The world awaits the sentencing of Trump on January 10 in the "falsification of accounts" case. It is an unprecedented situation in the history of the US which makes it interesting. The affable social commentator, local lawyer Michael Han, waded in and shared his thoughts some 3 days ago. Here I parse Michael's Facebook post, not as a contest of wits or ego, but in the Grecian agoras spirit of open-mindedness.
Michael:
"That’s the President-Elect of the most militarily powerful nation of the world. He is Donald J. Trump. He is not happy.
He was arraigned on 30 May 2024 to face multiple charges. And they have got to do with an actress and social escort, whose stage name was Stormy Daniels."
There is a minor mistake of fact here. But just to set the record straight, because, although not a legal issue, this case stands a lot on the reputation of three persons - Daniels herself, Trump and star prosecution witness Michael Cohen (who was once Trump's lawyer). Stormy Daniels was a porn star. I wonder why Michael insists on 'actress'. I get it, slam Trump and pamper the other.. Amongst her other pursuits she is a writer. She authored a book about ..... her and Trump, what else. Sex sells, especially with a Trump name. And you probably won't know, because nasty leftist media blocked this out. What she wrote about the sex act itself, and the evidence in court, were two different accounts. In the book the sex was so-so ... booring. She was on record in an interview of having said the same thing ... the sex was boring. In court, her evidence was high drama. Trump was a sex maniac and she was fearful. She lied in court. Imagine a porn star fearful of a sex partner! Who's buying that?
Daniels under-reported her income from the book deal. Geez is that not falsifying accounts? The reason has to do with denying Trump access to those money. Bet you don't know she sued Trump for defammation and lost and owes the Orange mop US$83m in damages and legal fees. Media don't tell you.
Michael:
"Trump was convicted of 34 counts for falsification of business records to cover up payment to Stormy. He was convicted by a jury of his peers."
This is wishy washy statement, not fair to a person being vilified. You should explain the facts then readers can judge the judicial shenanigans in the closed court hearings. 34 counts falsifying sounds horrendous, and that is the purpose for the way the charge was framed. Sensationalise to impact the election. It's one act of 'falsification' but 34 installment payments were made making it 34 counts. But actually I wonder how many CEOs micro manage to the level of giving instructions to the accountant which account to book an expense. The money were paid to Cohen, his lawyer at the time, so the accountant booked it under "Legal Fees". Having done some years as external auditor, I can attest to the fact clients consistently book payments to lawyers as " Legal Fees" instead of breaking it into professional fees and the nature of the legal expenses.
Readers must understand the case is not about falsification of accounts per se. If that were the case, it will just be an IRA issue - of hiding a tax-disallowed expense under another tax-allowed heading in order to claim tax cover. But this is not a tax prosecution. In any case, IRA would have simply dis-allowed the expense for tax purposes. It is not a felony. No prosecution. In my time, there was once I had interest expense of US$50m dis-allowed which worked out to about US$5m tax cover denied (based on 10% tax on Asian Current Unit book).
So what was the case all about? Did you know the DA Alvin Bragg did not specify the felony that was committed? It became clear in the course of the proceedings that it was New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.10 . Under this, if the intention of falsifying the account is to further another crime, then it becomes a felony. Judge Juan Merchan explained to the jurors the 3 breaches of law : (1) Falsify accounts, (2) Tax violation, (3) intent to influence 2020 election. (1) and (2) are not felonies per se. But because of the intent in (3), all 3 acts become felonies.
That intent was never proven in court. The court spent time delving into salacious aspects of Daniels' testimony, designed to damage Trump's reputation. Both Daniels and Cohen were caught in a web of lies. In fact, in the court, Cohen admitted to a pack of lies he had testified. Perjury was an issue the court never addressed.
This case will wind its way to the appellate court and SCOTUS where I wager it will be dismissed for 2 reasons :
(1) A felony requires unanimous jury decision. Judge Merchan instructed the jurors no unanimous decision is necessary so long as they all agreed Trump had committed any one of 3 acts he identified. Merchan is fundamentally wrong in this and a recent June 2024 SCOTUS ruling in Erlinger Vs US settles this issue.
(2) Presidential election is a Federal affair and thus Merchan has no jurisdiction. Did you know this case was investigated at Federal level and it was decided there was no predicate crime? To understand why DA Bragg persued the case, you have to follow the money. But that's another story.
"Hush money" sounds salacious. It is all about Non-Disclosure Agreements and everybody knows NDAs are perfectly legit. Kill Trump's character, say "Hush Money".
If you like more details about the Stormy Daniels case and what her lawyer Michael Avenatti said about holding Trump to ransom, check my previous blog here. Recall the lawyer had such fame representing Daniels that Liberals started the "Avenatti For President" craze? He is sitting in prison today. For misappropriating money from Daniels' book deal. Some funny spiritual thing going on?
Michael:
"Although he is unlikely to face jail time, Justice Merchand has ordered Trump to appear before him to be sentenced on 10 Jan 2025, 10 days before his ascension to the power seat.
Trump’s lawyers have asked for the courts to make an exception to the rule (or those being ruled). They argued that he is president (soon-to-be) after all. He is the people’s choice. He cannot be distracted by the conviction/sentence.
I suppose his lawyers likened Trump to the last man standing in the electoral equivalent of the Hunger Games. The odds were indeed stacked up in his favour. And the conviction and sentence will only “impede his ability to govern.”
On what basis does Michael say jail time is unlikely? New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.10 is a Class E Felony providing for jail term up to 4 years. Being a first offender, the judge MAY only order a probation. Throwing Trump in jail will bring about a Constitutional crisis.
It's giving no credit to Trump's lawyers. People talk and tweet and give all sorts of opinions. Those are opinions. Trump lawyers do court filings based on legal pleadings, not yakkity yak. What they did:
(1) A pleading with the court, ie Judge Merchan, to stay the sentencing based on (i) the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity has not been argued out; (ii) the case is with the Appeals court.
(2) Filed appeal based on legal arguments on (i) presidential immunity; (ii) no unanimous jury decision (Erlinger vs US), (iii) no jurisdiction for Federal Offence.
Having said that, there have been 2 latest developments: (i) Last Friday, Merchan ruled “This court finds that neither the vacatur of the jury’s verdicts nor dismissal of the indictment are required by the Presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act or the Supremacy Clause." In other words, he disregards SCOTUS ruling and "no jurisdiction" claim. However, he said he will not impose jail time, and even allow Trump to appear virtually for sentencing.
(ii) Yesterday, an appelate court judge said they have ruled and the conviction stays. Trump lawyers requested for the full court ruling.
My own feeling is Merchan will give a slap on the wrist probation. That way, the left can forever call Trump a "convicted felon". That's the whole idea. So Hillary Clinton, first out the stable, has started calling him that. Which may prompt the new DOJ to press charges on Hillary for her role in the "Russia Russia Russia" lie in impeachment #1. Then of course Michael will then say there you go, Trump persecuting all those against him.
Michael:
"As an aside, in Trump’s universe, he is a political martyr. A very biblical one. Many of his supporters endorse him as God’s chosen. He now rides on the Beast (mind you, that’s the name of the presidential limousine) on Palm Sunday to the deafening chant that he’s the One who will set things right.
"Trump was convicted of 34 counts for falsification of business records to cover up payment to Stormy. He was convicted by a jury of his peers."
This is wishy washy statement, not fair to a person being vilified. You should explain the facts then readers can judge the judicial shenanigans in the closed court hearings. 34 counts falsifying sounds horrendous, and that is the purpose for the way the charge was framed. Sensationalise to impact the election. It's one act of 'falsification' but 34 installment payments were made making it 34 counts. But actually I wonder how many CEOs micro manage to the level of giving instructions to the accountant which account to book an expense. The money were paid to Cohen, his lawyer at the time, so the accountant booked it under "Legal Fees". Having done some years as external auditor, I can attest to the fact clients consistently book payments to lawyers as " Legal Fees" instead of breaking it into professional fees and the nature of the legal expenses.
Readers must understand the case is not about falsification of accounts per se. If that were the case, it will just be an IRA issue - of hiding a tax-disallowed expense under another tax-allowed heading in order to claim tax cover. But this is not a tax prosecution. In any case, IRA would have simply dis-allowed the expense for tax purposes. It is not a felony. No prosecution. In my time, there was once I had interest expense of US$50m dis-allowed which worked out to about US$5m tax cover denied (based on 10% tax on Asian Current Unit book).
So what was the case all about? Did you know the DA Alvin Bragg did not specify the felony that was committed? It became clear in the course of the proceedings that it was New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.10 . Under this, if the intention of falsifying the account is to further another crime, then it becomes a felony. Judge Juan Merchan explained to the jurors the 3 breaches of law : (1) Falsify accounts, (2) Tax violation, (3) intent to influence 2020 election. (1) and (2) are not felonies per se. But because of the intent in (3), all 3 acts become felonies.
That intent was never proven in court. The court spent time delving into salacious aspects of Daniels' testimony, designed to damage Trump's reputation. Both Daniels and Cohen were caught in a web of lies. In fact, in the court, Cohen admitted to a pack of lies he had testified. Perjury was an issue the court never addressed.
This case will wind its way to the appellate court and SCOTUS where I wager it will be dismissed for 2 reasons :
(1) A felony requires unanimous jury decision. Judge Merchan instructed the jurors no unanimous decision is necessary so long as they all agreed Trump had committed any one of 3 acts he identified. Merchan is fundamentally wrong in this and a recent June 2024 SCOTUS ruling in Erlinger Vs US settles this issue.
(2) Presidential election is a Federal affair and thus Merchan has no jurisdiction. Did you know this case was investigated at Federal level and it was decided there was no predicate crime? To understand why DA Bragg persued the case, you have to follow the money. But that's another story.
"Hush money" sounds salacious. It is all about Non-Disclosure Agreements and everybody knows NDAs are perfectly legit. Kill Trump's character, say "Hush Money".
If you like more details about the Stormy Daniels case and what her lawyer Michael Avenatti said about holding Trump to ransom, check my previous blog here. Recall the lawyer had such fame representing Daniels that Liberals started the "Avenatti For President" craze? He is sitting in prison today. For misappropriating money from Daniels' book deal. Some funny spiritual thing going on?
Michael:
"Although he is unlikely to face jail time, Justice Merchand has ordered Trump to appear before him to be sentenced on 10 Jan 2025, 10 days before his ascension to the power seat.
Trump’s lawyers have asked for the courts to make an exception to the rule (or those being ruled). They argued that he is president (soon-to-be) after all. He is the people’s choice. He cannot be distracted by the conviction/sentence.
I suppose his lawyers likened Trump to the last man standing in the electoral equivalent of the Hunger Games. The odds were indeed stacked up in his favour. And the conviction and sentence will only “impede his ability to govern.”
On what basis does Michael say jail time is unlikely? New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.10 is a Class E Felony providing for jail term up to 4 years. Being a first offender, the judge MAY only order a probation. Throwing Trump in jail will bring about a Constitutional crisis.
It's giving no credit to Trump's lawyers. People talk and tweet and give all sorts of opinions. Those are opinions. Trump lawyers do court filings based on legal pleadings, not yakkity yak. What they did:
(1) A pleading with the court, ie Judge Merchan, to stay the sentencing based on (i) the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity has not been argued out; (ii) the case is with the Appeals court.
(2) Filed appeal based on legal arguments on (i) presidential immunity; (ii) no unanimous jury decision (Erlinger vs US), (iii) no jurisdiction for Federal Offence.
Having said that, there have been 2 latest developments: (i) Last Friday, Merchan ruled “This court finds that neither the vacatur of the jury’s verdicts nor dismissal of the indictment are required by the Presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act or the Supremacy Clause." In other words, he disregards SCOTUS ruling and "no jurisdiction" claim. However, he said he will not impose jail time, and even allow Trump to appear virtually for sentencing.
(ii) Yesterday, an appelate court judge said they have ruled and the conviction stays. Trump lawyers requested for the full court ruling.
My own feeling is Merchan will give a slap on the wrist probation. That way, the left can forever call Trump a "convicted felon". That's the whole idea. So Hillary Clinton, first out the stable, has started calling him that. Which may prompt the new DOJ to press charges on Hillary for her role in the "Russia Russia Russia" lie in impeachment #1. Then of course Michael will then say there you go, Trump persecuting all those against him.
Michael:
"As an aside, in Trump’s universe, he is a political martyr. A very biblical one. Many of his supporters endorse him as God’s chosen. He now rides on the Beast (mind you, that’s the name of the presidential limousine) on Palm Sunday to the deafening chant that he’s the One who will set things right.
For he has escaped two bullets, possibly one explosion, and two impeachments, with many charges pending, and one conviction, with possibly a no-jail sentence. There has to be a purpose to all that. "
No comments.
Michael:
"Anyway, to his supporters, Trump shall turn the moral tide. The world will pay for their sins (or defiance), especially those who go against his foreordained rule and the collective faith of his believers.
Mind you, he has held the people in his universe in a messianic trance, especially so when he rose from the ashes which will be captured in his second coming this 20 Jan 2025.
And sadly this is how it works and I have seen it. In Trump’s universe, either you are for him or against him. If you don’t support him, be and stay loyal to him, regardless of whatever stand he takes, you are against him.
A world like that is indeed black and white. It’s binary. Anyone against him (that is, his policies and/or his innocence) stands on the other side of the line. His supporters are his enforcers. They will ensure that you are earmarked as being not-one of-us. And you will be treated as an outcast."
And just like that, Michael condemns 180m Americans into mindless idiots. In contrast, does Michael then prefer the non-binary world of Biden and Democrats? A DNC which accepts no contrarian views that forced four of their best legislators to resign from the party, namely Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema.
And you know what the Democrat side is like. Conspiracy theorists have been telling them in the last 4 years that Biden's brain is gone. There are videos that appear to show Biden pooped in his pants in public. But no one is allowed to mention Biden's visible deterioration. It's only when Hollywood celebrity George Clooney was conned into saying this to pave the way for the DNC coup to take Biden off the ballot, when suddenly, overnight, to all Democrats, their social influencers, media and liberal public, old Joe magically turned mentally challenged. Never seen senility hit a man so fast in my life!
On the other hand, Trump has a VP elect JD Vance who was fiercely anti-Trump previously, Marco Rubio who criticised Trump like crazy years ago is the nominated Secretary of State, a critical appointment. Pam Bondi (Sec DOJ nominee) and Pete Hegseth (sec Defence nominee) have been critical of some of Trump's policies.
None of us are the fly on the wall in White House meetings. It would be condescending for us to say a whole bunch of super intelligent and forceful people sit down in White House meetings and play "Yes Sir, No Sir" and rollover to the President, whether Trump or anyone else. It ain't a PAP cabinet meeting for sure. Insiders have talked of robust arguments. Trump accepts critical views backed by logic or evidence, the same as Lee Kuan Yew. But no leader will tolerate anyone who works against an agenda. One can disagree, but cannot work against it. Trump has learnt his great lesson in his first presidency where appointees actually worked against him. General Miley, Colonel Windman, Victoria Nuland, John Bolton, etc. In his second term, all Biden's handover critical personnel will be thoroughly vetted.
Michael:
"And if you’d indulge me, I believe that due to outrageous inequality and promises repeatedly broken (before Trump), the world is now polarised (and usurped) by outrageous logic, and moral values bend towards that collective outrageousness. All hands are therefore in the cookie jar (and Trump just happens to be the byproduct of that outrageous angst)."
That is so spot on. I'm glad you identify the causality was before Trump. But there should have been a courtesy mention of Obama, the one well-schooled in the communist Saul Alinsky's dictatorial and divisive tactics, who is primarily responsible for the US cultural shift into chaos in the last 2 decades.
But it is incorrect to say Trump is a by-product of the "outrageousness". He is here to change that and Make America Great Again. As social commentator Dan Bongino, ex-Secret Service guy and major investor in social media platform Rumble, said, "cute-sy time" is over. A broken house needs a tough leader carrying a big stick to put it in order.
Michael:
"All said, Justice Juan Merchan however will have none of that (that is, making Trump an exception to those ruled by the law). He stood firm and said: “setting aside the jury’s verdict would undermine the rule of law in immeasurable ways.”
He criticised Trump’s “unrelenting and unsubstantiated attacks” against the integrity of the criminal proceeding, and noted that he had found him guilty of 10 counts of contempt during trial for “repeatedly violating an order restricting out-of-court statements about witnesses and others.
Justice Merchan said: “the Defendant has gone to great length to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grand juries and the justice system as a whole.”
Alas, unto thyself, there is no law. But fortunately, for the America’s embattled justice system, the rule of law still manages to stand ankle-deep against the rule by law."
The purpose of gag order is usually to prevent information of public interest from getting out, such as some state secrets, sensitive data, etc. It is also to prevent influencing the jury. A gag order is normally imposed on media, lawyers and witnesses.
In America, the court has to balance a gag order with First Amendment rights, ie freedom of speech, in order to ensure the defendant has all the protection against judicial over-reach. It is to be done in a way that does not infringe on a defendant's rights to an honest trial, not to prevent a judge from having his name smeared. In the case of Trump, we have a gag order on a defendant. We have a biased leftist media with megahorns to continously blast one side of the story and Trump denied his right to respond. And all this in a closed court proceeding where transparency becomes an issue. Especially in a hot political case. Take for instance, would the public have known about the possibility of conflict of interest in Merchan's daughter's work with the DNC? Would the public have known star witnesses Daniels and Cohen lied through their noses?
Michael:
"But come the inauguration, and the next four years thereafter, where her integrity and stamina will be put through the furnace fire, we shall then see which ruler will come out of the furnace like gold."
Agree. I am skewed towards the party of conservative values and believe in the constitutionality of law. Do you prefer the party of Biden who nominates to the courts based on DEI and not excellence in judicial knowledge? Bidens Supreme Court appointee Ketanji does not know what a woman is and has been consistently on the wrong side of the majority in so many SCOTUS decisions. And do you agree with the hundreds of radical leftist DAs that Soros' money put in place, those that let murderers and rapists walk free, but prosecute shop owners who wallop thieves who tried to rob them, and those that support the call to defund the police?
Michael:
"In any event, I commend Justice Merchan’s stand. That’s undeniably a courageous act. A lone justice in a worn-out robe, standing against the voice of the majority, clamouring for the politically-motivated system to let their adored president go."
No Sir, that is not courage. That is simply following judicial proceedings. He made his rulings, that is as it should be. There will be those who agree with him, and those that don't. The case will work its way through appeals and then the Supreme Court. Conservatives have little chance in a political case in a DC court where jurors are almost 100 % liberal.
On the contrary, it is more dangerous for Merchan to acquit Trump. All hell would have broken loose with the Leftists. That's my opinion.
I think courage is when SCOTUS ruled against Roe-Wade, when conservative judges had angry, leftists crowds outside their homes, when Chief Justice Kavannagh had an attempt on his life.
Courage is when a conservative Judge Cannon in Florida, who handles the Mar-a-largo classified documents case, slammed down on Special Counsel Jack Smith for his numerous shenanigans which included evidence tampering and attempt to bribe a defence lawyer.
Now the disapproval of a stay of sentencing has nothing to do with the courage of Merchan. It is based on the legalities of the case. I realise I am addressing Michael, a seasoned lawyer, and me wrangling the legal mumbo jumbo. Let me present the logic. An appeal for stay of sentencing is complicated with pre-trial and post-trial defferences. There are however, certain circumstances, when a stay is granted, which Merchan has refused to address.
When filing a motion for stay of sentencing, defence must show irreparable harm may be done, or the appeal raises significant legal or constitutional questions. All 3 counts are present in Trump's appeal. Legal question is the non-unanimity of the jury, constitutional question is a Federal case handled in state court, and irreparable harm is, for heavens sake, he is the President-elect of the country.
Now let's compare this to the case of Jussie Smollet. Media don't want to talk about this. Smollet is a black, small time actor. He arranged with 2 other black men who made up as white supremacists. They staged a faux lynching attempt, all captured on video. Smollet made a false report to police that he was a victim of racist and homophobic assault. He was convicted of lying to police and faking a hate crime. He was sentenced to 150 days jail time. After 6 days in jail his lawyer filed appeal and motion for stay of sentence. He was released pending appeal. The reasons? He's a celebrity, jail is dangerous for him; his appeal raised serious legal issues, making it unfair for him to serve time while his appeal is in progress. See the difference? By the way, Smollet is a huge fan of liberal ideology.
Michael:
"Let me end with what Plato said about his mentor Socrates.
'If you take my advice, you’ll care little for Socrates but much more for the truth. If you think I’m speaking the truth, agree with me; but if not, resist me with every argument you can muster.'
And Justice Merchan did just that. He stood by truth. We should too, same with our children, and our children’s children.
So that the world is not about a tribal line of oppositions, but one of a cross of grace, sacrifice and redemption."
In reality, justice is not always aligned with truth. Often, truth lost due to errors in legal strategy, or to persuasion, or social prejudices, etc. Especially in the trial by jury system, persuasion is tremendously important. Black celebrity OJ Simson got away with murder of his white wife because of social prejudice and persuasion. As I mentioned, in Washington DC, conservatives have ideological partisanship stacked against them as jurors are predominantly liberals.
In any event, the truth of the case had nothing to do with Merchan. The judge is not the one who determines the outcome of the case. That's the jurors' duty. The judge manages the proceedings and advises the jurors on the legal intratricacies of a case. And in this case, Merchan advised the jurors they need not have unanimity in all 3 criminal acts as long as they think one of the act has been committed. This is in clear violation of the law in a felony case where the bar is set high requiring "guilty beyond reasonable doubt", that is, unanimous decision by the jury.
So yes, Truth can also lose in a court of law by the acts of the presiding Judge.
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment