↓
 
Home » The defense rests in the NY Trump trial

The defense rests in the NY Trump trial

The New Neo Posted on by

The Trump trial in New York was a travesty from the start: the change in the statute of limitations, the elevating of a misdemeanor into a felony by means of the implication that there was some unspecified other crime connected with the misdemeanor, the compromised status of the judge in terms of his daughter’s work, the fact that Bragg had campaigned on getting Trump, the choice of venue, and of course the fact that the bar for indicting a leading presidential candidate should be high rather than so low even a worm couldn’t slither under it.

But slither they did.

Judge Merchan should have either recused himself or thrown the case out of court before it began. And/or later he should have ruled for a directed verdict. But instead, he seems determined to make sure Trump is found guilty and who cares about reversal on appeal; the latter would only be happening after the election, after the damage is done. And inflicting damage on Trump is the aim of the entire enterprise.

It doesn’t matter that the other crime – the one that supposedly makes the case a felony – has neither been stated, defined, nor proven. It doesn’t matter that the evidence rests on the shaky shoulders of one Michael Cohen: perjurer and thief. It doesn’t matter – and if it ends up mattering, if at least one juror says “no” to this railroading of Trump, I will be both pleased and very surprised.

But I’m not at all surprised that Trump didn’t take the stand. Nothing he could say would change anything to help him with this judge and jury, and in general it is advised that defendants can only hurt themselves by testifying. What’s more, there’s no case. What is there to rebut? The jury will do what it will do at this point.

This courtroom proceeding and the background to it have made a number of things crystal clear – not that they were murky before, but they’re even more clear now. The first is that the left will stop at nothing to destroy Trump and the right in general. The second is that the road to lawfare against the right is to try the person in a deep blue venue, and it’s virtually a certainty that – no matter how weak or even corrupt the case may be – you will get your conviction (again, if that turns out to be untrue here, I will be very pleasantly surprised). The third is that the left’s willingness to be so open about its willingness to upend the legal system and any other system in further of gaining more and more power indicates that the left has zero reluctance to use fraud at the ballot box. And the fourth is that the MSM will cover and spin just about anything the left does, the better to engineer the re-election of a confused, destructive, mendacious, stupid, vicious tool named Joe Biden.

Comments

The defense rests in the NY Trump trial — 35 Comments

  1. I think the concept of “fairness” is a generational thing.

    Those of older folks beleive that the law (among other things) should be fair, as in impartial. The same rules apply to all, whether we like it or not. This is why older people tend to believe more in meritocracy.

    I think amongst younger people, “fairness” is about getting what one wants. It’s like a child that screams and stamps his feet, “That’s not fair!” when he doesn’t get his way. To them, this trial is “fair” in that it has been leading to the outcome they want.

    And I think this also relates to that quote about “If you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative as you grow older, you have no brain.” There are liberals who are older who have the “getting what one wants” definition of fairness.

    And there are younger conservatives who have the “same rules apply to all” definition of fairness.

  2. The second is that the road to lawfare against the right is to try the person in a deep blue venue

    And that shows the obvious counterstrategy, doesn’t it? It makes no sense to cling to a norm that one side feels free to violate. When the other side is made to feel the pain of the loss of the norm, then and ONLY then will there be any chance of restoring the norm. It’s true we may fail to restore it if we retaliate, but we will absolutely fail to restore it if we don’t.

    The parallel with Israel is quite obvious isn’t it? Hamas is allowed to attack Israel whenever it wishes, and Israel is always constrained from fighting back. Hamas is free to break a ceasefire, demand a new ceasefire, and break it again, but Israel has to follow every ceasefire, even ones Hamas makes up, and principles of warfare never applied to any other nation. 50 years of this and what is the result? And the people calling for this one-sided restraint, are they paragons of principle? Or are they a coalition of the foolish and the mendacious who intend for Israel to lose?

    And this is where we’re heading with lawfare and the Left. We’re at war already, one we didn’t choose, and pretending we’re not at war just ends in our subjugation.

  3. tl; dr when the laws have been cut down, and we’re having difficulty standing upright in the winds beginning to blow, pretending that they haven’t been cut down will just get us swept away.

    The standard for charging a felony has been set so low by this last Trump trial that just about anyone should be chargeable for anything in a red-controlled venue. Any politician on the national stage who has business dealings in any red state should be fair game.

  4. Niketas has it correct. Haul their rear ends into court in a Red venue on charges of ‘Conspiracy to violate Civil Rights under Color of Law”. To see the filthy Nazgul, I mean ‘Progressive’ Judges jerked short on their own leash would just … make … my … day.

  5. Seeing at AoSHq the judge gave the jury a week off before deliberations, I never heard that happening before.
    As a comment said,( paraphrasing) gives the Deep State to visit every jurist to get their minds right

    Don’t blame Trump, any defense questions would be gotcha questions

  7. Niketas Choniates:

    As far as lawfare in red states against leftists goes, it wouldn’t work the same way. The first reason is that – at least for the most part – there is more respect for the rules there both from judges and prospective jurors. So kangaroo courts would be far less likely to be successful. Judges wouldn’t entertain them and would grant directed verdicts for the defense, and/or juries wouldn’t falsely convict.

    You can say fight fire with fire, but it’s not the way most people on the right would function – although of course some would.

    Plus, one can’t venue-shop without any relation to the offense. The left has the advantage that Trump did business in NY. It also has DC for many federal offenses. Both are blue strongholds. But the left brought the documents case in Florida, and they’re running into trouble there. If they could have brought it in DC they would have; as it was, the grand jury was in DC. But they had to bring the actual case in Florida, apparently. There are rules about where to bring a case, and although there are often choices the choices are not “anywhere you want.”

  8. Today Don Surber argued that Trump should testify:
    _________________________________________

    Yes, if he testifies, his odds of a conviction would go up.

    All the way from 99% to 99.9%.

    After twice being railroaded by a New York judge and jury, a third railroading is inevitable. The evidence doesn’t matter. He is not on trial for 34 tedious counts of election violations and bad bookkeeping. He is on trial for being Donald John Trump.

    Guilty as charged.

    But The Donald’s goal is not to avoid prison. His goal is to return to the Oval Office in January. Once you understand that, you see the logic behind having him testify because he makes himself defiant and worthy of our respect and admiration.

    https://donsurber.substack.com/p/maybe-trump-knows-what-hes-doing
    _________________________________________

    Can one be 99% certain Trump will be convicted? I’m sure the odds are non-trivial, but 99%?

    In any event the trial is extremely hostile ground for Trump. I don’t know how much worse they could make it for him, if he testified, but I’m sure they would be looking.

  9. I take it if Trump would get on the stand the Prosecutor would get to question him.

  10. Skip:

    Absolutely. And if I recall correctly, the prosecutor could question him on any matter that had been brought up previously in the trial, including sexual questions about Stormy Daniels.

    That’s why people usually do not take the stand even if innocent. And the jury is instructed not to assume the failure to testify has any bearing on the person’s guilt or innocence – although of course some people assume it nevertheless.

  11. The Judge’s recent outbursts and rules from the bench on witness for the defense would be grounds for overturning the verdict, in a bygone American.

  15. Mentioned on another thread reading Arkady Vaksberg’s
    The Prosecutor and the Prey
    Vyshilinsky and the 1930s Moscow Show Trials. Besides a interest in Russian history wanted to see if what we are getting was anything like the Stalinists were doing in the 30s when wiping out much of the Soviet elite. But other than making up charges, getting defendants to admit to these bogus charges and having Judge, Prosecutor and Jury all against the defendants at least the Deep State hasn’t just shot anyone hours after the predetermined guilty charges.
    I get, but still am mad Trump supporters admitting guilt about Jan 6.

  18. @neo:The first reason is that – at least for the most part – there is more respect for the rules there both from judges and prospective jurors.

    I think you’ll be disappointed by our lack of purity… especially as more of us wake up to what is going on.

    Plus, one can’t venue-shop without any relation to the offense.

    Any Democrat of national prominence has some kind of business interest or owns property or has participated in something that is in probably any state. For example, the Clintons could probably be indicted for something in Arkansas, if anyone there really wanted to. If someone owns a vacation home in Utah, or has a financial stake in a company that didn’t pay its Texas franchise tax on time…

    Recall too that NY changed its laws just to be enable Carroll’s attack on Trump in court, and that California routinely legislates in a way that affects businesses in other states, and Texas and other states’ taxation systems reach out to affect businesses in other states. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Show me the man, etc. The Dems have been willing to pick the target and then find something, anything. But any Dem in Congress in a red state should be as much of a target as Rick Perry was in Texas: he was indicted in a Blue jurisdiction, and any Red jurisdiction should be able to do the same to any Dem politician in their state.

    But the real problem is that red-state politicians are more interested in the pork barrel than they are in fighting for principles or to protect their people. Both parties are heavily interested in the pork barrel, but conservative ideologues are marginalized by the pork barrel wing of their party and leftist ideologues are (at least publicly) idealized by the pork barrel wing of their party. And that’s probably because leftist ideology wants the government bigger and more powerful, and that’s just fine for the pork barrel, but shrinking the power and size of the government is not.

  19. Niketas Choniates:

    I think I made it quite clear that I don’t think the right is “pure” when I wrote ” although of course some would.” I’m not naive, but I observe that “ends justify the means” thinking is simply less common on the right. It is blatant and almost universal on the left.

    I don’t buy the idea that the two sides are exactly the same. They are not. And again, far more Democrats are willing to pervert the law than Republicans are. It’s not that there aren’t some Republicans who will, of course. But there are fewer. And also fewer conservative judges, too. And juries. It simply would be harder to carry off anything like what most on the left are both able and willing to do.

    And the same for changing laws in red states in order to trap Democrats. It’s a matter of percentages and degree, not “purity.”

  20. “the left will stop at nothing to destroy Trump and the right in general.”

    The dialectic of the Left; “when I am the weaker, I ask you for mercy because that is your principle. But when I am the stronger, I show you no mercy because that is my principle”.

    ‘Play’ by the rules of those who oppose you.

    It is intent and the goal sought that determines the morality of an action. Which is why God forbids murder not killing. Why Truman, in authorizing the dropping of the atom bomb upon Japan, sought to save lives not take them.

  21. Neo at 6:19:

    I see the Progressives engaging in a massive conspiracy to deprive me of my civil rights. I live in Texas, but Progressives in New York and D.C. have put policy in place which affects me.

    May be no case there, but that’s the way I see it.

  23. While it is true that we are less prone to take any means to an end, and it is a matter of degree from case to case and place to place, it is also true the Left is convincing more and more of us that there really is no choice.

    Remember, that in WWI, we were genuinely horrified that German subs sank ships (not just ours, anyone’s) without warning. By WWII, we actually ran a more effective submarine campaign than the Germans did, against Japan. Most people don’t realize this, but it’s true.

    Such attitudes change over time.

  24. The linked to article says that documents recently unsealed show that the FBI had an “Operational Order” for their Mar-A-Lago raid which included the potential use of deadly force.

    So what could possibly have happened if ex-President Trump and his Secret Service detail unexpectedly showed up? *

    * See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/breaking-newly-unsealed-doc-reveals-biden-fbi-authorized/

    and https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/was_the_fbi_really_ready_to_shoot_donald_trump_as_part_of_the_mar_a_lago_raid.htmlforce during included a use of deadly force insturciotn

  25. Neo: It’s mind-boggling that a defendant can be “tried” for a crime that is not stated by the prosecution and the jury has no knowledge of. Kafkaesque. As far as a red state DA trying a Dem, even if the judge gives a directed verdict, that irritating cliche “the process is the punishment” comes into play.
    Like you I would hope it never comes to that but at some point you have to fight back hard. So hard your opponent come to his senses.

  28. The latest travesty in this whole metatravesty is that the judge has recessed the trial for a week before the jury hears closing arguments, supposedly to give counsel time to hash out the jury instructions. That is utter, complete malarkey.

    I’m retired now, but I was a New York lawyer for decades and worked in the New York State court system for much of that. I have never, ever seen a week, or even a few days, allocated to jury instructions. It usually takes an hour or two, at most an afternoon, and it always happens immediately after both sides rest and have made their trial motions. Counsel is supposed to be thinking about instructions during the trial and to be prepared with proposed instructions as soon as testimony ends. And that’s not too hard, because New York has pattern jury instructions that are used universally; you don’t write them from scratch. (If you did, that would practically guarantee reversal on appeal. The whole idea is to use language that has been scrutinized by appellate courts and found to be sound.) You just choose the instructions that apply to the charged crime and make whatever minor modifications may be needed by the particular facts. That’s all.

    Now, I grant that it’s going to be a little difficult to choose instructions appropriate to the charged crime when nobody knows what that is. It’s also unlikely that any pattern instruction will be well-suited to this ridiculous jerry-built pretense of a prosecution. But a week off isn’t going to help that problem, which is baked in. (Yes, I know I’m mixing my metaphors. I’m a little upset.)

    The reason for the delay is obvious: it’s to stretch it all out longer and keep Trump off the campaign trail longer. (Is Trump permitted to leave New York during this week, does anyone know? I haven’t seen reporting on this point, but I’ll bet he’s not. I’m sure he’s still subject to the gag order, in any event.) It’s probably also intended to diminish the impact on the jury of Cohen’s destruction in cross-examination. Delays of even a day or two between testimony and closing tend to cement jurors in their original positions, whatever they may have been, and cause them to forget whatever points of evidence were sticking in their minds. Remember, they’re not allowed to talk to each other about the case during this time, or to anybody else. They’ve probably also been warned not to make notes about it. They won’t be able to think about it in any kind of constructive manner. This is why judges ordinarily try not to drop a weekend in between the close of testimony and closing arguments, if they can help it. Or why they used to, back when they were still judges.

    There is no more fundamental principle in American criminal law than that the defendant must know what he or she is accused of. Otherwise, it’s impossible to mount a defense. I cannot believe that this trial got past the indictment stage, let alone all the way to the close of testimony, and we’re still guessing. It should guarantee reversal on appeal, but the fact that the trial occurred in this way at all shows such utter shameless disdain for the rule of law in the whole system that I don’t know whether it will. In the court system I knew, or thought I knew, no judge or prosecutor would behave this way, out of concern for their own reputation if nothing else. The fact that Merchan and Bragg have defied the foundations of their own profession so blatantly — added to what already happened with the NY civil trial — makes me think they have good reason to believe they’ll get away with it.

    I thought I’d gotten pretty cynical before, but I guess I hadn’t. In this recent world of upside-down everything, this particular thing is the worst yet. I’m genuinely gobsmacked, and fighting bitterness besides. I took pride, formerly, in my association with the New York courts.

  30. Listening to leftist pundits/talking heads, it appears they have been trying out various crimes during the last week and seem to have settled on hiding the affair to keep voters from knowing about it will be the crime. That seems sufficiently criminal for the half of voters that want Orange Man Trumpf 45 in jail.

    It has been characterized by the press since before the trial began as “The Hush Money Trial”. That sounds sufficiently sleazy to convict by itself!

  31. so compare and contrast they were willing to assasinate trump and his family, if he was at the residence, over some document that allegedly had been mentioned, in passing in someone else’s book, but had been returned five months before, the so called iran attack plan,
    *among his well paid mouthpieces, including the Future Justice, Ketanji Jackson, he was emotionally scarred, and could not be submitted to a tribunal, the Regime sent him back two years ago,

    but we discover the Bureau then headed by future Procurator Mueller had evidence of the hijackers, meeting with a Saudi agent in LA,Osama Al Bayoumi, of Egyptian nationality
    recovered by the Metropolitan police, a casing video of the Capitol, which would have been the 4th target, if the 20th hijacker Mohammed Al Qahtani, had gotten into the country* apparently neither the Bushes nor the Blairs, nor their dejected retainers like Richard Clarke ever mentioned it, it wasn’t even mentioned in the 28 pages,

    was he jailed sent to Gitmo, Bel Marsh, heaven forbid,

  32. How do you say this is a bogus case when you’re a legal analyst on ABC News?

    This is as close as it gets.

    ABC News’ Linsey Davis sits down with criminal defense attorney Arthur Aidala to analyze day 20 of Donald Trump’s hush money trial and Michael Cohen’s testimony.

    Defense attorney analyzes final phase of Trump’s hush money trial

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfJf0Hj_RKg

  34. There are people for whom more “weird stuff” is proof of guilt because facts are confusing.
    Not that those folks are confused by the facts; they habitually ignore facts because of earlier experience with the pesky things.
    This case has lots of weird stuff.

  35. Mrs Whatsit:

    I never was a NY lawyer, of course, but I certainly went to law school and know a fair amount about the court system as it used to be. I am sickened by this trial. It is an abomination. There have certainly been miscarriages of justice in the US before, but this is a travesty and 100% political and obviously so. It’s the obviousness, and the approval by so many people, that are especially depressing. Something has really broken and I don’t think it will be repaired.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑