I wish I could say that these political prosecutions won’t increase. But they likely will. Authoritarians on the left are becoming even more brazen in their efforts to use the criminal justice system against political opponents.
The objective is clear: They seek to cow the public into abiding by their political views. With the threat of government force, they want to compel people to either embrace their political philosophy, or at least shut up about it. Dissent will increasingly become less tolerated if these officials are allowed to continue weaponizing the government.
Constitutional law expert Hans von Spakovsky says the conviction isn’t likely to stick, for an array of reasons. Chief among them: Merchan’s convoluted jury instructions, in which the Biden campaign-donor judge framed the jury’s deliberations in a way that, according to legal expert Jonathan Turley, “seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt.” Merchan told the jurors they didn’t have to agree on the three possible “unlawful means” prosecutors vaguely alleged Trump had employed to “influence” the 2016 election.
“The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime,” Turley wrote in the Hill before the verdict was handed down. //
Von Spakovsky said Merchan’s instructions point to reversible error — “an error in trial proceedings that affects a party’s rights so significantly that it is grounds for reversal if the affected party properly objected at trial,” according to the Legal Information Institute. //
“That is one of the craziest things I have ever heard and it is a complete violation of President Trump’s substantive due process rights.”
Von Spakovsky said the standard in like cases is that jurors come to a unanimous agreement on each of the charges they are deliberating. He said Merchan added an absurd twist to the proceedings after handicapping Trump’s defense throughout the trial. //
As for Merchan, von Spakovsky said the judge is either one of the most incompetent judges he has ever seen or his curious instructions to the jury was “a sign of intentional misfeasance.”
“In fact, I think it’s the latter because throughout this entire case he has acted as if he is an alternate member of the prosecution team,” the legal expert said.
It is an unprecedented perversion of justice by a baldly partisan alliance of people figure-headed by an immoral president corrupted by fear of losing the power to abuse power and weaken the country he vowed to protect.
“Lawfare” is an insufficiently evil word to describe this strategy.
Back when he was funny, Woody Allen once said, “Mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” //
As the astute Ben Domenech points out:
It’s been branded a hush-money trial, but it isn’t — it’s a business expense categorization trial, claimed as a campaign finance matter. This just doesn’t fly. It sounds like a rinky-dink case to the average voter. //
The judge’s rulings and jury instructions, and the prosecution’s opportunity to deliver a non-rebuttable closing argument, basically stacked the deck for Manhattan jurors to obey. //
He was on criminal trial for falsifying corporate documents to disguise hush payments to a porn star. That is a misdemeanor charge, which the feds declined to prosecute.
However, Bragg compounded the charges into 34 state counts and elevated them to felonies, which enabled him to exceed the statute of limitations and potentially involve prison time.
But wait! What about this?
After Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat, she and her campaign got caught falsifying financial reports to disguise payments to others to create the Steele Dossier and Russiagate hoax.
The Federal Elections Commission fined her campaign $113,000. No charges. No felony. No trial.
So, for an offense similar to Trump’s, she got off nothing.
Just as that same Democrat did in 2016 when FBI Director James Comey declined to recommend prosecution of her for illegally using a private email server to hide (and sometimes destroy) thousands of national security emails from Freedom of Information requests.
should Trump be reelected (Alvin Bragg may well have just sealed the deal on that), he would be a head of state, and would therefore have diplomatic immunity under the UN Convention on Special Missions of 1969. //
anon-x8p1
4 hours ago
I stand with George Washington, a felon if ever one existed.
anon-x8p1
4 hours ago
Which Founder of our entire country could not be branded as a treasonous felon against the Crown.
Happens from time to time. Go Team Trump.
GBenton anon-x8p1
4 hours ago
When the government is corrupt and the rule of law is persecution, conviction becomes a badge of honor.
Romney issued a statement on Saturday morning in which he said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg committed "political malpractice" in his pursuance of former President Donald Trump:
Bragg should have settled the case against Trump, as would have been the normal procedure. But he made a political decision. Bragg may have won the battle, for now, but he may have lost the political war. //
You may disagree with this, but had I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him.
I'd have pardoned President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, 'President Biden,' the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy. //
GBenton
4 hours ago
Totally agree on the significance but I think Romney is "right" for the wrong reasons, which is not surprising.
He didn't say the conviction was wrong or unjust, which is the correct answer.
He said it was malpractice and he bemoans winning the battle and losing the war.
He said how Biden could be the Big Guy (lol) and Trump the little guy with a pardon.
All Romney is mad about here is that the Dems have made Trump stronger in November, IMO.
He has no moral qualms with the demonizing of Trump, just the means that achieve that end.
So pigs aren't flying, Romney didn't suddenly get a clue. He's just mad that his nemesis Trump is getting an advantage from this "political malpractice". //
anon-x8p1
5 hours ago
The Biden crime family committed no crimes, regardless of evidence.
The Clinton crime network committed no crimes, regardless of evidence.
Trump now faces 139 years in prison because the court claims they knew what Trump was thinking so he is guilty as charged.
This is what's so stupid about Democrats running around on Thursday shouting how "no one is above the law." People are clearly above the law, which seems largely dictated by one's political beliefs. If you're a Republican, you can bet the full force of the state will come down on your head if you so much as jaywalk.
If you're a Democrat, you can set things on fire, break down doors, discriminate, and "occupy" public spaces, and you're good to go. Be sure to collect your free meal on the way out of processing if you do happen to get temporarily detained.
That's not "law and order." It's not the justice system being blind. It's one of America's most important institutions being made a mockery of, and the left is happy to do its part. //
Fishin'withFredo
8 hours ago
Bring enough of there here, and here becomes there. NYC deserves every bit of it.
First, any civil or criminal defendant in a federal case who plausibly asserts that political or ideological factors may taint a jury pool can veto the Washington DC circuit and receive a hearing in his or her choice of another randomly chosen circuit or the circuit of his or her home dwelling.
Second, regardless of what circuit a federal case is filed in, any civil or criminal defendant who plausibly asserts that political or ideological factors may taint a jury pool shall be entitled to a jury pool that is proportionally selected from a region that did not vote more than 70 percent in favor of one party’s candidate in the most recent presidential, senatorial, or congressional election.
Third, plaintiffs or prosecutors in a federal case may elect to have the case decided in a randomly assigned circuit other than the District of Columbia. This would ensure that corrupt and criminal Democrats do not get a free pass on anything they do simply because they know a DC jury pool would never convict them of anything, no matter how egregious the offense.
Fourth, Congress should mandate that any states receiving federal funds for any legal or law enforcement purposes must abide by the same rules guaranteeing a defendant a politically fair jury pool.
Fifth, state legislators should enact similar laws ensuring political fairness for trials in their state.
In summary, all Americans are entitled to a jury of our peers, or at least a jury that is not politically biased. Unfortunately, conservative Americans are being increasingly subjected to politically weaponized lawfare. //
Indylawyer
10 hours ago
This is a badly needed reform. Excellent point. We also need to eliminate most federal criminal statutes, and make sure the ones that are left are clearly and narrowly defined. They wouldn't be able to wage most of this lawfare without these vague and overweening criminal statutes. //
anon-8gsr
12 hours ago
All this articles says to me is conservatives have been woefully neglectful in preparing to fight the opposition, and still are. We all knew that though.
GBenton anon-8gsr
12 hours ago
If Trump wins in November we have to view this as the last opportunity to right the ship. After what Biden has done, including the lawfare and threats to pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster, the mission is to destroy the corruption and neutralize the threat should a Democrat win in 2028.
That said, I think if the American people knew the full truth about the left there might not be much of a Democrat party for a while. Trump should declassify anything and everything on the Dems and their corruption going back to JFK (and before, as relevant), since I believe they had JFK killed, they set up Nixon, and they have their fingerprints on a whole lotta bad stuff including Waco, etc, not to mention what Hillary and Obama did.
Expose all the dirt. make it public.
GBenton Arik
12 hours ago
Stealing elections needs to carry a price similar to treason since it interferes with the peaceful tranfer of power and threatens the stability and survival of the republic and invites tyranny. //
I would only note it's not really "tit for tat" — it's about adhering to the law and applying it equally. //
Dieter Schultz
14 hours ago
"I'm not talking about violence," she made clear. "I'm talking about tit for tat," she said.
I'd just be happy if the GOP just decides to fight like they're in an existential war for this country's soul and act accordingly.
That might mean something that resembles "tit for tat" but, more important than that is just playing to win rather than playing to let the Dems win.
Betterdeadthanred Dieter Schultz
9 hours ago
Indeed. Sticking to our principles has gotten us here. Its certainly not going to get us out or guarantee a place at the back of the line at the camps.
Dieter Schultz Betterdeadthanred
9 hours ago edited
Indeed. Sticking to our principles has gotten us here.
I'm pretty sure it's not principles we're sticking to that's gotten us here.I keep saying that there are two kinds, and definitions, of conservative, the ideological and the personality type.
We can't seem to grok that the personality type conservative sounds a lot like the ideological conservative but with the basic impetus of "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change" and, because of that, they are NOT the same and, in fact, behave like RINOs.
It's not principles that are 'getting us here', it is being confused about which 'conservative' we're working with and wondering why people that 'tend to oppose change', you know, refuse to change the status quo that the left is clever enough to create for them so that they will 'refuse to act' to correct the ideological errors of the left's positions.
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
I obviously disagree with this verdict as do many others. I believe that the case will be reversed eventually either in the state or federal systems. However, this was the worst expectation for a trial in Manhattan. I am saddened by the result more for the New York legal system than the former president. I had hoped that the jurors might redeem the integrity of a system that has been used for political purposes.
9:20 PM · May 30, 2024
I am sad for him and his family, but this goes far beyond Trump. I think I am mourning what it means for our legal system and our rule of law when you can do this to a political opponent and a former president. It means none of us is safe, that that great principle which has made us special as a nation—equality under the law—died more than a little on Thursday. And that's a horrible thing to ponder.
Democrats have sacrificed it all on the altar of power and holding onto control.
Yes, there are a bunch of potential appealable issues, and it may very well be overturned on appeal. And sentence is likely to be stayed pending appeal. But in the meantime, the Democrats have what they wanted: the ability to call Trump a "convicted felon" and the hope that in a close race, this will hurt Trump and hand the race to Biden. The case may be overturned in the future, and some may say then, "Oh, so sorry." But it will be too late for justice and too late for the Republic. And nothing will be the same again.
anon-055q
9 hours ago
Until today, "The Trial" by Franz Kafka, was universally understood to be fiction.
As of today, it has been transformed into prophecy.
Those who accused Trump of being a dictator and trying to undermine our country's laws now have weaponized our judicial system to take out an opponent they weren't confident could be beat in the polls. The Democrats have started a dangerous war, and the losers are the people of this country. Election interference must not be tolerated. Trump will not give up so easily. We are witnessing another historic moment in our nation's history. The next months could change everything.
Democrats have set a precedent, and you better believe they should be made to live by it. //
The genie is out of the bottle, and it's not up to Republicans to unilaterally shove it back in. Make Democrats suffer under the new rules they set until they beg for mercy, and when Joe Biden walks out of the White House, he should be immediately prosecuted for illegally retaining classified documents, among other alleged crimes.
There is no option to play nice anymore. Republicans tried to keep things within the lines. Democrats stepped over them for what they feel will be cheap political gain. Forget the crying. That's not going to help anything. Make them pay, and make them pay hard. Any Republican not willing to do that doesn't deserve to be in office. //
Right now is the time to get up off the mat and do everything possible to make Democrats regret this for the good of the country and the credibility of the judicial system. //
bpbatch 24 minutes ago
The Democrats just implemented the judicial version of separate lunch counters and drinking fountains, and it's time for conservatives to move to the front of the bus. //
Weminuche45 9 minutes ago edited
i dont think there are very many Republicans who have any clue what they are dealing with on the left, at all.
"Counterrevolution and conservatism have little in common. In the struggle against Communism the conservative is all but helpless. For that struggle cannot be fought, much less won, or even understood, except in terms of total sacrifice. And the conservative is suspicious of sacrifice; he wishes first to conserve, above all what he is, and what he has. You cannot fight against revolutions so."
- Whittaker Chambers "Witness" (Cold War Classics)
Conservatives are all but helpless. They lack the discipline, the self-sacrifice, indeed the courage. It is hard even for conservatives to even remember Chamber's admonition that they face an enemy having no moral viewpoint in common with themselves whatsoever.
This is your wakeup call.
After deliberating for 11 hours, a New York jury found former President Donald Trump guilty on all 34 charges of falsifying business records to hide “hush money” payments in 2016 to former adult film performer Stormy Daniels.
Trump faces up to four years in prison.
Trump spoke about the verdict as he came out of the courthouse. He called it a “disgrace.” //
John Roberts @johnrobertsFox
·
Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.
2:52 PM · May 29, 2024
DJ Judd
@DJJudd
·
Follow
Biden's campaign is holding a press conference outside the NYC Courthouse where former President Donald Trump's defense team is opening closing arguments in his hush money trial
1:43 PM · May 28, 2024 //
Natalie Allison
@natalie_allison
Biden campaign is about to hold their first press conference outside the courthouse where Trump’s trial is ongoing. Trump’s communications team is standing by, telling reporters they’re going to speak too.
2:26 PM · May 28, 2024 //
RNC Research
@RNCResearch
·
Follow
LIE OF THE YEAR: A Biden campaign spokesman claims they're not holding a press conference RIGHT OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE where the Biden-led witch hunt is taking place "because of what's going on over there"
2:36 PM · May 28, 2024 //
RNC Research
@RNCResearch
·
Follow
"Do you consider Trump a threat to all these wars Biden has gotten us into?"
BIDEN SPOX: "Any media questions?"
"Is this a weaponization of the Justice Department?"
BIDEN SPOX: "Any media questions?"
"You won't answer the real questions — only the fake news?"
2:58 PM · May 28, 2024 //
RNC Research
@RNCResearch
·
Follow
REPORTER: What's your response to people who say you're running on January 6th because you can't run on Biden's record?
BIDEN CAMPAIGN SPOX: "That's absolutely absurd because we are running on a historic record of accomplishments!" 🤡
3:01 PM · May 28, 2024
This generation operates on the currency of virtue. The only way to get anything in life these days is to convince others of your noble heart. In reality, it doesn’t really matter if it’s true as long as you adequately satisfy the conscience of the audience. They are cheap dates and easy to please.
The situation with Rafah, as well as the entire Gaza conflict, should be common sense and nothing new. This isn’t the Western world’s first round of fighting terrorism. But then again, it’s always different with the Jews.
The conscience of the people is being perverted by biased news, outright lies, and careful manipulation. Hamas designed this strategy, and it’s working.
We are tired of this malice masquerading as humanity. Anyone who does not immediately call for the surrender of Hamas and the release of the hostages does not care about Palestinians or any civilians, Israeli or otherwise. Anyone who has spent time in the area of Gaza, even pre-war, should know how Hamas treats its own people. Where are the calls for freedom from the oppression of Hamas for Palestinians? Where are the calls for their leaders to value their safety above all else in their war campaign? Can anyone imagine if any Western country had put their people in harm's way the way that Hamas has? //
The only chance for this war to end is for Netanyahu and the IDF to apply strong military pressure. Israel has tried all of the things that the world has suggested — hard hand, soft hand, diplomacy, war, turning the other cheek, or standing their ground. They are tired of being everyone’s favorite guinea pig. The world has shown that the only thing Israelis can do that they like is die.
The culpability for Rafah falls on Hamas. The only way to fix an injustice is to hold the correct person accountable. Israel should do everything it can to protect civilian life. However, anyone who thinks that there is another way to end this conflict is either delusional or has malicious intent. //
Dieter Schultz > Ed in North Texas
4 hours ago edited
I don't understand why Israel held the IDF back from Rafah for so long, it gains Israel nothing on the so-called world stage and the drastically increased antisemitism around the US and Europe is proof (never mind the clowns at the East River Debating Society- aka the United Nations).
Nixon once said "We'll get into as much trouble if we send 3 planes or 100 planes to resupply the Israelis so send every plane we have!" When it comes to dealing with uncomfortable situations like opposition from your enemies, you have to loose your concerns about the amount of trouble you'll get into, doing too little or just enough, your enemies won't care about your restraint.
If your cause is just, and you believe that, then you, and Israel, need to stop caring so much that it stops you from doing what you need to do.
Negotiations don't start from a position of maximalist demands unless you are able to enforce them. Even the alleged Putin confidants who talked to Reuters for the report admit that Putin is tired of the war and wants to move on.
Let me stop here for a moment and say that anyone who thinks five members of Putin's entourage talked to Reuters about Putin's personal position on peace talks without acting under orders from Putin to do so. Those people are a danger to themselves and to others. The fact that no one in the Kremlin has acknowledged this alleged cease-fire offer on the record tells you all you need to know about its seriousness.
This means that Russia is not only demanding to keep the territory it has overrun, but it is actually requiring Ukraine to relinquish more territory as a condition of negotiations. //
If we look at this offer as anything other than a propaganda ploy aimed at bolstering the spirits and imaginations of Putin's fan club in the West, we are probably idiots who deserve whatever comes next. //
The Russians are simply advancing a narrative ahead of the international peace conference Switzerland is hosting on June 15-16.
Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of justice. All the Russian proposal does, to the extent it is even a serious proposal, is reward Russia for criminal behavior, return control of Russian overseas assets to Moscow, remove war-related economic sanctions, and set the stage for another Russian invasion. Nothing in the Russian scheme is even vaguely just, and no sane government would consider it. Russia knows that and they don't want it considered, they want big social media accounts and some Republican Members of Congress and Senators to have talking points to advace Putin's agenda.
It’s a dry heat
9 hours ago edited
Just to be clear, including a provision in the direction for conducting the search warrant specifically authorizing heavily armed men to use deadly force is not deemed by Smith as creating "a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger" to a former President and his family is perfectly okay; but for Trump to recite verbatim this authorization to use deadly force against him and his family somehow creates an intolerable risk to Smith and his goons? That's the argument? Oh please, someone play some tiny violin music while Smith cowers against the possibility that the FBI threat to kill Trump might make some people mad.
Smith should include in his request that Trump not make mention of the fact the FBI staged that infamous photo of the so-called classified material that it recovered. When I read that it made me really mad.
I observed one of the most remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually threatened to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again.
That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and to raise a defense.
It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused of doing.
Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.
The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.
Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant.
The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists.
But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom. //
There is absolutely no good reason why a trial of this importance, or any trial, should not be televised live and in real time. Allowing the public to see their courts in action is the best guarantee of fairness. As Justice Louis Brandeis wisely said a century ago, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
UpLateAgain Lightning47
5 hours ago
The raid should NEVER have been authorized. It was total BS. But should the language restricting the use of deadly force have been removed from the op order? Absolutely NOT. The Deadly Force Policy RESTRICTS the use of deadly force. It's not a green light to use it. It specifies the only conditions under which it can be used. Police at every level (including the FBI) are commonly reminded of the department's shooting policy before an action. To remove it would be LEGALLY seen as inviting gun play. //
GBenton Lex Naturae
4 hours ago
As in War Games, the only way to win this is not to play.
There should have been no raid. The language, per se, is not the real issue. Every raid has the language for a reason. But it IS a very big freaking reason why they never, ever should have done this. //
GBenton mikwcas
5 hours ago
yeah, we're witnessing fascism, Communism, and tyranny. And we're parsing whether the use of force order was extraordinary.
We need to make them live by their own rules. They hype up nonsense into crimes. Well, turn around is fair play. They create a scenario for an illegitimate raid that included potential for use of deadly force, they gotta own it.
Tone it down? No. Wrong answer. Shout it from the rooftops. Biden tried to kill Trump if the circumstances allowed. And Jack Smith tried to frame him and set up the hit.
Oh, it's not unique to Trump. SO WHAT?
The entire raid shouldn't have been used in the first place. And this only makes that a zillion times more true. //
GBenton bk
5 hours ago
Good people project their good nature on others. It's hard for some to see that evil is being done intentionally on our soil by our government. Conservatives want to have faith in law enforcement and the legal system. But it's all been perverted.
The bottom line is they are manufacturing fake crimes to persecute Trump and those around him, not to mention Christians, parents, etc.
We should not ever again give these filth the benefit of the doubt. When our side gets back in power, and it will happen some day, odds are, the game needs to change: They need to be prosecuted for their actual crimes and abuse of power.
The Bush/McCain/Romney doctrine of let bygones be bygones is suicide. Only one said plays by the rules so the game is rigged against us.
Or, we could keep taking the high road, not pushing every advantage, and let them basically win by default over time. //
GBenton Susie Moore
4 hours ago
Agree 100% Characterizing it as a "hit" is over stepping.
But that the order made it possible use of force could have resulted in death underscores how wildly irresponsible this raid was in the full context.
There should never have been a raid if that inherently involved a risk of loss of life over documents, etc.
The FBI was authorized to use “deadly force” against former President Donald Trump when the Biden administration agency raided Mar-a-Lago in search of classified documents, according to newly unsealed court documents shared on X by independent journalist Julie Kelly.
Attorney General Merrick Garland personally approved the unprecedented raid on Trump’s Florida home in the summer of 2022, after which special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents. Notably, President Joe Biden also retained classified documents following his tenure as vice president but was not charged by his own Justice Department because prosecutors said he would likely “present himself to the jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
A newly unsealed operations order reveals the FBI was authorized to use deadly force against the former president if need be, Kelly reported.