Staff Reports
In a shocking display of judicial theatrics suggested to resemble a bad courtroom drama, Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan has scheduled the sentencing of Donald Trump in the dubious “hush money” case for January 10, just a mere ten days before he is set to take the oath of office for his second term. It’s almost as if Merchan wants to ensure that Trump steps into his new role with one hand tied behind his back. This timing isn’t just questionable; it reeks of political maneuvering by a judge whose bias couldn’t be more transparent if he wore a “Vote Democrat” t-shirt to the courtroom.
After a brief stint of indecision—or perhaps a tactical delay to give more time for the headlines to fizzle out—Judge Merchan decided that there’s “no legal impediment” to rush Trump’s sentencing. How convenient for a judge who seems less interested in justice and more interested in putting a blemish on the Trump legacy before he can officially don the presidential mantle once again. It’s as if Merchan thinks he’s assembling a last-minute performance for a Broadway show called “The Trial of the Century… For the Wrong Reasons.”
Alan Dershowitz at the debut of the John Eastman lawfare documentary at Mar-a-Lago: The political witch hunt against Trump is worse than Stalinism, since Stalinism was show me the man and I'll find you the crime. Whereas the left here couldn't find a crime so they just made one… pic.twitter.com/V4am4M8Ey5
— Rachel Alexander (@Rach_IC) January 5, 2025
Legal analysts Alan Dershowitz and Gregg Jarrett took no prisoners when discussing this latest debacle on Fox News’s “Hannity.” Jarrett pointed out the silliness of the judge’s repeated attempts to label Trump a convicted felon before he can reclaim the Oval Office. The absurdity of the situation would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous to the rule of law. Jarrett suggested that Merchan is essentially dangling a deal to avoid sentencing jail time, as if Trump should just roll over to appease an agenda-driven judiciary. The lengths to which this judge will go to ensure Trump takes a hit are astonishing—like a court-room version of “Survivor,” where the stakes are not a million dollars, but the very fabric of American political history.
The case itself, concocted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, has more twists than a pretzel factory. Essentially, Bragg has pulled COVID-era statutes out of a hat to inflate trivial bookkeeping violations into 34 felony charges. They weren’t even able to define what the supposed crime was, yet Judge Merchan decided that jurors didn’t need to know. It’s as if the verdict was predetermined, designed to fit a narrative rather than reflect any semblance of legal integrity.
Dershowitz, never one to mince words, likened this trial to a twisted Soviet-style show trial reminiscent of Stalin’s Russia. His comparison draws attention to the alarming potential that if they could fabricate charges against Trump, then anyone could be next on the chopping block. Both analysts raised valid concerns regarding the authoritarian tendencies creeping into the justice system, particularly in high-profile cases that have become tools for political gain rather than actual justice.
Of course, in a case filled to the brim with procedural gaffes and glaring errors, Dershowitz predicts that an appellate court worth its salt would quickly set this travesty straight. The idea that the governor might step in to pardon Trump complicates matters further, as it would provide a political cover-up for an obvious miscarriage of justice while leaving a cloud of conviction hanging around Trump’s neck. With all eyes peeled on this unfolding drama, the nation waits to see if clarity or confusion will prevail in this case that seems more about politics than law.
