Tuesday, May 28, 2024

The legal shenanigans being employed to convict President Trump


The partisan political nature of the prosecution of President Trump on so many charges, in so many venues, is beyond any doubt whatsoever.  That's made clear by the preliminary instructions to the jury in New York.

To find Trump guilty of felony-level falsification of business documents, the jury must unanimously find that Trump falsified the documents in order to commit or conceal a separate crime. But the jurors do not all have to agree on what that separate crime was, Justice Juan Merchan ruled.

. . .

In other words: If some jurors believe that Trump falsified business documents solely to cover up a tax crime, while others believe that he falsified business documents solely to cover up an election crime, the jury can still convict Trump on the felony-level falsifying-documents charges, despite disagreeing on the predicate crimes.

There's more at the link.

This is beyond belief.  It demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever the complete and utter disregard for the law that we see in Judge Merchan's courtroom.  Consider:

  • In order to be convicted, one must be found guilty of a specific crime.
  • The jury instruction above tells jurors that they don't have to agree on what specific crime was committed.  In other words, President Trump might not be convicted of a specific crime at all (because that would require a jury verdict to that effect).
  • However, despite there being no specific conviction, the jury will be allowed to find President Trump guilty of falsifying documents in order to conceal a specific crime.
  • But . . . if no specific crime was committed (and, in the absence of a jury ruling to that effect, that will be the legal reality) then how can President Trump be convicted of falsifying documents to conceal a crime?  If the act is not specified, and no conviction is handed down, then in legal terms he is not guilty of any crime, and therefore there is no crime to conceal.

This is so bizarre it defies belief.  Any half-way competent lawyer can see that in a heartbeat.

The judge's conduct is well summed up by former Professor Alan Dershowitz:

This judge has committed more reversible errors in the one day I was in the courtroom than I’ve seen in years and years of practicing law. It’s just an outrage,” Dershowitz stated.

I think that if President Trump is convicted by this kangaroo court under such pretexts, it will virtually guarantee his victory in the November 2024 elections . . . if his enemies allow him to live that long.  If he's incarcerated on such flimsy grounds, one can only assume that it's to create the conditions under which he might suffer a terminal "accident" or "assault" in prison, to finally remove any possibility of his winning re-election.  Frankly, I wouldn't put that past his political enemies.  Their desperation to derail his campaign is beyond clear.

As always, I note that I am not a fan of President Trump, and I'd prefer a more balanced candidate in November.  However, that's beside the point.  Whatever one's views of President Trump, the fact that he's being treated like this by our so-called impartial, balanced judicial system is cause for the deepest concern.



Anonymous said...

Hi Peter

FWIW – for your amazement!

“Judge Says New York City Jury Doesn’t Need to Agree on Predicate Crime to Convict Trump of Guilt
May 26, 2024 | Sundance | 367 Comments”

“Yes, you read that correctly…. The jurors do not need to believe a crime was committed in order to convict Trump of unlawfully hiding a crime he never committed. Let that insufferable Lawfare logic sink in.”


To raise your amazement to astounment –

“Case Calls for Jury Nullification (A Deep Dive)”

“There are two particular rights in that jumble that we want you to focus on. The first is that ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a … trial, by an impartial jury.’ Second, it states that the accused also has a right ‘to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation’—in other words, you have a right to know the charges against you.

And that right is not merely to be told what specific crime you are accused of. It is not sufficient under that clause to say ‘the defendant committed murder, in the last ten years, against someone, somewhere.’ If you faced a charge like that, you might literally have no idea what they are talking about, and have no ability to prepare a defense. That is why you have a constitutional right to know in detail what you are being accused of.

Except, according to Turley, Alvin Bragg hasn’t had to do that. Trump is being charged with falsifying records in order to cover up another crime. We call that other crime a ‘predicate offense,’ and that has to be filled in, too. And it hasn’t. From the article:”

More at


Pour yourself a big one befor starting that as there is a lot to digest

oldvet1950 said...

I am disappointed that you would prefer someone other than DJT. A more balanced candidate would agree that the left has some validity to their views, hence "balanced".

Maniac said...

He was as good as guilty when the jury was summoned.

I'm guessing his only option will be to appeal. How long can that process last, though?

Dale the peasant said...

When you've lost Dershowitz-----

EricW said...

Here's the problem - "I am not a fan of President Trump".

Politics has far too often been a popularity contest. Just look at the shiny pony Justin Turdeau in Canada. So handsome, the women loved him. Now after eight years the country is in a shambles.

Trump is a polarizing character, love him or hate him, but his policies are the only thing that really matter at this point. Constructive criticism is necessary and valuable, there must be feedback for a control loop to be stable. Being a fan does not require you to like the man.

If you don't want four more years of horrible administration and the probable destruction of the nation, you'd better become a fan. There is no other option.

McChuck said...

There is no law, only Zuul.

Gray Man said...

This is not really uncommon. Defendent's rights in the US criminal justice system are routinely violated in similar ways every day.

JG said...

I was a juror on a couple of trials and I see this as being a total corrupt Judge and trial. Whether you like Trump or not if I was a juror on this trial I would be really upset as I would see this as wasting my time for weeks sitting at a total sham trial and I would let all the other Jurors feel how I felt. It also puts a target on all the juror's back if they give Trump a win or convict him as somebody will likely go after the jurors. A hung jury would be best for the jurors.

Ritchie said...

How very Soviet.

Aesop said...

If one is trying to foment open civil war, this is an excellent bit of tinder to kindle that inferno.

lynn said...

I am worried about Trump being assassinated too.

Blue said...

We see in real time the why Ceasar marched on Rome...

Anonymous said...

“I’m not a fan...I would prefer a more balanced candidate...however.....”

Peter, vacillating is not your best look. I would have thought by now a man of your intellect and experience would have realized that there are only two sides in this battle for the heart and soul of this country....either you are pro Trump and thus pro America....or not.

Straddling the fence only makes you look weak and ineffectual, and results in a split crotch....best be lookin for a seamstress....

I don’t know how in the hell MAGA can be more “balanced”....that is all...zero, nada, nyet, ..there is no middle ground....

Dan said...

Anyone with the IQ of a soap bubble knows this was a sham trial in a kangaroo court. It was a preplanned orchestrated farce instigated for the express of destroying the lefts political nemesis. It's proof beyond any doubt that boy the government and the court/legal system is corrupt. Irredeemably, irretrievably broken.

Will said...

If the Left REALLY wants an uncivil war, it's looking like they may get it, with the way they are working to eliminate Trump. The stupidity is astounding.

bravokilo said...

President Trump has never attacked anyone uprovoked. Every 'mean tweet' was in response to a direct attack on him, his family, or his country. With W. Bush, we saw the consequences of not responding.
Other than that, I can't imagine what 'more balanced candidate' means, especially in light of the shafting recieved by Manchin (a backstabbing that is the rule, not the exception).

John T. Block said...

Until well after the election... which is the whole, frikking point of the exercise, to be able to scream "He's a CONVICTED FELON!!! DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!!!" for the campaign....once the election's over, the appeal won't matter, politically...just another unethical, unconstitutional hammer to hit the opposition with...