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.
President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he will nominate Mike Waltz as the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Waltz, a former Green Beret, congressman, and current National Security Advisor, is expected to vacate that role immediately.
Key Details:
Trump praised Waltz for his military service and leadership, saying he “has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first” and will bring that same commitment to the U.N.
In the interim, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as National Security Advisor while continuing his leadership at the State Department.
Trump stated the appointments reflect a continued push “to Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN,” signaling a focus on national security and international diplomacy heading into the next phase of his administration.
Democrats have been trying to oust Pete Hegseth over “Signalgate” a few weeks ago when Mike Waltz inadvertently added the Atlantic’s editor to a chat where senior officials were discussing attacks against the Houthis. Waltz owned the error and apologized but the Dems pounced on the situation as leverage to get rid of America First appointees.
It may be that Trump took care of the issue by removing Waltz but keeping him involved by nominating him to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. That’s got to make Dem’s heads spin.
If you thought President Trump was running out of ways to troll the left, you probably weren’t counting on the ultimate bait-and-switch that is sure to send the Democrats into a collective hissy fit.
On Thursday, we learned that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, are out at the National Security Council. Democrats absolutely salivated at the news. Of course, Waltz was never their true target—that’s Pete Hegseth—but, clearly, they saw Waltz’s departure from the National Security Council as a victory, and they felt emboldened by it.
And then Trump nominated Waltz as his new pick for UN ambassador.
“I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role.”
Trump can’t be accused of not acting in response to the “scandal” of the Signal chat. Waltz is out.
But Waltz is also not out.
What played out this week was not just classic Trump—it was trolling on a level that left Democrats and the media scratching their heads in disbelief. It’s the kind of move only Trump could pull off, turning a target of a faux scandal into the face America presents to the world at the United Nations.
Trump’s nomination of Mike Waltz to the UN ambassador position proves once again that he’s playing 4D chess while his opponents are stuck playing checkers. What might Trump do next to troll the left? I have some ideas. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be interim national security advisor, a totally boss move would be for Trump to nominate General Michael Flynn as Waltz’s replacement.
I’m not an economist and I don’t play one on TV, so I’m not sure what to tell you about Trump’s tariff scheme. He cranks out a list of countries using some mathematical formula that creates just the right reciprocal tariffs on each, starting with a baseline 10% tariff on everyone we trade with.
Then the markets tank, analysts panic and there’s a massive sell-off. Then Trump “pauses” the tariffs for 90 days so that he can make deals with dozens of countries that reached out to the U.S. Markets skyrocket and post one of its biggest rallies in history.
First, the tariffs to every country was meant to cause the free world to make a choice – China or us. According to Scott Bessent on the White House lawn early this afternoon, north of 75 countries have chosen us. They are clamoring to renegotiate trade deals. Inevitably, every one of these deals will benefit the United States. It defies logic to believe that America’s position vis-a-vis trade with any individual country is going to be worse off after negotiating a new deal. With some countries, we’ll be nominally better off. With other countries, we’ll be in a much more equitable place. And because we have the commitment of 75+ countries to renegotiate trade, Trump is pausing the tariffs for 90-days in good faith in order to let the negotiators do their thing.
The bottom line is none of these pending trade deals would have been offered or committed to without the tariffs used as an attention-getter.
Second, by forcing the world to choose between the United States and China, China has become further isolated. Trump has all the leverage in the world to squeeze China, and squeezing them is exactly what he’s doing.
It’s high stakes gamesmanship and Trump knows exactly what he’s doing.
Trump knew all along the stock market, and the angst around it from the chattering class in resistance media was transient, and would rebound once he got us into a position of strength in global trade.
The bottom line to phase two is that all of it – phase 1 and phase 2, were a plan to take on China and combat them as the growing threat they are before having to deal with them anyway once they’re stronger and we’re weaker. This has been always about boxing in China. All of it. Yes, Canada, you, too.
I get a little nervous when playing chicken with a behemoth like China. We are dependent on China for pharmaceuticals, as we learned during Covid (released by China on purpose, I’m convinced, to take out Donald Trump). China supplies us with electrical machinery and TV parts, nuclear reactor parts and mechanical appliances, toys, games, sports equipment, plastics, furniture and lamps, vehicles, iron and steel, and optical and photographic parts, electronics, medical equipment, pharmaceutical ingredients, and, last but not least, rare earth minerals, which are crucial for industries like defense, renewable energy, and consumer electronics.
The U.S. imported $438 billion worth of goods from China in 2024 and only exported $144 billion. We’ve outsourced a lot of our manufacturing to China.
The tariffs are a tool to reset global trade and to begin diminishing the influence that China has on the world stage. They probably won’t be too happy about any negative impact that a reordered trade regime has on their Belt and Road strategy.
Since March, Tim Cook-led Apple has chartered at least six cargo jets, each carrying an estimated 100 tons of iPhones, to fly from India to the US, Reuters reported, citing sources familiar with the situation.
The tech giant also nudged Indian authorities to expedite the shipments through customs.
Apple “wanted to beat the tariff” with its last-minute shipments, a source familiar with its planning told Reuters.
In total, approximately 1.5 million iPhones were ferried to the US, according to Reuters calculations.
Meanwhile, the German luxury car brand Porsche warned analysts on Thursday that its first-quarter results would be impacted by “higher company-owned inventory shipped to the US to beat the tariff deadline.”
Trump imposed a 25% tariff on imported cars and car parts that went into effect April 3.
That levy remains in effect despite his 90-day pause on country-specific measures.
Trump is a disrupter, and I learned from his first term and from his second presidential campaign not to underestimate him, nor to panic when he does something that seems completely illogical. There’s a method to his madness, and I’ve decided to trust that his instincts are pretty good.
When Brandon was in office, every day seemed to crawl by. Months were like molasses, years like decades. Every moment he was in the White House with his cabal was a moment he could use to consolidate power and corrupt the institutions he controlled. I couldn’t wait for his four-year term to be done.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I can’t believe it’s been 50 days since Trump the Magnificent took office. The days and months fairly fly by. They’re going too fast! Slow down! It’s only four years! There’s so much more to accomplish!
But he’s off to a great start, as Paula Bolyard catalogues in 50 wins in 50 days. Here’s a few to whet your appetite:
1. President Trump secured the border in unprecedented fashion.
Illegal border crossings have declined to the lowest level ever recorded — down 94% from last February and down 96% from the all-time high of the Biden Administration. In one sector, illegal border crossings are down 99% over 2023.
Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin: “If Fox were to send me down there right now, I would have trouble finding a single migrant on camera.”
CBS immigration reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez: “Typically, when we go to the U.S./Mexico border, we at least see one group of people who are trying to cross into the U.S. illegally. We did not see a single migrant.”
4. President Trump’s tariffs are leveling the playing field for American workers.
President Trump restored a 25% tariff on steel imports and elevated the tariff to 25% on aluminum imports to protect these critical American industries from unfair foreign competition – a move praised by the Steel Manufacturers Association, the Aluminum Association, and businesses across the country.
President Trump unveiled a plan for fair and reciprocal trade, making clear to the world that the United States will no longer tolerate being ripped off.
6. President Trump has secured billions of dollars in new U.S.-based investments.
Apple announced a historic $500 billion investment that will create 20,000 new U.S.-based jobs.
TSMC announced an unprecedented $100 billion investment in U.S.-based semiconductor chip manufacturing.
President Trump announced the largest artificial intelligence infrastructure project in history, securing $500 billion in planned private sector investment — with major CEOs agreeing it would not have been possible without President Trump’s leadership.
President Trump secured a $20 billion investment by DAMAC Properties to build new U.S.-based data centers.
CMA CGM announced a $20 billion investment in U.S. shipbuilding and logistics, which will create 10,000 new jobs.
Eli Lilly and Company announced a $27 billion investment in its U.S.-based manufacturing.
The Trump Administration announced an $18 billion investment by American liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter Venture Global into their Plaquemines LNG export facility — made possible by President Trump’s energy policies.
Wisconsin-based Clarios, a leader in low-voltage energy storage, announced a $6 billion plan to expand its U.S.-based manufacturing.
Saudi Arabia declared its intention to invest $600 billion in the United States over the next four years.
Taiwan pledged to boost its investment in the United States.
7. President Trump is bringing manufacturing back to America.
The U.S. gained 10,000 manufacturing jobs in President Trump’s first full month in office — led by the auto sector, which gained the most new jobs in 15 months. This is a swift turnaround after losing an average of 9,000 manufacturing jobs per month in the final year of the Biden Administration.
Stellantis will reopen its assembly plant in Illinois, build its next-generation Dodge Durango in Michigan, and make new investments in their Ohio and Indiana facilities.
Nissan is expected to move some production to the U.S.
Mercedes-Benz announced plans to “grow” its vehicle production in the U.S.
Honda is expected to produce its next-generation Civic hybrid model in Indiana.
Electronics giants Samsung and LG “are considering moving their plants in Mexico to the U.S.” now that President Trump is back in office.
Siemens announced a $285 million investment in U.S. electrical product manufacturing, which will create more than 900 new skilled manufacturing jobs.
12. President Trump unleashed American energy.
President Trump declared a National Energy Emergency to unlock America’s full energy potential and bring down costs for American families — and the U.S. is now the largest net exporter of natural gas in the world.
President Trump re-opened 625 million acres for offshore drilling, which Biden banned in his waning days, in order to “drill, baby, drill.”
President Trump established the National Energy Dominance Council to maximize use of America’s extensive energy resources.
19. President Trump is ending waste, fraud, and abuse in government.
President Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to maximize government productivity and ensure the best use of taxpayer funds — which has already achieved tens of billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers.
President Trump stopped the waste, fraud, and abuse within USAID — ensuring taxpayers are no longer on the hook for funding pet projects of entrenched bureaucrats, such as sex changes in Guatemala.
27. President Trump designated English as the official language of the United States.
49. President Trump is ending China’s chokehold over the Panama Canal as he seeks its rightful return to U.S. ownership.
Following a visit from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino agreed to withdraw from the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, a debt-trap diplomacy scheme the Chinese Communist Party uses to gain influence over developing nations.
CK Hutchison Holding sold ports operating on both sides of the Panama Canal to a U.S.-based consortium, effectively placing the ports back in American control.
These are some of my favorites. There’s much more at the link. Go read them all and be amazed.
I watched Trump’s first joint address to Congress since retaking the White House and it was one for the history books. Here’s some highlights along with one simple observation I have.
This was a new one: Churlish Rep. Al Green gets booted after disrupting Trump’s speech and refusing to sit or to quiet down. “Remove this gentleman from the chamber.” I haven’t seen that before.
JUST IN: Democrat Rep. Al Green kicked out by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson after he kept interrupting Trump during his speech.
Trump on the border: “All we needed was a new president.” Trump calls out the lies that the Dems have told for the last four years while letting foreign invaders overrun our southern border.
POTUS: The media and our friends in the Democratic Party kept saying we needed new legislation to secure the border.
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 5, 2025
Trump asked, presumably rhetorically, how many want to see the war in Ukraine go for another five years. Some Democrats applauded and Trump specifically called out Elizabeth Warren, using her preferred name, Pocahontas, who continued to applaud for FIVE MORE YEARS OF WAR while the cameras were on her.
Trump to Warren: "You wanna keep it going for another five years? Yeah. Pocahontas says yes…" pic.twitter.com/DI7sIW9qy3
In total, President Trump has secured nearly $2 trillion in new U.S. investments.
TSMC announced an unprecedented $100 billion investment in U.S.-based semiconductor chip manufacturing.
Apple announced a historic $500 billion investment that will create 20,000 new U.S.-based jobs.
President Trump announced the largest artificial intelligence infrastructure project in history, securing $500 billion in planned private sector investment — with major CEOs agreeing it would not have been possible without President Trump’s leadership.
President Trump secured a $20 billion investment by DAMAC Properties to build new U.S.-based data centers.
Wisconsin-based Clarios, a leader in low-voltage energy storage, announced a $6 billion plan to expand its U.S.-based manufacturing.
Eli Lilly and Company announced a $27 billion investment in its U.S.-based manufacturing.
Saudi Arabia declared its intention to invest $600 billion in the United States over the next four years.
Taiwan pledged to boost its investment in the United States.
Electronics giants Samsung and LG “are considering moving their plants in Mexico to the U.S.” now that President Trump is back in office.
Needless to say, the Democrats sat on their hands for the vast majority of speech. Trump even addressed the obvious.
🚨 911, I NEED TO REPORT A M*RDER.
THE PRESIDENT JUST ENDED THE DEMOCRATS.
TRUMP: I look at the Democrats in front of me – I realize, there's nothing I can say to make them happy, stand, or smile or applaud. I could find a cure to the most devastating disease…or announce the… pic.twitter.com/T7B90jhnli
Full Text: “I look at the Democrats in front of me – I realize, there’s nothing I can say to make them happy, stand, or smile or applaud. I could find a cure to the most devastating disease…or announce the answers to the greatest economy in history, or the stoppage of crime to the lowest levels ever. And these people – sitting RIGHT HERE – will not clap, stand or cheer for these achievements. They won’t, no matter what. 5 times I’ve been up here.”
The Democrats are reflexively, automatically, predisposed to oppose anything and everything that Trump represents, and nowhere was it more obvious than in the joint session of Congress tonight, as enthusiastic Republicans cheered and chanted USA! USA! USA! while the childish Democrats sat on their hands or held up their virtue signaling signs. The contrast between the two groups couldn’t have been clearer.
We used to be a country that agreed on what was important. What we disagreed on was how to address those issues. Democrats (generally) wanted bigger government intervention; Republicans (generally) wanted less.
Now, we can’t even agree on the issues. We’ve got one party who left the impression last night that they support taxes on tips, taxes on overtime, taxes on Social Security, the war in Ukraine, men participating in women’s sports; that they hate the popular vote, cutting waste, eliminating Social Security fraud; and that they couldn’t care less about every one of Trump’s special guests, including the mothers and sisters of children murdered by illegal aliens, a steel worker who has fostered more than 40 children, and a child battling brain cancer his whole life who was deputized as a Secret Service agent. The party of “joy” they’re not.
The Democrat party isn’t dead—yet, but they made it clear last night that it’s really not a fight between good ideas (left v. right), but a fight between good and evil.
