#1 Turley presents no evidence that the normal random selection wasn't followed - simply a claim he was "handpicked" with no proof.
#2 It first sentence is a lie. Trump was charged with or even "effectively" tried for for Federal campaign violations. Trumps criminal case is all about his New York business fraud. State law, not Federal.
#3 Again another lie. The Judge APPROVED the FEC person to testify within his area of expertise. Which did not include New York Business law, so the defense chose not to call him. The Judge DID NOT bar his testimony.
#4 The Judges jury instructions were perfectly fine. The jury had to find unanimously that Trump committed the state crime, they were not and are not required under New York State law and legal precedent to agree as to the motive for committing the illegal acts.
Turley is a paid shill.
WW
1. Elise Stefanik said he was appointed.
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) is requesting an investigation into the judge overseeing Donald Trump's criminal
www.washingtonexaminer.com
2. The "mystery crime" being covered up by the legal NDA that converted an expired misdemeanor into a felony was the misinterpretation of Federal Election law. It was not a tax violation, it was supposedly the same as Cohen's.
3. Merchan did not allow Smith to present the facts about Federal campaign law, which would have cleared Trump.
"Justice Juan Merchan has sharply limited what Trump's planned expert witness can testify about.
Trump's defense team wants to call election law expert Brad Smith to testify about federal campaign finance law. But the judge ruled this morning that allowing Smith to testify expansively on that topic would supplant the judge's role to determine what the law is.
“There is no question this would result in a battle of the experts, which will only serve to confuse, and not assist, the jury,” Merchan declared near the beginning of today's court session.
Merchan did not block Trump from calling Smith, a former member of the Federal Election Commission. But the judge said he’d be restricted to the basics of the FEC and to “general definitions and terms” in campaign finance law, like what counts as a contribution or expenditure."
4. We'll see if the appeals courts agree that Merchan's instructions were legal. Its not the "motive" that is in doubt, it is the non-existent CRIME that was covered-up by the NDA. HINT: there is no crime that was covered up