Trump: 'It Looks Like the Judge Will Not Let Me Go to the Graduation of My Son'

Chris Menahan
Apr. 15, 2024

Former President Donald Trump lamented on Monday that New York judge Juan Merchan appears poised to block him from attending his son Barron's high school graduation.

Trump addressed the news in a follow-up post on Truth Social, writing:
"Who will explain for me, to my wonderful son, Barron, who is a GREAT Student at a fantastic School, that his Dad will likely not be allowed to attend his Graduation Ceremony, something that we have been talking about for years, because a seriously Conflicted and Corrupt New York State Judge wants me in Criminal Court on a bogus 'Biden Case' which, according to virtually all Legal Scholars and Pundits, has no merit, and should NEVER have been brought. This Fake Case is solely meant to attack Crooked Joe Bidenís Political Opponent, ME, who is seriously leading him in the Polls, for purposes of Election Interference. The Judge, Juan Merchan, is preventing me from proudly attending my sonís Graduation. Seems very unfair, doesnít it? But this whole event is unfair. Every one of the many Fake Cases that are perpetuated by the White House in order to help the Worst President in History, by far, get Re-Elected, are UNJUST SCAMS. We wonít let that happen, but we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
The case against Trump was rigged from the start with half the jury pool openly acknowledging they're so biased against Trump they're incapable of ruling honestly on his case.

Unfortunately, the jurors who wouldn't admit their own bias are probably even worse.

Law professor Jonathan Turley talked about how absurd the whole case is on Fox News:

Partial transcript of Turley's comments via RealClearPolitics:
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, the more cases against Trump, the less justice we receive as a people. You know, the opponents of Trump would have been far better off with just one case, the Mar-a-Lago case. That's based on real law, real precedent, and one can disagree with the interpretations. But it's not a reach in the sense of this case.

This case is, creating something, it's creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know, you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired, the statute limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather curious way. He's effectively arguing that Trump was filing false business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime. But it isn't a federal crime, this wasn't a campaign contribution.

None of that appears to matter. And that's why a lot of us are looking at this and recoiling. This is not how the law is supposed to be. New Yorkers appear to like it this way. They elected James, who ran on bagging Trump for anything, didn't even mention what. And they now are lionizing this district attorney putting together what many consider to be an absurd indictment.


It was just recently that a federal judge really eviscerated [former Trump attorney Michael] Cohen and said you are a serial perjurer and still gaming the system. That wasn't last year, that was just recently. He will take the stand as the central witness. What is really bizarre here he is basically saying, "Put my former client in jail for following my legal advice." Now, a lot of jurors are scratching their helped about that one. There is also this disconnect. If you recall, Mark Elias, who was the general counsel of the Clinton campaign was just -- the campaign was fined by the FEC for hiding the payments and support for the Steele dossier as a legal expense and fined for that. No one was criminally charged.

In this case, you take this misdemeanor, reviving it because it was dead, suggesting a crime that doesn't exist, and then hitting Trump with dozens of counts. Most citizens, at least outside New York, see that for what it is. It's the weaponization of the criminal justice system.


DASNA PERINO: I wanted to ask you about the fact that today starts jury questions. They will have things like this. Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for Donald Trump? Do you currently follow Donald Trump on any social media site or have you done so in the past? Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for any anti-Trump group or organization? What do you think of these questions?

TURLEY: The problem is that courts don't feel comfortable asking who did you vote for, and so they are working around the edges to try to show bias. The most important thing here is to try to isolate the worst of the jurors, those are jurors who just desperately want to be on this jury, many people will want to be and are prepared to lie to do so. What the defense counsel has is not their veracity on these forms but their names. Even though we won't see them, defense counsel can look at social media and see if they are lying.

What is troubling is that in a couple of past Trump cases, they found out after the conviction or after the trial that jurors had lied about their past political involvements. The judges refuse to toss out the verdict. So you have to try to stick that landing up front to show that bias. Also, keep in mind you only get ten strikes as a defense counsel but you can have unlimited strikes for bias. As you bring forth evidence of bias, it is a freebie where you can try to remove some of these jurors.
All the cases against Trump are making a mockery of our justice system.

Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook, Gab, Minds and Telegram.

All original InformationLiberation articles CC 4.0

About - Privacy Policy