"But this judge, uh, said that I can't get away from the trial. You know he's rushing the trial like crazy. Nobody's ever seen a thing go like this," Trump said in the interview. "That jury was picked so fast — 95% Democrats. The area's mostly all Democrat. You think of it as a — just a purely Democrat area. It's a very unfair situation that I can tell you." ...Trump is right to question the legitimacy of the trial. It is a sham. No one has been prosecuted for anything like it before."Defendant violated the Order by making public statements about the jury and how it was selected," Merchan's ruling states. "In doing so, Defendant not only called into question the integrity, and therefore the legitimacy of these proceedings, but again raised the specter of fear for the safety of the jurors and of their loved ones."
The prosecutor has to prove that Trump intended to violate, and argues that NY law does not actually require proving a violation if intent can be proved.
How could Trump have intended to violate the law, when no oen suggested that the alleged actions were criminal?
Trump is currently on trial in NY for lying in his business records. Cohen paid off a blackmailer and Trump later compensated him, booking it as a legal expense. The DA says that was a crime, because of an intent to cover up some other unspecified crime.
2 comments:
Former presidents enjoy the right to intimidate witnesses, jurors, whoever they like. It's in the Constitution.
Harvey Weinstein was recently sent for re-trial after what looks like a similar prosecution mistake.
Post a Comment