Below is my column in Fox.com on the approaching end of the Trump trial in Manhattan. With the dramatic implosion of Michael Cohen on the stand on Thursday with the exposure of another alleged lie told under oath, even hosts and commentators on CNN are now criticizing the prosecution and doubting the basis for any conviction. CNN anchor Anderson Cooper admitted that he would “absolutely” have doubts after Cohen’s testimony. CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig declared “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a star cooperating witness get his knees chopped out quite as clearly and dramatically.” He previously stated that this case would never have been brought outside of a deep blue, anti-Trump district. Other legal experts, including on CNN and MSNBC, admitted that they did not get the legal theory of the prosecution or understand the still mysterious crime that was being concealed by the alleged book-keeping errors. The question is whether the jury itself is realizing that they are being played by the prosecution.
Here is the column:
In the movie “Quiz Show,” about the rigging of a 1950s television game show, the character Mark Van Doren warns his corrupted son that “if you look around the table and you can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.”
As the trial of former President Donald Trump careens toward its conclusion, one has to wonder if the jurors are wondering the same question.
For any discerning juror, the trial has been conspicuously lacking any clear statement from the prosecutors of what crime Trump was attempting to commit by allegedly mischaracterizing payments as “legal expenses.” Even liberal legal experts have continued to express doubt over what crime is being alleged as the government rests its case.
There is also the failure of the prosecutors to establish that Trump even knew of how payments were denoted or that these denotations were actually fraudulent in denoting payments to a lawyer as legal expenses.
The judge has allowed this dangerously undefined case to proceed without demanding greater clarity from the prosecution.
Jurors may also suspect that there is more to meet the eye about the players themselves. While the jurors are likely unaware of these facts, everyone “around the table” has controversial connections. Indeed, for many, the judge, prosecutors, and witnesses seem as random or coincidental as the cast from “Ocean’s Eleven.” Let’s look at three key things.
1. The Prosecutors
First, there are the prosecutors. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg originally (as did his predecessor) rejected this ridiculous legal theory and further stated that he could not imagine ever bringing a case where he would call former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen, let alone make him the entirety of a prosecution.
Bragg’s suspension of the case led prosecutor Mark F. Pomerantz to resign. Pomerantz then wrote a book on the prosecution despite his colleagues objecting that he was undermining their work. Many of us viewed the book as unethical and unprofessional, but it worked. The pressure campaign forced Bragg to green-light the prosecution.
Pomerantz also met with Cohen in pushing the case.
Bragg then selected Matthew Colangelo to lead the case. Colangelo was third in command of the Justice Department and gave up that plum position to lead the case against Trump. Colangelo was also paid by the Democratic National Committee for “political consulting.” So a former high-ranking official in the Biden Justice Department and a past consultant to the DNC is leading the prosecution.
2. The Judge
Judge Juan Merchan has been criticized not only because he is a political donor to President Biden but his daughter is a high-ranking Democratic political operative who has raised millions in campaigns against Trump and the GOP. Merchan, however, was not randomly selected. He was specifically selected for the case due to his handling of an earlier Trump-related case.
3. The Star Witness
Michael Cohen’s checkered history as a convicted, disbarred serial perjurer is well known. Now, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., is under fire after disclosing that “I have met with [Cohen] a number of times to prepare him.”
Goldman in turn paid Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, more than $157,000 dollars for political consulting.
Outside the courtroom, there is little effort to avoid or hide such conflicts. While Democrats would be outraged if the situation were flipped in a prosecution of Biden, the cross-pollination between the DOJ, DNC, and Democratic operatives is dismissed as irrelevant by many in the media.
Moreover, there is little outrage in New York that, in a presidential campaign where the weaponization of the legal system is a major issue, Trump is not allowed to discuss Cohen, Colangelo, or these conflicts. A New York Supreme Court judge is literally controlling what Trump can say in a presidential campaign about the alleged lawfare being waged against him.
The most striking aspect of these controversial associations is how little was done to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interests. There were many judges available who were not donors or have children with such prominent political interests in the case. Bragg could have selected someone who was not imported by the Biden administration or someone who had not been paid by the DNC.
There was no concern over the obvious appearance of a politically motivated and stacked criminal case. Whether or not these figures are conflicted or compromised, no effort was taken to assure citizens that any such controversies are avoided in the selection of the key players in this case.
What will be interesting is how the jury will react when, after casting its verdict, the members learn of these undisclosed associations. This entire production was constructed for their benefit to get them to convict Trump despite the absence of a clear crime or direct evidence.
They were the marks and, like any good grift, the prosecutors were hoping that their desire for a Trump conviction would blind them to the con.
Bragg, Colangelo and others may be wrong. Putting aside the chance that Judge Merchan could summon up the courage to end this case before it goes to the jury, the grift may have been a bit too obvious.
New Yorkers are a curious breed. Yes, they overwhelmingly hate Trump, but they also universally hate being treated like chumps. When they get this case, they just might look around the courtroom and decide that they are the suckers in a crooked game.
My concern is about the jury pool.
I have a theory that any Trump leaning potential juror would get held out of the original jury pool and sluffed off to a civil trial that would probably be settled out of court. Meanwhile the original jury pool would be loaded with TDS afflicted jurors. It would certainly be worth looking into.
I doubt that there would be even one free thinking juror in a city that selected di blasio for mayor. We left Brooklyn 4 years ago as it was no longer safe nor affordable. W e all know what this “trial” is about and why the venue was chosen – pure lawfare.
You know it must be bad when even CNN and MSNBC are admitting the failures of the prosecution.
@UpstateFarmer: Re: You know it must be bad when….That’s because those two ‘unreliable sources’ were finally faced with incontrovertible circumstances which cut the legs out from under their agenda and those of their paid minions.
They don’t just ‘admit’ things. They operate with an agenda.
So what’s up around the corner that’s part of their plan?
To be sure, it’s more than facing the truth, or covering their @ss.
OK, so we have a clear trifecta of judicial, prosecutorial and witness corruption, with a bonus stain for Congress via Goldman. And we know the merits is a Rube Goldberg magic sham in a Mr Peabody Time Machine where the book error has retroactive effect. So far so good. My Q is, at what point is Bragg in hot water via the recent testimony of Bob Costello, a credible former SDNY prosecutor, to the effect Cohen repeatedly said, even when desperate to avoid prosecution, that he had nothing on Trump, to both Costello and his law partner. Apparently Bragg refused to meet with Costello and included in evidence only a few of the hundreds of emails Costello reportedly provided to prosecutors. Isn’t this a clear violation, as prosecutors are required to come forward with all (potentially) exculpatory evidence ?? Bonus Q: should Costello take the stand on Blanche direct ?? Thx
Dear Mr. Turley,
Sometimes when reading your posts I have the feeling that perhaps you did not, yourself, write it. Occasionally it is downright poorly written. Today is one such case. Non sequiturs & weird sentence constructions conjure images of a B+ college student dependent on “grammarly”, or perhaps the beta version of a new AI app? Two examples:
“While the jurors are likely unaware of these facts, everyone “around the table” has controversial connections. Indeed, for many, the judge, prosecutors, and witnesses seem as random or coincidental as the cast from “Ocean’s Eleven.”
For many? For many what? For many jurors?
“… the prosecutors were counting that”
I believe “counting on the fact that” or even simply “hoping that” would have been more parsable.
Mr. Turley, you are much admired by the readers of this blog, myself included. When I read it, I would like to believe it is written by you and not by a student intern.
Thanks for your consideration.
You waste your time denigrating Turley when the bigger picture is far more lethal for the survival of America as envisioned by our founding fathers? Surely you are working for (either with or without your subconscious brain) the progs and you shouldn’t be celebrating that fact, but hiding your head.
“Dear Mr. Turley, Sometimes when reading your posts I have the feeling that perhaps you did not, yourself, write it. Occasionally it is downright poorly written. “
Thank you for letting us know that, along with CNN and the rest of the MSM, you are finally getting it. You are a sucker and have been sucked into Getting Trump, and now you have no way out. You feel stupid, which is not surprising, so you attack Turley. Turley had to do it because you can’t be as ridiculous as you sound.
Agree
I agree, Turley is not writing this stuff. However it is much more likely that someone at Fox is writing it, rather than student interns.
The way I see it is that this website has to be quite expensive to maintain. Turley has not obviously monetized the site. There is no subscription fee and no ads. He also seems to have a moderator on the site. That person could be a volunteer, but could also be an employee. It would seem that Turley is spending a lot of money with no OBVIOUS return.
Now consider his income. The published top of the pay scale for a full professor at GW Law is $210,000. We could be generous and assume Turley makes $250,000. After tax that is less than $200,000, which would not go far in DC. He has 4 kids in college. One of them started medical school last year.
I think he needs all the money he can lay his grubby hands on. His need for income is obviously why he is on Fox every 5 minutes. I think he has a big fat contract with Fox, and that he has sold this blog to them. His salary from GW Law is really just pocket money.
So much information for so little direct knowledge. POOMA at its finest.
The real question is what will happen if there is a hung jury or not guilty. Will the Democrats entire House of Cards come crashing down around them or not. Will there be repercussions in Atlanta, Miami and Washington DC. One has to hope so. Nothing I would like to see more than the whole Democratic Party crash and burn. There once was a great party there that helped forged our modern nation of civil rights and equal opportunity. Now it reeks of elitism and the most crass of money power, antisemitism and has lost all morality. They were some incredible leaders. The Republican Party has started to shed it’s old status as a somewhat stuffy, chamber of commerce business club and returned to the roots of the Radicals that elected Lincoln and waged the Civil War and cast us loose from slavery and led the US into modern statehood.
We need a phoenix like moment.
GEB,
I posted this below.
The scariest scenario that I have heard was on Meghan Kelley’s show. It goes something like this.
– This Bragg trial is not the one to be looking at.
– The J6 trial in the SCOTUS is the one.
– SCOTUS will most likely not throw out the whole case but instead put it back to the Trump hating judge to decide what charges to keep.
– This will prompt a new appeal that the judge does not have the right to do this without a grand jury.
– Scotus will not take this new appeal
– The delays will cause this to have a verdict after the election but before 1/2/25
– If the verdict is guilty, which is almost a sure thing since DC is even worse than NY, then the dems will not accept the electoral count and take the presidency away from a convicted felon.
If the above came to fruition, I can’t imagine how that doesn’t start a civil war.
In government and business, one of the most valuable employees is the person who can act on behalf of the boss to rectify, that is, “fix,” things that go wrong on a daily basis. This is the person who acts as the alter ego of the principal and can cut across lines within the organization to straighten out things and keep problems away from the boss. They usually are rewarded with a high-sounding rank in the organization reflective of their special skills. They have two purposes: fix things and insulate the boss from problems that may affect the organization. This was Michael Cohen’s job with the Trump Organization but he got carried away with his own self-importance. His type of work may have worked well with labor unions, contractors, goods and service provuiders, etc., even people making personal claims against the principal. This job has no real equivalent in government service where the rule of law, not the rule of the street, is expected to prevail. Trump understood this but Cohen did not. It turned his sycophancy into hatred and a desire for revenge. Cohen thought he could outwit the boss’s Art of the Deal with his version of the Art of the Squeal but, alas, it didn’t work and Cohen crashed and burned while taking with him whatever integrity there might have been in the NY courts and the DA’s office.
“Goldman in turn paid Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, more than $157,000 dollars for political consulting.”
Where is the frequent poster who keeps insisting that Merchan’s daughter has not made money from this prosecution?
Only here in Democratic Republic of Doublestandardstan could you have the leader of one party (first party) going after the leader of the other party (yes, the DOJ is in this up to their neck) (the second party) with a conflicted DA indicting second party leader leader, empaneling a jury in a district that went for the first party leader 95%-5%, and sitting in front of a judge whose daughter is raising money against the second party leader and one of her clients involved with prepping the witness against second party.
The judge should be removed from the case, removed from the bench and disbarred. Judge Ergorong (intentional spelling) should also be removed from the bench and disbarred. Letitia James and Alvin Bragg should both be fired by the governor.
For that matter, where are the mentally and emotionally impaired progressive trolls, who only two days ago were foolishly bashing Turley because his prediction of Cohen’s demolition under cross examination had not yet come to pass? However, I am confident those disingenuous donkeys will show up here shortly, desperately trying to change the subject, to obfuscate the fact that even theiri own, blatantly biased, TDS-inflicted, MSM pundits have been forced to admit to Cohen’s annihilation.
Number6,
And yet, those same trolls who insist they are superior legal experts to the good professor, will ignore all the facts including their own MSM is admitting what we all have already known.
You ignore the facts of what a villainous war criminal Putin is.
Anonymous said: “You ignore the facts of what a villainous war criminal Putin is.”
Returned from your MI5 Slovak assassination assignment, have you? Looks like you failed your mission.
Where have I ever ignored Putin is a “villainous war criminal?”
As I have stated before, would it be great if the Ukraine could push Russian forces back to pre-war boundaries?
Of course.
But fact of the matter is, the Ukraine does not have the manpower to do so. It is a war of attrition. And Russia is winning.
That is not being pro-Putin or pro-Russia.
That is an objective fact.
It is so bad, Zelensky signed a decree allowing foreigners to enlist in the Ukraine army.
It is so bad, the Ukraine government is pushing to lower the draft age from 27 to 25.
It is so bad, Poland is considering to deport military aged Ukrainian men back to the Ukraine to fight.
Again, not pro-Putin or pro-Russia.
Just objective facts.
Great news for you!
The Ukraine is formally requesting NATO send troops to train Ukrainian forces.
Where have we seen that before?
Another step closer to WWIII or another forever war!
This is your chance to enlist! If not you, your children or grandchildren!
Bring back the draft! No exceptions! And change the age range to 18 to 35!
UpstateFarmer said: “Bring back the draft! No exceptions! And change the age range to 18 to 35!”
Sorry, unless you can make a compelling case that the resumed draft would not constitute “involuntary servitude”, and I very much doubt that you can, you would need to get a new Amendment to the US Constitution that partially nullifies the 13th ratified to do that:
“13th Amendment
Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Number 6,
Yeah, I know it will likely never happen.
But sure is fun to watch all those pro-war morons sphincter’s snap shut at the idea that they, their children or grandchildren would get drafted and sent into the meat grinder. They are all about going to war, as they have no skin in the game.
The Army War College put out an essay stating the all volunteer military has outlived it’s usefulness and a partial conscription may be needed in light of the recruitment shortages.
UpstateFarmer said: “But sure is fun to watch all those pro-war morons sphincter’s snap shut at the idea that they, their children or grandchildren would get drafted and sent into the meat grinder. They are all about going to war, as they have no skin in the game.”
Gotcha. But hopefully you will excuse me if I continue to forcefully argue against any such suggestion, whether made by you, or any other commenter here. I was adamantly opposed to the draft on both Constitutional and natural rights grounds when I did have skin directly in the game, and I’d consider myself to be a hypocrite to take a different stance now.
“You cannot enslave a truly free man – the worst you can do is kill him.” – Robert A. Heinlein
I’d love to see you write about the testimony of Cohens former attorney, Costello, and particularly what he said about trying to inform the grand jury of the lying of Cohen and the manipulation of the grand jury by the Bragg office to try to conceal it. Will Trump’s team call him as a witness? His testimony sure seems like it would completely explode Cohens lies on the stand.
What is really disappointing in all this is that half the country doesn’t really care about the complete degradation and corruption of our system of justice this case embodies. We used to be better thant this but have become so finely partisan that ALL that matters to many is getting Trump or whomever the boogeyman of the day may be.
Steve: My initial reaction, like yours, was to expect Trump to call Costello as a witness but I have since changed my mind., Here’s why. Costello cannot testify to anything material to the “crime,” whatever it is, was, or will be. Costello can only dirty up Cohen even more than he is dirtied up now. Do we need to do this or has Cohen himself been his own worst enemy as a witness? Putting Costello on would completely destroy whatever credibility is left in Cohen but Cohen is not the defendant here and we must never lose sight of who is the defendant. Making Cohen the bad guy and beating him up with a strong witness like Costello might lead to jury to see him – Cohen – as a victim. This is not good for the defense because it diverts the jury and court from having to prove the case against Trump – something they have yet to do. At this point the prosecutor would like Cohen to be a strawman taking the jurors attention away from the real facts of the case, which there are none, at least none that can be used to convict Trump of any crime.
You make excellent points, but I would still call Costello. Destroying credibility on cross is good, but a live credible witness that guts the heart of the case is even better. Indeed, trial strategy is more of an art than a schience…
Science
Anonymous said: “science”
Oh, I had thought you might be revisiting Daniels’ testimony and meant “seance”…
Although I would also like to see that, I’m inclined to agree with JJC. Todd Blanche apparently did enough to expose Cohen. This trial is not for the Jury’s sake anyway, it is a political stunt playing to the court of public opinion. In that regard maybe it’s enough to keep Costello’s testimony before the House and in the public eye through Social and MSM. He’s making the rounds and the prosecutors could try to make that a sticking point to undermine his credibility. Liberals will then use those sound bites and cry “hearsay” anyway, despite it being direct testimony to refute Cohen’s testimony. Just the same way they ignore anything remotely exculpatory when it comes to Trump.
It makes zero sense for a guy that was suicidal and in fear for his family not to do everything in his power to stay out of prison, including turning on Trump. I mean that’s right where he’s at now, right? So what was the point, unless he just couldn’t deliver, just as he has failed to now. Everyone knows Trump was always the prize for the prosecutors, not Cohen. So if Cohen could be persuaded to plead guilty by threatening his wife, why wouldn’t they have gone all the way for evidence against PDJT if he had the ability as he claims? Simple, he didn’t. That’s why SDNY dropped their GJ, well that and the Biden Admin agents weren’t in place calling the shots as they are now. Why else isn’t this being tried in Federal Court? Because it would sit too close to the Biden DOJ, this venue creates a buffer…yeah, the Biden crime Family has a lot of buffers….
Cohen’s claims of loyalty are bunk. Loyalty is a quality built upon core values. Look at his Wiki page, the guy has changed parties 5 times over the last 30 years. That takes a special kind of loyalty only an opportunistic POS can possess.
This inquisition is just masquerading as a trial. The TDS jury is almost irrelevant; they will vote to convict no matter the evidence. All part of Letitia James’ plan to “get Trump,” which is the platform she was elected on. If Trump is convicted will the court dare to send him to prison? This is a dilemma the Dems haven’t thought through.
The TDS jury is almost irrelevant; they will vote to convict no matter the evidence.
We have to always keep in our sights, the singular reason we are at this point.
To influence the 2024 Presidential election.
Merchan has the off ramp of a directed verdict. But he is making calculations as to the best way to attain the stated goal. While public opinion polls indicate a Trump conviction would cost him votes, those same polls have been wrong concerning all these lawfare cases. Originally, Polls predicted a single indictment would cost him votes. But the Polls trended up, not down with an indictment. Polls favored Trump with a second indictment. Throw in Trump on the losing side of a civil case, and the Polls got better from Trump.
Merchan is left to guess exactly what would truly happen when this case is in the hands of the jury.
At a Texas Holdem tournament, Merchan is looking at his hand. Does he go all in, or just call?
Another variable is the Jury. Are they going to consider the law and facts at all? Do the Jurors see their civic duty to convict, because THEY BELIEVE it will keep Trump out of the White House. They believe that is their true civic duty.
Merchan has to decide what is in Obama’s best political interests?
With all these variables, all these unknown, unknowns, is a directed verdict the safest play . . . for Obama?
iowan2 said: “Merchan has the off ramp of a directed verdict. But he is making calculations as to the best way to attain the stated goal.”
One has to wonder what kind of plum Merchan has been offered after the trial is concluded, one way or the other. Because whether he issues a directed aquittal or not, his reputation as a judge would seem to be completely and irrevocably fvck3d, even in that hotbed of corruption that is NYC.
Agree Merchan has acted against the constitutional protections in place to protect the defendent, against the power of the Government. It is a very bad look. But just like Cohen severed a purpose, by questionable means, Merchan is in service of the Democrat Party as a whole, and Barack Obama specifically.
Merchan has maneuvered himself into a very bad position, as of Today.
It gets very much worse after an appellate court writes their opinion, excoriating Merchan for even allowing the case to go forward with no named crime, when overturning this Dogs Breakfast, presented by Coangelo.
If the two lawyers in the jury have any intellectual honesty, they will vote to acquit, and stuck to their guns.
True
But we already have the entirety of Braggs office, the entirety of the DoJ,m Plus the Judge, showing us how lawyers prosecuting and judging this case, are doing so in defiance of the law. Two anonymous lawyers on the jury know full well the scam the prosecution is pushing. Easy to believe those two jurors, would feel just fine joining a long list of high profile lawyers in ignoring the law, to advance their personal politics
“[T]here is little effort to avoid or hide such conflicts.” (JT)
The lawfare Left couldn’t care less about any of that — not about the appearances, not about corrupting the law for political gain, not even about their own conscience.
They have a single directive: Can we get away with it?
Well stated, thank you.
Here is the question, are the jury members ‘suckers” or are they Sheeple??????
Liberals are both suckers and sheeple. They are also unhappy miserable people who lead an unhappy miserable existence
Dems getting really sloppy, guided by their extreme TDS. A waste of tax dollars and precious time that they could be prosecuting a real criminal. And the funniest part is it just gives Trump a boost in the polls every time they have egg on their face.
I don’t think it is sloppy. Maybe cocky, but not sloppy since they have nothing to fear. One, they have the power of the media and two, the republicans do not have have President Trumps back or spine to push back. Hell, there is already talk that in the debates, if they even really happen, that Joe will win no matter what because he will be shown as the victim of being an old senile man against a mean bully Trump. Why else would these “debates” with dates just come out of the blue?
The scariest scenario that I have heard was on Meghan Kelley’s show. It goes something like this.
– This Bragg trial is not the one to be looking at.
– The J6 trial in the SCOTUS is the one.
– SCOTUS will most likely not throw out the whole case but instead put it back to the Trump hating judge to decide what charges to keep.
– This will prompt a new appeal that the judge does not have the right to do this without a grand jury.
– Scotus will not take this new appeal
– The delays will cause this to have a verdict after the election but before 1/2/25
– If the verdict is guilty, which is almost a sure thing since DC is even worse than NY, then the dems will not accept the electoral count and take the presidency away from a convicted felon.
If the above came to fruition, I can’t imagine how that doesn’t start a civil war.
Early in the trial, the prosecution said the crime being concealed was NYL 17-152. What remains unspecified is what the “unlawful means” were that this law requires.
Daniel said: “Early in the trial, the prosecution said the crime being concealed was NYL 17-152. What remains unspecified is what the “unlawful means” were that this law requires.”
Isn’t there a second unfulfilled requirememt per that cite: a legally plausible exception to the statute of limitations? Everything credible that I’ve seen discussed here appears to strongly mitigate against such an exception being valid.
It has occurred to me that villains actually like being villainous, and they don’t know that there is a better way to be.
These villains may like being villainous, but I doubt its because they lack self awareness. I rather think its because they believe they will get away with it. And they believe it because it appears to be true. If Trump loses this trial, the consequences are far greater than putting a black mark on his re-election chances. What it will reveal to many will be that conservatives cannot receive a fair trial in many parts of this country. That there are, in fact, two tiers of justice at play. The result will be that we have a court system that will resemble 1930s Germany, 1960s deep South, where the deck was completely stacked against you, crooked police, crooked prosecutors, crooked judges. We are already facing a situation that elections are unable to fix. These prosecutors cannot be voted out of office because what replaces them is just as bad. This is a problem that exists in many parts of this country, NYC, Baltimore, Phil, Atlanta, Chicago, and on and on…
Two trials have been proceeding simultaneously. One where a NYC Court has been searching for some theory to convict Trump before the election. The other is a the evolving view of those outside NYC of the quality of justice in the NYC. The latter trial has already gone against NYC.
the case is inscrutable only to those who are aggressively ignorant- judges are, unfortunately, associated with parties- what merchan’s daughter does for money has nothing to do with trump’s criminal behavior-if he’s acquitted, so be it
What is it that Trump accused of exactly?
Greg I ask that about once a day. I never get a cogent response
Falsification of business records.
Read the indictment.
Trump is on trial.
All the witness, ALL the PROSECUTION witnesses, testified the accounting was NOT influenced by PDJT.
And in this comment you see exactly why the Democrats are proceeding as they are. “None so blind as those that will not see.”
Sometimes, even when people know they are being manipulated, they embrace the role they have been assigned. We shall see what sort of people these New Yorkers are.
This trial is blatant election interference by the corrupt Biden administration
EV Hall said: “This trial is blatant election interference by the corrupt Biden administration”
As is his invocation of executive privilege to suppress the release of the Hur interview tape.