Trump kan i næste uge blive dømt i New York for et eller andet. Ingen ved det endnu, men alle venter i spænding. Jonathan Turley skriver

Judge Juan Merchan has refused every opportunity to bring an end to this politically manufactured prosecution. Now it will be up to 12 New Yorkers to do what neither the court nor the prosecutors were willing to do: adhere to the rule of law regardless of the identity of the defendant.

Merchan has allowed the government to bring back into life a dead misdemeanor and convert it into 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. To accomplish this legal regeneration, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has vaguely referenced a variety of crimes that Trump allegedly was trying to conceal through the business record violations.

The problem is that he has left the secondary crime mired in uncertainty to the point that experts on various networks are still debating what the underlying theory is in the case.

Indeed, Bragg is expected to finally state with clarity what he is alleging  …  at the closing arguments of the case.

In the meantime, the prosecution is pushing to make it easier for the jury to convict. First, they have vaguely referenced a variety of possible offenses from tax to election violations. Bragg initially laid out four possible predicate crimes. It is down to three – a tax crime and violations of state or federal election law.

Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what crimes were being covered up so the jury could literally have three different views of what happened in the case and still convict Trump.

Prosecutors are also seeking to effectively shorten the playing field by allowing the 

jurors to convict on a lower standard of proof for the key term in using “unlawful means.” The defense wants the jury instructed that it must find that such use of “unlawful means” was done with willful intent.

Byron York forklarer forståeligt, hvori det uforståelige består

There is, in fact, a crime on the books in New York for falsifying a company’s records. It is a misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations, which in this case expired in 2019. Any reasonable person might conclude that that would be the end of that. In addition, it might seem a little nitpicky to charge a former president of the United States with a misdemeanor over bookkeeping. And then there was the victim question: Who suffered because of this? The answer is nobody. 

So Bragg was faced with the possibility of charging the former president with a crime that was a) expired, b) relatively unimportant, and c) victimless. He fixed all three of his problems by coming up with a new theory. It held that a) Trump fixed the books for the purpose of committing another crime, which would extend the statute of limitations. Then, b) even though the other crime was also a misdemeanor, it could be used to upgrade the bookkeeping charge to a felony, making it important enough to charge a former president. And c) the other crime that the bookkeeping offense was allegedly designed to cover up was: a plot to corrupt the 2016 election! That way, there was not only a victim — there were millions of victims, meaning those millions of people who voted in 2016 unaware that Trump was secretly undermining the entire democratic process by categorizing the payments to Cohen as “legal expenses” as opposed to, say, “hush money” in the Trump Organization books.

But the “other crime,” the one that shows that Trump fixed the 2016 election, remains murky. And it is the one that created alleged victims of the whole enterprise. In opening arguments, prosecutor Michael Colangelo — he is the former No. 3 at the Biden Justice Department who joined Bragg’s lowly county prosecutor’s office for the purpose of trying Trump — said the former president “orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.” As the jury listened, Colangelo pounded on the idea of a Trump-led conspiracy to steal the election. 

The conspiracy was so consequential, Colangelo suggested, that Trump might have stolen the entire election by labeling those bookkeeping entries as “legal expenses.” “We will never know,” Colangelo told the jury, “if this conspiracy was the difference-maker in a close election.” 

“Democrats hope they can begin calling the Republican candidate a “convicted felon” before the first debate in June.” En forbrydelse skal jo helst have et offer, og det er ifølge anklager “Michael Colangelo — (…) the former No. 3 at the Biden Justice Department who joined Bragg’s lowly county prosecutor’s office for the purpose of trying Trump” at Trumps kategorisering af betalingen til Stormy Daniels, førte vælgerne bag lyset af, hvor lurvet en person han er. Konsekvensen af den logik til side, så konstaterer en kommentar: “To corrupt the 2016 election with bookkeeping dated 2017.” Man skulle næsten tro at systemet var korrupt. Alina Habba pointerer at 

Alina Habba: “Judge Merchan…has somehow randomly selected had Steve Bannon’s case, had Allen Weisselberg’s case…somehow, he randomly also gets Donald Trump. That’s not the way the system works. You assign a case randomly…but in the new America, under the Biden Regime, we are sitting here in a politicization of all our judicial systems.”

Og Mike Smith tilføjer

President Trump’s Justice Department must immediately open a criminal probe on day one.

Biden officials like Matthew Colangelo, Andrew Weissmann, Jack Smith, and many others must be held accountable for their actions using official government resources to criminally prosecute a former President of the United States and the current Republican nominee.

These republic-ending tactics cannot be allowed to continue.

Alexandria Occasio-Cortez beklagede, at det ikke havde virket at sætte Trump i en “juridisk fodlænke”, mens folk i hendes valgdistrikt flokkedes til Trumps valgmøde. Scott Adams kalder det Andre Agassi taktikken, efter den legendariske tennisspiller, der insisterede på at spille til modstanderens fordel for at nedbryde ham psykisk. Mens juryen er sendt hjem, for at få forarbejdet deres indtryk af medierne – der manisk minder om deres enestående mulighed for at stoppe den orange trussel – kan de se, at selv i Bronx, er der titusinder, der ikke køber fortællingen. De kan se, at de ikke er alene i deres by. Og derved finde styrke i, at de ikke er alene i juryen heller. 

Forskellen på kandidaterne er slående. Mens Joe Biden og Demokraterne, og deres medier, taler om racehad, samles amerikanerne om Trumps vision for USA: “It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or brown or white or whatever the hell color you are, it doesn’t matter. We are all Americans.” Og det er festligt, folkeligt og fornøjeligt. “Please accept this Democrat — this Black Puerto Rican … please accept my endorsement for YOU as the PRESIDENT!” sagde Ruben Diaz. Cynical Publius konstaterede, hvad der ikke skete

1. Trump did not put on an affected, fake accent of an A.M.E. Zion minister or Chi Chi Rodriguez (See: Hillary).  He was simply Trump, without airs or any patronizing words or thoughts.

2. He did not tell the people of the Bronx that they were victims.  He told them that they were powerful and could solve their community’s problems themselves.

3. He did not demonize any groups of Americans as the evil “Other.”  Yes, he criticized the failed policies of Democrats and poked fun at their foibles, but he reminded everyone that we are all Americans first, from coast to coast.

4. He did not promise to solve the problems of the Bronx with handouts or wealth redistribution.  He merely promised that he would help set the national economic conditions so the community itself could solve its own problems through jobs, business and education.  He promised empowerment, not victimhood.

Mollie Hemingway skriver i The Federalist

The contrast with President Joe Biden couldn’t be starker. In three decidedly non-raucous speeches within the last week or so, Biden leaned into racial grievance politics. At a speech at the National Museum of African American History and Culture last Friday, Biden claimed America was beset by “forces trying to deny freedom of opportunity for all Americans.” He claimed there was an “insidious” resistance and an “extreme movement” led by his political opponent to hurt black people. In another disaster of a speech to the NAACP, the White House later had to make 10 corrections to it.

The same day as the NAACP speech, Biden gave the commencement address at Morehouse College, a historically black men’s school in Georgia. In a self-centered speech riddled with some of his familiar falsehoods about his life and family, Biden painted a picture of a racist and evil country.

He said the country was under the “poison of white supremacy” and falsely claimed Americans were trying to put forth a national book ban to harm black people.

It’s “natural to wonder if democracy” actually works, he said. “What is democracy if black men are being killed in the street? What is democracy if a trail of broken promises still leave black — black communities behind? What is democracy if you have to be 10 times better than anyone else to get a fair shot?”

Biden also falsely claimed Georgia doesn’t allow anyone to drink water in voting lines and that black election workers are being constantly attacked.

Biden’s message is that the country is evil, racist, and full of hatred and that he will fix it by emptying the Treasury to buy votes.

“Democrats went from ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’ to ‘You’re stupid if you think the economy is bad’.” siger Eric Abbenante og citerer Demokraternes ikoniske rådgiver James Carville “Democrat messaging is full of shit”. I sammen ombæring siges det at præsident Biden, vil kommentere på Trumps dom fra Det Hvide Hus. Det er hvad man kan forvente, når man ansætter en mand, der udgiver sig for at være kvinde til at fortælle, hvorledes klimaforandringer er racistiske.

En ven legede med tanken om, at Demokraterne ville stoppe med at give Biden livsforlængende behandling og prøve at ride på en bølge af sympati fra statsmandsbegravelsen.