Judge Merchan has declared new law via Judicial Order

[Votto]

After telling jurors that there is no need for them to agree that Donald Trump is guilty of a crime to convict him, Merchan realized there needed to be a law for that sort of thing. This led to judge Merchan standing up in the court room and declared the "Merchan Rule" saying it was a new judicial order, much like an Executive Order Biden declares every day.

"As we all know, the judiciary decides what is Constitutional, ever since Marlboro vs. Madison", said Merchan.

No word yet on whether Judge Merchan smokes Marlboro.

 

[1srelluc]

Who's judge Merchant?

You mean judge Merchan?

 

[Votto]

Who's judge Merchant?

You mean judge Merchan?

No idea what you are talking about

Wut, are you some kind of simpleton?

 

[1srelluc]

No idea what you are talking about

Wut, are you some kind of simpleton?

You come up with weak shit that is supposed to be "funny" and can't even get the name straight. You are getting more like the leftists in that regard.

 

[Votto]

You come up with weak shit that is supposed to be "funny" and can't even get the name straight. You are getting more like the leftists in that regard.

Blah, blah, blah!

Tell Merhy, Merchant, Mercant, or whatever that losers name is, I'm sure it's a felony by now.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 954079

After telling jurors that there is no need for them to agree that Donald Trump is guilty of a crime to convict him, Merchan realized there needed to be a law for that sort of thing. This led to judge Merchan standing up in the court room and declared the "Merchan Rule" saying it was a new judicial order, much like an Executive Order Biden declares every day.

"As we all know, the judiciary decides what is Constitutional, ever since Marlboro vs. Madison", said Merchan.

No word yet on whether Judge Merchan smokes Marlboro.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Votto]

What's wrong with that?

Nothing.

The state is now allowed to convict anyone without evidence of any crime

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Faun]

Nothing.

The state is now allowed to convict anyone without evidence of any crime

What could possibly go wrong?

Who said they don't need evidence?

 

[leftwinger]

Judicial branch is supposed to enforce existing law, not write their own. That is for the Legislative branch.

 

[Faun]

Judicial branch is supposed to enforce existing law, not write their own. That is for the Legislative branch.

What law did he write?

 

[Votto]

What law did he write?

MSN

www.msn.com

The jury is now deliberating on the first-ever criminal trial in history of a former president of the United States.

And by every account, this case has displayed the most egregious use of lawfare against a political opponent the nation has ever seen.

Earlier, Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the hush-money case against the former president in Manhattan, disclosed that his daughter, Loren Merchan, is president of Authentic Campaigns, a digital consulting firm that has worked on the campaigns of President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats, according to CNN.

Two Democratic clients of Loren Merchan raised over $90 million, partly by using Trump's case in their solicitation emails, according to the New York Post.

However, Merchan refused to recuse himself from the case.

Not only that, but he has also continuously undermined Trump's defense with his rulings and instructions.

Renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz wrote last week in the New York Post, "In my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday. The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn."

But the final instructions to the jury by Merchan take both the cake and the bakery and strip the proceedings of any facade of fairness -- not that there was much of that to begin with.

On Wednesday, Merchan determined that jurors will not need to unanimously agree on the underlying crime motivating the alleged falsification of business records Trump is accused of, according to Politico.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Who's judge Merchant?

You mean judge Merchan?

"Merchant" seems appropriate, the way he is selling out his office.

 

[task0778]

Lawfare at it's finest and most obvious.

 

[AquaAthena]

Judicial branch is supposed to enforce existing law, not write their own. That is for the Legislative branch.

The motivated by hatred for Trump judge is out for blood, by hook or by crook.

 

[leftwinger]

From todays’ tweets:

It is indeed unconstitutional. In 1999, SCOTUS ruled in Richardson v United States that a jury must find a defendant unanimously guilty on a "specific violation" or charge.The relevant section of the decision, delivered by liberal Justice Breyer

 

[Votto]

"Merchant" seems appropriate, the way he is selling out his office.

Wrong!

The Judicial branch can in no way be wrong or corrupt...............that is, unless Trump becomes a judge, but I think that is only common sense.

 

[Votto]

From todays’ tweets:

It is indeed unconstitutional. In 1999, SCOTUS ruled in Richardson v United States that a jury must find a defendant unanimously guilty on a "specific violation" or charge.The relevant section of the decision, delivered by liberal Justice Breyer

But the Constitution is a living breathing document that changes every minute of the day to make the DNC happy.

At least, that is how Leftists view it.

You must be one of those originalist extremist loons that read the Constitution and then thinks you can interpret it as it reads.

If so, why have you not recused yourself of commenting on this thread?

We need to keep you loons censored don't ya know.

 

[Votto]

Who's judge Merchant?

You mean judge Merchan?

Is it too late to change his name to fecal brain?

Mods, can you edit it for me?

 

[Faun]

MSN

www.msn.com

The jury is now deliberating on the first-ever criminal trial in history of a former president of the United States.

And by every account, this case has displayed the most egregious use of lawfare against a political opponent the nation has ever seen.

Earlier, Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the hush-money case against the former president in Manhattan, disclosed that his daughter, Loren Merchan, is president of Authentic Campaigns, a digital consulting firm that has worked on the campaigns of President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats, according to CNN.

Two Democratic clients of Loren Merchan raised over $90 million, partly by using Trump's case in their solicitation emails, according to the New York Post.

However, Merchan refused to recuse himself from the case.

Not only that, but he has also continuously undermined Trump's defense with his rulings and instructions.

Renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz wrote last week in the New York Post, "In my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday. The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn."

But the final instructions to the jury by Merchan take both the cake and the bakery and strip the proceedings of any facade of fairness -- not that there was much of that to begin with.

On Wednesday, Merchan determined that jurors will not need to unanimously agree on the underlying crime motivating the alleged falsification of business records Trump is accused of, according to Politico.

That's not writing new law. It's the court's responsibility to educate jurors of the law. In this case, the prosecution claimed there were several crimes Trump tried to cover up. The judge clarified, in terms of § 75.10, they have to find Trump committed a least one of those crimes to convict. It doesn't matter which of the crime(s) the 12 jurors find were covered up or which crime(s) each individual finds were covered up. All that matters to convict is that every juror finds he intended to cover up at least one of those crime(s).

 

[Votto]

That's not writing new law. It's the court's responsibility to educate jurors of the law. In this case, the prosecution claimed there were several crimes Trump tried to cover up. The judge clarified, in terms of § 75.10, they have to find Trump committed a least one of those crimes to convict. It doesn't matter which of the crime(s) the 12 jurors find were covered up or which crime(s) each individual finds were covered up. All that matters to convict is that every juror finds he intended to cover up at least one of those crime(s).

That is not what the judge said

He told the jurors there is no need to insist that a crime had been committed to convict.

Try again.

On Wednesday, Merchan determined that jurors will not need to unanimously agree on the underlying crime motivating the alleged falsification of business records Trump is accused of, according to Politico.

You people are an absolute disgrace.