GREGG JARRETT: New York judge keen to label Trump a ‘convicted criminal’ before his inauguration

New York Judge Juan MerchanFriday’s dogmatic refusal to dismiss the misguided case against President-elect Donald Trump and instead turn to sentencing on January 10 is another middle finger to the law. And to Trump.

At the same time, Merchan unwittingly admits the folly of the entire prosecution by informing the defendant that neither the court nor District Attorney Alvin Bragg will seek any meaningful punishment. Trump, the judge disingenuously advised, would receive an “unconditional discharge” without incarceration, fine or probation following the guilty verdicts of a Manhattan jury last May.

TRUMP BEATS TRADER, DEMOCRATS, WHO JUST WANT ‘A POUND OF MEAT’ Amid Failed Cases

It doesn’t matter that state law does not support a prison sentence under these circumstances. Forget that the prosecutor deliberately distorted the statutes and mutilated evidence to pursue a futile prosecution motivated solely by political revenge. And ignore the fact that there is little chance that the biased jury’s guilty verdict will be compounded by Merchan’s chronic reversible errorswill withstand judicial review on appeal. Possibly.

It seems clear that Merchan is desperate to tarnish Trump with the formal restriction of “convicted felon.” To do that, he must convict the new president. A jury’s verdict alone is insufficient under the law. Hence the offer of what amounts to a non-conviction if Trump at least appears virtually at a hearing ten days before he is sworn in.

It’s another charade designed to bookend – and cover up – a sham trial. Show up to be verbally tarred and feathered, but no sticks or pillory will be deployed.

In a sense, it may be tempting to accept Merchan’s conditional surrender. Why? Under the law, Trump is barred from challenging the judge’s numerous errors during the trial, as well as the prosecutor’s misleading legal theory, until a conviction occurs. Only then will he be officially ‘convicted’. A successful appeal erased the conviction, albeit too late.

And therein lies the problem.

The average defendant would accept the Faustian bargain that guarantees no prison time and immediately starts the appellate clock. But Trump is different. He is an inveterate fighter who refuses to capitulate even when his opponents are confronted with reproaches. It’s one of many reasons voters rewarded him with a second term. He doesn’t give up or give in. Nor should he.

A competent or objective judge would have long ago tossed the charges against Trump in the trash where they belonged. On its face it was clearly flawed, if not ridiculous, and a transparently politicized prosecution.

Trump is determined to clear his name. So you can expect his legal team to challenge Merchan’s ruling on both the dismissal and sentencing. Several legal options are available, such as filing an emergency stay with the appeals courts, which, if granted, could postpone further proceedings until after the inauguration on January 20.

Because it’s common knowledge that presidents are immune to it any criminal proceedings while he is in office — a principle that even Merchan accepts — a court-ordered pause would effectively delay sentencing until 2029. That assumes, of course, that the case is still alive in four years.

Trump has a credible argument that the sentences against him should now be dropped. As president-elect, his lawyers argue that “immediate removal is mandated by the Federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interest of justice.” A conviction would disrupt the orderly transfer of executive power.

Judge Juan Merchan watches as Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump attends his criminal trial on charges that he falsified business records to hide money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, in Manhattan state court in New York City, USA May August 30, 2024 in this courtroom sketch. (REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg)

Essentially, a state has no right or power to violate federal laws passed by Congress, including the Transition Act. Interference by a local prosecutor and/or judge violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

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

In an earlier ruling, Merchan readily acknowledged his authority to set aside the verdicts if errors were made during the trial that would be reversed. Yet he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the plethora of mistakes that require dismissal.

Chief among them, prosecutors relied on tainted evidence prohibited by the presidential immunity standard announced by the Supreme Court on July 1. Testimony from White House officials and numerous presidential documents should never have been submitted. Merchan ignores all this by pointing out that such evidence was insignificant, even though prosecutors emphasized this during closing arguments to the jury.

He also turned a blind eye to Bragg’s convoluted and incoherent legal theory that it must somehow be a crime to conceal a perfectly legal non-disclosure agreement. That’s not true. He then allowed the district attorney to tear up the law by reviving expired corporate crimes and turning them into phantom election crimes that were falsely portrayed as having undue influence on the 2016 presidential election.

It was a pretty clever trick, as Trump’s transactions were recorded and refunded after the election. Furthermore, as local prosecutor, Bragg had no jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign laws. The payments to former pornographic film star Stormy Daniels did not even qualify as contributions under any law or regulation.

As I’ve noted before, a competent or objective judge would have long ago tossed the charges against Trump in the trash where they belonged. On its face it was clearly flawed, if not ridiculous, and a transparently politicized prosecution.

But Bragg’s disgraceful army demain did not bother Merchan at all. Quite the opposite. His honor happily joined in the hocus-pocus. During the trial, he took off his black cloak to join the jurisprudential circus as a co-plaintiff.

When the predetermined sentences were announced, no one knew exactly what Trump was being convicted of. Theoretically, accounting errors could have been committed in furtherance of another crime in an unlawful attempt to influence the election.

But what crime? No one can say. Were they violations of federal campaign law? Tax laws? Fake company data? Choose from the above-mentioned menu of imaginary possibilities. Trump doesn’t know because prosecutors never said so. And neither do the judges.

In an abhorrent instruction to the panel, Merchan stated that they did not have to identify what crimes had allegedly been committed and that they did not have to agree unanimously. He abandoned with impunity the fundamental principle of unanimity in criminal convictions, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed.

Merchan’s courtroom turned into a cesspool of incomprehensible statements from a conflicted and hostile judge, who deprived Trump of a fair trial. Merchan and prosecutors worked together to reach the guilty verdicts. Political prejudice smothers the suspect’s rights to a fair trial. It was a brash case brought by a prosecutor who enthusiastically embraced the Democrats’ corrupt legal campaign against their Republican opponent.

None of it fooled American voters. Indeed, it appears to have had a spectacularly counterproductive effect. Many were deeply outraged by the way Trump’s opponents had distorted the law and filed a series of criminal charges designed to destroy his chances of returning to the White House. On November 5, there was outrage at the ballot box. Decisive.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE

Despite their efforts to sabotage the outcome of the election, the unscrupulous duo of Merchan and Bragg can now do nothing to stop Trump. Even if his expected attempt to stop the sentencing this Friday fails, the newly elected president will still benefit. He can appeal to the shameless perversion of the law against him and the miscarriage of justice that followed.

It wasn’t a fair trial. It was a farce.

In the meantime, it will be up to the new Justice Department to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the legal campaign launched by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. , Alvin Bragg, filed almost simultaneously and only after Trump announced his statements. bid for election.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Chance? Hardly. There is reason to believe there was coordination between them with President Joe Biden’s White House or Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DOJ. Maybe both. When laws are broken, prosecutors must be exposed and held accountable for weaponizing the justice system.

The Democrats have taught us the lesson over the past four years that no one is above the law. It’s uncomfortable now that the same standard applies to them.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT