Judge Merchan has declared new law via Judicial Order

[Votto]

9 Damning Pieces Of Evidence Proving Trump Is Guilty
U.S.·May 29, 2024 · BabylonBee.com
Click here to view this article with reduced ads.

The prosecution has finally rested in the criminal case against former President Trump, having presented nine bullet-proof pieces of evidence that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is guilty. Here they are:

1. Trump said he's innocent: Exactly the sort of thing a guilty person would say.
2. Before the trial, the prosecution's star witnesses both said Trump was innocent: It doesn't get any more cut and dry.
3. The judge decided Trump was guilty before the trial even began: It was that obvious.
4. No one in America has ever been charged with a felony for this crime before: Trump is so guilty they had to make up new laws. Case closed.
5. Trump was in Home Alone 2 alongside notorious criminals "The Wet Bandits": What more evidence could you need?
6. Trump spent evenings after trial delivering pizza to firemen: Exactly what a hardened felon would do. Lock him up.
7. Trump's signature on the checks in question is kind of hard to read: The plain mark of criminal conspiracy.
8. Robert DeNiro said he is guilty: Game over.
9. He's not a Democrat: Clearly belongs behind bars. That's just how law works.

If that's not an airtight list of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is guilty, then you belong in a cell right next to him!


Read Article

 

[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).

I bet you can't even put into your own words what crime Trump allegedly committed.

 

[Faun]

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.

He did no such thing. Your link doesn't even say that. It says he instructed the jury that they didn't all have to agree on which of the crimes the prosecution offered. Again, there were several. Some jurors might find it was the payoff to the doorman. Others might find it was the payoff to McDougal. Others might find it was the payoff to Daniels. Or could be a combination of said crimes. They don't all need to be in agreement which of those crimes Trump intended to cover up. But they ALL have to agree he intended to cover up at least one of them.

 

[Votto]

He did no such thing. Your link doesn't even say that. It says he instructed the jury that they didn't all have to agree on which of the crimes the prosecution offered. Again, there were several. Some jurors might find it was the payoff to the doorman. Others might find it was the payoff to McDougal. Others might find it was the payoff to Daniels. Or could be a combination of said crimes. They don't all need to be in agreement which of those crimes Trump intended to cover up. But they ALL have to agree he intended to cover up at least one of them.

No, there can be a good many reasons for a falsification, such as making an error.

The judge is saying there is no need to think a crime has been committed with the intent of falsifying documents. Just the fact the documents were not accurate is enough to convict him.

In fact, I bet you can't even articulate what crimes you think Trump committed here.

Remember Hillary and her e-mails? Comey ended up saying, "Sure, she broke the laws, but had no malevolent intent."

WTH?

Marchan is Comey in reverse on this one.



Remember when the FBI tried to destroy one of Trump's appointees for one supposed mistruth, he, at the time, was told was off the record?

 

[Faun]

I bet you can't even put into your own words what crime Trump allegedly committed.

You lose.

Trump conspired with an attorney to make illegal payments to several people with the intent of affecting the 2016 election. He then falsified business records as "legal services" for that lawyer to cover up crimes committed by that lawyer and the former head of AMI.

 

[Faun]

No, there can be a good many reasons for a falsification, such as making an error.

The judge is saying there is no need to think a crime has been committed with the intent of falsifying documents. Just the fact the documents were not accurate is enough to convict him.

In fact, I bet you can't even articulate what crimes you think Trump committed here.

Remember Hillary and her e-mails? Comey ended up saying, "Sure, she broke the laws, but had no malevolent intent."

WTH?

Marchan is Comey in reverse on this one.

He did not say there doesn't need to be an underlying crime.

 

[Votto]

You lose.

Trump conspired with an attorney to make illegal payments to several people with the intent of affecting the 2016 election. He then falsified business records as "legal services" for that lawyer to cover up crimes committed by that lawyer and the former head of AMI.

Let's assume you are correct for a second.

Why is it that Congress can use your tax money to pay off women to keep silent about sexual assault to the tune of $17 million?

Congress paid $17 million for discriminating against its own employees

Taxpayer money also allegedly went to settle sexual harassment claims.

qz.com

Now let's compare the two.

1. Trump did not use taxpayer money, nor did he sexually assault anyone. The sex was consensual, and he used his own money.

2. Trump is being held accountable for the supposed activity, as where those in Congress we are not even given the names of all the Congressmen involved so that they can win more elections even though sexual assault is a real crime and not one of these Merchan inventions of a crime.

This is why you and the Swamp lose as the vast number of Americans are more concerned about a corrupt and out of control government and economy and border than Trump telling his whore to keep quiet about their consensual sex.

And to think, a billion impeachments and indictments and this is all you have?

Stop your virtue signaling about caring about justice and admit Orange man bad and must be destroyed.

 

[Faun]

Let's assume you are correct for a second.

Why is it that Congress can use your tax money to pay off women to keep silent about sexual assault to the tune of $17 million?

Congress paid $17 million for discriminating against its own employees

Taxpayer money also allegedly went to settle sexual harassment claims.

qz.com

Now let's compare the two.

1. Trump did not use taxpayer money, nor did he sexually assault anyone. The sex was consensual, and he used his own money.

2. Trump is being held accountable for the supposed activity, as where those in Congress we are not even given the names of all the Congressmen involved so that they can win more elections even though sexual assault is a real crime and not one of these Merchan inventions of a crime.

This is why you and the Swamp lose as the vast number of Americans are more concerned about a corrupt and out of control government and economy and border than Trump telling his whore to keep quiet about their consensual sex.

And to think, a billion impeachments and indictments and this is all you have?

Stop your virtue signaling about caring about justice and admit Orange man bad and must be destroyed.

I don't know the details of that other matter nor do I care. It has nothing to do with Trump's case. They're not even from the same jurisdiction or addressing the same law. Deal with what Trump's case is about. Others have no bearing on it.

 

[leftwinger]

RECAP: Bragg combined two misdemeanor crimes to create a felony because both of their statutes of limitations expired. The question of how, by combining these two crimes, it revives the falsification misdemeanor and elevates it to a felony, remains unanswered. A pivotal point that has gone overlooked -- the statute in question is unclear, and does not expressly state, that two misdemeanors make a felony.

But even if that were somehow true, myriad other legal issues abound. First, the "smorgasbord of options" issue that Merchan described yesterday, in which the jurors were effectively licensed to "mix and match" different predicate crimes in order to help reach a guilty verdict. The three "predicate crimes" were an FEC violation, and two tax-related violations. The problem with the FECA law is that this should not be an issue in a state court. State courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on Federal Election-related matters, which are highly complex and have their own separate set of rules. This is why President Trump's counsel wanted to bring in an FEC expert witness. Even though the issue should not have been brought into state court in the first place, at the bare minimum, have an authority on election law to explain what these highly intricate laws mean and how they should be interpreted. Merchan is far from an expert in anything, especially federal election law. He's an "acting" state court judge from a low-ranking law school. But of course he prevented that witness from testifying, because he is a tyrant and he alone has the ability, in his words, to say what the law is.

The other two "predicate crimes" -- the tax filing violation and books and records violation -- are so open-ended and ambiguous as to be impossible to rule on. However, even so, the underlying point stands: no jury is permitted to select a buffet of different crimes to more easily satisfy the burden of proof to fast-track a guilty verdict.This is a violation of due process, which the Supreme Court has been crystal clear. It is also likely jury tampering, which Merchan has done shamelessly. He would not provide the jurors with written instructions in order to have exclusive control over the law, its application, and interpretation.

Every single aspect of this case has been tainted by impropriety, prejudice, flagrant ethical breaches, and rule violations of the most egregious and highest order. President Trump's fundamental constitutional rights, including due process and the right to speak freely, have been denied by this so-called Judge with impunity. Whatever the verdict, any right-minded appeals court will toss this case out without a second thought -- because the violations are so blatant from top to bottom.

 

[Votto]

I don't know the details of that other matter nor do I care. It has nothing to do with Trump's case. They're not even from the same jurisdiction or addressing the same law. Deal with what Trump's case is about. Others have no bearing on it.

You don't care.

No truer words have you spoken your entire life.

 

[Magnus]

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.

 

[Faun]

You don't care.

No truer words have you spoken your entire life.

I'm always truthful.

I don't care because it has zero to do with this case. Do you really need to deflect away from this case to make a point about it?

 

[Votto]

I'm always truthful.

I don't care because it has zero to do with this case. Do you really need to deflect away from this case to make a point about it?

No, pretty sure everyone has lied at least once in their life

Try again.