GREGG JARRETT: NY judge wants to name Trump ‘convict’ before inauguration

New York Judge Juan Merchan’s firm refusal on Friday to dismiss the misdemeanor case against President-elect Donald Trump and, instead, proceed with sentencing on Jan. 10 is yet another middle finger in the law. And to Trump.

At the same time, Merchan unwittingly acknowledges the stupidity of all prosecutors by informing the defendant that neither the court nor District Attorney Alvin Bragg will seek any meaningful punishment. Trump, the judge casually advised, would receive an “unconditional release” without jail time, fines, or probation following the guilty verdicts by a Manhattan jury last May.

TRUMP SLAMS MERCHAN, DEMOCRATS, ‘MEAT SHOTS’ Amid FAILED CASES

Don’t forget that state law does not support a prison sentence under these circumstances. Forget that the district attorney deliberately tossed the rules and shoddy evidence into a futile prosecution that was motivated by political revenge. And you can ignore the fact that it is unlikely that a biased judge’s decision, compounded by the long-standing retrograde errors in Merchan, will stand up to judicial scrutiny on appeal. Finally.

It seems clear that Merchan wishes to smear Trump with the legal force of a “convicted felon.” To do it, he must convict the next president. The judge’s decision alone is not sufficient under the law. Therefore, the offer of the equivalent of a non-sentence if only Trump, at least, will appear during the hearing about 10 days before he is sworn in.

It is another crime designed to book—and cover up—a crime of forgery. Show that you are tarred in the mouth and feathered, but no stocks or pillory will be used.

In some ways, it may be tempting to accept Merchan’s contingent commitment. Why? Under the law, Trump is barred from challenging the jury’s numerous errors in the trial, as well as the prosecutors’ special legal theory, until the verdict. Only then are you officially “sentenced”. A successful appeal overturns the conviction, albeit late.

And there is the rub.

Your average defendant can accept a Faustian deal that ensures no jail time and starts the clock quickly on the appeals process. But Trump is different. He is a strong warrior who refuses to bend, even when his opponents face shame. It is one of the many reasons why voters rewarded him with a second term in office. He doesn’t give up or give up. And it shouldn’t.

A competent or objective judge would have long ago thrown Trump’s case in the trash where it didn’t belong. On the face of it, it lacked authority, if not irony, and an overtly politicized prosecution.

Trump is determined to clear his name. Therefore, you can expect his legal team to challenge Merchan’s decision on both the dismissal and the sentence. There are various legal options available, such as filing an emergency “stay” with the appeals courts that, if granted, could delay any further proceedings beyond the Jan. 20.

As it is well known that presidents are protected or any criminal process while in office – a principle accepted even by Merchan – a court-ordered suspension could delay the sentence until 2029. Of course, that assumes the case is still valid four years from now.

Trump has a credible argument that the decisions against him should be removed now. As the president-elect, his lawyers argued that “immediate impeachment is warranted by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Reform Act of 1963, and the interest of justice.” The conviction would disrupt the orderly transfer of executive power.

Basically, a state has no right or power to override federal laws passed by Congress, including the Transition Act. The interference of the local prosecutor and/or judge is a violation of the Supreme Clause of the Constitution.

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

In a previous ruling, Merchan quickly acknowledged his authority to set aside decisions if errors were made in the trial that would merit reversal. However, he stubbornly refuses to recognize the multitude of errors that need to be dismissed.

Chief among them is that prosecutors relied on tainted evidence prohibited by presidential immunity rules set forth by the Supreme Court on July 1. Evidence from White House officials and many of the president’s records should never have been introduced. Merchan dismisses all of this by asserting that such evidence is trivial, even though the prosecution emphasized it in closing arguments before the judge.

He also ignored Bragg’s convoluted and incoherent legal theory that it should somehow be a crime to conceal a legal non-disclosure agreement. It is not. He then allowed the district attorney to subvert the law by resurrecting out-of-date business records malpractices and turning them over to election fraudsters who were falsely portrayed as improperly influencing the 2016 presidential race.

It was a very good strategy as Trump’s transactions were recorded and returned. after election. In addition, Bragg, as a local prosecutor, had no power to enforce federal campaign laws. The payments of former movie star Stormy Daniels did not even qualify as donations under any rule or regulation.

As I’ve noted before, a competent or objective judge would have long ago thrown Trump’s case in the trash where it didn’t belong. On the face of it, it lacked authority, if not irony, and an overtly politicized prosecution.

But Bragg’s scandalous legerdemain did not bother Merchan in the least. Just the opposite. His fame was accompanied by hocus-pocus. At trial, he shed his black robes to join the legal circus as a prosecutor.

When these preliminaries were announced, no one knew exactly what Trump was convicted of. In theory, accounting errors are said to be committed in furtherance of other crimes in an illegal attempt to influence elections.

But where is the crime? No one can say. Was it a violation of federal campaign law? Tax laws? False business records? Choose from the aforementioned menu of opportunities to consider. Trump doesn’t know because prosecutors never said. The judges didn’t do that either.

In a shocking order to the panel, Merchan declared that they did not have to identify which crimes were allegedly committed and should not agree unanimously. He has abandoned with impunity the basic principle of consent in criminal cases that the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized.

Merchan’s trial turned into a jumble of incomprehensible decisions by an adversarial and hostile judge that deprived Trump of a fair trial. The broker and the prosecutors worked in concert to make guilty decisions. Political bias interfered with the defendant’s due process rights. It was an open-minded case run by a district attorney who enthusiastically embraced the Democrats’ corrupt legislative campaign against their Republican opponent.

No one fooled the American voters. Indeed, it seems to have backfired dramatically. Many are outraged at how Trump’s enemies have undermined the law to bring a series of criminal charges designed to destroy his chances of returning to the White House. The outrage was felt at the ballot box on November 5. Clearly.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW MORE FOX NEWS

Despite their best efforts to destroy the outcome of the election, the evil duo of Merchan and Bragg can do nothing now to stop Trump. Even if his expected appeal for a stay of execution next Friday fails, the newly elected president will still benefit. He may initiate an appeal for the shameless distortion of law that was committed and the miscarriage of justice that occurred.

It was not a trial. It was a farce.

For now, it is up to the incoming Justice Department to open a comprehensive investigation into the legal campaign that Special Counsel Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought almost simultaneously and after Trump announced his policy. election petition.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM

Understanding each other? Not at all. There is reason to believe that there was contact between them with the White House of President Joe Biden or with the DOJ of Attorney General Merrick Garland. Maybe both. When laws are broken, prosecutors must be exposed and held accountable by arming the justice system.

Democrats have spent the last four years teaching us that no one is above the law. Ironically, that standard applies to them.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT