A prosecution so crooked it would make Joseph Stalin blush! ALAN DERSHOWITZ reveals the exact courtroom moment he knew Trump was doomed to a guilty verdict
A prosecution so crooked it would make Joseph Stalin blush! ALAN DERSHOWITZ reveals the exact courtroom moment he knew Trump was doomed to a guilty verdict
Long before Donald Trump's hush-money trial concluded, I predicted that his conviction was a forgone conclusion – despite the obvious weakness of the case against him.
People seem to have adopted as rote that a "false bookkeeping entry" was made. Perhaps it's more proof that propaganda works.
However, how is it illegal to use a drop down menu in commercial software to notate in a private company's general ledger as a "legal expense" a perfectly legal payment to a lawyer?
What law did this notation violate?
Further, what law, i.e., statute, regulation, or precedent, specifies what the notation should have been?
Likewise, since this claim is akin to a perjury claim, oughtn't there be some requirement that the government prove that the alleged falsehood was material?
More importantly, what evidence was adduced to prove this supposed crime?
As far as I can tell, the premise of this case is defective.
In addition, it is mind-boggling that ONE entry can be puffed up into thirty-four counts. At some point, this has to be a legal redundancy of no moment.
Indeed. The entire case was contrived. The defense should have had the chance (perhaps they did) to question the prosecution expert on how likely it was that a bookkeeping clerk would have any clue about the ramifications of this entry. For that matter, how many LAWYERS would have had any idea? Is there any precedence for such an entry? Apparently not.
You think like me. I’ve been asking these questions since the trial began. False in what way? Was a cite produced for “truthful” verbal entries? How can there be proof that the secondary crime was thought of at the time the bookkeeper in another location entered the false entry? How could the prosecution prove their case in a few hours? To prove a case the prosecution had to zero in on one crime, not three or four. Why was the standard of proof lowered for a crime to a civil standard. I can’t consider Trump guilty because the Prosecution did not prove the case. But they did throw in many extra distracting testimonies.
This is supposed to be the USA, not Russia or China or North Korea or Iran or any of many tyrannical nations ...
It is a fundamental moment, this one, returning (not finding) a verdict of guilty ...
A watershed, and this time there may no longer be a going back, your nation is in a state of civil war, not a guns and bombs one, but a discord so large that it is nonetheless a civil war.
I was convinced there was one person on the jury who would never agree with a guilty verdict and result in a hung jury; however, I did not see coming the jury instructions that violate the Constitution in permitting 1/3 of the jury to agree on something -- which falls far short of finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the standard) or having a jury of your peers convict you --- not a few that agree with how the judge wants the case to be decided. The jury instructions gave the jury no way to acquit that I can see. I was in post-Soviet Eastern Europe and I have never felt more like I was in the USSR than I did seeing this trial unfold this week as if it was legal!
New York is a banana republic. I am recommending a nationwide boycott of NY by Republicans, to include businesses, goods, services, airports, colleges, entertainment .... everything down to the yogurt made in New Berlin, NY which I used to buy. Who in his or her right mind would want to live or work in NY, or operate a business there? Donald Trump will Make America Great Again, assuming Garland doesn't have the FBI shoot it out with the Secret Service, which appears to have been his intent at Mar a Lago. Did Garland hope to eliminate Trump? As wild as that may sound, it's possible. On another note: people talk about the "potential for breakdown of the rule of law". News Bulletin: We have 20 million illegal aliens in the United States. A Democrat will ask, "How many have actually broken the law?" Answer: All of them.
In regards to whether Former President Trump committed a crime, I can't say however, Mr. Trump is not unique from any other President past or present and yet, he's the only one convicted of a Felony!? WTF.
The predicate crimes were disclosed by the prosecution during pre-trial motions at the beginning of the year, and summarized in Merchan's order on defendant's motion to dismiss. Merchan listed the three predicate crimes in the order (and threw out the fourth that prosecutors were seeking). While I respect Prof. Dershowitz's legal background, the above column suggests that he hasn't read the key documents from the case.
The crime has to be proven by the prosecution, leaving no reasonable doubt in a juror’s mind. It can’t just be mentioned by the judge. Did the prosecution convince the jury that one particular thought crime was committed at a particular time in 2017? Was there intent, motive, and opportunity to commit this crime?
I was a civil litigator for 25yrs after having worked in Hungary before the USSR fell; I also worked with CEELI after the USSR and its satellites broke apart reviewing and commenting on the new constitutions for countries like the Czeck Republic and Slovenia. As such, I am familiar with sham trials and legal systems not predicated by the rule of law.
I was holding out hope for a hung jury, but in retrospect, that was impossible. To say it was rigged or biased is a monumental understatement. I fear this indicates significant rot in the structure of our judicial system. I understand this travesty will be corrected by appellate courts, but the very fact this occurred in one of the most publicized trials in this century means our judicial system is not sound.
No judge suddenly acts as corruptly and biased as Merchand did in this case; he must have a history of corrupt decisions. And he does not seem to be a pariah in the NYC judicial system, suggesting there are others like him. Also, it seems the system deliberately assigned Merchand to the Trump trials, further indicating systemic rot.
Maybe we needed Trump to expose the decay in our judicial system. But the big question is how that rot is excised and equal justice for all is restored.
Bravo! I think Merchan (Colombian) is beholden to drug cartels/NGOs/Mayorkas/FJB in ways we have no idea about. His daughter too and all the libs she represents. Just a thought…
NY has invented a new legal term: Reverse Jury Nullification. Reverse Jury Nullification is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a guilty verdict even though they know a defendant has not broken the law. The jury's reasons may include one, or more than one, of the following: abject racism, egregious ignorance, immoral or amoral jurors, hate, jealousy, or heavily biased disdain for the defendant, intent on election interference if the defendant is a political candidate; that the prosecutor has abused the legal process and has become unviable; or failed to make a case; a judge, prosecutor, witness(s), evidence or members of the jury themselves are (is) corrupt (e.g. being bribed with promises, threats or money); the law in the defendant's case is not sufficient to meet the all the elements of a crime(s) or is irrelevant to the case and they want the defendant punished for something (anything); belief that the punishment for breaking the law is too lenient, or general frustrations with their own miserable, disgusting lives.
I agree. It will be acceptable to prosecute your political opponents at any level, federal, state, local and the prosecutor will find a judge that will glady go along. It’s already happening, witness the DOJ going after pro-life folks, ATF going after 2A activists. The problem is: when the GOP takes the White House then the weapons will be turned on the left. We are truly Venezuela at this point.
But at some point, Alan has to accept responsibility for his guilt by association.
At some point, members of the Nazi Party became aware of what the party was becoming. If they had all quit the party, nobody would ever have heard of Adolf Hitler.
He has stated he’s not a member of the Democratic Party but that he has voted for mostly Democratic candidates in the past. Perhaps this year may be different. I do appreciate his Libertarian bent, however.
This comes from a guy who sided with OJ Simpson... I would not trust. Maybe there is a reason people in NY don't like Trump... they know what he is.. But most Americans also.. If this trial was held in MAGA country would you say the same thing? What about Judge Cannon.. I don't see any republicans complaining about her total incompetence...... You get the idea.
The judge in this case was not selected at random, and neither was the jury: absolutely everything was rigged. This usually happens in federal criminal trials where the prosecution has a covert political agenda. How does it work? —Every web site that you visit is recorded. Every word that you say on the telephone is converted to keyword-searchable text and permanently stored in a government database. The gestapo has a file on everyone; so does Facebook and Google. That information can be used to create a jury pool comprised of people who are strongly biased against a particular defendant. Google uses the same technology to rig elections by automatically boosting or suppressing news stories based on specific filter criteria.
When the intelligence community secretly gets involved in criminal trials, the prosecution will sometimes have to invent a plausible explanation for how they knew something which they actually obtained through unlawful surveillance. And even where the gestapo is not involved, the simple reality is that everything about you, from your employment history to your political affiliation is stored in massive databases that are routinely traded & sold. Major internet service providers are selling information about their customers too. With access to the right databases, it is trivial for a machine to flood the jury pool with people who are likely to convict the defendant, and the deep state has been doing this for many years in politically-motivated prosecutions. When Republicans broadly supported the mass surveillance initiatives of the Bush regime, Libertarians warned that it would be turned against them at some future date, but they just refused to listen and now you see the consequences.
“no telephone in America makes a call without leaving a record with the NSA” - Edward Snowden
People seem to have adopted as rote that a "false bookkeeping entry" was made. Perhaps it's more proof that propaganda works.
However, how is it illegal to use a drop down menu in commercial software to notate in a private company's general ledger as a "legal expense" a perfectly legal payment to a lawyer?
What law did this notation violate?
Further, what law, i.e., statute, regulation, or precedent, specifies what the notation should have been?
Likewise, since this claim is akin to a perjury claim, oughtn't there be some requirement that the government prove that the alleged falsehood was material?
More importantly, what evidence was adduced to prove this supposed crime?
As far as I can tell, the premise of this case is defective.
In addition, it is mind-boggling that ONE entry can be puffed up into thirty-four counts. At some point, this has to be a legal redundancy of no moment.
Indeed. The entire case was contrived. The defense should have had the chance (perhaps they did) to question the prosecution expert on how likely it was that a bookkeeping clerk would have any clue about the ramifications of this entry. For that matter, how many LAWYERS would have had any idea? Is there any precedence for such an entry? Apparently not.
You think like me. I’ve been asking these questions since the trial began. False in what way? Was a cite produced for “truthful” verbal entries? How can there be proof that the secondary crime was thought of at the time the bookkeeper in another location entered the false entry? How could the prosecution prove their case in a few hours? To prove a case the prosecution had to zero in on one crime, not three or four. Why was the standard of proof lowered for a crime to a civil standard. I can’t consider Trump guilty because the Prosecution did not prove the case. But they did throw in many extra distracting testimonies.
I had the same thought…it was a Stalinist show trial. America has nothing resembling a justice department and the courts are under party control!
It is disgraceful ... !!!
This is supposed to be the USA, not Russia or China or North Korea or Iran or any of many tyrannical nations ...
It is a fundamental moment, this one, returning (not finding) a verdict of guilty ...
A watershed, and this time there may no longer be a going back, your nation is in a state of civil war, not a guns and bombs one, but a discord so large that it is nonetheless a civil war.
Will the USA regain what it was? Probably not ...
Is democracy about to be replaced by the courts? Are we losing the consent of the governed?
I was convinced there was one person on the jury who would never agree with a guilty verdict and result in a hung jury; however, I did not see coming the jury instructions that violate the Constitution in permitting 1/3 of the jury to agree on something -- which falls far short of finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the standard) or having a jury of your peers convict you --- not a few that agree with how the judge wants the case to be decided. The jury instructions gave the jury no way to acquit that I can see. I was in post-Soviet Eastern Europe and I have never felt more like I was in the USSR than I did seeing this trial unfold this week as if it was legal!
New York is a banana republic. I am recommending a nationwide boycott of NY by Republicans, to include businesses, goods, services, airports, colleges, entertainment .... everything down to the yogurt made in New Berlin, NY which I used to buy. Who in his or her right mind would want to live or work in NY, or operate a business there? Donald Trump will Make America Great Again, assuming Garland doesn't have the FBI shoot it out with the Secret Service, which appears to have been his intent at Mar a Lago. Did Garland hope to eliminate Trump? As wild as that may sound, it's possible. On another note: people talk about the "potential for breakdown of the rule of law". News Bulletin: We have 20 million illegal aliens in the United States. A Democrat will ask, "How many have actually broken the law?" Answer: All of them.
In regards to whether Former President Trump committed a crime, I can't say however, Mr. Trump is not unique from any other President past or present and yet, he's the only one convicted of a Felony!? WTF.
The predicate crimes were disclosed by the prosecution during pre-trial motions at the beginning of the year, and summarized in Merchan's order on defendant's motion to dismiss. Merchan listed the three predicate crimes in the order (and threw out the fourth that prosecutors were seeking). While I respect Prof. Dershowitz's legal background, the above column suggests that he hasn't read the key documents from the case.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432832/2024-02-15-order-denying-motion-to-dismiss-people-v-donaldtrump-2-15-24decision-1.pdf
The crime has to be proven by the prosecution, leaving no reasonable doubt in a juror’s mind. It can’t just be mentioned by the judge. Did the prosecution convince the jury that one particular thought crime was committed at a particular time in 2017? Was there intent, motive, and opportunity to commit this crime?
I was a civil litigator for 25yrs after having worked in Hungary before the USSR fell; I also worked with CEELI after the USSR and its satellites broke apart reviewing and commenting on the new constitutions for countries like the Czeck Republic and Slovenia. As such, I am familiar with sham trials and legal systems not predicated by the rule of law.
I was holding out hope for a hung jury, but in retrospect, that was impossible. To say it was rigged or biased is a monumental understatement. I fear this indicates significant rot in the structure of our judicial system. I understand this travesty will be corrected by appellate courts, but the very fact this occurred in one of the most publicized trials in this century means our judicial system is not sound.
No judge suddenly acts as corruptly and biased as Merchand did in this case; he must have a history of corrupt decisions. And he does not seem to be a pariah in the NYC judicial system, suggesting there are others like him. Also, it seems the system deliberately assigned Merchand to the Trump trials, further indicating systemic rot.
Maybe we needed Trump to expose the decay in our judicial system. But the big question is how that rot is excised and equal justice for all is restored.
Bravo! I think Merchan (Colombian) is beholden to drug cartels/NGOs/Mayorkas/FJB in ways we have no idea about. His daughter too and all the libs she represents. Just a thought…
NY has invented a new legal term: Reverse Jury Nullification. Reverse Jury Nullification is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a guilty verdict even though they know a defendant has not broken the law. The jury's reasons may include one, or more than one, of the following: abject racism, egregious ignorance, immoral or amoral jurors, hate, jealousy, or heavily biased disdain for the defendant, intent on election interference if the defendant is a political candidate; that the prosecutor has abused the legal process and has become unviable; or failed to make a case; a judge, prosecutor, witness(s), evidence or members of the jury themselves are (is) corrupt (e.g. being bribed with promises, threats or money); the law in the defendant's case is not sufficient to meet the all the elements of a crime(s) or is irrelevant to the case and they want the defendant punished for something (anything); belief that the punishment for breaking the law is too lenient, or general frustrations with their own miserable, disgusting lives.
Stalin would be so proud of Bragg....
I agree. It will be acceptable to prosecute your political opponents at any level, federal, state, local and the prosecutor will find a judge that will glady go along. It’s already happening, witness the DOJ going after pro-life folks, ATF going after 2A activists. The problem is: when the GOP takes the White House then the weapons will be turned on the left. We are truly Venezuela at this point.
Trump is charged w 34 counts of felony falsification of business records in the first degree, NY Penal law PEN Sect. 175.10
Elements of 175.10 are:
1. Violation Misdemeanor falsification of biz records NY Penal Sect. 175.05 by doing any of the following WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD:
-false entry enterprise biz. records
-altering, erasing, deleting records
- omission in records violating a outside legal duty
to
-obstruction: intentionally forcing someone else or not cooperating in furnishing required proof
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS for a misdemeanor in NY is 2 years "after the commion thereof."
Entries Feb. 14, 2017 at issue so SOL BLOWN.
BUT the judge magically tolled the SOL bcz alleging "in the furtherance of bigger crime" Part 2 bumping a misdemeanor up into a FELONY
SOL FELONY NY is 5 years, tolling the offense.
2. The 2nd degree falsification of biz records was in the furtherance of ANOTHER CRIME or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Evidence in threshold inditement was thin;
check entries from the Donald J. Trump revocable trust business ledger furnished by former Trump attorney, and perjured star witness Michael Cohen
What were the vague crimes proffered by the prosecution in closing? Total sham trial
We know all of this already, Alan. Now, what are you going to DO about it?
Alan has brought attention to the miscarriages of justice through his books, tv appearances, articles, and podcasts.
I'm aware. I bought Get Trump, and it's good.
But at some point, Alan has to accept responsibility for his guilt by association.
At some point, members of the Nazi Party became aware of what the party was becoming. If they had all quit the party, nobody would ever have heard of Adolf Hitler.
He has stated he’s not a member of the Democratic Party but that he has voted for mostly Democratic candidates in the past. Perhaps this year may be different. I do appreciate his Libertarian bent, however.
This comes from a guy who sided with OJ Simpson... I would not trust. Maybe there is a reason people in NY don't like Trump... they know what he is.. But most Americans also.. If this trial was held in MAGA country would you say the same thing? What about Judge Cannon.. I don't see any republicans complaining about her total incompetence...... You get the idea.
The judge in this case was not selected at random, and neither was the jury: absolutely everything was rigged. This usually happens in federal criminal trials where the prosecution has a covert political agenda. How does it work? —Every web site that you visit is recorded. Every word that you say on the telephone is converted to keyword-searchable text and permanently stored in a government database. The gestapo has a file on everyone; so does Facebook and Google. That information can be used to create a jury pool comprised of people who are strongly biased against a particular defendant. Google uses the same technology to rig elections by automatically boosting or suppressing news stories based on specific filter criteria.
When the intelligence community secretly gets involved in criminal trials, the prosecution will sometimes have to invent a plausible explanation for how they knew something which they actually obtained through unlawful surveillance. And even where the gestapo is not involved, the simple reality is that everything about you, from your employment history to your political affiliation is stored in massive databases that are routinely traded & sold. Major internet service providers are selling information about their customers too. With access to the right databases, it is trivial for a machine to flood the jury pool with people who are likely to convict the defendant, and the deep state has been doing this for many years in politically-motivated prosecutions. When Republicans broadly supported the mass surveillance initiatives of the Bush regime, Libertarians warned that it would be turned against them at some future date, but they just refused to listen and now you see the consequences.
“no telephone in America makes a call without leaving a record with the NSA” - Edward Snowden
⋅Room 641A 🕵🏼♂️
⋅Bumblehive 🐝
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3pnkw/us-military-bought-mass-monitoring-augury-team-cymru-browsing-email-data
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/the-3-layers-of-the-technocratic-state-5659561
https://rumble.com/v4ylcrt-reminder-1975-church-committee-reveals-fbi-conducted-illegal-activities-for.html
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/ken-paxton-says-fbi-should-be-dissolved-because-corruption-agency