Another article about Trump case

McCarthy says that Judge is making sure Trump will be found guilty

Judge Juan Merchan is orchestrating Trump’s conviction of a crime that is not actually charged in the indictment: conspiracy to violate FECA (the Federal Election Campaign Act — specifically, its spending limits). That should not be possible in the United States, where the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment mandates that an accused may only be tried for a felony offense if it has been outlined with specificity in an indictment, approved by a grand jury that has found probable cause for that offense.

Bragg, a county district attorney responsible for enforcing state law, has no authority to prosecute federal crimes, much less crimes under FECA — a corpus so abstruse that Congress created a specialized bureaucracy, the Federal Election Commission, to ensure its uniform application, vesting the FEC and the Justice Department with exclusive enforcement jurisdiction (as explained in my weekend column).

So not only is the campaign finance crime not included in the indictment, and not only is the Judge allowing Prosecutor witnesses to suggest they are guilty of said crimes (even though they were never prosecuted for them), the judge had told the defense that they cannot;

• Tell the jury that Trump has not been charged or convicted.

• Call an expert witness from the Federal Election Commission to explain the law and why Trump was not guilty of said violation.

Trump’s team asked to call Bradley Smith, an expert who served for years on the Federal Election Commission. Smith has written in the pages of National Review about why Trump’s so-called hush-money payments did not violate federal law. But Merchan has ruled that Smith will not be permitted to explain federal campaign-finance principles to the jury. Merchan reasons that such testimony would be improper because it would seek “to instruct the jury on matters of law.” In other words, the judge thinks it’s fine if the jury is instructed on campaign law by David Pecker and Michael Cohen but not by someone who actually understands it.

So we have some who claim that the charges are so convoluted and abstract and ridiculous that the Bragg cannot possibly prove his case, while McCarthy suggests that the conviction is almost inevitable given the way the Judge is allowing the prosecution to tell the jury that the charge is something different than the indictment. McCarthy suggests that this will not pass a single appellate court, because of the obvious flaws in the judge's reasoning and rulings. But all these people want right now is a conviction.