Staff Reports
Stephen A. Smith has taken off the gloves, unleashing a scathing critique of New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan in the wake of President-elect Donald Trump’s impending sentencing over hush money allegations. In classic Smith fashion, he questions the fairness and timing of the ruling, suggesting it serves only to fan the flames of political bias. For many conservatives, it’s hard to overlook the timing of these legal maneuvers, particularly so close to the election.
On Wednesday, an appeals court judge, Ellen Gesmer, dismissed Trump’s request to postpone the sentencing. In a decision that failed to take into account the concept of presidential immunity, Gesmer maintained that Trump’s position does not grant him a free pass from facing the music. This has left many scratching their heads about how a simple hush money case could hold so much weight in the political arena. The legal team is reportedly considering their next steps, which might involve more appeals than a sports team in the playoffs.
The ONLY reason Judge Merchan wants to follow thru with sentencing is because the Democrat power elites want to be able to call Trump a “convicted felon” the next 4 years to try and delegitimize his presidency….
There are no other consequences…
SCOTUS must reject!!! pic.twitter.com/oEu1nEk0Wx
— MAGA Cousin Eddie🇺🇸💊🗽 (@Swamphater16) January 9, 2025
Smith’s incredulity reached new heights as he called out the legal proceedings for what they are: a circus. He questioned the rationale behind the entire affair, musing whether the former president would actually end up in jail, despite the fact that many observers believe it’s just empty posturing. His central argument emphasized that this entire spectacle seems designed not to seek justice, but to create headlines. The imminent swearing-in of Trump as the 47th President seems all but certain, which begs the question: what’s the purpose of this theatrics?
The charges against Donald Trump stem from a convoluted tale involving alleged hush money payments concerning an affair with an adult film star. With 34 felony counts on the table, one would think that real and glaring criminality is at play, but for many, the case appears more like a well-executed hit job rather than genuine legal pursuit. Smith took particular aim at Merchan’s authority in this debacle, casting doubt on how one man could wield such power over a figure like Trump, especially when the public can recognize the motivations behind the charges.
Smith’s analysis resonated deeply with his audience, hitting on a key conservative frustration: the blurred lines between legal accountability and political grandstanding. The comparison to standard non-disclosure agreements, often used in less public lives, only amplifies the absurdity of the case. In the eyes of many, this all points to a greater game being played, one where the objective is not to uphold the law, but rather to undermine a political opponent. Perhaps the real takeaway here is that in the theater of politics, the law has become just another player in the game.
