The ultimate result of the Trump trial decision | Eastern North Carolina Now

What a glorious waste of time


Clarice Feldman, writing at The American Thinker, has the best summary of the result of the Trump “conviction” in the Hush Money trial.  She writes:

Some years ago, I was trying a denaturalization case of someone who aided the Nazis. As an aside, the judge mentioned that his dad had been distraught upon hearing of the Hitler-Stalin pact because he knew it meant there would be a world war. I felt much the same upon reading of the verdict in the New York case against President Trump. There have been a number of fine analyses of the case itself, and I have chosen one which I discuss below for its clarity, but I’m concentrating today on the aftermath of this ill-conceived political hit job.

Destabilizing Effect

As the editors of the Wall Street Journal observed about a “turducken” of a case charging a former president of obscure unprecedented offenses which even if proven would constitute only a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations had long passed:

The conviction sets a precedent of using legal cases, no matter how sketchy, to try to knock out political opponents, including former Presidents. Mr. Trump has already vowed to return the favor. If Democrats felt like cheering Thursday when the guilty verdict was read, they should think again. Mr. Bragg might have opened a new destabilizing era of American politics, and no one can say how it will end.

John Lucas contends that this judge, jury, and prosecutors “have flung this country into a downward spiral from which we may never recover,” he argues, and I agree, the verdict is the most dangerous day in our history.

The Democrats have made the rules, and their opponents will have little choice but to play the game.  

This is not a game that can or will be played by one side only. The rules are now set. When Republicans have the chance, they will play the game. Many, perhaps most, will think that a response is mandatory and that “taking the high road” is no longer an option. Instead, it would be regarded by the “progressive” left -- that is to say those now in charge of the Democratic party -- as weakness if they roll over and fail to respond. This is an existential threat to the stability of our political system and nation. That risk makes this the most dangerous day in the history of the Country, at least in our lifetimes. 

Henceforth, weaponization of the justice system against a political opponent will be the norm. Political grudges will be resolved by political opponents in cherry-picked courtrooms where conviction is most likely. All this confirms that when controlled by scoundrels, our judicial system is becoming more like what we expect in places like China, Cuba or Venezuela, where political opponents are routinely imprisoned or worse.

Weakness of the Case

Many legal practitioners have noted the major flaws in this case, and have done a fine job of it, but for clear and simple to understand descriptions, I recommend Will Chamberlain’s:

1. It's not remotely clear that a. the records were false or b. that Trump knew anything about the attempt to falsify them. It's not obvious how to classify an NDA [ed: Non-disclosure agreement] expense, and the idea that Trump -- who was President at the time of the alleged falsification -- was paying attention to how expenses were being recorded in drop-down menus on accounting software strains belief. 2. This is the first time that falsification was charged for records *that were not expected to be seen outside the organization*. Falsification is normally charged alongside fraud cases where the falsification is in service of, say, getting a bank to issue a loan it wouldn't otherwise issue. Here there was no fraud. No one was relying on these records. There is no victim. 

Surprisingly, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, citing undeniable facts, best lays out the legal contortions underlying the conviction.

The judge donated money [snip] in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind -- to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.”[snip] District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess.[snip] Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process.


The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor -- in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere -- has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting... Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor -- two years -- likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) -- and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations -- the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments.

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.


“No man is above the law.” It’s become cliché, but it’s an important point, and it’s worth pausing to reflect on the importance of this core principle. But it’s also meaningless pablum if we unquestioningly tolerate (or worse, celebrate) deviations from ordinary process and principle to get there.

Trump’s Options

He has a fine legal staff which undoubtedly will weigh his options and select the best, but several commentators have offered suggestions. In the first case, he’s now free on bail pending appeal. He cannot file an appeal until he’s sentenced and Judge Juan Merchan has set that date for July 11, four days before the scheduled RNC convention. A look at the NY Supreme Court indicates it’s a one-party operation and gives no assurance that it will reverse the conviction.  

Should Merchan sentence him to jail, he would remain free on bail until the appellate court upholds the conviction and sentence. Assuming Merchan sentences him on July 11, it’s possible the appeals court would hear the case in November around the election time. There might be some question as to whether he could vote in some states -- depending on the sentence, but Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has announced as chair of the Florida Clemency Board he would grant Trump clemency to vote in his home state. The most creative suggestion is that of Mark Levin, who says Trump should preserve his right to appeal to the NY Supreme Court but simultaneously go right to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court interceded in the Florida Supreme Court's deliberations because that Court was changing the Florida voting system on the fly, thereby violating the EQUAL PROTECTION rights of the Florida voters; that is, the state court was establishing new standards for resolving a presidential election.

The Manhattan trial court has done worse. It has taken up a case in which there is exclusive FEDERAL JURISDICTION (involving the Federal Election Campaign Act) despite the fact that the federal agencies with authority over enforcing federal campaign laws, the Federal Election Commission and the Southern District of New York/U.S. attorney's office, declined to bring charges; where the judge is conflicted (his daughter is raising tens of millions of dollars on behalf of her Democrat Party clients); where collateral evidence has been abundant (and has no probative value); where the elements of the supposed federal offense were never articulated by the state or the Court; the imposition of a gag order on the defendant who is the future Republican nominee for president in the midst of the federal campaign for president; and so forth. Moreover, this state court could have easily avoided influencing and interfering with the federal presidential election merely by setting a later time for the case, if the court actually believed it somehow had merit. After all, the state waited years to bring its case.

Therefore, there is not only a federal constitutional equal protection violation, in that this state trial court has purposefully interposed itself into the federal presidential election without authority or jurisdiction but has also violated the federal constitutionally protected due process rights of the future Republican nominee for president. Furthermore, the voters are to determine the federal election outcome without the interference of a state court attempting to influence the result.

If President Trump is found guilty of any of the thirty-four charges, I would strongly encourage his attorneys to seek an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based, at least in significant part, on Bush v. Gore.

Effect on Trump’s Reelection

Within 24 hours of the verdict, almost $53 million was donated to Trump, about a third of it reportedly from new donors. Some donations were small, some were big, Elon Musk and other very wealthy Americans threw their support to Trump, including Sequoia Founder Shaun Maguire, who donated $300,000. In a long explanation he told how he had changed his mind about Trump and why this is “one of the most important elections of my lifetime.”

The great Iowahawk (David Burge) thinks the Democrats’ idea that they can beat Trump through lawfare is absurd: “This is wishful thinking on the level of ‘hey let’s trap Godzilla with the high voltage lines’” 

Benny Johnson’s crew did a fun video takeoff on the movie It’s a Wonderful Life, portraying the groundswell of donations to Trump like the townspeople pouring money in to save Jimmy Stewart and his bank.

The Daily Mail for one ran a poll revealing the conviction increased Trump’s lead over President Biden.

All in all, these lawfare schemes strike me as dangerous to the country but as self-defeating to the Democrats as any Wile E. Coyote scheme to catch the roadrunner.


Go Back

Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )


( June 6th, 2024 @ 4:35 pm )
In a politicized assault through political prosecution, the more wealth and/or power a target has, the more likely they are to be prosecuted, the more unfair the proceedings will be, and the more severe the outcome will be. In communist judicial systems after the October revolution in Russia and after commmunist takeovers in eastern Europe, or after Casto's takeover of Cuba for example, the more wealthy or powerful you had been made you much more likely to be imprisoned or shot. In the political prosecutions of Trump, it is not so much his wealth that makes him a big target as it is his political power. Retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was spot on when he said the Trump Manhattan trial was the most "Sovietized" he had ever seen in America, and Dershowitz is a Democrat who voted for Biden.
Big Bob said:
( June 6th, 2024 @ 2:33 pm )
Hey Pollyanna - Money is always a factor.
( June 6th, 2024 @ 12:32 pm )
Sorry, bud, but level of wealth is an irrelevant factor in political prosecutions in politicized courts. One of the first targets of Putin's political prosecutions was a billionaire oil company oligarch who also owned some key TV stations that were not Putin-friendly. Putin had some fake charges trumped up, the oil billionaire jailed, and took away his TV stations and oil company through political prosecution. Biden has clearly learned a trick from Putin.

Here is a good article - "The Day the Democrats Putinized America"
Big Bob said:
( June 6th, 2024 @ 11:56 am )
Sorry, bud, if a white billionaire cant get a fair trial , none of us can. Nothing but sour grapes
( June 6th, 2024 @ 10:02 am )
No, Bob, just some detail to explain what the law actually says and to refute your profoundly ignorant false statement about the law.
Big Bob said:
( June 6th, 2024 @ 9:42 am )
500 words to say it didn't go my way. Yawn
( June 5th, 2024 @ 2:55 pm )
As a lawyer, let me correct Bob's gross misunderstanding of the law. In North Carolina, as in New York, if there are factors where a party cannot get a fair trial in the jurisdiction where charges are pending due to a tainted jury pool, there are two remedies. One is a change of venue, where the entire trial is moved to another jurisdiction with a fairer jury pool. The other is a special venire, where the trial itself is not moved, but jurors are brought in from another jurisdiction where there is a fairer jury pool.

Three times while I was actively practicing law I was involved in cases where the venue was changed. One was a capital murder case in Martin County. The trial judge initially denied our motion to change venue, but after a week of trying to seat a jury, he finally understood the issues we had raised in our motion, took up our motion again and changed venue to Pitt County. Another was a drug smuggling case in Hyde County, where a Wilmington attorney for a different defendant got in the case early and moved for a change of venue and it was moved to Martin County. When other defendants got local attorneys, we all considered that a very bad move, and we all moved to have venue returned to Hyde County, which the court did. The third was a civil case originally filed in Duplin County, on which venue was changed on my motion to Beaufort County.

My late law partner John Wilkinson was hired by the victim's family as a private prosecutor in the notorious Joan Little murder case here in Beaufort County. As private prosecutor, he could only consult and advise the District Attorney's office. In that case, venue was changed on the defendant's motion to Wake County. That was very adverse to the prosecution, but our local Democrat DA, William Griffin went along with it for political reasons. The laws on change of venue required the case be sent to either another county in the same judicial district or a district that bordered our district. Wake County did not qualify as a county to which venue should have been changed.

Probably the most famous trial that ever happened in Beaufort County, the George Washington Carawan murder case involved a crime that actually happened in Hyde County. The venue was changed to Beaufort County because of fears he could not get a fair trial in Hyde where the murder happened.

I do not think I have ever seen a case where justice cried out for a change of venue or special venire more than the Manhattan case against Trump.
Big Bob said:
( June 5th, 2024 @ 2:12 pm )
Commit a crime in BC, you get a BC jury. Commit a crime in NY, get a NY jury. WTF. Its always been this way.
( June 5th, 2024 @ 1:11 pm )
When a jury in a highly political case is drawn from a place where only 5% voted for the candidate who is on trial, that candidate is not going to get a fair jury, or one that is of his peers. That is the very reason this case was brought by the Democrats in Manhattan. The legal system has a remedy for that, and it is called a change of venue, which President Trump's attorneys made a motion to get, but it was denied by political-hack-in-a-black-robe Juan Merchan.

There is no equivalence between the phony distortions of the law engineered to charge Trump and the actual straight forward law used to charge Hunter Biden. The Biden DOJ prosecutors tried to do a sweetheart deal to give Hunter a slap on the wrist, but fortunately in the federal system, random selection put an honest judge on the bench who refused to go along with it. Now the Biden DOJ is having to prosecute Hunter, which they really don't want to do. Look for them to do everything possible to throw the case.

Hunter Biden is being tried in Delaware, which his father won by a wide margin, so he will not have a politically hostile jury pool. Indeed, his odds of finding one juror to create a hung jury for political reasons are probably pretty good.
Big Bob said:
( June 5th, 2024 @ 12:13 pm )
Bobbie doesn't know if MC was telling the truth. But 12 members of the jury thought he was. That's how it works.

Now Hunter is in court on a gun charge. So far, no spirited defense of him. He is the presidents son and not above the law, yet all I hear is ..crickets.

And you want to be my firearms dealer!
( June 5th, 2024 @ 12:06 pm )
Kangaroo court, like in Manhattan, is where democracy goes to die. When a political movement politicizes the courts that way, no one's rights are safe.

If Marxist nutjob Little Bobbie thinks Michael Cohen was telling the truth, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell him. Cohen was caught in so many lies, but the Democrat jury still played politics with the case.
Big Bob said:
( June 5th, 2024 @ 9:05 am )
Court - where MAGA goes to die. Why? Its the one place left where you have to tell the truth. IT'S why you will never see Trump and pals testify if they can help it. Just compare what these jerks say out on the street vs what they say in court. It's very different and why they rarely win.
View All Comments

Restoring ethical foundations: The Ten Commandments in American culture Editorials, Beaufort Observer, Op-Ed & Politics Trump Considering Elon Musk As Advisor If He Reclaims White House: Report


Back to Top