Why the DOJ Should Investigate Judge Juan Merchan Next

[DonGlock26]

Marlow: Investigation Season—Why the DOJ Should Investigate Judge Juan Merchan Next

Judge Juan Merchan presided over the most blatantly partisan of all the lawfare cases against Trump that I documented in my book “Breaking the Law.”

www.breitbart.com

"Violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights ​

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution demands that a defendant “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”

As I explain in Breaking the Law, D.A. Alvin Bragg had to piggyback Trump’s supposed falsifying business records crime to a secondary crime in order to get it classified as a felony from a misdemeanor. If he failed to do so, the statute of limitations would have run out. (That this was attempted is obvious evidence that this was a targeted political prosecution.)

The second crime finally came to light during the jury instructions.

According to the court, Donald Trump attempted to influence an election by “unlawful means.” What were the unlawful means? Well, nobody ever specified. Instead of solving the unnamed crime issue, this only made it worse. The charge introduced a third (!) mystery crime piggybacking off the second one.

If this is sounding ridiculous, just wait until you hear that the third crime was not specified, ever!

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2025/08/GettyImages-2154683844.jpg
Merchan told the jury that the third crime could be multiple choice. It was a choose-your-own-adventure trial. He informed the jury that if they agreed that Trump falsified business records to influence an election, they no longer had to agree unanimously.

At a constitutional level, the jury verdict needed to be unanimous. But in Merchan’s courtroom, it did not need to be unanimous on the third crime. The jury merely needed to agree that there was a third crime, any crime.

In addition to Trump’s being denied his Sixth Amendment rights to being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, Merchan was now denying Trump due process rights afforded to him by the Fifth Amendment."



If the judge conspired to deprive Trump of his constitutional rights, then he deserves to be prosecuted. This was a political attack cloaked by a black robe.

 

[Votto]

They need to be held to account or it will continue.

Pretty simple really.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Zincwarrior]

These were the cases he was convicted on?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Don't practice law if you you don't want to starve to death.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marlow: Investigation Season—Why the DOJ Should Investigate Judge Juan Merchan Next

Judge Juan Merchan presided over the most blatantly partisan of all the lawfare cases against Trump that I documented in my book “Breaking the Law.”

www.breitbart.com

"Violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights ​

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution demands that a defendant “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”

As I explain in Breaking the Law, D.A. Alvin Bragg had to piggyback Trump’s supposed falsifying business records crime to a secondary crime in order to get it classified as a felony from a misdemeanor. If he failed to do so, the statute of limitations would have run out. (That this was attempted is obvious evidence that this was a targeted political prosecution.)

The second crime finally came to light during the jury instructions.

According to the court, Donald Trump attempted to influence an election by “unlawful means.” What were the unlawful means? Well, nobody ever specified. Instead of solving the unnamed crime issue, this only made it worse. The charge introduced a third (!) mystery crime piggybacking off the second one.

If this is sounding ridiculous, just wait until you hear that the third crime was not specified, ever!

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2025/08/GettyImages-2154683844.jpg
Merchan told the jury that the third crime could be multiple choice. It was a choose-your-own-adventure trial. He informed the jury that if they agreed that Trump falsified business records to influence an election, they no longer had to agree unanimously.

At a constitutional level, the jury verdict needed to be unanimous. But in Merchan’s courtroom, it did not need to be unanimous on the third crime. The jury merely needed to agree that there was a third crime, any crime.

In addition to Trump’s being denied his Sixth Amendment rights to being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, Merchan was now denying Trump due process rights afforded to him by the Fifth Amendment."



If the judge conspired to deprive Trump of his constitutional rights, then he deserves to be prosecuted. This was a political attack cloaked by a black robe.

You are confusing the events of the crime with the motivation of the crime.

You left out the whole hide Cohen's crime.

Trump feloniously falsified business records to hide Cohen's crime, that was the "event", to unlawfully influence the election was the "motivation" and NO the jury does not have to agree as to motivation, they have to agree on the commission of the crime.
.
.
.
.
Take for example a Husband that murders his wife. The event of the murder has to be proven. The prosecution can then present creditable motives as to why the murder was committed. Such as:

• The husband had huge gambling debts and he wanted the huge insurance policy on his wife.
• or
• The husband found out that the the wife was doing the pool boy.
• or
• Maybe the husband found out that the wife was doing the pool girl.

The jury as to agree 100% that the husband committed the murder. 50% can believe it was for the money, and 50% can believe it was because the wife was shlepping to pool person. Still a valid conviction.

WW

 

[DonGlock26]

You are confusing the events of the crime with the motivation of the crime.

You left out the whole hide Cohen's crime.

Trump feloniously falsified business records to hide Cohen's crime, that was the "event", to unlawfully influence the election was the "motivation" and NO the jury does not have to agree as to motivation, they have to agree on the commission of the crime.
.
.
.
.
Take for example a Husband that murders his wife. The event of the murder has to be proven. The prosecution can then present creditable motives as to why the murder was committed. Such as:

• The husband had huge gambling debts and he wanted the huge insurance policy on his wife.
• or
• The husband found out that the the wife was doing the pool boy.
• or
• Maybe the husband found out that the wife was doing the pool girl.

The jury as to agree 100% that the husband committed the murder. 50% can believe it was for the money, and 50% can believe it was because the wife was shlepping to pool person. Still a valid conviction.

WW

You confusing crimes with motives.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You confusing crimes with motives.

Not really.

You are trying to apply different motives to the crimes Trump committed and call them different crimes.

Trump committed felonious business fraud to hide Cohen’s crimes and to influence the election.

WW

 

[DonGlock26]

Not really.

You are trying to apply different motives to the crimes Trump committed and call them different crimes.

Trump committed felonious business fraud to hide Cohen’s crimes and to influence the election.

WW

You clearly don't understand NY's convoluted laws. Try rereading the article.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You clearly don't understand NY's convoluted laws. Try rereading the article.

I watched the trial very closely. Read primary court documents including the indictment, the accompany Statement of Facts, motions in the case and the daily court proceeding transcripts of the case.

What you are doing is just attempting to rehash a discredited theory that won't go anywhere.

The prosecution is required to prove the crimes outlined in the indictment, they are required to inform the defendant of the circumstances of the crime which they did in the Statement of Facts. They are required to prove to the jury the perpetrator committed the crime. The jury is free to believe whatever motivation they choose, even if different members of the jury believe the crime was committed for different motives.

They are NOT required all agree on motive.

WW

 

[DonGlock26]

I watched the trial very closely. Read primary court documents including the indictment, the accompany Statement of Facts, motions in the case and the daily court proceeding transcripts of the case.

What you are doing is just attempting to rehash a discredited theory that won't go anywhere.

The prosecution is required to prove the crimes outlined in the indictment, they are required to inform the defendant of the circumstances of the crime which they did in the Statement of Facts. They are required to prove to the jury the perpetrator committed the crime. The jury is free to believe whatever motivation they choose, even if different members of the jury believe the crime was committed for different motives.

They are NOT required all agree on motive.

WW

What were the other crimes?

 

[Billiejeens]

You are confusing the events of the crime with the motivation of the crime.

You left out the whole hide Cohen's crime.

Trump feloniously falsified business records to hide Cohen's crime, that was the "event", to unlawfully influence the election was the "motivation" and NO the jury does not have to agree as to motivation, they have to agree on the commission of the crime.
.
.
.
.
Take for example a Husband that murders his wife. The event of the murder has to be proven. The prosecution can then present creditable motives as to why the murder was committed. Such as:

• The husband had huge gambling debts and he wanted the huge insurance policy on his wife.
• or
• The husband found out that the the wife was doing the pool boy.
• or
• Maybe the husband found out that the wife was doing the pool girl.

The jury as to agree 100% that the husband committed the murder. 50% can believe it was for the money, and 50% can believe it was because the wife was shlepping to pool person. Still a valid conviction.

WW

Nope

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You confusing crimes with motives.

No, World Watcher is right, not you. The motive is not enhancement of the crime from misdemeanor to felony. It was to hide what Cohen was doing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What were the crimes?

Extensive testimony at trial regarding campaign finance fraud.

A crime for which Cohen was convicted and which Trump tried to hide.

WW

 

[DonGlock26]

Extensive testimony at trial regarding campaign finance fraud.

A crime for which Cohen was convicted and which Trump tried to hide.

WW

Just name the other crimes please.

 

[DonGlock26]

No, World Watcher is right, not you. The motive is not enhancement of the crime from misdemeanor to felony. It was to hide what Cohen was doing.

What were the crimes?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just name the other crimes please.

I already have. Twice.

WW

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I already have. Twice.

WW

Do not let him get away with nonsense, WW.

 

[DonGlock26]

I already have. Twice.

WW

Nope.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I already have. Twice.

WW

Do not let him get away with nonsense, WW.