Former President Donald Trump's supporters and allies went berserk after Judge Juan Merchan ruled the former president can't assert presidential immunity in his Manhattan hush money criminal case, which is scheduled to start later this month. Aside from the fact that the alleged offenses happened before he even became president, Merchan found Trump had exhausted the window of time when he could even raise such objections. This comes as Trump has launched a volley of attacks against Merchan and his family. Merchan's latest order only further inflamed anger from MAGA world. ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE:
Congress raids presidential campaign fund in surprise reversal "Judge Merchan thinks he knows more than SCOTUS by refusing to wait until SCOTUS rules on Trump’s presidential immunity claim," wrote MAGA commentator Charles R. Downs. "In his decision, Merchan refers to J6 as an insurrection. Merchan’s anti-Trump bias is quite evident. Trump can’t receive a fair trial in New York." "HOLY SH*T: In a new filing denying Trump's claims of immunity, Judge Juan Merchan calls Jack Smith's J6 case against Trump in DC the 'FEDERAL INSURRECTION MATTER,'" wrote self-proclaimed "insurrection denier" and political strategist Julie Kelly. "Can someone send this clown a copy of the indictment?" "Should be thrown off the bench for being so political. Such political hacks," posted the account "GuyFromTexas." @_johnnymaga chimed in: "BREAKING: Radical left Judge Juan Merchan denies Trump's immunity claim in the NY 'hush money' trial." Judge Juan Merchan was heaped with praise after he slapped down former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity plea claim in his criminal hush money case . Merchan's ruling Wednesday denies Trump's request to delay the
New York City criminal trial until after the
Supreme Court rules on the presidential immunity argument in special counsel Jack Smith's federal
election interference case, a request that baffled George Conway. "Let’s just pause for a moment to dilate on the inanity of this motion, even apart from its untimeliness," the conservative attorney wrote in response to Merchan's ruling. ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE: Congress raids presidential campaign fund in surprise reversal " Trump is arguing that paying off a porn star was somehow part of his official responsibilities as President of the
United States. Not only that, he’s arguing that paying off the porn star *before* he became president, and then later reimbursing the intermediary who made the payment and covering up the reimbursement on the books of his **personal, private** company, was somehow part of his official responsibilities as President of the United States." Riffing on Merchan's note that Trump had been granted “myriad opportunities” to make this argument earlier than March 7, Conway concluded, "The motion wasn’t made earlier because it’s as demented as he is." Legal analyst Andrew Weissmann also took to
Social Media to share his view that Merchan's ruling made Trump's April 15 court date a certainty. "Criminal accountability in NY is nigh," Weissmann wrote. "Donald needs to fasten his seat belt -- it's taking off." Merchan was the target of fierce criticism from Trump's allies after the former president accused him of bias over his daughter's employment at a digital consulting firm. But after news of the justice's ruling spread, social media began to heap on the praise. "Sanity prevails!" wrote X user Cheryl Wilson . "CC:Aileen Cannon and the Supreme Court," quipped Copernicus Turing . "Trump can f--- with this Judge all he wants," declared R2 . "It's getting him no where." "Merchan is doing New York proud," said X user Jeff . "Cannon should take notes." CONTINUE READING Show less Trump's Truth Social Nasdaq run so far has been topsy turvy — having suffered a nearly $4 billion hit since last week's money monsoon debut — and now a petition has amassed 13,000 digital signatures to push for former President
Donald Trump to be investigated for fraud. "Just days after it went public, and its stock price placed its value in the billions, Donald Trump's 'Truth Social' crashed back to Earth, with that same stock dropping like a rock," reads the petition launched by a progressive organization known as Left Action , and first reported by Newsweek . Their pitch continued by asking where the blame should be cast for letting the $50 million profit from 2022 pruned into a $58 million loss the following year, with trickling revenue of $4 million. ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE: Congress raids presidential campaign fund in surprise reversal The numbers are hard to hide. Truth Social boasts "far fewer users than any other social network that has gone public," PBS' William Brangham reported. "The tech research firm SimilarWeb estimates TRUTH Social had about five million users last month. That's compared to more than three billion on
Facebook and two billion on TikTok." The downturn in the stock fueled Left Action's fraud probe call. "In short, it was a disastrous performance," the petition states, adding, "but the numbers weren't revealed until after the stock went public, meaning those buying the stock were left in the dark until it was too late — and their investments had collapsed in value." The petition throws up two scenarios: the rollercoaster stock, bearing Trump's initials "DJT" was all happenstance and "legit" or "maybe critical information was withheld in order to keep the true state of the company out of the spotlight." The stock for the Truth Social platform came out of the gate last Monday going for $49.90 per share. It shot up to a high of $79.38 on March 26, CBS News reported. Then the fall on earnings and losses took it down 21% on Monday, closing at $48.66 and suffering a $3.8 billion bite, the outlet reported As of Wednesday's close, the stock was $48.81. The source of its shaky start on the public stage has Left Action pointing all fingers at the 45th president. "No doubt, anyone foolish enough to buy into Trump's promises was probably someone who would lose their money on some idiotic venture soon enough," according to the petition. "But fraud is fraud, and there are laws, and Donald Trump is not above them." CONTINUE READING Show less Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) was criticized Wednesday for offering a last-minute affidavit in Jeffrey Clark's disciplinary trial. Moments before closing his case, Clark's attorney, Harry MacDougald, asked to admit one final piece of evidence: an affidavit from Perry. Bar Co-chair Merril Hirsh called a recess to distribute the affidavit to disciplinary counsel Hamilton Fox III. Fox strongly objected to Perry's submission. The congressman was reportedly central to a plan to overturn the presidential election on Jan. 6, 2021. Fox noted that much of the affidavit had "no substance." He also said that the substantive portions were not relevant. "More importantly, paragraph five and paragraph six have no substance," the disciplinary counsel observed. "They just have opinions from this congressman. They say that these discussions in the fall of 2020, don't give us a date, were sincere. Nothing about the substance of what's said, just that they were sincere." "And then the last one is just a pay on to Mr. Clark saying he behaved honorably, didn't engage in impropriety or unethical or immoral conduct without any meat on those bones," he continued. "I don't think that kind of stuff ought to be admitted. I particularly don't think it ought to be admitted from a public official." "Public officials have a tendency to want to hide from confrontation and not be cross-examined." ALSO READ: No, Donald Trump, fraud is not protected by the First Amendment Fox noted that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) had taken the witness stand for Clark. But Gaetz "didn't have anything of a substance to say, so we didn't cross-examine him," he explained. "This gentleman has substance, but he doesn't have the courage to get on the witness stand and testify about it," Fox added. "And I don't think that the precedent to allow a congressman or any other public official to get away with this kind of conduct and submit an affidavit instead of coming in and testifying is something that ought to be rewarded. So I oppose the admission of this document." Hirsh cautioned Fox not to make personal attacks on Perry. "I don't think we need to attack Rep. Perry's courage or integrity in any respect," the chair argued. "I strongly disagree with you, sir!" Fox exclaimed. Ultimately, Hirsh admitted the affidavit as evidence but was not convinced of its importance. "I think the affidavit is of very little value," he remarked. "I'll admit it for what it's worth." Clark faces disbarment for his role in trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election. CONTINUE READING Show less