Donald Trump isn’t having a great week.
Predictably, he is taking poorly to the news he has been indicted on what were apparently nearly three dozen criminal charges related to falsification of business records in connection to hush money given to Stormy Daniels back before the 2016 presidential election. In a Friday rant on his personal account on his knock-off social media site Truth Social, he targeted a judge connected to the case by name, potentially helping facilitate threats to this judicial figure, considering recent history. Also considering his avowed support for participants in the deadly Capitol riot, it’s not hard to imagine that such was intentional. Shouldn’t he face additional serious scrutiny for what could be deemed trying to intimidate judicial figures?
“The Judge “assigned” to my Witch Hunt Case, a “Case” that has NEVER BEEN CHARGED BEFORE, HATES ME,” Trump complained online. “His name is Juan Manuel Marchan, was hand picked by Bragg & the Prosecutors, & is the same person who “railroaded” my 75 year old former CFO, Allen Weisselberg, to take a “plea” deal (Plead GUILTY, even if you are not, 90 DAYS, fight us in Court, 10 years (life!) in jail. He strong armed Allen, which a judge is not allowed to do, & treated my companies, which didn’t “plead,” VICIOUSLY. APPEALING!” What does Trump think a judge is supposed to do? Give cookies to criminal defendants?
The other proceedings Trump is trying to reference involved Weisselberg admitting to a series of felony offenses over a years-long scheme to evade required taxes on high-dollar benefits doled out and supporting members of his family, among top company figures.
Entities of the Trump Organization opted for going to trial and were found guilty. Merchan subsequently imposed the maximum financial penalties allowed, leading Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to note the opportunity for making the scope of those prospective consequences more substantial for a company as financially large as Trump’s. Merchan also handled Weisselberg’s sentencing after a rejection of attempts from the former company executive to get his case undone. Merchan indicated he would have been inclined to impose a longer sentence on Weisselberg than the months-long stint he got if not for prior agreements, citing evidence like Allen preparing a falsified claim of income for his wife so she could receive Social Security benefits.
