Login
1. Unconstitutional Gag Order that prevented President Trump from criticizing the trial, exposing the many conflicts that should have forced the judge to recuse himself, and the railroading of his fundamental due process rights.
2. Judge Merchan’s many, many conflicts of interests – all of which were disqualifying. His daughter, Loren Merchan, is President of Authentic Campaigns, a political consulting firm that hires the likes of the Biden-Harris Campaign, Adam Schiff, Ilhan Omar, and many other far left Democratic lawmakers. Loren’s firm has made tens of millions off these clients – Juan Merchan, through his daughter, had a direct financial stake in the outcome of this trial, a flagrant breach of the canons of legal ethics, both under the ABA and NY State, that under any other judge would have been grounds for a recusal.
3. Judge Merchan’s wife was previously employed by Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York State who campaigned on “getting” Donald Trump.
4. Bragg’s Lead Prosecutor was Matthew Colangelo, the former #3 official at the DOJ. We are told Colangelo graciously decided to step down from his prestigious office to work for a lowly state DA’s office – of course, a reasonable inference would be that he was directed to do so by the Biden Regime to persecute his leading political opponent in Donald John Trump.
5. Statute of Limitations (2 years, NY State) had long expired for the business records falsification scheme that served as the primary charge brought against Trump. For this reason, the case was passed over by the DOJ and even Alvin Bragg over seven years because it was so weak. Only once Bragg felt political pressure, externally via Clinton attorney Mark Pomerantz, who previously worked in Bragg’s office, and internally via Colangelo, a Biden lackey, did Bragg buckle under the political weight and press charges.
6. Venue in bright-blue Manhattan, a borough that voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump at almost a 9 to 1 clip, prevented the President from ever getting a fair trial, because the pool of jurors was naturally biased against the 45th President, and could not possibly rule fairly and impartially (8 of the 12 cited the NY Times as their main source of news). Any pro-Trump jurors who were considered chose to self-select out themselves because they claimed they “could not rule fairly.” Case in point: no way in hell is the burden of proof met on any of these charges, and yet the jury pool consisted of two lawyers, who evidently believed just that. No reasonable juror, and especially no reasonable lawyer-juror, would have found that the elements of every single crime brought against Trump met the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. Election Interference: This was not a new case: it had been circulating in various court systems, federal and state, for years. These charges were only brought this year to interfere with the 2024 presidential race, period. President Trump is now the leading presidential candidate, by every reputable poll, and the frontrunner by significant margins, a gap that has only expanded over time. There is no reason why this case should be brought now, six months before Election Day, unless there was a conspiracy to prevent President Trump from being on the campaign trail in key swing states, like PA, MI, AZ, and GA, which is exactly what occurred.
8. Stormy Daniels’ Testimony was unnecessarily detailed and flagrantly prejudicial against President Trump. Bragg’s Prosecutors asked her about her impressions on the Access Hollywood Tape, which should have never been allowed and have absolutely no bearing on anything. They also probed her on intimate, irrelevant details about her alleged affair with the President, including such inappropriate, salacious, and prejudicial questions as whether he wore protection, and where she testified to a “power imbalance” – all part of a character assassination campaign to smear his image before the jury.
9. Greatest Liar of All Time Michael Cohen’s Testimony, on which the entirety of the Prosecutor’s case was based, was unreliable, prejudicial, and grounds for reversible error; he contradicted himself and committed perjury on the stand in this proceeding. He admitted to lying and committing perjury in the past, which resulted in his prosecution and imprisonment. He admitted to waging a political vendetta against Donald Trump because of his previous conviction; he admitted to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization, lying before a Congressional Committee, and financially profiting off this ongoing trial – and verdict, among other serious crimes.
10. Bragg’s Theory of The Case was flawed from start to finish – and unconstitutional. He claimed, under NY state law, that ordinarily the business falsification charge is deemed a Class A misdemeanor under the State penal code, which had expired by the SOL. However, by combining that misdemeanor with another misdemeanor, under the same law, Bragg claimed you can elevate the underlying crime to a felony, which has a longer statute of limitations than a misdemeanor and thus, in his view, is still actionable. The problem is that nothing in the NY State penal code spells this out expressly, or even implicitly: there is nothing that says combining two misdemeanors is sufficient to contrive a felony. This is a bespoke crime intended to fit a one defendant and one defendant only: Donald John Trump.
11. Several other problems persist with the above: 1) whether combining two class A misdemeanors to create a class E felony is supported by any legal precedent at all, or logically makes sense (it doesn’t);
12. 2) whether combining two misdemeanors to contrive a felony is constitutionally lawful – i.e., does not violate due process or is constitutionally operative as an unlawful bill of attainder, etc.; and
13. 3) even if that combination establishes a theory of liability to raise a misdemeanor into a felony, whether doing so to circumvent a long-expired SOL does not also violate due process?
14. The Second alleged crime, that Bragg combined with the business falsification crime, to contrive a felony, is inapplicable to President Trump. Bragg maintained that President Trump violated state campaign law. But that is problematic for at least two reasons:
15. 1) President Trump ran for President, a federal office, and not state office – and thereby, state campaign law does not apply to him;
16. 2) to the extent state campaign law does apply or is controlling, it is preempted (i.e., barred) – based on President Trump’s office and acts – by federal campaign law. In short, this matter should have been brought under the FEC or DOJ, not state court. Merchan’s court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to prosecute the matter.
17. The State Election Law, to the extent it was lawfully controlling, established a predicate crime scheme that is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana that non-unanimous jury verdicts are a violation of fundamental due process rights. This is well-settled law. Federal precedent applies with equal force to state criminal court proceedings. Thus, the “mix and match” or “buffet” scheme that Merchan laid out, allowing the jury to select one of three predicate crimes under the relevant statute to reach a guilty verdict, is a flagrant violation of President Trump’s due process rights.
18. The three predicate crimes that Bragg’s theory of the case lays out: FECA violation, tax law violation, or record-keeping violation, each cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
19. The FECA violation should’ve been tossed out immediately, because a state court has no jurisdiction over the matter. The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) has its own rules and procedures for administering election law violations, as well as a doctrine of sequencing that it is required to employ to administer disputes. This sequencing doctrine would require that Merchan refer any such FECA allegations to, for instance, the Federal Election Commission first, which might have primary jurisdiction over the matter, and then from there, the FEC might coordinate with the DOJ to prosecute any potential crimes. The point is: order matters; a rogue state court judge cannot unilaterally take up an issue belonging in federal court.
20. To the extent an alleged FECA violation controls here, there are a number of problems: 1) what statute are we talking about;
21. 2) how do we know that the alleged violation can be prosecuted as a crime, and isn’t just a civil matter;
22. 3) even if the alleged violation is a crime, how do we know
23. 1) such crime is a felony; and
24. 2) that crime can be adjudicated independently by an independent agency of the United States? In other words, does the FEC have the power to prosecute crimes unilaterally, and independently of the DOJ? That alone is sufficient grounds for a due process violation.
25. Again, we run into the issue of how 2 misdemeanor crimes mysteriously turn into an underlying felony. Is the law that any two misdemeanors creates a felony? Does it matter if the misdemeanor is a state crime versus an alleged federal crime? It cannot possibly be the case that all misdemeanors are created equal – nor can it be the case that if a jury found President Trump guilty of the predicate FECA misdemeanor, that the business falsification statute incorporates a federal misdemeanor to contrive a Class E felony. When has that ever been done before? Never!
26. Merchan has no knowledge of Federal Election Law. Typically, federal election law issues (FECA issues) are preempted by federal court. Putting all that to one side, however, considering that Merchan ignored all of that, and was hellbelt on prosecuting this nebulous crime in state court, he should have at least allowed an expert witness to opine on federal election law-related matters. That expert witness, former FEC Commissioner and government lawyer, Brad Smith, should have been allowed to testify on federal election law, a notoriously complex and highly specialized area of law. But Smith was not permitted to testify, because Merchan did not want the jury to hear expert testimony from someone competent in the relevant body of law. That prohibition of Smith’s testimony is prejudicial, and grounds for reversible error.
27. In addition to the FECA predicate crime issue, which is teeming with due process and other constitutional violations, both the alleged tax law violation, and general bookkeeping violation are also laden with due process problems.
28. Merchan has absolutely no authority to say that President Trump can be found guilty of violating “tax laws” or erroneously reporting a tax filing as a legal expense (when in fact, legally and definitionally, it was a “legal expense”); these two miscellaneous predicate crimes are constitutionally overbroad and cannot for those reasons alone satisfy the requisite burden of proof – due to concerns of being overbroad, Bragg’s theory of criminal liability violates due process as well.
29. Nondisclosure Agreements, Hush Money Payments, and “Catch and Kill” schemes are and have always been perfectly lawful; none of these things can serve as a basis for criminal liability, however controversial they might sound – nor too does consensual sexual activity, including out of wedlock sex, even with a pornstar, ever, ever impute criminal liability or the pretext of criminal liability upon the one doing the act. All of these acts are lawful, case closed.
30. Running for President of the United States, even if your name is Donald Trump, is lawful. It is not a “conspiracy” to run a presidential campaign, nor is it conspiratorial – let alone criminal – to take lawful measures to win a campaign. Under Bragg’s twisted theory, however, every single political campaign ever carried out in the history of the United States would be considered unlawful – including the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.
31. Stormy Daniels denied an affair with Donald Trump, in writing, multiple times over many years. That said, the Daniels-Trump story had long been in the public domain years before the 2016 presidential election. The NDA at issue was formalized in 2011, five years before the 2016 presidential election. How it is even possible that a 2011 NDA can be a component of a larger conspiracy to criminally manipulate the results of the 2016 race was never addressed. At trial, through the testimony of Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, what became crystal clear was that any such nondisclosure agreements were to protect President Trump’s family and had no bearing on the 2016 election.
32. Indeed, it is unclear just how the dissemination of the Daniels story, which was already widely distributed in the public domain by the time President Trump launched his 2016 campaign, would have impacted the race. By conflating the Daniels story with the Access Hollywood Tape, which was frequently referenced in the examinations of several key witnesses, Merchan allowed undue prejudice into his courtroom – providing a basis for reversible error. Stormy Daniels and Access Hollywood have absolutely nothing to do with one another; Access Hollywood had no bearing on any NDA agreements signed between President Trump’s counsel, and Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, or anyone else. Asking Daniels, during her testimony, about her impressions of the Access Hollywood Tape was completely inappropriate for a courtroom and prejudicial. Conflating these facts, many of which were wholly inappropriate to bring into the courtroom, unfairly prejudices the jurors – because they serve no other purpose than to smear President Trump’s character.
33. The alleged bookkeeping error that was the basis for this entire criminal trial – marked as “legal expenses” – of which the President had no knowledge, as revealed in the testimony of Robert Costello and others, occurred after the President won the 2016 presidential election! How could the President unlawfully conspire to promote or prevent his election after he had already been elected to federal office? This entire trial operated like a bill of attainder, unlawful to the core.
34. The judge conducted this trial unfairly from start to finish, and treated the defendant, his attorneys, and his witnesses horrendously. He prevented President Trump and his lawyers from bringing in key expert witnesses. He admonished President Trump’s lead attorney, Todd Blanche, on the stand, and cast multiple, unnecessary wanton barbs at him. He excoriated the only pro-Trump witness he allowed to testify, Robert Costello, an experienced lawyer of the SDNY; at one dramatic point, in a complete and unprecedented breach of the code of judicial ethics, Merchan lost his composure and vacated the entire courtroom, press included, because he did not like Costello’s “tone” and “mannerisms” from the witness stand. Merchan allowed Bragg Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass to go on for hours in his summations – allowing Steinglass to explain fundamental aspects of the law, including the burden of proof, for the jury, even though he previously admonished President Trump’s lawyers from making even the slightest reference to the law. He also allowed Steinglass to go on wild tangents unrelated to anything having to do with the alleged crime, allowing discussions of “Bill Clinton” and “Monica Lewinsky” to enter the courtroom. Merchan had previously declared, like a tyrant, that only he can interpret the law in his courtroom. But then he allowed Steinglass to explain the law at great length, over and above the objections of President Trump’s attorneys. Merchan also buttered up the jurors to win over their sympathy, complimenting random things like their “note-taking” skills, attention, and timeliness. All these factors, in addition to everything stated above, are egregious breaches of professional and judicial ethics and serve as grounds for a mistrial.
The post 34 REASONS the Bragg-Biden Show Trial Should Have Been TOSSED OUT — Each One Alone Providing Grounds for a Mistrial appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Donald Trump is back in court today on Wednesday in Juan Merchan’s show trial in New York City.
The prosecution has yet to define the alleged criminal act that President Trump committed. But it doesn’t matter. The court is ready to find Trump guilty and send him to prison.
This is Joe Biden’s America.
The Gateway Pundit contributor Paul Ingrassia is attending the ongoing show trial today in New York City today. Paul has been live-reporting from inside the Merchan kangaroo court for several days now.
Paul ended his reporting yesterday with this analysis:
Merchan wants to end by 8 p.m. tonight, Prosecution shows no signs of slowing down.
This really speaks to Merchan’s incompetence as a judge. He’s allowing the Prosecution to run the clock to the nighttime hours, which is absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary. Of course, this is by design: he and the prosecution are one and the same. He has a financial, political, and ideological stake in a guilty verdict. He hates Donald Trump with a passion, and will destroy what morsels of integrity remain in the justice system in order to force a guilty verdict — this is political persecution of the highest order.
This entire proceeding is riven with PREJUDICE. The entire case must be tossed out.
The jury will deliberate between 10 AM and 4:30 PM starting today.
We will be posting Paul Ingrassia’s live updates below.
Paul Ingrassia 9:05 AM: SPOTTED OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE: A Pro-Trump protest banner that reads: Stop partisan conspiracy Stop political witch hunt Stop DEM kangaroo court Vote Trump to Save America More Americans are waking up and calling out this Biden Show Trial for what it is: political persecution against the presidential frontrunner! MAGA!
SPOTTED OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE:
A Pro-Trump protest banner that reads:
Stop partisan conspiracy
Stop political witch hunt
Stop DEM kangaroo court
Vote Trump to Save AmericaMore Americans are waking up and calling out this Biden Show Trial for what it is: political… pic.twitter.com/uAykUvWoG9
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 9:20 AM:BREAKING: Several of us who have been reporting fair and accurate coverage from inside the Trump Criminal Trial have noticed that our X accounts are being throttled in recent days, in response to the overwhelming national interest in this show trial.
@elonmusk it is absolutely imperative that the truth gets out, especially considering how few honest reporters, such as myself and @AndrewHGiuliani get access to the courthouse. Most of the press here come from legacy outfits like @nytimes, @politico, @thehill, @CNN, and @MSNBC. You can count on one hand the number of independent journalists and media in the press overhead pool – and just a couple, maybe 2-3, of these are giving live, informed play-by-play all throughout the day.
Since New York State Courts do not allow any criminal trials to be televised (and this is arguably the most high-profile case in American history involving the leading candidate to become the 47th President of the United States) reliance on social media platforms like @X to get the word out to the largest audience possible, without censorship of any sort, is a matter of critical importance. We are observing the death of due process in real time; let us hope and pray that another fundamental constitutional rights — freedom of speech and the press — do not go down with it!
BREAKING: Several of us who have been reporting fair and accurate coverage from inside the Trump Criminal Trial have noticed that our X accounts are being throttled in recent days, in response to the overwhelming national interest in this show trial. @elonmusk it is absolutely…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 9:50 AM: BREAKING: So, what can we expect on the docket today? Because of how late court ended last evening, Merchan delayed today’s session until 10 AM, to give jurors a little extra time in the morning. He clearly wants them well-rested, and also wants to avoid alienating them from Bragg Prosecutor, Steinglass’, overlong over-complicated rant of a summation, which tested the endurance of even the most dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
Today, jury instructions will begin. We’ll see how long that might last. Given the complexity of the prosecution’s theory of the case, it could last for some time. The judge will likely give a run down on the law (to the extent, a statute or controlling law exists here) and explain the evidentiary standard. It remains to be determined whether jury deliberations begin today, or tomorrow. Jury instructions are not expected to last more than a day, and it is highly unlikely today’s court session will go as long as yesterday.
What about the jurors? Most are doubtlessly left-leaning, based on their media consumption. While few checked off that they were MSNBC viewers, an overwhelming majority consumed The NY Times and CNN. Few watched Fox News. Only 1 had a Truth Social account; although that’s hit-or-miss: could just be a liberal obsessively hate viewing President Trump’s Truths. There are many such cases of that, especially in Manhattan.
So, what about the two lawyers? I saw many people saying on X that lawyers should naturally be better acquainted with the legal system, and thus more easily identify the countless abuses allowed to take place all throughout the trial. That may be so. But it is also possible that lawyers (and especially Manhattan lawyers) are among the most liberal of the professions, and thus actually more likely to side in favor of Merchan and Bragg, despite knowing better, than Trump.
Jury deliberations could take as short as an hour, or as long as a day or even more. During deliberations, jurors may pose questions to the judge; but the prosecution and defense can no longer speak to one another. As I get more information about the deliberations process, I will post updates based on what I’ve learned.
While the odds of an acquittal appear slim, it’s quite plausible that this case will result in a hung jury, which requires only one of the twelve jurors to decide in the President’s favor. Based on the reactions of jurors yesterday, they all appeared to be listening intently to Steinglass’ ridiculous screed of a summation, a bad sign. Many laughed at his cringe jokes. One or two, however, were observed rubbing their brows or visibly sighing in response to Steinglass’ closing argument, which may be a sign of hope. Also, as reported by those in the courtroom, several appeared to be nodding along with Blanche, when he delivered his summation, which, in contrast with the Prosecution, was cogent, clear, and concise – on all matters of fact or law.
BREAKING: So, what can we expect on the docket today? Because of how late court ended last evening, Merchan delayed today’s session until 10 AM, to give jurors a little extra time in the morning. He clearly wants them well-rested, and also wants to avoid alienating them from…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 9:50 AM: BREAKING: President Trump is expected to be joined in court today with his eldest son, @DonaldJTrumpJr and lawyer, @willscharf, among potentially other guests. I will report more updates as I receive them.
BREAKING: President Trump is expected to be joined in court today with his eldest son, @DonaldJTrumpJr and lawyer, @willscharf, among potentially other guests. I will report more updates as I receive them.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 10:09 AM: BREAKING: Merchan, yet AGAIN, disrespects the office of the presidency by calling President Trump “Mr. Trump,” as soon as he entered the courtroom. And to those who gripe about Donald Trump being a “former President,” just when was the last time any media outlet or authority of any kind referred to Barack Obama as “Mr. Obama.”
BREAKING: Merchan, yet AGAIN, disrespects the office of the presidency by calling President Trump “Mr. Trump,” as soon as he entered the courtroom.
And to those who gripe about Donald Trump being a “former President,” just when was the last time any media outlet or authority of…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 10:19 AM: BREAKING: Merchan now instructing the jury on the law. Says instructions will take about an hour, and that jurors will not receive a copy of them.
Merchan says “Nothing I have said throughout this trial is meant to suggest I have an opinion about the outcome of this case.”
Claims it’s not his “responsibility to judge the evidence here” even though he repeatedly did (both directly and indirectly) by admonishing expert witness Robert Costello for the Defense, and excluding testimony of expert witness on election law from an FEC Commissioner. To say nothing of his dismissive remarks and rude treatment of Defense counsel, Todd Blanche, throughout this trial.
Merchan instructs jurors to put aside “personal biases” they may have about Donald Trump. Says “you must not allow any such opinions to influence your verdict.”
Says “you cannot speculate as to opinions related to sentencing or punishment,” adds “it will be my responsibility, with a guilty verdict, to determine the punishment.”
BREAKING: Merchan now instructing the jury on the law. Says instructions will take about an hour, and that jurors will not receive a copy of them.
Merchan says “Nothing I have said throughout this trial is meant to suggest I have an opinion about the outcome of this case.”…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 10:34 AM: BREAKING: Merchan says the FEC investigation into Cohen should not be used to make a determination of President Trump’s guilty or innocence.
Merchan now explaining presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and requirement of burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
“In determining whether the People have satisfied the burden, you may consider all the evidence admitted.”
“Defendant is not required to prove that he is not guilty. He is not required to prove or disprove anything. The People have the burden of requiring that the Defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The People must prove that the Defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for every element of the crime, including that Defendant committed the crime.”
Now explaining proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Says “the law does not require guilty beyond all possible doubt. OTOH, it is not sufficient to prove that Defendant is probably guilty. In a criminal case, must be stronger than that: beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Merchan now explains definition of beyond a reasonable doubt — noticeably slurring words, quickly reading explanation, which makes it hard to hear what he has been saying.
“In evaluating the evidence, you must reasonably decide if that can convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the Defendant’s guilty.”
On witness testimony: “if you find that a witness has testified falsely, you may disregard the entire testimony or take the part you believe to be truthful and disregard the rest.”
“The same factors used in life to determine truthfulness of things should be employed when evaluating the truthfulness of the witness testimony.”
Factors:
-did witness see or hear events witness testifies to
-was it plausible or likely to be true, or implausible?
-was it consistent or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence in case
-did manner in which witness testified reflected on the accuracy of the testimony
-how did witness background affect testimony
-conscious bias affect truthfulness of testimony
-unconscious bias based on stereotypes about people or groups of people, and if so, did it affect the witness’ ability to render truthful or accurate testimony
-did witness have a motive to lie, and if so, to what extent it affected truth of witness testimony?
-did witness expect to receive a benefit from testimony?
-did witness have an interest in the outcome of the case?
-not required to reject testimony of interested witness, or accept testimony of witness with no interest in outcome of the case
-may consider whether witness has been convicted of a crime or engaged in criminal conduct; and whether and to what extent it affects your evaluation of truthfulness of witness testimony
-did witness make statements at trial that are inconsistent with each other, or make previous statements inconsistent with testimony at trial?
-would it have been reasonable or logical for witness to have stated a fact
-contents of prior inconsistent statement are not proof of what happened, but only to evaluate truthfulness or accuracy of testimony at trial
-testimony consistent with other witnesses; if inconsistencies exist, whether they were significant related to important facts, or minor inconsistencies one would expect from multiple witness on the stand
BREAKING: Merchan says the FEC investigation into Cohen should not be used to make a determination of President Trump’s guilty or innocence.
Merchan now explaining presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and requirement of burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
“In…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 10:45 AM: BREAKING: Merchan is now articulating the 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
BREAKING: Merchan is now articulating the 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 10:50 AM: BREAKING: Merchan says if there was a conspiracy to affect the outcome of an election, jury can consider whether the defendant violated the following laws: 1. Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) (federal election campaign law) 2. Falsification of Business Records 3. Tax Laws This may be the broadest definition of a crime in history. Merchan is literally throwing the whole book at the jury. What authority does he have as a state court judge from a mediocre law school to opine on something as nuanced as federal election law? It’s so intricate and complex that the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction — and ordinarily preempts — other courts from all federal election law-related issues.
BREAKING: Merchan says if there was a conspiracy to affect the outcome of an election, jury can consider whether the defendant violated the following laws:
1. Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) (federal election campaign law)
2. Falsification of Business Records
3. Tax…— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 11:08 AM: BREAKING: Merchan noticeably mumbling throughout his reading of the law describing the crime for which President Trump is charged with 34 counts: falsifying business records in the first degree.
I had to look up the law (and linked below to the source) and have reprinted it below:
§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
For reference, I have reprinted § 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree as well:
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:
1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
2. Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
3. Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the nature of his position; or
4. Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise. Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
References:
BREAKING: Merchan noticeably mumbling throughout his reading of the law describing the crime for which President Trump is charged with 34 counts: falsifying business records in the first degree.
I had to look up the law (and linked below to the source) and have reprinted it…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 11:13 AM: BREAKING: Here is the NY State Election law that Bragg’s Prosecution has accused President Trump of violating:
SECTION 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent election § 17-152.
Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
REFERENCE: ELN/17-152
Merchan now explaining the three predicate crimes that may be used to convict President Trump of a criminal conspiracy.
BREAKING: Here is the NY State Election law that Bragg’s Prosecution has accused President Trump of violating:
SECTION 17-152
Conspiracy to promote or prevent election§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 11:21 AM: BREAKING: Merchan speaking in a very quiet voice, mumbling at times, speed-reading through the jury instructions. Very difficult to hear. Notably, his voice gets slightly louder when he talks about a “guilty” verdict and his voice quiets to a near-whisper when he says “not guilty.” His enunciation and tone leave much to be desired — and showcases clear evidence of bias, in my opinion.
BREAKING: Merchan speaking in a very quiet voice, mumbling at times, speed-reading through the jury instructions. Very difficult to hear. Notably, his voice gets slightly louder when he talks about a “guilty” verdict and his voice quiets to a near-whisper when he says “not…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 11:24 AM: BREAKING: The idea that the jury can “mix and match” different crimes, each one proven with a completely different set of elements, flouts the Constitution’s Due Process clause. It is flagrantly unlawful under well-established precedent set by the United States Supreme Court. This is completely unorthodox and unprecedented. No unanimity to reach a guilty verdict violates President Trump’s fundamental rights as a criminal defendant. The magnitude of the error and prejudice here should prompt a mistrial.
BREAKING: The idea that the jury can “mix and match” different crimes, each one proven with a completely different set of elements, flouts the Constitution’s Due Process clause. It is flagrantly unlawful under well-established precedent set by the United States Supreme Court.… https://t.co/RHtxTDJUdB
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 11:26 AM: BREAKING: Merchan has finished his jury instructions. Deliberations to follow.
BREAKING: Merchan has finished his jury instructions. Deliberations to follow.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 11:31 AM: BREAKING: Merchan buttering up the jurors now. Compliments Juror #3 specifically for his/her note-taking abilities. Saying they were all so very attentive throughout the entirety of this trial, and always showed up to court on time ready to listen. Gives credit to Juror #4 and Juror #6 for volunteering to operate the laptop to review all the evidence during deliberations. Clear bias to influence the verdict!
Deliberations have officially commenced.
BREAKING: Merchan buttering up the jurors now. Compliments Juror #3 specifically for his/her note-taking abilities. Saying they were all so very attentive throughout the entirety of this trial, and always showed up to court on time ready to listen. Gives credit to Juror #4 and…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 11:37 AM: BREAKING: Merchan says he is now going “upstairs.” Tells everyone to remain on standby, and if they leave and the jury reaches a verdict, they must return “quickly.” Hardly anyone from the press pool has left the room.
BREAKING: Merchan says he is now going “upstairs.” Tells everyone to remain on standby, and if they leave and the jury reaches a verdict, they must return “quickly.”
Hardly anyone from the press pool has left the room.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 11:46 AM: BREAKING: POTUS now speaking, calling Robert DeNiro a “broken down fool.”
Says “it’s a very unfair trial that should’ve never happened. If it was gonna happen, it should’ve happened 7 years ago.”
Criticizes Merchan for not using the #1 election attorney, FEC Commissioner, Brad Smith, who was “ready to testify” but Merchan “wouldn’t let him do it.”
Also admonishes Merchan for his treatment of Bob Costello on the witness stand.
Says while Biden isn’t smart enough to devise, this the people — the “fascists” — around him are behind this.
Calls “November 5th” the most important day of our country, to undo the damage from the Biden Regime: inflation, crime, 15 million illegals, and a rigged and corrupt justice system.
BREAKING: POTUS now speaking, calling Robert DeNiro a “broken down fool.”
Says “it’s a very unfair trial that should’ve never happened. If it was gonna happen, it should’ve happened 7 years ago.”
Criticizes Merchan for not using the #1 election attorney, FEC Commissioner, Brad…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 12:48 PM: RECAP: Just to breakdown how unprecedented Merchan’s novel theory of criminal liability is: Normally, in a criminal trial, the constitutional requirement is that a jury reaches a unanimous verdict on guilt or innocence.
Unanimity requires that all jurors believe the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, has been satisfied on every element of the alleged crime.
Implicit in this scheme is that there is also unanimity on what the underlying crime is. You can’t have one juror believing the burden of proof was met for one crime, and another juror believing the burden of proof was reached for another, but not the first crime. And because both jurors believed the defendant was guilty for *something* that fact alone should drive a guilty verdict.
The above would be a due process violation — and for obvious reasons, it implicates double jeopardy issues, and completely destroys the extremely high evidentiary standard needed to prove guilt in a criminal trial.
But for Merchan: none of that matters. If juror 1 believes the People did not meet its burden of proof for an FEC violation, but did on some nebulous “tax law violation,” while juror 2 believes the opposite, the fact that they both were in consensus on a guilty verdict is sufficient for a guilty verdict.
This is utterly outrageous. Merchan is deliberately lowering the threshold for what Bragg needs to prove in order to more easily reach a guilty verdict. That’s the only explanation for what he’s doing, never mind the fact that he’s flagrantly ignoring well-established precedent set by the United States Supreme Court that said what Merchan is doing is an unlawful violation of due process.
For all the insinuations heard out of Bragg’s prosecutors mouths over the last few days that suggested Donald Trump ran his business like a mafia don, it’s quite rich that it’s the accusers who are relying on a Machiavellian “ends justify the means” approach of retributive justice to find President Trump guilty, massacring his due process rights along the way.
RECAP: Just to breakdown how unprecedented Merchan’s novel theory of criminal liability is: Normally, in a criminal trial, the constitutional requirement is that a jury reaches a unanimous verdict on guilt or innocence.
Unanimity requires that all jurors believe the burden of…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 1:18 PM: Since her name was invoked, let us pray for the intercession of St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta — and all the saints — to help exonerate this innocent man and begin to heal this country of the deep evil that has overtaken the justice system.
Since her name was invoked, let us pray for the intercession of St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta — and all the saints — to help exonerate this innocent man and begin to heal this country of the deep evil that has overtaken the justice system. pic.twitter.com/WAQfaC8zNR
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 1:18 PM: HAPPENING NOW: Even though the area surrounding the courthouse is locked down like Fort Knox, hundreds of Trump supporters have bravely showed up at the park across the street in response to the news, now spreading like wildfire, that the jury is currently deliberating a verdict about whether the leading candidate to be America’s 47th President is guilty of bogus charges devised by a rogue D.A. and conflicted so-called “Judge.” MAGA!
HAPPENING NOW: Even though the area surrounding the courthouse is locked down like Fort Knox, hundreds of Trump supporters have bravely showed up at the park across the street in response to the news, now spreading like wildfire, that the jury is currently deliberating a verdict… pic.twitter.com/wxQqKdk7Jc
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 2:23 PM: Can someone explain to me how President Trump engaged in a “conspiracy” to “promote or prevent” an election?
First, he was a federal candidate, not state candidate, and thus New York State Election Law, where the language above comes from, is inapplicable.
Second, a presidential campaign for anyone not named Donald John Trump is usually not deemed a “conspiracy” under law. The normal term for that sort of conduct is “running for office.”
Third, by having the audacity to not only run, but also win, the 2016 presidential election (which Republicans, most especially of all America First Nationalists, are not supposed to do), Donald Trump can now be charged as a criminal defendant based on the novel theory of criminal liability brought by Bragg.
The irony of ironies is that this case basically involves all the key players from 2016: Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, even the Clintons (Bill & Monica were namedropped during the prosecution’s summations yesterday).
The Left has never been able to move on from 2016, and this case speaks to that reality: Bragg is for all intents and purposes relitigating the results of the 2016 presidential election. Full stop.
And they do that while also obstructing the 2024 race, which the Left is well on its way to lose again, hence the desire to take President Trump off the campaign trail and lock him inside the “icebox,” because he is simply too popular. And, as we all know, being too popular is now considered a crime in Joe Biden’s America.
Can someone explain to me how President Trump engaged in a “conspiracy” to “promote or prevent” an election?
First, he was a federal candidate, not state candidate, and thus New York State Election Law, where the language above comes from, is inapplicable.
Second, a… https://t.co/qlafguW62W
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 2:36 PM: There is no greater case of jury tampering that exists. It’s also a clear attempt by Merchan to fast-track this deliberation to boost his chances of getting the jury to reach a guilty verdict, his desired outcome both professionally and personally. Insane.
There is no greater case of jury tampering that exists. It’s also a clear attempt by Merchan to fast-track this deliberation to boost his chances of getting the jury to reach a guilty verdict, his desired outcome both professionally and personally. Insane. https://t.co/64eo0SgWUl
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 2:50 PM: MY THOUGHTS: What’s notable all throughout the last five weeks of this show trial is Merchan never making even the slightest of effort to mitigate against the perceived improprieties running rampant all throughout this case.
Even if Merchan sincerely believed in his heart of hearts that he was merely just faithfully applying the law as an impartial, unbiased actor, a good-faith judge would at least be cognizant of the perceived biases throughout this case, due to the profile and significance of the defendant, paired with the unprecedented nature of the proceeding, and take strides to at least remove the appearance of impropriety. Yet absolutely zero effort was made.
As an example, portioning the jury into four separate groups, each tasked with deciding on a separate matter of law, seems wildly unconventional, even for most lawyers. Most of us are screaming “due process violation!”
But let’s suspend reality for a moment and give Merchan the benefit of the doubt: let’s assume this is just some arcane issue uniquely pertaining to juries tasked with deciding on complex New York State election law-related issues, where it is customary for juries for be split up into many different sub-groups each tasked to decide a different matter of law.
You would think, then, at the bare minimum, that Merchan would make that fact clear to the jury, most of whom are not lawyers, and the parties (and the media observing), out of a desire to dispel doubts that this is anything but a political show trial.
Instead, Merchan has just brazenly ignored customs, the rule of law, longstanding precedent, and every single canon of legal ethics under the sun, and simply pushed forward with this charade shamelessly. Even if one had no knowledge of, or was hopelessly confused about the thorny legal issues implicated in this case, judging Merchan’s actions alone – his callous disregard for explaining his actions and attempting to establish at least the pretext of impartiality and fairness – would lead to the conclusion, and a very reasonable one at that, that this trial is nothing but a HATCHET JOB. And guess what? That is exactly what it is!
MY THOUGHTS: What’s notable all throughout the last five weeks of this show trial is Merchan never making even the slightest of effort to mitigate against the perceived improprieties running rampant all throughout this case.
Even if Merchan sincerely believed in his heart of…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 2:59 PM: BREAKING: There is a “buzzer” setting off in the courtroom right now, and the press have flocked back into the room. Update to follow shortly.
BREAKING: There is a “buzzer” setting off in the courtroom right now, and the press have flocked back into the room. Update to follow shortly.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 3:10 PM: BREAKING: President Trump called back into courthouse. Buzzer sounded a few moments ago, many are speculating that it was just a jury question, not a verdict as that would be unusually fast, but we’re waiting to hear more details.
BREAKING: President Trump called back into courthouse. Buzzer sounded a few moments ago, many are speculating that it was just a jury question, not a verdict as that would be unusually fast, but we’re waiting to hear more details.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 3:13 PM:BREAKING: Merchan says he received a note marked as court exhibit #4 signed by the foreperson at 2:56 pm. Note contains four requests: -David Pecker’s phone conversation with DJT -David Pecker’s testimony not to sign over ?? -David Pecker testimony on Trump Tower meeting -Cohen testimony on TT meeting
BREAKING: Merchan says he received a note marked as court exhibit #4 signed by the foreperson at 2:56 pm.
Note contains four requests:
-David Pecker’s phone conversation with DJT
-David Pecker’s testimony not to sign over ??
-David Pecker testimony on Trump Tower meeting
-Cohen…— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
What are the odds that all these people are paid?
Just like the Bobby DeNiro “stunt” in front of the courthouse yesterday. Every single thing about Biden and the Democrats is manufactured and not authentic. https://t.co/gCsbkh5Rco
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 3:52 PM: BREAKING: It’s a quarter to 4 p.m. now, and the jurors remain in deliberation. On ordinary days, this court has been recessed around 4:30 or 5 p.m. Yesterday was an exception, where court was not recessed until after 8 p.m.
I don’t think Merchan will want to go as late today, given how long and grueling the past two days have been, but we shall see how this plays out.
I don’t think they will be getting a verdict today, and as we move closer to the 4 p.m. hour, the odds seem less and less.
I wanted to clarify a point about the 4-4-4, based on some information I received from a highly respected lawyer. It seems like this is a conceptual partition, not a physical partition. In other words, all the jurors will remain in the same room, but they will each decide on three separate issues of law for the predicate crime issue, the requirement for elevating this to a felony because the statute of limitations expired for the underlying alleged misdemeanor.
Also, some legal commentators are reading the latest note request as indication that some jurors voted not guilty and the ones pushing for a guilty verdict are putting additional pressure, via the testimonial request, on those who are holding out.
Again, we’re only looking for a single brave holdout to result in a hung jury!
BREAKING: It’s a quarter to 4 p.m. now, and the jurors remain in deliberation. On ordinary days, this court has been recessed around 4:30 or 5 p.m. Yesterday was an exception, where court was not recessed until after 8 p.m.
I don’t think Merchan will want to go as late today,…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 3:56 PM: BREAKING: Second Jury Note Received!
BREAKING: Second Jury Note Received!
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 3:57 PM: BREAKING: Jury requests to rehear judge’s instructions.
BREAKING: Jury requests to rehear judge’s instructions.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 4:03 PM: BREAKING: Merchan asks if laptops given to jurors have wifi capabilities and if there’s a way to disable such capabilities.
Merchan is speaking very quietly; hard to tell what he’s saying. It seems like they are now providing 30 pages of print-out of a transcript.
Note 1:
Request: 1. DP’s testimony re phone testimony to DJT
2. DP’s testimony re decision not to finalize or defund the assignment but complete his life rights (?)
3. DP’s testimony re TT meeting
4. MC’s testimony re TT meeting
Note 2:
1. Request to rehear jury’s instructions Merchan decision:
Jury must decide whether they want to rehear whole instructions or portions of the instructions.
BREAKING: Merchan asks if laptops given to jurors have wifi capabilities and if there’s a way to disable such capabilities.
Merchan is speaking very quietly; hard to tell what he’s saying. It seems like they are now providing 30 pages of print-out of a transcript.
Note 1:…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
Paul Ingrassia 4:05 PM: BREAKING: Merchan dismissed courtroom for the day. NO VERDICT today. Will reconvene tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
BREAKING: Merchan dismissed courtroom for the day. NO VERDICT today.
Will reconvene tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 29, 2024
The post WEDNESDAY LIVE UPDATES FROM INSIDE TRUMP TRIAL: TGP Contributor Paul Ingrassia Reports from Inside Judge Merchan’s Kangaroo Court – Jury Deliberations Begin appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Donald Trump is back in court today on Tuesday for closing arguments in Alvin Bragg’s show trial in New York City.
The prosecution has yet to define the alleged criminal act that President Trump committed. But it doesn’t matter. The court is ready to find Trump guilty and send him to prison.
This is Joe Biden’s America.
The Gateway Pundit contributor Paul Ingrassia is attending the ongoing show trial today in New York City today.
Paul wrote this earlier today:
Alvin Bragg is attempting to charge President Trump with a Class E felony, which is a crime under New York state law. Felonies are typically crimes punishable by more than a year in prison. We know by now that Bragg’s case is riven with errors – and it remains inexplicable why, to the extent President Trump has violated any criminal statute at all, he is still being charged with a felony, rather than a misdemeanor. Of course, the reality is that President Trump committed no crime. But even the statute that Alvin Bragg has cited to base his alleged theory of liability, Penal Law § 175.10, expressly states “a person is guilty of falsifying business … in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” Bragg must not have the attention span (or intelligence) to read the rest of the statute, which blatantly spells out: “Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.” A misdemeanor at most, not a felony. So, why the bloody hell are Bragg and Merchan treating this like a criminal felony?
This entire trial is an abuse of the US legal system. For over 240 years the United States had a justice system that was unmatched in history. Not any more. The Democrats have ripped it apart in order to take down Trump and his supporters.
Paul Ingrassia will be live-posting from inside the courtroom today.
Paul Ingrassia: 1:30 PM: Bragg Prosecutor: You can hardly blame Michael Cohen for making money from the one thing he has left: his knowledge of the innerworkings of the Trump phenomenon. WTF.
Bragg Prosecutor: You can hardly blame Michael Cohen for making money from the one thing he has left: his knowledge of the innerworkings of the Trump phenomenon. WTF.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 1:43 PM: BREAKING: So far, the Bragg Prosecution’s summation is dull and uninspired; most of it is being used to rehabilitate Michael Cohen’s testimony, playing cleanup, after his reliability was ripped to smithereens this morning by Blanche. This also explains Biden’s reinforcements: he needed to haul in washed up Robert DeNiro plus the J6 deep state infiltrators in order to distract from the catastrophe in the courtroom.
BREAKING: So far, the Bragg Prosecution’s summation is dull and uninspired; most of it is being used to rehabilitate Michael Cohen’s testimony, playing cleanup, after his reliability was ripped to smithereens this morning by Blanche.
This also explains Biden’s reinforcements: he…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 1:46 PM: Bragg Prosecutor: There’s a ton of testimony in evidence that corroborates Defendant’s connection to a crime! But what “crime” the Prosecution alleges has not yet been articulated. It seems right now the strategy is to repeat “Trump guilty of crime” over and over again, like a partisan propagandist, and hope most jurors will uncritically accept that premise.
Bragg Prosecutor: There’s a ton of testimony in evidence that corroborates Defendant’s connection to a crime!
But what “crime” the Prosecution alleges has not yet been articulated.
It seems right now the strategy is to repeat “Trump guilty of crime” over and over again, like…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 1:49 PM: Bragg Prosecutor: Michael Cohen’s significance in this case is that he provides context and color to the documents. He’s like a tour guide that helps us see the documents in evidence. You don’t need Michael Cohen to connect these dots. But as the ultimate insider, he can help you do just that! THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Bragg Prosecutor: Michael Cohen’s significance in this case is that he provides context and color to the documents. He’s like a tour guide that helps us see the documents in evidence.
You don’t need Michael Cohen to connect these dots. But as the ultimate insider, he can help…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 1:57 PM: BREAKING: Bragg Prosecutor likes to use the term “catch and kill” to refer to the hush money payment Cohen paid off to Daniels and others. He uses the phrase, which sounds incendiary, because it creates the impression in the minds of jurors that something was awry. A juror will intuitively equate the term “kill” with a crime, even though the hush money, and subsequent NDA, have absolutely nothing to do with an alleged federal election law violation. The supposed “catch and kill” occurred in 2011. The story was well-known and disseminated to the public long before Trump officially declared he would run for president in June of 2015. And the alleged erroneous tax filing — used, per the Prosecution’s theory, to coverup an election fraud crime — occurred a year after Trump had already won. How does any of this make sense?
Legally, Bragg has nothing. But he likes to rely on emotional, inflammatory language and sexual innuendo to confuse jurors and create an impression that a crime was committed, even though nothing of the sort ever occurred.
BREAKING: Bragg Prosecutor likes to use the term “catch and kill” to refer to the hush money payment Cohen paid off to Daniels and others.
He uses the phrase, which sounds incendiary, because it creates the impression in the minds of jurors that something was awry. A juror will…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 2:00 PM: BREAKING: Bragg Prosecutor now pontificating on election law violations, even though the guy cannot name a single statute that Trump allegedly violated — he clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. Calls a hush money payment an election law violation, even though that is plainly false. But this is allowed to occur without objection or oversight in Merchan’s courtroom because the law, according to this Judge, is “what I say it is.” Kangaroo Court!
BREAKING: Bragg Prosecutor now pontificating on election law violations, even though the guy cannot name a single statute that Trump allegedly violated — he clearly has no idea what he’s talking about.
Calls a hush money payment an election law violation, even though that is…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 2:09 PM: Note to Bragg’s lawyers: Repeating the words “illegal,” “crime,” and “playboy playmate” over and over again does not a crime make. You cannot convict unless you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the alleged crime. But that, of course, requires stating a crime in the first place, which Bragg does not have. As such, he’s forced to go around in circles and when the jury gets bored, scream “Stormy Daniels!!” to wake them back up.
Note to Bragg’s lawyers: Repeating the words “illegal,” “crime,” and “playboy playmate” over and over again does not a crime make.
You cannot convict unless you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the alleged crime.
But that, of course, requires…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 2:22 PM: Bragg’s prosecutors now trying to propound a convoluted theory whereby Trump “deputized” David Pecker who was the link to Michael Cohen. Claims this is “powerful evidence of the Defense’s involvement wholly apart from Cohen” They’re really pulling out the theatrics, using ominous vocal inflections to act like a standard industry procedure — which Blanche discussed this morning goes all the way back to the 1980s — is somehow illegal, for one, and related to the 2016 presidential election, for two. The goal is to confuse the jurors of the facts and law, so as to make it appear like, something, somehow at some point must have been criminal. Otherwise, why on earth would Bragg’s prosecutors be bloviating all over the courtroom right now? “AMI?” “Stormy Daniels?” Unbelievably, Bragg’s prosecutor just namedropped “Monica Lewinsky.” Are they that desperate as to imply that because Bill Clinton committed a sexual crime, that Trump must somehow also be implicated with one? This is utterly insane.
Bragg’s prosecutors now trying to propound a convoluted theory whereby Trump “deputized” David Pecker who was the link to Michael Cohen.
Claims this is “powerful evidence of the Defense’s involvement wholly apart from Cohen”
They’re really pulling out the theatrics, using…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 2:25 PM: BREAKING: Someone should count how many times the words “mafia,” “mob,” “fixer,” and “consigliere” (which the Prosecutor absolutely butchered) were said by Bragg’s prosecutors throughout this summation. Meanwhile, Biden, the real mobster, deploys fake mafioso Bobby DeNiro to put on a temper tantrum right outside the courtroom. You can’t make this stuff up.
BREAKING: Someone should count how many times the words “mafia,” “mob,” “fixer,” and “consigliere” (which the Prosecutor absolutely butchered) were said by Bragg’s prosecutors throughout this summation.
Meanwhile, Biden, the real mobster, deploys fake mafioso Bobby DeNiro to put…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 2:49 PM: BREAKING: At a quarter to 4 p.m., Prosecution says they’re only about “a third of the way through” with their summation. Merchan said this morning that he would ask the jurors whether they wanted to hear the entire summation today, or end the session at 4:30, normal time, and finish tomorrow. Court has briefly recessed. We’re still waiting for another instruction from Merchan to determine whether he will allow the Prosecution to go through the remainder of its summation. It seems like Merchan doesn’t want to go much beyond 5:30 pm today, so TBD on whether that factors into the equation. Ridiculous though that Merchan is allowing Bragg’s Prosecutors to blab on about utter nonsense. Should impose a hard 4:30 p.m. deadline and make them finish as soon as possible, rather than engage on these long-winded tangents that has nothing that has to do with the alleged crime at issue.
BREAKING: At a quarter to 4 p.m., Prosecution says they’re only about “a third of the way through” with their summation.
Merchan said this morning that he would ask the jurors whether they wanted to hear the entire summation today, or end the session at 4:30, normal time, and…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 3:05 PM: They’ve turned off the AC so now the “icebox” has become the “sauna,” and we’re all roasting in this courthouse.
They’ve turned off the AC so now the “icebox” has become the “sauna,” and we’re all roasting in this courthouse.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 3:10 PM: BREAKING: Oh boy, Bragg Prosecutor begins his post-break remarks by talking about, you guessed it, the Access Hollywood Tape.
BREAKING: Oh boy, Bragg Prosecutor begins his post-break remarks by talking about, you guessed it, the Access Hollywood Tape.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 3:16 PM: BREAKING: Prosecution now playing the video that President Trump released before the October 2016 debate in which he responded to the release of the Access Hollywood Tape, and said he’ll have more to say about it during the memorable presidential debate with Hillary Clinton. Anyone who remembers that debate knows that Trump obliterated Clinton’s chance of ever seeing the Oval Office again with the “because you’d be in jail” line. Now, eight years later, we are still relitigating that moment in a state courthouse in lower Manhattan. The Left accuses MAGA of being sore losers about election fraud, but they still cannot get over the results of the 2016 election. Two-tiered justice!
BREAKING: Prosecution now playing the video that President Trump released before the October 2016 debate in which he responded to the release of the Access Hollywood Tape, and said he’ll have more to say about it during the memorable presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 3:48 PM: Bragg’s Prosecutor blathering on about how the “objective of the NDA was to keep Stormy Daniels quiet, period.” So far, the Prosecution has admitted that sexual intercourse between two consenting adults is lawful. They have also conceded that NDAs are lawful and customary. Furthermore, they have conceded that hush money payments of any kind are lawful. But lawful act + lawful act + lawful act = crime? How does that figure? The one unlawful act, which is the controlling assumption here, was that, in their eyes, it was criminal for Trump to run for President in 2016. (The reason, in their view, that Trump running for president was unlawful was because Trump’s “mean” for defeating Hillary Clinton, their obviously preferred candidate.) That is the only way the Prosecution’s “logic” makes any sense.
Bragg’s Prosecutor blathering on about how the “objective of the NDA was to keep Stormy Daniels quiet, period.”
So far, the Prosecution has admitted that sexual intercourse between two consenting adults is lawful.
They have also conceded that NDAs are lawful and customary.…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 3:55 PM: In his response, Blanche should implore jurors to not get caught up in the details of this case. The question before them is straightforward: if it takes someone over 4.5 hours to explain how a lawful hush money payment was otherwise an unlawful act of election fraud, there is no case.
In his response, Blanche should implore jurors to not get caught up in the details of this case.
The question before them is straightforward: if it takes someone over 4.5 hours to explain how a lawful hush money payment was otherwise an unlawful act of election fraud, there is…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 3:56 PM: JUST NOW: Merchan announces that today’s session could last until potentially 7 or 8 pm tonight. Absolute torture!
JUST NOW: Merchan announces that today’s session could last until potentially 7 or 8 pm tonight. Absolute torture!
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 4:23 PM: BREAKING: There are at least three major reasons why Merchan (I’ve dropped the honorific of “Judge” which he does not deserve) wants to torture everyone by remaining in this stuffy courthouse until 8 at night or later: 1) He’s a rank sadist, and gets a ghoulish kick inflicting pain on and torturing others. 2) He wants to confuse the jury as much as possible with a load of nonsense. A form of legalistic “Chinese water torture” to make them forget what this case is about in the first place, and be pressured into a guilty verdict, which he thinks is more likely the longer he drags out this charade. 3) He is profiting off this case, and in a big way. Don’t forget: his daughter’s consulting firm, Authentic, has the Biden 2024 campaign as a client (among numerous other far left Democratic lawmakers like Adam Schiff). One of the lead Prosecutors, Matt Colangelo, was the former #3 at the DOJ. Merchan’s immediate family has a direct financial stake in the outcome of this case.
BREAKING: There are at least three major reasons why Merchan (I’ve dropped the honorific of “Judge” which he does not deserve) wants to torture everyone by remaining in this stuffy courthouse until 8 at night or later:
1) He’s a rank sadist, and gets a ghoulish kick inflicting…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 4:42 PM: BREAKING: Bragg’s prosecutor right now filibustering worse than Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham.
BREAKING: Bragg’s prosecutor right now filibustering worse than Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 6:15 PM: BREAKING: Merchan wants to end by 8 p.m. tonight, Prosecution shows no signs of slowing down. This really speaks to Merchan’s incompetence as a judge. He’s allowing the Prosecution to run the clock to the nighttime hours, which is absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary. Of course, this is by design: he and the prosecution are one and the same. He has a financial, political, and ideological stake in a guilty verdict. He hates Donald Trump with a passion, and will destroy what morsels of integrity remain in the justice system in order to force a guilty verdict — this is political persecution of the highest order. This entire proceeding is riven with PREJUDICE. The entire case must be tossed out.
BREAKING: Merchan wants to end by 8 p.m. tonight, Prosecution shows no signs of slowing down.
This really speaks to Merchan’s incompetence as a judge. He’s allowing the Prosecution to run the clock to the nighttime hours, which is absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary. Of…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 8:42 AM: BREAKING: I am back at the courthouse covering the Trump Sham Trial today. Today is the first day of summations. It has been reported that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Tiffany Trump, Michael Boulos, Steve Witkoff, Will Scharf, and Deroy Murdock will join President Trump today in court. Stay tuned all day long for updates on X and @gatewaypundit!
BREAKING: I am back at the courthouse covering the Trump Sham Trial today.
Today is the first day of summations. It has been reported that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Tiffany Trump, Michael Boulos, Steve Witkoff, Will Scharf, and Deroy Murdock will join President…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 8:46 AM: @NatalieJHarp is one of President Trump’s most loyal aides and has been a stalwart defender of the President and his agenda years before she ever officially joined his team.
She is the absolute best of the best — the gold standard for presidential personnel in both competence and loyalty.
. @NatalieJHarp is one of President Trump’s most loyal aides and has been a stalwart defender of the President and his agenda years before she ever officially joined his team.
She is the absolute best of the best — the gold standard for presidential personnel in both competence… https://t.co/1kZf0Uk9BE
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:27 AM:BREAKING: Spotted in the overhead section today is former Biden Press Secretary @jrpsaki. We’ll “circle back” and see what’s going on with her later. Also a number of Trump allies are here: @AndrewHGiuliani, @JudgeJeanine, @AndrewCMcCarthy, @gopAshleyLamb, and @KasondraWatkins(among others) are also covering the trial all day long. Be sure to follow each of their X accounts for the latest updates!
BREAKING: Spotted in the overhead section today is former Biden Press Secretary @jrpsaki. We’ll “circle back” and see what’s going on with her later.
Also a number of Trump allies are here: @AndrewHGiuliani, @JudgeJeanine, @AndrewCMcCarthy, @gopAshleyLamb, and @KasondraWatkins…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:32 AM: BREAKING: President Trump just now enters the courtroom, alongside attorneys Todd Blanche, Susan Necheles, and Emil Bove. The President is wearing a bright red “victory” tie.
BREAKING: President Trump just now enters the courtroom, alongside attorneys Todd Blanche, Susan Necheles, and Emil Bove. The President is wearing a bright red “victory” tie.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:33 AM: BREAKING: Todd Blanche says he expects summation to last 2.5 hours. The People estimate “somewhere in the vicinity of 4 and 4.5 hours.” So it appears summations will go on for more than just 1 day. Merchan says it’s up to the jurors to determine whether they want to finish summations today, or go an extra day. Jurors now being brought into the courtroom.
BREAKING: Todd Blanche says he expects summation to last 2.5 hours.
The People estimate “somewhere in the vicinity of 4 and 4.5 hours.” So it appears summations will go on for more than just 1 day.
Merchan says it’s up to the jurors to determine whether they want to finish…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:37 AM: BREAKING: Merchan cautions those who go before him to not “explain the law” or “go into the law.” He gives this ultimatum before the jurors enter the courtroom. This is consistent with his remarks last week, admonishing particularly the Defense for explaining aspects of the law. Merchan lords over his court like a tinpot despot, and wants a complete monopoly over the law and its construction. This is also consistent with Merchan barring expert testimony from FEC Commissioner, Bradley Smith.
BREAKING: Merchan cautions those who go before him to not “explain the law” or “go into the law.” He gives this ultimatum before the jurors enter the courtroom.
This is consistent with his remarks last week, admonishing particularly the Defense for explaining aspects of the…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:37 AM: CORRECTION: The President’s tie is more a golden/orange color than red!
CORRECTION: The President’s tie is more a golden/orange color than red! https://t.co/pp4WmtE3nW
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:39 AM: BREAKING: Judge Merchan tells the jurors that “nothing the lawyers said is evidence” and “nothing said during the summations is evidence.” Merchan: You and you alone are the judges of the facts of this case. Merchan: I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR EXPLAINING THE LAW, NOT THE LAWYERS. YOUR SWORN DUTY AS JURORS IS TO FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, AS YOU PROMISED ME THAT YOU WOULD.
BREAKING: Judge Merchan tells the jurors that “nothing the lawyers said is evidence” and “nothing said during the summations is evidence.”
Merchan: You and you alone are the judges of the facts of this case.
Merchan: I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR EXPLAINING THE LAW, NOT THE LAWYERS.…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:40 AM: BREAKING: : “Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.” A misdemeanor at most, not a felony. So, why the bloody hell are Bragg and Merchan treating this like a criminal felony?Alvin Bragg is attempting to charge President Trump with a Class E felony, which is a crime under New York state law. Felonies are typically crimes punishable by more than a year in prison. We know by now that Bragg’s case is riven with errors – and it remains inexplicable why, to the extent President Trump has violated any criminal statute at all, he is still being charged with a felony, rather than a misdemeanor. Of course, the reality is that President Trump committed no crime. But even the statute that Alvin Bragg has cited to base his alleged theory of liability, Penal Law § 175.10, expresslystates“a person is guilty of falsifying business … in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” Bragg must not have the attention span (or intelligence) to read the rest of the statute,which blatantly spells out
BREAKING: : “Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.” A misdemeanor at most, not a felony. So, why the bloody hell are Bragg and Merchan treating this like a criminal felony?Alvin Bragg is attempting to charge President Trump with a Class E…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:41 AM: BREAKING: Judge reiterates that it’s up to jurors to decide whether to work beyond 4:30 today or wrap it up tomorrow morning. Unlike in previous weeks, court will be in session tomorrow, on a Wednesday, due to being off on the Memorial Day holiday. If jurors decide they want to finish up summations today, they don’t expect court to go much beyond another hour past the 4:30 time.
BREAKING: Judge reiterates that it’s up to jurors to decide whether to work beyond 4:30 today or wrap it up tomorrow morning. Unlike in previous weeks, court will be in session tomorrow, on a Wednesday, due to being off on the Memorial Day holiday.
If jurors decide they want to…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:44 AM: BREAKING: Blanche begins his summations by thanking the jurors for being attentive and showing up on time every single day for the last five weeks. Explains the uniqueness of the American criminal justice system, how it’s up to a tribunal of twelve jurors to decide the guilt or innocence of President Trump. Blanche: President Trump is innocent. He did not commit any crimes. And the DA has not met his burden of proof, period. All the evidence has come in, and it should leave you wanting and expecting more! You should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen. You should want more than Deb Tarasoff telling you how she booked certain invoices. You should expect something more than Keith Davidson who sought to extort money from President Trump in the leadup to the 2016 election. The facts lead to a simple conclusion: a not guilty verdict, period.
BREAKING: Blanche begins his summations by thanking the jurors for being attentive and showing up on time every single day for the last five weeks. Explains the uniqueness of the American criminal justice system, how it’s up to a tribunal of twelve jurors to decide the guilt or…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:44 AM: Blanche: This is a paper case. It is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels eighteen years ago that President Trump unequivocally denied occurred. It’s not even about an NDA that was signed nearly eight years ago. The reason you are all here is whether and to what extent President Trump, while living in the White House, had anything to do with the payments of Michael Cohen. … The bookings were accurate, and there was absolutely no intent to defraud. Beyond that, no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election by President Trump, Michael Cohen, the folks at AMI, all of which I will unpack this morning.
Blanche: This is a paper case. It is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels eighteen years ago that President Trump unequivocally denied occurred.
It’s not even about an NDA that was signed nearly eight years ago.
The reason you are all here is whether and to what extent…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:48 AM: Blanche: The bottom line is the charges in this case have to do with invoices, vouchers, and cheques. All of the invoices have been submitted by Michael Cohen. You cannot convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt on the words of Michael Cohen. There were clear conversations that he claimed he had with Keith Schiller, Dylan Howard, Allen Weisselberg. None of them were witnesses at this trial. Instead, Cohen was the witness, and his words matter. Cohen took an oath, swore to tell the truth, and told you a number of things on that witness stand that were lies – pure and simple.
Blanche: The bottom line is the charges in this case have to do with invoices, vouchers, and cheques.
All of the invoices have been submitted by Michael Cohen. You cannot convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt on the words of Michael Cohen.
There were…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:49 AM: BREAKING: Blanche explaining to jurors that they have to explain 1) documents contained false entries, and 2) Trump acted with the intent to defraud. Blanche says records were not false, and there was no intent to defraud.
BREAKING: Blanche explaining to jurors that they have to explain 1) documents contained false entries, and 2) Trump acted with the intent to defraud.
Blanche says records were not false, and there was no intent to defraud.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:55 AM: Blanche: Miss Tarasoff didn’t speak to President Trump about the invoices. Cohen was rendering services to President Trump as his personal attorney in 2017. No question about it. As a matter of fact, on direct examination, he said one of the reasons why he needed to serve as Trump’s personal attorney was due to outstanding matters he was dealing with. Which was true. The government wants you to believe there was some conspiracy between Cohen, Weisselberg, and Trump. That Cohen was working for free, even though there are invoices from May of 2017 between Weisselberg and Cohen, visuals of which are now being presented in Blanche’s summation.
Blanche: Miss Tarasoff didn’t speak to President Trump about the invoices.
Cohen was rendering services to President Trump as his personal attorney in 2017. No question about it. As a matter of fact, on direct examination, he said one of the reasons why he needed to serve as…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 9:58 AM: BRIEF RECAP: Part of the reason we still do not know so much of anything about this case is because the presiding judge, Juan Manuel Merchan, has not allowed any discussion whatsoever of Bragg’s criminal theory of liability through expert witnesses. We have so far heard ad nauseam from Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, who were the prosecution’s one-two punch used to assassinate President Trump’s character in the courtroom and deny him the presumption of innocence, about how bad a man Donald Trump supposedly is. But hardly anything from the Defense! Why? Because Merchan would not allow it! Instead, the Defense has only been allowed to bring in one witness, Robert Costello, a battle tested defense attorney of the SDNY and former legal adviser of Michael Cohen. For his part, Cohen’s testimony arguably did more to discredit the People’s theory of the case than Donald Trump’s – after all, he admitted to lying on the stand under Congressional oath years ago, stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization, committing perjury, and profiting off the trial, among a litany of other damning revelations. Costello drove the nail in the coffin, corroborating Cohen’s own testimony that his former client is a liar, fraudster, and perjurer – who acted totally independently and without President Trump’s knowledge.
BRIEF RECAP: Part of the reason we still do not know so much of anything about this case is because the presiding judge, Juan Manuel Merchan, has not allowed any discussion whatsoever of Bragg’s criminal theory of liability through expert witnesses. We have so far heard ad…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:00 AM: Blanche: As you know, the fact that there was a verbal retainer agreement between Michael Cohen and President Trump is consistent with another lawyer you heard from… Bragg Prosecutor: OBJECTION! Merchan: Overruled. Blanche: That lawyer was Mr. Keith Davidson.
Blanche: As you know, the fact that there was a verbal retainer agreement between Michael Cohen and President Trump is consistent with another lawyer you heard from…
Bragg Prosecutor: OBJECTION!
Merchan: Overruled.
Blanche: That lawyer was Mr. Keith Davidson.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:03 AM: Blanche: Mr. Cohen was President Trump’s personal lawyer, period. Nobody disputes that Mr. Cohen was Trump’s personal lawyer in 2017. So what makes more sense: that Trump was paying his personal attorney $35k pursuant to an agreement he made with his attorney just before he took office OR the version Cohen told you. Which is that, “no, I was not paid! I was gonna work for free! And I figured I would work for free. The $35k wasn’t a retainer fee, but an overpayment for the $135k based on the NDA. For the first time in Trump’s life, he decided to pay me triple. And I’d just make money as as a consultant. That’s what really happened!” There is a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one, and that’s certainly the case here. The story that Mr. Cohen told on the witness stand is simply not true.
Blanche: Mr. Cohen was President Trump’s personal lawyer, period. Nobody disputes that Mr. Cohen was Trump’s personal lawyer in 2017. So what makes more sense: that Trump was paying his personal attorney $35k pursuant to an agreement he made with his attorney just before he took…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:08 AM: Blanche: There is no better way to categorize an invoice from a client to a lawyer as a legal expense. That is exactly what it is. The government is trying to call this a crime, which is absolutely ridiculous. The government claims this was some elaborate way to coverup a $135k payment. That is not what the evidence shows.
Blanche: There is no better way to categorize an invoice from a client to a lawyer as a legal expense. That is exactly what it is. The government is trying to call this a crime, which is absolutely ridiculous.
The government claims this was some elaborate way to coverup a…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:12 AM: Blanche: If there was some sort of conspiratorial agreement between Trump, Cohen, and Weisselberg: this email does not exist. Why did they ask approval via email from Don and Eric, Trump’s two sons, for the invoices? I don’t have an answer why the People believe a conspiracy exists. But guess who else you did not hear from: Don & Eric. Is there some allegation that they were part of this scheme? They have not been called to testify. The government makes the decisions who to call: they did not call Don & Eric.
Blanche: If there was some sort of conspiratorial agreement between Trump, Cohen, and Weisselberg: this email does not exist.
Why did they ask approval via email from Don and Eric, Trump’s two sons, for the invoices?
I don’t have an answer why the People believe a conspiracy…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:17 AM: BLANCHE: You cannot convict President Trump because sometimes President Trump looked at invoices. You cannot conclude that he had full knowledge of what was happening, especially while simultaneously being President. That is a stretch. That cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing sinister between the checks between Trump Tower and Keith Schiller, it’s common sense based on the testimony you’ve heard from the witnesses. It matters where Trump was at the time: constantly busy, multi-tasking, always on the move. He was President of the United States. So the leap the Government wants you to take: that he was somehow intimately part of the scheme to book a legal expense as a legal expense is absurd.
BLANCHE: You cannot convict President Trump because sometimes President Trump looked at invoices. You cannot conclude that he had full knowledge of what was happening, especially while simultaneously being President.
That is a stretch. That cannot be proven beyond a reasonable…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:18 AM: BLANCHE: How is the Government going to ask you to convict Donald Trump based on the words of Michael Cohen?
BLANCHE: How is the Government going to ask you to convict Donald Trump based on the words of Michael Cohen?
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:20 AM: BLANCHE: What the Government did for the last five weeks is to ask you to believe Michael Cohen, the man who testified two weeks ago. Cohen asks you to ignore the documents, what the emails say about a retainer agreement with Weisselberg. You saw him on the stand for 3 days. Do you believe for a second that, after getting stiffed for his bonus, when he did not get paid back the $20k he believed he was owed, do you think for a second that he thought to himself, “I’m gonna work for free.” Do you believe the man who testified, or was that a lie?
BLANCHE: What the Government did for the last five weeks is to ask you to believe Michael Cohen, the man who testified two weeks ago.
Cohen asks you to ignore the documents, what the emails say about a retainer agreement with Weisselberg.
You saw him on the stand for 3 days.…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:24 AM: BLANCHE: All the knowledge President Trump had of this scheme is him telling Cohen that “it’s going to be one heck of a ride in DC.” That’s the extent of the Government’s knowledge, according to the Prosecution.
BLANCHE: All the knowledge President Trump had of this scheme is him telling Cohen that “it’s going to be one heck of a ride in DC.”
That’s the extent of the Government’s knowledge, according to the Prosecution.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:29 AM: BRIEF RECAP OF PROCEEDING: Merchan has so far run roughshod over the rule of law, making a casualty of the legitimacy of the New York State criminal system in the process. The controlling statute, Penal Law § 175.10, putatively serving as the basis for the People’s case, requires two crimes to raise the falsification scheme to a first-degree felony. The fraud must have been done with “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” Bragg’s prosecutors are now claiming that the second crime is some ill-defined FEC violation, which raises a slew of separate legal questions. But not being able to interrogate an expert on federal election law in court is the ultimate miscarriage of a justice system already loaded with abuses and unprecedented violations. Especially now with the FEC issue front and center (the prohibition by Judge Merchan of FEC Commissioner’s expert testimony on federal election law), it raises the separate issue of why this case is being brought in state court altogether, and not federal court? If the case involves a federal issue, the jurisdiction here is all wrong: state courts have no authority over the subject matter. This is a case that would normally get preempted or barred by federal courts – the FEC, a federal agency, has its own intricate rules over election-related questions and thus exclusive jurisdiction over any such matters.
BRIEF RECAP OF PROCEEDING: Merchan has so far run roughshod over the rule of law, making a casualty of the legitimacy of the New York State criminal system in the process. The controlling statute, Penal Law § 175.10, putatively serving as the basis for the People’s case,…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:34 AM: BLANCHE: I would expect you to hear from Merchan that President Trump filed these entries with an intent to defraud. There is no evidence of that ladies and gentlemen. First, the records aren’t false. But even if they were, where is the evidence of the intent to defraud? None exists! If there was some deep-rooted intent to defraud why was it reported to the IRS as exactly what it was in the Cohen invoice? Everything done was the way it was supposed to be done. Mr. Cohen was a non-employee of the Trump organization, and the payments were compensation for him. Period. Nothing false.
BLANCHE: I would expect you to hear from Merchan that President Trump filed these entries with an intent to defraud. There is no evidence of that ladies and gentlemen.
First, the records aren’t false. But even if they were, where is the evidence of the intent to defraud? None…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:36 AM: Blanche: Trump sent out a tweet in 2018 saying exactly what he did. If there was an intent to defraud, why would he do that? There was a document submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, disclosing to the federal government, which concluded he was in compliance with the law, while in Office serving as President. So how can it be there was any intent to defraud by Trump when he discloses it to the IRS, tweets about it, and submits it in the ethics forms filings to the federal government?
Blanche: Trump sent out a tweet in 2018 saying exactly what he did. If there was an intent to defraud, why would he do that?
There was a document submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, disclosing to the federal government, which concluded he was in compliance with the…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:38 AM: Blanche: There was also no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. The government’s theory is that in 2017, after the election, the President falsified filings to promote an election that he had already won. The charges relate to documents filed in 2017. The government wants you to believe he did these things to promote his successful candidacy in 2016. Even if you find that’s true, that’s still not enough because it doesn’t matter whether or not there was a conspiracy to try to win an election. Every campaign is a “conspiracy” to promote a candidate, to try to get someone to win an election. To find an election related crime, you’d have to find this was done by unlawful means. The government is expected to talk about: 1) campaign finance violations; 2) tax violations; or 3) books and records violations. But none of them make any sense.
Blanche: There was also no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.
The government’s theory is that in 2017, after the election, the President falsified filings to promote an election that he had already won.
The charges relate to documents filed in 2017. The government wants…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:47 AM: Blanche: You have decades of AMI working with celebrities to promote campaigns and stories. There was zero criminal intent in the 2016 campaign. Indeed, Mr. Pecker testified that it was really good business to run stories about Trump. As far back as 1988, Mr. Pecker suppressed a story for President Trump. Pecker and Cohen were friends, sure, but it was also good business. They made a lot of money based on relationships, not surprising. One of the reasons Pecker agreed to it was because it was good for business. Pecker said Trump was the top celebrity to sell magazines. He had shareholders and it was his fiduciary duty to them to promote President Trump. There is nothing criminal or wrong with a politician trying to get positive press and avoid negative ones. But the idea, even if there was something wrong with it, that Pecker and Trump, two sophisticated business persons, believed that a negative story in the National Enquirer could affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election is absolutely preposterous. It makes no sense.
Blanche: You have decades of AMI working with celebrities to promote campaigns and stories. There was zero criminal intent in the 2016 campaign. Indeed, Mr. Pecker testified that it was really good business to run stories about Trump. As far back as 1988, Mr. Pecker suppressed a…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:50 AM: LMAO the Biden “campaign” is such a clown show dragging out washed up octogenarian celebrity lunatics who haven’t acted in a halfway decent movie in well over a quarter of a century to promote their sinking ship of a political movement. But it checks out perfectly for these out of touch elites destroying this once great country!
LMAO the Biden “campaign” is such a clown show dragging out washed up octogenarian celebrity lunatics who haven’t acted in a halfway decent movie in well over a quarter of a century to promote their sinking ship of a political movement.
But it checks out perfectly for these out… https://t.co/PtOfp5mCUl
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 10:53 AM: BRIEF RECAP OF PROCEEDING (continued): …At a bare minimum, an expert witness should be allowed to opine on the issue in state court – and not be prohibited because it hurts the judge’s ego. This is a clear reversible error because the President’s fundamental rights have been so callously violated. This abuse alone should have prompted a mistrial – it is the reason, as well, why so many legal commentators and scholars have said this case will be easily tossed out on appeal, because of the widespread, undeniable prejudice that was allowed to take place under these unprecedented conditions.
BRIEF RECAP OF PROCEEDING (continued): …At a bare minimum, an expert witness should be allowed to opine on the issue in state court – and not be prohibited because it hurts the judge’s ego. This is a clear reversible error because the President’s fundamental rights have been so…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 11:06 AM: Blanche: Pecker said he submitted a legal objection under penalty of perjury saying the NDA was lawful. Bragg Prosecutor: OBJECTION! Merchan: Overruled (but sustained Prosecutor’s prior objection just before Blanche rephrased). Blanche: You see it’s in evidence that if Pecker provided false statements, the agreement is breached and he can be subject to prosecution. But he’s not being prosecuted for anything, so nothing that what he told you about AMI decisions, McDougall, etc., was criminal. He told you that because it was true.
Blanche: Pecker said he submitted a legal objection under penalty of perjury saying the NDA was lawful.
Bragg Prosecutor: OBJECTION!
Merchan: Overruled (but sustained Prosecutor’s prior objection just before Blanche rephrased).
Blanche: You see it’s in evidence that if Pecker…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 11:13 AM: No, and I’ve been watching this trial pretty much for the entirety of the past five weeks. I do not recall a single instance in which Merchan reminded the jurors of President Trump’s fundamental rights as a criminal defendant, as well as his presumption of innocence. We’ll see if that changes throughout the day, but so far Merchan has been utterly silent on all things related to Trump’s constitutional rights. To the extent he has advised the jury at all, it has been to repeatedly remind them that only he, not Trump’s lawyers, has final say over what the law means.
No, and I’ve been watching this trial pretty much for the entirety of the past five weeks.
I do not recall a single instance in which Merchan reminded the jurors of President Trump’s fundamental rights as a criminal defendant, as well as his presumption of innocence.
We’ll see… https://t.co/qid8yUrmK0
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 11:28 AM: Blanche: Trump and Stormy Daniels have repeatedly denied that an affair took place. But the story was published in 2011, long before the 2016 election. So how could this be an issue for 2016? Ultimately, this was about a group of people — Daniels, Davidson, and others— looking to extort President Trump of money. It also posed an opportunity for Cohen to take advantage: he paid that $135k for taking credit for doing something at a later point in time. At the time, Cohen was worried about his future: whether Trump won, or whether Trump lost. The only person who will tell you that Trump knew about the payment being made is Michael Cohen. That’s it. And you cannot, cannot believe his words.
Blanche: Trump and Stormy Daniels have repeatedly denied that an affair took place. But the story was published in 2011, long before the 2016 election.
So how could this be an issue for 2016?
Ultimately, this was about a group of people — Daniels, Davidson, and others— looking…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 11:36 AM: BREAKING: Blanche explaining to the jurors Stormy Daniels’ extortion scheme: she wanted to weaponize the premise of the 2016 election to extort President Trump of money. Blanche: Daniels wanted to use the 2016 election to make sure she got paid! Bragg Prosecutor: Objection! Merchan: Sustained!
BREAKING: Blanche explaining to the jurors Stormy Daniels’ extortion scheme: she wanted to weaponize the premise of the 2016 election to extort President Trump of money.
Blanche: Daniels wanted to use the 2016 election to make sure she got paid!
Bragg Prosecutor: Objection!…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 11:41 AM: BREAKING: Every single American should be enraged by the corruption of justice being done in real time, and no matter the verdict of this trial, it will go down in infamy as a permanent blotch on the justice system, one that will take at least a generation to restore back to the glory it once had prior to Juan Merchan, Alvin Bragg, and Joe Biden taking a battering ram to it with disregard for the rights of every single American.
BREAKING: Every single American should be enraged by the corruption of justice being done in real time, and no matter the verdict of this trial, it will go down in infamy as a permanent blotch on the justice system, one that will take at least a generation to restore back to the…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 11:58 AM: BREAKING: Robert DeNiro this morning completely underestimated the size and strength of the MAGA movement. Even in a deep blue city like New York, hundreds of Trump supporters still were on the ground bright and early. They valiantly showed up to expose this washed up actor’s lies, call him out, and tell the truth before the television cameras about the weaponized system of justice, which is on overdrive in “Judge” Merchan’s courtroom. This ain’t the NY of the Obama years, Bobby D! Millions of Americans are finally seeing the light and coming around to MAGA. Most mainstream polls show Biden’s once formidable lead has shrunken to a mere 7-8 points in New York, down from his (allegedly) 23 point margin of victory in 2020; and by a measly 5 points, also per the latest polls, in neighboring bright blue New Jersey. YUGE!
BREAKING: Robert DeNiro this morning completely underestimated the size and strength of the MAGA movement.
Even in a deep blue city like New York, hundreds of Trump supporters still were on the ground bright and early. They valiantly showed up to expose this washed up actor’s…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 12:08 PM: Blanche: The Access Hollywood tape was one of many stressful stories that came up during the 2016 campaign. It was not a doomsday event. Trump addressed it in a video response and during the debate: he never thought it would lose him the campaign, and indeed it didn’t. Cohen had a much different view, however. He believed it was catastrophic. Which is why he did what he did with Ms. Daniels.
Blanche: The Access Hollywood tape was one of many stressful stories that came up during the 2016 campaign. It was not a doomsday event. Trump addressed it in a video response and during the debate: he never thought it would lose him the campaign, and indeed it didn’t.
Cohen had…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 12:27 PM: The Biden regime has resorted to theatrics this morning outside the show trial underway in lower Manhattan. First, Bobby DeNiro made a fool of himself outside the courthouse this morning, where he was met with a massive parade of Trump supporters who sent him scurrying back to his car. This was followed by a publicity stunt put on by two goons, Mike Fanone and Harry Dunn. They tried and failed to gin up media attention and relate what’s going on right now in Bragg’s kangaroo courtroom with the events of January 6th. It’s obvious that Biden is pulling out all the stops to attempt to derail Trump’s political momentum, which has only skyrocketed ever since the start of this trial. So many Americans see clearly what Biden and his lackeys cannot: the regime is destroying due process in real time with these show trials against the presidential front runner. Biden must rely on election interference since his record — from the economy to crime to the border to international politics — is a COMPLETE and TOTAL disaster across the board!
The Biden regime has resorted to theatrics this morning outside the show trial underway in lower Manhattan.
First, Bobby DeNiro made a fool of himself outside the courthouse this morning, where he was met with a massive parade of Trump supporters who sent him scurrying back to… https://t.co/WAF1G2pfRJ
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 12:29 PM: Blanche: Cohen lied to his family, his kids, his banker, the FEC, every single reporter he talked to for a year about a year. He is literally like the MVP of LIARS. He lied to prosecutors, to Congress, reporters, federal judges. He’s also a thief, who literally stole tens of thousands of dollars, admitted on the stand, on his way out the door. Never prosecuted.
Blanche: Cohen lied to his family, his kids, his banker, the FEC, every single reporter he talked to for a year about a year.
He is literally like the MVP of LIARS.
He lied to prosecutors, to Congress, reporters, federal judges. He’s also a thief, who literally stole tens of…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 12:32 PM: Michael Cohen (voice audio recording on podcast): I want to thank the Manhattan’s DA’s office and their fearless leader Alvin Bragg with whom I’ve worked countless hours to help prosecute. Blanche: Cohen has never met or worked with Alvin Bragg: that was another lie.
Michael Cohen (voice audio recording on podcast): I want to thank the Manhattan’s DA’s office and their fearless leader Alvin Bragg with whom I’ve worked countless hours to help prosecute.
Blanche: Cohen has never met or worked with Alvin Bragg: that was another lie.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 12:49 PM: BREAKING: BLANCHE RAPS UP REMARKS — Todd Blanche has so far been extremely thorough in his summation. He has touched upon every aspect of this case, including the alleged catch and kill schemes implicating Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, and explained why they weren’t catch or kill — having been made years before Trump ever even thought about running for president of the United States, and long within the public domain. He discussed the longstanding, decades long partnership between Trump, AMI, and David Spencer going back decades, explaining how suppressing stories was a routine part of the business — and how Pecker, a long time friend, found covering Trump financially lucrative. He articulated clearly how this was standard practice, nothing was abnormal about NDAs and hush money payments, certainly not unlawful. And certainly the Daniels story, being publicized in 2011, had no bearing on 2016. He explained how this case lives and dies on Michael Cohen’s testimony. He restated time and again, reinforcing his argument with countless examples, of why Cohen is a liar, seeking every opportunity to benefit himself financially and professionally. “He is the human embodiment of reasonable doubt.” Blanche said “Cohen is the GLOAT: the Greatest Liar of All Time.” Stellar job driving that point home: He also explained how these allegedly erroneous filings were made while Trump was President, not before the 2016 race. And so it was impossible that these filings had any fraudulent intent, let alone had anything to do with affecting the results of the 2016 election. He explained cogently that any campaign is a “conspiracy” to win an election. However, Trump had no knowledge about these filings. In any event, there’s absolutely nothing fraudulent or criminal about marking legal expenses for what they are, namely, legal expenses. He also explained how the other alleged crimes linked to the alleged record keeping error — tax fraud, FEC violation, and a books and records crime have absolutely no basis. Trump accurately reported this filing to the IRS, to a government ethics office, and on social media platforms like Twitter. “This is a very easy non guilty verdict,” Blanche ends his scorching closing statement. President Trump should be proud of Todd Blanch’s terrific work this morning.
BREAKING: BLANCHE RAPS UP REMARKS — Todd Blanche has so far been extremely thorough in his summation. He has touched upon every aspect of this case, including the alleged catch and kill schemes implicating Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, and explained why they weren’t catch…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 12:51 PM: BREAKING: Prosecutor griping over Blanche saying President Trump shouldn’t be sent to prison over the non-crime that is the basis for this cases Bragg’s prosecutors are visibly fuming over Blanche’s very effective, logical summation. They are currently appealing to Merchan to have Blanche’s comment stricken from the record.
BREAKING: Prosecutor griping over Blanche saying President Trump shouldn’t be sent to prison over the non-crime that is the basis for this cases
Bragg’s prosecutors are visibly fuming over Blanche’s very effective, logical summation. They are currently appealing to Merchan to…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 12:53 PM: Merchan is IRATE now that Blanche made a quip about the Prosecution wanting to sentence President Trump! Merchan: Let me hear your comment about prison. Blanche: (Inaudible) Merchan: I think that statement was outrageous Mr. Blanche. A comment like that is highly inappropriate and simply not allowed, period! It’s hard for me to grapple that that comment was accidental in anyway!
Merchan is IRATE now that Blanche made a quip about the Prosecution wanting to sentence President Trump!
Merchan: Let me hear your comment about prison.
Blanche: (Inaudible)
Merchan: I think that statement was outrageous Mr. Blanche. A comment like that is highly inappropriate… https://t.co/5KEU3Qs7f4
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 12:56 PM: BREAKING: Let me get this straight: so it’s fine for Merchan to toss Trump in jail every single day for violating his ridiculous gag order, but when Blanche makes reference to Trump going to jail, he enters into a nervous meltdown, admonishes Blanche, and screams at the top of his lungs “YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT IN MY COURTROOM!”
BREAKING: Let me get this straight: so it’s fine for Merchan to toss Trump in jail every single day for violating his ridiculous gag order, but when Blanche makes reference to Trump going to jail, he enters into a nervous meltdown, admonishes Blanche, and screams at the top of…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: 1:17 PM: BREAKING: BLANCHE WRAPS UP REMARKS — Todd Blanche has so far been extremely thorough in his summation. He has touched upon every aspect of this case, including the alleged catch and kill schemes implicating Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, and explained why they weren’t catch or kill — having been made years before Trump ever even thought about running for president of the United States, and long within the public domain. He discussed the longstanding, decades long partnership between Trump, AMI, and David Spencer going back decades, explaining how suppressing stories was a routine part of the business — and how Pecker, a long time friend, found covering Trump financially lucrative. He articulated clearly how this was standard practice, nothing was abnormal about NDAs and hush money payments, certainly not unlawful. And certainly the Daniels story, being publicized in 2011, had no bearing on 2016. He explained how this case lives and dies on Michael Cohen’s testimony. He restated time and again, reinforcing his argument with countless examples, of why Cohen is a liar, seeking every opportunity to benefit himself financially and professionally. “He is the human embodiment of reasonable doubt.” Blanche said “Cohen is the GLOAT: the Greatest Liar of All Time.” Stellar job driving that point home: He also explained how these allegedly erroneous filings were made while Trump was President, not before the 2016 race. And so it was impossible that these filings had any fraudulent intent, let alone had anything to do with affecting the results of the 2016 election. He explained cogently that any campaign is a “conspiracy” to win an election. However, Trump had no knowledge about these filings. In any event, there’s absolutely nothing fraudulent or criminal about marking legal expenses for what they are, namely, legal expenses. He also explained how the other alleged crimes linked to the alleged record keeping error — tax fraud, FEC violation, and a books and records crime have absolutely no basis. Trump accurately reported this filing to the IRS, to a government ethics office, and on social media platforms like Twitter. “This is a very easy non guilty verdict,” Blanche ends his scorching closing statement. President Trump should be proud of Todd Blanch’s terrific work this morning.
BREAKING: BLANCHE WRAPS UP REMARKS — Todd Blanche has so far been extremely thorough in his summation. He has touched upon every aspect of this case, including the alleged catch and kill schemes implicating Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, and explained why they weren’t catch…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024
The post LIVE UPDATES FROM INSIDE TRUMP TRIAL: TGP Contributor Paul Ingrassia Reports from Inside New York Show Trial – Closing Arguments Scheduled for Today appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Patriot Freedom Project, a nonprofit organization founded by Cynthia Hughes, is dedicated to advocating for January 6th political prisoners and their families. As part of its broader advocacy mission, the PFP recently produced a three-part documentary, “Due Process Denied,” which highlights the often harrowing and tragic stories of the J6 victims and their families. The third and final installment of Due Process Denied viscerally recounts how the persecution of the J6 victims is representative of a much deeper constitutional crisis afflicting our society at large.
Many of these victims have been deliberately targeted by Joe Biden and his weaponized DOJ and intelligence agencies. These institutions have been hijacked by Biden to persecute his political enemies with vengeance, which has done major, potentially irreversible, damage to the rule of law along the way.
From Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis’ ongoing show trials against President Trump to the thousands of prosecutions currently underway, which have all denied fundamental human rights to the overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrators who appeared at the Capitol on January 6th, the evidence of America’s plunge into a banana republic – where rule by might has displaced rule by right – is staggering and undeniable.
Ed Martin, who is president of the Phyllis Schlafly Eagles and serves as board member of the PFP, casts an understanding and discerning host throughout the series. An empathetic voice, Martin’s narration in Part 3 grounds the audience with a refreshingly levelheaded sensibility about what really happened on January 6th, pitching questions to his guests that bring out both the legal and personal sides to the story.
Martin, a Virginia-based lawyer who was recently appointed to senior position at the RNC, draws upon his legal expertise to walk through the countless constitutional violations committed by the Biden DOJ in the various interviews he conducts over the approximately hour-long final installment.
Martin’s commentary helps break down the thornier legal and due process issues for non-experts and confirms through his provocative conversations just how unprecedented and downright cruel the lawfare has been against those now being prosecuted. His conversations help shed light on the egregiously heavy-handed sentences being handed down against many political prisoners. On any other occasion, these political victims would be getting charged for trespassing (normally a misdemeanor), at the absolute worst. Now, they are facing potentially decades-long sentences behind bars.
“Now we turn to subject matter experts,” Martin begins his introductory remarks, “people who know the law and public policy, who understand the psychology of what’s going on when people are put in prison and their families have to deal with it.” He continues, “We’ll do all of that here, which will give us the context of why due process was denied for these political prisoners.”
The documentary is unique for being the only one to absolutely prioritize highlighting government weaponization and the painful personal costs associated with a weaponized justice system, on both the victims and the families. The whole documentary does a stellar job describing the lawfare presently taking place and personalizing it with the firsthand experiences of families barely getting by. These stories are told often by the children themselves, whose fathers and mothers have been forced out of the household, and locked behind bars, for months or years on end. In most cases, the parents are denied access to children during their most formative years. Some may never again get to see their children until they reach adulthood.
The third installment features legal commentary from a broad range of experts, from policymakers to lawyers to legal scholars. These commentators, albeit wide-ranging in backgrounds, are in consensus that what is being done right now with these political persecutions is reprehensible, unprecedented, and an affront to the rule of law in the worst possible way.
Congressman Louis Gohmert, who once served as a Texas state court judge for over a decade before entering public service, spearheads the legal analysis, painting a blistering portrait of the unprecedented methods being used right now to persecute otherwise law-abiding Americans on January 6th. The vast majority simply exercised their First Amendment rights to assemble peacefully on public property and voice their grievances, in keeping with what until five minutes ago was a longstanding and cherished American tradition.
Congressman Gohmert ominously analogized what is now going on in the nation’s capital – which is supposed to be a symbol of freedom for the entire world – to the gulags of Soviet Russia. He made repeated references to famed ex-communist writer, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a Soviet exile to the United States. Perhaps Solzhenitsyn’s most famous work, Gulag Archipelago, which Gohmert referenced by name, showcased in macabre detail what life was like under Soviet despotism for much of the twentieth century — a foreshadowing of the tyranny that has arrived on these shores. This is the high price we pay if we let our guards down and forget the high cost of preserving liberty, which must be renewed every single generation.
The third part of the film also featured commentaries from former senior Trump administration official, Dr. Sebastian Gorka, former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Clark, and political commentator Paul Ingrassia.
Dr. Gorka offered a brutal criticism of journalists, who have worked tirelessly over the past four years to portray the overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration on January 6th as a violent insurrection. Indeed, the reason why a sizable portion of the population referred to the events of January 6th as an insurrection in the first place (which it plainly wasn’t, based on the historical record and dictionary definition of the term that requires a violent overthrow of the government with force), was due to the mainstream media peddling a false narrative to demonize conservatives.
“The majority of them are actually propagandists,” says Gorka.
These propagandists jumped the gun and reflexively branded the demonstrations of January 6th an insurrection, before all the evidence came out – while also ignoring the untold billions of damages caused by far-left groups like Antifa and BLM the summer before.
Attorney Jeff Clark described how the media worked in collusion with the sham House Select Committee, which was tasked with investigating January 6th, but is now run “exclusively by Democrats.” The cooperation of the media coupled with the House Select Committee created a false narrative about the events of January 6th, a partisan hatchet job that was based on emotion and political bias, not reason and fact.
Ingrassia interviews many of the guests featured in the third installment, and inquires how “due process is being shredded by forces within our government, within our justice system, and within weaponized intelligence agencies, working in tandem against the American people.”
Also featured in this third installment is commentary from Dr. Gina Loudon, host of the daytime talk show American Sunrise on Real America’s Voice. Her perspective goes a long way towards personalizing the January 6th victims for viewers.
“The first thing they want to talk about is their prayer life,” Loudon explains of the families, “which has become key for the people enduring these hardships.”
The documentary makes tremendous strides towards dispelling and debunking so many of the myths peddled by the mainstream media over the past four years that have stigmatized the victims in the harshest and most ruthless of ways. This propaganda has villainized them in the worst possible light: casting them as dangerous threats to democracy and domestic terrorists, rather than patriotic Americans who care deeply about preserving our time-honored rights and freedoms.
After watching this film, viewers cannot help but see the light: what becomes crystal clear is that the vast majority of the January 6th victims, whom President Trump refers to as “hostages,” are far from the crazed lunatics routinely smeared on networks like CNN and MSNBC. To the contrary, they are devoted mothers and fathers; countless others are devout, God-fearing Christians and people of faith generally who wish to preserve the American experiment and pass down the freedoms and traditions they grew up with to their own children and grandchildren.
Many of the victims are veterans who selflessly served our country overseas, only to be treated like domestic terrorists by their own government at home.
The main takeaway from this documentary is that freedom is extremely delicate; the building blocks of our legal system that have long been responsible for our liberty have eroded away almost completely. Due process literally hangs by a thread.
That is why it is absolutely imperative that Americans of all backgrounds and ideologies understand the precarious situation our country faces. The documentary serves as an indispensable tool to educate audiences about the stakes of our ongoing constitutional crisis, and specifically how the Left systematically targets innocent Americans by weaponizing the justice system in pursuit of creating a one-party state that does not allow for dissent of any kind. This is the hallmark of every tyranny, past and present.
Back in January, Patriot Freedom Project received a personal endorsement from President Donald Trump. The organization has hosted many J6 fundraisers at Trump venues over the years, including his Bedminster golf club, with the approval of President Trump himself. The President has a perfect track record of speaking at these events, and has sung the praises of Cynthia Hughes as well as many of the guests featured in the film, including Louie Gohmert, Jeff Clark, Sebastian Gorka, and Paul Ingrassia.
The PFP is unrivaled in terms of the political advocacy it does for the most vulnerable people in our society today. Through films like Due Process Denied, the organization has led the charge in shifting the narrative, and changing public opinion about January 6th 2021, while also continuing to help in every possible way – financially, legally, emotionally, and spiritually – support the victims and their families.
The group has survived relentless attacks by the Left, Congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media. It relies, however, on the public’s generosity to keep pushing forward.
Readers who are interested in learning more about the organization and would consider making a donation should visit the PFP’s website at: https://patriotfreedomproject.com/donate/.
On behalf of Cynthia Hughes, the Patriot Freedom Project is deeply appreciative of any contribution generous readers might give. God bless.
The post Patriot Freedom Project Releases Third Part Of Documentary Showcasing The Personal And Legal Costs Of The Weaponized System Of Justice On Victims And Families appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Alvin Bragg is attempting to charge President Trump with a Class E felony, which is a crime under New York state law. Felonies are typically crimes punishable by more than a year in prison. We know by now that Bragg’s case is riven with errors – and it remains inexplicable why, to the extent President Trump has violated any criminal statute at all, he is still being charged with a felony, rather than a misdemeanor. Of course, the reality is that President Trump committed no crime. But even the statute that Alvin Bragg has cited to base his alleged theory of liability, Penal Law § 175.10, expressly states “a person is guilty of falsifying business … in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” Bragg must not have the attention span (or intelligence) to read the rest of the statute, which blatantly spells out: “Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.” A misdemeanor at most, not a felony. So, why the bloody hell are Bragg and Merchan treating this like a criminal felony?
Part of the reason we still do not know so much of anything about this case is because the presiding judge, Juan Manuel Merchan, has not allowed any discussion whatsoever of Bragg’s criminal theory of liability through expert witnesses. We have so far heard ad nauseam from Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, who were the prosecution’s one-two punch used to assassinate President Trump’s character in the courtroom and deny him the presumption of innocence, about how bad a man Donald Trump supposedly is. But hardly anything from the Defense! Why? Because Merchan would not allow it!
Instead, the Defense has only been allowed to bring in one witness, Robert Costello, a battle tested defense attorney of the SDNY and former legal adviser of Michael Cohen. For his part, Cohen’s testimony arguably did more to discredit the People’s theory of the case than Donald Trump’s – after all, he admitted to lying on the stand under Congressional oath years ago, stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization, committing perjury, and profiting off the trial, among a litany of other damning revelations. Costello drove the nail in the coffin, corroborating Cohen’s own testimony that his former client is a liar, fraudster, and perjurer – who acted totally independently and without President Trump’s knowledge.
Nevertheless, the Defense has every right to bring in cooperative witnesses of their own – expert witnesses, who can speak to the propriety of the laws being applied, for example, and clarify both to jurors and the press from whom the rest of the world is loath to rely upon to hear about these proceedings (given that no television cameras are allowed in the courtroom), about how a certain law should be interpreted. In fact, not only is a criminal defendant permitted to bring in cooperative witnesses: he has a constitutional prerogative to do so. Yet, those fundamental rights are being made into mincemeat by Merchan and Bragg, in real time – with impunity.
Thus, Merchan’s decision last week to bar expert testimony from a former FEC commissioner, who was a cooperative witness for the defense, was a blow to the justice system. Already, Merchan’s show trial has repeatedly (and rightly) been called a “sham trial” and “kangaroo court” for his flagrant disregard of judicial norms, professional ethics, due process, and the rule of law.
It is bad enough that the Judge gagged the defendant, hamstringing the presidential frontrunner from using his social media platform, Truth Social, to expose the innumerable conflicts implicating Merchan that would normally disqualify any other sitting judge from being allowed to continue presiding over a criminal trial of this kind. But now, the judge has decided to take things one step further by unilaterally denying the Defendant’s right to bring expert witnesses into the courtroom. Merchan has declared like a tinpot dictator, almost verbatim according to those with intimate knowledge of the proceeding, that “only I can say what the law means!” To hell with longstanding legal precedent, to say nothing of the rules of evidence and criminal procedure that are supposed to regulate a trial of this sort – and which, given the importance of the Defendant, should be rigorously upheld. This, especially considering what devastation a trial involving the next President might wreck on the integrity of the justice system overall.
Merchan has so far run roughshod over the rule of law, making a casualty of the legitimacy of the New York State criminal system in the process. The statute cited above requires two crimes to raise the falsification scheme to a first-degree felony. The fraud must have been done with “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” Bragg’s prosecutors are now claiming that the second crime is some ill-defined FEC violation, which raises a slew of separate legal questions. But not being able to interrogate an expert on federal election law in court is the ultimate miscarriage of a justice system already loaded with abuses and unprecedented violations.
Especially now with the FEC issue front and center, it raises the separate issue of why this case is being brought in state court altogether, and not federal court? If the case involves a federal issue, the jurisdiction here is all wrong: state courts have no authority over the subject matter. This is a case that would normally get preempted or barred by federal courts – the FEC, a federal agency, has its own intricate rules over election-related questions and thus exclusive jurisdiction over any such matters.
At a bare minimum, an expert witness should be allowed to opine on the issue in state court – and not be prohibited because it hurts the judge’s ego. This is a clear reversible error because the President’s fundamental rights have been so callously violated. This abuse alone should have prompted a mistrial – it is the reason, as well, why so many legal commentators and scholars have said this case will be easily tossed on appeal, because of the widespread, undeniable prejudice that was allowed to take place under these unprecedented conditions.
All of which only further underscores that Judge Merchan is not acting like a reasonable judge taking seriously his constitutional oath to apply the law faithfully and impartially, but as a political hack overseeing the weaponization (and corruption) of the rule of law in the once free Republic known as the United States. Merchan has retrofitted his office into another partisan instrument to suppress enemies of the Biden Regime, nothing more. This trial is a witch-hunt, a hatchet job, and a kangaroo court of the highest order. It is a colossal waste of money and time, and an egregious misallocation of precious resources – like NYPD personnel and vehicles – that should be used to patrol the streets of violent crime and illegal migrants.
Every single American should be enraged by the corruption of justice being done in real time, and no matter the verdict of this trial, it will go down in infamy as a permanent blotch on the justice system, one that will take at least a generation to restore back to the glory it once had prior to Juan Merchan, Alvin Bragg, and Joe Biden taking a battering ram to it with disregard for the rights of every American.
The post Entering Summations Week, One Thing Is Clear: Merchan’s Show Trial Is A Travesty Of The Justice System appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
At no other time in President Trump’s political career have his poll numbers been as good as they are now. Not at this stage of the campaign in 2020, not even in 2016. Currently, President Trump commands a significant lead – somewhere between 2 and 6 points, per the RCP average – over Joe Biden in the national polls. Good as those numbers are, they belie even better results when broken down by swing state: according to the latest RCP figures, the 45th President beats Biden by 4 and 12 points in the seven most competitive battleground states this cycle: Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Nevada was a state that was considered safely Democratic as recently as 2020. The Silver State has not been won by a Republican since George Bush eked out a 3 point victory over John Kerry back in 2004. This was not a state that pundits considered would ever become competitive again, given the changing demographic realities on the ground — and the Democratic Party’s previous monopoly over Hispanics, a group that represents an outsized portion of Nevada’s voters in recent years. But President Trump has defied all expectations: he now leads there by anywhere between 5 and a 13-point margin – putting him safely beyond the margin of error. In addition, the presidential frontrunner commands significant leads in both Georgia (+4.0) and Arizona (+4.1), two states that were subject to widespread voter fraud that unfairly turned the tables to Biden’s advantage four years ago.
North Carolina, once considered an intensely competitive battleground that Trump just squeaked by in his previous two presidential runs, is now safely in the Republican’s corner – so much so that most pundits have already written it off as being safely red, even though Obama carried the state in 2008.
Perhaps most significantly of all, formerly competitive states like Florida (+11.0) and Ohio (+10.0), are no longer even being counted as battlegrounds. The 45th President’s lead is so massive in those two states that they are now being grouped in the same category as states like Texas and Kentucky, which President Trump easily carried in both previous cycles, as being well out of Biden’s reach.
The verdict explaining this momentum is clear: if the election were held today, President Trump would win by a larger electoral margin than 2016 and amass more popular votes than he did in 2020. Today, the President can safely bet that he will win all the above swing states, cruising to at least a 312 to 226 electoral college victory. And that analysis discounts states like Minnesota, a state that Reagan could not even carry in his landslide victory in 1984, where polling now showcases President Trump behind by a measly two points.
If the election were held today, the President would easily win all the competitive battleground states (WI, MI, PA, NC, GA, AZ, and NV), cruising to at least a 312 to 226 electoral college victory (outpacing his historic 304 to 227 victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016). There is a possibility that President Trump can also pick off states like Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, Virginia, and even New Jersey — and possibly New York, given his current momentum.
So too does the analysis disregard states like Maine, New Hampshire, and even New Jersey, where Biden’s “lead” in at least two of those three states has shrunken to within the margin of error. Recent polling out of the Garden State would likewise suggest the 45th President has more than a fighting chance: he’s behind by only 5 points there according to the Emerson College Poll from March. This is a lead that has likely evaporated further still in the wake of the historic presidential rally President Trump held earlier this month in Wildwood, that broke records for the largest presidential rally in state history.
To put matters into perspective, at this point in the 2016 race, the Real Clear Polling average had placed Clinton up over Trump by a whopping 20 points. This advantage at the time included states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where the RCP final polls before Election Day had Clinton anywhere between a 2- and 8-point lead. And those margins held steady despite the normal tightening that invariably occurs in the weeks leading up to any presidential election. Six months out from Election Day in 2016, however, RCP had Clinton trouncing Trump by most polls – further underscoring the significance of the shift that has occurred in President Trump’s favor over the last eight years.
Similarly, in 2020, RCP polling had Biden forecasted with a seven-point lead over Donald Trump heading into Election Day. That Biden margin had generally remained consistent, with some expected tightening, in the months leading up to Election Day. The polling at the time had Biden winning states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin – and further predicted him carrying states like Arizona, Florida, and Nevada. Now, four years later, every single one of those states are thoroughly out of Joe Biden’s reach, who languishes behind President Trump by margins far worse than Hillary Clinton did at this same juncture in the campaign some four years earlier, according to statewide RCP polling averages.
Now, all that is not to suggest polling is the be and end all – far from it. Experience would show just how easily the polls can be rigged in favor of the Regime-approved candidate (as was the case for Clinton), or, if polling fails, how the Election itself might be rigged in favor of the Regime-approved candidate (as was the case for Biden). Nevertheless, President Trump’s new campaign slogan “too big to rig” has more going for it than simply being another catchy slogan – and reason as well to be hopefully optimistic.
As we approach the summer months, we enter down the final stretch of the 2024 cycle; while opportunities abound for the Regime to manipulate and sabotage the results of 2024, much as they did in 2020 with the COVID-lockdowns and George Floyd riots, those odds become less and less as we move closer to November. Why? For no simpler reason that it is much, much harder to gaslight a population with manipulative propaganda into believing an election was won by a candidate who allegedly commanded a ten-point advantage in the lead-up to Election Day than with the non-Regime approved candidate who nonetheless is up in virtually every key battleground state, well outside the margin of error, six months out from the election.
Now, that is not to say such manipulation is implausible; rather, that commentary merely underlines the difficulties the Regime will face in selling to the population their preferred electoral outcome, if and when they choose to once again meddle with the election procedures. In other words, even the best propaganda in the world will run into significant challenges thwarting the reality on the ground. That is not to disregard it as a possibility (the likeliest scenario is that it will happen, and we have not even seen the worst of it yet); but merely to highlight the importance of good polling and the fanfare that has so far helped fuel the President’s record-breaking rally sizes, all of which in turn helps shape public perception that President Trump’s movement must be undefeatable.
In politics, perception many times is reality – or becomes reality soon enough. Whenever reality and perception align perfectly, as it does this year with President Trump’s 2024 campaign, it creates a political juggernaut. And that is exactly what accounts for President Trump’s unprecedented polling this many months out from November. And that is exactly what President Trump’s 2024 campaign is: a political juggernaut — one sustained by historic momentum that will likely never be seen again in our lifetimes.
The post Donald Trump Is Polling Better Than Ever In His Political Career – And Here’s The Proof appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Donald Trump is back in court today for Alvin Bragg’s show trial in New York City.
Serial liar Michael Cohen is back on the stand today after his questionable testimony last week.
The prosecution has yet to define the alleged criminal act that President Trump committed.
BREAKING: @Lawrence seen in the press overflow section at the Trump trial. He has a mad scowl on his face — clearly all the years of his chronic TDS has worn him out badly!
These people are letting their Trump hatred destroy them, and it shows! Sad!
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: President Trump enters Judge Merchan’s kangaroo courtroom. Making appearances at the courtroom with the President today are @AlanDersh@EricTrump@AlinaHabbaamong others.
BREAKING: President Trump enters Judge Merchan’s kangaroo courtroom. Making appearances at the courtroom with the President today are @AlanDersh, @EricTrump, and @AlinaHabba, among others.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: Judge Merchan opens the day by disrespecting the President yet again. He referred to the Defendant as “Mr. Trump,” rather than “President Trump.” Show some respect for the 47th President, loser!
BREAKING: Judge Merchan opens the day by disrespecting the President yet again. He referred to the Defendant as “Mr. Trump,” rather than “President Trump.” Show some respect for the 47th President, loser!
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: It seems like the trial will go at least another week, based on Judge Merchan’s introductory remarks. Says summations will not be scheduled until early next week, likely on Tuesday.
BREAKING: It seems like the trial will go at least another week, based on Judge Merchan’s introductory remarks. Says summations will not be scheduled until early next week, likely on Tuesday.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: Judge Merchan is extremely limiting the scope of what the Defense expert witness can testify to. The defense is attempting to bring a former commissioner from the FEC, who happens to also be a lawyer, as their expert to the witness stand, presumably to ask and clarify for the jury, in part, why this case has not been preempted (or ‘barred’) by federal law, since this case is, after all, allegedly a federal election law violation. Judge Merchan is not allowing the Defense to clarify the meanings of technical legal jargon for the jury. He seems to not be allowing them to read statutes or ask statute-related questions, or ask about how the law has been previously interpreted by other courts. Merchan is attempting to restrict the direct examination to very general questions, and it’s obvious why: this case should not be in state court at all! If the law was being fairly applied, this case would not have gotten off the ground in the first place!
BREAKING: Judge Merchan is extremely limiting the scope of what the Defense expert witness can testify to.
The defense is attempting to bring a former commissioner from the FEC, who happens to also be a lawyer, as their expert to the witness stand, presumably to ask and…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Emil Bove (Trump defense attorney): The charge here is only unlawful if there’s unlawful activity, so otherwise it’s just an agreement to try to win an election.
Merchan: You’ve known for months what my position would be. You ask for further legal guidance, but that’s why we had a pre-charge conference. It would be inappropriate to tell you right now what my charge is going to be without hearing both sides of the argument.
Emil Bove: The government has not even established that there was an intent to defraud and intent to conceal a crime. It would only be a crime, under New York law, unless there was an intent to commit a crime.
Emil Bove (Trump defense attorney): The charge here is only unlawful if there’s unlawful activity, so otherwise it’s just an agreement to try to win an election.
Merchan: You’ve known for months what my position would be. You ask for further legal guidance, but that’s why we had…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Bragg attorney: The defense is not entitled to have an expert (a lawyer, law professor, and former commissioner at the FEC) to opine on federal election law! Because his testimony would be based on interpretation, it would be inappropriate!
Bragg attorney: The defense is not entitled to have an expert (a lawyer, law professor, and former commissioner at the FEC) to opine on federal election law! Because his testimony would be based on interpretation, it would be inappropriate!
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: Liar, perjurer, and fraudster — Michael Cohen — takes the witness stand for a fourth day now.
BREAKING: Liar, perjurer, and fraudster — Michael Cohen — takes the witness stand for a fourth day now.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: Since last Thursday, how many reporters have you spoken to?
Cohen: I didn’t speak to reporters.
Blanche: You didn’t speak to reporters?
Cohen: I spoke to reporters to say ‘hello’ and ‘how you’re doing?’ but nothing about this case.
Blanche: How many times have you spoken to reporters just this year?
Cohen: More than a dozen.
Blanche: More than a dozen? Like, more than 12, like 20 times?
Cohen: Probably, yes. Blanche: I’m not looking for an exact number, but was it closer to 20 or closer to 12?
Cohen: Closer to 20.
Blanche: And you met with these reporters, sometimes, longer than an hour?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: When you spoke to them, they asked you questions similar to questions on the stand, right?
Cohen: The same topics, yes.
Blanche: When the prosecutors asked you questions Monday and Tuesday, you had heard them beforehand from the press, correct?
Cohen: I heard many questions that I had not heard before.
Blanche: Since last Thursday, how many reporters have you spoken to?
Cohen: I didn’t speak to reporters.
Blanche: You didn’t speak to reporters?
Cohen: I spoke to reporters to say ‘hello’ and ‘how you’re doing?’ but nothing about this case.
Blanche: How many times have you…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: Any time you’ve testified under oath, you’ve prepped for it?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: You met with your lawyer, maybe not 20 times, but you’ve prepped with your lawyers before testifying, right?
Cohen: That’s correct.
Blanche: You’ve met with Rep. Dan Goldman to prepare for congressional testimony?
Cohen: Yes, sir. Blanche: How many times have you met with him?
Cohen: I believe twice.
Blanche: You realize he’s a former federal prosecutor?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: During the testimony you gave in February of 2019, that’s one of the times you’ve lied, right?
Cohen: That’s correct.
Blanche: Any time you’ve testified under oath, you’ve prepped for it?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: You met with your lawyer, maybe not 20 times, but you’ve prepped with your lawyers before testifying, right?
Cohen: That’s correct.
Blanche: You’ve met with Rep. Dan Goldman to…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: You did steal from the Trump organization, correct?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
What a scumbag!
Blanche: You did steal from the Trump organization, correct?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
What a scumbag!
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: You told everybody you were the personal attorney of Donald J. Trump?
Cohen: I didn’t tell everybody but I was certainly proud of it.
Blanche: You told TMZ?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: You told The NY Times?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: You went on Sean Hannity’s show to talk about it?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: You told everybody you were the personal attorney of Donald J. Trump?
Cohen: I didn’t tell everybody but I was certainly proud of it.
Blanche: You told TMZ?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: You told The NY Times?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: You went on Sean Hannity’s show to…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: You got paid $4 million for your consulting work in 2017?
Cohen: Yes.
Blanche: What did you do?
Cohen: I did consulting and advisory work for AT&T.
Blanche: Did you tell President Trump about the consulting work you did?
Cohen: He introduced me to the CEO of AT&T.
Blanche: But you didn’t disclose to him that you had independent agreements with AT&T to do consulting work?
Cohen: That’s correct.
Blanche: And once President Trump he was frustrated, correct?
Bragg prosecutor: Objection! Merchan: Objection sustained.
Blanche: You got paid $4 million for your consulting work in 2017?
Cohen: Yes.
Blanche: What did you do?
Cohen: I did consulting and advisory work for AT&T.
Blanche: Did you tell President Trump about the consulting work you did?
Cohen: He introduced me to the CEO of AT&T.…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: How much is the most you’ve made over an 18 month period in your life?
Cohen: Over $5 million.
Blanche: Between the time you pled guilty and the time you published your book, you said you didn’t have an income, correct?
Cohen: Correct. Blanche: You had to pay tax deficiencies?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: Lawyers?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: So since you’ve released your podcast (Mea Culpa, in which he rants about Trump all day) and sold your book (an anti-Trump screed), how much have you made?
Cohen: In total, about $4 million.
Blanche: You earn over a million a year?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: You’re also pitching a television show based on your life?
Cohen: I’m not pitching it but there is a tv show.
Blanche: Who is pitching it?
Cohen: A gentleman who used to be associated with the Mea Culpa podcast, Phil Halberstat.
Blanche: But it was at your direction, right?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: So once the show gets picked up, it’ll make you money, correct?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: How much is the most you’ve made over an 18 month period in your life?
Cohen: Over $5 million.
Blanche: Between the time you pled guilty and the time you published your book, you said you didn’t have an income, correct?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: You had to pay tax…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: How long have you been working with your colleague to pitch your proposed reality show “The Fixer”?
Cohen: About three months.
Blanche: And you’re working on a third book?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: Are you also considering a run for Congress?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: You have said that you would make a great candidate for Congress because of your name recognition?
Cohen: That’s correct.
Blanche: And your name recognition is based primarily on your attacks on President Trump.
Cohen: My name recognition is based on my life journey.
Blanche: And a large part of your life journey includes daily attacks on President Trump, correct?
Cohen: Sure.
Blanche: The answer is yes or no. You have dedicated a significant part of your podcasts and books to attacking President Trump daily, correct?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: So that would comprise a large part of your life journey, correct? Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: How long have you been working with your colleague to pitch your proposed reality show “The Fixer”?
Cohen: About three months.
Blanche: And you’re working on a third book?
Cohen: Correct.
Blanche: Are you also considering a run for Congress?
Cohen: Correct.…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: Do you have a financial interest in the outcome of this case?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: Do you have a financial interest in the outcome of this case?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: Did you mean it when you said revenge is a dish best served cold?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: You were willing to lie under oath if it affects your personal life, correct?
Cohen: I don’t understand your question.
Blanche: You testified under oath months ago that you were willing to lie if it affects your personal life, correct?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: So I’m asking the same question to you now: would you still be willing to lie if it affects your personal life?
Bragg prosecutor: Objection!
Merchan: Objection sustained.
Blanche: Would you be willing to lie if it affects you personally?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: Did you mean it when you said revenge is a dish best served cold?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: You were willing to lie under oath if it affects your personal life, correct?
Cohen: I don’t understand your question.
Blanche: You testified under oath months ago that you…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: President Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday that many people are thinking that Bragg’s office wanted to possibly drop all the charges, in light of Michael Cohen’s testimony, which court observers have described as “catastrophic” for the prosecution. Further proof of how bad this case has been is found in the fact that Anderson Cooper, Kaitlan Collins, and many other liberal commentators immediately took to CNN, MSDNC, and other networks, admitting they would acquit President Trump if they were jurors in this case! Cohen’s testimony has been so damning that even the fake news can’t deny reality!
President Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday that many people are thinking that Bragg’s office wanted to possibly drop all the charges, in light of Michael Cohen’s testimony, which court observers have described as “catastrophic” for the prosecution.
Further proof of how bad… https://t.co/TeN9GYoCid pic.twitter.com/DvkjlV5KUp
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: Defense now calls Daniel Sitko, paralegal and legal analyst for Blanche Law, PLLC, to the witness stand.
BREAKING: Defense now calls Daniel Sitko, paralegal and legal analyst for Blanche Law, PLLC, to the witness stand.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: I observed this miserable wretch in the press overhead room today. He had a mad scowl on his face all morning long, didn’t talk to anyone, including other members of the fake news media. You can tell nobody likes or respects this guy, including his own peers. He truly is a sick puppy — consumed by hatred and mentally unsound. TDS is an all-consuming mental illness that affects mind, body, and soul, and this guy has maybe the worst case of it on television! Sad!
I observed this miserable wretch in the press overhead room today. He had a mad scowl on his face all morning long, didn’t talk to anyone, including other members of the fake news media. You can tell nobody likes or respects this guy, including his own peers.
He truly is a… https://t.co/OxWoYq3RAB
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: Defense calls ROBERT COSTELLO, former legal adviser to none other than Michael Cohen himself, to the witness stand!
BREAKING: Defense calls ROBERT COSTELLO, former legal adviser to none other than Michael Cohen himself, to the witness stand!
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: There has been an extended back and forth between the Defense, Judge Merchan, and the Prosecution over Robert Costello’s impending testimony, resulting in delays. The Prosecution is trying to filibuster Costello from taking the stand, arguing that his testimony would be collateral and thus inadmissible under the rules of evidence. Bragg’s attorneys know that Costello will drive the nail in the coffin of their case, which is now on life support after Michael Cohen’s dumpster fire of a testimony this morning in which he admitted to lying to protect his personal interests, financially profiting off Trump and the trial, and stealing from the Trump Organization, among other damning revelations. Stay tuned!
BREAKING: There has been an extended back and forth between the Defense, Judge Merchan, and the Prosecution over Robert Costello’s impending testimony, resulting in delays. The Prosecution is trying to filibuster Costello from taking the stand, arguing that his testimony would…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: Did you consider your conversation with Michael Cohen during your first meeting with him at the Regency Hotel to be protected by the attorney client privilege?
Prosecutor: Objection!
Merchan: Sustained!
Costello: Cohen was absolutely manic, pacing back and forth, left and right. After he explained what was going on, he said my life was shattered, my family’s life was shattered. He used the phrase, “What is my escape route?”
Blanche: It was cooperation he was looking for?
Costello: Absolutely! Prosecutor has objected at least a half a dozen times throughout this exchange already.
Blanche: Did you consider your conversation with Michael Cohen during your first meeting with him at the Regency Hotel to be protected by the attorney client privilege?
Prosecutor: Objection!
Merchan: Sustained!
Costello: Cohen was absolutely manic, pacing back and forth, left…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Costello: I explained to Michael Cohen that the investigation would be resolved within a week if he had truthful information about Donald J. Trump.
Blanche: What information did he disclose?
Costello: Cohen said, “I swear to God, I have absolutely nothing to say about Donald John Trump.”
Blanche: What did he have to say about Stormy Daniels?
Costello: He said, “I don’t know why they’re trying to put me in jail over some f***cking NDAs.”
Blanche: Did he say anything about Donald Trump in connection with Stormy Daniels manner?
Costello: He did.
Prosecutor: Objection! Merchan: Sustained.
Blanche: Did President Trump’s family come up?
Costello: It did.
Blanche: What did Cohen say about Trump’s family?
Prosecutor: Objection!
Merchan: Sustained!
Costello: I explained to Michael Cohen that the investigation would be resolved within a week if he had truthful information about Donald J. Trump.
Blanche: What information did he disclose?
Costello: Cohen said, “I swear to God, I have absolutely nothing to say about Donald…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: I want to focus narrowly on about whether Cohen knew if Trump said anything about the payments to Stormy Daniels. Costello: Cohen repeated numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about these payments and that Cohen DID THIS ON HIS OWN.
Blanche: I want to focus narrowly on about whether Cohen knew if Trump said anything about the payments to Stormy Daniels.
Costello: Cohen repeated numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about these payments and that Cohen DID THIS ON HIS OWN.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Merchan grows irate, begins ESCORIATING Robert Costello on the stand for making a few off-handed remarks and rolling his eyes during the testimony.
Merchan: Are you staring me down right now?
Costello: I’m not.
Merchan: GET OUT OF THE COURTROOM, NOW! GET OUT OF THE COURTROOM! *VIDEO CUTS OUT* SHOW TRIAL!
Merchan grows irate, begins ESCORIATING Robert Costello on the stand for making a few off-handed remarks and rolling his eyes during the testimony.
Merchan: Are you staring me down right now?
Costello: I’m not.
Merchan: GET OUT OF THE COURTROOM, NOW! GET OUT OF THE COURTROOM!…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: Trial now resumes after delay following fiery exchange between Merchan and Costello about courtroom conduct.
Merchan is absolutely seething over Costello’s damning testimony. The type of treatment Costello, an experienced prosecutor who once worked for the US Attorney’s Office for New York in the 1970s and early 1980s, is receiving on the witness stand from the judge is disgusting.
Merchan is visibly perturbed, condescending, and downright abusive of the witness on the stand. Outrageous behavior from a judge, and totally inappropriate for any courtroom! No decorum whatsoever!
BREAKING: Trial now resumes after delay following fiery exchange between Merchan and Costello about courtroom conduct.
Merchan is absolutely seething over Costello’s damning testimony. The type of treatment Costello, an experienced prosecutor who once worked for the US…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche:Did you ever put any pressure on Cohen?
Costello: No.
Blanche: Did you ever put any pressure on Rudy Giuliani.
Costello: No.
Blanche: Whose interests did you care about when you worked with Michael Cohen?
Costello: Exclusively Michael Cohen. Nobody else. He was my only client.
Blanche: Did Cohen pay you?
Costello: No.
Blanche: Did your firm at the time try to collect payment?
Costello: No, and they didn’t sue.
Blanche: Why?
Costello: It wasn’t enough.
Costello: Did you ever put any pressure on Cohen?
Costello: No.
Blanche: Did you ever put any pressure on Rudy Giuliani.
Costello: No.
Blanche: Whose interests did you care about when you worked with Michael Cohen?
Costello: Exclusively Michael Cohen. Nobody else. He was my…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Bragg Prosecutor: Did you say Michael Cohen was acting like a drama queen? Yes or No?
Costello: I said I didn’t know if Michael Cohen was acting like a drama queen.
Merchan, again, chastises Costello from the stand: WOULD YOU JUST ANSWER YES OR NO?
Bragg Prosecutor: You don’t like drama queens, don’t you?
Bragg Prosecutor: Did you say Michael Cohen was acting like a drama queen? Yes or No?
Costello: I said I didn’t know if Michael Cohen was acting like a drama queen.
Merchan, again, chastises Costello from the stand: WOULD YOU JUST ANSWER YES OR NO?
Bragg Prosecutor: You don’t…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: BREAKING: Merchan, visibly exasperated, hastily ends the day’s proceedings. Implores jurors to not research the case, through media, email, telephone, texts, or the internet. Reminds them they should not Google or discuss the case outside the courtroom.
Abruptly says “have a good night,” then cuts out the video. On hot mic, urges Costello to step down from the witness stand.
Merchan is obviously disgusted by Costello, whose testimony has thrown a huge wrench into Bragg’s case, unlike anything we have seen thus far this entire show trial. Fireworks!
BREAKING: Merchan, visibly exasperated, hastily ends the day’s proceedings. Implores jurors to not research the case, through media, email, telephone, texts, or the internet. Reminds them they should not Google or discuss the case outside the courtroom.
Abruptly says “have a…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
Paul Ingrassia: Blanche: The prosecutor has been trying to push a theory of the defense stealing the election, but there is no evidence of underlying criminal intent to anything prosecution is claiming: that is a matter of law, and the predicates used by the prosecution to support their criminal conspiracy theory should not be allowed.
There is absolutely no evidence that Trump or any of the co-conspirators had any criminal intent at the time they were engaging in this conduct. There was no discussion about catch and kill, financial payments that would be made with respect to any stories. So there is no evidence of criminal intent or criminal misconduct supporting a conspiracy formed at this first meeting that carried out over the next year-plus.
Karen McDougall didn’t even want her story out. She wanted an arrangement with AMI to be on the covers of magazines, have a column, etc. Not catch and kill a story. So while that was the word used by Mr. Cohen, it was not the evidence that came out at trial.
So if there is a conspiracy to influence the election, how on earth is a false story – and a decision made to pay off the false story – a catch and kill? It’s not, and it’s certainly not a criminal catch and kill.
The underlying predicate that would make this misdemeanor a felony, as argued by the Prosecution, has no evidence to support a criminal conspiracy. For that reason, the court should enter a verdict in favor of the defendant.
There is no way this court should allow this case to go to the jury relying on Mr. Cohen’s testimony. And the People’s case, I don’t think would dispute, rests entirely on the credibility of Mr. Cohen’s testimony.
Mr. Cohen lied to this court repeatedly about, for example, his testimony before Congress, about having never asked them for a pardon.
Merchan: Would you like me to take it out of the jury’s hands that Mr. Cohen’s entire testimony should not be considered by the jury?
Blanche: That’s exactly what I want you to do. That Mr. Cohen’s entire testimony should not be allowed.
Blanche: The prosecutor has been trying to push a theory of the defense stealing the election, but there is no evidence of underlying criminal intent to anything prosecution is claiming: that is a matter of law, and the predicates used by the prosecution to support their criminal…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 20, 2024
The post LIVE UPDATES FROM INSIDE TRUMP TRIAL: TGP Contributor Paul Ingrassia Reports from Inside New York Court Room appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
With week four of the Alvin Bragg show trial in the books, it is now crystal clear (if somehow it already wasn’t) that the New York District Attorney has no case. As it stands, the two star witnesses for the prosecution – Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen – proved cataclysmic; so much so that even liberal talking heads like Anderson Cooper and Alyssa Farah fretted on networks like CNN, saying they would acquit President Trump of all allegations given just how bad Cohen’s testimony was.
Of course, what precisely those allegations are remains a mystery – to everyone, including likely Bragg himself. Lost in all the sensationalism of this case is the stubborn fact that there is no there there. We are all left scratching our heads still for an explanation why an apparent FEC violation is being brought in state court? We are also left wondering why such an offense is a crime at all.
This case has been skewering in court for a month now, following a seven-year stretch in which the underlying allegations ping-ponged from federal agency to federal agency, to be passed on one after the other because – and I risk repeating myself – there is no crime for which to prosecute anyone. Not seven years ago, nor now.
Case in point: we still have not heard a theory of criminality. Typically, in a court of law, a crime is propounded by the prosecution. It is incumbent upon the State to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If one or more elements fail that test, the defendant is acquitted. Case closed.
This is the first criminal proceeding in the history of New York criminal law in which not even a crime has been articulated when the case was brought to trial. There are a ton of rumors of course – and ridiculous, groundless speculation – that President Trump could face anywhere between 30 days and 130 years if he is convicted. The prosecution has hid the ball, however, all throughout the proceeding.
This would ordinarily not make any sense. But it is apparent that Bragg’s strategy is this: because there is no crime, it is necessary to muddy the waters and confuse the jurors as much as possible. Hence, the delays, innuendo, porn-stars, and unprecedented rule-breaking.
Bragg is betting that all twelve jurors are even dumber than he as to not realize that the prosecutors are running roughshod around the normal rules governing a criminal trial. He thinks, perhaps owing to his own lack of intelligence (after all, Bragg is a DEI appointee), that all the chicanery and sabotage of the rule of law that has defined this trial so far will go unnoticed by the twelve jurors. For that would seem to be the only way Bragg, at this point, would be able to get a conviction. In any other situation, this case would have already been dismissed.
Perhaps he is right. Perhaps the jurors are as dumb as Bragg believes them to be. Although their identities have not been publicly disclosed, there is every reason to believe they are sympathetic to Bragg’s politics, given that they were handpicked by far-left prosecutors in far-left Manhattan, which, in 2020, voted for Biden over Trump 9 to 1.
But even if that all were true, the jurors would have to be extreme ideologues to digest the absolute dumpster fire of a testimony that unfurled in that courthouse this past week to rule in the prosecutor’s favor. Again, it would only require one juror to break ranks to cause a hung jury – that is all President Trump needs.
And after this week, with Michael Cohen testifying that he’s had a longstanding personal vendetta against the leading candidate to be America’s next president after being snubbed of a long-desired White House post during President Trump’s first administration – either as Chief of Staff, for which he expressed deep interest to many confidantes, or White House Counsel – it would take only the most devout anti-Trump juror to accept Bragg’s so-called “theory” of liability.
In liberal Manhattan, it is reasonable to believe maybe a handful, even a majority, of the jurors are ideological fanatics, in lockstep with Bragg, James, and Merchan in their TDS-levels. But all twelve? That is likely, hopefully, a bridge too far, even for the most passionate liberal.
Why? Well, notwithstanding that any of the jurors are blackmailed or gaslit into marching to the beat of Bragg and Merchan’s orders (which is a real possibility), it is pretty safe to say at this point that Bragg’s sham show trial has completely unraveled.
For his part, Donald Trump is coming out of this looking better than ever – and the poll numbers express it. The court of public opinion, where some morsels of justice still exist, have clearly exposed Bragg’s trial for what it is: an assault on the integrity of the justice system. The President’s skyrocketing momentum is the ultimate indictment of the goings-on in that kangaroo courthouse.
In Merchan’s court, the rule of law does not apply: the laws governing the admission of evidence and the exclusion of such hearsay like prior bad acts and prejudicial character assassination are plainly inoperative.
Nor too do the rules pertaining to conflicts of interest – if they did, the case would never have been able to get off the ground. Merchan’s wife worked for Letitia James, and his daughter has Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as clients through her political consulting firm. For a second time (or third? I’ve lost count): case closed.
What is more, Bragg’s lead prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, was the number three appointee of Joe Biden’s DOJ, proving a direct link to the Biden Regime itself.
No lawyer with Colangelo’s resume would ever step down from a government post as prestigious as Colangelo’s former position at the Department of Justice, in exchange for working in a drab state D.A.’s office, unless he was operating under the order to, in the infamous words of the New York AG, “get” Donald Trump. No greater case of election-interference exists in American history.
Also ignored in Merchan’s court are the rules governing venue. Allegedly, this is an FEC violation – that is what we are being told forms the nucleus of the underlying crime. The FEC, last I checked, in a federal agency – meaning it implicates federal issues, not state issues.
Thus, the issue should have been preempted or barred until the FEC took up the case. So, pray tell, why are we in state court? We know already that hush money payments and NDAs, as unsavory as they may seem, are perfectly lawful. They have always been legal, and have never, ever – until President Trump’s trial – formed the basis for a criminal prosecution, let alone a felony crime.
And yet here we are. Is Merchan suggesting that anyone who has ever signed an NDA or made a hush money payment a crime? That, at least, would appear to be the novel precedent being set by his court. That would mean at least half the American population should be put behind bars. Equal justice under law, right?
But perhaps the most unbelievable precedent being set by Merchan of all is the idea that a serial liar, and convicted perjurer, could, simply on the basis of his prejudicial and contradiction-riven testimony, forge the entire theory of liability for a criminal trial!
And yet, that is exactly what is happening in Merchan’s courthouse with the testimony of Michael Cohen. The State’s entire case rests on the credibility of a known fraudster and liar.
Cohen even admitted on the stand, on more than one occasion, to being a known fraudster and liar (and dare I add: sleaze-bag). He shamelessly announced on the witness stand that his intent all along has been to subject President Trump to the same process that he went through. He was unapologetic about it. That was his motive from the get-go. And yet, here we are.
Even when President Trump is exonerated of these bogus charges, an inevitability, the damage to the rule of law has been already done. It will take generations at least to rehabilitate the integrity of the criminal justice system, which has been torn to smithereens with shameless abandon in Juan Merchan’s courthouse.
That is the real tragedy of this whole charade; and hopefully a lesson that is not lost on those of us so unfortunate to bear witness to the dismal death of America’s justice system in real time.
The post There’s No There There: How Alvin Bragg’s Case Imploded This Week With Michael Cohen’s Disastrous Testimony appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
With news of the recent departure of RINO RNC General Counsel, Charlie Spies, there is now a prime opening for the next General Counsel to lay down a truly bold, MAGA-aligned agenda to ensure the election procedures and laws are as fortified and secure as possible in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
Special attention must invariably be placed on critical battleground states like Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.
By fortifying election procedures in those states, an undertaking that must prioritize maximizing voter turnout via registration campaigns and ballot harvesting efforts coupled with a legal strategy centered on bringing transparency and accountability back to electioneering, Republicans will find themselves having a much easier time litigating irregularities and fraud if and when those problems do reoccur, rather than having to play again from behind – much as they did four years ago.
One of the advantages of enduring these last four grueling, dismal, miserable years – a period of unprecedented constitutional breakdown in American history defined by witch-hunts, political persecutions, censorship, gaslighting, deplatforming, and general conspiracy and paranoia – is that more Americans than ever are awakened to the harsh realities of voter fraud and election corruption generally speaking; and the horrors that might befall the republic if those issues are ignored and left to fester and metastasize.
America now finds itself on the brink of totalitarianism; a despotism once characteristic of socialist and communist banana republics to our South has arrived on these shores with a vengeance.
This explains the importance of the 2024 presidential election in a nutshell: its outcome will determine whether the United States continues to sustain as a bastion of freedom the world over or succumb to tyranny once and for all. There is no third option.
President Trump arrived on the political scene in 2016, when nearly all hope was lost, and breathed life into our decadent and desiccated nation – made weak over decades by a bipartisan consensus in Washington that engorged on the excesses of its own self-indulgence — an indulgence that has carved out America’s middle class by offshoring industrial jobs to places like China, while empowering our foreign adversaries to the detriment of our national security – and overall sovereignty.
Despite having been unceremoniously ousted from office in 2020, and targeted maliciously thereafter by a multi-pronged rapacious gaslighting campaign, executed by that same bipartisan consensus that bled America to near ruin, hardly anyone believed Donald Trump would be able to stage a comeback from so great a defeat. And yet here we are.
Blessedly, miraculously, the 45th President finds himself in a formidable political position four years since that dismal departure. By the force of his own indomitable will, aided by God’s good grace, President Trump is polling arguably better than he ever has at any point in his nearly ten-year sojourn in politics.
The traits that made Donald Trump such a tremendous salesman in private life have transmuted with uncanny dexterity to his political career. His branding skills that made the Trump name a standalone product later in his career remain unparalled.
He has the entrepreneur’s penchant for problem-solving, and the marketeer’s knack for making complex policy issues digestible for mass consumption. This explains the phenomenon of the Trump rally, which has no equivalent in the history of presidential politics – or, really, the politics of any nation.
The rally is at one and the same time quintessentially American and consummately Donald Trump: these go hand-in-hand in explaining the President’s durability, having withstood – and continuing to withstand – the tidal wave of criticism and attacks by a bloated administrative state.
The administrative or deep state can mobilize at the ready a coterie of apparatchiks in the media, judicial system, big tech, and even non-governmental organizations and institutions, which collectively march to the beat of the drum of the Biden Regime’s orders.
President Trump’s prowess on the campaign trail remains unrivaled; his popularity, coupled with his white martyrdom at the hand of a weaponized justice system, to which he has frequently made comparisons to Nelson Mandela, has only emboldened the MAGA faithful this cycle, more so than in 2020 or 2016.
The President’s supporters viscerally feel that the country is on the line, and that the 45th President is truly the only thing preventing the feds waging an all-out assault on their fundamental rights and liberties.
Indeed, in many cases, they already have: between the prosecutions of the J6 “political hostages,” to the crackdown on traditional Catholic masses and parents who protest the curricula of woke school boards, the Biden Regime has waged warfare directly on the American people, in a manner that is starkly reminiscent (for those Americans who lived through it) of the kinds of witch hunts routinely carried out in the former Soviet Union, or communist Cuba.
Which brings me back to the RNC. While President Trump right now must focus his attention on the indictments, trials, campaigning, and rallies, the RNC and its new General Counsel should strategize a counter-offensive, playing both offense and defense, to capitalize — and complement — as much as possible on President Trump’s success on the campaign trail, and the unintended political windfall he has thus far received from his many show trials.
Fundraising is one part of the equation, and under the new leadership it would appear based on recent reports that the newly overhauled RNC is doing quite well raking in the dough. But there is much more to winning than simply fundraising.
Being able to raise money is one side of the equation; deploying that money economically and efficiently, in a way that maximizes utility – factoring time constraints and personnel talent – is a completely different animal.
On that note, an effective RNC strategy would make the following agenda items a priority:
1. Engage the New York Gag Order: The need to run a counteroffensive for President Trump, while he is unable to speak and criticize the trial (which is teeming with disqualifying conflicts of interest), is of utmost importance.
The gag order can be criticized in myriad ways. Surrogates, including politicians who visit the courthouse – like, just this past week, Vivek Ramawamy, Sen. J.D. Vance, Gov. Doug Burgum, Rep. Byron Donalds, and Rep. Mike Johnson – should take to the airwaves, be it cable television, radio, print, and podcasting, to explain why Judge Merchan is egregiously wrong for having undermined the President’s due process and First Amendment rights.
Because of what is at stake here, the Constitution literally hangs in the balance, this narrative that Merchan is undermining the Constitution must be drilled home persistently, relentlessly. Politicians should encourage their peers, no matter their political office, to show up at the courthouse and sit there in solidarity with President Trump. They should likewise encourage their constituents to peacefully protest outside the courthouse, and continue to do so as long as the show trial remains in effect. They should demand Merchan recuse himself every single day until he does, or until he feels enough public pressure to step down from his post.
2. Engage in Counter Lawfare: The Right must learn from the Left and engage in counter lawfare. Speaker Johnson should subpoena Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Judge Merchan. While they currently operate behind closed doors (since cameras are not allowed in New York State criminal proceedings), they should be required to account for their actions, before the cameras, in front of the House Judiciary Committee.
Pledge to set up investigations into every rogue judge, prosecutor, district attorney, and attorney general once the Republicans reclaim power. House Republicans, especially within the New York GOP delegation, should inundate the New York State Court system with ethics complaints and lawsuits to signal their disapproval of what is going on. Congress should consider subpoenaing the New York State Bar, and if necessary, file charges against them for allowing Alvin Bragg and Letitia James to run roughshod over the New York judicial system.
The RNC can actively aid and abet Congress’ efforts, by mobilizing media campaigns and making lawfare strategy recommendations, of the kind outlined above. Alternatively, the RNC could draft and issue “letters of complaint,” a more informal method of attack, but in keeping with the general sentiment to always be on the offensive.
3. Investigate the Watchdog and Pressure Groups. The RNC must not only keep track of the groups that target media companies like Fox News and Newsmax with defamation lawsuits that prevent commentators to this day from discussing the outcome determinative fraud affecting the 2020 presidential election in any great detail.
Recently, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was put on leave from WABC radio for discussing the fraud and irregularities of the 2020 election – under no circumstances should anyone be professionally penalized for raising legitimate questions and conducting legitimate inquiries and investigations into our election procedures. If that topic is taken off the table, it is impossible to ensure free and fair elections, which is the lynchpin of our democracy. If there was no fraud, then let those who believe there was fraud to be discredited in the court of public opinion.
That is, after all, the whole point of the First Amendment. But to continue to shut those down who raise such allegations raises a strong suspicion that there in fact was fraud, and plausibly to a scale that was outcome determinative. Indeed, what else accounts for the fact that Joe Biden, who purportedly received more votes than any man in American history for President, also happens to have the lowest poll numbers in history?
Make that make sense. What is more, we now know, even more so than in the weeks and months immediately following the 2020 election, that there was evidence of systemic fraud – a ton of it, more of which continues to come out by the day and constantly redefines the narrative of just how corrupt the 2020 presidential race actually was.
One recent development, to drive the point home, is that Georgia’s State Election Board is now reviewing an allegation that Fulton County double counted thousands of ballots. Considering that Georgia was officially decided by an asserted 11,000 votes – the over 3,000 that were double-counted in Fulton County (which is surely indicative of fraud in other counties if proper investigations were allowed to be made), eats a significant portion of that vote total.
This is of course just one of many cases of widespread fraud that occurred in not only Georgia, but other key battleground states like Arizona, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Thus, the RNC must create a strategy with a focus on maximizing transparency into electioneering processes.
This calls for monitoring vote tabulation and ballot processing all throughout election season – with resources allocated based on the importance of the state or voting area. So, for instance, Fulton County, Philadelphia County, and Maricopa County should be prioritized over counties in conventionally non-competitive states.
4. Counter-Lawfare Strategy: Lawyers must be deployed on the ground, at the scene, on election day and on the days leading up to election day, to monitor electioneering processes to ensure best practices. Moreover, from a macro level, a counter-lawfare strategy must be devised to allow discussion of allegations of fraud without fear of reprisal.
One’s First Amendment right to speak freely and criticize and expose fraudulent election practices is inalienable and must be rigorously guarded in the courts of law. Where courts fail to uphold this sacred duty, appeals must be made.
Lawyers should also work to curb egregious attacks by the Left on the First Amendment – such as the absurdly high legal penalty Mayor Giuliani (as just one example) faces for criticizing the Dominion Voting Systems. Under no circumstances should one’s free speech rights be stripped away so callously and ruthlessly as Giuliani (and many others) experienced – which resulted in numerous professional and personal costs, including his recent termination by WABC radio.
Media organizations like WABC and Fox News should not feel pressure by activist left wing pressure groups – who get away with suing their political adversaries to oblivion. That should not be tolerated in a society that purports to uphold the rule of law (to say nothing of that little document called the Constitution).
An RNC-led conservative counter-lawfare strategy must lay down rigorous procedures to clearly telegraph that Left wing subversion into election procedures will no longer be tolerated – and if the Left attempts any funny business, they will be retaliated tenfold by the Right, with an blitzkrieg of lawsuits that will render leftist pressure groups bankrupt, and force them to heel.
That must be the general strategy and mentality of the next RNC and General Counsel, in particular. And it is imperative that they embark upon a media campaign to let their political opponents know that they mean business and will not be playing around.
5. Prevent Illegal Aliens From Voting: Given that Joe Biden’s border policy (or lack thereof) will unleash an estimated 7-10 million migrants (or more) into the American homeland once his term expires, it is imperative that the RNC leads a strong initiative to prevent illegal aliens from voting.
What should be a top priority for the RNC’s next General Counsel is to propose legislation that would make a felony of any non-citizen who votes in any election, and any institution – such as NGOs like Catholic Charities – that receive federal grants which might aid and abet illegal voting. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives should pass this legislation before Election Day, and the Senate should try to.
If the Senate fails to pass it, the Democrats – and Biden – will have to own the policy of effectively licensing illegals to vote, which a supermajority of American voters vehemently oppose. The next RNC General Counsel should also recommend that the House strip all funding – in terms of grants, mandates, and other federal monies – to NGOs that have facilitated Biden’s migrant catastrophe.
The RNC should also ask states to pass laws in special sessions that would make non-citizens voting a felony and encourage Republican Attorneys General to lead on this.
Politically, such policies could be a huge windfall for down ballot Republicans this cycle, given that, again, most Americans – of all political affiliations – absolutely abhor the idea of illegals and non-citizens voting in any election: local, state, or federal.
Let me repeat a third time: the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want illegals voting in their elections (as it stands, dead people are bad enough!). Make the Democrats own this issue by passing legislation in the House as well as Republican-controlled state legislatures. Not only would this initiative set a nice foundation for securing our elections, but it would be hugely politically advantageous.
The definition of lawfare is “waging war by use of law.” Does anyone on the Right recognize that we are not in a debate or a conversation about the future? Politics is war by other means. We are at war! Time for the next RNC General Counsel to adopt a war footing – before it is too late.
As the Don said of Spies, “you are not a wartime consigliere.” We are in war; the next General Counsel must have what it takes to win, win, win!
The post Wartime Consigliere: Here Are the Policies the Next RNC General Counsel Must Consider to Outflank Leftist Lawfare and Secure the 2024 Election appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Trump’s rally on Saturday in Wildwood, New Jersey was historic for a number of reasons. Its record-breaking, 100,000+ turnout was the largest political event in New Jersey history – and quite possibly, the largest presidential rally ever, at least in modern times. Perhaps even more remarkable is the fact that such an historic turnout occurred in deep-blue New Jersey, a state that has not voted for a Republican president since George H.W. Bush way back in 1988, nearly forty years ago.
President Trump, who, in 2020, garnered more votes than any presidential incumbent in American history, regaled the south New Jersey crowd with tales of his ongoing political persecution in neighboring New York, which he decried a “witch hunt” being carried out by a rogue D.A. and judge, both acting ultimately at the behest of Joe Biden and his weaponized DOJ.
President Trump’s barnstorming speech touched upon a smorgasbord of topics – from the ongoing Biden witch hunts to the catastrophic open border to conflict-riven Israel and Gaza to China’s monopolization of the global auto industry. From crime to inflation to the migrant crisis, President Trump, with arresting simplicity, articulated to his massive audience – many of whom endured unseasonably cool temperatures to catch a glimpse of the next President – how the Biden regime has caused virtually every single political malady afflicting America today. He described Biden as the worst president of all time and said that Biden does not even compare to the previous worst ten, and now fifteen, presidents added up.
Never has a so-called “president” in Biden waged an all-out assault against his likeliest successor the way Biden has against Trump; in large part owing to that fact, Trump now commands significant leads in virtually every reputable mainstream poll. What Biden is currently doing against Trump was, in the not-too-distant past, only seen in banana republics – never in American history has the Commander-in-Chief abandoned democracy and instead relied upon extralegal measures, like lawfare, election rigging, and flooding the electorate with third world aliens, to shore up his electoral prospects in the upcoming presidential race.
And indeed, the great lengths that Biden has taken to rig 2024 – much as the Democrats did four years ago – is testimony to Biden’s inability to win even under moderately rigged conditions. The gospel narrative of the mainstream media that Biden somehow managed to collect 81 million votes in 2020, the most for any presidential nominee in history, has been completely shattered by his languishing poll numbers, the worst ever for an incumbent at this stage in his presidency since polling became commonplace. Biden’s popularity has also been debunked by the current occupier’s rank inability to stimulate even a morsel of enthusiasm, to say nothing of producing actual flesh and blood supporters, to rally in his defense – a sharp and biting contrast to what President Trump demonstrated on that breezy south Jersey beach on Saturday.
President Trump’s crowd size led many pundits to speculate what it would take for Biden to generate an audience even a quarter the size of Trump’s estimated one tenth of a million that appeared – eagerly, enthusiastically (some waiting for days on end) – on the Jersey shore. Could Biden even garner a crowd of, say, 5,000 in a purportedly “deep-blue” state like New York, the epicenter of “Fat” Alvin Bragg’s political persecution, or uber woke Commiefornia, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1?
And that speculation does not even account for Biden drawing a crowd approximately the size of Trump’s in a state as red as New Jersey is purportedly blue. Biden allegedly defeated Trump by sixteen points in New Jersey in 2020. Yet, nobody in their right mind would ever dream that Biden could generate even a remotely similar percentage in states like Indiana and Mississippi, both of which Trump carried by a roughly comparable sixteen-point margin in 2020.
The momentum is certainly on the side of President Trump and his growing base of supporters – a base that includes a burgeoning share of disenchanted and disenfranchised Independents and Democrats, who have been alienated for any number of reasons by Democrats and Joe Biden in recent years, and have in turn made it their priority to destabilize and weaken America. So too does the presidential frontrunner’s base include a growing coalition of Hispanic and black voters, as well as other demographic groups that have traditionally not been aligned with the Republican Party.
These stark realities are reflected in the poll numbers registering voter sentiment in key swing states. For example, the latest New York Times poll, which historically has been no friend of President Trump’s, showcases the 45th President leading Biden in five key swing states: Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada. In addition, that same poll has President Trump tracking only two percentage points behind in Wisconsin (other polls notably have President Trump ahead in the Badger State) — within the margin of error. Wisconsin is a state that President Trump famously carried – smashing the infamous blue wall along the way – in his landmark 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton.
And yet, despite the promising signs, the MAGA faithful should not rest on their laurels. Given everything the base, and the country, has been through over the past nearly ten years – lawfare, witch hunts, FBI raids, deplatforming, censorship, gaslighting, being called every aspersion in the book by every mainstream institution, including leaders of both party establishments – we should be extra vigilant these next six months. Indeed, it is our duty to do so. Our due diligence must prioritize registering voters and regulating election procedures in the most important battleground states – most especially, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – which will make or break this November’s outcome.
One of the running themes of the Wildwood rally was “too big to rig” – and that’s true. The 2024 election must be flooded with legal and legitimate votes – garnered by all sorts of mechanisms and policies, from vote by mail to ballot harvesting to other procedures the Left has used and weaponized against Republicans to shameless success in recent elections. That must be our chief focus – and we must plan, ahead of time, to wage a counter-lawfare strategy against the Democrats, should the need arise to do so. Skilled poll watchers and lawyers must be hired in every key battleground state and deployed within 10-15 key election sights within those four or five critical battlegrounds, to ensure every legitimate vote is counted, and no shenanigans reoccur in 2024, much as they did in 2020.
Resources must be allocated efficiently and strategically – not wastefully, as has become so commonplace in recent years in Washington with the egregiously gratuitous spending on foreign wars that do not concern the United States or its geopolitical interests. It is much better to over prepare and not have to unleash one’s arsenal than to be blind-sighted and forced to dig oneself out of a ditch. The principles underlying the adage “peace through strength” which so aptly defined and explained a great deal of the success of President Trump’s foreign policy during his first term should also apply to our general election strategy this November.
That is why, despite the unprecedented promise we are now observing in once blue strongholds like New Jersey and even New York, nothing should be taken for granted. The narrative that President Trump may wind up winning these states is a great thing, and all that positive energy should continue. But the focus must be on shoring up the battlegrounds, and then expanding from there – for that is the only way we can be certain of victory in November.
And President Trump, above any other president, deserves not only a victory, but a landslide this 2024 race. His election victory would mark a paradigm shift in American presidential politics, arguably one greater in significance than Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, given just how high the stakes are this cycle. An electoral mandate will give President Trump the political capital he needs to swiftly implement his agenda, hopefully with fewer roadblocks than his first administration, in order to lay the foundation for what will be a generational movement to Make America Great Again.
The winds are clearly blowing in his favor, it is up to us, his supporters, to fortify that victory once and for all.
The post Biggest Rally Ever! How Wildwood Catapulted MAGA To Heights Never Seen Before In American History appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Stormy Daniels is testifying today in President Trump’s criminal case before crooked Judge Juan Merchan’s courtroom in New York City.
The Gateway Pundit contributor Paul Ingrassia is in the courtroom today.
“Judge Merchan agrees with Bragg and Biden’s attorneys saying that Stormy Daniels has “credibility” to testify about an alleged affair, even though she’s repeatedly denied any such affair over the years and even went on record by issuing an official statement denying such an affair.”
BREAKING: Judge Merchan agrees with Bragg and Biden’s attorneys saying that Stormy Daniels has “credibility” to testify about an alleged affair, even though she’s repeatedly denied any such affair over the years and even went on record by issuing an official statement denying… pic.twitter.com/yPd1k1JBXK
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 7, 2024
Stormy Daniels wrote in 2018, “Over the past few weeks I have been asked countless times to comment on reports of an alleged sexual relationship I had with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago. The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 20011, 2016, 2017 and now again in 2018. 1 am not denying this affair because i was paid “hush money” as has been reported in overseas owned tabloids. I am denying this affair because it never happened.”
““Judge” Merchan loves to say “enjoy your lunch” to everyone once they break every day. Many of the fake news journalists and government lawyers here are getting a kick out of this sham show trial, which is a colossal waste of taxpayer money and a complete waste of everyone’s time. They have the maturity of school children breaking for recess, and treat the irreparable harm they’re doing to America’s justice system so cavalierly. Like it’s a joke for everyone. Awful! These people destroying the rule of law in real time MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!”
“Judge” Merchan loves to say “enjoy your lunch” to everyone once they break every day.
Many of the fake news journalists and government lawyers here are getting a kick out of this sham show trial, which is a colossal waste of taxpayer money and a complete waste of everyone’s…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 7, 2024
“Prosecutors are now asking Stormy Daniels about her recollections and impressions to the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape that was released in October of 2016 The tape has absolutely no bearing on anything related to this sham trial, and Daniels’ impressions, above all, should not matter. A total miscarriage of justice!”
BREAKING: Prosecutors are now asking Stormy Daniels about her recollections and impressions to the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape that was released in October of 2016
The tape has absolutely no bearing on anything related to this sham trial, and Daniels’ impressions, above…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 7, 2024
“Daniels is audibly slurring her speech, speaking very quickly, and rubbing her hands and hair frequently on the stand.”
Daniels is audibly slurring her speech, speaking very quickly, and rubbing her hands and hair frequently on the stand.
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 7, 2024
“When asked by the prosecution today how she wanted to be addressed in a courtroom she said “Stormy Daniels.” So the “legal name” theory fails.”
When asked by the prosecution today how she wanted to be addressed in a courtroom she said “Stormy Daniels.” So the “legal name” theory fails. https://t.co/s0paCEQ38Z
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 7, 2024
“In a flagrant violation of NY’s rules of evidence and judicial ethics guidelines, the judge is allowing Stormy Daniels to “run wild” with her highly prejudicial testimony, running roughshod over the objections of Trump’s attorneys, and allowing Daniels to vividly discuss every last salacious detail about the alleged interaction she had with Trump. Prosecutors are asking how tall she is relative to Trump and whether there was a power dynamic between them. Now asking about their alleged sexual affair, the position they were in, whether they were intoxicated, “uncomfortable,” and “how they closed it off.” Completely out of line!!”
BREAKING: In a flagrant violation of NY’s rules of evidence and judicial ethics guidelines, the judge is allowing Stormy Daniels to “run wild” with her highly prejudicial testimony, running roughshod over the objections of Trump’s attorneys, and allowing Daniels to vividly…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 7, 2024
“Bragg’s prosecutors questioning Daniels about her STD tests and preferred sex positions. What a sleazy, disgusting trial. With this political persecution, we are witnessing the execution of due process and rule of law in real time by Biden and his acolytes. What a tragedy — the damage being done to the justice system will take years to repair, and may be permanent.”
BREAKING: Bragg’s prosecutors questioning Daniels about her STD tests and preferred sex positions. What a sleazy, disgusting trial.
With this political persecution, we are witnessing the execution of due process and rule of law in real time by Biden and his acolytes.
What a…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 7, 2024
“It’s notable how inarticulate Bragg’s Prosecutors are, which has been an issue all throughout the trial: on direct examination they struggle to clearly ask their questions, they stumble and mumble over basic words, have to repeatedly withdraw questions, requiring the witnesses to repeatedly ask for clarification. Bragg’s prosecutors are not smart people — and bad lawyers!”
BREAKING: It’s notable how inarticulate Bragg’s Prosecutors are, which has been an issue all throughout the trial: on direct examination they struggle to clearly ask their questions, they stumble and mumble over basic words, have to repeatedly withdraw questions, requiring the…
— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 7, 2024
One user also said, “The judge is allowing the prosecutor and witness to talk about the size of “genitalia.” What a f*cking joke and disgrace to the American justice system. They are putting the future president of the United States of America through this garbage.”
The judge is allowing the prosecutor and witness to talk about the size of “genitalia.”
What a f*cking joke and disgrace to the American justice system.
They are putting the future president of the United States of America through this garbage.
— Pro Swing Trading (@Pro__Trading) May 7, 2024
The Alvin Bragg case has turned a court of law into a Jerry Springer episode. Nothing but gossip, lies and inuendo.
The judge is allowing prosecutors and witnesses to bring up things that have absolutely nothing to do with the indictment or the case.
This case has zero chance…
— Pro Swing Trading (@Pro__Trading) May 7, 2024
National Political Correspondent Alex Miller has also some updates:
Stormy Daniels called to the witness stand.
She walks in, Trump appears to look at her for a bit.
Some Jurors smile as her name is called and some start writing. She’s in all black, hair pulled back, glasses on her head.
She says she prefers being called Stormy.
Background: Grew up in Baton Rouge, LA, parents divorced at 4 YO. Very low income family. Went to a private very Christian elementary school that her dad paid for. Then entered the magnet system and went to an engineering high school.
Got a full scholarship to Texas A&M for veterinary medicine. Took a year off to make money but never went to school. Loved horses growing up, also did dancing (tap, ballet) growing up.
A friend invited her to a club to see her dance at 17. Started dancing on the weekend and made more in 2 nights didn’t miss class and made more than she did shoveling manure. She moved out at 17 bc her mom was neglectful. Said she wasn’t an addict but would disappear for days.
Says women who made the most were the ones who did adult films.
Friend offered to pay her way to CA to go with her to a shoot. Daniels was a fully clothed extra.
A director ask her to do a film & her friend said she’d be in it too. 5 days later Daniels was offered a contract.
Daniels says she became an adult film director, one of the youngest if not the youngest female adult film feature director.
Lists a ton of awards.
Was in 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, music videos including Maroon 5.
Got fired from her podcast because she didn’t want to talk about just this case and politics.
“It just kept going down this one subject line.” We’re now in 2006.
Daniels is still under contract with Wicked Pictures, as an adult film director and actress. Wicked sponsored one of the holes on the golf course.
She jokes, “Which I know is very funny an adult film company sponsoring a hole.” This is where she met Trump.
She says their meeting was a brief encounter on the course. Gave them water, posed for picture.
Says she was introduced along with other adult film actresses but also as a director.
“You direct too,” she says he told her. “You must be the smart one.”
She says she knew he was old or older than her father, knew he had done reality TV and was on Celebrity Apprentice, which she had never watched.
When she saw him later, she says he remembered her again as “the smart one.” Took a photo with Trump at the gift room.
They talked briefly, I saw him talking to his security (at the time thought it was his friend), then that man asked if she wanted to have dinner with Trump.
Prosecution just had Daniels point Trump out in the courtroom. She moves around in her chair, an indication she can’t really seem him too well from her chair. “Navy blue jacket at the table,” she says as she points.
We’re looking now at the photo of Daniels and Trump across four big screens. Each juror has a monitor to observe, Trump has one at his table.
Hard to tell if he’s looking at it.
Bodyguard Keith Schiller asked if she wanted to have dinner with Trump. She said “[expletive] no.”
Schiller asked for her phone number and she gave it to him. He messaged her and she saved his number in her phone.
She saved his number as “Keith Trump.”
She still has the number in her phone. Publicist told her to go to the dinner.
“It’ll make a great story if nothing else. What could possibly go wrong?” Publicist told her he might have good advice and maybe help with an agent.
So, Stormy messaged back and forth with Keith, to go to Trump’s hotel for dinner.
She said she was walking to the hotel and ran into a friend, who she told she was going to dinner with Trump, and then took a car the rest of the way.
Keith gave her specific instructions to take a certain elevator to get to the penthouse. He was waiting for her outside the door.
Asked her expectations, she said she didn’t really have any. She said she was told they’d meet on his floor and then they’d go down to dinner together.
She said when she entered the foyer: Trump was wearing silk/satin PJs that she immediately made fun of him for.
She said: Does Mr. Hefner know you stole his pajamas?
She says she told him to go change and he obliged. Returned in a dress shirt/pants.
She says the suite Trump was staying in was bigger and nicer than any of her apartments. Daniels says she was early, still sunlight coming through the windows.
He said we should get talking for a bit, we can go down or order up.
Daniels says she was early, there still sunlight coming through the windows. He said we should get talking for a bit, we can go down or order up.
He asked about her family, her upbringing, where she went to school. Did she have kids, was she married?
Daniels says Trump was really interested in her career. How she went from adult film actress to a writer and director.
She explained scripted adult films to him. “It’s not all — hi mr. pizza boy,” she said.
He asked about unions, residuals, health insurance, testing.
She says most people ask the salacious stuff, not a lot of biz questions. “I don’t think I’d ever been asked about unions.”
He asked about her STD status. At the time, testing was every 30 days. He asked if she ever had a “bad test.” She said no & offered to show him her history
They got to talking about wrestling and a bet that if Trump lost, he’d have to shave his head.
“Donald Trump has always been famous for his ‘do.
So I said what are you going to do if you lose? You do not have a head designed not to have hair.”
Daniels says there was a very brief description about his wife. She says he showed her pictures of Melania.
“Don’t worry about that. We don’t even sleep in the same room.”
Daniels makes an “oops” face after she says it. She says he was constantly interrupting.
Convo per Daniels: “Are you already this rude? This arrogant and pompous I was pretty nasty.”
He said “Someone should spank you. Otherwise I am leaving because that’s the only interest I have tonight.”
She spanked him on the butt.
He told her she reminded him of his daughter. “Smart, beautiful and underestimated.”
Wanted her to be on Celebrity Apprentice. Conversation ensued about whether NBC would allow it.
Trump and Daniels called one of her friends on speakerphone and invited her over. Daniels says they were hanging out for 2 hours.
Did you sense any red flags?
Daniels: No.
AM Recess is called.
Stormy Daniels walked out of the room. Counsel asked to approach.
Trump walks out of court. He looks pissed.
Merchan just told the prosecution the degree of detail they’re going into is unnecessary.
“Move it along.”
Daniels went to use the bathroom and when she came out, Trump was on the bed wearing his boxer shorts and a t-shirt.
She said she was startled. Wasn’t expecting someone to be there “especially minus a lot of clothing.”
I felt the room spin and i felt the blood leave my hands and feet like when you stand up too fast.
I just thought, “Oh my God, what did I misread to get here?”
The intention is pretty clear if someone strips down and poses on the bed waiting for you. Daniels describes Trumps positioning when she got out of the bathroom.
She leans over with her hands behind her head and legs up to the side as if she’s laying on a bed.
“The next thing I know I was on the opposite side of the bed from where we had been standing. Clothes and shoes were off. Bra was off. Missionary position.”
Objection.
Daniels says she had sex w Trump on the bed.
I was trying to think about anything other that being there. Did you touch his skin? Objection.
Was he wearing a condom? No. Was that concerning to you? Yes.
Why didn’t you say anything? I didn’t say anything at all. Was it brief? Yes.
Daniels says when it was over, her hands were shaking so much she couldn’t get her shoes on.
He said, “Let’s do it again, honey bunch. We were so fantastic together. We have to get you on the show.”
“I left as fast as I could. That was it.”
She says he didn’t ask her to keep it confidential and expressed no concern about Melania finding out.
Daniels told very few people that they had sex.
“I felt ashamed that I didn’t stop it, that I didn’t say no. I thought people would make jokes about it or think I was paid, a prostitute which I wasn’t.”
Back from a brief sidebar.
Daniels says she saw Trump the next day.
She saw Trump the next day with former Pittsburgh Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger. Says the interaction was maybe 10 minutes.
She says told her makeup artist, assistant, photographer about them having sex. Many people knew they met, but not that they slept together.
“Trump called once a week, sometimes every couple weeks. “I always put him on speakerphone. We thought it was funny. It was not a secret. He loaded the call with an update/non update about The Apprentice. He called me honey bunch. Wanted to know when he was going to be in NY.”
She never told Trump he was on speakerphone.
Daniels says Trump gave her Rhona Graff’s phone number. She was Trump’s assistant.
Daniels is looking at a photo of the contact info for Graff. The contact card says “D Trump Rona.” We see it now, too.
Trump soon invited Daniels to a vodka launch party.
She says she wanted to maintain a good relationship while Celebrity Apprentice was up in the air.
Judge Merchan asks Daniels to keep her responses short.
Stormy Daniels was introduced to Karen McDougal at the vodka launch party. Said she was there 1.5-2 hours.
Daniels says Trump asked her to go back with him that night but she lied and said she had a flight.
When Daniels was in NY, she reached out to Trump (through Rhona Graff) to come to the show where she was performing.
Instead, he invited her to Trump Tower.
She said she was greeted warmly, including by Rhona in the reception area. Daniels says the meeting was brief, and describes his schedule.
When asked if he was trying to hide her, she says “Oh no, he introduced me to everyone. He’s just busy.”
He also offered tickets to the Miss USA pageant.
When he was in LA next, Trump invited her to his bungalow at the Beverly Hills hotel to discuss updates with Celebrity Apprentice.
While there, Daniels testifies Trump kept trying to make sexual advances, putting hands on her legs, scooting closer.
“I told him I was on my period.”
Daniels testifies he never asked her to keep it quiet, this was the last time she saw him.
In the next few years, she got married, had a baby, saw her career grow, became a nationally ranked equestrian.
She never spoke to Trump during this time.
Daniels said she had been talking to InTouch and then at one point, she was approached in a parking lot by a man who told her not to continue telling the Trump story.
When the article came out in 2011, Daniels said she never heard of the website/ did not talk to them. She was concerned because she had been threatened & was worried about the safety of her/her child.
“I was freaking out, crying and hyperventilating.”dirty .com
When Trump announced his candidacy, her manager Gina Rodriguez offered to sell her story.
She allowed Rodriguez to try to sell her story, but Rodriguez was not successful before the Access Hollywood tape came out.
Did you have any intention of approaching either Trump or Michael Cohen to buy your story? Daniels: My motivation wasn’t money, it was to get the story out. She said she was motivated out of fear.
She said she was okay w/ selling her story so that her boyfriend wouldn’t find out. She said she didn’t negotiate, & didn’t care about the money. Her job at the time was going well. She had gotten numerous raises, bought a house. “Instead of directing 5 movies, I directed 10.”
We’re now looking at an email between Keith Davidson and Michael Cohen. Davidson was negotiating the NDA for Daniels. Wanted this done by October 14th. Daniels said she worried she “wouldn’t be safe” and wouldn’t get paid if the election had passed.
[Lunch break]
Officially back from lunch. Stormy Daniels back on the stand. Trump tracking her as she takes her seat.
Reminder: she’s just been somewhat reprimanded not to “provide an unnecessary narrative” by the prosecution.
We’ve gone through the WSJ article and the NDA/SLA with Trump.We’ve looked at the same statements we saw Keith Davidson identify. There are two. She said one was mostly false, the other was false.
Now, we’re learning about a temporary restraining order filed by Michael Cohen.
After the TRO, Daniels hired Michael Avenatti to try to get out of her NDA.“So that I could stand up for myself,” she adds.
DA [Hoffinger]: Is Michael Avenatti still your lawyer?
Daniels: No. (makes a face)Hoffinger: Why not?
Daniels: Because I fired him. And later he was found guilty of stealing from me and several others. He was disbarred and now he’s in prison.
Daniels agreed to go on Cohen’s podcast because she wanted him to apologize to her. And he did. It was the first time the two had ever spoken.They talked all things Trump.
She went back on in 2022. “We had good rapport,” she said of Cohen. “and he wanted to talk Avenatti.”
We’re looking at a Truth Social post now from March 2023.“I did NOTHING wrong in the “Horseface” case…Never had an affair with her, just another false acquisition by a SleazeBag.”
Daniels is asked over and over again about being called “Horseface” by Trump.
Prosecution done. Defense up. Susan Necheles is doing the questioning for the first time this trial.
The post LIVE UPDATES From the Courtroom: Stormy Daniels Testifies in Sham Trump Showtrial – Told to Slow Down – Asked About Sexual Positions appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Vaunce News 