Judge Merchan Denies Trump Immunity Motion To Set Aside Jury Verdict in NYC Criminal Case
“the evidence related to the preserved claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections”

The Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump had broad immunity as to actions taken while president, some of which were the foundation of the federal criminal charges in DC. Special Counsel Jack Smith ended up re-filing the charges to get around the immunity ruling, but the case ended up on hold after Trump won the election.
One issue was whether that immunity ruling would also require dismissal of the bookkeeping conviction obtained by Alvin Bragg in New York City. Trump moved to overturn the jury verdict on the grounds that evidence was presented during the trial within the scope of Trump’s immunity.
Judge Juan Merchan just rejected the motion, though it’s unlikely the case will go anywhere anyway. From the Decision and Order:
Unlike [the DC federal court case], this court need not decide whether the crimes of which Defendant was convicted constitute official acts because Defendant concedes that they were decidedly unofficial. The much narrower issue presented here is whether a discrete subset of evidence admitted at trial constituted official acts deserving of some level of immunity, whether it be absolute or presumptive. To evaluate each of those clarms, it is important to understand the context of the unofficial acts for which Defendant stands convicted….
***
This Court finds that Defendant preserved his claims only as to the testimony of Hope Hicks, OGE Form 278e, and Twitter postings identified as People’s Exhibits 407F through 407I. All other claims are denied as unpreserved; and
This Court further finds that the evidence related to the preserved claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections; and
As to the claims that were unpreserved, this Court finds in the altetnative, that when considered on the merits, they too are denied because they relate entirely to unofficial conduct entitled to no immunity protections; and
Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence, both preserved and unpreserved, as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifuing business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence; and
Lastly, this Court concludes that if error occurred regarding the introduction of the challenged evidence, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Team Trump reacted:
“Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” Trump spokesman and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital. “This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed, as President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt.”
Cheung added: “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans.”
===================

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So water wet, sky blue. The Dem operative Judge continues to prove he should be disbarred.
What will probably happen is that all of this will be overturned and Judge Gym Creep will retire with full benefits.
You misspelled ‘sent to gitmo’
Merchan needs a refresher course at Special Law School.
And a body cavity search for any knowledge of the law.
Maybe the IRS can supply that.
Kangaroo Merchan should have recused himself when it was revealed that his daughter was a Democrat agent.
May I suggest reresher course at the “SPAY-shull” Law school.
The decision is not unreasonable. The questions at issue were close, and even a judge with no animus against Trump at all might have reached the same conclusions.
The entire case was so unreasonable that no one else had EVER been convicted of such a “crime” before in the same way that the Democrats have attempted to do here.
Go back to your village. They are missing their idiot.
The entire case was certainly unreasonable. What the actual f*** has that got to do with the topic? How does that make this decision unreasonable?
I understand your take. The judge is a coward and continued the case in order to get a ruling from the Appeals court. If they rule in favor of Trump he gets a pass. If the rule against it continues to the next level and follows Trump. This gives the corrupt media a talking point to beat the administration over the head until it’s resolved. There is much reversible error. Don’t forget President Trump can now have his surrogates point out how partisan this judge really is.
It is evidence that the trial was governed by political considerations and not legal ones.
Stuytown, and again what the f*** has that got to do with the topic? How does it make this decision unreasonable?
You initially responded about the “decision.” Mailman wrote that the “entire case was unreasonable.” Really, I was responding to mailman’s point, not yours. But I didn’t make that clear in my response. I note that you later agreed with mailman that the entire case was unreasonable.
I have no view on the decision because I didn’t read the post. I don’t care. The decision here is analogous to the concept of “the fruit of the poisonous tree.” Anything that happens after the case is brought is a mockery of the legal system itself.
I feel dirty having to point something out to you that you should be able to work out for yourself 🤡
Any decision that results in upholding an unreasonable case, no matter how reasonable you believe that decision is, is still un unreasonable decision.
But apparently your great big SCOTUS brain just cant work that out Justice Milhouse! 🤡🤡
I agree: the Judge can correctly rule that the pig is muddy without reference to the fact that the original argument is about how the pig got in the parlor.
I think that Merchan figures that he is in so deep on this thing that bailing out now will do nothing to help him at the hands of his enemies and might hurt him with his allies. If he sticks to his position they will no doubt see he will probably retire with a nice pension.
Professor Alan Dershowitz, who attended some of the kangaroo court proceedings, charged, “I’ve been in courthouses in every part of the world and in China, in Russia, in Ukraine, in Israel. I’ve been all over. I’ve never seen a spectacle like this. And that’s why it should have been on television, so the American public could see how outrageous this judge is. And CNN just does his bidding. CNN lies, lies through their teeth about what happened in court yesterday between Judge Merchan and Bob Costello. Bob Costello testifies, Merchan rules against him at every point, keeps out his testimony, makes outrageous rulings that any first-year student taking evidence would know was wrong.”
Try again.
That is completely wrong. Wrong and an offense against both law and reason.
As far as I know Dershowitz has not criticized this decision.
Dimsdale, I dont think this has anything to do with protecting himself from his enemies BUT more to do with the fact this guy has dug his hole so deep that he cannot see anything else other than the hole he has dug for himself.
Also, Justice Milhouse is our example of the hole that this clown has dug himself in to…he’s also so deep down in that hole he has dug he has no way out other than to keep throwing his incredibly, outrageously intelligent fingers at his keyboard to spew more and more irrelevance out in this forum 🤡🤣
Mailman
There are two separate and distinct issues.
A) whether the case has any merit
B) whether the case should be dismissed based on the SC immunity ruling
A – I think everyone agrees the case has zero merit and there is serious misconduct by the prosecutor, judge along with a NYC jury pool that was going to convict Trump for eating a ham sandwich. I may be misjudging Milhouse, but I think he agrees with everyones take on the case.
B) The second issue is whether the immunity ruling applies to this case. Milhouse is correct on that point. First , this is a state case, not a federal case, so the SC immunity ruling would have no bearing and second, the alleged acts were not part of any official duties, thus the SC immunity ruling would not apply even if it was a federal case.
Both I and most likely milhouse would agree that the case should be reversed on multiple other grounds.
The point Im trying to make is that it really doesnt matter how “reasonable” a decision is if it ends up upholding the original unreasonable case.
Of course it matters. There was a specific question before the court, and the court ruled only on that question. What the question relates to is irrelevant.
JD Vance To ABC News: Do You Even Hear Yourself?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/10/13/jd_vance_to_abc_news_do_you_even_hear_yourself_only_a_handful_of_apartment_buildings_were_taken_over_by_migrant_gangs.html
I hear myself just fine. Do you? Tell me what you think was so unreasonable about this decision, that an unbiased judge could not have reached the same conclusions.
The jurors were not requires to agree on a secondary crime.
This is reasonable?
“[This Court] would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch”
I’m sorry but where did Madison and Hamilton ever put to pen that a hack judge from a local jurisdiction gets to decide what constitutes intrusion into the function of an office that is vested with the Executive Power?
Stytown, again, how does that make this decision unreasonable? What has the secondary crime got to do with whether Hope Hicks’s testimony and the five tweets should have been admitted, and if not, whether that changed the outcome?
George S, neither Madison nor Hamilton wrote one word about such evidence being excluded from trials. On any question of whether evidence is admissible in any trial, the judge hearing that trial has inherent power to decide it. That’s what judging is.
As noted above, I was responding to the reasonableness of the case itself, not this decision.
I think that most lawyers are not well trained in logic. Some laws are good, some bad, over time precedent may make them better or worse.
Sometimes a system is so bad that the public revolts.
A lot of law is illogical and inane.
Even Andy McCarthy doesn’t think that. Jonathan Turley has several articles up at his website explaining why dismissal is/was the only prudential decision.
Not over this he doesn’t. As far as I remember Turley has not written anything at all on his blog about whether Hicks’s testimony and those tweets should have been excluded, let alone about whether not excluding them was a harmless error.
Targa – There are a massive number of issues why the case should be reversed as pointed out by McCarthy and Turley.
However, As milhouse has correctly pointed out, the immunity issue is not a valid reason as i explained above. This ruling was solely on the immunity issue which is not applicable in this case.
the immunity issue is not a valid reason Or at least the immunity issue is not so obviously a valid reason as to render a contrary decision unreasonable.
Trump made a plausible argument that the immunity issue should cause the verdict to be reversed. The judge decided against. Whether he did so after honestly considering the matter, or he was already determined to deny it and merely looked for an excuse, the bottom line is that his reasoning is plausible. An honest, unbiased judge could have reached the same decision.
Trump can still appeal this and hope that the appeals court will buy his argument for immunity.
My point is that both sides of this are reasonable.
I’m not surprised. Is anyone surprised that the activist judge ruled that way? Only the lefties cuz they were scared the judge would have a moment of sanity and see the case for what it truly is. A complete farce from start to finish. Where the heck did these “lawyers” get their degrees? Off a cereal box or the back of a skin mag? Seems like it.
To every commentator
Milhouse is getting a ton of unwarranted down votes. Whether you like it or not, Milhouse’s legal analysis is correct in this case and is almost always correct.
Milhouse has repeatedly stated that the entire case is crap. He has also stated that even though the case is crap, that doesnt change the correct legal response in the particular ruling. He is correct.
My understanding is that Trump asked his lawyer to cut a check e for…. (does not matter, its HIS money) The he calls it “legalefees. Wha ELSE do you call a payment to your laywer?
Yes, the case is crap.
I mean, yes, there are other things you can call it. If your lawyer picks up groceries for you and puts it on his next invoice, that shouldn’t be booked as legal fees. But for instance if you were in jail and your lawyer sent you a care package and billed you for it, that’s a legitimate thing for him to do, so you could call it legal services.
It’s also crap because it really shouldn’t be any business of the state of New York what you put in your own private ledgers.
When RFK, Jr, is sworn in he will grant Trump natural immunity.
Ha! Well done
That wont apply in this case A) not related to presidential duties and B) this is a state case, not federal
It’s a health joke, dude.
For taking “their world” away from them. This is the forever grudge match. They think that they will write the final chapter… but they will only have a bit part.
It’s not their world. They’re just free riders on other people’s efforts.
America needs a good de-worming. Political Ivermectin.
Given that some of the testimony provided at the trial was based on official acts, how can a judge determine what testimony (official acts vs unofficial acts) clinched it for the jury? In fact the judge (nor the prosecutor or even DJT for that matter) can pinpoint the precise laws on which DJT was found guilty based on the ambiguous jury instruction by the judge. I think that the sooner DJT and his legal team can get an appellate judgement on this case the better. This particular judge is not making changes on his own.
Courts make that determination literally all the time. It’s called “harmless error”. Every time an error is discovered after a trial, the court must decide whether the outcome would have been different without the flaw. If it would not have been different then the error is deemed harmless and the outcome is not reversed. This is absolutely standard procedure in every court.
A full list of what Merchan considers ‘harmless error’ would reach three pages or more, single spaced, in small print. Every one of which was objected to by the defense (quite rightly) and every one of which is grounds for dismissal in this court or in appeal.
This is only and exclusively about TWO pieces of evidence: Hope Hicks’s testimony about what Trump wrote to her while she was a White House aide, and five tweets from his official presidential Twitter account. Nothing else. And it’s not at all unreasonable to find, as Merchan did, that not excluding them was not an error at all, but also that if it were an error it would be a harmless one.
Again, this is the sort of question that courts are absolutely authorized and able to answer, and that they answer routinely .
I seem to remember that “harmless error” is an appeals standard, not a license for a trial judge to ignore the law because he finds it convenient, Justice Milhouse.
It’s an appeal standard, and this is effectively an appeal. The jury has made its verdict, and the defendant is now challenging some of the evidence that was admitted, seeking to have the verdict set aside.
Merchan is not “ignoring the law because he finds it convenient”. There is no law that definitively says those two items of evidence should have been excluded. There is law that says that if they should have been, and were erroneously admitted, the verdict should nonetheless be upheld if the error was harmless.
Both of these are close questions and judgment calls, so it’s inherently reasonable for Merchan to have made the calls he did. An unbiased judge might very well have made the same calls.
(Note: Not “would have” but “might very well have”. I am not expressing an opinion on whether the decision is actually correct, but only that it’s not unreasonable.)
It’s really too bad that it’s can’t be appealed until the judge actually passes sentence. Which is probably why he refuses to pass sentence
If he hasn’t passed sentence, then is Trump not technically ‘convicted’? Just curious.
owen – I am not an attorney, but i think that is correct, the conviction doesnt become final until sentencing. That also prevents an appeal being able to be filed until sentencing.
That may also be why the Mann v styen judgment has not yet been appealed since the judge hasnt ruled on any of post jury verdict motions. At least the court hasnt posted any rulings on the motions as of mid nov 2024. at last count, there approx 40 post verdict motions.
So he can sue the inevitable media screed about “convicted felon,” right?
More popcorn!!
“34 consecutive life sentences for a choose-your-own-adventure conviction. Appeal it from prison, so-called ‘president elect’.”
Not surprising. Even if Merchan had any interest in the rule of law (spoiler alert: he doesn’t), in the deep blue hellhole that is NY his right to go on breathing depends on lockstep support for The Resistance (TM). The slightest sign of independence would earn him a nocturnal visit from Antifa brownshirts.
But not to worry: it’s not like Merchan possessed any integrity in the first place, so his conscience will never bother him. Commies will always commie.
The premise for these convictions is that subjective worth estimates of real estate, even if agreed to by a loaner’s experts, even if agreed with by later experts, even if paid back in full with interest, even if no one is harmed by the transaction, even if EVERY loanee estimate of real estate worth is subjective and not coercive to the loaner’s estimate… is fraud.
The premise for 32 separate charges is that in the loan application the loaner’s estimate of worth is reference 32 times. I’m surprised the DA didn’t try to multiply that by the number of Xerox and email copies of the original.
Real estate value is always subjective. The only way to measure it is by the Real World ™ standard of how much a buyer or bank says it’s worth.
The 32 felony convictions are a travesty and there’s a reason the court is not sentencing until Trump is out of office. The process IS the punishment, actual guilt or innocence was never the point in this persecution.
Stop right there. No, it isn’t. It has nothing at all to do with real estate. Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records, which is an offense in New York (and apparently in no other state). There were 11 transactions, each generating 3 records: an invoice, a check stub, and a ledger entry. The first transaction, since it reflected 2 months, generated two ledger entries. Bragg managed to convince the jury that all 34 of these records were false, and thus violated NY’s law against such false records.
That is an extraordinary claim, as is the idea that the state law really reaches such private records. And some of the evidence he used to “prove” it was testimony by Hope Hicks about communications she had with Trump while she was an official White House aide, and also five tweets made from Trump’s official government account. If these communications and tweets were indeed official acts, then they shouldn’t have been allowed as evidence.
But this was always going to be a close call, and even a reasonable judge, not afflicted with TDS, could easily have made the same decision that this judge did.
He’s right, Milhouse, you’re incorrect. Per the Jury Instructions, Mr. Trump was being accused of the *intent to defraud:’ That is, “A deceptive scheme to deprive people of money or tangible property — concrete assets.”
The business records themselves are not a criminal act in a private business – as they won’t deprive money or property of *anyone*. Mr. Trump can’t very well defraud himself.
No, he is not correct, he’s completely wrong. The case had absolutely nothing to do with real estate valuations, and no, he was not accused of intent to defraud. The charges were always and only “falsifying business records”. New York has a law on the books making it a felony to falsify any business record, even your own. Why it has such a law, and whether it has any right to make such a law, is another question.
Democrat defends democrat operatives.
Vicious fucking liar fucking lies his fucking face off, slandering people with no conscience whatsoever, because evil people don’t have one.
And we have seven people so far who downvote A SIMPLE OBVIOUS AND UNDISPUTABLE FACT. Do ANY of those seven morons and liars dispute that BobM’s comment is completely false, because it’s based on a completely false premise? Do any of them contend that this case has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with real estate valuation?! No, they just downvote because they don’t give a fuck about the truth, they’re just hateful people. Go to Hell, all of you. You are polluting this blog and this planet.
Milhouse its truely inane that you get so many down votes considering that most, if not all, your legal analysis is correct.
As I have noted many times elsewhere, the 34 counts requires counting the same event twice multiple times. When a check is written in an accounting software program, the check is printed and the amount posts to the ledger, and shows up on the balance sheet as a reduction in cash and as an expense item in the P&L. The one transaction becomes 2 or three records, even though in reality it is only one record. Not suprising the NYC jury fell victim to bragg’ s bs.
It’s not truly in(s)ane. It’s the natural reaction of constitutionalists to continual defense of “bad law” as law.
If I responded to a story about a hard-working, law-abiding immigrant impoverished by forfeiture with “that’s the law,” I’d expect a shitload of downvotes too.
It is completely inane and insane that so many people are defending a COMPLETE MISSTATEMENT OF THE CASE.
There is just no way to defend BobM’s comment. The case had nothing to do with any kind of real estate or evaluation. The minute he says it did he reveals that he knows nothing about the case he’s commenting on.
The Trump reaction is over the top.
No, it isn’t. Whether it’s right or wrong, it is not in any way a “direct violation” of the SCOTUS decision. Nor even an indirect violation. He took the decision into account and reached a conclusion that may be right or wrong, but either way is completely consistent with it.
The case should certainly never have been brought. It was ridiculous from the start. But nothing in the constitution requires it to be dismissed.
There is no dispute that the conduct he was convicted of was entirely private, and therefore has no immunity whatsoever. Even Trump admits that.
The only question is about whether certain evidence should have been admitted, and if not, whether the error was harmful. Nothing in the constitution requires the answers to these questions that Trump wants.
A fair judge, completely unbiased, could also have found as this judge did, that the evidence was properly admitted, and also that even if it were not the error would have been harmless because excluding it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
Oh…for gawd’s sake…please stop this interminable Broadway choreography of dancing around the reality that, by your own acknowledgement, this is an unreasonable case. There is nothing as nuanced about this as you are laboring to insist. Unreasonable case = by default, unreasonable ruling BECAUSE the case itself is functionally illegitimate and fallacious.
No, that is wrong and illogical. A court’s job is to answer discrete questions of law. Nothing else. It makes no difference what those questions relate to.
There was a close question before the court. Both sides made reasonable arguments. Any decision the judge made would be reasonable.
But Trump has freedom of speech, and freedom of speech includes lying. Right?
This is politics, Milhouse, not a courtroom. The badminton rules don’t apply here.
Trump does have freedom of speech. And yes, that includes the freedom to lie. All I said was that his response here was over the top, which it was.
Merchan is a fool and has shown he is a BIASED JUDGE, from top to bottom, especially due to his conflict of interest.
He and his supporter here cannot read the room. The election was the verdict. Few believe this was true administration of justice. The poisonous fruit has tainted all that followed, no matter how reasonable an opinion may read.
Whether Merchan is a fool or biased is irrelevant. I’m not even going to debate that, because it makes no difference.
He does not have a conflict of interest. Unless you can show evidence that his daughter’s income depended in any way on the trial’s outcome.
I am not his supporter, and you are a liar for calling me that, just like all the filthy evil hell-bound commenters here who constantly accuse me of being a Democrat and/or a leftist. Every one of them deserves the worst that can happen to a person, because their souls are rotten to the core and there is no good in them.
Again – you could have fooled me. It is a known fact that Ms.Lauren Merchan was soliciting political funds based on the fact that *her father* was the person trying Mr. Trump (not that he was being tried in general). ( https://nypost.com/2024/03/30/us-news/dem-clients-of-daughter-of-judge-in-trump-trial-raised-90m-off-case/ )
In addition, Mr. Merchan donated to Mr. Biden’s reelection fund- in direct violation of New York Law.
That is a conflict of interest. That is a *direct* conflict of interest.
And I’m reasonably sure you know that.
No, it is not a known fact, and the article you linked to does not make that claim.
But even if it were true, that would not be grounds for recusal. The only grounds for recusal in respect of his daughter’s income would be if her income would be affected by the trial’s outcome, and there is not even an allegation that that was so.
And no, the judge did not donate anything to Biden’s reelection fund. Not even the $15 that he gave Biden in 2020.
(Which the Judicial Conduct Commission found was a trivial violation of NY’s rules, one that dozens of other judges violate as well, so it let him off with a warning. A warning he heeded by not giving anything this time.)
Go read it again, Mr. Milhouse.
One hundred times if you need to.
For the love of… Mr. Milhouse
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/03/loren-merchan-silent-as-her-clients-raise-millions-from-trump-conviction-her-dad-oversaw/
This. Is. A. Known. Fact.
She does not *personally* need to benefit. She can ‘professionally’ benefit as well.
On the other hand, I will plead a mea culpa off the “election” vs “re-election”. But it doesn’t change the plain conflict of interest.
Cease and desist. You know better. I know you do.
Reading it once was enough. You claimed that “It is a known fact that Ms.Lauren Merchan was soliciting political funds based on the fact that *her father* was the person trying Mr. Trump”. That is false, and the NY Post article you linked DOES NOT SAY THAT. You are just making it up.
1. The article doesn’t say that she raised ANY money at all, in any way to do with the case.
2. It also doesn’t say that ANYONE raised money on the basis of her father’s role in the trial.
But even if both of those claims were true, it would not be a conflict of interest and would not require recusal.
As for the judge’s $15 donation to Biden, you now admit that it happened long before the trial, and is therefore completely irrelevant.
Lighten up, Milhouse.
I will not lighten up when people are spreading outright lies, and when they are viciously slandering me at every opportunity.
No one slandered you, fool.
so checks were written ….. for.. what, exactly? To WHOM were they payable? My understanding is to his lawyer. I I wrie a check to Costco it is or something efor which they need money, right? I I wrie a check to my lawyer, it is or something, right? I cannot imagine why a check would be written to an attorney for something other than “legal fees”, expenses”. If the checks were for a payoff, or a bribe, or to cheat someone, that would be on the lawyer for middling them for nefarious purposes.
In an case, when Trump writes a check to his lawyer what SHOULD he call it other than “legal fees”? If
You slandered me, liar. Go back and read your comment at 2:15 AM
Tionico, the state’s position was that the checks weren’t for legal services, they were reimbursement for personal expenses for which Cohen fronted the money, so it’s no different than if your lawyer did a Costco run for you, and then sent you the bill on a legal invoice. Doing your shopping is not a legal service; it’s a personal service. Fronting you the money is not a legal service, it’s a personal loan. So it should be booked as “loan repayment” or some such thing.
That was the state’s position. But this wasn’t for a Costco run, for which you wouldn’t normally send your lawyer. It was a payment that the lawyer negotiated with the beneficiary, which negotiation was a legal service. There was plenty of testimony that it would be normal for him to bill that on an invoice from his practice, and it would be normal for a bookkeeper to log all such invoices as “legal expenses” — NOT “legal fees“. The prosecution deliberately fudged the difference between those two descriptions.
In any case, it’s astonishing that falsifying your own private records can possibly be a state crime.
(Fun fact: When we were all locked up at home in March 2020, a lawyer friend of mine did in fact offer to do a shopping run for me. I sent him my shopping list, he delivered the goods, and I paypalled him the money. No invoice involved, and no ledger entry made, so no potential NY state charges.)
You are so busy playing victim, you cannot read clearly, so you make it up.
No one slandered you, fool.
You slandered me, oldschool, in the comment at 2:15. You claimed I was Merchan’s supporter. That is slanderous.
Scream all you want. File a lawsuit. Could care less!
Calling people liars is your avocation.
Lying and slandering is evidently yours.
I call people liars only when they lie. There are evil parasites and bottom-crawlers here who delight in attacking me personally, and falsely accusing me of being a Democrat, of being a leftist, and similar things that I regard as defamatory per se. I have never been a Democrat or a leftist. In my entire life the only time I have ever voted Democrat was for Bill Thompson against MIchael Bloomberg. Anyone who accuses me of such things defames my character and I cannot pass by such accusations and turn the other cheek. That’s not my religion.
*Evidence* HAS been provided by way of required financial filings and direct examination of the Merchan spawn’s *consulting* that directly uses her daddy’s court case against Trump, as the foundation for her progressive clients’ campaign ads and fundraising. Again, there is nothing nuanced or complicated about public records.
No evidence at all has been provided that she ever raised even a penny on the basis of her father’s role. It’s completely fabricated.
But even if she had, that would not be grounds for recusal.
Can you hear yourself, angry person, thin skin and all?
You ARE supporting him here, so who is the LIAR?
YOU are the liar. I am not supporting him, I am saying that the DECISION is not unreasonable. I am defending him from the specific charge that the decision is outrageous and grounds for impeachment or whatever other nonsense has been written about it. I specifically and repeatedly avoided any claim that he is an honest or an unbiased judge. I am not getting into that question, both because it requires mind-reading and because it’s completely irrelevant. My only claim is that an unbiased judge could have reached the same decision.
Look in the mirror. You ARE supporting Merchan here. That you are the only one that cannot see it is telling. You’ve probably made over half of the almost 100 comments in this thread, HERE, sticking up for his opinion. And that was all that was stated, “his supporter here.” And you have incredibly thin skin and act like a baby.
I have not written one word here in support of Merchan. I am standing up for the proposition that Merchan’s decision in this matter, whether it’s right or wrong, is not unreasonable. That is all. Calling me his supporter is slanderous.
What do you think your harangues over his opinion are? SUPPORT!
You are BLIND!
Again, I have not written one word here in support of Merchan. Not one word. I haven’t even supported the decision, even though it may well be correct.
An election cannot be a verdict. The electorate gets no say whatsoever in any judicial process.
And even if that were not true, even if the electorate did get a say, then the election’s verdict would be the exact opposite of your claim. Trump lost New York 55.1% to 42.7%. Thus, if the electors of New York got a say in this case, their verdict would be a resounding GUILTY AS CHARGED. Nobody outside New York is entitled to any say at all. Their opinion is no more significant than the opinion of Frenchmen or Papua New Guineans. So it’s just as well for Trump that the electors don’t get a say.
This is conflating literal with figurative.
The electorate does get some say in this process.
First, they elect who appoints.
Second, they elect those who gain powers to override or otherwise alter judicial process due to certain enumerated powers.
No, the electorate gets no say at all. The electorate is NEVER entitled to any say whatsoever in any judicial process. Judges are NOT ALLOWED to be influenced by public opinion. They are supposed to be completely impervious to it, and no democratic process has any right to interfere with a criminal trial.
But if the electorate WERE allowed to do so, then New York’s voters overwhelmingly voted AGAINST Trump, and thus their “verdict” if they were allowed one was to convict him and throw him in a cell.
So oldschool26’s claim that “the election was the verdict” is wrong twice over.
The point sailed wildly over your head.
Yet we elect judges, in some cases, . So you may be taking this too literally. I think the point is the election was a referendum on this sort of Soviet-style show trial and the verdict was “knock it off.”
That’s because you have a literal stick stuck somewhere. Feel sorry for how it must feel. Now go ahead and say “Liar, no stick up my ass.”
We do elect judges, but those judges are NOT ALLOWED to take voter opinion into account in any decision. A judge who makes a decision because it will appeal to the voters, or because it’s what the voters demanded, is a corrupt judge. Exactly as we say James is corrupt because she fulfilled a campaign promise to go after Trump, which the voters heavily endorsed.
Voters must never be allowed to influence a judicial decision. So it’s morally wrong to claim that an election is a verdict.
But even if it weren’t wrong, the voters of New York, and particularly of Manhattan, spoke overwhelmingly against Trump, so if elections could be verdicts then he was thoroughly convicted!
Your word salad mean NOTHING because, as indicated by another, the point sailed wildly over your head.
Quit pretending you even understand!
I understood your “point” just fine, and your point is WRONG. Not just legally wrong but morally wrong.
Legally, this is a horribly unjustified ruling. But, in the longer term, this will likely benefit Trump because the appellate court ruling that eventually overturns this abomination is going to be LIT AF. There is a mountain of reversible error in this case and now an appellate court is going to lay it all out for posterity. When it’s all over, Trump still won’t be a convicted felon. But, Merchan will look even worse than he does now.
When is the sentencing?
Trump should file a writ of mandamus to the Court of Appeals to force Merchan to impose sentencing right now. The fact that sentencing is postponed is in and of itself an intrusion into the power of the presidency which affects everyone and everything around the world.
Any process can be used as a punishment and the Supreme Court hasn’t got any control over that. All they can to is require more process, and that can be subverted in the same way.
The law is not self-supporting. It requires conventions not in the law.
I’m not surprised. Is anyone surprised that the activist judge ruled that way? Only the lefties cuz they were scared the judge would have a moment of sanity and see the case for what it truly is. A complete farce from start to finish. Where the heck did these “lawyers” get their degrees? Off a cereal box or the back of a skin mag? Seems like it.
Focusing on this minute portion of the case is the left media way to continue to say President Trump is a convicted felon. The decision was narrowly focused on a single question: Was the subject of the trial—supposed falsification of business records—an official act subject to the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity. Clearly it was not. But this does nothing to negate the larger issue—not addressed in this legal wrangling—of whether the entire trial was bogus political persecution. Clearly it is. The reason this attracts the partisan liars of left media is they use the prosecution “win” here to imply the whole case is valid. It’s not, so this entire episode is a distraction.