This is a bogus , irrelevant argument! A man with life long experience as a lawyer and a professor of law is well capable to analyze and recognize the unreasonable and biased behavior of Merchan.
Why? What qualifies him as an expert in judicial ethics? Especially when it comes to the standards that NY judges need to follow?
This was not obcsure NY law,
You are correct. It was two New York laws, Penal Law § 175.10 with the predicate crime extending it to a felony being Election Law
§ 17.152
it was made as you go law combining unknown never specifically named Federal laws
The jury instruction specifically named the Federal Elections Campaign Act as a "illegal mean" under Election Law
§ 17.152, as well as falsifying business records, and both state and city tax laws.
only for the purpose of reviving past statute of limitation charges the BRAGG HIMSELF earlier chose not to bring until Trump was a viable presidential candidate.
Actually, the law seems pretty clear that the SoL would have been tolled by Trump leaving the state. If Bragg had decided to go after the misdemeanor second-degree charge he could have. Instead, he decided to go after the more serious felony charge.
I have already addressed this in other posts. Gag orders have traditionally been used to protect the DEFENDANT, NOT to silence him while a witness publicly trashes the man he is testifying against.
Gag orders are to protect the legal process. Granted that protection is usually invoked in favor of the defendant, but if the defendant can't stop making comments that endanger the integrity of the process, then they can be used for that function.
In any legit court room Cohen would have been gagged.
Cohen wasn't a recipient of a formal gag order, but he was warned to watch what he said and if he proceeded a formal order probably would have followed.
You brought it up, so any self respecting judge would recuse himself at even the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest.
He was concerned enough that he caught official advice and was informed he didn't meet the formal recusal requirements.
Based on what? The fact that your personal understanding of judicial ethics doesn't match the states?
Totally irrelevant and untrue.
No, it is 100% relevant. Your whole argument is that Dershowitz and Turley are inherently more qualified to discuss this case than former New York prosecutors. And if it wasn't true, there would be no need for the bar exam in the first place.
Not a very good analogy! This was a political hit job and every fair minded person knows it. Even a few fair mind liberals have been brave enough to speak out against this travesty.
Do you deny the things in question happened?
The out cry of "no one is above the law" is sickening to me and millions of others who see this for what it is, a political hit job. Did you notice the sly evil grin from Biden when he was ask about the verdict? That says it, all but politically blind individuals will never admit it.
Biden can be happy about the political implications without the prosecution itself being political.
This is not about the. rule of law it is lawfare and how will it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?
If a former democratic president is shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime, I would hope he gets convicted.
