A Prayer for Donald J. Trump
05-31-2024 Jared Silverman on the day after:
BBC: Who is Juan Merchan, the Judge in Trump's hush-money NYC case?
Born in 1962, a Bogota, Colombia - born American Judge and former prosecutor. Acting Justice of the New York State Supreme Court in New York County -Manhattan. Now, the first Judge in United States history to preside over the criminal indictment and conviction of a sitting or former United States President, and the first Judge to hold a President in Criminal Contempt of Court!
The $15 Joe Biden donation
Soon after Mr Trump was arraigned, records emerged showing Justice Merchan had donated a total of $35 to Democrats during the 2020 election.
That included a $15 donation to Joe Biden's campaign, NBC News reported, as well as $10 donations to groups called the "Progressive Turnout Project" and "Stop Republicans".
New York state, following the American Bar Association's guidance, prohibits judges from making contributions to political organisations or candidates.
Even though the donation to Mr Biden and, possibly, the one to Stop Republicans, would be forbidden, they would be "viewed as trivial, especially given the small sums", Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University, told BBC News.
Justice Merchan did not recuse himself over the donations and the issue has since died down.
Daughter has worked for Democrats
The judge's daughter, Loren Merchan, has been at the centre of a bigger conflict-of-interest storm.
Ms Merchan is president of Authentic Campaigns, a firm that has worked on digital fundraising and advertising for Democratic clients, including Mr Biden and Representative Adam Schiff, who led impeachment efforts against Mr Trump.
Mr Trump has pushed to have the judge removed from the case, citing Ms Merchan's work, but those attempts have failed.
Justice Merchan consulted with the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which determined "the matter currently before the judge does not involve either the judge's relative or the relative's business, whether directly or indirectly".
With that established, the judge has declined to recuse himself from the case.
A jury of shills rather than a jury of peers found Donald Trump guilty of 34 counts of … what were the crimes again? Doesn’t matter. The Democrats got the verdict they were looking for. And it wasn’t justice on their minds. They wanted retribution. They wanted to hang an anchor around Trump’s neck during the campaign. They wanted the equivalent of a political execution.
They got it all.
Yet they still want more.? [I have received numerous solicitations over the past 48 hours for donations to the Biden campaign, from Harris, De Niro (very comical in context) and Biden.? Details below.]
The Democratic Party is now officially the party of Stalin. Its operatives and functionaries have long tilted much closer to Sovietism than Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson.
Today they have fallen fully into the arms of Uncle Joe. Maybe it’s merely a coincidence that the titular head of the party is also known as "Uncle Joe."
The parallels aren’t perfect. The former Uncle Joe – Joseph Stalin – used show trials “for gaining absolute powerby employing police repression against opposition elements within the Communist Party.”
Video book review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-xTxI4Fr0Q
What inspired him to write about WWII?
WWII started 09-01-1939 when Germany invades Poland, Britain and France declared War. 1938 Canadian, South African and Australia / New Zealand had warned they would NOT go to War, so the war was World War from its beginning
Dramatic examples:
The latter Uncle Joe, who just might be a puppet of his former White House boss, helped orchestrate the Trump show trials as a means to stamp out the political opposition. And by that we mean more than just Trump but any and all who are not disposed to give the Democrats everything they want.
Trump is unlikely to be incarcerated.
No gulag for him.
A former prosecutor and defense attorney told the New York Post that “there is a very decent chance he’s looking at a probationary sentence.” But the message, which will continue with the other show trials the Democrats have planned for him, is clear. They mean to obtain raw political power by the most base and fearsome means possible.
It’s a missive intended to burrow, like a bunker buster, all the way down to every voter in this country.Everyone who is thinking about putting a Trump sign in their yard or bumper sticker on their car. Every current donor and every potential donor. Everyone who might let it slip in a social setting that they will support Trump. It’s a notice to all the deplorables [Hillary Clinton] and bitter clingers [barack Obama] and “poor souls who are looking for some answers.” [Nancy Pelosi]
Remember, as Trump said, “they’re not after me, they’re after you and I just happen to be standing in the way.”
We can still vote in this country, even though it is the Democrats who want to rig elections and establish a regime in which they hold unchallengeable permanent power. [Consider the millions of illegal aliens flooding over the border unrestricted to be resettled in red states like Texas and given voting rights.] It’s time for the never-Trumpers to put aside whatever their objections are and join those who still hope to follow the founders’ vision of liberty and resist the Democrats’ sovietized progressive agenda.
We ask the same of Democrats who are painfully learning what their party is about, and independents who are also noticing that the political left believes in using brute force to get its way. Putting the current White House occupant back in for another four years is a threat to our republic. Remember what he is doing to the country and vote the scoundrel out.
About the timing of Biden campaign solicitations
Right after the verdict came in, at 5:51 PM ET, I received this from Biden -
There’s only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: At the ballot box.
You know that I hate to ask, but there couldn’t be a more important moment for you to make your first donation to keep this guy out of the White House once and for all.
At 10:50 PM ET, this came from Biden - "We think today's a great day to give to our campaign."
At 5:55 AM ET - Yesterday's verdict
There’s only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: At the ballot box.
You know that I hate to ask, but there couldn’t be a more important moment for you to make your first donation to keep this guy out of the White House once and for all.
The stakes have never been higher -- democracy, personal rights and freedoms, and the future of our economy are all on the line. So, thanks for standing with me.
-- Joe
At 5:55 AM ET - Yesterday's verdict
Here is the truth: Despite a jury finding Donald Trump guilty yesterday, there is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: At the ballot box.
Convicted felon or not, Trump will be the Republican nominee for president.
But there is one other certainty -- as you read this, Donald Trump's supporters are fired up and likely setting fundraising records for his campaign.
That's money he will use to try to get back into the White House to carry out his threats of revenge and retribution against his political opponents.
So while the MAGA Right comes to the aid of Trump, Joe Biden -- and those who care about democracy -- need you.
If you have been waiting for the perfect time to make your next donation to Joe Biden's reelection campaign, we're here to tell you today is the day:
Thank you,
The 12:23 AM ET email was duplicated at 10:25 AM ET,
"Congratulations to the State of New York, its legal system, and, most of all, Justice Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for the kangaroo-ization of American jurisprudence.
Jared Silverman, https://www.e-counsel.com
I would be remiss in not pointing out the similarities of the the New York proceedings against Trump and the famous literary trial in Alice in Wonderland, where Alice gives evidence and the Red Queen famously declares, 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.' Here is a portion. (Emphasis in original.)? Draw your own conclusions about similarities.
'What do you know about this business?' the King said to Alice.
'Nothing,' said Alice.
'Nothing whatever?' persisted the King.
'Nothing whatever,' said Alice.
'That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: 'Unimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.
'Unimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone, 'important—unimportant— unimportant—important—' as if he were trying which word sounded best.
Some of the jury wrote it down 'important,' and some 'unimportant.' Alice could see this, as she was near enough to look over their slates; 'but it doesn't matter a bit,' she thought to herself.
At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out 'Silence!' and read out from his book, 'Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court.'
Everybody looked at Alice.
'I'm not a mile high,' said Alice.
'You are,' said the King.
'Nearly two miles high,' added the Queen.
'Well, I shan't go, at any rate,' said Alice: 'besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.'
'It's the oldest rule in the book,' said the King.
'Then it ought to be Number One,' said Alice.
The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. 'Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice.
'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; 'this paper has just been picked up.'
'What's in it?' said the Queen.
'I haven't opened it yet, said the White Rabbit, 'but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.'
'It must have been that,' said the King, 'unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'
'Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.
领英推荐
'It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; 'in fact, there's nothing written on the outside.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added 'It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'
'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.
'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)
'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)
'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'
'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'
There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.
'That PROVES his guilt,' said the Queen.
'It proves nothing of the sort!' said Alice. 'Why, you don't even know what they're about!'
'Read them,' said the King.
The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. 'Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?' he asked.
'Begin at the beginning,' the King said gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop.'
These were the verses the White Rabbit read:—
'They told me you had been to her,
And mentioned me to him:
She gave me a good character,
But said I could not swim.
He sent them word I had not gone
(We know it to be true):
If she should push the matter on,
What would become of you?
I gave her one, they gave him two,
You gave us three or more;
They all returned from him to you,
Though they were mine before.
If I or she should chance to be
Involved in this affair,
He trusts to you to set them free,
Exactly as we were.
My notion was that you had been
(Before she had this fit)
An obstacle that came between
Him, and ourselves, and it.
Don't let him know she liked them best,
For this must ever be
A secret, kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.'
'That's the most important piece of evidence we've heard yet,' said the King, rubbing his hands; 'so now let the jury—'
'If any one of them can explain it,' said Alice, (she had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn't a bit afraid of interrupting him,) 'I'll give him sixpence. I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it.'
The jury all wrote down on their slates, 'She doesn't believe there's an atom of meaning in it,' but none of them attempted to explain the paper.
'If there's no meaning in it,' said the King, 'that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any. And yet I don't know,' he went on, spreading out the verses on his knee, and looking at them with one eye; 'I seem to see some meaning in them, after all. "—said I could not swim—" you can't swim, can you?' he added, turning to the Knave.
The Knave shook his head sadly. 'Do I look like it?' he said. (Which he certainly did not, being made entirely of cardboard.)
'All right, so far,' said the King, and he went on muttering over the verses to himself: '"We know it to be true—"that's the jury, of course— "I gave her one, they gave him two—" why, that must be what he did with the tarts, you know—'
'But, it goes on "They all returned from him to you,"' said Alice.
'Why, there they are!' said the King triumphantly, pointing to the tarts on the table. 'Nothing can be clearer than that. Then again—"before she had this fit—" you never had fits, my dear, I think?' he said to the Queen.
Never!' said the Queen furiously, throwing an inkstand at the Lizard as she spoke. (The unfortunate little Bill had left off writing on his slate with one finger, as he found it made no mark; but he now hastily began again, using the ink, that was trickling down his face, as long as it lasted.)
'Then the words don't fit you,' said the King, looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.
'It's a pun!' the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'
'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'
'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.
'I won't!' said Alice.
Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
Jared Silverman continues:
Two editorial view of the Trump verdict.??
The NYT gloats.? It has been chomping at the bit to use the word felon next to Trump's name.? I have often used a phrase used by trial lawyers, the Red Face Test, referring whether a witness can make an absurd claim, under oath, without his/her face turning red from embarrassment.? For me, this NYT editorial does not pass the Red Face Test for this statement, "Justice Merchan was scrupulous in ensuring that Mr. Trump received a fair trial."? I can't wait to see what an appellate court says about Merchan's conduct of the trial.
The New York Times: Donald Trump, Felon
The Editorial Board
May 30, 2024
In a humble courtroom in Lower Manhattan on Thursday, a former president and current Republican standard-bearer was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The jury’s decision, and the facts presented at the trial, offer yet another reminder — perhaps the starkest to date — of the many reasons Donald Trump is unfit for office.
The guilty verdict in the former president’s hush-money case was reached by a unanimous jury of 12 randomly selected New Yorkers, who found that Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, was guilty of falsifying business records to prevent voters from learning about a sexual encounter that he believed would have been politically damaging.
Americans may wonder about the significance of this moment. The Constitution does not prohibit those with a criminal conviction from being elected or serving as commander in chief, even if they are behind bars. The nation’s founders left that decision in the hands of voters. Many experts have also expressed skepticism about the significance of this case and its legal underpinnings, which employed an unusual legal theory to seek a felony charge for what is more commonly a misdemeanor, and Mr. Trump will undoubtedly seek an appeal.
Yet the greatest good to come out of this sordid case is the proof that the rule of law binds everyone, even former presidents. Under extraordinary circumstances, the trial was conducted much like any other criminal trial in the city. That 12 Americans could sit in judgment of the former and potentially future president is a remarkable display of the democratic principles that Americans prize at work.
Justice Juan Merchan, the jury and the New York legal system delivered speedy justice, providing Americans with vital information about a presidential candidate before voting begins. Multiple polls have shown that a conviction will affect the decision of many voters.
The verdict itself establishes that Mr. Trump committed crimes in hiding pertinent information about himself from the American people for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election. It revealed even more evidence of what Mr. Trump is willing to do, including breaking the law and pushing others to break the law, for political gain. That chronic impulse — to override democratic norms and the law to his own ends — is at the heart of two other criminal cases against Mr. Trump, for the much more serious charges of spreading lies and participating in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. (He is also charged with mishandling highly classified national security documents after leaving office; twice, he showed classified documents to people who were not authorized to see them, according to the indictment.) Mr. Trump’s lawyers have managed to delay those three trials.
The former president has never shown much moral rectitude, but the facts presented at the New York trial also revealed more information that the public should know about the unethical way that Mr. Trump conducts his life and his business. Prosecutors laid out the details of the payoff in careful detail: Shortly after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape and less than two weeks before the 2016 election, Michael Cohen, who was then Mr. Trump’s lawyer and fixer, paid Stormy Daniels, a porn star, $130,000 to keep quiet about the 2006 sexual encounter she said she had with Mr. Trump.
A payoff like this is not illegal by itself. What makes it illegal is doctoring business records to mask its true purpose, which prosecutors said was to hide the story from the American people to help Mr. Trump get elected. Prosecutors had to show that this payoff was made at Mr. Trump’s behest and that Mr. Trump knew the reimbursement to Mr. Cohen for the payoff was falsely categorized as a legal expense to disguise it. The evidence they presented, both direct and circumstantial, showed Mr. Trump’s personal involvement in the scheme, and its motivation.
Justice Merchan was scrupulous in ensuring that Mr. Trump received a fair trial. He refused, for example, to allow the jury to hear sensational material, such as audio from the “Access Hollywood” tape or subsequent allegations of sexual assault against Mr. Trump, that could have been prejudicial to his rights as a defendant. And yet throughout the trial, the judge was forced to deal with Mr. Trump’s attempts to undermine the legal system. To protect its integrity, Justice Merchan put a limit on what Mr. Trump could say to prevent him from attacking and threatening jurors, witnesses, court personnel and even the judge’s family. Mr. Trump repeatedly flouted that order and was fined $10,000 for contempt of court. Only the threat of a jail sentence finally seemed to keep Mr. Trump in line.
In the end, the jury heard the evidence, deliberated for more than nine hours and came to a decision, which is how the system is designed to work. In the same way, elections allow voters to consider the choices before them with full information, then freely cast their ballots. Mr. Trump tried to sabotage elections and the criminal justice system — both of which are fundamental to American democracy — when he thought they might not produce the outcome he wanted. So far, they have proved resilient enough to withstand his attacks. The jurors have delivered their verdict, as the voters will in November. If the Republic is to survive, all of us — including Mr. Trump — should abide by both, regardless of the outcome.
The WSJ editorial is a bit more measured.
The Editorial Board
May 30, 2024
Twelve New York jurors have found Donald Trump guilty of falsifying business records, a total of 34 felony counts, in history’s first criminal conviction of a former President. What a volatile moment for the country. Will the judge jail Mr. Trump? Will voters re-elect him in November anyway, in disgust of this concocted case? What if it’s thrown out on appeal? Will Republicans retaliate? The nation might soon regret this rough turn.
Thursday’s guilty verdict wasn’t entirely surprising, given the jury pool in Manhattan. If Mr. Trump had lucked out, he might have drawn one or two stubborn skeptics, like the Henry Fonda character in “12 Angry Men,” resulting in at least a hung jury. Instead the fortunate one was Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who filed the weakest of the four indictments of Mr. Trump, but who managed to drag his case first over the finish line.
Normally a felony conviction would be politically fatal for a candidate appearing on the ballot in five months. But normally a prosecutor wouldn’t have brought this case. Mr. Bragg, an elected Democrat, ran for office as the man ready to take on Mr. Trump. When the new DA didn’t indict shortly after winning office, his top Trump prosecutors loudly quit, increasing the pressure on Mr. Bragg to do, well, something. Even after a guilty verdict, the case he ended up filing looks like a legal stretch.
***
The evidence from the six-week trial fleshed out some of the facts. Stormy Daniels testified that she and Mr. Trump had a sexual rendezvous in 2006, which he keeps denying, if implausibly. In the runup to the 2016 election, Mr. Trump’s fixer Michael Cohen paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet. Mr. Trump reimbursed him, and then some, in 2017. According to the DA, the crime was disguising this repayment as legal fees to Mr. Cohen for work under a retainer that didn’t exist.
On the law, though, the case was a bizarre turducken, with alleged crimes stuffed inside other crimes. By the time Mr. Bragg showed up on the scene, the Stormy business was old enough that Mr. Trump couldn’t be hit with misdemeanor falsification of records, because the statute of limitations had expired. To elevate these counts into felonies, the DA said Mr. Trump cooked the books with an intent to commit or cover up a second offense.
At first Mr. Bragg was cagey. He eventually settled on a New York election law, rarely enforced, that prohibits conspiracies to promote political candidates “by unlawful means.” This explains why prosecutors spent so much trial time on David Pecker, the National Enquirer boss. His outfit paid $150,000 in 2016 to silence another woman, Karen McDougal, who also says she had an extracurricular affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Bragg’s argument is that they were all in cahoots, more or less, to steal the election.
Yet what “unlawful means” did this alleged conspiracy use? The DA’s argument was that there were three: First, the hush money was effectively an illegally large donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign. Second, more business filings were falsified, including bank records for Mr. Cohen’s wire transfer to Ms. Daniels. Third, false statements were made to tax authorities, since Mr. Trump’s repayment of Mr. Cohen was structured as income and “grossed up” to cover the taxes he would need to pay on it.
In some ways this Russian nesting doll structure, to use another analogy, defies logic. Did Mr. Trump falsify business records in 2017 to cover up an illegal conspiracy to elect him in 2016, whose unlawful means included false information in Mr. Cohen’s tax return for 2017? There was hardly any direct evidence about Mr. Trump’s state of mind. Federal prosecutors squeezed a guilty plea out of Mr. Cohen but notably didn’t pursue Mr. Trump. One news report said the feds worried that his “lack of basic knowledge of campaign finance laws would make it hard to prove intent.”
A help to Mr. Bragg’s prosecution is that the jurors were instructed that as long as they were unanimous that Mr. Trump was guilty of falsifying business records to aid or cover up an illegal conspiracy to get him elected, they didn’t all have to agree about which theory of the “unlawful means” they found persuasive. Perhaps this will be taken up by Mr. Trump on appeal. He will almost certainly argue, too, that the Stormy payoff wasn’t a campaign expense, as Brad Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, has been arguing all along.
***
We don’t doubt the sincerity of the Manhattan jurors, but many voters will digest all of this and conclude that, while Mr. Trump may be a cad, this conviction isn’t disqualifying for a second term in the White House. Judge Juan Merchan tolerated Mr. Bragg’s legal creativity in ways that an appeals court might not. What if Mr. Trump loses the election and then is vindicated on appeal? If Democrats think that too many Republicans today complain about stolen elections, imagine how many more might next year.
The conviction sets a precedent of using legal cases, no matter how sketchy, to try to knock out political opponents, including former Presidents. Mr. Trump has already vowed to return the favor. If Democrats felt like cheering Thursday when the guilty verdict was read, they should think again. Mr. Bragg might have opened a new destabilizing era of American politics, and no one can say how it will end.
The Babylon Bee had a perfect summary - Donald Trump Found Guilty Of Being Donald Trump.
Commenting on the propensity of the woke to use euphemisms to less the sting of an actual term, the Bee has Trump Reminds Media He Prefers The Term 'Justice-Impacted Individual'.? An Illinois bill would change how individuals who committed criminal offenses are referred to under state law, replacing “offender” with “justice-impacted individual.” (in some cases).
Jared Silverman, E-mail:?? [email protected]
Joe Manchin leaves the Democratic Party, files as independent
Zachary Basu,Hans Nichols, May 31, 2024
Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia officially left the Democratic Party on Friday and registered as an independent.
Why it matters: Manchin, who flirted with an independent presidential bidearlier this year, has said he's not running for Senate re-election. But leaving the party could give him the flexibility to change tack and run for Senate or West Virginia governor as an independent.
The intrigue: June 1 is West Virginia's deadline for changing party affiliation in time to run for office this fall. The deadline to file for governor or Senate is Aug. 1.
What they're saying: In a statement revealing his decision, Manchin accused both the Democratic and Republican parties of prioritizing "partisan extremism" and "jeopardizing our democracy."
The big picture: Manchin, a lifelong centrist Democrat who served two terms as West Virginia governor before his election to the Senate in 2010, has at times been highly critical of the Biden administration.
What to watch: Manchin will continue caucusing with Senate Democrats, joining fellow independent Sens. Sinema, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Angus King (I-Maine.).
We have been focused on the Republican dysfunction in the House but the situation in the Senate is more volatile.
Senate Seats: 100 - Majority 51
Political Groups: Minority 49
Note that Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Senate by 2 seats.? Schumer is Senate Majority Leader thanks to the votes of the four independents. Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont caucus with the Democratic Party; independent Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia do not caucus with the Democrats, but are "formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes"
Thus, the Dems rule the Senate through a coalition with the independents.? Lose one independent and the Senate is deadlocked, 50-50. Imagine what could happen if Fetterman goes independent or, better yet, Republican.
Jared Silverman, E-mail:?? [email protected]