Unequal justice--Contrast to Trump trial and Hunter Biden

  American Action News:

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy said on Friday there is a noteworthy difference in the way judges are presiding over Hunter Biden’s case and former President Donald Trump’s trial.

Judge Maryellen Noreika, who is overseeing Hunter Biden’s federal case in Delaware, ruled on Friday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will not be allowed to present certain evidence in the case, such as references to the president’s son being discharged from the Navy, his child support case and his upcoming tax trial, NBC News reported. Fox News host John Roberts on “America Reports” suggested the rules represents a difference in how Judge Juan Merchan has presided over Trump’s trial, which McCarthy emphatically agreed with.

“So the defense wanted to keep a whole bunch of information from the jury, including references to the child support proceedings in the Arkansas case, information related to Hunter’s discharge for the navy, money allegedly spent on adult entertainment and escort services, unnecessary salacious details regarding his lifestyle or previous addiction. The judge has agreed to that. It really then does sharpen the contrast between the Hunter Biden trial and the Trump trial in New York where the judge just let Stormy Daniels spew all of that,” Roberts said.

Merchan denied Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche’s move for a mistrial after porn star Stormy Daniels’ testimony about his client, which the lawyer referred to as “unduly prejudicial.”

“It really is a remarkable contrast,” McCarthy responded. “And I actually think in the Hunter Biden case, they may be saving the prosecutors from themselves because the evidence of guilt on the narrow specific charges, it looks like it’s overwhelming. I think that’s why he wanted to dispose of everything in that plea agreement that blew up that you mentioned earlier. The prosecutors shouldn’t need all of that stuff, and they can only get themselves in trouble when they put in a bunch of extraneous evidence. I think they should stick to what they have, which looks pretty strong.”

Blanche claimed Daniels testified about irrelevant details to the case, which is regarding an alleged $130,000 payment from Trump to the porn star, with Merchan suggesting he will tell the jury only to take into account a restricted portion of her testimony. The judge questioned why Trump’s defense did not raise more objections during Daniels’ testimony.
...

It is not clear to me why the payment to Daniels is not being considered as an extortion attempt against Trump.  That it is a case against Trump is actually absurd.  It does not look to me that Trump can get a fair trial in Merchan's court. 

See also:

Undercover Prosecutor Merchan Helps Bragg Lawlessly Stress Cohen’s Guilty Plea

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more