Greg Jarrett: New York judge desperate to label Trump a 'convicted felon' before inauguration

New York Judge Juan MerchanThe party dogmatically refused on Friday to drop the wrongful case against President-elect Donald Trump, instead moving forward with… Sentencing on January 10 It is another middle finger extended to the law. And to Trump.

At the same time, Merchan inadvertently admitted the foolishness of the entire prosecution by putting the defendant on notice that neither the court nor… District Attorney Alvin Bragg You will seek any meaningful punishment. The judge disingenuously advises that Trump will receive “unconditional release” without prison, fine or probation following guilty verdicts returned by a Manhattan jury last May.

Trump criticizes Democrats who only want a 'pound of flesh' amid failed issues

Not to mention, state law does not support prison time under these circumstances. We forget that the District Attorney deliberately twisted laws and distorted evidence to pursue a baseless prosecution that was motivated by pure political revenge. He ignored the fact that there was little chance that a biased jury's guilty verdict would be aggravated Chronic reversible trader errorswill withstand judicial scrutiny on appeal. recently.

It seems clear that Merchan is desperate to smear Trump with the formal restriction of “convicted felon.” To do this, he must judge the next president. A jury verdict alone is not sufficient under the law. Hence, offering what amounts to a non-judgment if Trump appears, at the very least, virtually during a hearing ten days before he is sworn in.

It's another charade aimed at ending and covering up a show trial. They appear to be tarred and feathered verbally, but no stock or pills will be posted.

In a sense, it may be tempting to accept Merchan's conditional surrender. Why? Under the law, Trump is barred from challenging the myriad errors the judge made at trial, as well as the prosecution's deceptive legal theory, until the ruling is issued. Only then is he officially “convicted”. A successful appeal erases the conviction, albeit belatedly.

And there is a rub.

The average defendant will accept a Faustian plea deal that guarantees no prison time and immediately begin the appeals process. But Trump is different. He is a stubborn fighter who refuses to give up, even when his opponents face the blame. This is one of the many reasons voters rewarded him with a second term in office. He does not give up or surrender. And he shouldn't.

A competent or objective judge would have long ago tossed Trump's indictment in the trash where it belongs. On its face, this trial was clearly inadequate, if not ludicrous, and clearly politicized.

Trump is determined to clear his name. So, you can expect his legal team to challenge Merchan's dismissal and judgment. There are several legal options available, such as filing for an emergency “stay” request from the appellate courts which, if granted, could push any further proceedings beyond the January 20 inauguration.

Since it is proven that presidents are immune from it Any criminal operation While he is in office — a principle even Merchan accepts — a court-ordered pause would effectively delay sentencing until 2029. Of course, this assumes the case is still alive four years from now.

Trump has a credible argument that the sentences against him should be overturned now. As president-elect, his lawyers assert that “immediate dismissal is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interests of justice.” The issuance of rulings would disrupt the orderly transfer of executive power.

Judge Juan Merchan as Republican presidential candidate and former US President Donald Trump attends his criminal trial on charges of falsifying business records to hide money paid to silence porn actress Stormy Daniels in 2016, at Manhattan State Court in New York City, US, May 2016. February 30, 2024 in this Diagram of the courtroom. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)

In essence, the state has no right or authority to violate federal laws passed by Congress, including the transition law. The intervention of the District Attorney and/or District Judge constitutes a violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

But there are other compelling reasons to end this case sooner rather than later.

In a previous ruling, Merchan readily acknowledged his power to overturn sentences if errors were made at trial that merited reversal. However, he stubbornly refuses to admit a large number of errors that require dismissal.

Most importantly, the plaintiffs relied on distorted evidence prohibited by the presidential immunity standard announced by the Supreme Court on July 1. The testimony of White House officials and many presidential records should not have been provided at all. Merchan ignores all this by insisting that such evidence was frivolous, even though prosecutors emphasized it during closing arguments to the jury.

He also turned a blind eye to Bragg's convoluted and incoherent legal theory that hiding a perfectly legal NDA must somehow be a crime. not so. He then allowed the district attorney to shred the law by reviving expired business registration misdemeanors and turning them into fictitious election felonies that were falsely portrayed as unduly influencing the 2016 presidential contest.

It was a very cool trick as Trump's transactions were recorded and paid out after Elections. Moreover, Bragg, as a district attorney, did not have the necessary jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign laws. The payments to former porn star Stormy Daniels did not even qualify as contributions under any law or regulation.

As I noted before, any competent or objective judge would have long ago tossed Trump's indictment in the trash where it belongs. On its face, this trial was clearly inadequate, if not ludicrous, and clearly politicized.

But Bragg's shameful tricks did not bother Merchan at all. Just the opposite. His honor has gone merrily with Hocus Pocus. At the trial, he shed his black robe to join the jurisprudential circus as co-prosecutor.

When the scheduled sentences were announced, no one knew specifically what Trump was convicted of. In theory, the bookkeeping errors are alleged to have been committed in furtherance of another crime in an illegal attempt to influence the election.

But what crime? No one can tell. Were they violations of federal campaign law? Tax laws? Fake business records? Choose from the above list of imaginative possibilities. Trump doesn't know because prosecutors never said. The jury did not do so.

In a startling instruction to the committee, Merchan declared that they did not have to specify which crimes were supposed to have been committed, nor did they have to agree unanimously. He abandoned with impunity the basic principle of unanimity in criminal convictions, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced.

Merchan's courtroom turned into a cesspool of incomprehensible rulings from a conflicted and hostile judge who denied Trump a fair trial. Merchan and prosecutors worked in concert to craft the guilty verdicts. Political bias stifled the defendant's rights to due process. It was a reckless case led by a prosecutor who enthusiastically embraced the Democrats' corrupt legal campaign against their Republican opponent.

None of this fooled American voters. In fact, it seems to have backfired spectacularly. Many have been deeply dismayed by the way Trump's opponents have distorted the law to advance a series of criminal indictments designed to destroy his chances of returning to the White House. Anger was expressed at the ballot box on November 5, and decisively.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

Despite doing their best to subvert the election result, the unscrupulous duo, Merchan and Bragg, can do nothing now to stop Trump. Even if his expected attempt to stop the government next Friday fails, the new president-elect will still benefit. He could begin to appeal the shameful perversion of the law that had been waged against him and the miscarriage of justice that had followed.

It was not a fair trial. It was a farce.

Meanwhile, the incoming Justice Department should open a full-scale investigation into the legal warfare campaign brought forward by Special Counsel Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg almost simultaneously, and only after Trump announced his decision. An attempt at elections.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

coincidence? barely. There is reason to believe that there is coordination between them with the White House under President Joe Biden or with the Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland. Maybe both. If laws are broken, prosecutors must be exposed and held accountable for weaponizing the justice system.

Democrats have spent the last four years teaching us that no one is above the law. It is now inappropriate for the same standard to apply to them.

Click here to read more from Greg Jarrett