How Judge Merchan Is Orchestrating Trump’s Conviction

[Robert W]

Trump probably shouldn’t have paid a porn star to keep quiet while he ran for president and all of this would have been avoided.

The prostitute never should get away with making threats against a person.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

The prostitute never should get away with making threats against a person.

Yeah Trump should be keeping better company. He laid down with dogs now he is dealing with the fleas. Not having an affair would have been the better choice to make.

 

[wamose]

Are Newsmax, OANN, FoxNews, Salem Networks in it to destroy the chances of Biden being re-elected?

All they have to do is tell the truth. The economy sucks, inflation sucks, the world is blowing up, our borders are wide open, he disavows Israel for Hamas-Iran, cops are bad and criminals are good, our DOJ has been weaponized, statues are dangerous, our military and our manufacturing base are shot, spending is out of control etc. etc. I'd say those outlets are doing some accurate reporting, of course with a little embellishment on top. MAGA

 

[mudwhistle]

This isn't America. This is the 1930s Soviet Union. It is a show-trial that Stalin would be proud of.

And like then, when millions applauded, we have you, and you know who you are, applauding this.

The former president is not charged with a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election — but the jury might think he is.​

​

If former president Donald Trump seems even more cantankerous in his Manhattan courthouse press conferences than in those he has held at other Democratic lawfare venues, it is undoubtedly because of his unique insight into what is being done to him there. As a young mogul, Trump learned hardball litigation at the feet of Roy Cohn, a rogue master of the game. Cohn’s No. 1 rule was: “Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.”​

​

In the ongoing criminal trial, elected progressive Democratic DA Alvin Bragg doesn’t have much of a case. But he has the judge, and that is all he needs.​

​

Judge Juan Merchan is orchestrating Trump’s conviction of a crime that is not actually charged in the indictment: conspiracy to violate FECA (the Federal Election Campaign Act — specifically, its spending limits). That should not be possible in the United States, where the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment mandates that an accused may only be tried for a felony offense if it has been outlined with specificity in an indictment, approved by a grand jury that has found probable cause for that offense.​

​

...​

​

Yet, Judge Merchan has swallowed whole Bragg’s theory that he can enforce FECA. The judge not only ruled pre-trial that Bragg could prove the uncharged federal crime; he has abetted Bragg’s prosecutors in their framing of the case for the jury as a “criminal conspiracy,” notwithstanding that no conspiracy is actually charged in the indictment — under either federal or state law. And although the trial has been under way for just a week, Merchan has already made key rulings patently designed to convince the jury that Trump’s complicity in a conspiracy to violate FECA has already been established.​

​

...​

​

Even though prosecutors are not supposed to use Cohen’s guilty pleas to argue that Trump is guilty of campaign crimes, that is exactly what they are doing — and Merchan is letting them do it. In the prosecution’s opening statement, for example, in the context of explaining to the jury that Cohen, Pecker, and Trump had committed a “conspiracy” of “election fraud. Pure and simple,” Colangelo elaborated:​

​

​

​

This is breathtakingly mendacious. Colangelo was not properly admonishing the jury that Cohen is a witness of dubious credibility. He was signaling to them that the NDA payments to McDougal and Daniels — for which he had just blamed Trump in an extensive narrative — were crimes for which Cohen “went to jail.” In reality, Cohen was sentenced to prison because of his lucrative fraud crimes, not the FECA charges. The SDNY never charged Trump, and it almost certainly wouldn’t have charged Cohen if he hadn’t agreed to plead guilty.​

​

...​

​

If this weren’t so cynical it might be amusing. Merchan let prosecutors make this argument right after pre-trial instructions, in which he explained to the jury:​

​

​

​

This is true. Pecker is not an expert in federal campaign law — he shouldn’t be allowed to testify about it. And what he may have been thinking — or, even more of a stretch, what AMI’s general counsel may have been thinking — about whether it would have been legal for AMI to take reimbursement from Cohen and Trump is irrelevant. It is not admissible evidence of Trump’s state of mind, let alone Trump’s guilt on the uncharged conspiracy allegation. Nonetheless, Merchan let prosecutors intimate to the jury that a knowledgeable lawyer had told Pecker it would be illegal for AMI to be compensated by Cohen and Trump for the money paid to McDougal. The judge has to know that’s improper.​

​

In calling Pecker as their first witness, prosecutors had him testify that federal law is violated by expenditures made for the purpose of influencing an election.​

​

...​

How Judge Merchan Is Orchestrating Trump’s Conviction | National Review

The former president is not charged with a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election — but the jury might think he is.

www.nationalreview.com

They want to be able to say that Trump is a felon so that people who aren't paying attention won't vote for him.

Even if it isn't legit......they think they can suck millions of votes away from Trump with this lie.

 

[mudwhistle]

This isn't America. This is the 1930s Soviet Union. It is a show-trial that Stalin would be proud of.

And like then, when millions applauded, we have you, and you know who you are, applauding this.

The former president is not charged with a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election — but the jury might think he is.​

​

If former president Donald Trump seems even more cantankerous in his Manhattan courthouse press conferences than in those he has held at other Democratic lawfare venues, it is undoubtedly because of his unique insight into what is being done to him there. As a young mogul, Trump learned hardball litigation at the feet of Roy Cohn, a rogue master of the game. Cohn’s No. 1 rule was: “Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.”​

​

In the ongoing criminal trial, elected progressive Democratic DA Alvin Bragg doesn’t have much of a case. But he has the judge, and that is all he needs.​

​

Judge Juan Merchan is orchestrating Trump’s conviction of a crime that is not actually charged in the indictment: conspiracy to violate FECA (the Federal Election Campaign Act — specifically, its spending limits). That should not be possible in the United States, where the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment mandates that an accused may only be tried for a felony offense if it has been outlined with specificity in an indictment, approved by a grand jury that has found probable cause for that offense.​

​

...​

​

Yet, Judge Merchan has swallowed whole Bragg’s theory that he can enforce FECA. The judge not only ruled pre-trial that Bragg could prove the uncharged federal crime; he has abetted Bragg’s prosecutors in their framing of the case for the jury as a “criminal conspiracy,” notwithstanding that no conspiracy is actually charged in the indictment — under either federal or state law. And although the trial has been under way for just a week, Merchan has already made key rulings patently designed to convince the jury that Trump’s complicity in a conspiracy to violate FECA has already been established.​

​

...​

​

Even though prosecutors are not supposed to use Cohen’s guilty pleas to argue that Trump is guilty of campaign crimes, that is exactly what they are doing — and Merchan is letting them do it. In the prosecution’s opening statement, for example, in the context of explaining to the jury that Cohen, Pecker, and Trump had committed a “conspiracy” of “election fraud. Pure and simple,” Colangelo elaborated:​

​

​

​

This is breathtakingly mendacious. Colangelo was not properly admonishing the jury that Cohen is a witness of dubious credibility. He was signaling to them that the NDA payments to McDougal and Daniels — for which he had just blamed Trump in an extensive narrative — were crimes for which Cohen “went to jail.” In reality, Cohen was sentenced to prison because of his lucrative fraud crimes, not the FECA charges. The SDNY never charged Trump, and it almost certainly wouldn’t have charged Cohen if he hadn’t agreed to plead guilty.​

​

...​

​

If this weren’t so cynical it might be amusing. Merchan let prosecutors make this argument right after pre-trial instructions, in which he explained to the jury:​

​

​

​

This is true. Pecker is not an expert in federal campaign law — he shouldn’t be allowed to testify about it. And what he may have been thinking — or, even more of a stretch, what AMI’s general counsel may have been thinking — about whether it would have been legal for AMI to take reimbursement from Cohen and Trump is irrelevant. It is not admissible evidence of Trump’s state of mind, let alone Trump’s guilt on the uncharged conspiracy allegation. Nonetheless, Merchan let prosecutors intimate to the jury that a knowledgeable lawyer had told Pecker it would be illegal for AMI to be compensated by Cohen and Trump for the money paid to McDougal. The judge has to know that’s improper.​

​

In calling Pecker as their first witness, prosecutors had him testify that federal law is violated by expenditures made for the purpose of influencing an election.​

​

...​

How Judge Merchan Is Orchestrating Trump’s Conviction | National Review

The former president is not charged with a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election — but the jury might think he is.

www.nationalreview.com

This is the case in a nutshell:

 

[excalibur]

There isn't any more evidence....Bragg doesn't have a case and even the media know it....There's no underlying state crime.

I doubt he read the two posts I made above.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

campaign finance crimes are real crimes.

Sure they are. Only thing is, this isn't a campaign finance violation.

 

[Doc7505]

Trump probably shouldn’t have paid a porn star to keep quiet while he ran for president and all of this would have been avoided.

Perhaps he should have harrassed Stormy like Biden harrassed Tara Reade.

Tara Reade, who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, defects to Russia

Former Senate staffer who made claim in 2020 appears on Russian media alongside convicted Russian agent in US Maria Butina

www.theguardian.com

*********​

Tara Reade granted asylum in Russia

Tara Reade granted safe haven in Russia

detained-in-dubai.prowly.com

 

[Lord-Humungus]

Perhaps he should have harrassed Stormy like Biden harrassed Tara Reade.

Tara Reade, who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, defects to Russia

Former Senate staffer who made claim in 2020 appears on Russian media alongside convicted Russian agent in US Maria Butina

www.theguardian.com

*********​

Tara Reade granted asylum in Russia

Tara Reade granted safe haven in Russia

detained-in-dubai.prowly.com

Sounds like she has become a Russian asset.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

NO crime has been committed.

 

[cnm]

Trump probably shouldn’t have paid a porn star to keep quiet while he ran for president and all of this would have been avoided.

He should have brazened it out, openly. Shows how poor his judgement is, he'd have even more MAGAts if he'd done that.

 

[cnm]

The prostitute never should get away with making threats against a person.

Like telling the truth?

 

[Lord-Humungus]

He should have brazened it out, openly. Shows how poor his judgement is, he'd have even more MAGAts if he'd done that.

It’s usually not the deed that does you in but the lies and attempts to cover it up

 

[Doc7505]

Are Newsmax, OANN, FoxNews, Salem Networks in it to destroy the chances of Biden being re-elected?

~~~~~~
The Hitlery should be doing time for financing the Steel Dossier through Perkins-Coie LLC

Clinton campaign, DNC fined by FEC for lying about Steele dossier payments

The Clinton campaign and the DNC will be forced to pay $8,000 and $105,000 respectively for mislabeling payments that ultimately went to Fusion GPS.

nypost.com

**********​

Report: DNC and Clinton Campaign Helped Fund Trump/Russia 'Steele Dossier'

The Washington Post reported that a law firm representing the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign retained Fusion GPS to investigate Trump.

www.snopes.com

**********​

Clinton settles sexual harassment suit, Nov. 14, 1998

The settlement with Paula Jones, reached without the suit going to trial, heaped fuel on Clinton’s impeachment proceedings by the Republican-controlled House.

www.politico.com

**********​

Remember When Bill Clinton Paid Paula Jones $850,000 in Hush Money?

Reading Time: 2 minutes Former President Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones a whopping $850,000 to keep her quiet over sexual harassment claims — but was never arrested for it. The case stands in stark contrast to reports that former President Donald Trump will be arrested on Tuesday for an alleged...

www.cf.org

 

[Robert W]

Like telling the truth?

Was her deal she would fuck so she could later become super huge problems? She fucked him. It is not like she was not willing to fuck.

 

[cnm]

She fucked him. It is not like she was not willing to fuck.

Sounds like you're saying she should be ashamed of that and keep quiet about it.

 

[Robert W]

Sounds like you're saying she should be ashamed of that and keep quiet about it.

Have your ladies run amok bragging? She did it for money two times. First the fuck. Then she demanded payment again.

 

[ThisIsMe]

More.

​

Merchan Suppresses Trump’s Non-Prosecution and His Election-Law Expert​

​

​

Of course, at least equally relevant as the Cohen and Pecker/AMI agreements with the Justice Department and FEC is the fact that the feds decided not to proceed against Trump after thoroughly investigating the matter. This was not because the DOJ and FEC approved of what Trump did; it was because a prosecution would have been futile. The agencies knew that if they’d been challenged, it was unlikely that they could prove the NDA payments technically qualified as campaign expenditures. Plus, as the candidate, Trump was not subject to a spending limit, as were Cohen and AMI.​

​

But that apparently doesn’t matter to Merchan.​

​

The judge has barred Trump from arguing that he is innocent because he was never charged by the federal authorities that — unlike Bragg — have actual jurisdiction. Merchan reasons that Trump’s non-prosecution is irrelevant because the feds may have dropped the case for reasons having nothing to do with whether Trump was guilty. Maybe so, but then how can Merchan justify admitting Cohen’s guilty plea, as well as Pecker’s/AMI’s non-prosecution and conciliation agreements? They had huge incentives to cut those deals for reasons having nothing to do with whether they were guilty, yet Bragg is being permitted to flaunt their admissions as proof of their guilt — and thus to imply that Trump, too, must be guilty.​

​

You may be thinking, “Don’t worry, surely Trump will be able to call an expert witness who can explain campaign-finance law to the jury, including why the payments Bragg is highlighting were not campaign expenditures.” Think again.​

​

Trump’s team asked to call Bradley Smith, an expert who served for years on the Federal Election Commission. Smith has written in the pages of National Review about why Trump’s so-called hush-money payments did not violate federal law. But Merchan has ruled that Smith will not be permitted to explain federal campaign-finance principles to the jury. Merchan reasons that such testimony would be improper because it would seek “to instruct the jury on matters of law.” In other words, the judge thinks it’s fine if the jury is instructed on campaign law by David Pecker and Michael Cohen but not by someone who actually understands it.​

​

​

Conclusion​

​

As you consider all of this, try to remember: Trump is not charged in the indictment with a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election by violating federal campaign law. He’s charged with falsifying business records in 2017, months after the 2016 election. As Manhattan DA, Bragg could not have indicted Trump for conspiring to violate federal law. The business-records charges in the indictment relate only to the reimbursement of Cohen for paying Stormy Daniels — they have nothing to do with payments to McDougal and Sajudin that Bragg is touting. Under long-standing legal principles, moreover, Cohen’s guilty plea to federal campaign crimes, and the Pecker/AMI non-prosecution agreements and FEC fine, are not admissible evidence against Trump.​

​

Nevertheless, Trump is almost certain to be convicted on the charges in the indictment. Merchan is collaborating with Bragg to frame the case for the jury as a conspiracy to violate campaign laws. He has rigorously denied defense objections to that disingenuous framing. He is admitting legally inadmissible evidence, the only conceivable relevance of which is to brand the legal NDA payments as illegal campaign expenditures. And he has denied the defense the ability (a) to inform the jury that Trump was not prosecuted by the same federal agencies that cut deals with Cohen and Pecker/AMI and (b) to call a qualified expert who can explain that Bragg, who has no authority to enforce federal law, has made up a version of it that runs afoul of actual federal law.​

​

In light of how Judge Merchan is putting his thumb on the scale for​

​

Bragg, I don’t see how Trump has much of a chance.​

You know, this does bring to mind an interesting observation. And this is what you may have been eluding to, but, the book keeping error was a misdemeanor that had run its statute of limitations, however, Bragg is reviving that by saying if it was done in furtherance of another crime, this reinstated the statute of limitations.

Now, Bragg never specified the underlying crime in the indictment, only in the supporting documents. However, even if he had, I’m not sure it would have validated his case because the underlying crime he’s using (allleged campaign finance violations), is not a crime for which Trump has been charged, or convicted.

In essence, Bragg case is assuming a further felony that trump hasn’t been convicted of, and he’s trying to use his case to assert that crime.

I’m not sure that’s how it works. First, Trump would have to be charged and found guilty of committing the crime if campaign finance violations, Bragg could then use that felony as his underlying crime for his book keeping misdemeanor case.

Is this not right ?

 

[cnm]

Have your ladies run amok bragging? She did it for money two times. First the fuck. Then she demanded payment again.

Yes.

So what? Is it her fault he lies like a rug?

 

[cnm]

Sure they are. Only thing is, this isn't a campaign finance violation.

No, it's for falsifying business records - to influence an election.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/what-charges-does-trump-face-new-yorks-hush-money-case-2023-04-05/