If they can do that to TRUMP, they can do that to YOU

Original Content | 6/1/2024 | By Laz A. Mataz

[Lazamataz]

(At the end of this editorial, I'm offering the opportunity to get a bumper sticker to spread this message)

A long time ago, in 2005, I saw something George W. Bush had done, and I remarked: "First we beat the Soviet Union, then we became them." Little did I know that in under twenty years, we would see Soviet-style Show Trials. We just witnessed the most high-profile Show Trial in American history, where the President (and current candidate for a second term) was put through a trial where all of the elements were crafted to ensure a guilty verdict on manufactured crimes.

Consider the following elements:

• This judge was specifically selected to handle this case. This case was judge-shopped.
• The venue was specifically selected to ensure a Trump-hating jury.
• "Judge" Merchan took over Federal jurisdiction of election law, even though this was a state court.
• Further, Trump stood accused of a crime in which he had zero personal participation. Some nameless accountant filled out the expense information offered as evidence.
• Merchan refused to allow the defense to present witnesses that could refute the prosecution claims, most notably, one of the nation's foremost experts on Federal election law)
• The New York law (falsifying records) requires a predicate crime, none of which were proven or even formally alleged.
• Merchan instructed the jury to ignore the above fact and assume that a predicate crime exists.
• Multiple federal and state prosecutors passed on even charging Trump with any of those predicate crimes.
• The state crime that Trump was accused of, falsifying business records in pursuit of any other fraud, had long passed the Statute of Limitations, and could not legally be used as a charge.
• During the entire fraudulent trial, he out a gag order on Trump to ensure Trump could not defend himself in the court of public opinion.
• Merchan allowed elements of character assassination to be entered as evidence. How, exactly, was the Access Hollywood tape pertinent to this case?
• Merchan allowed a convicted perjurer and serial liar (Michael Cohen) to be the lead prosecution witness.
• The timing of the prosecution and sentencing of this case was carefully timed to inflict maximum political damage.

In short, a "hanging judge" was selected in a politically-hostile jurisdiction, wherein which the judge defied nearly every rule of evidence and law, muzzled the defense, and promoted every prosecution request, no matter how outrageous.

This harkens back to the Soviet Show Trial era that Josef Stalin used to eliminate his opponents. Joe Biden personally showed that this fake trial was politically motivated by flashing a demonic grin when he was asked about the verdict, as he shuffled away from reporters.... and he sent a Trump-hating actor (Robert DiNero) to the courthouse to further assassinate Trump's character.

The so-called judge in this case, Juan Merchan, Merchan violated President Trump's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in so many ways.

• 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 to a more balanced location outside of New York City.
• Trump's Sixth Amendment right to a trial in "which district shall have been previously ascertained by law" was denied to him by Bragg and Merchan by trying a federal campaign finance law in a county court in New York.
• 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. Even after conviction, nobody knows what the underlying crime was.
• 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.
• Trump's Sixth Amendment right to have a unanimous jury verdict was denied to him by Bragg and Merchan by letting the jury pick from several possible underlying crimes without all agreeing on what that crime was.
• Trump's Fifth Amendment right to "due process of law" was violated when Bragg and Merchan instructed the jury to presume guilt of the underlying crime that resuscitated misdemeanors that were past their statute of limitations.

To point out the motivations of this so-called judge (besides, of course, Trump Derangement Syndrome), it was revealed that Merchan's daughter (a Democrat consultant) is poised to receive $125 Million in fees, and was given unlimited access to his court.

If such a political, Soviet-style Show Trial can happen to a former President who also is a billionaire, is most certainly can happen to you.

[Grampa Dave]

Check my new tagline!

[Carriage Hill]

BKMRK.

[laplata]

“You are the 454th Satisfied Customer!™

Do you remember her name, Laz?

Lol

[Ciaphas Cain]

Changed my tagline. Nothing personal :-)

[piytar]

GREAT POST!

[Huskrrrr]

PING ......and they WILL.

[joe fonebone]

Please put me on the list

[joesbucks]

They’ve been doing it to us for years.

[joesbucks]

Loved A+Bert.

[Noumenon]

We just had our Treaty of Versailles moment.

[joesbucks]

Did they ever release the political affiliation of the jurors?

[Gaffer]

No, EJI’s article mainly discusses the ruling (from 3 years ago) about a single state’s conviction where there wasn’t a unanimous jury and then cites Kagan speaking mainly for the losing side of the case. In looking at its makeup, EJI is primarily interested in defending (and overturning) cases where there’s a racial/economic minority involved using any possible avenue where they can get a reversal, IMO.

Regardless of EJI and your thoughts it somehow is a stopgap to a Trump appeal up to USSC, there are a couple of noteworthy factors that puts this case right up the USSC’s alley.

1) Bragg’s case (and the judge’s complicity in allowing free reign to it) revolves around a crime(s) [34 charged for the same thing] that isn’t a crime for an action in which the FEC is the sole arbiter as to impact. Knowing this, and refusing to hear it, the judge disallowed testimony as to this underlying basis which is exculpatory to Trump. Instead, Bragg creates broken state laws for conspiratorial bookkeeping, etc. For a Federal/state ‘crime’ that isn’t a crime and to which it was never proven he knowingly was aware of the exact bookkeeping that occurred after the fact (i.e, no conspiracy). Ignored FEDERAL Election Laws and denial of 1st Amendment (gag orders) and Equal Protection Amendments. Essentially, Trump was denied a defense on multiple occasions.

2. This is not just a NYS state law case. This case affects 49 other states (definitely in USSC’s purview) where one state judge and prosecutor set out to deny the other states their choice - for the same amendments.

You can search for a way to argue against it, but in the end Trump was denied a fair trial. Merchan’s pitiful and transparent enmity towards Trump was clearly evident even before the trial began. One only needs to see the tome of instructions he had to issue to the jury to see that.

It will take a while (well into Trump’s term) for the USSC to hear it but this Democrat election interference action will be heard by the USSC and overturned. It’s just going to have to go on up through the NYS SC first.

[joesbucks]

Reasonable explanation. Thanks for sharing it.

[GOYAKLA]

12, O/Bidenassties!

[joesbucks]

Link to that, or just gut speculation?

[cowboyusa]

BRING IT!

[Lazamataz]

I really don’t have the time to do anything but snipe at you.

But I see that someone did take the time and you accepted his (or her) argument.

Based on my article above, do you STILL assert that Trump had a fair trial?

[Lazamataz]

High praise, coming from you!

[Lazamataz]

Did they ever release the political affiliation of the jurors?

I'm certain no official office would do that.

If they wish, though, they can talk about their leanings themselves.

I'm certain each and every juror will be releasing a book, probably ghostwritten, and major Democrat institutions will buy them in bulk (likely as a form of a bribe payment.)

[joesbucks]

In general I still think yes. But I haven’t had time to totally digest what was shared. Or see any reasoned counter points.