GREGG JARRETT: NY judge desperate to brand Trump ‘convicted felon’ before inauguration

New York Judge Juan Merchandogmatic refusal on Friday to drop the case against President-elect Donald Trump and instead proceed with sentencing on January 10 is another middle finger extended to the law. And Trump.

At the same time, Merchan unwittingly acknowledges the stupidity of the entire prosecution by informing the defendant that neither the court nor District Attorney Alvin Bragg will seek any meaningful punishment. Trump, the judge disingenuously advises, would receive an “unconditional discharge” without jail time, fines or probation after a Manhattan jury verdict last May.

TRUMP PROCESSED MERCHANA, DEMOCRATS WHO JUST WANT ‘A POUND OF FLESH’ AMONG FAILED CASES

Never mind that state law does not support imprisonment under these circumstances. Forget that the district attorney deliberately twisted statutes and tainted evidence to pursue a gratuitous prosecution that was motivated solely by political vendetta. And ignore the fact that there is little likelihood that a conviction by a biased jury, compounded by s Merchan chronic reversible errorswill withstand judicial review in the appeal process. Ultimately.

It seems obvious that Merchan is desperate to smear Trump with the formal fence of “convicted felon.” To do this, he must punish the new president. A jury verdict alone is not sufficient under the law. So the offer amounts to no sentencing if Trump at least appears virtually during the hearing 10 days before he is sworn in.

It’s another charade designed to stage—and cover up—a mock trial. Show yourself verbally tarred and feathered, but no supplies or pole will be deployed.

In a sense, it might be tempting to accept Merchan’s parole. Why? By law, Trump is barred from challenging the judge’s myriad errors in the trial, as well as the prosecution’s bogus legal theory, until after the verdict. Only then was he officially “convicted”. A successful appeal erases the conviction, albeit late.

And there is the problem.

Your average defendant would accept a Faustian plea bargain that guarantees no jail time and the clock starts immediately on appeal. But Trump is different. He is a hardened fighter who refuses to capitulate, even when faced with reprimands from his opponents. This is one of the many reasons why voters rewarded him with a second term. He doesn’t give up or give in. Nor should it.

A competent or objective judge would have long ago thrown the indictment against Trump into the trash where it belongs. On the face of it, it was a blatantly flawed, if not ridiculous, and transparently politicized prosecution.

Trump is determined to clear his name. So you can expect his legal team to challenge Merchan’s decision on both the dismissal and the fine. Various legal options are available, such as applying for an emergency “stay” from the appeals courts which, if granted, could push further proceedings beyond the January 20 inauguration.

Since it is well known that presidents are immune to any criminal procedure while in office — a principle accepted even by Merchan — a court-ordered recess would effectively delay sentencing until 2029. Of course, that assumes the case still has a pulse four years from now.

Trump has a credible argument that the convictions against him should now be overturned. As president-elect, his lawyers argue that “immediate removal is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interests of justice.” The punishment would disrupt the orderly transfer of executive power.

In essence, a state has no right or power to violate federal laws passed by Congress, including the Transitional Act. The interference of the local prosecutor and/or judge is a violation of the supremacy clause in the Constitution.

But there are other compelling reasons to end this case sooner rather than later.

In an earlier ruling, Merchan readily acknowledged his authority to overturn convictions if errors were made at trial that would merit reversal. Yet he stubbornly refuses to recognize the multitude of errors that call for dismissal.

Chief among them is that prosecutors relied on tainted evidence barred by the presidential immunity standard announced by the Supreme Court on July 1. Testimony from White House officials and numerous presidential records should never have been released. Merchan ignores all of this by insisting that such evidence is irrelevant, even though prosecutors made that point during their closing arguments to the jury.

He also turned a blind eye to Bragg’s convoluted and incoherent legal theory that it must somehow be a crime to conceal a perfectly legal nondisclosure agreement. It’s not. He then allowed the district attorney to break the law by reviving antiquated ledger offenses and turning them into phantom election offenses that were falsely portrayed as undue influence on the 2016 presidential race.

It was quite a neat trick since Trump’s transactions were recorded and reimbursed after elections. Moreover, Bragg, as a local prosecutor, had no jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign laws. The payments to former adult film star Stormy Daniels didn’t even qualify as contributions under any law or regulation.

As I have already noted, a competent or objective judge would have long ago thrown the indictment against Trump in the trash where it belongs. On the face of it, it was a blatantly flawed, if not ridiculous, and transparently politicized prosecution.

But Bragg’s shameful legerdemain didn’t bother Merchan in the least. Quite the opposite. His honor went happily with the hocus-pocus. At the trial, he threw off his black robe to join the court circus as a co-accused.

When the pretrial verdicts were announced, no one knew exactly what Trump was convicted of. In theory, the accounting errors were allegedly committed in furtherance of another crime in an illegal attempt to influence the election.

But what crime? No one can say. Was it a violation of federal campaign law? Tax laws? Fake business records? Choose from the above menu of imagined possibilities. Trump doesn’t know because prosecutors never said. And neither are the jurors.

In a scathing address to the council, Merchan stated that they did not have to identify which crimes were allegedly committed and that they did not have to agree unanimously. With impunity, he abandoned the basic principle of unanimity in criminal judgments, which the Supreme Court repeatedly strengthened.

Merchan’s courtroom turned into a cesspool of incomprehensible rulings by a conflicted and hostile judge who deprived Trump of a fair trial. Merchan and prosecutors worked together to craft the convictions. Political bias stifled the defendant’s due process rights. It was a sleazy case led by a district attorney who enthusiastically embraced the Democrats’ corrupt legal campaign against their Republican opponent.

None of that fooled American voters. Indeed, it seems to have backfired spectacularly. Many deeply resented Trump’s opponents twisting the law to file a series of criminal charges aimed at destroying his chances of returning to the White House. Outrage was expressed at the ballot box on November 5. Decisively.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONS

Despite their best efforts to sabotage the outcome of the election, the unscrupulous duo Merchan and Bragg can now do nothing to stop Trump. Even if his expected bid to stop the sentencing next Friday fails, the president-elect still stands to benefit. He may complain of the shameless perversion of the law brought against him and the consequent miscarriage of justice.

It was not a fair trial. It was a farce.

Meanwhile, the new Justice Department is required to open a full-scale investigation into the legal aid campaign that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg launched almost simultaneously and only after Trump announced his reelection bid.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Coincidence? Barely. There is reason to believe that there was coordination between them with the White House of President Joe Biden or with Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DOJ. Maybe both. If laws are broken, prosecutors should be exposed and held accountable for weaponizing the justice system.

Democrats have spent the last four years lecturing us that no one is above the law. Inconveniently, that same standard applies to them.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREG JARRETT