Judge Merchan may have been correct to point out the possible jury misconduct, but why did he change the text?
Politico looks in a half-hearted manner into how Judge Merchan brought up a Facebook post that suggested the possibility of jury misconduct in the New York trial of President Trump by Alvin Bragg. The good thing about this article is that it does correctly quote Judge Merchan (even though it does not ask questions brought up by his acts).
Justice Juan Merchan informed prosecutors and Donald Trump’s attorneys on Friday about a newly discovered post on the New York court system’s Facebook page from a user who claimed to be the cousin of a juror.
“My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted,” the user wrote in a week-old comment, according to the judge. “Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!”
(Read more bull at Politico)
The problem remains that what Merchan put in the letter is not what the Facebook author said.
Refer to the article by NJ and the screen captures made by Katie Phang for the actual text posted by “Michael Anderson.” (Additionally, since this person has only been introduced to us via social media by way of two posts that now are deleted, I will refrain from assuming that this person used his or her actual name when posting. Therefore, all references to this person will have quotes around his or her chosen Facebook name: “Michael Anderson.”)
Do you find it oddly amusing that these liberals who celebrate the prosecution of President Trump under bogus charges will then delete their posts and make their accounts restricted when the rest of us take notice?
While I don’t play the part of a legal expert, the legal experts I read are slow to call this reason to dismiss the case.
However, this should be investigated. With all of the concidences occuring around this, there must be some good evidence behind it all.
If, as Michael Anderson claims, he is a “professional sh*tposter, who paid him for this? If the goal of a sh*tposter (or troll) is to divert the conversation to a new topic, what are we being distracted from that the Democrats like Merchan (or Soros or Biden) want to hide?
Questions must be asked in response to what Judge Merchan did in this letter.
After seeing how Judge Merchan worded his letter and then put a portion of it within quotes (as if it were a direct quote), I have to ask:
- What does Judge Merchan gain from removing the Facebook author’s reference to MAGA?
- What does Judge Merchan have to gain by removing the Facebook author’s reference to the gender? (This is made evident by the statement ending with “according to her.”)
- Why not just take a word-for-word copy of the Facebook post (including the emoji’s that the judge took the time to seek out and include)?
…
NJ provides a source of the correct wording of the original Facebook post
First, NJ presented the full and correct quote of the Facebook post by “Michael Anderson” (while assuming to be able to read the mind of President Trump and his followers).
The portion of the article which I found credible enough to quote began after the fifth paragraph with:
On May 20, in a post about the court’s diversity, the N.Y. Courts Facebook highlighted Judge Jeffrey K. Oing during Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month Diversity. Posts like these often attract comments from racist trolls and bigots.
An account named “Michael Anderson” commented on May 29:
“Thank you for all your hard against the MAGA crazies! My cousin is a juror on Trumps criminal case and they’re going to convict him tomorrow according to her. 🙏Thank you New York courts!!!! ❤️”
“Lopsided FreeSpeech,” which has no profile picture or account history, replied that the comment implied the cousin on the jury had committed a crime because a juror isn’t supposed “to discuss the case before it ended.”
“Michael Anderson” replied: “Now we are married ❤️😁.”
The post has been deleted.
(Read your fill of liberalism at NJ)
A second source of the original Facebook text came from MSNBC air personality
The following screen captures of the “Michael Anderson” Facebook posts came from the Katie Phang X (aka Twitter) feed in a 7 June post of hers.
Why does “Michael Anderson” think that his saying he has now married his cousin will protect him or his cousin from leaking a verdict?
In the Democrat lala-land of New York, are there no criminal laws that are applied against Democrats? Does the fact that the juror convicted a Republican President protect her from prosecution? Does the fact that “Michael Anderson” celebrated the conviction also protect him from prosecution?
Since Alvin Bragg has no problem with releasing murderers and has a history of releasing illegals who hospitalize cops, letting these two go should be no problem for Bragg. Furthermore, if Bragg finds himself under so much scrutiny that he must prosecute, there is always the Big Guy who can pardon.
…
Mark 1:1 
So let me ask this: “What do you think Judge Merchan was doing when he set about rewording the message posted on Facebook about the juror misconduct?”
LikeLike
If Judge Merchan were never under oath, it would be impossible for anyone to claim perjury.
Judicial misconduct, on the other hand, comes in many forms. Judge Merchan’s apparent lack of concern for ethical standards is a significant issue. Had he been more mindful of these standards, he might have dismissed the case against Trump as a stretch in everyone’s credulity. However, a judge’s personal behavior that questions their judicial integrity can lead to serious consequences. The gag order, in my opinion, was excessive — and it didn’t achieve its intended purpose. This is true even if the same behavior would merely be considered unwise for the average citizen. The judge’s robe, in a sense, amplifies his behavior, making it even more significant in the context of judicial ethics. In my view, he took too much of a personal role in the trial, and that made it an unfair trial.
I think we will hear something from Trump’s lawyers on this issue. I now wonder if Merchan is “manipulating” the system to avoid massive criticism of his handling of the case — a mistrial would be better than overturning it on the merits.
What say you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I say this trial sets such a standard that Hogan’s goat should never be mentioned again.
LikeLike