knows this trial is a sham. Worse than Merchan are the corrupt “Republicans” sitting back and watching this play out.
By wqeaponizing his court, the Judge has forfeited his right to life by destroying a fundamental foundation stone of the American Republic
Why isn’t Alvin Bragg being charged with knowingly putting a witness on the stand that admits to committing an unucharged felony (stealing %30,000)? Isn’t that sojourning perjury?
“People are not required to prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt”
~~~
Why not???
I thought this was a criminal trial. Didn’t I hear that they raised the charge (somehow) from Misdemeanor to Felony so as to skirt the statute of limitations? This isn’t a civil trial then. I don’t understand.
“Merchan said the prosecution did not need to prove that Trump committed additional crimes, like campaign finance or tax violations. Instead, it must show that Trump intended to commit or conceal these crimes”
Making new law here. How do you get convicted of concealing crimes you didn’t commit?
Weissman is going to need to prep his boy a little better here. Gonna need some justification for such strained legal “reasoning”.
When the campaign law expert was being considered as a witness I feared it would be a real fight. After all, he could be asked, simply, “Does this judge and/or this court have any jurisdiction over this alleged crime?”
Would never happen. But something like the Costello appearance would. Obvious acrimony between the witness and judge. Juries think of judges as gods (small G), and don’t look kindly on those the judge obviously doesn’t respect. Including prosecutors, but they get a little leeway because they are supposed to have a viewpoint.
The still but prove beyond that Trump intended to commit or conceal a crime and what that crime was. They have failed to do this.
Corruption riddled third world country tactics. Has this “judge” been bribed?
bkmk
“You must remember, the People are not required to prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, that reduces the need or the burden to define every term and every phrase,” Merchan said
W
T
F....
There are three possibilities for a verdict: acquittal, hung jury, and conviction.
I think conviction is the least likely.
The US legal system is on par with China and Russia.
Time for routine jury nullification and revoke judicial immunity now.
These prosecutors and judges have no capacity for justice.
The jury will think that the crime was a campaign finance violation (because Cohen said there was one, even though he was lying) and Smith was not allowed to inform the jury of the truth.
The nuclear option would be (if the jury finds Trump guilty) for Bragg to charge Costello with perjury for saying that Cohen was lying. Of course that would depend on whether Biden tells him to do so.
So.. if they find him guilty, what will they find him guilty of?
No actual crime was specified.
later
Ten bucks says that he’s been promised a Federal judgeship!