Latest News

June 10, 2024

President Trump is scheduled to meet virtually for a “pre-sentencing” interview today (Monday), after a Manhattan jury found him guilty on 34 counts --- actually the same count 34 times --- of “business records fraud.”  I can’t believe I actually just typed that last sentence.

As reported Sunday on FOX NEWS, “the interview will help the judge determine his punishment.”

Surely, this is just a formality, as Judge Juan Merchan already knows what his preferred punishment is:  Rikers Island for life.

It’s not just this judge, either, by any means.  This whole case reeks of Democrat politics.  Did you know that New York Sen. Chuck Schumer’s brother’s Wall Street law firm, dubbed the “Biden Era N.Y. Power Center” by BLOOMBERG, was a catalyst for Trump’s indictment?  (The article at BLOOMBERG is for subscribers only, but you get the idea.)  Margot Cleveland reports:

“Sen. Schumer’s brother, Robert Schumer, is a partner in that law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison. [...The firm] granted three highly paid attorneys leaves of absence to join the Manhattan district attorney’s office in its targeting of Donald Trump. And Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of the former president came about only after the intentional leaking of a resignation letter from Mark Pomerantz, one of the Paul, Weiss attorneys on loan to the DA.” 

Recall that the resignation letter was leaked to THE NEW YORK TIMES, and that Pomerantz also wrote a book --- quite beyond the bounds of appropriateness --- about DA Alvin Bragg’s decision not to press charges (in a case where both the DOJ and FEC had already declined to press charges).  Pomerantz flat-out accused Trump of being guilty of “numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition.” 

Bragg was so pressured by the Democrat establishment to indict Trump that he announced the investigation was ongoing and also hired as a prosecutor the DOJ’s third-in-command, Michael Colangelo, specifically to work on the Trump case.

It was after Colangelo’s arrival that Bragg’s office indicted Trump.

As Cleveland writes, “This is most assuredly not business as usual in the criminal justice system.”

Then-candidate Joe Biden gave a shout-out to Robert Schumer at a June 2019 fundraiser.  Well, of course he did.

Cleveland offers a preview of coming attractions, saying, “...Now that the Manhattan show trial is over, it is Chuck Schumer’s collaboration with his brother that will be interesting to watch because Robert Schumer serves on the New York senator’s ‘Judicial Selection Committee.’ That committee reportedly helps Sen. Schumer screen individuals for federal judgeships and U.S. attorney positions.”

So, they’re keeping new Democrat blood flowing into the “justice” system, and rewarding their friends in the process.

As you know, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has accused DA Bragg of political prosecution of Trump and requested him to appear on June 13.  Lo and behold, Bragg said he’ll testify --- but he has one condition.  It has to be AFTER Trump is sentenced in July.  I am not kidding.

Bragg has asked Congress to provide “the scope and purpose of the proposed hearing.”  I think we know the purpose --- he does, too --- and for that we need as wide a scope as possible.  We demand transparency about what went on in Bragg’s department surrounding this trial and what political connections were involved in the prosecution of a former President and leading candidate for office.

Jordan also wants the testimony of Matthew Colanagelo, but Bragg’s office responded that it would have to “evaluate the propriety” of allowing Colangelo to stand before Congress.  Huh?  We say let the subpoenas fly NOW, so Bragg and Colangelo can evaluate the propriety of being held in contempt of Congress.

Speaking of contempt and lack of propriety, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave an interview to podcaster Kara Swisher in which she demonstrated the Freudian concept of projection as clearly as anyone ever has, ever.

“I mean, it sounds nuts,” she chirped, “but I wouldn’t be surprised if that guy threw me in jail.  He’s out of his mind.  I mean, he did his whole first campaign around ‘lock her up.’  This is his motto.”

Never mind that “lock her up” was said by Trump’s supporters, and it wasn’t in reference to AOC but to Hillary, who certainly has committed felonies that, according to former FBI Director James Comey, “no reasonable prosecutor” would take on.  A Trump administration could’ve prosecuted Hillary, but he chose NOT to take that route, saying “we don’t do that.”

“I take him at his word when he says that he’s going to round up people,” AOC babbled on.  “I take him at his word when he threatens journalists.  I feel like what we saw was an amuse-bouche to what his intentions are.”

If she’s tossing around words like “amuse-bouche” to show how terribly sophisticated she is, it’s not working.  No, this discussion of Trump just showed how clueless she is.  She has the story backwards:  It’s HER team that’s been trying everything possible to throw TRUMP into jail --- HER team that railroaded him and then popped open the champagne when they made him a “convicted felon.”  The rape of the “justice” system is obvious now to all but the most hard-core Trump-haters.

By the way, if Trump did want to use the justice system against AOC – not as a political weapon, as the Dems have against him, but purely as they have used it against Republicans – then she should be in jail. She led a sit-in at Nancy Pelosi’s office, which they call impeding government business and insurrection; encouraged Pro-Hamas protesters who have blocked bridges, streets and access to classes for Jewish students (a 75-year-old grandmother in failing health was just sentenced to two years in prison for “blocking access” to an abortion clinic for praying outside it); and encouraged protests at the homes of conservative SCOTUS Justices, which led to a death threat against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. By her and her party’s own standards, she should be UNDER the jail by now.

Finally, Roger Kimball at AMERICAN GREATNESS wrote this essay about the significance of the Trump conviction a week ago, but we wouldn’t want you to miss it.

Now for the Hunter Biden “gun” trial, which resumes Monday with more defense witnesses.  The big question, of course, is whether Hunter will take the stand.  Mia Cathell, who’s been following the trial for TOWNHALL, starts with a recap of some witnesses from last week.

Naomi Biden, the oldest daughter of Hunter and ex-wife Kathleen, testified for the defense but got some tough questioning from the prosecution.  She obviously loves her father.  This experience has to be mortifying for her --- she reportedly testified in a very soft voice and at times wiped away a tear --- but feeling bad for her doesn’t create sympathy for her father, at least around these parts.  Just the opposite.

“Uncle Jimmy,” President Biden’s brother, was at court in the morning but left at midday, without being called to testify for the defense.  It’s unclear why.

Cathill quotes a number of legal experts expressing doubt that Hunter will be put on the stand.  Read her full summary of the trial so far here.

Law professor Jonathan Turley says Hunter should “think twice” before deciding to testify.  One reason for that was Naomi’s testimony: “...Her attempt to establish that Hunter was not using drugs at the time of his gun purchase fell apart on cross examination.”  When she testified that Hunter was doing so much better around the time he bought the gun, the prosecution brought out those texts from Hunter about meeting with Mookie the drug dealer the very next day, and much more.

So if Hunter is put on the stand, Turley warns, “any cross examination would focus less on Naomi than it would on Mookie.”

“...The real strategy in this open-and-shut case appears to be simple jury nullification,” according to Turley.  “The defense is trying to get one or more jurors to ignore the law and the evidence and acquit Biden.”  Turley goes into all the factors that might enter into such a decision, including, of course, politics.

Putting him on the stand will “subject him to cross-examination by prosecutors who have been lethal in their well-planned and well-executed case,” Turley says.  “They can delve into his texts and the later intervention by his family to deal with his self-destructive lifestyle.  He also faces the potential of triggering new criminal offenses through perjury.”

Considering Hunter has already been accused of lying before Congress during questioning in his father’s impeachment inquiry, that would be all he needs.  He sees the risk that Hunter will “burst into flames” on the stand.

On Friday, we noted that Miranda Devine, who broke the laptop story for the NEW YORK POST in October 2020, thought it was “uncanny” to sit in the courtroom and see prosecutors holding up Hunter’s laptop and proclaiming it genuine.  As Jonathan Turley said in another column, it was just as bizarre listening to ABC, CBS, NBC, the WASHINGTON POST and other outlets “matter-of-factly reporting that the Hunter Biden laptop showed no evidence of tampering and was both real and authentic.”

These are the same news outlets, he pointed out, and even some of the same reporters, who eagerly spread the fake news that the laptop was “Russian disinformation.”  This is an excellent column about the “laptop deniers.”

And here’s a story about the “bitter clingers” who still refuse to apologize for signing that “Russian disinformation” letter than rigged the 2020 election, and who continue to insist, despite all the evidence, that it was the right and patriotic thing to do, and besides, they didn’t explicitly SAY it was Russian disinformation. They call statements like that “weasel words” for a reason.

By the time you’ve read this newsletter, we may know whether or not Hunter will take the stand in his trial.  Presumably, Abbe Lowell will earn his $1,000 an hour by pulling something else out of his hat to get jury sympathy.  But not that.


Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

Once and for all, is Jack Smith a legitimate special counsel?

Closing statements Tuesday in Merchan’s Manhattan courtroom

No Comments