Posted on 05/24/2024 5:43:12 AM PDT by SJackson
The Donald Trump New York City farce is on the way to being over. The prosecution (at least) rested after what would’ve been a disastrous performance by Michael Cohen in any other trial, but the standard rules don’t apply here because this is not actually a trial. This trial has nothing to do with law. It is a scummy attempt to frame a political opponent of the Democrats to keep him from winning an election against the desiccated old pervert in the White House. Normally, a jury would laugh this case out of court, except that it would never have been in court had the defendant been named Tronald Dump. Everything about it is a lie and a scam, and as soon as you understand that you will understand this disgraceful case.
The Democrats behind this charade are wearing the law like a skinsuit, presenting an exterior that makes this look like a real jury trial when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. You see the forms and processes performed, but they mean nothing because the fix is already in. Let’s talk about what happens now in terms of procedure. In terms of legality, why bother? Again, this isn’t a legal matter. This is a joke.
The state must prove each of the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, in real trials, criminal charges have elements. For instance, fraud is typically a knowing misrepresentation intended to induce reliance that causes monetary damage to the victim. Each of those requirements is an element. Was there a misrepresentation? Was it knowingly false? Was it intended to induce reliance? Was someone who reasonably relied on it damaged in terms of losing money? Each of those elements must have substantial evidence in support of it. Remember, the state has to prove everything. The defendant can just sit there with his arms crossed like a late-80s rapper and say nothing, and if the state fails to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proving each element, he must be acquitted. Others have discussed how the state has failed to prove any of the elements against Trump here — suffice it to say that, as a legal matter, the state has failed on every one of the elements. But again, this case isn’t a legal matter. This is a kangaroo court. We’re just talking about how the scam will proceed.
The defense could have chosen not to call any witnesses at all. If you think you’re winning because the state has failed to make its case, it’s often a good idea to send it to the jury right then. But I agree that Trump was right to try to put on a defense because that helps him in the court of public opinion. There’s no helping him with the jury – the jury is biased, and the majority of them will convict him regardless of the evidence or law. Defense is for the benefit of the voters.
The Democrat-donating judge severely limited some of Trump’s most important evidence. One witness was a former federal elections commissioner who is an expert on federal elections law and could testify as an expert witness as to how none of these alleged expenditures would violate federal campaign finance laws. Now, the judge excluded that testimony based on what is normally solid ground – an expert witness cannot testify as to what the law is. An expert witness provides factual evidence of matters outside the experience of a jury. But during the trial, the prosecution improperly elicited testimony regarding what is and isn’t a federal campaign finance violation from non-expert witnesses – including Michael Cohen. Typical with regard to Trump, there are apparently exceptions to the rules when it involves screwing him over. Allowing this expert witness to testify would be fair, so no surprise it did not happen.
Another witness the defense called was Michael Cohen’s former attorney, who you might think could not testify because of attorney-client privilege. Except Michael Cohen went behind his back and began talking about his discussions with his attorney to the Southern District of New York federal prosecutors when he was trying to sell out Trump to save his behind from jail. When you disclose attorney-client confidentialities, you waive your attorney-client privilege. Attorney Robert Costello, a respected criminal defense lawyer in New York, has already testified to a House committee that everything Michael Cohen said on the stand was a lie, not to convince the jurors because there’s no convincing the Democrat jurors, but to show America what a fiasco this is. On Monday, the judge blew up at Costello, who was disgusted by how the judge was limiting his testimony by sustaining the DA’s ridiculous objections.
As an aside, it is a disgrace that a prosecutor would ever put up on the stand as its key witness a convicted perjurer like Cohen, who has been publicly expressing how he wants to screw over the accused. On Monday, this centipede admitted stealing tens of thousands of dollars from Trump, something the NYDA knew about and failed to charge. I’m glad my mom, who was a judge and a prosecutor before that, doesn’t have to see this. Any decent past or present prosecutor with integrity would be appalled. Carefully note those who are not appalled.
Next week, the parties will do closing arguments. Look for the DA to try to convict Trump of “election interference” and “paying hush money,” neither of which is a crime. But again, this is not about the law; it is about pulling a jury of Democrat partisans who want to help stop a political opponent.
Then the case goes to the jury. The jury is instructed by the judge on the law to be applied. It’ll be interesting to see what jury instructions this judge gives since this completely unprecedented case will require many custom jury instructions. You see, there are standard jury instructions for routine cases. Murder, bank robbery, sex crimes, and the other things that Democratic constituents do all the time have standard jury instructions. Since this is an invented crime that has never been charged against anyone before, the parties will have to make up instructions and the judge will pick the DA’s version.
Then the case goes to the jury and the jurors will decide the case solely based on how much they hate Donald Trump. That is not how the law is supposed to work, but this isn’t about the law. This is about Democrat voters in Manhattan screwing over a political opponent. If twelve of them agree, they will convict him. If one or more jurors hold out for the truth and do not get kicked off the jury for “refusing to deliberate,” the jury will hang. This results in a mistrial, and the DA can retry the case. If twelve jurors reject the trumped-up Trump charges, Trump will be acquitted – but that will never happen because they’re Democrats, and it doesn’t matter what the facts are or the law is.
If you think I’m cynical, chalk that up to 30 years of experience.
There is a slight chance the jury will acquit Trump on some of the charges, but my guess is you’ll see him convicted on everything. Hopefully, at least one juror has the integrity and the guts to withstand the pressure to frame, but hope is not a plan.
Now, if convicted on up to 34 felony charges, a typical defendant would be remanded immediately into custody. Of course, Alvin Bragg’s DA office is notoriously easy on actual criminals, but it will certainly demand jail time here. It is quite possible that the judge will hook Trump up and take him into the back in chains. If that happens, a lot of people are going to be really, really sorry down the road. That image would be a devastating blow to our teetering Jenga tower of a country. If they want to throw open the Overton window, they should remember that it is a long way down.
More likely, this Democrat judge will release Trump on bail and set a sentencing date. But who knows? This has been a blatant and unrepentant farce from the beginning, one that at least half of Americans see as an attempt to frame the political opposition with false charges over made-up crimes before a biased judge and jury. If you want to bet, bet that they do the most outrageous thing – and bet that they cry like little girls when they feel the full blowback of their new rules down the road.
Keep your fingers crossed for at least one juror with the integrity to refuse to play his part in this show trial.
This has the potential to end badly. Because whatever they do to Trump will be done to them tenfold.
I hope not. The country has more important problems for Trump to deal with than revenge. Which isn’t to say lawfare and the conduct of entrenched government employees isn’t one of them, but not for revenge.
No doubt in my mind this NY jury comes back with guilty verdicts. This will put the cherry on top of our justice system and the complete joke it has become.
That’s what I’m talkin’ ‘bout
(I think Mr. Baldy above the prosecutor’s left hand is Nikita Khrushchev, fellow Georgian to Stalin and his successor. Not to be confused with Nikita Kucherov, the best player in the NHL who nevertheless bombed in the first round of the playoffs.)
Good article...
Have to wonder what’s next...
I don’t know if the bald man is Khrushchev, but Khrushchev was not Georgian. He was an ethnic Russian.
I'm afraid Comey is more likely right. The question is whether the jury will find Trump guilty of 34 felonies or only one. Then the question will be whether Merchan will order him to prison immediately or allow him to be free on bail until the appeals are heard.
I repent in dust and ashes; Khrushchev was Russian, grew up somewhere around Ukraine. Beria “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was his fellow Georgian.
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.