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 Republicans don't fight back [well, except for the ones that joesbucks hates].
Any future effective political enemy of the Democrats and the Left can expect a dog-and-pony show trial like this one, on the most flimsy of Trumped-up charges and phony legal "constructions".
these are the charges. https://www.yahoo.com/news/heres-a-list-of-the-34-charges-donald-trump-faces-in-his-hush-money-trial-120050092.html#:~:text=The%20Manhattan%20district%20attorney's%20office,adult%20film%20star%20Stormy%20Daniels.
Not all judges act like Merchan, and he is far from the majority of them. However, for judges like him, almost nothing is ever done, either by prerogative writ, or by a court of judicial discipline. There are also a fair number of elderly judges on the federal bench who either have lost their ability to hide their biases, or have gone senile. Lawyers don’t dare comment on that publicly.
And you don't have a problem with denying Trump the witnesses that he wants to put on? Seriously? Only Juan Merchan is allowed to explain what is or isn't a campaign spending violation when he's only a lowly county judge and the head of the national agency in charge of that stuff was available to testify on Trump's behalf? No sixth amendment right for Trump to obtain witnesses in his favor, and you're okay with that?
And denying the defense the whole nature of the charges so they can prepare an effective defense? You're okay with that, too?
Where did this latest tax evasion "other possible underlying crime" come from that was brought up in closing? How come Trump wasn't allowed to put up any defense against the alleged structuring of payments to Cohen in order to pay his income taxes during his turn to confront witnesses against him? There's another sixth amendment violation right there!
You're okay with prosecutors arguing new charges in front of a jury after both sides have rested their cases?
I guess other than all of that, "for the most part, yes" the trial was fair to people "who don't share my worldview."
-PJ
All I can really say is this:
What is "worldview?"
I stated my opinions about this case, and Joe said it was my "worldview." That's a pretty encompassing assertion. Again, telling me what I think.
But the truly revealing part was that Joe, perhaps inadvertently, revealed his worldview as being opposite to my own when I pointed out everything that was wrong with the trial and Joe thought it was "for the most part" a fair trial.
So I guess it's my turn to put thoughts into Joe's head for him.
Joe believes that it's okay to deny a defendant the right to present favorable witnesses if they don't like him.
Joe believes that it's okay to have secret charges against a defendant that are only revealed after the defendant rests his case in court, if they don't like him.
Joe believes that it's okay to ignore the statute of limitations on minor infractions by using a secret charge that nobody knows about until after both sides rest their cases and then tell the jury that they can make up whatever "crime" they want to fit the secret charges, if they don't like the defendant.
That's Joe's worldview, and it is opposite to mine. Basically, the worldview that Joe says "others take a different view," is one where they can deny the constitutional rights of people they don't like.
It's hard for me to call that kind of person a conservative.
-PJ
This is the question you put to joesbucks in post #138 that he answered in post #142:
FR Democrat Party operative "joesbucks": "For the most part yes."
Joe Scarborough and Nicolle Wallace would echo those words.
saved.
I believe Trump has had a fair trial. Should I be charged with crimes, I hope I would be treated as well as Trump.
Whatever. Trump has been treated with kid gloves in general. Even some of his previous attorneys have said overall he has had a fair shake.
NeverTrump scum.
We’ve been dismissed by the Democrat Party political operative on Free Republic, joesbucks...
Joe & Nicole have more gravitas than you.
Dancing ever closer to another vacation, Democrat operative.
Nope. You are for your ongoing harassment.
As if that would stop a Democrat activist.
There is such a thing as a "directed verdict."
No, he wouldn’t. He’s a Democrat.
That’s why they’ll do it.
I harassed Eschoir, and didn't get booted from the board.
I don't see a dime's worth of difference between the two of you.
Right.
The judge denied Trump permission to go to his wife Melania's birthday celebration and wouldn't let Trump attend the SCOTUS oral arguments on Presidential immunity. He also initially was non-committal for weeks when Trump sought permission to attend his son Barron's high school graduation. Merchan approved the request on Barron's graduation when a juror had a dentist appointment and the contrast was more than Merchan could handle.
-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.