Meanwhile Judge Cannon

RaceBannon · June 5

Massie eviscerated Garland on Smith being illegal and now the judge is listening

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1798335747529007511?t=-sKJW_tnr4F-xpjjHWz06g&s=19

EverettChris · June 5

Totalitarian/partisan DOJ just making up things as they go along with nobody to hold them accountable is 100% Defending Democracy.

LoneStarDawg · June 5

RaceBannon · June 5

Agreeing to defend Trump is like volunteering to get indicted

It worked

Bob_C · June 5

As a psuedo libertarian, I want the courts to challenge the fuck out of the state at every turn. This includes both Trump and Hunter Biden. Anyone that wants the state to win every 50/50 ball is a totalitarian.

WestlinnDuck · June 5

What's the crime? What evidence was produced? Good summary of the lack of Constitutional due process in the NY banana republic trial. The 2024 presidential election is a federal election for the US Constitutional provided Presidency. Waiting around for New York to decide if federal protection Constitutional rights were violated is a violation of my right as a US citizen to have an honest election on November 5th. The government branch to determine whether Trump's federal rights were violated by a NY kangaroo court provided over by a compromised judge, a DA who never charged an actual crime, and a trial that never provided the jury with evidence of the crime being charged is the US Supreme Court.

https://instapundit.com/

ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Trump’s Trial Violated Due Process: He was denied notice of the charges, meaningful opportunity to respond, and proof of all elements.

Whether you love, hate or merely tolerate Donald Trump, you should care about due process, which is fundamental to the rule of law. New York’s trial of Mr. Trump violated basic due-process principles.
“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge,” the Supreme Court stated in Cole v. Arkansas (1948), “and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal.” In in re Winship (1970), the justices affirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” These three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump’s trial.
The state offense with which Mr. Trump was indicted, “falsifying business records,” requires proof of an “intent to defraud.” To elevate this misdemeanor to a felony, the statute requires proof of “intent to commit another crime.” In People v. Bloomfield (2006), the state’s highest court observed that “intent to commit another crime” is an indispensable element of the felony offense.
New York courts have concluded that the accused need not be convicted of the other crime since an “intent to commit” it is sufficient to satisfy the statute. But because that intent is, in the words of Winship, “a fact necessary to constitute the crime,” it is an element of felony falsification. Due process requires that the defendant receive timely notice of the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. It also requires that he have opportunity to defend against that accusation and that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to commit it.
Mr. Trump’s indictment didn’t specify the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. Prosecutors didn’t do so during the trial either. Only after the evidentiary phase of the trial did Judge Juan Merchan reveal that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York’s election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
To recap, the prosecution involved (1) a misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on an “intent to commit another crime,” (2) an indictment and trial that failed to specify, or present evidence establishing, another crime the defendant intended to commit, and (3) a jury instruction that the other crime was one that necessitated further proof of “unlawful means.” It’s a Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminality: The charged crime hinged on the intent to commit another, unspecified crime, which in turn hinged on the actual commission of yet another unspecified offense.
To make matters worse, Judge Merchan instructed the jury: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

If I had more money, I’d have paid someone to release live kangaroos in the courthouse.

She concludes: “Mr. Trump, like all criminal defendants, was entitled to due process. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him. That takes time, however, and is unlikely to occur before the election. That unfortunate reality will widen America’s political divide and fuel the suspicion that Mr. Trump’s prosecution wasn’t about enforcing the law but wounding a presidential candidate for the benefit of his opponent.”

Well, that’s because that’s precisely what it was about.