Mike Johnson, Ted Cruz, Tim Scott and other craven Trump sycophants slandered the New York criminal justice system by making wild, false claims about the prosecution of Donald Trump. The most malicious claim came from Marco Rubio, son of Cuban refugees, who compared Trump’s trial to a communist show trial. If Rubio could be sued for slander, his cross-examination at trial might go something like this:
Question: You are Marco Antonio Rubio, and you’re the senior U.S. Senator from the State of Florida and a Republican?
Rubio: Correct.
Question: You are a second-generation Cuban-American, born in 1971, after your parents immigrated to the U.S. from Cuba in 1956, during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista?
Rubio: That’s correct.
Question: Fidel Castro rose to power in 1959, three years after your parents left Cuba?
Rubio: That sounds about right.
Question: Isn’t it true that Castro’s 26th of July Movement, which eventually became the Communist Party of Cuba, began conducting show trials to severely punish those who supported Batista and opposed the Castro-led revolution?
Rubio: That’s basically what I was taught.
Question: Isn’t it true that you made a public statement comparing the case of the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump to a communist show trial, such as those conducted in Cuba under Castro’s communist regime?
Rubio: I did.
Very well. Then let’s review Mr. Trump’s trial and compare it with a communist show trial.
Q: Senator Rubio, were you present during any part of the trial in the case of The People of State of New York v. Donald J. Trump?
A: I was not.
Q: Did you read the official written transcript of the trial before making your statement?
A: No.
Q: Let’s talk about jury selection. Can you dispute the fact that the entire jury pool was selected at random from residents of the same borough of New York City where Mr. Trump resided until 2021?
A: No, I cannot dispute that.
Q: Can you dispute the fact that none of the jurors selected had close personal or financial ties with either D.A. Alvin Bragg’s office, the Biden Administration, or the leadership of the Democratic Party?
A: I can’t but I have my suspicions.
Q: Can you dispute the fact that some of the members of the jury disclosed that they got their news from conservative sources?
A: No, but they could’ve been lying to get on the jury.
Q: Again, that’s a suspicion without any evidence to support it?
A: I’m entitled to my suspicions.
Q: Mr. Trump’s lawyers announced in open court that the defense accepted the jury. Do you have any personal knowledge that defense counsel was compelled under duress to accept the jury?
A: No.
Q: Would you agree that Mr. Trump’s attorneys were in a better position to assess the fairness of the jury selection process than you?
A: I suppose so.
Q: Was Mr. Trump’s counsel, Mr. Blanche, afforded the opportunity to make a full, unhindered opening statement to the jury?
A: I assume he was.
Q: Isn’t it true that most of the prosecution’s witnesses were friends or associates of Mr. Trump, and, to this day, remain loyal to Mr. Trump, and that they testified truthfully because they took an oath to tell the truth under penalty of perjury?
A: That’s what I heard on the news.
Q: Were any witnesses for the prosecution connected with Mr. Bragg’s office, the Justice Department, the FBI, George Soros, or the Biden Administration?
A: No, unless Michael Cohen is.
Q: If you know, what is Mr. Cohen’s connection to Mr. Bragg’s office, the Justice Department, the FBI, George Soros, or the Biden Administration?
A: I don’t know, but I wouldn’t doubt if one exists.
Q: Just a another one of your hunches?
A: (Silence)
Q: Were Mr. Trump’s lawyers allowed to cross-examine all of the prosecution’s witnesses, including Mr. Cohen?
A: I suppose they probably were.
Q: Isn’t it true that Mr. Cohen was once part of Mr. Trump’s inner circle at The Trump Organization?
A: Yeah. So? He’s still a crook.
Q: Are you suggesting that Mr. Trump is a poor judge of suitable people to be part of the inner circle of his business?
A: (More silence)
Q: Okay, then isn’t it true that everything Mr. Cohen testified to happened while he was in the employ of Mr. Trump?
A: I have no recollection.
Q: Isn’t it also true that other witnesses, most of them still loyal to Mr. Trump, corroborated most of Mr. Cohen’s testimony?
A: I can’t speak to that.
Q: And isn’t it true that Mr. Trump did not a call a single witness, other than Mr. Costello, to rebut Mr. Cohen’s testimony?
A: That’s what I heard.
Q: Did the jury receive testimony about Mr. Cohen’s past crimes, including lying to the FBI?
A: That’s what I heard.
Q: Did anyone contradict Stormy Daniels’ testimony that she had sex with Mr. Trump in July, 2006, in Nevada?
A: Donald Trump said it never happened.
Q: Did Mr. Trump testify to that under oath before the jury and subject to cross-examination?
A: Mr. Trump did not testify.
Q: Was the defense allowed to call witnesses of their own and introduce documents into evidence? And didn’t the defense call two witnesses and introduce one document?
A: Sounds about right.
Q: Isn’t it true that Judge Merchan did not prevent Mr. Trump from testifying?
A: That’s true. His lawyers advised against it. He should have, though.
Q: Are you blaming the judicial system for Trump taking the advice of counsel?
A: No. It’s the lawyers’ fault.
Q: Mr. Trump chose his lawyers. Would Mr. Trump hire incompetent lawyers?
A: Of course not.
Q: Did Mr. Blanche have an opportunity to present his entire closing argument?
A: Haven’t heard anything to the contrary.
Q: According to all news accounts the jury was out for over nine hours spanning two days. Does it take that long for a communist show trial tribunal to reach a verdict?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Did the jury find Mr. Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all 34 counts in the indictment?
A: That’s what the verdict said.
Q: Senator Rubio, isn’t it true that none of your answers to these questions suggest that this trial was conducted any differently than the tens of thousands of criminal jury trials being conducted throughout the United States over the same six-week period it took to try this case?
A: Yes, it was. This was a political trial. It was a show trial.
Q: Very well, let’s talk about that. In show trials, the defendant is convicted by the government before the trial even begins. In other words, the trial is rigged from the start. No grand jury, no jury of the defendant’s peers, no due process, no rights of the accused. It’s just a tribunal of party officials who hear the evidence beforehand and are told what to do. Are you saying that’s how Mr. Trump’s trial was conducted?
A: No, I’m not saying that . . . (Silence)
Q: Show trials are often held in public places like sports arenas, auditoriums and public parks, instead of courtrooms presided over by one judge elected by the voters. Did that happen here?
A: No.
Q: The main purpose of show trials is to put on a public spectacle for the purpose of making an example of the defendant through imposition of severe punishment. Isn’t it true that when you compared Mr. Trump’s trial to a Cuban communist show trial, Mr. Trump had not been sentenced?
A: No, he hadn’t been sentenced, but it’s still political.
Q: But you said it was a show trial and show trials are pre-determined from the outset. Was the six-week trial before a jury with all the due process and safeguards afforded by our Constitution and laws nothing more than charade? Are you suggesting that before the trial began, Mr. Bragg and Judge Merchan conspired with twelve hand-picked jurors to assure a guilty verdict?
A: I didn’t suggest any such thing.
Q: Senator, you’ve already admitted that you called it a communist show trial. Culpability is not an issue in a show trial. Guilt is already pre-determined. The trial is nothing more than a scripted play. The trial is all about publicly imposing retributive, draconian punishments to warn citizens to keep in line. So, I’ll ask again, isn’t it true you have no proof that Mr. Trump’s trial was a show trial?
A: That’s never what I meant. I’m saying the prosecution was motivated for political purposes to embarrass President Trump.
Q: So, are you now saying this was not a show trial at all but merely a politically motivated one?
A: (Silence)
Q: Can you agree with the following statement: Mr. Trump received a fair trial but it was the timing of the trial that made it political?
A: I can’t speak to whether he received a fair trial.
Q: Precisely. You don’t know enough about this trial or a communist show trial to make a comparison. Isn’t it true you’re upset because your party’s presumptive nominee for President was charged, tried and found guilty on 34 felonies just months before the election?
A: (Silence)
Q: Without a scintilla of proof, you falsely accused the State of New York of conducting a communist-style show trial, a heinous proceeding which is totally antithetical to everything America’s justice system stands for; and now you’re backing down and saying it was just a politically-motivated prosecution. Isn’t that true, Senator Rubio?
A: (Silence)
Q: Senator Rubio, you slandered the American criminal justice system, which you took an oath to support, protect and defend, for the purpose of furthering the political fortunes of both you and Mr. Trump, a man you once called a con artist. Well, who’s the con artist now?
(More silence)
Q: No further questions.
Is the author of this article an employee of the show owners of “Saturday Night Live?” (no answer).
Funny how these people claim to be extremely patriotic but demonstrate zero faith in the institutions of our country whenever possible!
You nailed it, Caleb. I miss you and Erica already.
I would have only two questions:
1) You’re a lawyer, aren’t you?
2) A member of The Florida Bar?
3) Subject to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar?
4) Your statements denigrating the court system were a direct violation of Rules 4-3.5 and 4- 3.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, weren’t they?
5) When will you be surrendering your law license?
Steve, you got to the point with only a few words. Good cross!
I made an error in calculating the number of questions, but when has a lawyer ever been right about that? “Your honor, I only have two questions.” Then five questions later I got to the point.
I don’t know whether you recall this, but one odd specialty I developed during my career in government service was assisting judges when they were appointed as referees in disciplinary proceedings. Judge Ellis and I wrote the order that ultimately disbarred F. Lee Bailey, for example.
We need one for Marco Rubio.