Northeast
GREGG JARRETT: NY judge desperate to brand Trump 'convicted felon' before inauguration
Trump NY sentencing set for January 10th
Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett and Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz discuss the latest developments in the New York legal case against President-elect Donald Trump during an appearance on ‘Hannity.’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
New York Judge Juan Merchan’s dogmatic refusal on Friday to dismiss the misbegotten case against President-elect Donald Trump and, instead, proceed to sentencing on Jan. 10 is yet another middle finger extended to the law. And to Trump.
At the same time, Merchan unwittingly concedes the folly of the entire prosecution by notifying the defendant that neither the court nor District Attorney Alvin Bragg will seek any meaningful punishment. Trump, the judge disingenuously advises, would receive an “unconditional discharge” with no incarceration, fine, or probation following the guilty verdicts by a Manhattan jury last May.
TRUMP SLAMS MERCHAN, DEMOCRATS, WHO JUST WANT ‘A POUND OF FLESH’ AMID FAILED CASES
Never mind that state law does not support a jail sentence under these circumstances. Forget that the district attorney deliberately contorted statutes and mangled evidence to pursue a meritless prosecution that was motivated purely by political vengeance. And ignore the fact that there is little chance that the biased jury’s guilty verdict, compounded by Merchan’s chronic reversible errors, will withstand judicial scrutiny on appeal. Eventually.
It seems obvious that Merchan is desperate to stain Trump with the formal stricture of “convicted felon.” To do it, he must sentence the incoming president. A jury’s verdict alone is insufficient under the law. Hence, the offer of what amounts to a non-sentence if only Trump will, at the very least, appear virtually during a hearing 10 days before he is sworn in.
It is another charade meant to bookend —and cover-up— a sham trial. Show up to be verbally tarred and feathered, but no stocks or pillory will be deployed.
In some sense, it may be tempting to accept Merchan’s contingent surrender. Why? Under law, Trump is foreclosed from challenging the myriad of mistakes the judge made at trial, as well as the prosecution’s specious legal theory, until sentencing occurs. Only then is he officially “convicted.” A successful appeal erases the conviction, albeit belatedly.
And there’s the rub.
Your average defendant would accept the Faustian bargain that guarantees no jail time and starts the clock immediately on the appellate process. But Trump is different. He is an inveterate fighter who refuses to capitulate, even when his opponents are facing reproach. It’s one of the many reasons why voters rewarded him with a second term in office. He does not give up or give in. Nor should he.
A competent or objective judge would have long ago tossed the Trump indictment in the garbage where it belonged. On its face, it was patently deficient, if not ludicrous, and a transparently politicized prosecution.
Trump is determined to clear his name. So, you can expect that his legal team will challenge Merchan’s ruling on both the dismissal and sentencing. There are various legal options available, such as filing for an emergency “stay” from the appellate courts that, if granted, may push any further proceedings beyond inauguration on Jan. 20.
Since it is well established that presidents are immune from any criminal process while in office —a principle that even Merchan accepts— a court-ordered pause would effectively delay sentencing until 2029. Of course, that assumes the case still has a pulse four years from now.
Trump has a credible argument that the verdicts against him should be vacated now. As president-elect, his lawyers contend that “immediate dismissal is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interest of justice.” Sentencing would disrupt the orderly transfer of executive power.
Justice Juan Merchan looks on as Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump attends his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, at Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S. May 30, 2024 in this courtroom sketch. (REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg)
In essence, a state has no right or power to transgress federal laws passed by Congress, including the Transition Act. Interference by a local prosecutor and/or judge constitutes a violation of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.
But there are other compelling reasons to end this case sooner, rather than later.
In an earlier ruling, Merchan readily acknowledged his authority to set aside the verdicts if mistakes were made at trial which would merit reversal. Yet, he stubbornly refuses to recognize the plethora of errors that demand dismissal.
Chief among them is that prosecutors relied on tainted evidence prohibited in the presidential immunity standard enunciated by the Supreme Court on July 1. Testimony from White House officials and numerous presidential records should never have been introduced. Merchan disregards all this by insisting that such evidence was trifling, even though prosecutors emphasized it during closing arguments to the jury.
He also turned a blind eye to Bragg’s convoluted and incoherent legal theory that it must somehow be a crime to conceal a perfectly legal non-disclosure agreement. It is not. He then allowed the district attorney to shred the law by resurrecting expired business record misdemeanors and transmuting them into phantom election felonies that were falsely portrayed as unduly influencing the 2016 presidential contest.
It was a pretty neat trick inasmuch as Trump’s transactions were recorded and reimbursed after the election. Moreover, Bragg, as a local prosecutor, had no jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign laws. The payments to former adult film star Stormy Daniels did not even qualify as contributions under any statute or regulation.
As I have noted before, a competent or objective judge would have long ago tossed the Trump indictment in the garbage where it belonged. On its face, it was patently deficient, if not ludicrous, and a transparently politicized prosecution.
But Bragg’s disgraceful legerdemain did not bother Merchan in the least. Just the opposite. His honor merrily went along with the hocus-pocus. At trial, he shed his black robe to join the jurisprudential circus as co-prosecutor.
When the preordained verdicts were announced, no one knew exactly what Trump was convicted of. Theoretically, bookkeeping errors were allegedly committed to further another crime in an unlawful attempt to influence the election.
But what crime? No one can say. Was it federal campaign law violations? Taxation laws? False business records? Select from the aforementioned menu of imaginary possibilities. Trump doesn’t know because prosecutors never said. And neither did the jurors.
In an appalling instruction to the panel, Merchan declared that they did not have to identify which crimes were supposedly perpetrated and need not agree unanimously. He abandoned with impunity the bedrock principle of unanimity in criminal convictions which the Supreme Court has reinforced repeatedly.
Merchan’s courtroom devolved into a cesspool of incomprehensible rulings by a conflicted and hostile judge that deprived Trump of a fair trial. Merchan and prosecutors worked in concert to engineer the guilty verdicts. Political bias smothered the defendant’s due process rights. It was a harebrained case driven by a district attorney who enthusiastically embraced the Democrats’ corrupt lawfare campaign against their Republican opponent.
None of it fooled American voters. Indeed, it appears to have backfired spectacularly. Many deeply resented how Trump’s adversaries disfigured the law to bring a series of criminal indictments designed to destroy his chances of returning to the White House. Outrage was voiced at the ballot box on Nov. 5. Decisively.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Despite their best efforts to sabotage the outcome of the election, the unscrupulous duo of Merchan and Bragg can do nothing now to stop Trump. Even if his anticipated bid to halt the sentencing next Friday fails, the newly elected president still benefits. He can commence appealing the shameless perversion of the law that was waged against him and the miscarriage of justice that ensued.
It wasn’t a fair trial. It was a farce.
In the meantime, it is incumbent on the incoming Department of Justice to open a comprehensive investigation into the lawfare campaign that Special Counsel Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought almost simultaneously and only after Trump announced his bid for election.
Coincidence? Hardly. There is reason to believe that there was coordination among them with President Joe Biden’s White House or with Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DOJ. Maybe both. If laws were broken, prosecutors should be exposed and held accountable for weaponizing the justice system.
Democrats have spent the last four years lecturing us that no one is above the law. Inconveniently now, that same standard applies to them.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT
Read the full article from Here
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — With a nearly party-line vote, the Connecticut State Senate gave final approval to a bill introducing new regulations on homeschooling families.
Twenty-two Democrats voted in favor, with three others joining the entire 11-member Republican caucus in opposition.
The bill that was put before senators for debate is a modified version of one that was first introduced in March, drawing a sizable protest of homeschooling families who viewed the attempt at new regulations as an afront to their autonomy.
The original legislation would have required homeschooling parents to annually provide proof that their curriculum aligned with a general set of state-mandated topics. It also included a provision requiring that parents seeking to remove their child from the public school system first be subjected to a background check of sorts in which school officials would consult the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to see if anyone in the child’s household had a history of abuse.
The legislation was introduced amidst a string of alarming headlines documenting cases of alleged child abuse and, in two cases, the deaths of children who had been removed from the public school system.
The Democrats backing the bill have pointed to these cases as illustrating the need for reform. They have also repeatedly cited a 2018 report compiled by the state’s Office of the Child Advocate which surveyed six school districts and found “that over a span of three academic years, 2013 through 2016, there were 380 students withdrawn from the six districts to be homeschooled, and that 138 of these children (36%) lived in families that were the subject of at least one prior accepted report to DCF for suspected abuse or neglect.”
Republicans largely sided with the sentiments of the homeschooling parents, who felt they were being unfairly scapegoated. They also questioned the effectiveness of the measures introduced by Democrats, arguing some of them, like the requirement to provide proof of instruction, were burdensome, while not directly addressing the issue of abuse.
In the weeks following the public hearing, Democratic leadership in the House also registered discontent with certain sections among their own ranks.
The fierce Republican opposition, paired with scattered Democratic dissent, caused House leadership to remove the curriculum portion while maintaining a DCF check before removal from public schools and a requirement that homeschooling parents annually register themselves online.
A spokesperson for Gov. Ned Lamont said Monday that the governor is likely to sign the legislation.
Erin Evans is a Portland-based master beekeeper and small business owner, She previously served as director of finance and administration at Maine Audubon and as CFO/COO of Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens.
Honey bees are Maine’s official state insect and a keystone species in our ecosystem. Like tiny flying dustmops, they sample their surroundings, collecting pollen, nectar and contaminants that reveal what’s in our soil, our water and our air.
As a local beekeeper measuring PFAS in my own hives, I stand with the Maine farmers,
families and advocates on the front lines of this issue, and it’s why I support Dr. Nirav Shah as our next governor.
The Rutgers-New Brunswick Eagleton Institute of Politics recently shared a 2025 database on scientists, engineers and healthcare professionals leading our nation in state legislatures. Out of more than 7,000 lawmakers, there are just over 200 legislators who are also scientists, engineers or healthcare professionals.
While Maine was among the highest representation, with 11 members, I can’t help but wonder how different our response will be to present and emerging environmental crises if we have someone trained in both law and scientific thinking as our next governor.
As a public health leader, who’s already guided us through a once-in-a-lifetime crisis, Dr. Shah understands that PFAS isn’t just “out there.” It’s in our soil, food, water and in our bodies and will have a public health impact for generations. Best of all, he’s already been doing the work.
During his time as director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Shah recognized how widespread PFAS contamination is in Maine’s soil and water. Now, at a time when science-informed leadership is more essential than ever, he’s made PFAS protection a top priority.
Maine has made real strides in addressing forever chemicals by becoming the first state to launch an emergency relief fund, ban sludge-based fertilizers loaded with PFAS and create a permanent PFAS response program. We’ve also tested hundreds of sites, identified 34 high-priority towns and awarded $3.5 million in grants for research.
But even with this progress, the real challenge is how Maine deals with problems that last longer than any one administration.
It’s time we see PFAS and other environmental contamination crises not as political hot potatoes but as persistent issues affecting ecosystems across all of Maine. Do we continue to follow the status quo where politically entrenched candidates, beholden to the legacies of prior leaders and corporate interests, dictate the response? Or do we choose science and a leader familiar with critical outside-the-box thinking? Who should sit at that table as we create policies and laws to study, analyze, manage and reduce the threat of harmful chemicals to Mainers and the environment we all love?
In her recently released book “Inescapable: Facing Up to Forever Chemicals,” journalist F. Marina Schauffler reminds us that Maine’s taxpayers have already paid hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to PFAS contamination, and we’re nowhere near done.
PFAS chemicals will stay around for a long time, and so will the government systems that we set up to respond to these crises. Dr. Shah’s background in law and public health, especially in responding to exposure risks, makes him the leader we need in the Blaine House.
Most of all, he knows that in Maine and across the nation, climate change, water safety, soil health and human health are all interconnected, and part of the same sets of challenges. Our solutions will need to be well planned and well coordinated. Just ask the bees.
On Sunday, the Massachusetts women’s rowing team headed to Lake Quinsigamond in Worcester, Mass., for the Intercollegiate Rowing Association’s Eastern Sprints. There, the Minutewomen faced 14 teams from various Northeastern conferences, with Temple being UMass’ only Mid-American Conference opponent. A Northwest tailwind with wind gusts up to 12 mph offered a fair day on the racecourse.
The varsity eights proved to be good competition early on. The Minutewomen broke 6:30 for the second consecutive weekend, but it was not enough to land them a spot in the grand finale. Brown finished first overall in the heats with a 6:14 time, putting just 15 seconds between the top nine boats across all three heats. The petite final was just as competitive, with boats finishing within a second of each other. UMass took second place with a 6:30.19, which put the Minutewomen in eighth place overall.
California native AJ Prahl coxed the second varsity eight to a speedy 6:48.26, which landed the boat in lane six of its final. The boat’s final time was 6:50.11, landing second in its respective final and eighth place overall. UMass kept its gap behind the first-place-finisher, Columbia, under 10 seconds, and just managed to stay ahead of Cornell by a bow ball, finishing within the same second.
The second varsity four kicked off racing on Sunday in one of two heats. The Minutewomen came in with a 7:36.4, sending them to the petite final. The boat came in 10 seconds behind Northeastern and beat Boston College by just under a second. Coxswain Sara Lavigna commanded the boat to fourth in the petite final and a 10th-place overall finish with a 7:49.77, adding about 13 seconds to the boat’s earlier heat time.
New Hampshire native Meghan O’Hern coaxed the varsity four from one of three heats into the petite final. Stroke seat Anastasiia Kolesnikova led her crew to a 7:32.41 finish, holding off Holy Cross by over 16 seconds, but failing to close the eight-second gap between UMass’ and Radcliffe’s boat.
In the petite final, the Minutewomen were placed in lane four, where they improved their heat time by a second, ending with a 7:31.91 time and a third-place finish, the highest placing of any UMass boat across the competition. Cornell pushed the Minutewomen to the end, coming in less than a second behind them at 7:32.57, while Northeastern left a seven-second gap ahead of UMass.
Sophomore Mia Bierowski coxed the third varsity eight in heat two to a 7:02.61, landing her crew in lane four of the petite final. The Minutewomen rallied with a 7:06.41, landing the boat in fifth place in its respective final and 11th place overall.
The fourth varsity eight had no heats and only had a final. The UMass boat, led by sophomore Dagny Sammis, placed third out of the four boats in the category with a 7:17.14, coming in 10 seconds behind Northeastern, and leaving Boston College behind by about 21 seconds.
As the Minutewomen conclude their inaugural season competing in the MAC, they have their sights set on the MAC Rowing Championships. There, they will battle for their ticket to the NCAA Women’s Rowing Championships, searching for their first appearance in the national-level competition since 2014.
The MAC Championships will take place on Saturday, May 16, on Ford Lake in Ypsilanti, Mich. The races will be livestreamed on ESPN+. The start time is still to be determined.
Olivia Thibodeaux can be reached at [email protected].
-
Austin, TX2 minutes agoAustin music leaders rethink the idea of ‘selling out’ as business support becomes a necessity
-
Alabama8 minutes agoNo NFL team has more Alabama football players than this one
-
Alaska14 minutes ago
Missing and Murdered Indigenous People Awareness Day 2026 – Mike Dunleavy
-
Arizona20 minutes ago2 Arizona Cardinals losing presumed starting jobs to draft picks
-
Arkansas26 minutes agoVehicle crash reported near the University of Arkansas Agriculture Facility
-
California32 minutes agoCalifornia junior college athletes speak out on trans controversy that’s now in the Trump admin’s crosshairs
-
Colorado38 minutes agoBasic income programs remain popular in Colorado despite steep challenges
-
Connecticut44 minutes agoConnecticut Senate approves bill introducing new regulations on homeschooling families