Op-ed:

The Verdict v. The Constitution

By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots / Right Side Patriots Radio

The Op-ed posted here is this authors opinion alone,and does not necessarily represent the views of blogspot.com or Google. 

Let me began by saying that the Democrats hoped for guilty verdict did happen as I knew it would...the trial was in Democrat party controlled New York City after all. But what the Democrats forgot to factor into their misplaced celebration was the fact that the “guilty on all 34 charges” not only helped assure that Donald J. Trump will be reelected president come this November, but that the Supreme Court most likely will overturn the verdict after the New York Court of Appeals does not. And why do I say the Appeals Court will not...because this court is as far to the left as is the New York State Criminal Court.

So, in time, Trump's case will most likely end up at the Supreme Court but only if it meets certain criteria. But first know that neither the Supreme Court nor any federal court can “re-litigate” the facts of a case or overturn its ruling just because they believe the state court got it wrong. This simply means that for the Supreme Court to even review Trump's, New York “Hush-Money” case decision there must either be a “substantial” federal question involved...as in a constitutional question...or a federal law itself must have been violated...otherwise they have no jurisdiction to do so. But in Trump's case, and in my opinion, not just one but three of Trump's constitutional rights were violated in regards to the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. More on that in a bit.

Second, and again in my opinion, the Supreme Court will take Trump's case but, unfortunately, it will take time to hear because legally “due process” must run it course. So while the New York Court of Appeals is the next step in said process...and while I'm sure their verdict will not waiver from the Criminal Court's decision...the SCOTUS does have the authority to review the proceedings of any state criminal court through what's known as “habeas review.”* And in Trump's case this is where the constitutional question will arise regarding what is called “proper benefits”** and were they afforded to him...and I say emphatically...“no”...they were not.

The bottom line...the Supreme Court can only overturn the “Hush-Money” verdict if Trump and his attorneys can successfully argue that either a federal law was violated or broken by the court, or that if one of his Constitutional rights was infringed upon. But even those come with a caveat for the Supreme Court can only take Trump's case after...I repeat after...all of the New York courts have had a chance to legally address those arguments themselves.

Brace yourself folks for whether we like it or not Donald Trump has a long journey to travel in order to both clear his name and see the 34-count verdict being overturned.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So says the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the very amendment considered to be the most important part of the “Bill of Rights” for it protects, as per James Madison, our fundamental “rights of conscience” as in the freedom to believe and to freely express different ideas. And it's here where...in my opinion...Trump's rights were denied him courtesy of Manhattan Criminal Court Justice Juan Merchan...a Democrat shill who's also a big Biden campaign donor. Simply, Trump's “First Amendment,” all important, “right to free speech”...a right applied to the states via the 14th Amendment courtesy of it's “due process clause”...which also protects an individual's right to a trial by his peers... with government officials including judges being prohibited from regulating or restricting (in this case Trump's) speech or other expression based solely upon said individuals content or viewpoint.

And with Merchan's selectively placing and then enforcing “gag orders” on Trump and his attorneys alone...remember none were allowed to speak about the charges, the trial, the witnesses, the prosecutors, the court staff, or the judge's family...coupled with his lawyers also not being allowed to mention to the jury that the prosecution of former President Trump was “novel, unusual or unprecedented,” even though a number of liberal law professors, newspapers, and former prosecutors had all conceded that the Bragg prosecution did indeed depend on a “novel interpretation” of state law. Using fear of arrest or high dollar fines to keep Trump and his defense team in line, know that Merchan placed no such orders on the prosecution nor any of its players who were free to speak, tweet, or do interviews whenever, wherever, and on whatever topic they deemed to do so.

Simply, Trump's voice was silenced, and in silencing his voice his “Fifth” and “Sixth” amendment's rights were also denied to him.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

These are the exact words of the “Fifth Amendment” which is not only part of the “Bill of Rights,” but actually breaks down one's individual rights into five “rights and protections,” these being the right to a jury trial when charged with a crime; the right to protection against double jeopardy; the protection against self-incrimination; the right to a fair trial; and protection against the taking of property by the government without compensation. And while the “Fifth Amendment's” so called “due process clause” requires the government to practice equal protection for all under the law, it also limits government powers from focusing solely upon “criminal procedures;” while also referring to the procedures that government entities must follow before depriving someone of their “life, liberty, or property.”

We know how Trump's “First Amendment” rights were denied him, but how exactly were his “Fifth Amendment” rights violated? It's my belief that his all-important right to a “fair trial” was indeed violated. How so...remember there were 34 separate charges involved and yet what should have taken days to properly go through, digest, and discuss saw the needed “unanimous” verdict being reached within but a few hours spread over a mere two days. In other words, even after the defense proved that no crime had taken place; even after the defense shred the testimony of the prosecution's star witnesses; even after Justice Merchan's disallowing all objectives put forth by the Trump's defense team; and even with a final undisclosed and unheard charge being thrown in after the defense had rested its case... meaning there was no chance of rebuttal...former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty on all 34 charges.

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

So says the “Sixth Amendment” which gives citizens a series of rights in criminal trials... rights which include the rights to a fast and public trial by an impartial jury; the right to be aware of the criminal charges leveled against them; the right to confront any and all witnesses during the trial; the right to have witnesses appear at the trial; and the right to legal representation.

And while some “talking heads” are now saying that in this particular case the jury may have been “persuaded” by the prosecution’s argument that the true crime being covered up was not just one of Trump having “paid off” a porn star for her silence, but was actually an orchestrated scheme to defraud the American people in an attempt to conceal information about the true character and conduct of the Republican hoped to be presidential nominee. But I say “no way” for we all knew about Trump's brashness, his ego, his questionable but not illegal “supposed” sexual dalliances, as well as his need for all to circle in orbit around him...just as we all knew and still know how under Trump's presidency the economy soared; inflation was the lowest in 40-years; how we were energy independent; how job numbers were at an all time high; how the border fiasco was held somewhat in check; and how no new wars appeared on his watch...just to name a few.

In other words, we all knew what we were getting with Donald J. Trump, and what we got was America being made great again...that is until all went south with the fraud ridden 2020 election.

 

Simply, the “witch hunt” now turned into what I call a “political lynching” thanks to this anything but an “impartial jury” let alone being a trial of merit, saw our former and now hoped to be next president being unanimously found guilty on all 34 charges levied against him. And with not a single dissenting voice amongst the jury, this leads me to believe that either the jury was somehow “tampered with” during the deliberations stage, or that the verdict was actually prearranged before the trial even began courtesy of the jury likely being comprised of Democrats and Biden supporters, as were the prosecutors, court staff, and judge.

A fair trial with an impartial jury of Trump's peers the Constitution trampling Democrats would never allow, and when that's coupled with how fast the guilty verdict was actually reached, proves to me that Donald J. Trump's constitutional rights were indeed being denied. And when you add in the actual one-sided “gag order” coupled with truth being silenced by a judge who overruled each and every defense objection made, my eyes were opened to what the charges, trial, and verdict were really all about right from the beginning.

And simply, all has been orchestrated to be but payback for Hillary Clinton's loss in 2016. Why so...because both the baseless charges and the trial itself reeks of Barack Obama having a hand in it. Remember, Hillary was to be Obama's third and hopefully fourth term in office...eight more years to lock into completion his “fundamental transformation of America.” But with Trump's win Obama was not only forced to wait four years for the fool that is Joe Biden to be the one dancing on his puppet strings, but the realization that without some sort of interference...as in criminal charges levied...Obama would lose it all.

Donald J. Trump has been maliciously and vindictively targeted to see the inside of a jail cell with the timeline itself not being conducive to fast tracking Supreme Court interference. Only Obama is smart enough to have put this legal shaming scenario into play, but Trump will have the last laugh for not only has Obama underestimated Trump's growing support, but his plan actually backfired after the constitutionally flawed guilty verdict was rendered. How so...Trump now leads Biden by six points amongst voters in the key battleground states...meaning the hand writing is on the wall that not only will Joe Biden lose in November, but that Obama's dream of a fourth term in office will not come to fruition. 

Think I'm wrong...prove it. Bet you can't...case closed. 

__________________________________________________________                          *“Habeas review” is where a federal court is authorized to perform a limited review of a state court's action surrounding the state criminal conviction and sentence of an individual by reviewing the pleadings, papers, transcripts, and evidence that were presented to or occurred in the state courts.

** “proper benefits” means a fair and impartial trial of one's peers.

 

Copyright © 2024 / Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All rights reserved.

***************************************************************************

For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article, Dystopian Delusions of the Liberal Mind.

*************************************************************************************************

RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!                                           

Tomorrow, Tuesday, June 11th from 7-8:30pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'The Verdict v. The Constitution'; 'Dystopian Delusions of the Liberal Mind'; and important news of the day. Hope you can tune in to RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on https://rspradio1.com Click 'LISTEN LIVE' starting at 6:50 pm EST with show beginning at 7pm EST.