MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > The Trump Conviction Was A Political Hit...

The Trump Conviction Was A Political Hit Job


CNN Senior Legal Analyst Describes How The Trump Conviction Was A Political Hit Job

1. "The judge donated money... in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations—to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation."

2. Alvin Bragg boasted on the campaign trail in an overwhelmingly Democrat county, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.”

3. "Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."

4. "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."

5. The DA inflated misdemeanors past the statute of limitations and "electroshocked them back to life" by alleging the falsification of business records was committed 'with intent to commit another crime.'

6. "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. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial."

7. "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."

8. "The Manhattan DA’s employees reportedly have called this the “Zombie Case” because of various legal infirmities, including its bizarre charging mechanism. But it’s better characterized as the Frankenstein Case, cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html

reply

From @KanekoaTheGreat on Twitter

reply

That's a great and accurate summation!

reply

All true and very damning for the establishment.

I'm surprised that CNN allowed the commentator to speak any truth bombs.
Honig is about to get reprimanded, fired or cancelled.

Great analysis by Kanekoa.

reply

Yeah, CNN has been notoriously anti-Trump ever since he entered the political arena. It has displayed a surprising objectivity at times during its coverage of this trial.

reply

CNN has had Republican representation during many of their panel discussions. FOX does not do that. CNN reports truths, not lies like FOX.

I still would bet money the Trumps verdict does not get overturned. Not a chance.

reply

I've actually been watching CNN longer than Fox so I know immediately that your black and white comparison of "CNN reports truths, not lies like FOX" is utter bullshit.

reply

Also, Bragg campaigned for the DA's office on the promise to, "get Trump!" https://www.amazon.com/Get-Trump-Liberties-Process-Constitutional/dp/1510777814

reply

There is SO much misinformation and outright lies being pumped out, but this one is particularly easy to debunk. NO, Bragg did NOT do any such thing. You're conflating him with Letitia James, who *did* make this promise.

It gets better: Bragg is the guy who got PILLORIED because when he was elected, he opted NOT to charge Trump, even though his predecessor had teed up a case and was all ready to go. At the time, this was seen as so egregious, that two lawyers in the DA's office QUIT.

Conclusion: you're (yet another) idiot spreading lies, sourced directly from your ridiculous echo chamber. Go sit down somewhere; you're embarrassing yourself.

reply

"While campaigning, Bragg made a point of HIGHLIGHTING his experience investigating the Trump family." He followed that up by boasting he had sued them over 100 times.
https://gazette.com/news/wex/alvin-bragg-s-intentions-back-in-spotlight-after-trump-verdict/article_40827ef4-ee2e-5f1c-a096-97497b9d9b3b.html

If it's so "particularly easy to debunk", show me a source to support your point of view. In the meantime, I don't feel the least bit embarrassed, dumb shit!

reply

Yes, Bragg was out to get Trump by any means necessary.

The fact that Bragg was funded to do so was a bonus for him.

Oh, and while Bragg was busy elevating misdemeanor charges for Trump, he had repeatedly released ten of the worst NYC criminals by downgrading their felonies to misdemeanors.

reply

Yup! This is some of Bragg's handiwork. Illegal migrant punks, flipping off the media after having assaulted NYC cops and then released without bail, immediately back into the streets. https://www.foxnews.com/video/6346009226112

reply

The first legitimate court to review the case is going to laugh it out if existence.

reply

the main problem?

Legitimate court. I think that justice in US is ... fucked up.

reply

it is, Trump will never get a fair trial in a blue state.

reply

Astonishing that a CNN Senior Legal Analyst would come to these conclusions.

reply

You claim to be the law and order party so why do you still worship Trump who is a 34 times convicted felon? That must be uncomfortable for you.

reply

Didn't even read the post, did you? The point is it WAS a political hit job. It was even unconstitutional. And the post was from a liberal, for pity's sake.

reply

1. "The judge donated money... in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations—to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation."

What anti-Trump political operation did he donate money to?

reply

Which rule was violated? Got a link?

reply

The law that prohibits NY judges from making political donations. Can't you read? And there's a link at the end of the article.

I forgot. There's no point talking to you.

reply

Read what? Some law that you imagine exists? Got a link?

There is no point in you posting here about a law unless you have a link to it. Your problem is that you think you can say any stupid thing that pops into your head, and then we are for some strange reason, expected to believe you.

Sure, there might be a law, but I'm under no obligation to supply a link as I'm not claiming it exists. If you're going to claim there is a law, then show me. I might be wrong, but you are foolish to declare that there is any such law unless you're prepared to prove it exists.

That link is not free to read. What else you got?

reply

Why do you ask? If you get a solid answer are you going to do, "Oh, ok, then yes, I see your point, that is a huge problem for this trial. Trump is being unjustly treated"?

reply

No, they won't. And there's a link at the end of the article, but they don't care.

reply

Kind of a complete dick move to ask a question, when you have no interest in the answer.

reply

$15, to Biden. No one here is willing to say what law it violated.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/06/politics/judge-merchan-trump-biden-contribution/index.html

reply

"Section 100.5 A judge or candidate for elective judicial office shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.

(h) soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate; or"

reply

What anti-Trump political operation did he donate money to?

reply

1.) Joe Biden’s campaign.

2.) Progressive Turnout Project, a voter outreach organization.

3.) Stop Republicans, a subsidiary of the Progressive Turnout Project.

reply

Thanks.

reply

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/100.shtml#05

(h) is for candidates. Merchan is already a seated judge.



reply

Section 100.5 A judge or candidate

reply

(A) Incumbent Judges and Others Running for Public Election to Judicial Office.

Merchan was not running for office at the time. He was already a judge.

reply

Yes, which makes it more damning for him.

reply

Which makes it something that does not apply to him as he is no longer a candidate. The rule does not say a judge will be removed for violating any of those rules.

Merchan was disciplined for his $35 donations. It did not include removal from the bench. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/complaint-dismissed-against-trump-hush-money-judge-who-donated-biden-2024-05-17/

reply

It clearly says "A Judge" after the section header, are you being willfully obtuse again or just clowning as usual?

reply

No, it says a judge and others running for office. As far as I know, Merchan was not running for office when he made the donation. You are being obtuse with your cherry picking.

reply

Which part do you not understand?

This is one of the reasons that I don't provide you with links.

Right above your "partially cherry picked section", in bold letters:

Section 100.5 A judge or candidate for elective judicial office shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.

reply

https://i.postimg.cc/765XGgnk/triggered.gif 🤣

You don't have any evidence for the insipid claims you make here is because you have nothing.

Do you really expect me to believe that if you had any evidence that would benefit Trump that you wouldn't be screaming about it from the rooftops?

As usual you are an embarrassment to anyone who has to deal with you. I don't know you but I feel sorry for you.

reply

https://time.com/6985532/trump-conviction-myths-debunked-essay/

Myth: Justice Juan Merchan was biased because of his $35 financial contribution to Joe Biden and because of his daughter’s work as a democratic political consultant.

Response: Justice Merchan sought an opinion from the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, regarding both of these issues, and received an opinion that he need not recuse himself from the case. The finding of Trump’s guilt was made by a jury that Trump’s lawyers helped select.

reply

"Time" is propaganda and fake news. Merchan broke the law.

reply

What exactly did Merchan do to break the law? Be specific and include links to reliable news sources to back up your claims.

reply

So prove that he didn't go to the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, really simple.

reply

3. "Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."

How so?

reply

Read the article again, slowly. Move your lips if you have to. It's in there. The author just made the mistake of expecting you to think.

reply

I can't read the article unless I buy nymag . . . you should know this.

reply

https://archive.ph/kt8Uc

reply

The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but 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.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.

Elie Honig was naive when he made this claim. The MAGA would have been very happy to hear this.

reply

Honig is a former state and federal prosecutor, why would he be naive about it?

reply

For the reason I explained in my post.

reply

You didn't explain anything. You quoted from an article.

reply

An article which did not bother to read?

He claims people would "absolutely not" have been fine with a judge staying on the case if he donated money to Trump. This is naive of him to claim as I cannot think of a single MAGA on this forum who would not support a judge who donated to a MAGA cause.

reply

No, you are being naive.

Of course we would “absolutely not” have been fine with it since it’s unlawful, unethical and partisan.

reply

Why don't you send the evidence which you claim to have to Trump that the 2020 election was stolen and that Trump's criminal trial was rigged? He really needs your help! What are you waiting for?

reply

"Pushing the outer boundaries.." is about as vague and meaningless as you can get.

I'm going to shuffle that card over to the bottom of the "least importantly" deck.

It's so important they can't put a point on it.

"Outer boundaries". I can only just believe that someone had the nerve to print that.

reply