Trump Trial Corruption
Rigged Justice Fact Check
I saw this on social media and thought it clearly stated the significant concerns regarding the corruption and bias in the Trump trial. To ensure these points are accurate, I decided to fact-check each one thoroughly. Here’s what I found:
The jury was pooled from a 90% Democrat district (not a jury of Trump’s peers.)
True; almost completely
Manhattan is about 87% Democrat with Republicans only taking up 8-12% of the population. And Independents/undecided taking up the remainder.
The Sixth Amendment allows for a trial’s venue to be relocated in order to provide a defendant with an impartial jury.
Trump’s lawyers’ request to move the trial to Staten Island due to the highly biased nature of having the trial in a majority Democratic district and the appeals judge denied the request. Staten Island had boroughs in which Trump won during the 2016 and 2020 election.
Prosecution argued that the focus should be on the trial court’s ability to select an impartial jury of 12 jurors, rather than public opinion in Manhattan. However, in Irvin v. Dowd, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant is entitled to have the trial relocated if there is a “pattern of deep and bitter prejudice” that would prevent seating an impartial jury.
Sources:
New York appeals judge rejects Trump’s request to delay his April 15 hush money trial
Sixth Amendment – Right to Trial by Impartial Jury
Manhattan, NY Voting
The Manhattan Jury Pool Isn’t All That Liberal
Judge Merchan donates to Joe Biden, and to anti-Trump groups (not unbiased)
True:
Judge Merchan has donated to Joe Biden before. He was a small donor with 3 donations amounting to $35, yet nevertheless the donations show that he could suffer from impartiality.
He donated $15 to Joe Biden.
$10 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a group of Democrats opposing Republicans.
And one more $10 donation to an organization called “Stop Republicans.”
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed a complaint about these donations in 2023, but issued a private caution to Merchan about violating the rules against political activity by judges.
Sources:
Trump trial judge rebuked for donations to Democrat-aligned groups in 2020
Juan Merchan, the judge Donald Trump calls a ‘hater’, once gave money to Joe Biden
Ethics Panel Cautions Judge in Trump Trial Over Political Donations
$35 political contribution to Democrats raises fresh scrutiny of Judge Merchan
Merchan’s daughter is a Democrat organizer who raises millions against Trump
Partially True:
Merchan’s daughter works for the Democratic organizing firm, Authentic Campaigns.
Authentic Campaigns has raised $74 million in campaign contributions since 2018. With 2020 and 2022 funds going mostly to Democrats. Authentic Campaign has also publicly taken a stance against President Trump.
Not only that, but Authentic Campaigns directly worked with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on their 2020 election campaign.
Sources:
Trump asks judge in criminal case to step aside due to his daughter’s Democratic ties
Federal agencies (DOJ / FEC) previously said there is no basis for prosecution
It’s complicated:
The FEC did not bring forward charges due to a vote where a majority of the colleagues chose to dismiss the allegations creating a situation where “the Commission therefore did not have enough votes to pursue well-grounded charges.”
They claimed that because the money paid by Cohen occurred 13 days before Election day 2016 that it created the grounds to be a campaign “contribution” even though they were Cohen’s personal funds.
A majority of the FEC however, decided not to pursue the case against Trump.
While the DOJ prosecuted Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen for campaign finance violations related to the hush money payments, they did not ultimately bring charges against Trump himself related to this matter.
I could not find evidence that explicitly states the DOJ’s reasoning for declining to prosecute Trump on the federal level for the pre-2016 election hush money payments. However, the lack of any mention of federal charges against Trump in relation to this conduct implies the DOJ did not find sufficient grounds to prosecute him, at least at that time.
Sources:
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION In the Matter of Michael D. Cohen; Donald J. Trump
Why Did Federal Prosecutors Drop Trump’s Hush Money Case?
A state DA (Alvin Bragg) should not be prosecuting alleged federal violations
True:
The core issue in Bragg’s prosecution of Trump was that he effectively tried Trump for violations of federal election law and federal taxation laws in state court, even though the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission declined to bring federal charges related to the “hush money” payments. This raises significant legal questions about whether a state prosecutor can prosecute federal violations that federal authorities chose not to pursue.
Here is a quote from the second source (New York Magazine: The Intelligencer)
“In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.”
Sources:
Bragg’s thrill kill in Manhattan could prove short-lived on appeal
Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Contorted the Law
Merchan blocked or restricted testimony from Trump’s Experts
True:
Judge Merchant would allow Trump’s experts to testify.
HOWEVER,
The testimony was restricted to a limited scope, decided upon by Judge Merchan
Sources:
Judge limits scope of testimony from Trump’s planned expert witness
Merchan placed gag orders on Trump and his team (none on the prosecution)
True:
The only gag order administered in the case was on Trump and his legal team.
There was no gag order placed on prosecution or witness Michael Cohen.
However, there is the question of whether the gag order was constitutional in the first place but that opens up another can of worms.
Sources:
Is Trump still under a gag order after his conviction? He thinks so, but the answer isn’t clear
Professor Gregory Germain writes: Gagging Trump: Is Judge Merchan’s Gag Order and Award of Sanctions Constitutional?
Merchan allowed immaterial, prejudicial, salacious testimony from Stormy Daniels
True:
Merchan did allow most of Stormy’s Testimony although he did make a few comments about not needing to go into so much detail.
Sources:
Trump trial judge compared to ‘corrupt dictatorships’ as Stormy Daniels unleashes salacious testimony
Takeaways from Stormy Daniels’ testimony at the Trump hush money trial
Stormy wrote in 2018 that she did not have an affair or any relationship with Trump
True:
Stormy Daniels did make a statement that the alleged affair “never happened,” However, recently she has stated that she felt forced into writing that statement and retracted it shortly after.
The Stormy story has been consistently brought up since the alleged affair in 2006.
Sources:
Statement from porn star Stormy Daniels says affair with Trump ‘never happened’
Fact check: Statement from Stormy Daniels denying an affair with Trump is from 2018
The entire prosecution was based on the word of serial perjurer Michael Cohen
Partially misleading:
There were other witnesses besides Michael Cohen including:
David Pecker, Hope Hicks, and Stormy Daniels herself.
HOWEVER,
A federal judge, Jesse M. Furman, suggested that Cohen may have committed perjury in one of two instances:
- When he pleaded guilty to tax evasion and other charges before Judge William H. Pauley III in 2018.
- During his testimony in Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial in October 2023, where he claimed he was not actually guilty of tax evasion despite previously pleading guilty.
Sources:
Judge says Michael Cohen may have committed perjury, refuses to end his probation early
Cohen’s lawyers wrote in 2018 that Trump wasn’t involved in the payment to Stormy
True:
Robert Costello testified that Michael Cohen told him numerous times that “Trump knew nothing about those payments.”
Another statement from Costello in regards to Cohen: “Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments. That he did this on his own. And he repeated that numerous times.”
Sources:
Costello testifies that Cohen told him ‘Trump knew nothing about’ the Daniels payment
Michael Cohen once swore Trump wasn’t involved in Stormy Daniels payment, his ex-attorney testifies
Statute of Limitations had expired for the alleged bookkeeping misdemeanor
It’s complicated:
The alleged misdemeanor of falsifying business records in New York has a 2-year statute of limitations, with the last alleged payment made in December 2017.
Prosecutors claim that the 2-year limitation period didn’t begin until the final payment, thereby placing the misdemeanor charge within the allowable timeframe.
However, legal experts have questioned this interpretation, suggesting the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor had likely expired before the charges were filed.
To bypass the statute of limitations issue for the misdemeanor, prosecutors upgraded the charge to a felony under New York law, which permits falsifying business records to be charged as a felony if done to conceal another crime.
This escalation requires proving that Trump intended to hide a separate felony, such as violating state election laws or committing tax fraud, which legal experts argue introduces additional legal challenges and ambiguities for the prosecution.
Sources:
Professor Gregory Germain writes “The Manhattan District Attorney’s Convoluted Legal Case Against Donald Trump Gets More Convoluted”
Trump’s prosecution stretched the law to find him guilty
The underlying crime that transformed the misdemeanor into a felony wasn’t stated
It’s complicated:
Some sources suggest that to convict Trump, the jury needed to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he falsified records with fraudulent intent and did so to commit or conceal another crime. Prosecutors argued that the underlying crime was violating a New York state election law against promoting a candidate by “unlawful means.” They claimed that the hush money to Stormy Daniels was illegal because it violated campaign finance laws, and Trump’s reimbursement to Cohen broke tax laws. (Politico)
Conversely, other sources highlight the ambiguity around the underlying crime. There are multiple possible crimes, none of which Trump was specifically charged with. It could be a campaign finance violation since the payment to Daniels wasn’t from campaign funds. The Federal Election Commission considered this but didn’t press charges, possibly due to a similar failed case against U.S. Sen. John Edwards. It could also be tax evasion since Trump paid Cohen enough to cover taxes on the income, even though the payment wasn’t really for Cohen. Again, federal authorities didn’t bring charges on this.
Judge Juan Merchan instructed the jury that they didn’t need to unanimously agree on which specific underlying crime Trump committed, only that he broke a law. They needed to agree that he did something illegal, but not necessarily on what it was. (Inquirer)
Sources:
Donald Trump found guilty in New York hush money trial
Trump’s prosecution stretched the law to find him guilty
Merchan said a unanimous jury decision on the underlying crime wasn’t required.
True:
Merchan stated that there did need to be a unanimous decision on the 34 counts but there did not need to be a unanimous decision on what the underlying crime was.
So the jury needed to agree he was guilty of “something” and then unanimously agree if the 34 counts were guilty or nor guilty.
Some argue that the jurors do not need to know the underlying “crime,” but that’s probably due to the fact that the prosecution could not state one.
Sources:
Does Trump Jury Need to Be Unanimous? Juan Merchan’s Comment Goes Viral
After strict instructions, Trump jury begins deliberations
– F.W
Guilty. Until proven Innocent.
Sources
Listed above
