Anti-Trump lawfare has resulted in a ‘talking point … while it lasts’
The Democrats’ years-long lawfare campaign against President-elect Donald Trump included a long list of cases, mostly felonies, in a long list of jurisdictions, over a long list of issues.
In the end it all will result in a “talking point … while it lasts.”
That’s according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who has expressed his opinion that they likely never should have been launched.
The cases include fights over papers, fights over comments, fights over opinions and the like.
One that “remains,” at least on paper, is the “hush money” claims created by anti-Trump Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who took business recording misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired. He claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of other crimes that weren’t specified, or even identified. The legacy media labeled it the “hush money” case because some of the payments involved distributions to Trump’s lawyer, who paid a woman for silence about an affair that both “participants” deny happened.
“The 2024 election proved to be the largest verdict in history after years of lawfare and biased media reporting came to nothing. Merchan showed little self-awareness in claiming that he was only trying to avoid ‘immeasurable damage to the citizenry’s confidence in the Rule of Law’ in continuing the case. Polls show the public saw these cases as lawfare and Merchan is widely viewed as causing precisely that ‘immeasurable damage’ with his handling of the case. Given this record, it may be fitting that the trophy from the New York case is a media talking point, while it lasts,” he noted.
Multiple other lawfare cases against Trump already have been dismissed.
It is Juan Merchan, a judge in New York City, who facilitated Bragg’s campaign against Trump.
He’s delayed sentencing for months, a fact that has meant that Trump has not been allowed to appeal, so far. Now Merchan has said he will announce a punishment for Trump this week. He also suggested he doesn’t plan to impose jail time.
Turley pointed out Trump detractors have “longed for” an “orange-jump-suit moment.”
“They will likely be disappointed. As some of us noted after the verdict, this type of case would often result in an unconditional discharge or a sentence without jail time. That prediction became more likely after Trump was reelected in November. Limits on Trump’s freedom or liberty would likely result in a fast reversal, and Merchan knew it,” Turley explained.
He said one option was to “suspend” action on the case while Trump serves his second term as president, a scheme in which “Merchan would hold a leash on the president as a criminal defendant awaiting punishment.”
But, Turley noted, “the whole point of a trophy-kill case is the trophy itself. Merchan will not disappoint. While indicating that he is inclined to a sentence without jail or probation, he will finalize the conviction of Trump just 10 days before his inauguration. In so doing, he will formally label the president-elect a convicted felon.”
That, he said, will result in “punishment by soundbite.”
In fact, Turley suggested, “Merchan seems at points to be writing the actual talking points for the talking heads. In his order, he states grandly that the jurors found that this ‘was the premediated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world.’”
He explained the lawfare failure was clear, and even Joe Biden was disappointed that, “Attorney General Merrick Garland as insufficiently aggressive in pursuing Trump.”
Turley explained the failings of the lawfare in the case that should be addressed at by higher courts: “Those appellate issues include charges based on a novel criminal theory through which New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg not only zapped a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but based a state charge on federal election law and federal taxation violations. So, after the Justice Department declined to prosecute federal violations, Bragg effectively did so in state court with Merchan’s blessing. The issues also include Merchan’s absurd instructions to the jury. The novel theory demanded a secondary offense, the crime that Trump was seeking to conceal by listing payments as legal expenses. Merchan allowed the jury to find that the secondary offense was any of an array of vaguely defined options. Even on the jury form, they did not have to specify which crimes were found. Merchan did not require even a majority, let alone a unanimous jury, to agree on what actually occurred. Under Merchan’s instruction, the jury could have split four-four-four on whether this was all done to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. Neither Trump nor the public will ever know.”
Even one Democrat senator called the case total “b——.”
Trump’s response to Merchan was unvarnished:
BREAKING: Trump responds to Judge Merchan’s decision requiring him to appear for sentencing on January 10th. pic.twitter.com/k7chfRqlxP
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 4, 2025
He said Merchan’s case was nothing but a “rigged charade.”
The Article III Project, which advocates for the judiciary, similarly responded, revealing some of the conflicts that face Merchan’s plans.
“Democrat Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan—who donated to Trump’s opponents and whose adult daughter Loren is raising money off of this bogus case—once again proves he is partisan, corrupt, and dangerous. The Supreme Court must end this immediately,” said Mike Davis, who helped win Senate confirmation battles for Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
ABC reported the case sentence will include an “unconditional discharge.”
In fact, Trump’s lawyers already have asked that the sentencing be put off while they appeal. They have asked a state appeals court to reverse Merchan’s agenda to keep the case going with the sentencing.