The Unanswered Question in the Trump Trial: What Crime, Indeed?

Loading

by Jeff Childers

Appropriately at midnight last night, CNN ran its Trump Trial update with an over-the-top apocalyptic headline: “Judgment day looms for Donald Trump in New York.” Closing arguments finished late, after 8pm last night, with the prosecution getting four times as much time as the defense, which was required by a strange New York law to go first, before hearing what crime the prosecution would come up with. The jury will receive instructions this morning at 10am and then begin deliberating. Jonathan Turley called the day “otherworldly.”

In trying to sell its jumped-up p*rn case as something meaningful, the prosecution rankly speculated (at best), or cited facts not in evidence (at worst):

image.png

 
I wasn’t there, but as an attorney that highlighted line seems highly objectionable and maybe even grounds for a mistrial. The prosecution never put on any evidence that the check notations affected the election. They could’ve called an elections expert had they wanted. But they didn’t, so it seems downright batty they could be allowed to speculate about the various expenses’ electoral effects in their closing argument, jamming that wild notion into the jurors’ minds with the stamp of judicial officialdom.

Nevertheless, CNN cemented this case into history, not just because it was the first criminal trial of a president, but because it was the first criminal trial where, after all the witnesses had testified, after all the evidence was in the record, and both sides had finished making their closing arguments, the jurors still don’t know what crime the defendant stands accused of:

image 2.png

 
Another crime? What crime?? CNN’s article doesn’t say, and there’s a good reason for that. They don’t know, the jury doesn’t know, the judge doesn’t know, Trump doesn’t know, and even the prosecutors don’t know. The prosecutors are hoping the jury will figure out what crime happened.

As Professor Jonathan Turley explained in the clip above, Judge Merchan let the prosecutors repeatedly call the Cohen payments “illegal campaign contribution violations,” which prosecutors never even tried to prove, and which the payments couldn’t possibly have been anyway, since there is no limit to a candidate’s contributions to his own campaign.

Read more

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So, by implication, the “crime” is that Trump beat Hillary.

Or maybe one of the jurors got a parking ticket and want to blame Trump. Whatever. Just convict.

Isn’t that the same as saying, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”? That’s Levrentiy Beria statement gets thrown around a lot (mostly accurately), but here we have Merchan basically telling the jury in his instructions that they can simply decide what second, more serious crime Trump committed.

I don’t believe the Democrats fail to see this. I think they see it… and really, really LIKE it.

BREAKING: Stalinist Judge Merchan Directs Jury to Choose Among These Three Crimes to Convict Trump – Jurors Don’t Have to Unanimously Agree!

Completely unconstitutional. A defendant has a right to know the charges against him. A violation of the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.

This flies in the face of the American justice system before the democrats dropped all pretenses regarding the rule of law.

They don’t care. They want a conviction they can use in campaign ads. It wouldn’t be until after the election that it would be overturned on appeal and by then, the issue will be settled. I hope Trump gets someone in the DoJ that can root out these corrupt judges, DA’s and prosecutors. Even if they are state employees, withhold federal funds until justice is served.

Completely unconstitutional. A defendant has a right to know the charges against him. A violation of the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.

New York Penal Law 175.10: falsifying business records in the first degree.

Thinking that Trump didn’t violate the law is fine; deciding that the law doesn’t apply in this situation is A-okay; pretending that no specific law was mentioned in the indictment is the act of either a liar or an idiot.

What business records were falsified? How is payments to an attorney anything but legal expenses? You DO know what an attorney is… right? And are the ledger entries in Trump’s handwriting? Oh… THAT’S right… the convicted liar SAID Trump told him to do it, but the defense wasn’t allowed to call Trump’s CFO (whom the fascists have also put in jail) to testify WHO actually decided what to call the entries.

For that matter, how are a private (not public) businesses business records the public’s business?

There WAS no specific law stated that turned a misdemeanor ledger entry into a felony. If there was, you would have posted it. By the way, where are those posts of those who were predicting an acquittal? We are ALL waiting.

Your disagreeing with the application of the law does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that no specific law was cited for this trial. The lead prosecutor thought that a specific law was violated; a grand jury agreed that there was enough evidence of a violation to indict; the judge felt that the indictment was valid enough that he didn’t dismiss the charges; and the jury saw enough evidence that it voted unanimously to convict.

New York Penal Law 175.10: falsifying business records in the first degree.

Show stare decisis on that law.

Then you can show us what made that law a felony.

The lead prosecutor thought that a specific law was violated;

Really? And you know that how?

a grand jury agreed that there was enough evidence of a violation to indict;

Perhaps you have never heard the adage; you can indict a ham sandwich.

the judge felt that the indictment was valid enough that he didn’t dismiss the charges;

The judge is a hard core Democrat who donated to the Biden campaign and whose daughter made millions of $$ off this case.

and the jury saw enough evidence that it voted unanimously to convict.

What about the witnesses that the judge said their testimony would be limited to what he said, not what was asked them by the defense, and consequently were not allowed to testify? Meaning the judge in this case hindered testimony that would have been advantageous to the defense.

You need to find better sources for your rebuttals.

“If the five-woman, seven-man jury doesn’t find Donald Trump guilty of the alleged bookkeeping mistakes, it will be a miracle. This is because the 55-page final jury instructions that attorneys saw only moments before the judge read them in court on Wednesday is a “directed verdict” to Trump’s guilt. That’s it. That’s why an uncharacteristically somber Trump announced that even “Mother Teresa couldn’t beat these charges.” 

‘FIXED’—Judge Gave the NYC Jury a 55-Page Road Map to Find Trump Guilty – PJ Media

OK. So what was it? What was the violation that combined with making the wrong ledger entry created a felony? That’s right… “A LAW” was violated. WHAT law? Ever hear of the 6th Amendment? Citizens have a right to hear their charges. Trump didn’t get that right.

Yeah, the NYC grand jury, that only hears Bragg’s “evidence” thought there was enough to go to trial. Yeah, Democrat-donor and operative Merchan thought there was enough to go to trial. What a shock. The only evidence, mounting higher and higher, is that this was 100% politically motivated and the REAL election interference. It will not withstand appeal.

Where are all those posts predicting a full acquittal you claimed were all over the place? Appears that claim was about as credible as the rest of your blather.

Last edited 15 days ago by Just Plain Bill

“Judge Juan Merchan told jurors they do not have to agree unanimously on each of the 3 counts charged. The jury can have 4 members agree to guilt on each of the three counts and the judge will accept that as 12 decisions for guilt overall. There’s no way these types of instructions will pass appellate court review; but that’s not the purpose of the Lawfare that Judge Merchan is participating in.”

Supreme Court has the ability to (immediately) review and overturn any guilty verdict against Trump:

https://x.com/marklevinshow/status/1795617859869061334

IMG_4551

Wow. A guy who calls himself “TrumpWon” is going to vote for Trump. Who would have guessed?! And he going to vote so intently that his vote will count the same as it did last time—and the same as everyone else’s vote.

Your face paint does not change the fact that it’s just a vote for a candidate.

AMERICANS will vote for Trump. All others will vote for the demise of the nation.