Two members of the Israeli Embassy in Washington were fatally shot just after 9 p.m. on May 21 while leaving an event at a Jewish museum. According to police, one suspect has been detained.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar identified the victims as Yaron Lischinsky, who served as a research assistant, and Sarah Milgrim, who coordinated trips and missions for Israel. The pair were engaged and about to get married next week in Jerusalem, according to Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter.
Elias Rodriguez, 30, of Chicago, was arrested in connection with the shooting, Pamela Smith, chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, said at a news conference within a few hours of the shooting. The suspect is said to have approached a group of four people and opened fire.
The alleged murderer shouted “Free, free Palestine! Free, free Palestine!” as he was taken into custody.
A video obtained by Jewish Insider shows the suspected shooter, identified by police as Elias Rodriguez, in the lobby of the Capital Jewish Museum chanting “free, free Palestine” as he is detained by police and removed from the building.
The activist intentionally targeted the couple because they were coming out of the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Not only did he shoot them but he stalked them to make sure they were dead.
The suspected terrorist who opened fire on two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, DC, unleashed nearly two dozen rounds at the soon-to-be-engaged couple — with victim Sarah Milgrim attempting to crawl away after collapsing to the ground, according to sources and court documents.
Elias Rodriguez, 31, was caught on surveillance footage firing several shots at Yaron Lischinsky, 28, and Milgrim, 26, before they both collapsed outside the Capital Jewish Museum late Wednesday, according to an arrest affidavit.
The Chicago native leaned over the bullet-riddled couple and continued firing, then followed Milgrim as she made a desperate attempt to escape, shooting her again, charging documents showed.
Rodriguez was seen reloading his weapon before opening fire on Milgrim once more.
Assuming Rodriguez is guilty as charged, I believe the only just sentence is the death penalty. His crime is both a “hate crime” and a terrorist attack. He’s a cold-blooded killer who murdered two innocent people because they represented something he hated: a country and a people who have been victims of violence and hatred for thousands of years.
Two young Israeli diplomats – Yaron Lischinsky, 28, and his girlfriend, Sarah Milgrim – were murdered, shot to death at close range, attending an event hosted by the American Jewish Congress in Washington, D.C.
That news was hard enough to take.
But then I learned that Yaron was the brother of Hanan Lischinsky, a friend and a colleague of mine and our team.
Hanan is a strong and devout Israeli follower of Jesus and a very impressive and accomplished journalist who works for ALL ISRAEL NEWS and serves as our News Desk Manager.
Yaron was also a strong follower of Jesus – well-known, well-respected, and well-loved throughout the Israeli Christian community – as well as a veteran of serving in the Israeli Defense Forces, a diplomat working for Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a passionate soccer player.
Yaron and Sarah were not only like-minded, best friends, and madly in love.
They were also planning to get married.
In fact, Yaron had already purchased the ring and the two were planning to fly back to Jerusalem next week to get engaged.
As an evangelical Christian, I rest assured that Yaron and Sarah are now safely in the arms of Jesus. I grieve not only their deaths, but also the hatred that led to such an act. It makes me angry. And while I hope that Rodriguez comes to faith in Christ, I also have a strong sense of justice. May he come to faith before he pays for his crime.
I plead with you to disavow anti-Semitism and refuse to tolerate it at all. If someone says something antisemitic to you, rebuke them. Do not be ashamed of standing up for the Jewish people.
Yaron and Sarah— working together at the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C.— were murdered in a terrorist attack outside the Jewish Museum. A young couple with a bright future planning their life together.
The Department of Defense has selected a design for President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense initiative, Trump announced on May 20.
“I’m pleased to announce that we have officially selected an architecture for this state-of-the-art system that will deploy next-generation technologies across the land, sea, and space, including space-based sensors and interceptors,” Trump told reporters at the White House.
In his first week in office, Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Defense to devise a plan to implement his missile defense proposal.
When Israel got their “Iron Dome” I wondered why we didn’t do the same thing for ourselves. We helped them develop it, so why wouldn’t we apply that technology at home? This goes back to President Ronald Reagan’s SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) that critics called “Star Wars.”
The technology just wasn’t ready at the time, but now it is.
Canada may also partner with the United States to help develop the improved missile defense shield, the president said.
“Canada wants to be a part of it, which would be a fairly small expansion, but we’ll work with them on pricing,” he said.
Canada’s like the kid who pretends not to be impressed by, but also secretly wants to be like, his older brother. #MeToo
In addition to new and improved space-based sensors and interceptors, Trump’s January executive order called for the Department of Defense to consider non-kinetic missile interception technologies such as lasers.
The order also tasked the department with examining methods and technologies for intercepting missile threats before they can launch, or in their initial boost phase.
Trump vowed that the $175 billion missile defense program would allow the United States to effectively counter advanced cruise missiles and hypersonic ballistic missiles.
“Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world, and even if they’re launched from space. And we will have the best system ever built,” the president said.
I balk slightly at the $175 billion price tag because we still have mountains of debt that we need to get rid of. We also know that initial estimates can quickly double or triple when it comes to government spending.
On balance, however, I approve this effort. Global technology and improved weapon systems are outpacing our current level of countermeasures. We need to defend against Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles, not to mention drone swarms and hypersonic missiles.
Guetlein indicated the Golden Dome is necessary to preserve the safety, security and the quality of life Americans are used to.
“We owe it to our children and our children’s children to protect them and afford them a quality of life that we have all grown up enjoying. Golden dome will afford that,” said Guetlein.
The general said “our adversaries have become very capable and very intent on holding the homeland at risk.”
“While we have been focused on keeping the peace overseas, our adversaries have been quickly modernizing their nuclear forces, building up ballistic missiles capable of hosting multiple warheads, building out hypersonic missiles capable of attacking the United States within an hour and traveling at 6,000 miles an hour, building cruise missiles that can navigate around our radar and our defenses, building submarines that can sneak up on our shores and, worse yet, building space weapons,” Guetlein said.
“It is time that we change that equation and start doubling down on the protection of the homeland.”
Trump’s “Golden Dome” (Trump has a thing for gold, doesn’t he?) is expected to be partially operational by the end of his term. That would be amazing for a government project.
It’s good to be back. My thanks to Bruce Gust for filling in for me over the last week plus. Some of you may know that Bruce and I are childhood friends who grew up going to the same church and participating in many of the same activities. We went our separate ways but have managed to stay connected with both of us being passionate about our faith and the political health of our nation.
The big news coming yesterday was that former (thankfully) Resident Joe Biden has been diagnosed with advanced form of prostate cancer. It’s an unfortunate diagnosis and I do wish him well in his fight against the disease.
The key question I have is this: Did Joe Biden’s inner circle know about this diagnosis last year?
Obviously, questions about Joe Biden’s physical and mental health have been raised for years. Let’s be honest here. Joe Biden had access to top-notch health care while in the Oval Office—with a personal physician, Kevin O’Connor, who, back in 2023, described him as a “healthy, vigorous 80-year-old male who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency.” We all knew that assessment was garbage. Would the same doctor who claimed Joe Biden was “healthy” and “vigorous” also cover up a cancer diagnosis until after the presidential election?
Yeah, I think so.
Let’s face it: everything about the Biden “presidency” was (and is) a lie, including the assertion that he was the “president.” There’s a difference between holding an office and performing the duties of the office, and it’s now being revealed that what every person not in the Democrat cult could see with their own eyes was, in fact, true.
For four years, we did not have a President and the entire media covered it up.
It pales in comparison to any political scandal in the history of our country. https://t.co/ShLWgd2XZK
The Democrats and the media—but I repeat myself—propped up a husk of a man who didn’t have a clue what he was doing. He was a puppet, a cipher, a doorstop, a symbol of the office. And now the whole facade is unraveling.
So, did Biden have prostate cancer while “president” of the United States, and did he have it when he was planning to run again before being unceremoniously kicked out of the race?
We may never know and, even if we did, how could we trust what we’re being told?
The last eight years have been among the most ruinous of our country’s history, largely because of the lies we’ve been told and because none of the liars have gone to prison for their crimes.
So it seems the deep state took a career politician with dementia & cancer, staged a riot to certify his mathematically improbable election, arrested anyone who contested it, sanctioned an invasion, weaponized the courts, silenced speech, and turned the US into sodom & Gomorrah
— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) May 19, 2025
In the mind of the person who sees themselves as their own absolute, they justify replacing principles with preferences by saying that they have the right to be happy.
They insist that they can change their gender with their pronouns, they believe they have the right to give away other people’s money, and when it’s time to defend their argument, because they lack reasons and results, they respond with distractions and excuses, and assault the character of those who disagree with them.
Your party was not merely defeated in the last election, they were revealed. Their problem is not their message or their messenger, it’s their motive. They don’t want to improve America, they want to erase it and because they can’t champion that purpose directly, they try to conceal it by using words that are designed to illicit an emotional response.
Hitler, Separation of Church and State, Constitutional Crisis, You Can’t Force Your Beliefs on Me, That’s Your Opinion, Not Everyone Feels that Way…
It works in the short term, but after a while, the perversion, the waste, the entitlement, and the unsustainable irresponsibility accumulates to the point where “truth” is no longer seen as something that can be edited according to one’s manufactured reality as much as it’s something that can only be pursued and enjoyed when you’re willing to answer to something greater
than yourself.
No human being is beyond reproach, but the border is closed, inflation is down, foreign investments are up, conversations are happening, and this from a candidate that is simply doing what he promised to do.
Your rhetoric, your insults, your accusations, are all now being processed for what they are:
Outbursts from a demographic that wants to replace “In God We Trust” with, “You Can’t Tell Me What to Do.”
Before the election last November, there were a lot of conversations about the two candidates and, given the way President Trump was so demonized by the press, it felt like you needed to be able to explain why you were voting for Trump and not just that you were voting for him.
I put this video together to do just that.
Here’s “why” I voted for Trump and here’s why I would do it again…
The final installment of a four part series that looks at the trial that resulted in President Trump being labeled a convicted felon.
Here we go!
#5 Convicted Felon – Trump’s guilt was evaluated according to his having effected the election according to “unlawful means.”
Here’s the problem…
Judge Merchan illegally told the jury they didn’t have to be unanimous which also violated President Trump’s rights.
Juan Merchan
However unbiased Juan Merchan may claim to be, his adversarial perspective on President Trump and the Republican party are obvious given his financial contributions as well as the way in which his daughter stood to gain financially had President Trump lost the election.This is more than just an awkward coincidence. This is a violation of New York State Law pertaining to how political activity and family associations can not be allowed to impact the necessary impartiality that has to characterize the judgement of the one sitting on the bench.
Judge Merchan made financial contributions to Joe Biden’s Presidential Campaign and a Political Action Committee called “Stop Republicans.”14
Judge Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is the founder and president of a political consulting company called Authentic Campaigns, which provides political services for prominent Democratic Party clients. In a letter from Congress to Ms. Merchan, the Committee on on the Judiciary said, “Experts have raised substantial concerns with Judge Merchan, your father, refusing to recuse himself from President Trump’s case despite your work on behalf of President Trump’s political adversaries and the financial benefit that your firm, Authentic Campaigns Inc., could receive from the prosecution and conviction.15
N.Y. Election Law § 17-152 states, “any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means … shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” This crime has two elements:
To be guilty, a jury must find the accused: (1) conspired to affect an election; and (2) committed another act by “unlawful means” in furtherance of the conspiracy.
A jury must agree unanimously on the acts constituting elements of a crime. (See U.S. v. Gotti, 451 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The jury must be unanimous not only that at least two [predicate] acts were proved, but must be unanimous as to each of two predicate acts.”); U.S. v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 224 (2d Cir. 2005) (“The jury must find that the prosecution proved each one of those two … specifically alleged predicate acts beyond a reasonable doubt.”).)10
A jury can’t declare someone to be guilty without being unanimous. Despite that being a known precedent, Judge Merchan told jurors, in his verbal instructions to the jury, “Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.11”
While it may sound like the Judge is insisting on a consensus, he simultaneously makes it clear that the jury doesn’t have to be unanimous in which of the three possible manifestations of “unlawful means” were actually committed. Not only is that a gross violation of legal precedent, it’s also a violation of President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right which says that all those accused of a crime have the right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”12
At every level of this trial, you have a corrupted manipulation of the law…
The Hush Money paid to Stormy Daniels did not have to be filed as a campaign expenditure
There was no violation of Federal Election Law.
The State has no jurisdiction over Federal Elections.
There was no evidence of Tax Fraud
Jury didn’t have to be unanimous on what crime was committed
In addition…
The jury pool is coming from a county that consists of 663,000 registered Democrats as opposed to 66,000 Republicans.13
A key witness for the defense was not allowed to testify
Given Merchan’s political activity as well as his daughter being formally questioned by Congress as to how she stands to benefit financially by Trump’s indictment and defeat (see sidebar), his bias makes his refusal to recuse himself a potential violation of New York State Law standards for recusal which state that judges may not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity.”16 The rules further state, “A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”17
What Was Donald Trump’s Crime? Liberals have a hard time in saying what Trump was guilty of.
Finally, Michael Colangelo was President Joe Biden’s third-highest-ranking Department of Justice official. He quit to join the Manhattan office investigating Donald Trump on November 18, 2022 – only three days after Trump announced his 2024 run and the same day Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith, and White House attorneys met for eight-hours with Nathan Wade. Colangelo’s association with the case and his nonsensical departure from his prestigious position makes it all the more logical to assume that the Biden White House was instrumental in ensuring that the case against President Trump had the look and feel of something legitimate.
It’s especially suspicious, given the way that Alvin Bragg was apparently reluctant to prosecute President Trump up until Colangelo joining the effort. He was so instrumental in building the case, he actually presented the opening arguments.18
Depending on the media you consume, it’s easy to believe that President Trump was found guilty on 34 felony convictions including what you see above. The problem with the headlines is that they rarely communicate the bottom lines that define the legal substance of, not just the allegations, but even the court proceedings that handed down a guilty verdict.
According to legal experts, Merchan’s standards for a conviction are abnormal. Not only were his instructions vague and illegal, but the prosecution never really made its point. Turley, who was been inside the courtroom, writes. “The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation. This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime.”19
Alan Dershowitz was a Democrat up until September of 2024. Prior to that, he supported Hillary Clinton and represented several high profile clients in their legal struggles.
He had a chance to be in the courtroom when Judge Merchan cleared everyone out in order to rebuke Robert Costello. From the perspective of Dershowitz, it was more than inappropriate…
Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.
The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.
Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant.
The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists.
But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom.
I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind to observe his deep failings.20
He goes on to observe how, because the trial wasn’t televised, the only perspective on what happened inside the courtroom was going to be coming from media types, many of who were just as biased as Judge Merchan.
He concludes his observations with a fitting statement that captures everything that falls into the category of the way in which President Trump was not found guilty as a convicted felon as much as he was put on trial as a political target…
“The American public is the loser.”21
1. “Stormy Daniels – Donald Trump Scandal”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal, accessed January 31, 2025
2. The excerpt from Manhattan prosecutors “Bill of Particulars” references four crimes. However, only three were referenced by Judge Merchan in his instructions to the jury. The fourth one is State Penal Law 175.05 and refers to falsifying business records and is classified as a misdemeanor. It may be that this was considered both obvious and redundant and for that reason, wasn’t referenced by Judge Merchan.
3. “When the judge gags a key witness for Trump’s defense”, Washington Examiner, Byron York, May 6, 2024, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/2993414/when-the-judge-gags-a-key-witness-for-trumps-defense/, accessed February 22, 2025
3. “Why Is the Judge in Trump’s New York Trial Muzzling a Key Defense Witness?”, “Townhall”, Guy Benson, 5/8/2024, https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/05/08/why-is-the-judge-in-trumps-new-york-trump-trial-muzzling-a-witness-for-the-defense-n2638747, accessed February 3, 2024
4. Jonathan Turley, https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1795582312073101372, accessed February 1, 2025
5. “FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments”, Jordan Williams, 05/06/21, “The Hill”, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/, accessed February 4, 2025
6. “The New York State Senate”, “SECTION 17-152 | Conspiracy to promote or prevent election”, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152, accessed February 22, 2025
7. “What is the New York election law at the center of Trump’s hush money trial?”, ABC News, Ivan Pereira and Peter Charalambous, May 30, 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-york-election-law-center-trumps-hush-money/story?id=110678995, accessed February 22, 2025
8. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, United States Code, §30143. State laws affected, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title52-section30143&num=0&edition=prelim, accessed February 22, 2025
9. Syracuse University, College of Law, “Professor Gregory Germain writes: The Most Important Part of Trump’s Hush Money Case begins Next Week”, Professor Gregory Germain, May 22, 2024, https://law.syracuse.edu/news/professor-gregory-germain-writes-the-most-important-part-of-trumps-hush-money-case-begins-next-week/, accessed February 22, 2025
10. America First Legal, “Legal Errors in the New York Prosecution of President Trump Jury Unanimity”, https://media.aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/01181702/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
11. New York State Unified Court System, “Post Summation Instructions”, https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
12. Constitution Annotated, Sixth Amendment, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/, accessed February 22, 2025
13. “Election by County”, “New York State Board of Elections”, https://elections.ny.gov/enrollment-county, accessed February 1, 2025
14.Federal Election Contribution, Individual Contributions, https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=juan+merchan&contributor_occupation=judge&two_year_transaction_period=2020, accessed February 22, 2025
15. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, “Letter to Ms. Lauren Merchan”, https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-08-01%20JDJ%20to%20L.%20Merchan%20re%20Authentic%20Campaigns.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
16. Cornell Law School, “N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 § 100.5 – A judge or candidate for elective judicial office shall refrain from inappropriate political activity”, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/22-NYCRR-100.5, accessed February 25, 2025
17. Casetext, “N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 100.2”, https://casetext.com/regulation/new-york-codes-rules-and-regulations/title-22-judiciary/subtitle-a-judicial-administration/chapter-i-standards-and-administrative-policies/subchapter-c-rules-of-the-chief-administrator-of-the-courts/part-100-judicial-conduct/section-1002-a-judge-shall-avoid-impropriety-and-the-appearance-of-impropriety-in-all-of-the-judges-activities, accessed February 22, 2025
18. Congress.gov, “Biden’s #3 Man at DOJ Resigned to Join Alvin Bragg’s‘Get Trump’Team on November 18,2022”, Bradley Jaye, JUne 12, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117426/documents/HHRG-118-JU00-20240613-SD012-U12.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
19. Jonathan Turley, “The Closing: Trump’s Final Argument Must Bring Clarity to the Chaos in Merchan’s Courtroom”, Jonathan Turley, May 28, 2024,
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/28/the-closing-trumps-final-argument-must-be-clarity-to-chaos-in-merchans-courtroom/, accessed February 22, 2025
20. New York Post, “I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, and what I saw shocked me”, Alan Dershowitz, May 21, 2024, https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/, accessed February 22, 2025
21. Ibid
The is is Part III of a four part series that’s looking at the details of the case that was made against President Trump that resulted in him being labeled a convicted felon.
Here’s how the prosecution’s case is constructed…
We’re now on #2, Federal Election Law…
#2 Federal Election Law – The prosecution insisted that Trump’s payment to Stormy Daniels violated Federal Election Law.
Here’s the problem…
The FEC declared President Trump innocent of any wrongdoing involving his payment to Stormy Daniels in 2021.
Statute of Limitations
The crimes Trump was convicted of date back more than five years, but they withstood an initial court challenge because of a pandemic-era extension.Trump was indicted on March 30, 2023, more than six years after the earliest charge in the indictment, which dates to Feb. 14, 2017. That’s beyond the five years typically allowed by the statute of limitations, but there’s a catch: Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo extended the time limit to file charges in all criminal cases when courts were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
Trump’s lawyers moved to dismiss the case in its early stages based on the statute of limitations, but Merchan rejected the argument. In a pretrial decision, the judge said the pandemic extension stretched out the deadline for the prosecution by one year and 47 days.
“In other words, this felony prosecution had to be commenced within six years and 47 days from when the crimes were allegedly committed,” Merchan wrote.
Trump was charged within days of the potential deadline. The extension “brought the conduct described in the indictment within the prescribed five-year time limit,” Merchan wrote. (USA Today)
The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) had closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election.
The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign “knowingly and willfully” violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair.5
The FEC declared President Trump innocent of any wrongdoing involving his payment to Stormy Daniels in 2021. Yet, the State of New York decided to ignore that verdict and attempted to charge him with the same crime in 2024.
Another weakness in the prosecution’s case is the fact that President Trump’s alleged violation happened six years ago – a full year beyond the state’s statute of limitations. While a provision was made to extend that timeframe, given the way courts were disrupted by COVID-19, the fact that under any other circumstance, the prosecution’s case would never have made it to trial.
Bear in mind that a falsified business record is a misdemeanor. In order for it to be classified as a felony, the prosecution had to allege that the money was intentionally misrepresented in order to conceal another crime. But not only did that misdemeanor have to be linked to another crime in order for it to qualify as a felony, it had to be asserted as a felony in order for an exception to the statute of limitations to apply.
#3 State Election Law – According to Judge Merchan, New York State Election Law Section 17-152 was violated.
Here’s the problem…
State courts have no jurisdiction in cases such as this as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
Again, in order for the 34 counts of falsified business records to resonate as felonies, it has to be proven that they were falsely documented in order to conceal another crime. The prosecution asserted that one of the three possible crimes was a violation of New York State Law Section 17-152 which refers to a “Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.” It goes on to say that, “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”6
At one point, Judge Merchan elaborated by saying, “Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.”7
The problem, however, is that the state has no jurisdiction when it comes to Federal elections. In other words, if the FEC declares that the money paid by President Trump to Michael Cohen was not in violation of the law, that ruling supersedes and preempts any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.8
Judge Merchan and the prosecution were completely wrong in making a violation of State Election Law as part of the trial because Federal Law renders any attempt on the part of the state to override a Federal ruling a moot point.
#4 Tax Fraud – Prosecution accused President Trump of tax fraud when he disguised payments to Michael Cohen.
Here’s the problem…
The DA introduced no evidence to support the claim and the court didn’t rule on the issue.
In his legal review, Professor Gregory Germain elaborated on the issue of tax fraud as presented by the prosecution:
Early in the case, the District Attorney suggested that Trump might have been disguising the payments to commit tax fraud. But the DA introduced no evidence to support that claim. Trump asked Judge Merchan to prevent the District Attorney from arguing the tax fraud point. The District Attorney argued that falsifying the payment as income to Cohen rather than a reimbursement was a “tax law violation,” but Trump pointed out that there is no evidence that anyone received a tax benefit from the characterization. The court did not rule on the issue.9
So, however “tax fraud” might’ve been documented in the prosecution’s “Bill of Particulars,” it was never proven let alone discussed.
This is Part II of a four part series that looks at the case New York state brought against President Trump that resulted in him being effectively labeled a “convicted felon.”
But when you take the time to look at the accusations and contemplate all of what the case was actually built upon, it’s obvious there’s more – and less – to this case than what meets the eye.
We ended the last post by enumerating the 34 felonies that President Trump was charged with. Each one of them represented a falsified business record, which is a misdemeanor, unless you can prove that the mischaracterization was done for the purpose of concealing another crime.
New York state insisted that the crime being concealed was a violation of either Federal Election Law, State Election Law, or Tax Fraud.
Take your pick. It could be one or all of the above.
It looked like this…
But at each stage of the prosecution’s case, you have some toxic flaws that neither the judge, nor the jury, nor the prosecuting attorney’s seemed willing to acknowledge.
Let’s take a look…
#1 Hush Money – the money paid to Stormy Daniels, according to the prosecution, should’ve been reported to the FEC as a campaign expenditure. It was intentionally documented incorrectly in order to cover up either a violation of Federal Election Law (2), State Election Law (3), or an instance of Tax Fraud (4).
Here’s the problem…
The money paid to Stormy Daniels DID NOT have to be reported to the FEC as a campaign expenditure. However he documented it, the prosecution is wrong in insisting that the money should’ve been reported to the FEC.
Washington Examiner reporter, Byron York, explains:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying bookkeeping records of a nondisclosure payment in order to commit or conceal another crime, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what that other crime is. It’s really the key to the whole case. Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this matter. The fact that we — and that includes the defendant — still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the great injustices of a felony prosecution that never should have happened…[Bragg’s] theory is that if Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to keep her from going public with her story that she and Trump had a sexual encounter and then Trump repaid Cohen in 2017, then that was a campaign contribution and should have been reported to the FEC. The payments were made “for the purpose of influencing any election,” the theory continues, and the Trump campaign should have filed a document with the FEC listing among its campaign contributions and expenditures that it received and spent $130,000 for “hush money.”
If you think that sounds a little odd for an FEC disclosure, you’re right. That’s where one of the critical witnesses to be called by the Trump defense comes in. Bradley Smith is a former chairman of the FEC, and on many occasions, including long before Trump, he has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as “for the purpose of influencing any election.” … Smith, having headed the FEC, has many examples from the commission’s enforcement of federal election law that illustrate his point. He knows what he is talking about, and it seems clear that his expert opinion is that paying off Daniels, no matter what one might think of it, is not a campaign expenditure or donation that FECA requires a candidate to disclose. The Trump defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has any personal knowledge of the Trump transaction but because he understands, and has enforced, the campaign law that Bragg’s prosecutors appear to be planning to use against Trump. But Merchan has forbidden Smith from testifying about most of the issues involved in the case.3
The Lost Testimony of Bradley Smith
Bradley Smith’s testimony would’ve severely undermined the prosecution’s case. He tweeted some of what he would’ve said had Judge Merchan allowed him to take the stand and elaborate on how Campaign Law actually applied to President Trump’s situation…
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. Even Antonin Scalia—a pretty smart guy, even you hate him—once said “this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out…
Someone has to bring that knowledge to the jury. That—not the law—was my intended testimony. For example, part of the state’s case is that they wrongly reported what they knew to be a campaign expenditure in order to hide the payment until after the election. Cohen even testified they just wanted to get past the election…
So, 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 $$ sent to Daniels atty) would not, under law, be reported until Dec. 8, a full 30 days after election. But while judge wouldn’t let me testify on 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! (What an Expert Witness for Trump’s Defense Would Have Told Jurors If He Hadn’t Been Muzzled by the Judge)
Everything about the prosecution’s case requires the money paid to Stormy Daniels to be categorized as illegal in the context of Election Law. If the priority is a fair trial, it only makes sense that you would seek out the clarity provided by someone who can speak with authority as to whether or not Trump did, in fact, break the law from the standpoint of the FEC.
Bradley Smith is that authority and Bradley Smith was forbidden by Judge Merchan to provide that clarity.
Jonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School and has testified in United States congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. Since the 1990s, Turley has been a legal analyst for several major news networks and is currently a legal analyst with Fox News. He said this about the prosecution’s closing argument made by Joshua Steinglass:
Steinglass just said that it is a fact that these were campaign violations. Nothing from the judge and nothing for the defense. This jury has now been told dozens of times that the payments were campaign violations and the Judge is letting that false claim stand uncontradicted…He literally said that Trump lied in denying that these were campaign contributions because they were in fact such violations. Merchan is treating this all as argument. However, Steinglass is making a statement of law that is contradicted by a wide variety of experts.4
Among the “wide variety of experts” that Turley is referring to is Bradley Smith, whose testimony would’ve prevented Steinglass from invoking the discredited assumption that Trump had violated Election Law as an established fact (see “What an Expert Witness For Trump’s’ Defense Would Have Told Jurors if He Hadn’t Been Muzzled by the Judge” sidebar).
It’s as though the court wasn’t really looking for the truth as much as it was looking for an excuse to find Trump guilty.
Imagine buying a printer and documenting it as a business expense.
Perfectly legal.
But pretend for a moment that instead of buying a printer, you bought heroin. Now, not only are you breaking the law by purchasing illegal drugs, but you’re also committing a crime in the way you reported it as “something for the office.”
If instead of buying a printer, you bought an ice cream cone, you’ve got a “falsified business expense,” but that’s not necessarily a problem. What makes it criminal is the crime being concealed by documenting the expense as something legitimate.
If someone is going to accuse you of committing a felony because of a falsified business expense, they have to prove to the jury that you’re guilty of committing a crime that was funded by the money you reported as a legal transaction. In the case of our example, the purchase of heroin.
But if you bought ice cream, that’s not illegal and however you accounted for it is not a felony and…
…they don’t have a case.
These are the 34 “felonies” that President Trump was charged with:
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust
2/14/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457
2/14/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460
2/14/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000138
2/14/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust
3/16/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 846907
3/17/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000147
3/17/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump
4/13/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump
5/22/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 855331
5/22/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002700
5/23/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump
6/16/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858770
6/19/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002740
6/19/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858772
6/9/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002741
6/19/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump
7/11/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 861096
7/11/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002781
7/11/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump
8/1/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 863641
8/1/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002821
8/1/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump
9/11/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 868174
9/11/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002908
9/12/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump
10/18/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 872654
10/18/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002944
10/18/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump
11/20/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 876511
11/20/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002980
11/21/17
Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump
12/1/17
Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 877785
12/1/17
Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 003006
12/1/17
These were all identified by the prosecution as falsified business records.
34 falsified business records, 34 felonies.
But remember, in order for a falsified business record to quality as a felony, it has to be proven that the money was intentionally categorized to conceal the fact that the law had been broken.
An excerpt from Manhattan prosecutors’ bill of particulars in the Donald Trump hush-money case referenced in the “Old, unused, and ‘twisty’ — meet the obscure NY election-conspiracy law that just might get Trump convicted” article printed in the Business Insider, April 27, 2024.
But what was the crime?
You can’t tell by looking at the business records, apart from the name, “Michael Cohen.”
In 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s lawyer, cut a check to Stormy Daniels in exchange for her discretion when it came to her relationship to Donald Trump, given its sordid characteristics that occurred in 2006. That same check was later categorized as an illegal contribution to Trump’s presidential campaign and Cohen wound up serving three years in prison.1
Later, however, it was alleged that Trump tried to reimburse Cohen for the money paid out to Daniels and used a series of falsified business records in order to conceal the true nature of the payment made to the former porn star. In doing so, at least one of three crimes were committed (see sidebar):2
Violation of State Election Law
Tax Fraud
Federal Election Law
But you can’t simply list 34 transactions and call them 34 felonies. You have to prove that every one of those line items was intentionally mis-categorized in order to conceal a violation of either State Election Law, New York Tax Law, or Federal Election Law.
When you’re talking with someone who sees themselves as their own absolute, they’re living in a manufactured reality where there’s no such thing as truth, only personal opinions. Truth only exists in the context of what they’re comfortable with – a preference that’s unique to every individual as opposed to an Absolute that applies to all individuals. That’s why when you try to tell them that they’re wrong, you’re heard as someone who’s just trying to force your beliefs on them.
All the boundaries represented by logic, common sense, morality, and even rational thought are now nonexistent because there’s no fixed point of reference.
There are no Divine Absolutes, those are “your beliefs.”
That isn’t irrevocable evidence, that’s just your perspective.
Those aren’t indisputable facts, those are just your personal preferences.
Truth is defined exclusively according to whether or not a person wants to believe it – there’s no kind of accuracy that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels. If they’re not comfortable with what’s being said, it is automatically untrue. There are no principles, only preferences.
That is the key difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. The Liberal gauges everything according to whatever best reinforces their core assumption that they are the standard by which all things are measured. Every resource, be it a news outlet, a personality, a poll, a statistic, a picture, or a study – however credible they may be – none of it is considered as admissible evidence if it resonates as a threat to the way they want to see themselves and the world around them.
The Conservative, on the other hand, believes in something greater than themselves which means that they are focused on a Standard that doesn’t change and is coming from a Source that is morally and intellectually flawless (“In God We Trust”). That doesn’t mean that the Conservative is never beyond reproach. What it does mean is that they see themselves as being accountable to someone other than the one who stares back at them in the mirror every morning.
The Liberal, on the other hand, because they see themselves as their own bottom line, they are never responsible for their actions as much as their oppressed by a system that is corrupt. They may be different, perhaps they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.
What can make this exhausting is that when you accuse a Liberal of basing their convictions on preferences rather than principles, they will insist that you’re doing the same thing. They cannot process the concept of a transcendent reality that prevails over an individual’s desires and appetites. In fact, they see it as unhealthy distraction.
We all have different truths. They’re based on where we come from, how we were raised and how other people perceive us.
That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start. In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.1
The problem with Maher’s approach, and the Liberal perspective in general, is that it contradicts the very definition of what truth is. The dictionary definition of truth is, “…the body of real things, events, and facts.”2. Truth is an objective absolute and is not something that can be established simply by speaking it into reality anymore than you can change your gender simply by changing your pronouns.
To insist that truth is relative is a self-defeating statement because if truth is relative than even declaring it as such is relative and is therefore meaningless.
Yet, this is a necessary premise in order for the Liberal mentality to function. Once you introduce the idea that truth is nothing more than a word that’s used to elevate your personal disposition to the level of a universal given, then everything from your testimony in court to the way you evaluate the behavior and the credibility of other people depends solely on how that scenario either weakens or strengthens your ability to maintain the illusion that your definition of the human experience is the only definition that matters.
This is why the immorality of a particular individual is labeled as heinous and the same behavior in another individual doesn’t even justify a headline. It’s not a “double standard.” To the Liberal, there are no standards, only situations. The Liberal isn’t as concerned with the behavior as much as they are in demonizing anyone who represents a philosophy that promotes the practical existence of objective truth.
This is why they can lie in court because, again, there is no truth apart from whatever is preferred in that moment. You can’t be lying if you have eliminated the standard by which your statement would otherwise by measured.
Inevitably, this is more than just a self-serving philosophy. This is a spiritual condition.
There are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or you are. Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something or abstain from something to the point where you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. This is the lie that satan fed Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:5:
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:5)
Christianity, on the other hand, says you’re a spiritual corpse. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. The gospel is the only religious doctrine that positions mankind as absolutely subordinate to his God.
That doesn’t work in the mind of a Liberal.
You can’t be your own absolute and be subordinate to a holy God at the same time. It’s one or the other and that’s why the separation of church and state is such a volatile issue.
It’s not just American History, nor is it a Sunday morning tradition. It is toxic in the mind of the person who is determined to be their own bottom line.
However unsustainable or nonsensical that approach may be, it can nevertheless be championed very effectively by insisting that, as Katherine Maher said, “We all have different truths,” and that it is ultimately a “distraction.”
But it’s not distracting, it’s stabilizing. And when that stability is in place, it’s liberating.
The death and resurrection of Christ aren’t certified as actual calendar events simply because I find the notion of a loving and forgiving God appealing. It either happened or it didn’t. However I “feel” about the empty tomb doesn’t validate its authenticity one way or the other.
The question isn’t, “How do you feel?” Rather, you need to ask, “Is it real?”
The question isn’t whether or not I can force my beliefs on you. The question should be, “Is what I’m saying…”
…true?
The word “truth” is used frequently in our society. Even in the context of swearing to, “…tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.”
But when truth is nothing more than one’s personal version of reality as opposed to that which is genuinely real, then you are attempting to function in a manner that is not only completely inconsistent with the way the universe operates, but you have cast off every reliable metric that would otherwise guide you in your pursuit of happiness, and redefined rights, not as gifts given to you by God to guard your way, but as weapons you use to get your way.
As long as you’re determined to ignore principles in favor of your preferences, you are missing the life and freedom afforded to you by what is, at times, a difficult truth, and exchanged it for the frustrated existence supplied by a convenient lie.
1. “What Wikipedia teaches us about balancing truth and beliefs”, ted.com, https://www.ted.com/talks/katherine_maher_what_wikipedia_teaches_us_about_balancing_truth_and_beliefs, accessed March 30, 2025
2. “truth”, “Merriam Webster Dictionary”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth, accessed March 30, 2025
