After several postponements, Donald Trump finally faced sentencing for his conviction last year.
New York Judge Juan Merchan allowed media organizations to record the audio from inside the courtroom as he sentenced President-elect Donald Trump on Friday to an “unconditional discharge” in the hush money case in which he was found guilty by a jury last year of 34 counts of falsifying business records.
My liberal counterparts were, of course, unsatisfied with this result:
Predictably, during the hearing, he railed against the entire process declaring it to have been purely political and showing not the slightest hint of personal responsibility or remorse for his actions.
They accepted the façade painted by one-channel media: Trump is a convicted felon who should never be allowed to serve, but the the truth is much more than meets the eye. Yes, there were indeed 34 counts, but each was for the exact same underlying charge. Technically, it was ONE charge, a misdemeanor at that. https://reason.com/2024/02/16/alvin-bragg-is-trying-to-punish-trump-for-something-that-is-not-a-crime/
The 34 counts in the indictment are based on invoices, checks, check stubs, and ledger entries, each of which allegedly helped Trump conceal the hush payment.
This “crime” occurred in 2015, but the statute of limitations expired in 2020. To revive the misdemeanor, it had to be liked to a felony. However, New York state had no felonies with which to charge Trump with. So DA Bragg linked the misdemeanor, a New York state crime, to a federal statute, despite that federal crimes are outside the New York DA’s jurisdiction. The right judge who would look the other way on these legal anomalies was needed.
To make matters worse, DA Bragg never specified the felony to which the misdemeanor was linked either before or during the trial. When asked by a journalist: “What federal felony laws were broken?” he answered
“The indictment does not specify it because the law does not specify the indictment because the law does not so require it.”
It was a violation of Trump’s fifth amendment right to not know the crime he was being tried for.
Bragg justified this scheme, by claiming payments to buy these women’s silence was a campaign expenditure, and because the supposed campaign expenditures were not reported, a crime had occurred. “Hush payments” may be unseemly, but they are not illegal. Non-disclosure agreements, in fact, are commonplace in business. Bragg’s classification of these expenditures as campaign expenses was a bit of a stretch as well.
The judge for the case was hand-picked. The normal procedure in New York is for a judge to be selected by lottery, but to get this judge (perhaps to overlook anomalies) who clearly had politically Democrat leanings, the lottery was dispensed with.
Of course, we should not have been shocked by the judge’s jury instructions which allowed them to convict on one of three felony charges. The judge explicitly said they do not have to be unanimous as to which one he is guilty of. Some could choose to convict on option 1, others option 2, and others option 3.
Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.
There are several more injustices which I wrote about in detail last year while the trial was underway.
While I agree with my friends that our politicians often escape justice, justice was finally served in this case. I hope the Supreme Court will eventually overturn the conviction. Justice will be complete if this embarrassing case is expunged altogether. It has taken an inordinate amount of time to arrive at this juncture. Perhaps, we can patiently wait a bit longer for ultimate justice.
Original Post 5/14/24
Donald Trump is not the first U.S. presidential candidate to be silenced and prosecuted in court by political opponents. One candidate and prominent figure of his day was even jailed. The Democrat machine today is intent on Trump suffering the fate of five-time presidential candidate Eugene Debs.
In 1912, Debs received 6% of the popular vote as a third party (Socialist) presidential candidate. He later became an antiwar activist for which he was censored and then imprisoned under the 1917 Espionage Act. Many felt he was wrongly imprisoned, but President Wilson, political rival and war advocate, refused to pardon him. In 1920, Debs, while in prison, received 3.4% of the vote.
President Trump is a vastly different character than Debs, but the treatment he has received is similar. Legal-fare is still a major linchpin for 2024 Democrats: complete as many trials as possible before the election, unleash one-channel media to make voters squeamish about voting for a felon, and don’t allow time for an appeal in 2024. The entire process is a sham and there have been obvious anomalies (including downright injustices) during the current show trial.
Democrats’ hope is there are enough uncommitted or loosely committed Trump voters who can be convinced Trump is even worse than Biden. Certainly, Biden needs this lifeline. His approval rating (an average of more than a dozen polls) has fallen from the mid-50’s to 39.5% (as of May 13). President Trump four years ago today had a 45.5% approval rating–and he lost his re-election bid. In the last hundred years, only two Democrats, LBJ and Jimmy Carter, failed in their re-election attempts (in 1968 and 1980). Biden’s unpopularity rivals both of them.
The targeting of Trump, both while in office and since he considered re-election, has been relentless. This is designed to reach a crescendo after Trump’s nomination but prior to the general election. The current New York trial threaded that needle nicely.
However, execution has been imprecise. The other criminal trials may be delayed until next year: the DC election case is pending a Supreme Court review, the Georgia racketeering case has been delayed by indiscretions among prosecutors, and Judge Cannon “indefinitely delayed” the Florida classified documents case. Long-standing Justice Department policy says prosecutorial activities of political figures should end sixty days before an election, so any new Trump trial must be started around early July–just around the corner in legal time. Time for more illicit election interference is running short.
President Biden has received little criticism from one-channel media and political allies, despite connections between the White House and several Trump prosecutors. They just ignore conflicts of interest and unethical meddling. Much of the public is content (perhaps oblivious) as Biden apologists tell them these underhanded tactics are normal. Even if you would never vote for Trump, you should be concerned. He should be treated fairly, have his Constitutional rights protected, and we should not further corrupt the justice system. These cases are dangerous precedents.
Third Trial in the Last Year
President Trump fared badly in two civil cases completed in the last year. He was fined an outrageous $454 million even though no party was harmed by his actions. He was accused of inflating the wealth of his assets when securing loans, yet the supposedly aggrieved banks would do business with him again as loans were repaid timely.
He was also fined another $83 million in a civil suit brought by E. Jean Carroll. He supposedly sexually assaulted her in a dressing room of a popular department store during the middle of the day, something first reported decades after it happened by a woman who recently told Anderson Cooper on National TV: “most people think rape is sexy” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AL3Y2NYBhw. Nobody, including the victim, remembered the details of the experience. The story was implausible, yet Trump was held liable. Afterwards, Ms. Carroll was giddy about spending millions on a panoply of stuff for herself and friends https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKiqwjwJTB4. She does not speak of fixing injustices, her own trauma and healing, or doing good for others; she only wallows in her windfall. Her words ring hollow.
The current show trial is the first Trump criminal trial. The civil cases lacked merit, yet still went against Trump. What are the odds of a fair outcome in this instance? Ordinary folks have the chance to become media heroes, imagining they will be the ones who finally land Trump in jail. Can we hope for courageous jurors to hang the jury or will their dislike for Trump (only 12% in this jurisdiction voted for him in 2020) and their opportunity for fame matter more than facts?
The trial has been on-going for three weeks. During that time, there have been many troubling aspects that call into the question its legitimacy. Let’s examine further.
Former NY Prosecutor Pleads the Fifth
Former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, one of the team investigating Trump in 2022, testified to Congress last year. He was asked a dozen direct questions regarding his role in this investigation; he repeatedly pleaded the fifth amendment (forward to minute five). 🚨SHOCK: Trump Prosecutor Drops BOMBSHELL by Pleading the 5th About BREAKING the LAW in NY Trial (youtube.com)
He refused to answer every single question, including the following:
- Did you knowingly break any laws when investigating President Trump?
- Did you violate any person’s constitutional rights when you worked on the Trump investigation?
- Did you misuse any federal funds while investigating President Trump?
- Did you violate any New York state bar rules while investigating President Trump?
- Did you violate any canons of legal ethics when you were investigating President Trump?
Pleading the fifth is not an admission of guilt, but why the secrecy? This gentleman wrote a book on his experience, but is silent now. These are not complex questions. A simple “no” would alleviate concerns.
The jury should hear this testimony. It might cast doubt about the investigation’s credibility. Indeed, President Trump’s attorneys sought Mr. Pomerantz as a witness, but the (highly suspect) judge denied the request.
Gag Order
Judge Merchan has also placed Donald Trump under a gag order during this show trial. There are legal problems with this action:
- This gag order applies to one side only. Others, including the prosecution’s key witness, Michael Cohen, have been speaking freely in recent weeks. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/12/michael-cohen-trump-trial-surprise-00151868
- Gag orders are generally for the protection of the defendant, to ensure the defendant’s right to a fair trial is not compromised. gag-order-a-comprehensive-guide
In high-profile criminal trials, gag orders may be imposed to prevent the prejudicial release of information that could influence potential jurors or compromise the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
This particular gag order protects the prosecution’s case not the defendant’s. Why is that?
Of course, this order has naturally caused a conflict. jury-in-trump-trial
In his written order, Merchan said Trump violated the order in an interview he gave on April 22.
“That jury was picked so fast — 95% Democrats. The area’s mostly all Democrat,” Trump said on Real America’s Voice. “It’s a very unfair situation, that I can tell you.”
Which Crime?
The show trial hinges upon a unspecified felony. The felony is connected to 34 misdemeanor charges. We know the misdemeanor charges, yet, the felony has not been revealed to the public, nor to President Trump and his attorneys.
When asked by a journalist: What federal felony laws were broken? DA Bragg responded with:
“The indictment does not specify it because the law does not specify the indictment because the law does not so require it.”
Shouldn’t Mr. Bragg reveal the crime in a case of such national interest and importance? Does he want a fair trial, one that will not be thrown out on appeal? He should seek to dispel doubt by being more clear. If he had an actual damning crime, surely he would specify that crime. It seems he is compensating for a weak case. I call it election interference.
The lack of specificity is also a violation of Trump’s Fifth Amendment protection. The judge in this case should have noted this from the start–unless he too is politically motivated.
Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.
If all this sophistry isn’t enough, the statue of limitations on the 34 original misdemeanors expired four years ago. Only by linking them to a felony, can Mr. Bragg resurrect the misdemeanor charges.
alvin-bragg-says-trump-tried-to-conceal-another-crime-what-crime
In any event, the statute of limitations for federal election law violations is five years, and Bragg has no authority to prosecute people for such crimes. Bragg instead charged Trump with covering up his reimbursement of Cohen by disguising it as payment for legal services. Trump did that, according to the indictment, through phony invoices, checks, and ledger entries, each of which violated Section 175.05 of the New York Penal Law, which makes falsification of business records “with intent to defraud” a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 and/or up to a year in jail.
Given these facts, Trump’s “witch hunt” claims seem as credible as they have ever been, even for those of us who sometimes cringe at his words. This is great harm to American justice and fairness. Of course, one-channel media, as always, ignores basic truths regarding the case.
Several other prosecutors refused the Case
President Trump’s case was passed over by several other prosecutors. Perhaps this is because there is little meat on this bone. President Trump denies having sexual affairs with the two women paid off (although he is not denying they were paid), but the case is not about whether or not a sexual encounter actually happened. Furthermore, sex is not a crime, nor is paying someone to keep quiet about it, nor is asking another to enter a non-disclosure agreement. Countless other politicians have done the same. It is hard to discern what the legal case is actually about.
The so-called crime is that Trump classified the hush money payments as “legal fees”. DA Bragg claims they were (illegal) campaign expenditures, not legitimate legal fees. Such misclassification constitutes “falsifying business records”.
However, misdemeanors are not good enough to tarnish Trump politically, so the sleight of hand is necessary.
There is a precedent for these charges. Former VP candidate John Edwards was charged with a similar crime in 2011. After an extramarital affair resulted in the birth of a child, he classified hush money to his mistress as campaign donations. However, Edwards was never convicted (he was acquitted on one charge and the jury deadlocked on others).
There was no conviction the one time a similar case was brought 13 years ago, so why prosecute in 2024? Could it be about the merits of the case or could it instead be the impact on the election?
alvin-bragg-says-trump-tried-to-conceal-another-crime-what-crime
It is not clear that Trump violated that law, and the Justice Department evidently concluded there was not enough evidence to prosecute him for doing so. Given the fuzziness of the distinction between personal and campaign expenditures, it is plausible that Trump did not think the hush payment was illegal, in which case he did not “knowingly and willfully” violate the statute, as required for a conviction.
In addition, Mr. Bragg’s predecessor had already passed over this case in 2022.
In 2022, The New York Times reported that prosecutors working for Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., “concluded that the most promising option for an underlying crime was the federal campaign finance violation to which Mr. Cohen had pleaded guilty.” But “the prosecutors ultimately concluded that approach was too risky—a judge might find that falsifying business records could only be a felony if it aided or concealed a New York state crime, not a federal one.”
DA Bragg himself passed on the case initially, but finally moved forward last year, perhaps because he found a sympathetic judge and a jury pool likely to convict. Were the case brought in a locale outside of New York City, Bragg would have far less chance of conviction–and possibly might never make it to trial. The stars have finally aligned for him.
How exactly did Mr. Bragg find this sympathetic judge? Typically a lottery is used to select judges for trials. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/52293/how-is-judge-selected-for-a-case-in-the-us. However, this judge was not picked in the typical fashion:
The Thomas Analogy: Why Recusal Was More Compelling for Merchan in Manhattan – JONATHAN TURLEY
The chief administrative judge picked Merchan due to his supervision of other Trump-related cases.
NY Court does not have Jurisdiction
State courts try people for violations of state law while federal courts try people for violations of federal crimes. Therefore, a violation of federal election laws, should be brought by the U.S. Justice Department, not the state of New York.
No federal court or federal prosecutor has charged President Trump with an election law violation, so where does DA Bragg find the authority to charge the president with a federal election crime?
No federal crime is specified and no federal agency officially collaborated with Mr. Bragg. Yet, the judge, the hand-picked judge, allowed the case to proceed despite this deficiency. Such shenanigans naturally lead folks to conclusions of something fishy happening.
Jury Problems
The O.J. Simpson case was a foregone conclusion after jury selection. Several of those jurors recently disclosed that acquitting O.J. was payback for the Rodney King incident just three years earlier. The two events should not have been connected in any way, but this is imperfect justice in America. Are there similar problems with the Trump show trial jury as well?
donald-trump-jury-selection-jurors-speak-out
When Judge Juan Merchan asked the first group of 96 prospective jurors whether any thought themselves incapable of being fair and impartial, more than 50 raised their hands.
Nearly half the jury pool excluded themselves. Trump’s lawyers (along with the judge) excluded the remaining jurors who may or may not have been honest about being impartial.
“I thought STRIKES were supposed to be ‘unlimited’ when we were picking our jury? I was then told we only had 10, not nearly enough when we were purposely given the 2nd Worst Venue in the Country” Donald Trump on Truth Social, April 17, 2024
Is it possible potential New York jurors are seeking fame? Are any out to get President Trump? At least one non-credible potential juror slipped through the initial screening.
While Merchan has dismissed scores of potential jurors who said they could not be impartial or had scheduling conflicts, he has dismissed only two for cause in the two days since jury selection began. One was a person who had written “lock him up” of Trump in a 2017 social media post. Merchan denied some other Trump cause dismissal requests, including one for a woman who had posted on Facebook about celebrating Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.
Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche then used one of his peremptory challenges to remove the woman.
Did others slip through? Many jurors said during the selection process they “don’t like his politics”. One called him “selfish”. I suppose it is difficult to find a jury without any opinions on Trump, but perhaps the verdict is sealed with such folks as these.
At least a couple of jurors on Trump’s panel said they aren’t a fan: On Thursday afternoon, jurors were generally more open about their opinions of Trump. Many said they didn’t like his politics or some of his behavior in public but felt they could see past that to be a fair and impartial juror. One woman who will eventually decide Trump’s fate called him selfish and self-serving. “I don’t like his persona,” she said. “I don’t like some of my coworkers, but I don’t try to sabotage their work.”
Another juror was dismissed due to concerns her identity could be made public. Manhattan has few actual Trump fans, and one-channel media will certainly laud the twelve who convict. Perhaps this was woman was concerned about how she might be treated if she didn’t follow the crowd?
Judge’s Daughter
Perhaps the judge should have recused himself given the political connections of his daughter. Trump’s lawyers raised this concern, but the judge refused to excuse himself.
Dem clients of daughter of judge in Trump trial raised $90M off case (nypost.com)
Two major Democratic clients of the daughter of the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush-money trial have raised at least $93 million in campaign donations — and used the case in their solicitation emails — raising renewed concerns that the jurist has a major conflict of interest.
The judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm whose top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major party fundraiser.
The judge, the district attorney, Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Mark Pomerantz, the jurors, and the rest may simply want the spotlight that comes with this case.
Daniels Testifies for What Reason?
Stormy Daniels, the world renown “sex worker” (we know what she really is), recounted in court all the salacious details of her sexual encounter with President Trump (details which appear to have changed over time). What is the point of such testimony if not to embarrass the former president and damage his character with the jury? The specifics of the sexual encounter are not related to the hush money payments which the case is about. The question is about how the money was recorded, not what clothes were worn, what positions were taken, nor how satisfying it was.
Following Ms. Daniel’s testimony, President Trump’s attorneys filed for a mistrial (even the biased judge was reportedly annoyed with her testimony as well). The mistrial request was denied, but note something similar occurred during the recently overturned Harvey Weinstein conviction.
how-the-overturned-harvey-weinstein-conviction-could-echo-in-donald-trump-s-hush-money-trial
The 4-3 ruling concluded that the Weinstein jury was potentially prejudiced against the defendant because the judge allowed women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case, purportedly to prove Weinstein’s intent.
I am not an apologist for Donald Trump, but he must be defended in this instance. This case should never have been brought. It seems the fix is in like it was for Soviet era show trials. The problems are so apparent and obvious, yet the public yawns and the media seeks only political advantage rather than truth. An acquittal (is this even possible?) or a hung jury (it only takes one) would restore some of my faith in a justice system and a people who have careened out-of-control. Let’s hope truth and justice prevail.
Dave https://seek-the-truth.com/about/
https://seek-the-truth.com/category/elections/
https://seek-the-truth.com/
Seek the Truth 
2 thoughts on “The Great New York Show Trial”