The corrupt New York judge who presided over Donald Trump’s hush money trial denied the president-elect’s bid to vacate his guilty verdict on presidential immunity grounds.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and verdict is denied,” Judge Juan Merchan wrote in a ruling Monday.
Trump’s attorneys had argued the indictment and verdict should be thrown out in light of a Supreme Court ruling issued weeks later that expanded the scope of presidential immunity.
Judge Merchan had serious conflicts of interest and manipulated the jury.
This is the case concocted by Soros DA Alvin Bragg, claiming Trump committed 34 felonies by signing for a payment to Stormy Daniels with his own money as a legal expense 34 times on paperwork.
The Invented Crime
Bragg maneuvered to expand the statute of limitations so he could charge Trump. He also converted a federal misdemeanor into a state felony. Then he tried it in a Manhattan court. Then he made the same crime into 34 felonies.
Merchan will sentence him before January 20, 2025, or delay it until after Donald Trump serves his term.
This case was always about influencing the election. Now, Merchan can influence Donald Trump’s presidency. I think he will sentence him so he will officially become a felon on a fraudulent case.
It is a case built on an invented underlying crime that was unnamed throughout the trial, so Trump couldn’t adequately defend against it. He even denied Donald Trump his right to some key witnesses.
The case will be appealed.
The Constitutional Issues
Selective Prosecution: It is unconstitutional to go after Trump because you don’t like him, but it’s hard to prove.
The Indictment: Every criminal defendant has the right to know the charges, but Bragg had not revealed the alleged underlying offense.
The Information and Bill of Particulars did not tell them the underlying second crime. Bragg claimed New York does not have to tell what the crime was, and they can go forward with any of three alleged crimes. Judge Merchan told the jury to pick and choose, which appears to be a violation of the 6th Amendment.
Unanimity: Merchan told the jury they did not have to be unanimous on the second crime.
This sets a very dangerous precedent if it is upheld.
Via Yale Professor Jeb Rubenfeld.
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
