Stop with the "Convicted Felon" Mantra
Steve Bannon for Vice President! Trump Bannon 2024!
While the Democrats are all chanting their mass psychosis mantras (“Trump is a convicted felon”) he actually is not until Judge Juan Merchan enters the verdict. This likely would occur at sentencing, which is currently scheduled for July 11, 2024.
If you believe the mainstream media, there are people are saying they would not vote for a convicted felon. But at least Trump was fit to stand trial. You may recall that Robert Hur investigated Biden for stealing, retaining, and sharing classified information but stated in his investigation that Biden is a confused, elderly man unfit to stand trial.
So voters in America may soon have a choice between a convicted felon and a man unfit to stand trial. If you ask me, the felon is the better deal.
The Democrats are chanting more and more misinformation, and it’s getting on my nerves. Some low-information voters are saying that Trump committed 34 felonies because there were 34 charges. Actually, it’s 34 acts in furtherance of one event. Trump attorney Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels over time in monthly installments. (I refuse to call Stormy Daniels a “porn star,” since it seems to elevate her status; she is a sex worker who will allow you to pay her to film her performing various specified sexual acts.) Each installment involved more than one step (for instance, issuing a voucher for payment is one felony, writing the check against that voucher is another felony, and so on, times 12). So it’s not 34 felonies, it’s 34 acts that put altogether constitute one case. (They do this with forgery, too; every forged signature is a separate felony, even if it’s all part of one criminal event, such as forging a person’s name three times on one document—that’s three felonies.)
But here’s the deal. Paying a nondisclosure is not illegal. None of those 34 bookkeeping steps to pay off Stormy Daniels in installments is a crime. It just isn’t. You can call it sketchy, sleazy, unethical, clever, or routine business for billionaires, but a crime it isn’t.
However, falsification of business records is only a crime if you are falsifying them to conceal an underlying crime. You need what lawyers call a “predicate crime” or the underlying felony that you’re trying to cover up.
If I log something in my business records as “supplies” and it is really a “subscription,” that is a falsification of business records, but it is not a crime because it is a mistake. I wasn’t doing it to conceal a crime.
So here’s the rub in the Trump Kangaroo Case. What crime exactly was Trump trying to conceal? They need to know that, otherwise it’s not a crime to make a mistake in how business records are recorded.
Merchan’s court did not say what crime. They mentioned a menu of several potential crimes and the judge even said the jury did not have to agree on the crime, just had to assume that one of the three proposed crimes was a crime Trump (a) committed and (b) was trying to hide. Plus the court didn’t have to prove the predicate crime—they didn’t even have to name it. And I’m not sure, but Merchan might have even allowed jurors to assume some other underlying crime, like maybe one time Trump did something else wrong. They don’t have to name it, they don’t have to prove it, and Trump has no defense against it.
If you can convict a man (and a political candidate and former President, no less) but don’t even have to name the underlying crime, that is the essence of banana republic. Forget telling me “no one is above the law,” and start saying, “we don’t have no stinking laws.”
Coming back to my earlier example, you can’t say I made a bookkeeping error labeling something “supplies” when it was a “subscription” and then tell jurors that I did it in furtherance of another crime and I might be guilty of either armed robbery, mail fraud, or human trafficking—just pick one. No evidence, no proof required. And I cannot defend myself. You can call me a human trafficker and then send me to jail for falsification of business records. It doesn’t even have to make sense!
That’s why civilized countries don’t run their courts that way.
Judge Juan the Con Mechan even went so far as to allow that jury doesn’t even have to agree on what the predicate crime was, they have to just not like Trump enough to “believe” without evidence that he committed some predicate crime.
I bet Franz Kafka was the court stenographer.
The most egregious thing Merchan did was accuse Trump of a crime that the court did not even name, much less prove. Since this violates the 6th Amendment, which assures defendants the right to know the charges against them and the right to defend themselves, this makes this what lawyers call a “defective indictment.” I rather think of it as proof of a defective judge working in a defective system, but the law is a bit more tactful.
Legal experts and decent citizens could also say that by offering jurors multiple predicate crimes but not requiring unanimity, the judge was denying Trump a unanimous verdict. That’s a violation of the law—jurors have to be unanimous in this type of case. So if one guy thinks Trump was interfering with the election but another juror thinks he was robbing a bank, that’s OK as far as Merchan is concerned. But it’s not legal.
And as Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld points out, the case itself is election interference. The timing of this case and the fact that appeals processes can drag out for years means this could be hanging over Trump during the election. That is election interference. And the fact that it’s a defective indictment with about 100 other reversible errors means it won’t stand. But Merchan didn’t bring this case to win it, he brought it to smear Trump. His daughter made over $90M in business to her company, Authentic Campaigns, which provides election services to Democrats like Chuck Schumer, who couldn’t throw money at Loren Merchan fast enough. That seems a little conflict-of-interesty. But Merchan didn’t take this case to win—he can’t win—he took it to interfere with the election.
Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?
Meanwhile, Alex Jones is having to liquidate InfoWars to pay his ridiculous $1.5B judgment for saying he thought the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax. That’s all he did. He said something—he quickly recanted and apologized on air multiple times. Regardless of what you think about Sandy Hook and Jones initial statement that the shooting was phony followed by a retraction and several apologies, a $1.5B fine is cruel and unusual punishment. His shop is closing. It’s not just his livelihood that is being taken from him, it’s his legacy.
Didn’t Adam Schiff tell us that he had cold, hard proof Trump was a Russian agent? Why wasn’t he fined $1.5B? The J6 Committee said that Trump incited an insurrection. Why aren’t they being fined $1.5B? If saying something untrue can get you fined $1.5B, then Democrats better get out their checkbooks. How many times has Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden lied? I realize that not all lies are equal, but Joe has told us that his uncle was eaten by cannibals. That should be worth at least $1B to the people of New Guinea whom Joe accused of cannibalism.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden is on trial for falsification of paperwork that he used to buy a gun. Considering Joe Biden hates gun ownership, it is a little ironic that he would defend his drug-addicted son for buying a gun and denying his drug use. I think the legal strategy here is jury nullification; Delaware is BidenTown, USA, and the jury will just say, “No one is above the law, except Bidens.” But we’ll see. (By the way, I would love the irony of a 2A organization stepping in to defend Hunter’s right to possess a gun even though he is a raging drug addict, because it would paint Joe Biden into a corner—does he denounce the 2A organization as he always does or does he partner with them to keep Hunter out of prison?)
We did find out in the Delaware case that the Hunter Biden laptop is real, despite the fact that 51 people, including high-ranking intelligence officers and other political bigshots, signed a statement that said it had all the classic “earmarks” of Russian disinformation. Um, no. But will any of them see prison? I doubt they will even get indicted.
Meanwhile, Steve Bannon is going to prison this summer, too, for refusing to show up for a Congressional subpoena. Bannon actually invoked executive privilege here, not realizing that does not apply to the Trump orbit. I mean Bannon had a credible defense. Ironically, his date to report to prison was announced on the date that Merrick Garland announced he is not complying with a Congressional subpoena. What do you want to bet that Merrick Garland gets no prison time, while waving bye to Bannon as he goes to prison?
These are the very same people who keep telling us, “No one is above the law.” Like we believe that.
This brings me to an interesting idea. I think President Trump should consider Steve Bannon as his Vice President. This is not a slam against the roster of contenders Trump is currently considering. Some of them are individuals who would be excellent vice presidents. But here’s why I want Bannon.
Bannon is life insurance for Trump.
Bannon is impeachment insurance for Trump.
Bannon has no fear and this is a time when we need wild-eyed fearless men.
Bannon and Trump may both be convicted men at the time of the election, but I’d rather vote for men convicted by our enemies than men our enemies let off the hook. Besides, Steve Bannon would go after the deep state critters like a hungry raccoon in a dumpster.