Excellent question.
Wonder how long it will take "his brother" to brief him on the answer? 
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.
The timing of the trials has to a large degree been of Trump’s doing. If these were trials of us, they would have been swiftly held.
just an addition to the conversation, as to where your interlocutor is coming from on commentators like Dershowitz and Turley:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4236287/posts?page=90#90
LOL!
There's a pony in that pile, somewhere.
Absolutely corrupt.
But, we knew that...
I completely disagree with this statement.
First, the Bragg trial should have been brought in 2017. The FEC looked at it and passed, the DoJ looked at it and passed, SDNY looked at it and passed, and the prior Manhattan DA looked at it and passed. The only reason Bragg is bringing it now is that the former SDNY prosecutor who wanted to bring the case quit in disgust and then wrote a book essentially shaming Bragg into bringing the case.
That had nothing to do with Trump.
Second, the documents case with Smith was first brought to a DC grand jury. After Smith got the grand jury indictment he moved the case to Florida. This annoyed the Florida judge and she made Smith explain the two jurisdictions and why he didn't pursue a grand jury in Florida if the case was going to be heard in Florida.
Also, due to the nature of the classified documents, Smith wanted to "fast track" the case via the "speedy trial" clause of the 6th amendment by reviewing the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago ASAP. Trump argued that "speedy trial" was a protection of the defense to keep the government from dragging it out to punish via the process. Trump wanted his due process and that meant the parties coming to an agreement on how the documents that were claimed to be classified were going to be handled. The judge appointed a special master to review the documents first to decide what was personal and what was government property. Smith appealed to the 11th circuit who overturned Cannon's special master decision and let the DoJ access the documents directly. They also had to create a SCIF and ensure that all the parties in the case had the proper clearances to handle classified documents.
That was Trump exercising his rights under the Constitution against an overly aggressive Special Prosecutor.
Regarding the January 6th case, Trump brought up significant questions of presidential immunity and prosecutorial abuse of targeting former Presidents over political disputes that the incoming party previously lost. J6 may have been the hook, but Trump might be arguing that the only reason that J6 is a "thing" is to prosecute Trump for his political decisions.
This is still ongoing, but the issue is larger than Trump.
Regarding the Atlanta RICO case, there really isn't much to say. Fani Willis concocted a RICO indictment because that's all she knows and was successful at before, but she runs an incredibly incompetent office rife with contractor billing abuse, misappropriated county funds, government grant abuse, and sexual harassment and hostile work environment.
That had nothing to do with Trump.
-PJ
If it had been rushed like Smith wanted, we'd have never found out about the emails between Archives and the White House discussing the pallet of boxes that GSA packed and stored in a warehouse that Archives found.
We would have never found out about what appears to have been a setup of Trump by having Archives ship the boxes to Mar-a-Lago and then have the FBI raid Mar-a-Lago for said boxes.
It may all have been one big coincidence in timing, but Smith redacting those emails from Trump's defense sure doesn't smell good.
-PJ
Furthermore, one Fox News commentator said during the forming of jury instructions last week that if this were baseball, Merchan had a super-wide strike zone for the prosecution, and a tiny strike zone for the defense.
I'd be surprised if anyone who thought the defense should have objected more back then believes it would have mattered now that Merchan has a track record on the matter.
-PJ
First, it was Cyrus Vance, Jr in 2017. Not Bragg. Bragg took over the office in 2021 and initially, to many Freeper’s delight, off the table. However, could Trump have stood trial in 2017-2021? A state trial vs federal. But I agree it should have been brought as soon as possible and maybe even a handoff from Vance to Bragg. However Trump was applying the brakes as soon as it was brought back from the dead. And we know he quickly announced his canadacy when the feds were looking serious and has been applying the brakes anyway possible. I’ve always taken the position, whether it’s Trump or Hunter or Joe, quickly have a trial to show your innocence. If this is simple knock it out of the ballpark as Turley, Levin, Dersh and Jarret claim it is why delay it?
Agreed.
I heard analysts saying today that those objections are the only basis for appeals. If they didn’t object, they wouldn’t have grounds for appeal or dismissal.
I know. I didn't name names, I only said "the prior Manhattan DA looked at it and passed."
I’ve always taken the position, whether it’s Trump or Hunter or Joe, quickly have a trial to show your innocence.
That's your prerogative. As a legal strategy, I've always said that a defendant should take full advantage of his rights of due process (if he can afford it), because as we're seeing now in this and in Engeron's case, one cannot take it for granted that the court has the best interests of justice at heart.
Courts have ruled that a jury cannot imply any criminal guilt by a defendant taking advantage of his constitutional rights.
I think it's better to maximize one's chances of letting the adversarial process play out to its fullest than to fast track a trial and risk missing something, or letting the state withhold exculpatory evidence, or even finding new evidence like the email from Archives about the boxes of documents, etc.
If this is simple knock it out of the ballpark as Turley, Levin, Dersh and Jarret claim it is why delay it?
I believe that nothing is ever as simple as it may first appear, especially when the Democrats are involved. That's why Republicans get rolled all the time. They don't have that devious streak in them that causes them to think up the things that Democrats constantly do to them.
I'd put these Trump trials in that bucket. Who would have thought just how far the New York City Democrat Machine would push the city's judicial system to the brink by bringing undefined charges against a former President, not telling him what the specific underlying crime is until after his defense rests, and then the Democrat judge telling the jury they don't have to agree on what underlying crime brings these dead misdemeanors back to life? New York is becoming the laughing stock of jurisprudence just to get Trump.
-PJ
Quit quacking Democrat Party talking points.
Why not, he has shown his disregard for any legal procedure so far.
They’re a laughing stock in your eyes. And those who share your worldview. Others take a different view.
I don't know. This has been discussed before. There were also pre-trial motions on the same subject that Merchan rejected, so objecting again in trial would be ineffective.
This specifically was during the Stephanie Clifford testimony. During pre-trial motions, the defense objected to her appearing because she was not relevant to the book-keeping charges and the defense said her testimony would be prejudicial. Merchan denied the objection and allowed her to testify, and then said later that he regretted it. Why continue to object during her testimony, only for the judge to continue to deny them again and give the testimony the imprimatur of legitimacy?
Also, if the defense continuously objects to the Daniels testimony, it gives the jury the impression that President Trump has something to hide. That's why those motions are made pre-trial before a jury is seated.
In short, Merchan left a large trail of things that can be appealed.
-PJ
Note how he's pretending that the New York judiciary is objective in the matter of Trump.
Heck, we have the New York state legislature passing a bill of attainder against Trump, the corrupt governor Hochul signing it, knowing full well what it was - then after it was used as a nuke against Trump, the self-same piece of cr@p governor rushes out to reassure business people in New York that the bill of attainder was only going to be used on Trump.
Our "FRiend" here is pretending that the entire process in New Jerk state is on the up-and-up.
We don't have to accept his conclusions that are derived from his "devious streak" in this discussion.
I think The Boss might find that statement pretty interesting.
You just can't resist dancing on the line, can you?
That's true.
I believe that 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 outside of New York City.
I believe that 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.
I believe that 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.
Can I presume from your comment that you believe Trump did not have his sixth amendment rights abridged in any way and this trial was conducted with the utmost fairness and respect for the law and did not tarnish the reputation of New York City at all?
-PJ
I would think that extending the statute of limitations should only apply to future crimes, not past crimes that were committed under a different statute of limitations.
-PJ
Excellent question.
Wonder how long it will take "his brother" to brief him on the answer?
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.