Alan Dershowitz: I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, and what I saw shocked me
The New York Post allowed Alan Dershowitz to describe his informed reaction to one of the last days of the case against President Trump by District Attorney Bragg.
I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France, Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.
But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday.
The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn.
Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution.
But when the defense’s only substantive witness, the experienced attorney Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s rulings, the court went berserk.
Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom of everyone including the media.
For some reason, I was allowed to stay, and I observed one of the most remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually threatened to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again.
That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and to raise a defense.
(Read more at the New York Post)
This is far from a synopsis of the things that legal experts have said are wrong with this kangaroo court
Additionally, I am no legal expert. However, these are some of the other violations of jurisprudence that have occurred in this case (but should have ended the trial at that moment):
- The prosecution was allowed to pursue this case without providing the defense a list of witnesses (thus denying President Trump some of his Brady rights).
- Although Cohen included his version of phone conversations in his testimony, the defense was not able to get phone records or text message records entered into evidence (both of which proved Cohen to be lying again)
- Expert witness on FEC law was not allowed to testify (other than to just read the law) thus disallowing proof that President Trump did not violate the law.
- The payments to Stephanie Gregory Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) did not begin until after the election; therefore, they could not have effected the outcome of the election.
…
Just to show that Merrick Garland was once reluctant to violate the rights of the accused, here is a case to compare to the case against President Trump
Merrick Garland wouldn’t sign off on search of Unibomber cabin
Fox News documented in a 11 August 2022 article how Former FBI deputy assistant director of counterterrorism Terry Turchie pointed out that Merrick Garland would not approve a search of the Unabomber’s cabin (even though, at that point, the Unabomber had already put bombs on planes, terrorized the nation for 20 years, and had 3 killed Americans).
Former FBI deputy assistant director of counterterrorism Terry Turchie said Attorney General Merrick Garland wouldn’t recommend approval for a search warrant for the Unabomber’s cabin on Thursday’s “Jesse Watters Primetime.”
“I’ve never said this publicly, but I’ll just tell you right now because it just sickens me to watch and listen to Merrick Garland, because Merrick Garland was in charge of the prosecution at DOJ of the Unabomber,” Turchie said. “And I have to tell you something: He would not recommend to the AG that our search warrant to get into Theodore Kaczynski’s cabin be approved.”
Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, went on a nationwide bombing campaign between 1975 and 1995.
Turchie said Garland and his group of attorneys “had us working ’til 2 or 3 in the morning of April 3.”
“And finally, the AG Janet Reno, along with Louis Freeh, they stepped in, they approved the search warrant anyway,” he said. “Now, that was a case where we had bombs on airplanes. We had threats to blow up airplanes midair. We had people killed with bombs for 18 years. He wouldn’t do anything.”
Garland “would not recommend to the AG that we get into that cabin on April 3,” Turchie said. “He didn’t see the urgency then, and he didn’t seem to care about agents being up all night trying to get ready for that.”
This comes in light of Attorney General Merrick Garland revealing Thursday that he approved the decision to seek a search warrant for former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate in Palm Beach, Florida.
(Read more at Fox News)
This only shows that Merrick Garland has always been a criminal-sympathizing hack
Merrick Garland seems to have shown himself to be reluctant to punish those who might really be criminals, but more than willing to go after political enemies.
…
To allow a liberal spin on this still-conservative subject, here are the musings of Politico on Garland
Garland’s perilous path to prosecuting Trump
Politico uses a 31 August 2022 article to dig into the problems Garland will likely run into while using the flimsy documents case (not knowing that Smith would mishandle the secret documents).
Attorney General Merrick Garland has a mantra when it comes to politically charged investigations: “We will follow the facts and the law, wherever they lead.”
But Garland’s mantra won’t get him the answers he wants in the gargantuan decision of whether to prosecute former President Donald Trump over the trove of government documents — many of them marked as highly classified — that he took to Mar-a-Lago on his way out of the White House.
Political fallout, precedent and national security risk are just some of the intangibles Garland will have to consider as he considers what would potentially be the highest-profile criminal case in American history, according to former prosecutors, intelligence agency lawyers and Justice Department officials.
One consideration for Garland is how Trump’s alleged actions stack up against other cases DOJ has brought or not brought over mishandling classified information. A second factor is how confident prosecutors are they could win at trial — knowing the political fallout of a losing case against a former president could be devastating.
And finally, Garland has to consider the damage that a trial might have on national security secrets, given the nature of the Mar-a-Lago document seizures.
Of course, one unknown ultimately looms large over all the other machinations: Does Garland view Trump’s cavalier and even defiant approach to the national security secrets at Mar-a-Lago as something of sufficient magnitude to bring the first criminal case against a former president in U.S. history?
“They’re going to have to be satisfied that they’re going to have a very, very strong case to present to a grand jury and ultimately to a jury,” said former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith. “If the prosecutors can get over all those hurdles, given that it’s a former president, it will be a tough call for the attorney general.”
(Read more liberal musings at )
Rather than wonder what secret documents might leak due to the raid, maybe they might ask “What if Republicans turn around and start a 135 Project
That is, what if Republicans take the Democrat plan in the 65 Project to prosecute political enemies and those who defend them and double the effort and add five?
After years of enduring Biden and his persecution of 6 January rioters (while bailing out Antifa and Black Looting Mothers), conservatives may be ready for such a turnaround.
…
Targeting 400 Republicans and their lawyers, Democrats have become the Nazis they accuse us of being
As we know from Bunker’s post on the 65 Project and the way it has targeted Republicans and the lawyers who defend them, Democrats have gone all in on lawfare.
Criminal Charges and disbarment. LAWFARE: Will there be any Republican Lawyers Left to Ensure Election Integrity in November? While many who got too close to Hillary seemed to have their lives shortened, those close to Trump at the minimum have the loss of their law licenses on the hook, worse criminal charges and jail. How many attorneys are still out there and willing to assist in challenging the upcoming election process and result? At what price to them?
Republican candidates are being forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in defending themselves against the lawfare waged against them. And that is assuming that these Republican candidates can find lawyers to represent them. Fewer and fewer lawyers are willing to do so.
Thus, hundreds of millions of dollars that would have otherwise been raised for Republican candidates is being diverted to their defense funds. Of course, taxpayers pay for this because government lawyers are paid from your tax dollars. Dedicating so many lawyers to prosecute Republicans gives Democrat District Attorneys an alibi as to why they can’t pursue real criminals.
The Soros backed 65 project is behind much of this, who claims to be bi-partisan but no Democrat is on the list.
(Continue reading at Bunkerville with her reference to Influence Watch)
I can’t do anything but agree with Bunker.
We only need now to keep our focus and to vote the bums out.
…
Mark 1:1 