
Juan Merchan Ignores Supreme Court, Constitution In Shameful, Latest Court Order That Further Erodes The Integrity Of New York’s Legal System
This past week, Juan Merchan continued his relentless assault on the Constitution and Country by openly defying the Supreme Court’s precedent, which reaffirmed and strengthened the doctrine of presidential immunity, from this past year’s Trump decision.
In denying President Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, Merchan has only prolonged the lawfare against him, further deepening the wound to New York’s legal system in the process.
The Merchan case – which the mainstream press has (improperly) called the “hush money case” (ignoring that hush money payments are not illegal, and have never been illegal, by a public official or private citizen in the history of American law) has been a complete mockery of justice from its inception.
As extensively documented previously in this newsletter, even before the trial, Merchan has been disregarding all legal norms, procedures, and rules – in the pursuit of a twisted, monomaniacal vendetta against a presidential candidate and now president-elect of the United States.
He ignored due process of law – and the regulations governing evidence and professional ethics – by bringing this case, which implicated federal issues that were already cleared by the Federal Election Commission, in state court.
Second, he denied President Trump’s attorneys their right to move to dismiss evidence – and the theory of the case – on Immunity (and other privileges, like attorney client and executive privilege) grounds.
President Trump’s attorneys had to navigate a legal landmine, including pending oral arguments for the Supreme Court’s Immunity decision, which commenced during the course of the Merchan trial.
The ultimate outcome on that Immunity case was not known until after the trial had ended. The Trump decision was officially handed down by the Supreme Court in early July; the Merchan trial wrapped up in late May.
Thus, there was absolutely no way to know how the Supreme Court would rule, for one, and the scope of the Immunity decision, for two, as the oral arguments for the Merchan trial were being made.
Thus, a generalized approach to Immunity — one that did not stake one’s bets entirely on an unforeseeable and as yet unrealized outcome, was in order.