Columns, Criminal law

A Manhattan Canned Hunt: The Trump Jury is Out But is the Case in the Bag?

Below is my column in The Hill on the ongoing deliberations in the Trump trial. The instructions in the case raised concerns that the deliberations could become a legal version of a canned hunt, where the prey is trapped in a cage or fenced in areas to be dispatched. Elements of the instructions are disturbing in reducing what is required to convict the former president.

Here is the column:

Today the jury began its deliberations in the trial of former president Donald Trump. Before jurors left, however, Judge Juan Merchan framed their deliberations in a way that seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt.

For many of us, the Trump trial has seemed otherworldly, a vaguely familiar proceeding where common elements of a trial seem to have been flipped.

Even before the jury instructions, the trial was controversial for both liberal and conservative commentators. At the start of closing arguments, most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records.

Then came the closing arguments. Around the country, it is standard for the government to go first with a closing to allow the defense to respond. The government is then given the privilege of a rebuttal after the defense rests. In New York, the defense must go first, giving the government free rein over its closing with no risk of contradiction from the defense. With the exception of objections, any abusive or improper arguments are left to the judge to address.

In the case of Judge Merchan, that protection was all but absent as the prosecution engaged in flagrant violations from offering testimony on unestablished facts to directly contradicting prior instructions. In one of the most egregious moments, Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that it is an established fact that former Trump counsel Michael Cohen committed a federal election law violation on the direct orders of Donald Trump. Merchan had repeatedly said that Cohen’s earlier plea could not be used to imply the guilt of Trump. Merchan overruled an objection and Steinglass proceeded, as he did earlier in trial, to repeat the false statement.

Merchan did nothing as Steinglass told the jury that Hope Hicks cried in court because she knew that she had destroyed Trump’s defense (Hicks has never explained why she cried). Merchan did nothing as Steinglass falsely told the jury that the media and political campaigns do not do what Trump did in seeking to kill and plant stories. (This ignored, for example, that the Clinton campaign did precisely that repeatedly in the very same election, including with the false Russian collusion allegations).

It was only when Steinglass repeatedly instructed the jury on the law that Merchan finally sustained objections, at the end of his closing arguments.

So going into the deliberations, the court allowed the jury to be told repeatedly that there were federal campaign violations committed by Trump. That is not true. Putting aside that the federal government found no basis to impose a civil fine, let alone bring a criminal charge, the court barred a legal expert who could have shown that no such violation occurred. The jury does not know that. Instead, the judge allowed them to be repeatedly told a false fact that could make it difficult for anyone to acquit.

However, the instructions then went in for the kill and turned the jury deliberations into a canned hunt.

Consider just a few highlights from the curious aspects of these deliberations.

First, the judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the “unlawful means” used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation. The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime.

Second, the judge said that he would instruct the jury on the law but then omitted the key elements that established there was no federal campaign violation. Indeed, the blocked legal expert, Brad Smith, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, was going to testify that this could not have been a federal election violation. Moreover, even if Trump’s legal settlement money could be viewed as a federal campaign contribution, it could not have been part of a conspiracy to influence the election since any reporting of a contribution would have had to occur after the election.

Third, not only can the jury disagree as to what occurred, but one of the three crimes is so circular as to produce vertigo in the jury room. The prosecutors zapped a dead misdemeanor back into life by claiming a violation under New York’s election law 17-152. The argument is that the crime was committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, that other crime can be the falsification of business records. So the jury (or some jurors, at least) could find that some documents were falsified as an unlawful means of falsifying other documents.

Finally, Merchan is allowing conviction based on a  “general intent” to defraud “any person or entity,” a dangerously vague concept in this novel criminal case. Merchan has largely stuck to the standard jury instructions but this case is anything but standard. With an ambiguous claim of “influencing” an election, a general intent instruction without better definition to this case can be an invitation for bias.

Given the instructions and the errors in this trial, it would seem that an acquittal is almost beyond the realm of possibility. That leaves either a hung jury or a conviction. However, the framing of this case and failure to protect the rights of the defendant have undermined the perceived legitimacy of the proceedings and any possible verdict.

With Trump in a tight cage, Merchan just left it for the jury to deliver the coup de grace. We will see. I remain hopeful that a couple jurors will balk at this manufactured criminal theory. Canned hunts are great for trophies, not so much for trials.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

579 thoughts on “A Manhattan Canned Hunt: The Trump Jury is Out But is the Case in the Bag?”

  2. What a shlt show. Security being ramped up? Oh joy
    Never forget that Democrats did this to our country

    Jonathan Turley
    @JonathanTurley

    …No one is talking at the prosecution and defense tables. What an atmospheric change in the room. After the judge’s initial dismissal notice, the sudden verdict hit like a thunderclap. Security is being ramped up.
    4:53 PM · May 30, 2024

    Jonathan Turley
    @JonathanTurley

    …If Trump is feeling the stress of the room, he is not showing it. He is back to chatting with Blanche and Bove. We are still waiting for the jury to come in.
    4:57 PM · May 30, 2024

    Jonathan Turley
    @JonathanTurley

    …We are not allowed to stand or leave or seats as we wait for the verdict. Trump is continuing active conversations with counsel.
    4:59 PM · May 30, 2024

  3. Many people are confused about the Constitutionality of jury instructions in the Bragg-Merchan case against Donald J. Trump. So, as a public service, I will explain it in plain language.

    Jury Instructions:
    Question 1: Are you voting for Joe Biden?
    If not, you must recuse yourself from further delliberation so that a Biden-voting alternate can be timely substituted.

    Question 2: Do you dislike Donald J. Trump or do you find anything about him tohat you would disagree with or find objectionable?
    If yes, then you must find Trump guilty on all counts, whatever those counts may be. If you don’t dislike Trump or find anything objectionable about him, then you must recuse yourself from further deliberation so that a anti-Trump alternative can be timely substituted.

    See, the instructions are crystal clear when expressed in lay terms!

    But you must forget about the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and Supreme Court case president where the jury is required to unanimously agree on ALL elements of each crime charged. For example, the case Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924 (U.S. Apr. 20, 2020) does NOT apply to cases involving Donald J. Trump:

    Id. at 6 ( “As early as 1898, the Court said that a defendant enjoys a ‘constitutional right to demand that his liberty should not be taken from him except by the joint action of the court and the unanimous verdict of a jury of twelve persons.’” ) (quoting Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 351 (1898)); Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948) ( “Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury.” ); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 586 (1900) (stating that the right to jury trial “implies that there shall be an unanimous verdict of twelve jurors in all Federal courts where a jury trial is held” ); see also Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 366, 369–70 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring) (citing “an unbroken line of cases reaching back into the late 1800’s [in which] the Justices of this Court have recognized, virtually without dissent, that unanimity is one of the indispensable features of federal jury trial” ).

    In cases involving Trump, the normal rule “[i]n criminal cases [of the] requirement of [jury] unanimity extend[ing] to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are [normally] left to the jury” does NOT apply!

    I hope that I’ve clarified these legal and practical issues.

    1. Unanimity was a requirement. Fox News spread the fake story. Perhaps you should consider getting your news from more reputable sources.

  4. Jonathan Turley
    @JonathanTurley

    Wow. The judge was mistaken. The jury has a verdict. They are not asking to leave early. They have a final decision.
    4:38 PM · May 30, 2024

    1. Jonathan Turley
      @JonathanTurley

      …It is hard to see this as positive for Trump. If there were a hung jury, it was expected to be a minority of hold outs. We will have to wait to see. However, those who bet on Thursday appear prophetic. The judge seemed surprised and was waiting to dismiss them for the day.

      Jonathan Turley
      @JonathanTurley

      …t just seems far too early for an acquittal so the bets are on conviction. The jury clearly has moved beyond whatever impasse existed before sending out its two notes. However, we will all soon know…

      https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1796280064650437071

  5. She/he/it must be getting old. Forgot about tinkling on a mattress and colluding with Russians. Oh, and making a phone call, and beating up that chick in the press scrum. One of the shills I ignore usually. Waste of time reading their drivel.

  8. Canned hunts are great for trophies, not so much for trials.

    It is clear that Americans are the hunted, with Democrats being the hunters. More proof that the Democrats disregard the US Constitution and are intent on being authoritarians.

    Supreme Court unanimously rules for NRA in free speech fight
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4693659-supreme-court-nra-free-speech/

    Raskin argues DOJ can force recusals of Alito, Thomas in Jan. 6 cases
    thehill.com

    Roberts declines meeting with Senate Democrats about Alito controversy
    thehill.com

    Democrats disregard the 1st Amendment
    Democrats ignore separation of powers of the 3 Branches of Government,
    Democrats demand SCOTUS members they dislike recuse themselves but never demanded recusal of Justices RBG, Sotomayor and Kagan when they made disparaging, hostile public comments regarding Donald Trump

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Failure to Recuse Herself…
    During the presidential campaign, Ginsburg made several extremely inappropriate statements about Trump.
    When asked by an interviewer about a possible Trump presidency and how it might affect the Supreme Court, she said: “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”
    Days after that first interview, Ginsburg told a second interviewer: “I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president.”
    The prospect of a Trump presidency reminded her of something her late husband would have said: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
    After another few days had passed . . . Ginsburg . . . confided to a third interviewer: “[Trump] is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”

    https://lawliberty.org/a-problematic-decision-ruth-bader-ginsburg-failure-to-recuse-trump-hawaii/

    Regardless of the Manhattan circus trial, where ever Democrats are found, Americans live in peril.

    1. Estovir said: “Roberts declines meeting with Senate Democrats about Alito controversy”

      Thank you. I wanted to mention that here, and intended to label it “OT” 🙂 I commented on some Turley column a week or more ago that Roberts should refuse to give those clowns so much as the time of day regarding this issue, but that I was skeptical that would be the case (my perception of Roberts is that he really likes to be the center of attention, sometimes to the detriment of his SC responsibilities). I was disinclined to go look for that column and comment. Roberts rarely suprises me in any pleasant way. I’m happy to report this as the exception.

    2. JUDGE MORESHAME JUST ANOTHER OBAMA.BIDEN TURD SALAD=COMMUNIST PARTY WILL ONLY HAVE 1 WORD TO DESCRIBE WHATS GOING ON IN ITS ROGET THESAURUS=TDS=WILL BE USED FOR EVERYTHING=SOILED PINK PANTIES=SYNONYM=TDS=PATHETIC PU##Y’S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    3. And I bet the Dems won’t be feel ashamed to know that the “Appeal to Heaven” flag has flown in front of the San Fransisco Civic Center for decades (but they just took it down having read in the NYT that it actually symbolized the J6’rs….)

  10. Like his employer, Turley keeps trying to pre-criticize the jury’s verdict before it even is rendered. He repeated the old trope that we’re “wondering” what crime was committed. Turley knows better. Turley tries to create some kind of issue on the order of summation, which, under NY law, requires the defense to go first and the prosecution to go second, and he also ADMITTED that the party with the burden of proof ALWAYS gets the last word. THAT is neither unusual, abusive nor improper–something else Turley knows. So, he segues from the false impression of he tried to create over the order of summation with claiming that Blanche was only left with objections to what Turley called “improper” arguments in summation.

    Turley, of course, failed to mention Blanche’s outrageous statement that the jury couldn’t “send Trump to jail” based on the evidence presented–knowing full well that the punishment in the event of a conviction is up to the Judge, who is not required to sentence Trump to jail. Blanche KNOWS better, but Turley isn’t paid to be fair–he’s paid to spin the facts in favor of Trump, which is exactly what he did. Judge Merchan properly admonished the jury over this outrageous improper argument.

    Turley claims that the prosecution made a “false” statement that Michael Cohen committed federal election law violations, knowing full well that Cohen pleaded guilty to and was convicted of excessive and illegal campaign contributions. Trump was “Individual 1”, an undicted co-conspirator–Turley knows this too. And, David Pecker’s $150,000 payoff to Karen McDougal WAS an illegal campaign contribution intended to benefit Trump’s campaign. Pecker’s testimony, quoted from “Politico”:

    ““Was your principle purpose in entering into the agreement with Karen McDougal to suppress her story so as to prevent it from influencing the election?” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked him.

    “Yes, it was,” Pecker replied.”

    Bear in mind that the jury asked to have this testimony repeated. The maximum allowable amount of a corporate campaign contribution is $12,000, so this WAS an illegal campaign contribution, and is a proper basis to find Trump guilty, despite Turley’s declaration that this theory of liability is “ambiguous”. Trump treated Pecker to a dinner at our White House, at our expe;nse, of course, as a “thank you” for catching and killing the Mc Dougal story.

    Next, Turley claims that Hillary Clinton made false Russian collusion allegations–thost allegations are NOT false, so said a Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report I’ve cited repeatedly.

    As to the unanimity requirement, it is NY law that the jury has to be unanimous that there WAS a violation–they are not required to be unanimous on what specific conduct constituted a violation, so long as they all concur that there WAS a violation–something Turley calls “curious”–yet, it is the law. Turley also admitted that Judge Merchan gave “standard” jury instructions–yet criticizes him anyway.

    2. “Was your principle purpose in entering into the agreement with Karen McDougal to suppress her story so as to prevent it from influencing the election?” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked him.

      “Yes, it was,” Pecker replied.”

      NUTCHACHACHA, was that a federal or a N.Y. state election? Was that the very FEC official that Merchan precluded from testifying?

    3. Bear in mind that the jury asked to have this testimony repeated. The maximum allowable amount of a corporate campaign contribution is $12,000, so this WAS an illegal campaign contribution
      A candidate has no limits on the amount they can contribute. If the lie you push was true FEC would have fined the campaign, like they did Clintons wife. And Obama
      It is actually very difficult to get through a Presidential campaign without catching an FEC fine. But President Trump has. TWICE.

    4. I guess this person doesn’t understand the difference between process and verdict. Funny to see such a person opining on a legal website.

  12. Obama, Tin Horn Dictator, Third World Banana Republic, Affirmative Action, Savage Jurisprudence. 

    Just what “Crazy Abe” wittingly or unwittingly ordered when he corruptly, illicitly, and unconstitutionally abrogated extant immigration law on January 1, 1863.

    Why does this not feel like what the American Founders and Framers had in mind when they established a restricted-vote republic under the dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

    They must be wondering where they went wrong. 

    Actual Americans and actually qualified American voters intuitively understand the acumen, gumption, honor, and sacrifice necessary to sustain constitutional self-governance.

    The illegal alien invaders understand only their overwhelming and compelling greed, which causes them to covet, bear false witness, and steal the property of others by any means. 

    This is not a fair fight; a commensurate response is required. 

  13. Trying to look past the trees to see the forest, the big picture: This trial proves that Trump must be one of the most honest people in America. The Democrats have been trying to pin anything they can on him, and this is what they come up with? A possible minor bookkeeping error, that isn’t even against any law???

    Trump has been in business for years, and this is all they can come up with???

    1. “This trial proves that Trump must be one of the most honest people in America.” Are you nuts? Trump has cheated on all 3 of his wives. He’s been sued literally thousands of times for refusing to pay for goods and services, forcing litigation, driving up attorney fees and costs and then forcing settlement on more-favorable terms. He claims this proves he’s “smart’, which is why no one will do business with him. When accused by Hillary Clinton in a debate of cheating on his taxes, he admitted it and said that makes him “smart”. He is a prolific liar–the NYT logged over 30K lies while he was stinking up the White House. He falsified business records to cover up a tryst with Stormy Daniels, something he bragged about at a golf tournament, and accepted a $150K payment from The National Enquirer to kill his year-long affair with Karen McDougal. The maximum allowable campaign donation from a corporation is $12,000. This, in your book, constitutes being “one of the most honest people in America”? Ask any one of those craftsmen, material suppliers and others who got screwed in his 6th bankruptcy.

      1. DID NUTCHACHACHA SAY, “CHEATED ON WIVES?”

        JFK, Monster
        By Timothy Noah
        “I knew that John F. Kennedy was a compulsive, even pathological adulterer, given to taking outlandish risks after he entered the White House. I knew he treated women like whores. And I knew he had more than a few issues with his father about toughness and manliness and all that. But before I read in the newspaper that Mimi Alford’s just-released memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath, described giving Dave Powers a blow job at JFK’s request and in his presence, I didn’t know that Kennedy had an appetite for subjecting those close to him to extreme humiliation.”
        __________________________________________________________________________________________

        “Clinton pays Paula Jones $850,000”

        “WASHINGTON (AP) – Paula Jones is awaiting the arrival of an $850,000 cheque from President Clinton, bringing an official end to the four-year saga spurred by her allegations of sexual harassment.”
        ______________________

        “FDR and His Women”

        “… she was deeply wounded to discover that Franklin had been having an affair with her secretary, Lucy Mercer.”
        _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Bill Clinton as enabled by Hillary Clinton
        1. Eileen Wellstone (1969) Allegation: Sexual assault
        2. Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972) Allegation: Sexual assault
        3. Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974) Allegation: Sexual assault
        4. Anonymous female lawyer (1977) Allegation: Sexual assault
        5. Juanita Broaddrick (1978) Allegation: Rape
        6. Carolyn Moffet (1979) Allegation: Sexual assault
        7. Elizabeth Ward (1983) Allegation: Unclear
        8. Sally Perdue (1983) Allegation: Unclear
        9. Paula Jones (1991) Allegation: Sexual harassment
        10. Sandra Allen James (1991) Allegation: Sexual assault
        11. Christy Zercher (1992) Allegation: Sexual assault
        12. Kathleen Willey (1993) Allegation: Sexual assault

        1. HOW ‘BOUT, “CHEATED ON PHD?”

          Martin Luther King was not a legitimate PhD and did not legitimately earn and obtain a doctoral degree as proven by a committee appointed by Boston University which “conducted the investigation with scholarly thoroughness, scrupulous attention to detail and a determination not to be influenced by non-scholarly consideration.”
          _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

          “A committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded today that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago.

          “There is no question,” the committee said in a report to the university’s provost, “but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation.”
          …
          But the committee did recommend that a letter stating its finding be placed with the official copy of Dr. King’s dissertation in the university’s library.
          The four-member committee was appointed by the university a year ago to determine whether plagiarism charges against Dr. King that had recently surfaced were in fact true. Today the university’s provost, Jon Westling, accepted the committee’s recommendations and said its members had “conducted the investigation with scholarly thoroughness, scrupulous attention to detail and a determination not to be influenced by non-scholarly consideration.”

          The dissertation at issue is “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman.” Dr. King wrote it in 1955 as part of his requirements for a doctor of philosophy degree, which he subsequently received from the university’s Division of Religious and Theological Studies.”

          – New York Times, October 11, 1991

      2. MLK, Liar, Fraud, Plagiarist, Adulterer

        “The evening before King’s April 4, 1968, assassination at the Lorraine motel in Memphis, [Rev Ralph David Abernathy] said King had sex with two women and when a third came looking for him, ‘he knocked her across the bed. ‘ It was not the first time King’s purported activities had surfaced.”

        – United Press International

  15. The possible outcomes of the hush money trial
    By: Aditi Sangal and Laura Coates – CNN ~ May 30th 2024

    As the jury deliberates, it has to decide whether it will convict or acquit Donald Trump on each of the 34 different counts he is facing.

    This means there are multiple possible outcomes. CNN anchor and legal expert Laura Coates breaks it down:

    Mixed verdict: Guilty on some, acquittal on others
    Guilty on all counts
    Acquittal on all counts
    Hung jury: unable to reach a verdict, on all or some charges
    Directed verdict: The judge may say he doesn’t think the jury’s decision is appropriate and decides on a different outcome. However, Judge Juan Merchan is unlikely to do that.

    The jury must be unanimous in its decision on each count.
    Trump faces 34 counts in hush money trial

    Here’s a list of the 34 charges Donald Trump faces in his hush money trial
    By: Chanelle Chandler·Reporter Yahoo News – May 29, 2024
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/heres-a-list-of-the-34-charges-donald-trump-faces-in-his-hush-money-trial-120050092.html

  16. Trump did every action that he is accused of. The determination of the criminality is a job for the jury and appeals courts. Arguing it about it does no one any good. This should not be a political issue.

    1. Trump did every action that he is accused of.

      Trump paid for an NDA to prevent the story from reaching his wife and/or the public…Guilty – not illegal.
      Trump paid an attorney for services to facilitate the NDA process…Guilty – not illegal.
      Trump’s accounting department recorded paying invoices for the attorney’s NDA legal services as legal expenses…Guilty – not illegal.

      1. David Pecker’s testimony from Politico:

        “Was your principle purpose in entering into the agreement with Karen McDougal to suppress her story so as to prevent it from influencing the election?” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked him.

        “Yes, it was,” Pecker replied.

        This $150,000 payoff exceeded the $12,000 corporate contribution limit, and was, therefore, illegal. Trump treated Pecker to a White House dinner (at taxpayer expense) as a “thank you” for catching and killing the Karen McDougal story–and the reason was NOT to protect Melania, it was to benefit his campaign. That testimony was unrefuted–Trump could have testified but didn’t.

        Trump admitted that the $130K payment to Cohen was REIMBURSEMENT, not payment for legal services. The bank statement referring to “grossing up” the payment to cover Cohen’s tax liability confirms this. The business records were falsified to misrepresent this payment as attorney fees, all to benefit his campaign. That is also illegal.

  17. It doesn’t bode well for the prosecution if everyone, including the jury, has reasonable doubt WTF the jury instructions actually mean.

    1. It doesn’t bode well for the future of homo sapiens sapiens if there is not at least one juror who is rational and coherent, sufficient to recognize juridical nonsense and corruption when he sees it and smells it. 

    1. Estovir,
      Thank you very much for bringing that up.
      Good for her.
      Protect children from pedos.

      1. Democrats make the Spanish Inquisition look like Monty Python. Yet they pursue their enemies with a “search and destroy” strategy that should be channeled towards violent criminals, pedophiles and party members who betray Americans California Rep. Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, the Squad anti-semites, et al

    2. Amen brother. Additionally, A California lawmaker who tried to force a vote Tuesday on a bill that would have ended sanctuary protections for illegal immigrants convicted of sex crimes against minors had his microphone cut off before the legislation was kicked aside.

      This is the Democrats once again demonstrating their commitment to democracy by abandoning it. They also are proving they hate the idea of protecting the rights of the most vulnerable citizens of our state, by protecting illegal immigrants convicted of sex crimes against those vulnerable minors.

  19. ELECTION INTERFERENCE: Nets Spend Heaping 573 Minutes on Trump-Bragg Trial
    Despite the legal justifications viewed as anywhere from flimsy to non-existent, ABC, CBS, and NBC rose to the occasion for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) by spending an interminable 573 minutes on the trial of former President Donald Trump, an un-American leftist charade to influence the 2024 election.
    By: Curtis Houck – Media Research Center ~ May 22nd, 2024
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2024/05/22/election-interference-nets-spend-heaping-573-minutes-trump-bragg

    WRAP-UP: TV’s Negative, Nasty, Lurid & Obsessive Coverage of Trump’s Trial
    Jury deliberations have begun in Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Regardless of the verdict, Trump’s Democratic opponents have already received a massive media bonus from the flimsy legal case. Unlike the jury in the courtroom, millions of citizens have seen the evidence only as depicted by the liberal news networks — an often skewed version that seemed more designed to embarrass and antagonize the Republican presidential candidate than to scrutinize the merits of the case against him.
    By: Rich Noyes and Curtis Houck – Media Research Center ~ May 30th, 2024
    https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/curtis-houck/2024/05/30/wrap-tvs-negative-nasty-lurid-obsessive-coverage-trumps-trial

  20. It seems obvious from all the commentators that Trump’s civil rights have been violated. Why can he not sue Merchant in Federal Court for this Malfeasance? And why, as a citizen of Florida can he not bring that case in a Federal court?

Comments are closed.