Trump committed 2 crimes, he beat Hillary and he was MAKING AMERICA GREAT. MORE PEOPLE OF ALL RACES WERE WORKING, THE BORDER WAS BEING FIXED, THOUGH EVERY DIME WAS FOUGHT FOR. STATE'S RIGHTS WERE RESTORED. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PAID UNDER $2.00 FOR GAS? NO WARS, FAIR JUDGES. AND A GROCERY BILL NOT AT DEPRESSION LEVELS. OR WORRING ABOUT WW3.
This is the culmination of the efforts of the globalist elites for a world takeover. As long as America stood in their way they were blocked. They loaded the DOJ and courts with their corrupt and bought people, and installed Biden to push it through. They have moved millions of illegals through our borders to dilute and destroy any semblance of law and order and American values. I have been saying for several years now, that this nation is done.
Mankind has always had amongst its number those individuals -- roughly four percent, according to studies -- who are sociopathic, who are obsessive in their desire to control others, whilst having little or no emotional capacity to be concerned about the genuine welfare of the populace.
In tribes, these individuals strive to rise to the top. In larger communities, they tend to form groups to provide leadership, and as any community grows large enough, sociopaths rise in prominence, to form and expand governments to rule their minions.
In every case, the larger a population becomes, the greater the opportunity to have power over them, since they can be taxed in order to fund the government. The greater their numbers, the greater the tax revenue. The greater the revenue, the greater the power of leaders to dominate the lesser mortals.
But along the way, some members of the hoi polloi may at times say, “Hang on a minute – why should we let the leaders dictate to us whilst they live off the fruits of our labor?”
And invariably, neo-paganism is trotted out to fill its perennial role.
The populace is reminded that, without obeisance on their part, there would be chaos and all would suffer. Therefore, all must sacrifice for the sake of “the common good.”
The reader might recall Hillary Clinton commenting in 2004, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Mrs. Clinton was very up-front about the intention of the State, echoing predecessors such as Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and a host of Caesars.
Most all political leaders have the same intent, although they’re generally a bit more subtle in their language. A veiled intent attracts a greater number of willing followers.
The result is also perennial: The tribe accepts a condition of increased taxation and regulation and thereby becomes increasingly enslaved and subservient to the leaders.
After all – to refuse obeisance would be to endanger the common good – to invite chaos.
But how are we to know when we’ve reached this point of subjugation? At what point do we go beyond “willing contributors” and degenerate into “servants of the rulers?”
Thomas Jefferson made this distinction, circa 1800. He said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
When he and his cohorts formed the United States, their primary goal was to do away with obeisance to any government. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a delegate, “What have we got?”
Mister Franklin replied, “A republic… if you can keep it.”
But the republic, as anticipated, devolved into a mere democracy, which then further eroded into a plutocracy/bureaucracy – rule by the very rich in the form of a central banking cartel, enforced through non-elected officialdom.
Obeisance to any greater entity is regressive. Liberty is, by definition, the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s behavior, views, or way of life. Justin O. Smith
Trump calls on supreme court to annul his guilty verdict in hush-money case
Presumptive Republican nominee pointed to the 11 July sentence hearing, scheduled four days before the GOP national convention
Donald Trump has called on the US supreme court to step in and annul his guilty verdict in a hush-money trial that left him with the unwanted distinction of being the first former US president to be a convicted felon.
The 2024 presumptive Republican nominee made his plea in a typically florid post on his Truth Social site, highlighting that a sentencing hearing scheduled for 11 July falls just four days before the GOP’s national convention in Milwaukee, when his nomination is expected to become official.
“The ‘Sentencing’ for not having done anything wrong will be, conveniently for the Fascists, 4 days before the Republican National Convention,” Trump wrote. “A Radical Left Soros backed D.A., who ran on a platform of ‘I will get Trump,’ reporting to an ‘Acting’ Local Judge, appointed by the Democrats, who is HIGHLY CONFLICTED, will make a decision which will determine the future of our Nation?”
Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases
Many people have gloomily accepted the conventional wisdom that because there is no binding Supreme Court ethics code, there is no way to force Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from the Jan. 6 cases that are before the court.
Justices Alito and Thomas are probably making the same assumption.
But all of them are wrong.
It seems unfathomable that the two justices could get away with deciding for themselves whether they can be impartial in ruling on cases affecting Donald Trump’s liability for crimes he is accused of committing on Jan. 6. Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in the Jan. 6 “stop the steal” movement. Above the Virginia home of Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, flew an upside-down American flag — a strong political statement among the people who stormed the Capitol. Above the Alitos’ beach home in New Jersey flew another flag that has been adopted by groups opposed to President Biden.
Justices Alito and Thomas face a groundswell of appeals beseeching them not to participate in Trump v. United States, the case that will decide whether Mr. Trump enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, and Fischer v. United States, which will decide whether Jan. 6 insurrectionists — and Mr. Trump — can be charged under a statute that criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing an official proceeding. (Justice Alito said on Wednesday that he would not recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases.)
Everyone assumes that nothing can be done about the recusal situation because the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards — no binding ethics code or process outside of personal reflection. Each justice decides for him- or herself whether he or she can be impartial.
Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could choose to recuse themselves — wouldn’t that be nice? But begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action.
The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Essential Information For Understanding Why Trump’s Appeal Will Succeed
Donald Trump has been convicted by a jury in Manhattan. “I was convicted. I’m appealing!” Most of us have a TV legal drama perspective. I rise to shine light on this process so that we can properly understand how a guilty verdict was reached in a case where Donald Trump did nothing illegal, immoral, or fattening.
A prosecution must satisfy conditions laid out in the Constitution, which is, should anyone forget, the highest law of the land. It specifies safeguards for the legal process. In the 5th Amendment, we find “No person… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” That due process is further defined in the 6th Amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Emphasis added)
The prosecuting attorney is an officer of the court and is duty-bound to guard these steps carefully. DA Alvin Bragg ran roughshod over them. The judge is the referee in the court and is obligated at all times to ensure that the defendant’s constitutional rights are fully safeguarded. Under the rule of lenity, when there is a dispute about the law, his only proper option is to rule in favor of the defendant. This is part of what “due process of law” (5th Amendment) means.
Should the judge fail in his duty, the trial court will no longer be a lawful trier of law. Such failures constitute “reversible error,” and that’s what appellate courts consider. They assume, too, that the jury properly considered the facts presented to it. (See the 7th Amendment) Let’s break this down.
The prosecution and the defense will bring in their witnesses and exhibits. If there are objections by one side that the other side is doing something improper, the judge must rule on the legal propriety of what’s happening. Ultimately, everything that the judge lets through becomes the sole basis for the jury’s verdict. (Spoiler alert!)
If the judge lets the prosecution run wild while denying the defense its proper rights, the appellate court will reverse the verdict becauase the jury wasn’t given the facts required to make a proper decision. If the appellate court reverses the trial court, it’s not saying the jury did anything wrong. It’s saying that the Judge did something (or lots of somethings) wrong. Now that you understand what an appeal is about, let’s go through how DA Bragg and Judge Merchan screwed the pooch. Bigly.
First, Michael Cohen submitted every invoice (11 charges). Trump had no control over those. Trump’s bookkeeper, not Trump, made every ledger entry (12 charges). Only the 11 checks involved Trump, and those simply involved his signature. So, 23 of the charges on which Trump was convicted didn’t actually involve him.
The biggest legal problem comes from the 6th Amendment. The indictment did not specify which “crime” the bookkeeping issues concealed. That prevented Trump’s lawyers from presenting a defense. When they pushed to get that information, Judge Merchan denied them. He even went further in the jury instructions. The jurors were given a list of possibilities. If they thought he was guilty of any of them, they could find against Trump. There is a suggestion that New York law allows this, but if that’s true, then the statute is unconstitutional. Even Claude.ai recognizes this. https://zarkfiles.substack.com/p/what-about-merchans-jury-instructions
Jonathan Turley Explains Why the Trump Verdict Is Ripe for Appeal
While the radical left is celebrating a guilty verdict for Trump for a non-crime, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley is throwing cold water on their celebrations because, as he points out, the Trump trial was "a target-rich environment for an appeal, with multiple layers of reversible error."
"The problem was not the jury,” he insists, "but the prosecutors and the judge."
According to Turley, "the most compelling problems” are the judge, the charges, the evidence, and the instructions.
First, there’s Judge Juan Merchan, who was specifically chosen for this case, continuing a pattern of tough rulings against Trump and his organization. Merchan, as we’ve noted before, has not only donated to Joe Biden’s campaign, but to anti-Trump and anti-GOP groups. His bias has long been established. His daughter is a Democratic organizer who raises funds against Trump and the GOP. Legal experts repeatedly observed that Merchan's rulings were pro-prosecution. Turley, who got to observe Merchan in court, noted that his decisions often seemed incomprehensible and conflicted.
Of course, the next problem was the charges."The Justice Department declined any criminal charges against Trump under federal election law over the alleged 'hush money’ payments,” Turley writes. "The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations."
Even the charges themselves were confusing to experts because the actual crime Bragg was alleging wasn’t clear. "The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election,” he points out. "However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of."
And then there’s the problem with the evidence.
“Judge Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump,” Turley writes. "She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her. After this utterly disgraceful testimony, Merchan expressed regret but actually blamed the defense counsel, despite their prior objections to the testimony."
Turley pointed out that Merchan had previously scolded the defense for making repeated objections, but now he was criticizing them for not making an objection. He also said that Merchan's decisions were “conflicted."
And finally, there’s the jury instructions. As Turley explains, despite numerous reversible errors a hung jury seemed possible, until Merchan gave his instructions to the jury—which seemed engineered to ensure a guilty verdict. The jury was permitted to conclude that the secondary offense could be any of three vaguely defined options without specifying which crime they found. Thus, the jury could have split 4-4-4 among conspiracy to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records, or taxation violations. This lack of clarity means Trump will never know the specific crime he was convicted of.
Joe Biden’s Fingerprints Are All Over The Criminal Prosecutions Of Donald Trump
Biden and those seeking to ensure his re-election have their hands all over Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of the former president. A lead prosecutor for Bragg during the trial was Matthew Colangelo. In December 2022, Colangelo left the Biden Department of Justice to “jump start” the criminal case against Trump. Biden had previously named Colangelo his acting associate attorney general—the third-highest-ranking official in the DOJ.
There’s Plenty More Where That Came From
Colangelo’s role in prosecuting his former boss’s political opponent provides the most obvious evidence of the Biden administration’s involvement in the Manhattan D.A.’s criminal targeting of Trump, but the rigging started much earlier. As I previously reported, the incestuous relationship between the Manhattan D.A.’s office and Team Biden began as early as mid-February 2021. Then, “Bragg’s predecessor, District Attorney Cyrus Vance, arranged for private criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Mark Pomerantz to be a special assistant district attorney for the Manhattan D.A.’s office.”
As The New York Times reported at the time, Pomerantz was to work “solely on the Trump investigation” during a temporary leave of absence from his law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison. “But even before being sworn in as a special assistant to the Manhattan D.A., Pomerantz had reportedly ‘been helping with the case informally for months.’” Even Democrats’ most reliable Old Grey Lady (of the evening) acknowledged, “the hiring of an outsider is a highly unusual move for a prosecutor’s office.”
Soon after the Manhattan D.A. hired Pomerantz, two of his colleagues, Elyssa Abuhoff and Caroline Williamson, also took leaves of absence from Paul, Weiss to serve as special assistant district attorneys on the Trump investigation. “For a law firm to lend not one but three lawyers to the Manhattan D.A.’s office seems rather magnanimous, until you consider Paul, Weiss’s previous generosity to Joe Biden.”
Juan Manuel Merchan is a Colombian-born American judge and former prosecutor. Most curious, he is NOT a formal judge, he is ONLY an acting justice of the New York State Supreme Court in New York County. How did a former prosecutor who is NOT a formal judge get assigned this case? This is not just a possible rigged proceeding, but this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as the alleged crime is a federal crime when there is no subject matter jurisdiction by this ACTING JUDGE in a state court to preside over a federal crime.
Now this ACTING Judge will be sentencing Trump where the maximum fine if $5,000 per count but he could sentence Trump to 4 years for every count. This UNCONSTITUTIONAL sentencing is a disgrace to the rule of law and the comments from overseas institutions and governments coming in to me personally are appalled at this entire proceeding.
The ACTING judge Merchan is a disgrace to the legal profession and his bias was clear by imposing a GAG order only on Trump but not on the prosecution’s witnesses. That is UNPRECEDENTED and a joke. He will now sentence Trump on July 11th, 2024 and this politically and morally corrupt Judge has carved his name in American history. This has shown that our legal system is so corrupt and biased that the entire system should be scrapped and all judges simply fired.
History is littered with corrupt judges like Merchan who always assume they are above the law like this ACTING judge and former prosecutor. In China, the historian Sima Qian provides us with a look at one of the most harsh bureaucrats of the Wudi reign, Du Zhou (? – 95BC), who argued that the old laws were then irrelevant and could be changed at the pleasure of the emperor. Zang Tang (? – 116BC) A judicial bureaucrat named Wno drafted the laws under Wudi regime and made treasonous thoughts (CONSPIRACY) punishable by death. When the regimes changed, he was eventually compelled to commit suicide as his view of the law led him to be the most hated among all of the ministers under Wudi regime.
News shows his lawyer complained that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the January 6 committee led by Chairman Rep. Benny [sic] Thompson, a Democrat, and Vice Chairwoman Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican, both fierce opponents of Trump.
“We're talking about the driver of the limousine, and the head of the entire protective detail,” Loudermilk said during a wide-ranging interview with the "Just the News, No Noise" television show. “They were brought in by the select committee to testify, but they weren't brought in until November.
“It was in June when they paraded Hutchinson before the world, and they let the world hear the stories. And what's interesting is in the very beginning of the driver’s testimony, his attorney starts off by chastising the select committee,” Loudermilk also said. “And he said we offered to come in July, August, September, and now it's November. So we found out for the first time that the driver had been offering to come in and testify under oath as far back as just a few weeks after Cassidy made these claims, but the select committee would not bring them in.”
Loudermilk’s description is confirmed by the transcript, which also shows the Secret Service driver testified Trump never tried to reach for or grab the wheel of the SUV as Hutchinson, who wasn’t in the vehicle, alleged in her testimony.
...
During his interview Tuesday, Loudermilk made clear that he has deep concerns about the way Thompson and Cheney conducted the January 6 investigation, noting they kept transcripts from his committee for months after he took over and still have not produced videotapes of many of the interviews.
“Well, it's kind of clear that it either was the worst case of preserving documents in the history of the House of Representatives, or that they were only trying to keep those testimonies away,” he said. “Because, you know, immediately they bring Cassidy Hutchinson to the forefront, then they wait until November to even bring in the Secret Service agent.”
Brace Yourselves for a Trump Conviction Because the Judge Just Tilted the Scales
The judge’s instructions to the jury is aberrant, with some folks commenting on social media that these guidelines for the jury wouldn’t be legal in Zimbabwe. It will only take four jurors to convict Trump [emphasis mine]:
The Biden gang has been leading a mutiny against Trump (and America) from before January 2017. They turned it into a coup November 2020. The Biden gang has suppressed our rights and invaded the country since January 2021.
I'm looking at this as a culmination of legal exercises to ruin a person before the courts. Maybe now we've seen how far away from righteousness we've let that happen. The scariest part is it's not stopping! It continues to corrupt, thrive even. Manifested disregard for the dignity of mankind.
Trump committed 2 crimes, he beat Hillary and he was MAKING AMERICA GREAT. MORE PEOPLE OF ALL RACES WERE WORKING, THE BORDER WAS BEING FIXED, THOUGH EVERY DIME WAS FOUGHT FOR. STATE'S RIGHTS WERE RESTORED. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PAID UNDER $2.00 FOR GAS? NO WARS, FAIR JUDGES. AND A GROCERY BILL NOT AT DEPRESSION LEVELS. OR WORRING ABOUT WW3.
Darryl Nelson, former news writer, now retired.
This is the culmination of the efforts of the globalist elites for a world takeover. As long as America stood in their way they were blocked. They loaded the DOJ and courts with their corrupt and bought people, and installed Biden to push it through. They have moved millions of illegals through our borders to dilute and destroy any semblance of law and order and American values. I have been saying for several years now, that this nation is done.
Oh, but it ain't over..
JUST IN CASE I MISSED SOMETHING OR YOU WANT THE ORIGINAL. https://www.theburningplatform.com/2024/06/01/historic-a-corrupt-judge-and-jury-convicts-former-president-trump/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1Y6SkGqSpprfq_uxp2nF0U2C4l_qGNWDIBpKBJ70yu91LIGO7Cd5uLpDU_aem_AT47VElYDR4ueUNZrMIVGl91DRSupFKGq51WiB7wuVvrEOu2Gh6D4yyfW8xQGs8PoMLMYCpPOrWjEvkDYsAV_bm0
Mankind has always had amongst its number those individuals -- roughly four percent, according to studies -- who are sociopathic, who are obsessive in their desire to control others, whilst having little or no emotional capacity to be concerned about the genuine welfare of the populace.
In tribes, these individuals strive to rise to the top. In larger communities, they tend to form groups to provide leadership, and as any community grows large enough, sociopaths rise in prominence, to form and expand governments to rule their minions.
In every case, the larger a population becomes, the greater the opportunity to have power over them, since they can be taxed in order to fund the government. The greater their numbers, the greater the tax revenue. The greater the revenue, the greater the power of leaders to dominate the lesser mortals.
But along the way, some members of the hoi polloi may at times say, “Hang on a minute – why should we let the leaders dictate to us whilst they live off the fruits of our labor?”
And invariably, neo-paganism is trotted out to fill its perennial role.
The populace is reminded that, without obeisance on their part, there would be chaos and all would suffer. Therefore, all must sacrifice for the sake of “the common good.”
The reader might recall Hillary Clinton commenting in 2004, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Mrs. Clinton was very up-front about the intention of the State, echoing predecessors such as Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and a host of Caesars.
Most all political leaders have the same intent, although they’re generally a bit more subtle in their language. A veiled intent attracts a greater number of willing followers.
The result is also perennial: The tribe accepts a condition of increased taxation and regulation and thereby becomes increasingly enslaved and subservient to the leaders.
After all – to refuse obeisance would be to endanger the common good – to invite chaos.
But how are we to know when we’ve reached this point of subjugation? At what point do we go beyond “willing contributors” and degenerate into “servants of the rulers?”
Thomas Jefferson made this distinction, circa 1800. He said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
When he and his cohorts formed the United States, their primary goal was to do away with obeisance to any government. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a delegate, “What have we got?”
Mister Franklin replied, “A republic… if you can keep it.”
But the republic, as anticipated, devolved into a mere democracy, which then further eroded into a plutocracy/bureaucracy – rule by the very rich in the form of a central banking cartel, enforced through non-elected officialdom.
Obeisance to any greater entity is regressive. Liberty is, by definition, the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s behavior, views, or way of life. Justin O. Smith
Trump calls on supreme court to annul his guilty verdict in hush-money case
Presumptive Republican nominee pointed to the 11 July sentence hearing, scheduled four days before the GOP national convention
Donald Trump has called on the US supreme court to step in and annul his guilty verdict in a hush-money trial that left him with the unwanted distinction of being the first former US president to be a convicted felon.
The 2024 presumptive Republican nominee made his plea in a typically florid post on his Truth Social site, highlighting that a sentencing hearing scheduled for 11 July falls just four days before the GOP’s national convention in Milwaukee, when his nomination is expected to become official.
“The ‘Sentencing’ for not having done anything wrong will be, conveniently for the Fascists, 4 days before the Republican National Convention,” Trump wrote. “A Radical Left Soros backed D.A., who ran on a platform of ‘I will get Trump,’ reporting to an ‘Acting’ Local Judge, appointed by the Democrats, who is HIGHLY CONFLICTED, will make a decision which will determine the future of our Nation?”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/03/trump-conviction-supreme-court-annul
He's right!
Trump NY Trial Commentary Your rights as an American citizen are directly at stake here https://criticallythinking.substack.com/p/trump-ny-trial-commentary
Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases
Many people have gloomily accepted the conventional wisdom that because there is no binding Supreme Court ethics code, there is no way to force Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from the Jan. 6 cases that are before the court.
Justices Alito and Thomas are probably making the same assumption.
But all of them are wrong.
It seems unfathomable that the two justices could get away with deciding for themselves whether they can be impartial in ruling on cases affecting Donald Trump’s liability for crimes he is accused of committing on Jan. 6. Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in the Jan. 6 “stop the steal” movement. Above the Virginia home of Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, flew an upside-down American flag — a strong political statement among the people who stormed the Capitol. Above the Alitos’ beach home in New Jersey flew another flag that has been adopted by groups opposed to President Biden.
Justices Alito and Thomas face a groundswell of appeals beseeching them not to participate in Trump v. United States, the case that will decide whether Mr. Trump enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, and Fischer v. United States, which will decide whether Jan. 6 insurrectionists — and Mr. Trump — can be charged under a statute that criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing an official proceeding. (Justice Alito said on Wednesday that he would not recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases.)
Everyone assumes that nothing can be done about the recusal situation because the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards — no binding ethics code or process outside of personal reflection. Each justice decides for him- or herself whether he or she can be impartial.
Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could choose to recuse themselves — wouldn’t that be nice? But begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action.
The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/opinion/alito-thomas-recuse-trump-jan-6.html
Essential Information For Understanding Why Trump’s Appeal Will Succeed
Donald Trump has been convicted by a jury in Manhattan. “I was convicted. I’m appealing!” Most of us have a TV legal drama perspective. I rise to shine light on this process so that we can properly understand how a guilty verdict was reached in a case where Donald Trump did nothing illegal, immoral, or fattening.
A prosecution must satisfy conditions laid out in the Constitution, which is, should anyone forget, the highest law of the land. It specifies safeguards for the legal process. In the 5th Amendment, we find “No person… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” That due process is further defined in the 6th Amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Emphasis added)
The prosecuting attorney is an officer of the court and is duty-bound to guard these steps carefully. DA Alvin Bragg ran roughshod over them. The judge is the referee in the court and is obligated at all times to ensure that the defendant’s constitutional rights are fully safeguarded. Under the rule of lenity, when there is a dispute about the law, his only proper option is to rule in favor of the defendant. This is part of what “due process of law” (5th Amendment) means.
Should the judge fail in his duty, the trial court will no longer be a lawful trier of law. Such failures constitute “reversible error,” and that’s what appellate courts consider. They assume, too, that the jury properly considered the facts presented to it. (See the 7th Amendment) Let’s break this down.
The prosecution and the defense will bring in their witnesses and exhibits. If there are objections by one side that the other side is doing something improper, the judge must rule on the legal propriety of what’s happening. Ultimately, everything that the judge lets through becomes the sole basis for the jury’s verdict. (Spoiler alert!)
If the judge lets the prosecution run wild while denying the defense its proper rights, the appellate court will reverse the verdict becauase the jury wasn’t given the facts required to make a proper decision. If the appellate court reverses the trial court, it’s not saying the jury did anything wrong. It’s saying that the Judge did something (or lots of somethings) wrong. Now that you understand what an appeal is about, let’s go through how DA Bragg and Judge Merchan screwed the pooch. Bigly.
First, Michael Cohen submitted every invoice (11 charges). Trump had no control over those. Trump’s bookkeeper, not Trump, made every ledger entry (12 charges). Only the 11 checks involved Trump, and those simply involved his signature. So, 23 of the charges on which Trump was convicted didn’t actually involve him.
The biggest legal problem comes from the 6th Amendment. The indictment did not specify which “crime” the bookkeeping issues concealed. That prevented Trump’s lawyers from presenting a defense. When they pushed to get that information, Judge Merchan denied them. He even went further in the jury instructions. The jurors were given a list of possibilities. If they thought he was guilty of any of them, they could find against Trump. There is a suggestion that New York law allows this, but if that’s true, then the statute is unconstitutional. Even Claude.ai recognizes this. https://zarkfiles.substack.com/p/what-about-merchans-jury-instructions
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/06/essential_information_for_understanding_why_trump_s_appeal_will_succeed.html
Jonathan Turley Explains Why the Trump Verdict Is Ripe for Appeal
While the radical left is celebrating a guilty verdict for Trump for a non-crime, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley is throwing cold water on their celebrations because, as he points out, the Trump trial was "a target-rich environment for an appeal, with multiple layers of reversible error."
"The problem was not the jury,” he insists, "but the prosecutors and the judge."
According to Turley, "the most compelling problems” are the judge, the charges, the evidence, and the instructions.
First, there’s Judge Juan Merchan, who was specifically chosen for this case, continuing a pattern of tough rulings against Trump and his organization. Merchan, as we’ve noted before, has not only donated to Joe Biden’s campaign, but to anti-Trump and anti-GOP groups. His bias has long been established. His daughter is a Democratic organizer who raises funds against Trump and the GOP. Legal experts repeatedly observed that Merchan's rulings were pro-prosecution. Turley, who got to observe Merchan in court, noted that his decisions often seemed incomprehensible and conflicted.
Of course, the next problem was the charges."The Justice Department declined any criminal charges against Trump under federal election law over the alleged 'hush money’ payments,” Turley writes. "The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations."
Even the charges themselves were confusing to experts because the actual crime Bragg was alleging wasn’t clear. "The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election,” he points out. "However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of."
And then there’s the problem with the evidence.
“Judge Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump,” Turley writes. "She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her. After this utterly disgraceful testimony, Merchan expressed regret but actually blamed the defense counsel, despite their prior objections to the testimony."
Turley pointed out that Merchan had previously scolded the defense for making repeated objections, but now he was criticizing them for not making an objection. He also said that Merchan's decisions were “conflicted."
And finally, there’s the jury instructions. As Turley explains, despite numerous reversible errors a hung jury seemed possible, until Merchan gave his instructions to the jury—which seemed engineered to ensure a guilty verdict. The jury was permitted to conclude that the secondary offense could be any of three vaguely defined options without specifying which crime they found. Thus, the jury could have split 4-4-4 among conspiracy to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records, or taxation violations. This lack of clarity means Trump will never know the specific crime he was convicted of.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/06/02/turley-explains-why-trump-verdict-is-ripe-for-appeal-n4929546
Joe Biden’s Fingerprints Are All Over The Criminal Prosecutions Of Donald Trump
Biden and those seeking to ensure his re-election have their hands all over Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of the former president. A lead prosecutor for Bragg during the trial was Matthew Colangelo. In December 2022, Colangelo left the Biden Department of Justice to “jump start” the criminal case against Trump. Biden had previously named Colangelo his acting associate attorney general—the third-highest-ranking official in the DOJ.
There’s Plenty More Where That Came From
Colangelo’s role in prosecuting his former boss’s political opponent provides the most obvious evidence of the Biden administration’s involvement in the Manhattan D.A.’s criminal targeting of Trump, but the rigging started much earlier. As I previously reported, the incestuous relationship between the Manhattan D.A.’s office and Team Biden began as early as mid-February 2021. Then, “Bragg’s predecessor, District Attorney Cyrus Vance, arranged for private criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Mark Pomerantz to be a special assistant district attorney for the Manhattan D.A.’s office.”
As The New York Times reported at the time, Pomerantz was to work “solely on the Trump investigation” during a temporary leave of absence from his law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison. “But even before being sworn in as a special assistant to the Manhattan D.A., Pomerantz had reportedly ‘been helping with the case informally for months.’” Even Democrats’ most reliable Old Grey Lady (of the evening) acknowledged, “the hiring of an outsider is a highly unusual move for a prosecutor’s office.”
Soon after the Manhattan D.A. hired Pomerantz, two of his colleagues, Elyssa Abuhoff and Caroline Williamson, also took leaves of absence from Paul, Weiss to serve as special assistant district attorneys on the Trump investigation. “For a law firm to lend not one but three lawyers to the Manhattan D.A.’s office seems rather magnanimous, until you consider Paul, Weiss’s previous generosity to Joe Biden.”
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/03/joe-bidens-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-criminal-prosecutions-of-trump/
‘Intentional Misfeasance’ Makes Show Trial Conviction Ripe For Reversal, Legal Experts Say
https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/31/intentional-misfeasance-makes-show-trial-conviction-ripe-for-reversal-legal-experts-say/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2cS0KldJvsXyhHUEMBS-ewAcXen7foO6erIlc3Nxt3Zi1t0vYAbSGyak8_aem_AaNnBdovV9cUqGKzaXAztcFqjoYcz1r6XywNjNVH-wYKZfAQcT2ep9H2sdOIPTQv9SlPDQi1cbQHHr7hLlaSZBFV
ACTING JUDGE?
Juan Manuel Merchan is a Colombian-born American judge and former prosecutor. Most curious, he is NOT a formal judge, he is ONLY an acting justice of the New York State Supreme Court in New York County. How did a former prosecutor who is NOT a formal judge get assigned this case? This is not just a possible rigged proceeding, but this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as the alleged crime is a federal crime when there is no subject matter jurisdiction by this ACTING JUDGE in a state court to preside over a federal crime.
Now this ACTING Judge will be sentencing Trump where the maximum fine if $5,000 per count but he could sentence Trump to 4 years for every count. This UNCONSTITUTIONAL sentencing is a disgrace to the rule of law and the comments from overseas institutions and governments coming in to me personally are appalled at this entire proceeding.
The ACTING judge Merchan is a disgrace to the legal profession and his bias was clear by imposing a GAG order only on Trump but not on the prosecution’s witnesses. That is UNPRECEDENTED and a joke. He will now sentence Trump on July 11th, 2024 and this politically and morally corrupt Judge has carved his name in American history. This has shown that our legal system is so corrupt and biased that the entire system should be scrapped and all judges simply fired.
History is littered with corrupt judges like Merchan who always assume they are above the law like this ACTING judge and former prosecutor. In China, the historian Sima Qian provides us with a look at one of the most harsh bureaucrats of the Wudi reign, Du Zhou (? – 95BC), who argued that the old laws were then irrelevant and could be changed at the pleasure of the emperor. Zang Tang (? – 116BC) A judicial bureaucrat named Wno drafted the laws under Wudi regime and made treasonous thoughts (CONSPIRACY) punishable by death. When the regimes changed, he was eventually compelled to commit suicide as his view of the law led him to be the most hated among all of the ministers under Wudi regime.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/geopolitical/the-impact-of-the-trump-verdict-of-our-ai-computer-the-fall-of-the-us-in-8-6-years/
News shows his lawyer complained that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the January 6 committee led by Chairman Rep. Benny [sic] Thompson, a Democrat, and Vice Chairwoman Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican, both fierce opponents of Trump.
“We're talking about the driver of the limousine, and the head of the entire protective detail,” Loudermilk said during a wide-ranging interview with the "Just the News, No Noise" television show. “They were brought in by the select committee to testify, but they weren't brought in until November.
“It was in June when they paraded Hutchinson before the world, and they let the world hear the stories. And what's interesting is in the very beginning of the driver’s testimony, his attorney starts off by chastising the select committee,” Loudermilk also said. “And he said we offered to come in July, August, September, and now it's November. So we found out for the first time that the driver had been offering to come in and testify under oath as far back as just a few weeks after Cassidy made these claims, but the select committee would not bring them in.”
Loudermilk’s description is confirmed by the transcript, which also shows the Secret Service driver testified Trump never tried to reach for or grab the wheel of the SUV as Hutchinson, who wasn’t in the vehicle, alleged in her testimony.
...
During his interview Tuesday, Loudermilk made clear that he has deep concerns about the way Thompson and Cheney conducted the January 6 investigation, noting they kept transcripts from his committee for months after he took over and still have not produced videotapes of many of the interviews.
“Well, it's kind of clear that it either was the worst case of preserving documents in the history of the House of Representatives, or that they were only trying to keep those testimonies away,” he said. “Because, you know, immediately they bring Cassidy Hutchinson to the forefront, then they wait until November to even bring in the Secret Service agent.”
4 TO CONVICT
Brace Yourselves for a Trump Conviction Because the Judge Just Tilted the Scales
The judge’s instructions to the jury is aberrant, with some folks commenting on social media that these guidelines for the jury wouldn’t be legal in Zimbabwe. It will only take four jurors to convict Trump [emphasis mine]:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/05/29/heres-how-many-jurors-it-will-take-to-convict-trump-n2639675#google_vignette
And if people understand, much in precedence is occurring. That coukd easily be you or I. So let's keep w our legal justice system.
The Biden gang has been leading a mutiny against Trump (and America) from before January 2017. They turned it into a coup November 2020. The Biden gang has suppressed our rights and invaded the country since January 2021.
The Biden Gang? This is 99% obama and 1% *Dr* j biden.
Oh, those are just the puppets! Globalists, aka, s0r0s & swab and their collective antagonists at wef
I'm looking at this as a culmination of legal exercises to ruin a person before the courts. Maybe now we've seen how far away from righteousness we've let that happen. The scariest part is it's not stopping! It continues to corrupt, thrive even. Manifested disregard for the dignity of mankind.
Finally…a real reporter! Wow…what a read! Thx for the info! ❤️