The Key Arguments and Evidence that Corrupt Judge Merchan Didn’t Allow, Would Have Destroyed the Bragg Case | Joe Hoft

News

Get The Latest

News

Get The Latest

The Key Arguments and Evidence that Corrupt Judge Merchan Didn’t Allow, Would Have Destroyed the Bragg Case

 

Key evidence in the corrupt Bragg accounting case against President Trump is not being presented, in large part because of corrupt Judge Merchan. 

The indictment against President Trump claimed that he was an accountant who received invoices, made entries into the books, then made payments related to these invoices.  The criminal prosecutors behind the Soros-backed Bragg case claimed that President Trump participated in 34 accounting entries and related activities that were felonies.  No where in US or New York law is this the case.  The entire case is a fantasy.  There are multiple accounting related reasons that the Bragg case is based on total lies as was reported below.

EXCLUSIVE: Underlying Accounting Activities in DA Bragg Case Are Not Crimes – There Are No Crimes, Not Even Adjusting Entries!

This information was shared on the War Room.  Steve Bannon pointed out that the media would ignore this and push Stormy Daniels on the American people day and night.  This has been the case.

The War Room with Joe Hoft: Accounting Activities In DA Bragg Case Are Not Crimes-There Are No Crimes

This information was never presented in corrupt Judge Merchan’s case.  In addition, the FEC related argument was not allowed to be heard by corrupt and criminal Merchan, whose daughter has raked in nearly $100 million as a Democrat contractor over the past couple of years.

According to a report on Twitter here is what Judge Merchan would not allow the jury to hear.

In a blatant display of biased judicial overreach, Acting Justice Juan Merchan has illegitimately prevented Bradley A. Smith, a former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), from providing expert testimony in the trial against former President Donald Trump. This decision, which has been widely criticized, undermines the fairness of the judicial process and raises serious questions about the integrity of the proceedings.

Bradley Smith’s Credentials

Bradley A. Smith is a highly respected figure in the field of campaign finance regulation. Born in 1958, he currently serves as the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. Smith has a distinguished career, having served as Commissioner, Vice Chairman, and Chairman of the FEC from 2000 to 2005. His extensive knowledge and experience make him an invaluable expert on matters related to campaign finance law.

The Judge’s Conflicts of Interest

Justice Juan Merchan’s decision to exclude Smith’s testimony is deeply troubling. Merchan, a known Democrat donor, is presiding over a trial initiated by a Soros-backed District Attorney, Alvin Bragg. Adding to this, Merchan’s daughter is a major fundraiser for the Democratic Party, financially benefiting from the trial’s outcome. These conflicts of interest cast a shadow over the judge’s impartiality and call into question the legitimacy of his rulings.

The Importance of Smith’s Testimony

Bradley Smith’s testimony is crucial for providing the jury with a comprehensive understanding of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Smith himself highlighted the complexity of the law, quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia: “this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out.” Smith was prepared to elucidate the technicalities of the FECA, ensuring that the jury could accurately interpret the relevant legal standards.

Smith remarked, “Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance. But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex.” His expertise would have been invaluable in explaining the intricacies of campaign finance law, much like a technical expert in a product liability case.

One key aspect Smith intended to clarify was the reporting schedules under the FECA. He stated, “we were going to go over the reporting schedules, showing that even if they thought it was a campaign expenditure to be reported, an expenditure made on October 27 (when money was sent to Daniels’ attorney) would not, under law, be reported until Dec. 8, a full 30 days after the election.” This detail is critical to understanding the timeline and legality of the actions in question.

The Judge’s Bias

Despite the importance of Smith’s testimony, Judge Merchan allowed Michael Cohen, a known adversary of Trump, to provide extensive testimony on how his activities allegedly violated the FECA. Smith pointed out the inconsistency, saying, “While the judge wouldn’t let me testify on the meaning of law, he allowed Michael Cohen to go on at length about whether and how his activity violated FECA. So effectively, the jury got its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!”

This selective allowance of testimony reveals a clear bias, further evidenced by the judge’s own political contributions to Trump’s opponent. Smith succinctly encapsulated the situation: “So you’ve got a judge who contributed to Trump’s opponent presiding over a trial by a prosecutor who was elected on a vow to get Trump, for something DOJ and FEC chose not to prosecute, on a far-fetched legal theory.”

Here is the tweet:

This case has no crimes.  President Trump is no accountant – no CEO of multi-billion dollar company is.

The criminals in this case are the prosecutors and the judge. 

Leave a Comment