Key Takeaways:
– MAGA lawyer Mike Davis is cautioning Judge Juan Merchan regarding potential legal consequences.
– Davis criticises Merchan’s handling of Trump’s fraud trial, accusing him of possible violations of civil rights.
– He advises those affected by the actions of prosecutors following the events of January 6 to sue them, insisting they should bear their legal costs.
– He pledges severe, far-reaching consequences for those he deems responsible for Trump’s prosecution.
Trump Advisor Mike Davis Turns Up The Heat
Mike Davis, a lawyer closely associated with the Make America Great Again movement, has raised eyebrows recently with his contentious comments, preferably towards Judge Juan Merchan. Davis openly cautioned Merchan about potential legal consequences arising from his presiding over President-elect Donald Trump’s fraud trial.
Criticism of Merchan’s Decisions in Trump’s Trial
Davis used a far-right-leaning platform, the Benny Johnson Show, to air his views. Here, he publicly accused the New York-based Judge Merchan of a probable conspiracy against rights violations. This claim is related to Merchan’s actions during the fraud trial of former President Trump, which led to 34 felony convictions. Davis further advised Merchan to seek legal counseling, foreseeing a series of grueling legal battles ahead.
Civil Lawsuits Against Prosecutors
One of Davis’s subsequent remarks reflected his belief in the dubious conduct of ‘Biden prosecutors’. These individuals were responsible for pursuing charges against the individuals implicated in the controversial events that occurred in America on January 6. Davis urged victims of these actions—mainly Trump supporters caught up in the chaos—to file civil lawsuits against these prosecutors. He also voiced his opposition to the use of federal funds to cover the legal costs incurred by these prosecutors.
Severe Consequences Are Imminent
More threats were leveled when Davis championed the idea that these prosecutors should face the music. Davis seeks severe consequences for their actions in the form of legal, political, and financial setbacks. He suggested they should defend the charges in their individual capacities and shoulder their own attorney fees.
Controversial Gag Order on Trump
A notable reason for Davis’s public outcry is the ‘illegal, unconstitutional gag order’ imposed on Trump by Judge Merchan during the hush-money trial. The gag order refrains Trump from commenting publicly against witnesses or revealing any information on jurors, court staff, or their families. Davis has, consequently, called out the judge, citing numerous grievances about Merchan’s conduct and his dealings.
The Countdown Begins
Adding to the controversy, Davis also lashed out against Merchan’s daughter and the courtroom where Trump’s trial took place, calling it a ‘Marxist, third-world, hell-hole.’ He believes the process has been obstructive towards Trump’s role as President-elect. At this point, many are led to speculate about what lies underway with Davis’s statement concluding that the actions will start from January 20.
The Aftermath
As Davis’s words continue to fuel debates and stir controversy, the New York legal fraternity awaits his proposed reckonings. The fictional Trump legal drama appears to rise in crescendo, raising questions about the state of America’s justice system. But most importantly, will Davis’s menace translate into an actuality? Only time and the court can tell.
The charge was doing A in commission of B.
The jury had to say B equaled C or D or E.
This conviction deserves an F.
They Failed to Specify A:
“A in furtherance of B,” with “B” open to being (C, D, or E), fails to clarify a crime. Ambiguity at this level compromised the fairness of the trial.
Unclear Elements of the Crime:
With “B” undefined, it was unclear what Trump did or intended to do, confusing both jury and defense.
Jury’s Role:
A jury is tasked to decide if prosecutors prove specific charges beyond a reasonable doubt—not multiple possible bases.
Leaving “B” an open question introduced subjectivity and inconsistency.
Risk of Compromise Verdicts:
Jurors, presented with interpretations C, D, or E, reached a “compromise” verdict lacking unanimity about a specific act or intent.
Unanimity:
As some jurors could believe “B” was “C” and others believe it was “D,” the conviction failed the unanimity test.
Fair Notice:
The accused must be given clear and precise notice of the charges against them (US v. Cruikshank and Apprendi v. New Jersey in U.S. jurisprudence). Charges that allow for multiple interpretations violate this principle.
This witch hunt failed in terms of procedural fairness, evidentiary standards, and adherence to due process.
SCOTUS will dismiss the case because it failed the fundamental test of legal accountability. Something Juan Merchan knows nothing of.