Trump Case Is an Indictment of NY Legal System, Contains a ‘Peddler’s Wagonful’ of Reversible Errors
“The verdict is in. … The New York legal system has rendered it against itself.”
Even anti-Trumpers expressed outrage over President-elect Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts at the end of a Soviet-style show trial in New York City last May.
The National Review’s Rich Lowry, certainly no fan of the former and future president, spoke for most of us at the time. He wrote: “The charges were rigged, the prosecution’s presentation of the case was rigged, the judge’s management of the case was rigged, the gag order was rigged, and the instructions to the jury were rigged. The whole thing was rigged from beginning to end, in the hopes of … rigging the presidential election.”
The verdict sent shockwaves throughout the Republican Party – and even beyond. It was a seminal moment for Americans who immediately grasped that the Democratic Party had corrupted the U.S. system of justice to influence a presidential election.
On Friday morning, New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan handed down his sentence in the case: Trump received an unconditional discharge. No prison, no probation, no conditions.
🚨Donald Trump’s full remarks at sentencing in New York.
“The people of this country understand what's going on. This has been a weaponization of government." pic.twitter.com/L8aECLECnk
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) January 10, 2025
What else could Merchan have done? Although a biased jury had convicted Trump in one of the country’s most liberal jurisdictions months earlier, a much larger – and more diverse – jury delivered a far different verdict on November 5 in the form of an overwhelming victory.
[Still, as lenient as Merchan’s sentence was, until Trump is exonerated upon appeal, he will officially remain a “convicted felon.” And that, no doubt, pleases New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s liberal base.]
From the beginning, legal experts on both sides of the political aisle, including CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, saw this brazen and unprecedented corruption of our system of justice for what it was: the raw exercise of political power. And up until the age of Trump, it had only been practiced in third-world countries.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley weighed in on Fox News following the sentencing (both in person and in a later op-ed). He noted that Merchan’s choice of an unconditional discharge “reflects the lack of seriousness in the case” and revealed “the massive void within this case.”
Turley said the case was “based on a non-crime.” Expanding on this point in his op-ed, he wrote:
DA Bragg took a long-dead misdemeanor and zapped it back into life with a novel and unfounded theory. By using federal violations that were never charged, let alone tried, Bragg turned a misdemeanor into dozens of felonies and essentially tried Trump for federal offenses.
Merchan not only allowed those charges to be brought to trial but then added layers of reversible errors in the effort to bag Trump at any cost. For that, he was lionized by the liberal media and many New Yorkers.
Calling the case against Trump “more inflated than the Goodyear blimp, pumped up by hot rage and rhetoric,” Turley told colleagues the case contains “a peddler’s wagonful of reversible errors.” He believes that Trump will ultimately be exonerated once the case is freed from the “vortex” of the New York court system. The bad news is that the process could take years.
Turley argued that this case is more an indictment of the New York legal system than it is of Trump: He wrote that, “Merchan has brought down the gavel on the New York legal system as a whole.”
“The verdict is in,” Turley concluded, adding, “The New York legal system has rendered it against itself.”
The conviction should be overturned on appeal. However, the most lasting judgment will be against the New York court system itself in allowing this travesty of justice to occur. https://t.co/DuQ2vrHScH
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 10, 2025
As I see it, Turley’s remarks about New York’s legal system can be expanded to include all of the Democrats’ lawfare against Trump. Moreover, it may have been a factor in Trump’s ultimate victory.
The daily images of a former and then-potentially future U.S. president defending himself in a courtroom on bogus charges ran contrary to most Americans’ sense of fairness.
You may recall the utter lack of enthusiasm that greeted Trump’s campaign launch in November 2022. His announcement came just one week after an election in which the much anticipated red wave had failed to materialize, and Trump-endorsed candidates in key Senate and House races had underperformed.
In fact, throughout the first quarter of 2023, Trump’s lead over his nearest competitor in the Republican primary, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), ranged between 14 and 18 points. But as word of Bragg’s April 4 indictment spread, Trump’s lead exploded to 30 points. And it climbed with each new indictment.
The Democrats hoped that Trump’s legal woes would stir up his base and hand him the GOP nomination but that a felony conviction would prevent his victory in the general election.
Unfortunately for them, they had miscalculated. The Democrats’ use of lawfare to defeat Trump backfired spectacularly. Instead, it united Americans who saw this as a political persecution. The election results showed that voters saw through the lawfare.
BREAKING: President Trump just received his sentencing from Alvin Bragg.
Here’s what he got: 4 years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) July 2, 2024
With Friday’s sentencing, Trump is now free to begin the appeals process. And upon his inauguration in just ten days, he will gain access to a treasure trove of communications between top Biden DOJ officials and Bragg’s office to help his lawyers determine how it all went down.
And just maybe, Bragg will turn his attention to his real job: protecting New Yorkers from real criminals.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
until exonerated by the courts he is a convicted felon. In the meantime all of you a-holes can call him Mr. President.
9 days and a wake up.
That whole court system is corrupt It exposed all the B.S., now cockroach Schumer and the rest of D.n.c. are frantically scampering around to change public perception of all their policies, all evil. The American people see what up.
Mr. Bragg, real criminals?
I wouldn’t hold my breath.
There’s probably a guardian angel or two that he’ll change in the mean time.
”
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts “
One of my favorites!
It’s only reversible error when a court reverses something ,…I wouldn’t hold your breath
Trump will take this to the Supreme Court. This case was rife with violations.
attacking law enforcement and defending a slimeball who sexually assaulted at least 3 women and had sex with a pornstar while his wife was pregnant is not a good look for you Elizabeth. ( or any woman) .
The trial took place in one of the most liberal jurisdictions of the U.S. Only worse venue would be D.C.
I agree with you about Stormy Daniels. I simply don’t believe E. Jean Carroll. And I’ve followed this case – and all of the others – too closely to believe that Alvin Bragg’s motivation was anything other than political.
If you believe Trump i suggest you creepy pig radar needs re-calibrating. He got busted for lying right out of the gate when he claimed he never met her. He has made very public with numerous Howard Stern appearances and his infamous pgrab interview how he views women. What are you not seeing about this creep? Two women testified,under oath, he assaulted them. How do you explain that away?
Now do Clinton.
Lewinsky had actual DNA.
DNA trumps the hysterical hallucinations of a chronic and habitual liar.
Don’t waste your time responding to this troll.
“Busted for lying”?! Really?! Why on earth would he remember seeing someone for two minutes at a party 35 years ago? What normal person would remember such a thing?
That they both lied. Why should they be more credible than him?
Tara Reade, on the other hand, did tell people immediately, so her accusation is much more credible. What have you got to say about that, tjv?
Henry Bowman, Lewinsky was not assaulted. His only crime there was perjury about it. Broadrick, on the other hand…
1. Bragg is not law enforcement.
2. There is no evidence that he assaulted anyone.
3. Whom he has sex with and when is entirely his business. It’s not illegal. It’s a legitimate factor for voter to take into account, but they have to balance it against so many other factors, including the fact that his opponent is not exactly a shining example of chastity either.
I commend you for bringing the receipts.
1) a slimeball has Constitutional rights 2) Women lie all the time about SA, Carroll’s story is so ludicrous that it make ‘the dog ate my homework’ sound credible. 3) Sex with a pornstar is not illegal, people do it daily. 4) like the guy said: ” if you can be with the one you love, love the one you’re with!”
Well Trump is a proven pathological liar so the jury evidently picked on that. Jean Carrol had 2 supporting witnesses to testify, under oath, that Trump tried assaulting them. That establshes pattern of behavior . At this point, if you can’t see what a sleazy liar Trump you are incredibly naive.
Even if they told the truth, which I see no reason to believe, all they testified to was that he “assaulted” them in the same sense that the famous VJ-Day photo in Times Square was an “assault”. That does not establish a pattern of behavior for an alleged rape. Unless you think the soldier in that photo was a rapist.
As a “convicted felon,” Trump can’t own or possess firearms. Problem for Democrats is that he has a lot of trained guys around him who do have them.
I replied elsewhere to some dweb chortling that Trump now can’t have firearms that he doesn’t have to. You pay for his Secret Service protection as President.
He also will have authority over the most destructive weapons of all.
You beat me to that point.
He doesn’t need firearms. He will have the codes to the nuclear arsenal, and generals who won’t be on the payroll of the CCP. He will also have a slew of fighters.
After all, the pedo dementia patient threatened Americans with F-16’s, so Trump should be able to also.
The “Rahimi” decision by SCOTUS says that the prohibition applies only to violent felonies where such possession would endanger others…. Try to keep up.
[My spelling may be wrong, but that will get you to the full decision.]
No, it doesn’t say that. That wasn’t an issue in Rahimi, since the crime he was accused of was violent, and there’s no question that he is a violent person.
Rahimi was not about that, it was about the degree of due process required for a temporary order depriving someone of a constitutional right, and unfortunately the court came down on the side of caution rather than of liberty. But it has no relevance to the question of non-violent felons.
Even that is iffy. In Pennsylvania you’re only a person not to possess a firearm if you were convicted of certain crimes. And what he was “convicted” of ain’t them. There would be the federal charge for possession, but he could just pardon himself. Or if he possessed the firearm in performance of his presidential duties, he would be immune.
Over the past 40 years, I have heard nearly zero about any personal interaction between Trump and firearms. For all intents and purposes, he doesn’t seem to care.
Gun-banning Democrat frauds like Dukakis, Kerry, and Walz deliberately stage “shootin’ and huntin'” campaign appearances, in which they successfully fail to blow their own toes off to show voters what big Second Amendment “supporters” they are. Trump has never even bothered to do that.
The only personal intersectionality I have on file between Trump and guns is a 1997 monograph discussing how unconstitutionally elitist NYC’s gun laws are:
In the battle to preserve the Second Amendment, Trump’s personal participation is barely a footnote.
It’s a federal law.
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
[…]
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Trump has been convicted “in any court” of a crime that is “punishable” by more than a year. That he didn’t get a year, or even five minutes, isn’t relevant. If this law is constitutional, then it covers him.
And he can’t waive it. Nor can he “pardon” himself from it in advance of violating it. If anyone tried to charge him he could pardon himself then, and keep doing so, but a minute later he’d be in violation again.
But the law is probably unconstitutional. And he’d be in a perfect position to challenge it.
And he’ll be in a perfect position to challenge the constitutionality of that law, should anyone at ATF dare to try to confiscate his weapons.
“The Democrats hoped that Trump’s legal woes would stir up his base and hand him the GOP nomination but that a felony conviction would prevent his victory in the general election.
Unfortunately for them, they had miscalculated.”
So, just another day ending in “y.”
Trump should sue for legal fees and give that money to something worthwhile.
Maybe after the case gets thrown out on appeal or if his administration discovers some damning evidence of the DOJ colluding with Bragg’s office, he will. He should.
Should be part of the appeal.
This case was only 1 of 3 of the most ridiculous, insane Soviet Show Trials – all taking place in the New York legal system. This case isn’t even the worst of the three (though this is the only criminal one). Leticia James’ case might be the most ridiculous (though the Jean Wacko Carroll case is pretty bad).
And all of these cases are reaching back years and years, with two of them needing to make mockeries of Statute of Limitation laws just to get to a court, where they both should have been summarily dismissed and the plaintiff, the lawyers, and prosecutors should have all been reprimanded and sanctioned for even trying to bring such crap to the court.
But … they all received warm welcomes in the New York Jokicial system and were each demonstrations of corruption and incompetence and stupidity in government officials.
Add to all that Hochul’s idiotic comment that no one else needs to worry about being treated as Trump is, and the whole sh*tshow is complete.
That Carroll wackjob had to have the law changed so she could bring Trump to court with those silly charges.
riiiiiiight. Mr pussygrabber would never do such a thing. Those two other women who testified at trial that the great man assaulted them were clearly lying, Dope.
At least he knows what a p¥ssy feels like. So, you are invited to come up from mommies basement, stop playing video games, and learn to not be an incel.
It must be sad that you are jealous that women WANTED to have Trump grab them by the front hole. But, when you do rise from the dungeon, women pray that you don’t approach them.
Women find handsome and successful men desirable. They find you creepy and detestable.
Fangirling a fat skeezer. Not a good look.
Why feed the creepy troll? Not worth it.
Fangirling a Marxist prosecution is not a good look, especially since Trump resides in your head rent free. The next four years are going to be enjoyable for me, but a f-ing nightmare for you.
Sucks to be you incel. Buckle up buttercup.
A good look? If I were you, TJV, I’d worry more about forgetting to cover the PC camera during Zoom calls.
Hey, Women lie! Off the top of my head I can give you 5 times women lied about rape, Tanya Brawley, Duke Lacrosse, Brian Banks, Nikki Lovino, & Sabrina Rubin!
There’s no indication that he would do such a thing. Even if those two women were telling the truth, which has not been established, all they testified to was that he kissed them without their prior consent. That’s not nice. It even counts as assault, though not sexual assault. But it’s a very far cry from doing what Biden did to Tara Reade, let alone what Clinton did to Juanita Broadrick.
The “assaults” they testified to were more akin to that committed by the soldier famously photographed kissing a woman on V-J Day; it’s no indication that he would go on to rape her, whether digitally or otherwise.
Is there a reason that most of the prosecutors in these cases were black. Seems like they are racists. But we all know that blacks can’t be racist. Only whites.
Were you a commenter on Power Line? Your moniker sounds so familiar to me.
Do you realize cases like this happen everyday, The stupid Carroll case in so out of bounds. There are a lot of people that are dragged through the courts for stupid cases, not just Trump.
We need really justice reform. I bet there are a lot of people that would support this. I would, I watched it first hand to a family member who won on appeal to the state supreme court. I have seen it happen to my parents who as for charges from the PA against a neighbor. The PA would not charge the neighbor for attacking my 8 year old brother.
Our court system is dragged down with stupid cases when real criminals should be being prosecuted like the Penny case.
What gets me about the Carroll case is that the dopey jury found that Trump did not rape her but somehow defamed her when he said that he didn’t,…BTW, he claims match an episode of Law & Order where the same happened
Not exactly. The jury found that he did “rape” her in the common sense of that term, but not in the sense that NY law at the time defined it.
The jury found that he’d done to Carroll the same thing that Tara Reade credibly claims Joe Biden did to her. But the judge told them that the NY law at the time of the alleged incident (to the extent that they could even pin it down to a range of several years) said it wasn’t defined as “rape” unless it involved penile penetration, and the jury found that there wasn’t enough evidence to say he’d done that.
So reversible error blah blah blah. But superior NY courts have declined to hear appeals, and so has the Supreme Court. How reversible is something you can’t find any authority to reverse? What other options, if any, does Trump still have — other than using his DOJ to find something damning on the personal actors and getting them legally burned at the stake so badly that no Democrat will dare try their tricks again in our lifetime?
Normally, you can’t appeal a case until there is a final judgement, which in this case, for Trump, was this week. You can, in rare circumstances, have appeals courts accept an interlocutory appeal before that. It’s essentially discretionary on their part. The upcoming appeal, now that there is a final judgement is by right. What was denied, by various courts, were Trump’s requests for interlocutory relief. The reason that courts do it this way is efficiency. It’s typically much more efficient to have a full case, up through final judgement, for an appeal, that to ping pong up and back down. To see that, look at the FL documents case, which was getting interlocutory appeals accepted because it was the DOJ requesting them, and was still probably at least a year to trial as a result.
The next level of appeal cannot be refused. The second level of appeal though is discretionary, typically through Writ of Certiorari (Cert). Since federal questions are involved (e.g. 14A Due Process, Presidential Immunity), Trump can also appeal into the federal system. An appeal to the federal District Court is again, by right, as long as there is a valid federal question.
You didn’t read SCOTUS. Their reasoning was that they shouldn’t step in because the appeal’s have not made their way through court. One of Trumps arguments was that being sentenced would interfere with his Presidential transition. SCOTUS disagreed noting Merchan said Trump not only wouldn’t see any jail, etc but was going to be sentenced remotely.
Amy Coney Barrett denied his motion to stop the sentencing. The errors in the case are another matter entirely. I’m not a lawyer, but a lot of legal experts are saying there are multiple anomalies in this case. Even a layman can see them.
Did those ‘legal experts’’ mention the appellate judges?
The appeals have just begun. Appellate judges either chose to wait for sentencing before considering appeals, or are part of the NY scum scam. Even the SC chose to wait.
So, please feel free to rise from the basement, but be sure to wash your crusty towel or sock, and we’ll talk after the appeals are done.
the do because the appellate judges are an error unto themselves
“I’m not a lawyer, but a lot of legal experts are saying there are multiple anomalies in this case. Even a layman can see them.”
Yes, that’s my point. Anyone could see the anomalies in the 2020 election as well, yet every corner of the court system turned in a performance worthy of an Olympic dodgeball champion. Anyway, I’m glad I misunderstood the import of the SCOTUS ruling, and that Trump has several avenues remaining to pursue justice.
New York’s reputation suffers more than Trump’s. The legal actions against Trump are so transparently bogus, the label “convicted felon” becomes meaningless. Who wants to do business in a city so corrupt and stupid? One cannot trust the prosecutors, the judges, the media, the police etc. I grew up in NYC and know the place. It was always corrupt, but not so transparently as it is now. I don’t even want to visit anymore. Almost everyone I used to know there is gone. It will go the way of Detroit.
the difference is that the ny courts don’t have low information cultists who blindly believe everything they say.
Having seen the jury result from Trump’s trial, I would have to disagree
If I understand you correctly, then the exact opposite of what you imply is true. NYC is so full of low-information anti-Trump cultists, that Bragg was able to get a conviction without stating the crime, let alone proving it beyond reasonable doubt. Dershowitz as well as Turley have written on this. Dershowitz has an open invitation to anyone who can tell us what the crime is. Do you know? If so, tell us and send a letter or email to Dershowitz. He will publish it. The world awaits your answer.
That isn’t true, and Dershowitz and Turley both know it. The alleged crime was falsifying business records in contemplation of another crime, or to conceal another crime.
What he didn’t specify, because he didn’t have to, was the “other crime”. Instead he suggested three possible “other crimes”, presented evidence for all three, and left it to each juror to decide whether the evidence was adequate to prove at least one of them beyond reasonable doubt.
Remember that the “other crime” need not have been committed. The statute specifically says that it need only have been contemplated, It is not the charge, it is merely the motive for the falsification.
For instance, suppose I were to fake a restaurant receipt in NY dated next Wednesday, with the idea that I will fly to France and do a burglary there on that day, and use the receipt as my alibi. Then someone points out that they’ll have my immigration records showing that I was in France and not in the USA, so I give up the plan. I’m still guilty of falsifying the record for the purpose of committing the burglary. And it makes no difference that France has no interest in extraditing and charging me, or even that it couldn’t, because I never actually flew there.
So that was the charge. It’s utter BS, but not for this reason.
Awwww! You are so naive.
Trump is only identified as a convicted felon, similar when you try to identify as a woman.
It’s only in the mind of your cult members, it’s not real, and when subjected to the light and reason, falls apart like your cheap skin suit.
Sweet Sister Josephine. Low information never-Trump cultist is posting her low information again.
Actually, I find her utterings quite amusing
low information= something that goes against official redhat cult dogma
90 years ago, you’d be fan-girling for Vasily Ulrikh. That’s how stupid you are.
Don’t feed the troll.
Shows you know NOTHING about New York.
I agree completely.
This site is a shitshow of phony ‘law and order’ ‘rule of law’ ”family values not_conservaties, who attack law enforcement and idolize and defend a POS who had a sleazy lawyer pay hush money to a pornstar he effed while his wife was pregnant. SMH
Let it all out, little girl. We’re her for you.
Don’t feed the troll.
And yet you just can’t stay away.
That’s the dictionary definition of a pervert, isn’t it?
If you’re looking for that comforting Blue Hopium, try motherjones, onlyfans, or goatse.
If you disagree with the many comments posted here, stating the opinions from the most competent legal minds – why stay? I’m sure the WaPo and the NYT have comment sections where you can see views more to your liking.
Now he can be compared to Nelson Mandela!
Mandela.you wear that red hat well! LOL
Except Mandela was actually guilty. He was justly convicted of terrorism, and refused to renounce his crime despite all the opportunities he was given.
It even has more than a fully laden costermonger’s handcart.
What is even funnier about this thread is the resident troll has no clue to what the felon charge is in this case, a bookkeeping issue. The basement troll seems to think it is about sex. Ironically, the troll is calling people Dopes.
My suggestion to the troll, read the whole thread before commenting. Read the Turley link, then comment on the discussion about the thread.
The New York post has a good article too.
We love a good discussion to challenge us, so stay on topic.
“We love a good discussion to challenge us”
From TJV Hooker?
Number 6: “You won’t get it!”
I’m reporting you as unmutual.
I think the key point here that so many people are missing is that making him a “convicted felon” is not the coup the Dems think it is.
Let’s suppose the conviction is upheld on appeal and remains on the books forever. NOBODY CARES. As far as almost everyone outside NY (as well as most people in NY) is concerned, it’s about the same as if he were convicted in France for “hate speech”, or in Iran for holding hands with his wife in public. Felony or not, nobody gives a sh*t about it.
“Convicted felon” is only a hit if it’s a felony we actually care about. We wouldn’t vote for someone who’s committed what we consider to be a real crime. But almost everyone would have no problem voting for someone who’s committed a technical offense that we wouldn’t hesitate to commit ourselves.