top of page

FLASH: Trump Was Right, ‘Mother Teresa could not beat those charges’

If you have been following the bizarre twists and turns of Justice Juan M. Merchan’s rulings and behavior in the Trump “hush money” trial in New York, you will probably not be surprised to learn that the corrupt Democrat flack has issued jury instructions that directed the jury to find Trump guilty even if he did not commit a crime.

Former President Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts by a handpicked New York Democrat jury in a case that turned minor misdemeanor offenses into felonies because Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg using a novel legal theory—essentially that Trump committed bookkeeping offenses with the intent of covering up another crime, explained Zack Smith, senior legal fellow and manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.


But what is that other crime?  And what did Bragg, a Democrat, need to prove about that other crime?  Those questions have been present throughout the case, but catapulted to the forefront Wednesday after Judge Juan Merchan gave startling instructions to the jury, observed Mr. Smith.


For those unfamiliar with how trials work, the instructions the judge gives to a jury tell the jurors what the applicable law is for the case they’re deciding. Here, Merchan told the jury that to convict Trump of falsifying business records in the first degree under New York Penal Law § 175.10, Bragg must prove—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Trump intended “to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”


But the judge also told the jury that Bragg “need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.

That other crime?  According to Merchan, it would be a violation of New York Election Law § 17-152, which “provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.”


One of the law’s key—and confusing—phrases is “to promote or prevent the election … by unlawful means.” (Smith emphasis.)


Merchan told the jury that to convict Trump, all 12 jurors “must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, [but they] need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

As Bill Otis, former federal prosecutor and Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center explained in a post to his substack, “Judge Marchan refused to give an instruction that paying hush money is not itself a crime. That it isn’t is a correct statement of law, in New York (indeed, there if anywhere), and it was crucial to Trump’s defense precisely because of the peep-show prosecution Bragg put on as opposed to the follow-the-paper case he should have put on. Judge Marchan’s refusal to give this instruction was, in my view, a breathtaking blunder and by itself warrants reversal.”

So, let that sink in a second.

Translated from the legalese what the corrupt flack overseeing the Trump trial did was instruct the jury to find Trump guilty of multiple felonies, even if he committed no crime by paying Stormy Daniels.

Mr. Otis went on to explain, “The object offense for the hush money payments was never stated in the indictment. Well-settled due process doctrine requires that the defendant be on notice specifically of what the government will seek to prove as the central components of his criminal liability. That did not happen here.”

Mr. Otis is of the opinion that this kind of “Orange Man bad” lawfare should be and will be reversed on appeal now that Mr. Trump has been found guilty in Merchan’s corrupt show trial.

You can read the jury instructions through this link, courtesy of our friends at

But others are not so sure that reversal on appeal is a slam dunk.

CNN’s legal expert and Democrat lawfare operative Norm Eisen earlier this week said there’s little chance of former President Trump being acquitted in his criminal hush money trial after the jury began deliberations – and he was right.

After the jury instructions President Trump himself lamented that, “Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. These charges are rigged. The whole country’s a mess, between the borders and fake elections, and you have a trial like this where the judge is so conflicted he can’t breathe.”


In a post-trial news conference Trump maintained his innocence and reiterated that the trial was rigged from the start.


"This was a rigged, disgraceful trial. The real verdict is going to be November 5 by the people. And they know what happened here, and everybody knows what happened here. You have a Soros-backed DA, and the whole thing, we didn’t do a thing wrong. I’m a very innocent man," Trump said.


"It’s okay. I’m fighting for our country. I’m fighting for our Constitution. Our whole country is being rigged right now. This was done by the Biden administration in order to move or hurt an opponent, a political opponent. And I think it’s just a disgrace. And we’ll keep fighting; we’ll fight to the end, and we’ll win. Because our country has gone to hell. We don’t have the same country any more…”

Our friend attorney Mark Paoletta posted a statement on X that sums up what many conservative attorneys and legal scholars believe, which is, “Prosecution/verdict are disgrace. Biden & Left have gone down dangerous road weaponizing justice system to take out political opponent. Horrible day for country. Verdict will be overturned. To restore rule of law & safeguard our liberties/democracy, Trump '24 now more than ever.”

However, from our strictly political perspective we see this as a much more dangerous point in the life of our Republic. This is no longer about the process being the punishment. Democrats have crossed a line and made it clear that nothing is off the table in their quest to obtain and hold power. If jailing their principal opponent on specious charges is not off the table what’s next? Corrupting elections? Cancelling elections? And what is the remedy for those of us who believe that what is happening is nothing short of a coup d’etat and that it is looking more and more like 2016 was the last free and fair election in America?

  • Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg

  • Democrat New York Judge Juan Manuel Merchan

  • Loren Merchan

  • change of venue

  • Matthew Colangelo

  • New York Attorney General Leticia James

  • George Soros prosecutors

  • Stormy Daniels scandal

  • Donald Trump indictment

  • Democrat Attorney General Leticia James

  • Michael D. Cohen

  • Federal Election Commission

  • Attorney Mike Davis

  • fed-surrection

  • nationwide protests

  • Trump polls

212 views0 comments


bottom of page