Previous month:
May 29, 2024
Next month:
May 31, 2024



Let me preface this blog post by saying that I believe the entire Alvin Brag court case against Donald Trump, presided over by Judge Juan Merchan, is an Obama/Biden/DOJ political hit job against a viable presidential candidate.

I also believe that Trump’s actions were legal, and the conduct of both prosecutor Bragg and Judge Merchan was so egregious as to constitute prosecutable felonious interference in a presidential election and subornation of perjury.

And, while I hope that a jury member, acting against type, hangs the jury and creates a mistrial, I also hope that former President Trump does not exacerbate the situation with needless foolishness.

If the jury returns a guilty verdict, it will be partly attributable to Trump’s apparent interference in his own legal defense, undermining his defense for political reasons, with potentially disastrous consequences.

The Perils of Politicizing Your Defense in a Criminal Trial

  • The Prudence of Competent Legal Expertise:  It is essential to recognize the expertise of defense attorneys who have dedicated their lives to understanding the law, crafting defense strategies, and navigating the complex web of legal procedures. Sidestepping this expertise in favor of political posturing, the defendant risks making critical errors, namely attempting to make political points instead of legal ones and that could be easily avoided by listening to competent legal counsel.

  • Political Motivations and a Mixed Agenda Can Cloud Judgment: When a defendant focuses on appealing to their political base or making a political statement, they often lose sight of the primary goal: securing an acquittal or the most favorable outcome possible. It is an immutable fact that courtrooms are not platforms for political theater; they are arenas where facts, evidence, and legal arguments hold sway. Injecting politics into one’s defense can lead to presenting irrelevant or inflammatory arguments that alienate judges and juries.

  • Undermining Your Own Credibility: A politically charged defense can undermine a defendant’s credibility. Jury members, who are tasked with impartially weighing the evidence, may view overtly political protestations with suspicion. Skepticism can extend to the defendant’s motives and character, potentially swaying the jury towards a conviction.

  • The Fallout of a Politically Charged Defense: The ramifications of a politically motivated defense extend beyond the courtroom, as a conviction can lead to long-term consequences, including imprisonment, fines, and a permanent criminal record—possibly overshadowing any short-term political gains achieved during the trial. Even if there is overwhelming vindication during the appeal process, the future damage is incalculable.

Furthermore, a high-profile politicized trial can set legal precedents that affect future cases, potentially making it more difficult for others to mount effective defenses in politically charged environments.

Andrew McCarthy, former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, weighs in…

Merchan and Trump Conceal the Holes in Bragg’s Case

Let me preface this by saying that the fix is in here, so maybe it didn’t matter what the defense did in this case. Still, strategically speaking, Team Trump has presented one of the most ill-conceived, self-destructive defenses I have ever seen in decades of trying and analyzing criminal cases. The reason for this is clear: Trump insisted that his lawyers subordinate his defense at trial to the political narrative he wants to spin in the 2024 campaign. In this instance, the legal and political strategies cannot be synced. Hence, Trump is helping Bragg get his coveted convictions.

Against the weight of evidence and common sense, Trump insists on telling voters that Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal — respectively, the porn star and Playboy model who quite credibly allege to have had flings with Trump circa 2006 — are lying. But no one with even passing familiarity with Trump’s combative and parsimonious nature would believe for a second (a) that he would agree to pay $130,000 to Stormy and $150,000 to McDougal if they were falsely claiming to have had affairs with him, or (b) that Cohen would have paid Stormy, and Trump’s pal David Pecker would have paid McDougal, unless Trump had green-lighted the payments and assured them of repayment. Since Trump knows that, if he acknowledges being complicit in the payment arrangements, voters will conclude his denials of the affairs are lies, Trump has decided he must distance himself from the NDA payments.

Politically speaking, this is dumb because voters long ago made up their minds about Trump’s extramarital affairs, and if he admitted them at this point, he’d merely be admitting what is notorious and not credibly deniable.

Legally speaking, Trump’s gambit is disastrous. It makes no sense in a criminal courtroom for a defendant to deny his complicity in legal conduct when there is daunting evidence that he was complicit up to his neck. The prosecutors framed the case to the jury as a criminal conspiracy to bury damaging information. That’s not a crime, and NDAs are legal. But rather than go with that, his best defense, Trump has acted guilty: As if a candidate’s suppression of negative information, rather than routine, is criminally condemnable, and as if the NDAs are radioactive — the diabolical compacts of Cohen and Pecker from which he must stay a millions miles away (a choice at which the evidence is having a hearty laugh). For Bragg, this is a gift from prosecutorial heaven.

That is why, sometime this week, probably sooner rather than later, former president Donald Trump, the de facto Republican presidential nominee, will be convicted of multiple felonies.

<Read the entire article at National Review.>

From Judge Marchan's instructions to the jury...

Post-Summation Instructions (People v. Donald J. Trump)


In order to prove an intent to defraud, the People need not prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any particular person or entity. A general intent to defraud any person or entity suffices.


For the count of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.

[OCS: This is a thought crime.]

“By Unlawful Means”

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

[OCS: Donald Trump has not been convicted of any of the above crimes, although he is probably one of the most scrutinized and investigated men in America.]


The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.

[OCS: How can you be charged for a crime you allegedly intended to commit, aid, or conceal--even if you were never charged or convicted?]

I smell the overwhelming stench of bullshit. New York does not have jurisdiction over Federal Crimes. The Statute of Limitations on a misdemeanor was expired. Several agencies have looked at this very fact pattern and have declined to prosecute. Nothing happened until a doddering Biden and his campaign found itself outmatched and outclassed.

Bottom line…

I am already preparing to be called a "justice denier."

Interfering in one's defense for political reasons is not just unwise but grossly stupid--a gamble where the stakes are too high and the odds too unfavorable. The courtroom is no place for political grandstanding. It is a place for measured, strategic defense designed to uphold justice and protect individual rights. Anything less is a disservice to the defendant and a mockery of the judicial process.

There is little doubt in my mind that Donald Trump is transactional and overawed by those with impressive credentials, wealth, or good looks. Trump's choice of associates and attorneys over the years has been terrible, and he is ill-served by those who tell him what he wants to hear.

Yet, he loves America and manages to do the right thing at the right time--and is infinitely more valuable to America than any progressive communist democrat.

There should be no doubt that we are in a quasi-police state with a two-tiered system of justice that is being manipulated by the regime in power. 

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS