by Clarice Feldman, American Thinker:
For some time now the Left has been salivating over the prospect that New York judge Juan Merchan would jail Donald Trump on September 18, before the election. Reports were that a cell in Riker’s was being readied for him and even that he’d be denied Secret Service protection (such as it is) while incarcerated. Not going to happen. The week started off badly for Manhattan District attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor of that case, when on a hidden camera Nicholas Biase, Bragg’s chief spokesman said, “Honestly, I think the case is nonsense.” (When the video by Steven Crowder’s operative was made public, he claimed he denied he meant it, that he was just trying to impress the woman who taped him so she’d go on a date with him.) Of course, the case contending it was felonious for the way money paid to “hush” Stormy Daniels was reported is, in fact, nonsense. A few days later, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik filed an official ethics complaint against Judge Merchan for refusing to recuse himself despite “his family’s increased financial ties” to the proceedings. (His daughter has garnered millions of dollars fundraising on behalf of Kamala Harris.)
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
That same day Merchan announced he is delaying sentencing until November 26 — that is, after the election. Because of a need to respond on September 16 to another matter, Trump’s attorneys asked for a delay. Bragg’s office deferred to the Court — that is, they did not object to any delay, and by letter Merchan responded to Trump’s counsel indicating he’d delay imposition to avoid any appearance “that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching presidential election in which the defendant is a candidate.” (Where would anyone have gotten that impression?) He ordered sentencing adjourned until after hearing Trump’s lawyers’ arguments in November on presidential immunity: “Unfortunately, we are now at a place in time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute,” the judge said. Trump responded in a Truth Social post, “there should be no ‘if necessary,” indicating the case should be “rightfully terminated.”
The case in D.C. before the intemperate and overtly partisan Judge Tanya Chutkan also is stalled. That case was brought by Jack Smith, whose office has spent $35 million as of April of this year trying to tie Trump to the riot on January 6 of 2020. The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity has thrown a grenade into this fantastical case as did its ruling on what constituted “obstruction of an official proceeding.” Chutkan was forced to delay the trial until after the election, but she and Smith are seemingly still doing whatever they can to interfere with the election. She took what I think is an unprecedented step which violated Trump’s due process rights and does so as defiance of the procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Normally, the defendant (here, Trump) can file a motion to dismiss, the prosecutor can respond, and the defendant can file a reply. She’s turned this inside out by allowing Smith to file an “opening brief” on immunity questions. In this brief you can bet that Smith will throw in things which would never meet the evidentiary standards applicable at trial, like grand jury testimony, which is entirely one-sided and presented with no opportunity for cross examination or rebuttal.
What Chutkan did today by taking the rare — unprecedented? — step of allowing DOJ to file an “opening brief” on additional immunity questions is a way to put Trump on trial without a jury and little recourse. Tom Windom, Smith’s prosecutor, told Chutkan the brief would be “comprehensive.” The document will include grand jury transcripts, 302s (FBI) and other cherry picked “evidence” to salvage the “Big Lie” narrative as people start to vote. You can GUARANTEE DOJ will release new bombshells to put Trump on the defensive and create damaging headlines. It’s a paper trial but without cross examination, defense witnesses, or other due process rights.
I haven’t researched what options may be available to the defense to prevent this travesty, but there ought to be a way to protect Trump’s constitutional right to due process in the face of such partisan hackery.
And then there’s Hunter, who probably won’t be jailed either.
If you recall, Hunter was offered an extraordinary sweetheart deal by the Department of Justice, one that fell apart as soon as the judge took a look at it.
Read More @ AmericanThinker.com
