I'm just going to keep exposing you as a Democrat Party operative on Free Republic. 
Posted on 05/28/2024 5:43:42 PM PDT by conservative98
Merchan is a crooked judge, pure and simple
I am not in the Manhattan courthouse, but I am listening carefully to what lawyers I trust (from Fox) who are there are texting/emailing to reporters, who are, in turn, reading them on air at Fox, as well as those who have left the courthouse and are speaking directly on air. The judge is a disgusting fraud who has his foot on the defense lawyer's neck, while he allows the prosecutor to ramble on in every direction, including (only now) about federal campaign law and personal insinuations about Trump, as well as suggestions that Cohen's actions can be inferred on to Trump. Outrageous.
This judge was specifically appointed to handle this case. From the start, he has shredded the law and the rules of evidence, he has stomped all over due process, he has silenced Trump respecting most aspects of the case, he has allowed collateral evidence into the trial (of which there is a ton), he has assumed jurisdiction over federal election law (preventing the defense from putting on one of the top experts in the nation from testifying to the jury), he has not directed the prosecution to state the alleged federal crimes with specificity (re federal campaign law, he has not required proof of anything let alone a citation to what law they're only now inferring), etc. Then there was Stormy Daniels, who was used to embarrass Trump and spew her hate and nothing more. Michael Cohen, who lies whenever he opens his mouth, was the lead state witness. That is how preposterous this entire case is. Now, the Access Hollywood tape. None of this is relevant. It is all intended to create anger and hate against Trump by the jurors, which is an abomination. This character assassination, under cover of a so-called justice system, is pure Stalinism. One can only imagine what kind of jury instructions this so-called judge will give the jury.
Meanwhile, to underscore the political nature of all of this (as if it needs to be underscored), the Biden campaign used Robert De Niro, a foul-mouthed mad man, to accuse Trump of effectively being Genghis Kahn in the midst of the closing arguments, and the White House has told the media that Biden himself will comment as president after the jury issues its verdict.
Let's remember, this is a non-case. There is no crime, federal, state, or local. The state misdemeanor having to do with corporate reporting was not violated. The NDA was a legal expense and reported as such. The misdemeanor statue had already run anyway.
As a result of leftwing groups filing a complaint with the FEC, claiming the NDA was an illegal federal campaign contribution, the FEC said it was not. As if all of this were not enough, the SDNY U.S. attorney's office took another look at the case. It dropped it. Indeed, it was Cohen who agreed to committing a list of federal crimes, including perjury. The former Manhattan DA looked at it and dropped it. Bragg originally blew it off but when one of Biden's henchmen was sent to NY to work on the non-fraud fraud case, and then moved to the non-crime criminal case, it was taken up. Then the preposterous theory was concocted: well, the state misdemeanor statute can be revived if the NDA can be said to have covered up another crime, in this case a federal campaign violation. And their key witness, Cohen. Of course, the DA has no jurisdictional authority on federal campaign matters. The FEC and SDNY do have jurisdiction but refused to bring charges. Hence, there was no federal campaign violation. The judge refused to allow Brad Smith, former chairman of the FEC and federal campaign law expert, to testify for the defense as an expert witness, who would have fired a fatal legal torpedo into the DA's case. As he said on three different occasions on Life, Liberty & Levin, there was no federal election crime, which is precisely why the judge wouldn't let the jury hear from him. There's much more, of course.
The so-called judge in this case, Juan Merchan, is what we used to call a hanging judge. That is, the trial process is nothing more than a formality. In the end, nothing can be said, no evidence can be presented, no witness can alter, and no injustice can prevent the preordained outcome demanded by the judge. At least that is this judge's intent and goal.
Remember, at the crux of all of this, there has been no evidence that Trump violated federal election law, let alone did so with intent and for which there is no reasonable doubt. The state law cannot be revived without proving this. My hope is that there's at least one juror with the smarts, guts, and conscience, who cuts through the static, the collateral evidence, and the judge's misconduct, and says no to Merchan, no to Bragg, no to the Biden regime, and no to this horrendous tyranny.
You're simply making excuses for an actual criminal, while trying to smear Trump in your usual back-handed NeverTrumping Democrat Party operative way.
I’m not back handed. I’m just not a sycophant. Just saying having the same facts and circumstances Levin would likely be expressing a different desired outcome depending on who the charges were made against.
You're a Democrat Party operative, as many posters here know, joes cur.
I’m not going to change your mind nor you mine.
I'm just going to keep exposing you as a Democrat Party operative on Free Republic.
Can you explain your thinking on why Levin's legal opinion would be situational?
Levin often (if not always) bases his legal opinions on his experience as the Chief of Staff of former Attorney General Ed Meese, his time as a law clerk for 5th circuit Court of Appeals Judge Will Garwood, and his work for his Landmark Legal Foundation.
What can you point to that suggests that Levin's opinions are partisan?
-PJ
Excellent post. :)
Well if I’m an operative, I’m not paid for it.
Ah! I see where I went wrong; It was Judge Engoron that said that he could do whatever he wants, and to heck with the Jury decisions, not Merchan. (Although I wouldn’t be surprised if Merchan believes the same.)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unmasking-the-judge-in-trump-s-trial/ar-AA1i10WX
Do you believe he’d be providing the same cover for the Biden’s or the Clinton’s should all other elements of the cases were being applied against them?
Thanks. (gosh, that first photo looks like a mug shot...)
The Biden Regime is the new Marxist mob. I can imagine jurists threatening others with cement shoes and a trip to the George Washington Bridge.
You're the one who made the claim. Explain yourself first.
-PJ
I have. We all know partisan are fungible with their desire for legal outcomes. There are always kernels that can be used to create a narrative for both sides.
Where do you come off telling me what I "know?"
I think you generalize too much and then project those generalizations onto others in order to justify your own biases.
How's that for stating what I believe?
Should I say that "we all know" that's what you do, or should I just state my own belief that it's what you do?
-PJ
“We all know” that joesbucks is a Democrat Party operative and an apologist for the likes of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Clyburn and Jamie Ratskin.
I’m claiming that Levin may be doing the same.
I was right, Marchan is as bad as Engoron:
"Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction," Turley explained. "He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4, and he will still treat them as unanimous."
jury-instructions-conclude-trumps-nyc-criminal-trial-heres-what-jury-told
Regarding "the game of providing innuendo," I suggest that you read my manifesto on my home page. I agree with you on this point more than you might think.
Regarding Levin, you have the right to claim whatever you want. You just can't claim that "we all know" it too.
Now that you've stated your belief that Levin is trolling the other side, I can't really say. I can only point out what I said before that Levin points to his time as Chief of Staff for Attorney General Ed Meese and I'd lean towards believing that Levin wouldn't want to taint that CV by engaging in misinformation.
That would be like having former a U.S. Attorney like Andrew McCarthy or professors like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley going on Twitter to make taunts at the other side and then go on television claiming to be an expert opinion on the law.
Levin has talked about Joe Biden's likelihood of being indicted for the documents case (before Tur declined to press charges), but Levin was consistent that a sitting President can't be indicted while in office per DoJ policy.
I can't recall what Levin said about Hunter Biden's personal legal cases, but he's not running for President so it can't really be compared to what Levin has said about Trump.
What I will go out on a limb and say is that since never before has a former President been taken to trial during his campaign for a second term in office by the incumbent President's party, the same can be said for the pundits who are reporting on it. They're all making it up as they go, some are doing it better than others, others (like Lawrence O'Donnell are "psyoping" an alternative reality of what's going on. I don't listen to Levin as much as I used to when I was commuting, but what I recall is that he's always stayed within his lane.
-PJ
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.