GREGG JARRETT: NY judge desperate to brand Trump ‘convicted felon’ before inauguration

New York Judge Juan Marchan's arbitrary refusal on Friday to dismiss the wrongfully brought lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump and instead hand down a sentence on January 10 is a further violation of the law. It was a middle finger. And to Mr. Trump.

At the same time, Machan unwittingly acknowledges the stupidity of the entire prosecution by informing the defendant that neither the court nor District Attorney Alvin Bragg intends to seek meaningful punishment. Following the guilty verdict by a Manhattan jury last May, a judge disingenuously advised that Trump would receive “unconditional release” with no jail time, fines or probation.

President Trump slams Democrats for wanting only 'a pound of meat' amid failed case

Never mind that state law does not support prison sentences in these situations. Forget that the district attorney intentionally distorted the statute and messed up the evidence in order to pursue a baseless prosecution motivated purely by political vendetta. And ignore the fact that a guilty verdict from a biased jury, compounded by Marchand's chronic and irreversible errors, is highly unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny on appeal. Finally.

It's clear that Marchand is hell-bent on smearing Trump with the formal restriction of being a “convicted felon.” To do so, the next president must be given a verdict. A jury verdict alone is not sufficient under the law. Therefore, the proposal is that President Trump's virtual appearance at a hearing at least 10 days before his inauguration would amount to a non-prison sentence.

This is another demonstration aimed at ending and covering up the sham trial. They show up to be verbally tarred and feathered, but no stocks or pillories are deployed.

In a sense, one might be tempted to accept Machan's conditional surrender. why? By law, Mr. Trump is barred from challenging the judge's numerous errors or the prosecutor's superficial legal theories until the case is sentenced. Only then will he be officially “convicted.” If the appeal is successful, the conviction will be expunged.

And then there's friction.

The average defendant will accept a Faustian bargain that guarantees no jail time and immediately begins the appeals process. But Mr. Trump is different. He is a fighter at heart who refuses to surrender even when his opponents are facing criticism. That's one of the many reasons voters gave him a second term. He doesn't give up or give in.

Any competent or objective judge would have long ago thrown Trump's indictment in the trash where it belongs. On the surface, it was a clearly flawed, if not ridiculous, prosecution that was clearly politicized.

Trump is determined to clear his name. Therefore, it is expected that his defense team will challenge Marchand's decision on both the dismissal and sentencing. There are various legal options available, including applying to the Court of Appeals for an emergency “stay” that, if granted, could postpone further proceedings beyond Inauguration Day on January 20.

It is well established that the president is not affected by infectious diseases; all criminal proceedings During his tenure, a court-ordered moratorium would effectively delay sentencing until 2029, a principle even Machan acknowledged. Of course, that assumes that the case will still be pulsating four years from now.

Mr. Trump has a credible argument that the sentence against him should be reversed now. As president-elect, his lawyers argue that “the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interests of justice require his immediate removal.” Sentencing would disrupt the orderly transfer of executive power.

In essence, states have no right or authority to violate federal laws passed by Parliament, including transition laws. Interference by the district attorney and/or judge would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

However, there are other compelling reasons to end this case sooner rather than later.

In a previous ruling, Marchand readily acknowledged that he has the power to set aside a verdict if there was a reversible error at trial. But he has steadfastly refused to admit any of the numerous mistakes that would warrant his removal.

Chief among them is that prosecutors relied on tainted evidence, which is prohibited under the presidential immunity standard promulgated by the Supreme Court on July 1. Testimony from White House officials and numerous presidential records should never have been introduced. Marchan ignored all this, claiming that such evidence was inconsequential, even though prosecutors emphasized it in closing arguments to the jury.

He also turned a blind eye to Bragg's complicated and disjointed legal theory that hiding a perfectly legal non-disclosure agreement must somehow be a crime. it's not. It then allowed district attorneys to shatter the law by reinstating a lapsed business record misdemeanor and turning it into a phantom election felony falsely portrayed as having unfairly influenced the 2016 presidential election. .

This was a pretty neat trick in that President Trump's transactions were recorded and reimbursed. rear election. Additionally, as district attorney, Mr. Bragg did not have the authority to enforce federal election laws. The payment to former adult film star Stormy Daniels did not even qualify as a donation under any law or regulation.

As I've pointed out before, a competent, objective judge would have thrown Trump's indictment in the trash a long time ago. On the surface, it was a clearly flawed, if not ridiculous, prosecution that was clearly politicized.

But Bragg's disgraceful ledger demain did not bother Merchan in the slightest. Exactly the opposite is true. His honor meshed pleasantly with Hocus Pocus. At the trial, he took off his black robe and joined the legal circus as a co-prosecutor.

When the predetermined verdict was announced, no one knew exactly what crime Trump had been found guilty of. In theory, the bookkeeping errors were allegedly committed in furtherance of another crime, in an illegal attempt to influence the election.

But what crime? No one can say. Was it a violation of federal election law? Tax law?False business records? Choose from the aforementioned menu of imaginative possibilities. President Trump didn't know because prosecutors didn't say anything. And so did the jury.

In his chilling instructions to the committee, Mr Machan declared that there was no need to specify which crimes were allegedly committed, nor did there need to be unanimous agreement. He abandoned with impunity the fundamental principle of unanimity in criminal convictions that the Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced.

Mr. Marchand's courtroom has become a cesspool of incomprehensible rulings by conflicted and hostile judges, depriving Mr. Trump of a fair trial. Mr. Machan and prosecutors worked together to obtain a guilty verdict. Political bias interfered with the defendant's right to due process. The case was a harebrained case pursued by a district attorney who enthusiastically supported the Democratic Party's corrupt litigation campaign against its Republican opponent.

None of this was meant to deceive American voters. In fact, it appears to have backfired spectacularly. Many were deeply outraged that President Trump's opponents had undermined the law to file a series of criminal charges aimed at crushing his chances of returning to the White House. There were angry voices at the voting booth on November 5th. It's decisive.

For more FOX News opinions, click here

Despite their best efforts to interfere with the election results, the unscrupulous duo of Marchand and Bragg can do nothing now to stop Trump. The newly elected president will still benefit even if his expected attempt to halt next Friday's sentencing fails. He can launch an appeal against the shameless perversion of the law committed against him and the subsequent miscarriage of justice.

It wasn't a fair trial. It was a farce.

In the meantime, it is important that the next judicial branch launch a comprehensive investigation into the litigation activities filed almost simultaneously by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. This is the responsibility of the Ministry. Bid in elections.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Coincidence? It's unlikely. There is reason to believe there was coordination between them with President Joe Biden's White House or Attorney General Merrick Garland's Department of Justice. Probably both. When laws are violated, prosecutors should be exposed and held accountable for weaponizing the justice system.

Democrats have spent the past four years telling us that no one is above the law. Unfortunately, the same standards now apply to them.

Click here to read more about Greg Jarrett