Donald Trump may be a stable genius , but Judge Juan Manuel Merchan is proving to be the stable hand who might be the former president's perfect foil. That'a according to to Miriam “Mimi” Rocah , a seasoned prosecutor with hours logged in both
New York and Westchester counties, who appeared Monday on CNN's "Out Front" to laud the
New York City jurist overseeing Trump's criminal hush money case. As proof, Rocah pointed to Merchan's handling of Trump's lawyers accusations, levied against prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, of misconduct. "That's so serious, for any lawyer, but especially prosecutors," Rocah said. "That, according to the judge, was not warranted." Merchan played the cornerman for the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over accusations linked documents handed over by the Manhattan federal prosecutor's office, Rocah argued. While Trump's attorneys demanded delay or even dismissal over the alleged "widespread misconduct" of failing to quickly pass the documents, along, Bragg's office said they did their due diligence. ALSO READ: Here's why conservative elites are bailing on Trump now Trump's attorneys may have pointed fingers at the prosecutors in Trump's hush money case — in which the former president has pleaded not guilty to falsifying business records to hide alleged payments made to
Stormy Daniels — but Merchan gave them a hat tip, Rocah noted. Specifically, Merchan refused to delay the case and set a court date of April 15. "This judge, who really calls balls and strikes, said 'In fact, I think the D.A.'s office here seems to have gone above and beyond,'" Rocah said. "They've not only fulfilled their obligations under the law, but they went beyond that." Rocah took Merchan's admonishment of Trump's attorneys as a sign that he'll push back when the case comes to trial. "That is part of a judge's
Job," Rocah said "to
police, if you will, the rhetoric and accusations that get thrown around in heated cases." Watch the video below or click here . When a five-judge appeals court panel on Monday slashed Donald Trump's $464 million bond in the New York civil fraud case down to $175 million — and gave him ten more days to pay up, legal experts were astonished by "the major lifeline .” Former New York State Assistant Attorney General Tristan Snell "who successfully prosecuted the $25 million Trump University case," slammed the order as "special treatment," while ex-federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said , "The verdict is in: the rules, the laws, and the Constitution do not apply to
Donald Trump the way they apply to you and me." However, in an op-ed published by The Daily Beast, legal ethics and civil procedure expert Ray Brescia suggests that, despite Monday's win, Trump is "still in deep legal trouble" when it comes to both of his New York cases. READ MORE: $3 billion from Truth Social merger unlikely to fix Trump's money trouble "Team Trump seemed to have won a bit of a victory in one," Brescia writes, "but certainly not in the other. While Trump’s camp is likely relieved that he doesn’t have to post a nearly half-billion-dollar bond to continue his appeal, the fact remains that both that case and the Stormy Daniels hush money case are still moving full steam ahead," he adds. Additionally, Axios' Jacob Knutson and Ivana Saric pointed out in a report Monday, "Trump's lawyers said last week that securing a bond that size has been 'impossible' after they approached more than two dozen companies and none were willing to cover the amount," while the New York Times noted , "More than 30 bond companies turned down his lawyers' requests to guarantee the bond." Knutson and Saric emphasized, "State of play: No company would accept his real estate as collateral and would only accept cash or cash equivalents, his lawyers said. His inability to secure a bond under those terms at the very least suggests he lacks access to a large amount of liquid assets." Brescia writes , “The appellate court in this case said earlier today that to appeal Justice [Arthur] Engoron’s decision, the defendants will still have to post a bond for roughly one-third of the full judgment. “The court did not rule on the merits of the underlying decision, nor did it indicate in any way that the court will reverse all or even any part of Justice Engoron’s prior ruling. What is more, one of the reasons the appeals court might have allowed the reduction of the bond was that much of the defendants’ assets are not all that difficult to find.” READ MORE: 'Easy mark': Why Trump’s $464 million bond failure makes him a 'massive national security risk' The Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life at Albany Law School also notes, “While Trump can post a lower bond to allow him to appeal the $454 million judgment for alleged fraudulent business practices, his trial in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case will start mid-April, and there seem to be no more tricks up the Trump legal team’s sleeves to delay that from happening.” Brescia's full op-ed is available at this link . CONTINUE READING Show less Former President Donald Trump caught a break on Monday when a New York appeals court drastically slashed the amount he must post in bond to appeal his more than $450 million civil fraud judgment for manipulating property values — as well as 10 additional days to produce that money. But that doesn't mean this whole matter is settled, said longtime Trump biographer Tim O'Brien on MSNBC's "The ReidOut." On the contrary, it's just beginning. "Does he have $175 million?" asked anchor Joy Reid, referencing the new amount the court ordered in bond. 'He can probably get it," said O'Brien. However, he added, "I think he is getting pressed up against the wall right now in terms of what he has on hand that's liquid that a surety company would feel comfortable bonding because of the collaterals there. They're not going to want to take little bitty pieces of a bunch of different real estate. They're going to want to go after his cash. What's perplexing to me is he already said last week that he already has $500 million, after a year ago saying he had $400 million, and then in between those two moments saying, actually, I don't have anything. And I think in that context — I think the appellate court didn't do a service towards a defendant being clear and honest with the court." "Yeah," Reid concurred. "But they also stayed keeping the boys out of the business and some of the other punitive things that Judge Engoron put in place," O'Brien added. "So it seems to me they felt Judge Engoron overreached. That's what gets ironed out in an appeals process. They've sort of gotten into the middle of this now and cut away at some of the foundations of both the ruling, and they've signaled what they think about the whole process. And that feels untoward. On the other hand, Donald Trump and people of means routinely get breaks in the judicial process that we average parking toll violators do not." Watch the video below or at the link here . Tim O'Brien says Trump is "pressed up against a wall" www.youtube.com CONTINUE READING Show less President Joe Biden's $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill did not have the support of 30 GOP senators and 200 House
Republicans in 2021, but in November, several of those members took "credit for the historic investment they actively tried to stop," according to The New Republic . Per the report, Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and John Cornyn (R-TX), and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) all voted against the legislation, but took credit via
Social Media once the bill had proven to successfully distribute "upward of $42 billion across America to expand internet access and help bring rural and isolated communities into the increasingly digital world." Earlier this month, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) continued the pattern when she "'celebrated the impending arrival of' funding from a bill she voted against,'" according to Business Insider on March 18. ALSO READ: Feds quash presidential campaign of 'Literally Anybody Else' The
Colorado lawmaker took credit for $20 million funding her former Colorado district would receive after voting against the legislation, calling it a "swamp omnibus" and "monstrosity," earlier this month. Business Insider reported the bill she is now celebrating includes "more than $20 million for the Colorado district she's now abandoning." Although Boebert currently represents Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, the MAGA congresswoman is vying for re-election in Colorado's 4th Congressional District, is seeking a third term via Colorado's 4th Congressional District, from which Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) officially resigned. In a press release distributed by her office last week, The Independent reported Monday that Boebert said , "These include important federal resources for new water storage, improving water quality, funding water treatment plants, building new water supply lines, reducing congestion on I-70, and building roads and bridges. I'm grateful to all the local stakeholders who brought these important projects to my attention and that worked with my team and I throughout this process to ensure that 10 out of 10 of our requests were successfully funded in public law. Can't wait for the ribbon cuttings and to see these priorities come to fruition." When The Independent interviewed Boebert about publicly taking credit for the bill, the
Republican lawmaker "bragged about bringing the money back to" her state, saying, "Sure did, I fought to get it in there, did I not. If I wasn’t working on it, then it wouldn’t have been in there." The news outlet notes when Boebert was asked why she originally smacked down the legislation, she replied, "I didn't agree to the swampy way it came to the floor but I fought to get the stuff in the bills and it's there. And Colorado is going to benefit from it.” ALSO READ: Inside the neo-Nazi hate network grooming children for a race war CONTINUE READING Show less