Patterico's Pontifications

5/31/2024

Weekend Open Thread

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:47 am



[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

The newly convicted felon wasted no time:

Moments after a jury handed down a guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump’s campaign flipped his website to a verdict-themed fundraising funnel. Trump followed it up by putting out a siren on his Truth Social account calling himself a “POLITICAL PRISONER” and sending a fresh fundraising appeal to his list of supporters. And he is set to appeal to high rollers at a fundraiser in New York City tonight.

“I was just convicted in a RIGGED political Witch Hunt trial: I DID NOTHING WRONG!” read one post-verdict campaign fundraising email. “But with your support at this moment in history, WE WILL WIN BACK THE WHITE HOUSE AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

And a financial windfall isn’t the only tactic in play:

As the former president is about to officially become the GOP’s nominee for the third consecutive election, Trump “is going to wrap himself in the robe of a martyr,” said Jason Roe, a Republican strategist and former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party.

“He is going to have more fire on the stump and probably even larger crowds at his rallies, and I think this is going to give him an incredible amount of momentum going forward,” Roe said.

P.S. According to reports today, the hoped-for small-donor windfall happened, although it is the Trump campaign reporting the numbers:

The Trump campaign announced via a statement “a record shattering small dollar fundraising haul following the sham Biden Trial verdict totaling $34.8 million —nearly double the biggest day ever recorded for the Trump campaign on the WinRed platform.”

Second news item

President Biden’s campaign in trouble:

Prominent Black officials are warning the Biden campaign that the president’s efforts to keep Black voters firmly and enthusiastically in his electoral coalition aren’t working — and that time is running out to get his message across.

The publicly voiced concern from these Black Democrats isn’t that the White House lacks policy achievements — it’s that Black voters aren’t hearing about them. Worse, they fear that the Biden campaign has not fully grasped the severity of the information gap at hand, particularly in key battleground states.

“I’m in a battleground state. I know what has and hasn’t been done. I felt a level of disconnection earlier on the message, on the messengers and on mobilization,” said Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. He said he has brought this issue directly to the campaign.

Third news item

Adapting and adjusting: New policy for Ukraine:

President Biden has partially lifted a ban on Ukraine using U.S.-provided weapons for strikes inside Russia, three U.S. officials tell CBS News.

Ukraine may use the weapons on the Russian side of the border near the besieged Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, against concentrations of Russian troops and Russian artillery pieces, one U.S. official said. Asked whether that includes Russian airplanes this official said, “We’ve never told them they can’t shoot down a Russian airplane over Russian soil that’s coming to attack them.”

Don’t miss Mick Ryan’s analysis of the decision here.

This:

“By betraying its fear of escalation and suggesting that the nuclear threat brandished by the Kremlin dissuades it from going further, the US is undermining some of its allies’ trust in its reliability.”

Strategic blindness.

Fourth news item

This may seem a cynical take, but many have seen this happen in person:

So, the aspiring, narcissist pastor, who has little interest in serving people, gets trained by a church planting group like the Association of Related Churches (ARC). There, he learns to “launch large,” or essentially, build a megachurch overnight.

Then, he leverages his large congregation to build a big social media platform online. This enables him to get a book contract with a major evangelical publishing house.

After publishing his book, Christian radio stations feature the pastor on their programs, enabling him to sell his book and build his platform. This enriches both the preacher and the publishing house. And it gives the Christian radio program free content.

Then, the preacher raises enough money to launch a broadcast ministry and buys airtime on networks like the Salem Radio Network and the Moody Radio Network.

This gives the preacher a huge platform from which he can raise even more money. Plus, he gets an additional, six-figure salary for essentially doing nothing. (An editor simply repackages his Sunday sermons into radio format.) The radio network also benefits from hundreds of thousands in revenue from the broadcast ministry.

The pastor’s megachurch then grows larger and larger as his sermons become increasingly popular. This raises the prominence of his church, along with his salary.

This enables the church to attract hundreds, or even thousands, to conferences, bringing in even more revenue. The pastor then launches cohorts for other pastors, training them to be like him, while charging them $1,500-$3,000 per person.

The pastor gets more book deals.

He gets richer and richer. His head gets bigger and bigger. And then, he begins abusing his staff and begins taking liberty with women.

But now, his brand has become critical to the survival of his empire. Plus, his board is stacked with men who have their own ministries, which the pastor has the power to make or break. Or, some board members simply love the perks that proximity to the pastor bestows.

So, the board and the staff look the other way.

So *not* what Jesus had in mind…

Fifth news item

If you disagree with the verdict in the Trump hush money case, consider this:

You can find prominent Republicans who also agree with the decision here.

Sixth news item

Student protesters get big support from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has lavished praise on American students for protesting US-backed Israel’s war on Hamas.

Khamenei, in an open letter and social media posts, told student protesters they were standing on the “right side of history” by opposing the US and Israeli governments.

If you think that this would cause protesters to take a giant step back and reconsider their actions, you’d be wrong. Badge of honor.

Have a good weekend.

—Dana

464 Responses to “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (8e902f)

  2. My late father put it best: “The only just or fair law or rule is one you do not mind in the hands of your bitterest enemies.”

    This entire political system has turned into a dumpster fire, and I do not know how we find our way out.

    I see people celebrating the Trump decision on social media, gleefully. “We got him!”

    They don’t understand that the “other side” can do the same in return.

    Me, I mourn our nation and its ideals.

    Our upcoming election: the Felon versus the Zombie.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  3. Listening to Trump speak is like listening to a Toddler. He can’t actually finish a thought, not one.

    He’s mentally defective.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  4. @3Listening to Biden speak is like listening to a Toddler. He can’t actually finish a thought, not one.

    He’s mentally defective.
    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 5/31/2024 @ 8:19 am

    FIFY.

    whembly (86df54)

  5. Two things can be true at once.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  6. “You can find prominent Republicans who also agree with the decision here.”

    For the most part, the only “prominent Republicans” who have come out in agreement with the decision are those who were already opposed to Trump in the first place. In general, those who generally disfavored Trump will agree with the ruling, and those who generally favor Trump will disagree with it. People will see what they are already predisposed to see.

    But for those who are so busy patting themselves on the back about how the verdict vindicates everything they’ve said about Trump, I have one question: If the verdict is overturned on appeal, as I’ve seen many commentators suggest will happen on both the left and the right, will you still claim that it was correct? Or will you switch sides and complain that the process suddenly got it wrong?

    Observer (2a3695)

  7. I’m listening to Trump speak and it occurs to me that I have never heard him acknowledge that he has ever done anything wrong and own it. That obstinate childish behavior seems to have worked for him for 78 years.

    Dana (8e902f)

  8. Oh… when you’ve lost Susan Collins:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4695886-susan-collins-criticizes-new-yorks-prosecution-of-trump/


    “It is fundamental to our American system of justice that the government prosecutes cases because of alleged criminal conduct regardless of who the defendant happens to be. In this case the opposite has happened. The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specified criminal conduct,” she said in a statement.

    “The political underpinnings of this case further blur the lines between the judicial system and the electoral system, and this verdict likely will be the subject of a protracted appeals process,” she warned.

    whembly (86df54)

  9. Jeez, word salad is an understatement.

    Plus, Trump blew an opportunity to actually talk about the election, you know, the thing that he’s running for.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  10. Colonel, DJT has always blown most opportunities because of a lack of self control.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  11. Oh, and starting to?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-we-are-starting-to-enjoy-hatred/ar-BB1nm54r

    Just look at comments here and elsewhere. The hatred is nonproductive, corrosive, and utterly real.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  12. https://x.com/theblaze/status/1796600792994210120?s=12&t=LbMzhpSB3yC2zvXzo7p_lA

    Reporter: “Donald Trump refers to himself as a political prisoner and blames you directly. What’s your response to that?”

    Biden: *smiles and walks away*

    Holy SH!T…

    There’s an Ad. Just cut and show that.

    whembly (86df54)

  13. Our Donald“…

    On Friday morning, Dmitry Kulikov, host of Solovyov Live, the self-described “most patriotic channel” in Russia, said on-air, “They wronged our Donald Trump!” Malek Dudakov, a political scientist who specializes in America, said that the hope for a miracle—meaning a hung jury—was extinguished. He said, with Russia’s affectionate middle name usage, “The miracle did not happen. Our Donald Fredovych was found guilty on all 34 counts.” For that, Dudakov blamed the judge and the jury and baselessly claimed that all of them were prejudiced against Trump.

    The question isn’t why I’m partisan against this bully and felonious fraud, it’s why so many purported conservatives are not so. The reasons are aplenty.

    Paul Montagu (383f45)

  14. If it wasn’t for executive branch and the US DOJ going after Trump’s attorney’s for these things, Donald wouldn’t have been the 3rd person charged and convicted in this mess.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  15. Wrong thread

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  16. @7 “I’m listening to Trump speak and it occurs to me that I have never heard him acknowledge that he has ever done anything wrong and own it. That obstinate childish behavior seems to have worked for him for 78 years.”

    That observation applies to Biden, every politician, and just about every commenter on blogs.

    lloyd (7e08c5)

  17. There’s an Ad. Just cut and show that.

    whembly (86df54) — 5/31/2024 @ 2:04 pm

    Evil.

    And how many applaud him for just this.

    NJRob (8dc5ae)

  18. I have never heard him acknowledge that he has ever done anything wrong and own it. That obstinate childish behavior seems to have worked for him for 78 years.”

    That observation applies to Biden, every politician, and just about every commenter on blogs.

    lloyd (7e08c5) — 5/31/2024 @ 2:54 pm

    I guess I am the exception. I voted for Trump in 2016. I was wrong, and I own it.

    norcal (adf421)

  19. Me too, norcal. I didn’t think the DOJ would be low rent enough to prosecute an ex-president and the main opposition candidate, but I was proved wrong and I own it.

    lloyd (7e08c5)

  20. I heard you guys referring to Allahpundit for years, but never read him. That changed about a year ago, when I subscribed to The Dispatch. I agree with Patterico that he is the best writer on the internet. From yesterday’s article:

    https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/boilingfrogs/choosing-to-choose/

    The question isn’t “Biden or Trump?” so much as it’s “Should we continue with the constitutional order as we’ve known it or try something radically different?”

    I’ll guarantee here and now that if Trump becomes president again and remains in good health he’ll try to extend his term in office past 2029. I won’t guarantee that he’ll succeed, but the attempt will be made as surely as you’re reading this. Trump is less a person than a personality type and his type is compelled to pursue its own interests remorselessly above all things. I think he’d honestly find it hard to comprehend why someone in his position shouldn’t try to extend their time in power.

    Biden won’t do that if reelected. (And not just because he might be catatonic by 2029.) He won’t defy court orders. He won’t stock the leadership of the Justice Department with fanatics who have sworn an oath of allegiance to him personally. He won’t call the military out into the streets to confront people protesting him. And, contra Franck, I don’t believe he’ll claim a “mandate” if he wins, since he’s all but certain to do so with fewer electoral votes than he received in 2020 and with a Republican takeover of the Senate.

    All of that is on the table if Trump is reelected, along with even darker insanity that you and I can’t imagine but Stephen Miller assuredly can.

    If you view the choice before voters the way Franck does, as one between candidates, I can understand not wanting to invest emotionally in the outcome. If you view it the way I do, as a choice between systems, I can’t imagine declining to do so. Joe Biden’s policy agenda might be “a bad cause,” to borrow Franck’s language, but classical liberalism is not. You should be emotionally invested in its survival.

    I hope there doesn’t come a day when we wish all we had to contend with was bad policy.

    norcal (adf421)

  21. RIP Michelle Obama’s mother, age 86.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  22. President Joe Biden announces and endorses a proposed ceasefire that Israel has already agreed to. It gives Hamas a lot of what they say they waant.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  23. There’s no legal theory or maneuver, however absurd, that can get aroound the 22nd amendment and Trump by Election Day 2028 will be 82.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  24. Lloyd — is it *ever* appropriate to prosecute a former president or an opposition candidate? Is there any level of criminal behavior by a candidate or former president that you think merits prosecution?

    Or is the rule that once you are a presidential candidate or former president you are simply immune from the law and can break any law you like?

    I get that you think all of the existing cases are on the don’t-prosecute side of the line, so where would you put the line?

    aphrael (218b1f)

  25. @24 aphrael, the line has already been drawn, hasn’t it? It’s not a hypothetical. When Biden becomes an ex-president, the guideline is that he won’t be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. Are you okay with that? Rule of Law, and all that. I assume you are because I haven’t heard you flag it. And, yes I know Trump mishandled them worse. That’s irrelevant to whether Biden, who wasn’t president or even an ex-president when he mishandled them, violated the law. And, of course there’s HRC..

    I don’t have a hardline standard to give you. A serious crime, and a crime that if the parties were switched it would still be prosecuted. I don’t think anyone can be taken seriously who says Bragg would’ve prosecuted a Democrat who did the same thing. Do you disagree? Like pornography, we know it when we see it. Maybe you can explain what standard of yours says Trump should be prosecuted and Biden/HRC should not.

    lloyd (5e304d)

  26. Maybe you can explain what standard of yours says Trump should be prosecuted and Biden/HRC should not.

    What crimes do you contend that Hillary Clinton committed?

    Trump did this crimes, we all know he did them, we all know he did the docs case, the other two I’m not so sure they can be prosecuted.

    We already know that he’s liable for $500M in civil penalties, and Trump org for another $350M, and disolved as a business entity, again for more fraud.

    He’s got a sexual assault judgement against him for another $85M. Fraud for Trump university, rental fraud.

    It’s like he’s a known fraudster that is finally getting hit for all the fraud, and some even rose to criminal offences.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  27. lloyd: you said above that you didn’t think the DoJ would be “low rent enough to prosecute an ex-president and the main opposition candidate”, which implies to me that you think it is *never* appropriate to prosecute an ex-president or an opposition candidate. that’s an idea that i think is tantamount to declaring the end of the Republic, because it means that running for office insulates you from prosecution, and that means that criminals are thereby incentivized to run for office and, over time, the rule of law will collapse.

    I simply don’t believe you actually believe that it’s never appropriate to prosecute an ex-president or a main opposition candidate, and i’m trying to *understand your viewpoint* so i’m asking you: when do you think it is appropriate, and when do you think it isn’t appropriate? if you were king of the world, what rule would you have apply here?

    —-

    from where i stand, yeah, if biden accidentally retains classified documents, denies it, and doesn’t just return them when it comes to light that he has them, he *should be prosecuted*. i think that’s a fair standard.

    note that if Trump had simply owned up to it and returned the documents I wouldn’t be supporting his prosecution on that charge; i’m applying the same standard in both directions here.

    aphrael (218b1f)

  28. OK, for the last time, I hope:

    1. The J6 case started with a mob invading the US Capitol and disrupt the electoral vote count. It proceeded from an act, then to Trump (and others), then to indictment.

    Crime -> perpetrator -> indictment, as it should be.

    2. The GA RICO case started with a bunch of people plotting to replace duly chosen Electors with ringers. It proceeded from an act, then to Trump (and others), then to indictment.

    Crime -> perpetrator -> indictment, as it should be.

    3. The classified papers case started with the National Archives requesting the return of documents from Trump, who did almost everything he could do to stonewall them, including, but not limited to, moving them, hiding them, mishandling them and sending lawyers to lie about them. It proceeded for a series of acts, where Trump was given numerous off-ramps*, then eventually to Trump and indictment.

    Crime -> perpetrator -> indictment, as it should be.

    4. The NY hush money case followed a much different path. It started with a politician who had promised to “get Trump” and was being pressured to do exactly that. After considerable time and effort they finally found a turducken of a crime to get him on. It was not a crime that led them to Trump, it was a circumstance that could be converted to a crime that they could charge Trump with.

    Perpetrator -> crime -> indictment, which is how political cases work. “Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.”

    ———-

    Now, some people are perfectly happy with this as their motives are IDENTICAL to the NY DA: getting Trump, and they don’t particularly care how, for various reasons. Some of them are more noble than others.

    This is what I am objecting to: it is using The Law as a political weapon. It is a TERRIBLE FUKKING PRECEDENT. The Law is the real victim.

    ————

    * these off-ramps were probably annoying to those who had to resort to using Cohen and Pecker to pin a crime on Trump.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  29. An FEC fine? Like Trump’s $187k FEC fine.

    Maybe the Trump DOJ should have investigate Clinton…oh, wait, they did, and Trump’s DOJ declined to prosecute.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  30. @28 aphrael, I answered your question directly. Obviously, from my answer, the assumption you made about my previous comment can be considered incorrect.

    Your answer to my questions was not direct. I didn’t ask a hypothetical about Biden’s mishandling of classified docs, which you twisted it into. I asked a direct question about what he actually did. Are you wanting to avoid answering it directly for some reason? Again, Trump is irrelevant to the question.

    And, you didn’t explain your standard re Biden/HRC.

    lloyd (5e304d)

  31. @30 Klink, your bad faith arguments don’t interest me. Sorry.

    lloyd (5e304d)

  32. I have absolutely no idea what it is that Biden is alleged to have actually done, so i’m unable to answer the question.

    As for HRC — from what I could tell, what she did had been standard practice for a decade or so; Powell and Rice both maintained email servers at home which they used for official business, because State’s bureaucracy around computers made it effectively impossible to do elsewhere.

    That’s not standard practice any more, and that’s good, but I have a hard time supporting prosecuting any of the three for something they did to work around a problem when there was no guidance and no better option presenting itself. Now that there is guidance and a better system, if Blinken were to do the same, he should be prosecuted.

    aphrael (218b1f)

  33. Kevin M (a9545f) — 5/31/2024 @ 6:51 pm

    The J6 and Georgia RICO also reek of political indictments similar to the NY case. Just about everything in J6 indictment can be rebutted as within Trump’s authority; and the RICO indictment is just as political as the NY case-partisan DA, heavily Democrat jurisdiction.

    The only obvious case is the classified documents v case, since Trump was per se not authorized to possess them.

    Rip Murdock (839852)

  34. I expect ex-President Biden to be indicted by the Trump DOJ for retaining classified documents, as he should be.

    Rip Murdock (839852)

  35. >Georgia RICO also reek of political indictments

    Because punishing someone for conspiring to steal an election is obviously political, as that behavior should simply be accepted as legal.

    Is this really the Republic you want?

    aphrael (1797ab)

  36. Item 2 biden gets his message across every time an african-american buys something at the supermarket or pays his rent. MsDNC we are not in a recession! (for biden’s donor class everything is great!)

    asset (9d60cd)

  37. @33 When you have time, read the Hur report and get back to me. Also when you have time, read the links @27.

    As for the servers, there needed to be guidance about having it at your private residence? That’s not believable. If it were Trump who did that, I think there’s no way the careful wording change that put HRC in the clear would’ve been gifted to him. No way.

    lloyd (5e304d)

  38. Thrown under the bus::

    The conservative gadfly Dinesh D’Souza’s film and book “2000 Mules,” which pushes false conspiracies about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, has been removed from distribution by its executive producer and publisher, according to an announcement Friday.

    Salem Media Group’s announcement that it had yanked D’Souza’s film and book also apologized to Mark Andrews, a Georgia man falsely accused in “2000 Mules” of ballot stuffing.
    ………….
    The film quickly became a part of a canon of media produced by far-right figures intended to discredit the results of the 2020 presidential election, which President Joe Biden won.
    ……………
    But since then, the claims made in the movie and the book, which was published by Salem Media’s subsidiary Regnery Publishing, have been systematically debunked by journalists and law-enforcement officials.

    Late last year, attorneys for True the Vote admitted in a Georgia court that they could not produce any documents to back up allegations about ballot stuffing in the 2020 presidential election in that state, which Biden won.”
    ………….
    “2000 Mules” shows Andrews, (who in late 2022 filed a federal defamation lawsuit against the company, D’Souza, and the non-profit advocacy group True The Vote) placing five ballots into a box, as D’Souza says in a voiceover: “What you are seeing is a crime. These are fraudulent votes.”
    …………..
    (Andrews’ lawsuit) seeks unspecified damages, royalties for the use of his name and likeness, and a court order requiring D’Souza, Salem Media, True the Vote, and others to remove their statements about Andrews.
    ……………..

    From Salem Media’s statement:

    …………In publishing the film and the book, we relied on representations made to us by Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote, Inc. (“TTV”) that the individuals depicted in the videos provided to us by TTV, including Mr. Andrews, illegally deposited ballots.

    We have learned that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has cleared Mr. Andrews of illegal voting activity in connection with the event depicted in 2000 Mules.

    It was never our intent that the publication of the 2000 Mules film and book would harm Mr. Andrews.

    We apologize for the hurt the inclusion of Mr. Andrews’ image in the movie, book, and promotional materials have caused Mr. Andrews and his family. We have removed the film from Salem’s platforms, and there will be no future distribution of the film or the book by Salem.

    Paragraph breaks added.

    Rip Murdock (839852)

  39. And the band played on…..

    It seems that some of us WANT a civil war.

    Joe (141406)

  40. 4th item Christ wasn’t joel olsteen or the other christian fundo con artists. In his time they were called pharisees. It is easier for a camel to go thru an eye of a needle then a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven. J.C. Jesus never asked for a dime and ran joel olsteen and the other money changers out of his temple. I was driving one day and stopped for the light and saw a little store front church with a young preacher preaching to a drunk and a hooker. I looked up and saw the devil (no it wasn’t trump!) and asked him why him why is he sitting on top of this little store front church and not joel olsteen or hagerty’s mega church? Oh! I already got them! Why did the southern babtist and southern methodist churchs break away from babtist and methodist church over a hundred and sixty years ago ???

    asset (9d60cd)

  41. aphrael (1797ab) — 5/31/2024 @ 7:33 pm

    The problem with the Georgia RICO indictment is that not all of defendants are accused of acting together. It is an octopus. If only few were indicted focusing on Trump’s own actions it might be an easier case to prove, but with 19 defendants you’re going to have a lot of people throwing up their arms in frustration.

    My bet is that after Fani Willis is pulled from the case, whomever replaces her will dismiss the charges.

    It’s not what I want, it’s what I expect will happen.

    Rip Murdock (9134b0)

  42. @40 “may you live in interesting times.” Old chinese curse.

    asset (9d60cd)

  43. Me too, norcal. I didn’t think the DOJ would be low rent enough to prosecute an ex-president and the main opposition candidate, but I was proved wrong and I own it.

    lloyd (7e08c5) — 5/31/2024 @ 3:56 pm

    Lol. When your idea of a mea culpa is “my horrible awful enemies are even more horrible and awful than I thought.” That’s self-reflection worthy of Trump.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  44. @44 lurker, save up a buy a sense of humor

    lloyd (5e304d)

  45. Or — and buy a sense of humor

    Either way, scrounge one up

    lloyd (5e304d)

  46. Moving over from the other thread, since I assume this is where discussion of the NY trial verdict will continue, add me to list of those who co-sign Nate’s excellent comment.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  47. @45 If you really meant that as a joke, I apologize.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  48. Listening to Trump speak is like listening to a Toddler. He can’t actually finish a thought, not one.

    He has a vocabulary of about 15 words. It’s a clear sign of cognitive decline:

    In interviews Trump gave in the 1980s and 1990s (with Tom Brokaw, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Charlie Rose, and others), he spoke articulately, used sophisticated vocabulary, inserted dependent clauses into his sentences without losing his train of thought, and strung together sentences into a polished paragraph, which — and this is no mean feat — would have scanned just fine in print. ………..

    Now, Trump’s vocabulary is simpler. He repeats himself over and over, and lurches from one subject to an unrelated one, as in this answer during an interview with the Associated Press……….
    …………….
    For decades, studies have found that deterioration in the fluency, complexity, and vocabulary level of spontaneous speech can indicate slipping brain function due to normal aging or neurodegenerative disease. STAT and the experts therefore considered only unscripted utterances, not planned speeches and statements, since only the former tap the neural networks that offer a window into brain function.

    The experts noted clear changes from Trump’s unscripted answers 30 years ago to those in 2017, in some cases stark enough to raise questions about his brain health. They noted, however, that the same sort of linguistic decline can also reflect stress, frustration, anger, or just plain fatigue.
    ……………

    Source

    And yes, this same analysis applies to President Biden.

    Rip Murdock (839852)

  49. No need to apologize. But, thank you. It was meant as cheeky.

    lloyd (5e304d)

  50. @50. Thanks, but as someone who spends an inordinate amount of time exasperated by people on social media who don’t get, object to, and worst of all demand explanations of jokes, yeah, I do have to apologize.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  51. And from what I read here, you and everyone else in the “GOOD!” camp are basing that largely on “it’s Trump we are talking about.” Which underlines my point that it was Trump they were trying to “get” and the prosecution was political. It would have been unsupportable (“No prosecutor would indict”) against another presidential candidate. But here, well, it’s Trump.

    I’ve long believed that the ONLY time it is really important to demand civil rights (here, due process) be followed is when the civil rights of an absolute asswipe are being trampled. I said that about Larry Flynt long ago, so I’m being consistent on that.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 5/31/2024 @ 11:58 am

    I’m in the “GOOD” camp, and I call bullsh1t squared. I’m old enough to remember when I spent a few weeks here rebutting your calls to prosecute Trump for Treason. As I said then, though Trump’s behavior was morally treasonous, it didn’t meet the U.S. Code definition of Treason, and that’s the only kind that is or should be punishable in a court. So who was arguing for trampling the asswipe’s civil rights then, and who was standing by the rule of law?

    My support for the Bragg case and the guilty verdict have nothing to do with my gutter-low opinion of Trump. I was ambivalent, leaning negative, about the prosecution at the outset, and I said so here. But my mind was changed by Patterico’s masterful, painstaking analyses on his Substack and at The Dispatch. Since he posted those, not only haven’t I seen a persuasive rebuttal, I’ve barely seen any attempt at rebuttal at all.

    What I have seen are folks like Sarah Isgur offering the same discredited arguments, as if Patterico hadn’t persuasively disposed of them. And the critics here aren’t even making bad arguments. They’re simply resorting to ad hominem. “He’s got prosecutor brain” and “the 95% of us who aren’t lawyers know better.” Lame.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  52. @52 lurker, this might not resonate but I wonder if you’ve seen Bridge on the River Kwai or read the book? Why is the Alec Guinness character so tragic? One can admire the engineering marvel of the bridge, constructed under extreme duress, and also recoil at its existence. As it pertains to the Bragg case, lawyers see the former and much of the public see the latter. From what I read of the legal analysis here, the latter wasn’t even addressed.

    lloyd (5e304d)

  53. meh.

    for Clinton — there were good reasons, in 2001 when condoleeze rice started doing it, why a secretaryof tate would want and possibly even need to run an email server of their own, and that was common practice among techies and the tech-adjacent in those days. those reasons may not have existed in 2009, but i would imagine many of them still did, and Clinton walked into an organization where that was the established norm and she followed it. i don’t think this is *criminal*, and i never have.

    for biden — i was thinking about the rules i want to apply here, and the underlying basis is that accidents happen and i expect perfection from nobody, and repeated accidents are system problems not individual problems. i assume that every high level official is going to accidentally end up with some paperwork they’re not allowed to have. what matters to me is, was it intentional? and did they return the stuff?

    so if biden didn’t know he had the stuff, returned it when he discovered it, made a good-faith effort (even if a not completely effective one) to find other stuff, and cooperated when asked about stuff the national archives thought he had, then he should be left alone. if he knew he had the stuff, didn’t return it when discovered, didn’t make a good-faith effort to find other stuff, or didn’t cooperate when asked about stuff the national archives thought he had, then he should be prosecuted — and the statute of limitations should be tolled during his presidency so that those four years don’t count against the statute of limitations.

    but … i’m gonna drop out of the conversation now. spending this much time in political brain is bad for my mental health. i want to be out listening to music feeling the wind in my hair and the sun on my back, finding a way to bring love into my community and my world.

    i love you all, even the ones i find infuriating, and i hope that collectively we can find our way out of this moment of catastrophe. but we won’t do it by arguing here.

    aphrael (218b1f)

  54. Ok, feel free to move on. I will note that Hur found that Biden did intentionally mishandle classified documents, and you didn’t address the FEC violation pertaining to the dossier.

    lloyd (5e304d)

  55. The bottle deposit crook must now think biden could win so back to the peace table for bibi!

    asset (9d60cd)

  56. The J6 and Georgia RICO also reek of political indictments similar to the NY case.

    You miss my point, of course. Those other cases started with events, if not crimes, that inevitably lead to Trump. The NY case started with Trump and “how can we get him on something, anything” and then they pretty much invented something.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  57. i love you all, even the ones i find infuriating, and i hope that collectively we can find our way out of this moment of catastrophe. but we won’t do it by arguing here.

    aphrael (218b1f) — 5/31/2024 @ 9:12 pm

    I support this sentiment.

    aphrael, I cannot thank you enough for teaching me about being civil online.

    norcal (640756)

  58. I expect ex-President Biden to be indicted by the Trump DOJ for retaining classified documents, as he should be.

    Trump was not indicted for retaining classified information, but for being an assh0le about the information he had: moving it, hiding it, lying about it, even lying to his own lawyers about it.

    If he had returned it when asked (as Biden did) there would have been no case.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  59. He has a vocabulary of about 15 words. It’s a clear sign of cognitive decline:

    Or a sign of wanting to talk to the masses at their level. Julius Caesar Act III, Scene 2.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  60. So who was arguing for trampling the asswipe’s civil rights then, and who was standing by the rule of law?

    I saw war being waged against the United States by his minions, which is treason. You may have characterized it differently, or thought it less than warfare, but that is really only that he was incompetent.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  61. But my mind was changed by Patterico’s masterful, painstaking analyses on his Substack and at The Dispatch. Since he posted those, not only haven’t I seen a persuasive rebuttal, I’ve barely seen any attempt at rebuttal at all.

    I have never disputed that Trump was technically guilty of violations of NY law. What I dispute is that the prosecution followed first finding the violation then deciding to prosecute. Instead, there was a decision (almost a quest) to find something to use and they found this.

    That is what makes it political, not whether he was guilty or not. You can usually find some crime that a given person has committed if you look hard enough. And they looked very hard.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  62. @54

    Heck, back then *I* ran my own mailserver, for various reasons (primarily because I was running a mail list which promised a measure of confidentiality). But I was not a government official and there was no law saying that I could not.

    Today, the SEC is going after brokerages where the traders used Whatsapp during the pandemic because Whatsapp is encrypted and they want to be able to paw through every last broker’s emails to further their “regulation.” Fourth Amendment be damned.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  63. @54 Bernie was right even though server showed one of many character flaws in clinton. When she voted for the Iraq war not because she believed in it but so republicans couldn’t use her vote against her when she ran for president as did kerry, edwards and biden. That cut it for me. The goldman sachs grift was about what I expected. Biden had document when senator and veep and was not entitled to take them from wherever he took them. Also a grifter ;but senile and getting worse so prosecution after he lives office problematic.

    asset (9d60cd)

  64. @62 If you do it its a misdemeanor. If you talk about doing it its a conspiracy and a felony. Law and order republicans who ran on getting tough on criminals and taking away defendants rights so ACLU commie 5th amendment lawyers would not be able to defend their clients find its not so much fun when the persecuted minorities become the majority and use the laws and courts against them! See how much fun it is when my side prosecutes republicans instead of minorities with ticky tack laws! Trump meme “he’s in the jail house now!” And Bubba and Abdullah welcome trump to rikers island.

    asset (9d60cd)

  65. You can usually find some crime that a given person has committed if you look hard enough.

    It’s worse than that.

    You go to a bar, and ask for Jack Daniels.
    The bartender brings you Old Forester, but writes Jack Daniels on the bar check.
    You pay it.
    Later, the bartender gets into legal trouble for dipping in the till.
    Looking for a break, he offers you up to prosecutors who don’t like you.
    They charge you with falsification of business record for the purpose of influencing the voters of Lynchburg, Tennessee.

    That’s not a moral and ethical use of the criminal law, even if you are an unruly drunk and a general public nuisance.

    nk (bb1548)

  66. But, wait, it gets even worser. They don’t tell you up front that the reason they are cross with you is that you were trying to fool the naive lambs of Lynchburg. They just say you did it because you had some bad reason.

    Then, after weeks of trial where they throw every piece of dirt they can find against you, they tell the jury they proved four possible bad reasons you might have had, and each juror can pick any or all.

    You know what I say to a case like that? That’s not law, that’s not a court, that’s not a judge, and those prosecutors are not servants of the law or officers of the court.

    nk (bb1548)

  67. Oops! At 66, it should read:
    You go to a bar, and ask for *Old Forester*.
    The bartender brings you Old Forester, but writes Jack Daniels on the bar check.

    nk (7001e3)

  68. The first phase would last for six weeks. Here’s what it would include: a full and complete ceasefire; a withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gaza; a release of a number of hostages — including women, the elderly, the wounded — in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. There are American hostages who would be released at this stage, and we want them home.

    Additional, some remains of hostages who have been killed would be returned to their families, bringing some degree of closure to their terrible grief.

    Palestinians — civilians — would return to their homes and neighborhoods in all areas of Gaza, including in the north.

    Humanitarian assistance would surge with 600 trucks carrying aid into Gaza every single day.

    With a ceasefire, that aid could be safely and effectively distributed to all who need it. Hundreds of thousands of temporary shelters, including housing units, would be delivered by the international community.

    All of that and more would begin immediately — immediately.

    The terrorist ally in all his glory.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  69. @26

    What crimes do you contend that Hillary Clinton committed?

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 5/31/2024 @ 6:27 pm

    Her homebrew server handling classified information, and the subsequent obstruction/destruction thereafter under subpoena.

    Fundamentally, her crime is much much worse than the classified handling of both Trump and Biden as she exposed her homebrew server to our adversary’s intelligence agencies.

    whembly (f295d6)

  70. @34

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 5/31/2024 @ 6:51 pm

    The J6 and Georgia RICO also reek of political indictments similar to the NY case. Just about everything in J6 indictment can be rebutted as within Trump’s authority; and the RICO indictment is just as political as the NY case-partisan DA, heavily Democrat jurisdiction.

    The only obvious case is the classified documents v case, since Trump was per se not authorized to possess them.

    Rip Murdock (839852) — 5/31/2024 @ 7:13 pm

    Even the classified documents case isn’t clear cut imo.

    He’s a former President, and as such may have a colorable argument as to why he should argue that he retained those documents.

    The obstruction charge, however, seems to be the strongest against Trump.

    whembly (f295d6)

  71. Granted, it’s Yglesias, but he’s citing this article.

    Former President Donald Trump is far from the first person to face felony charges of falsifying business records—New York state has arraigned almost 9,800 cases involving the same charge since 2015, according to available data.

    It was already known that Trump concealed the Stormy thing and referred to the payoff as a “legal expense”. Yglesias…

    A crucial fact that has been widely obscured about this case is that 39 different people faced falsification of business records as the top charge in New York City prosecutions in 2022.

    It’s a somewhat obscure law, but not some wild novelty that Bragg invented just for Trump.
    […]
    “In Bragg’s first 15 months as DA, his team filed 166 felony counts for falsifying business records against 34 people or companies.”

    Trump case obvious special in many ways, but this is not something they made up to hang him with.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  72. So Bragg’s office is a hammer. It does not make Trump a nail.

    Fine. Falsifying business records is what Bragg’s office knows how to prosecute. So they prosecuted Trump for it. It does not make their case any more righteous than my optometrist prescribing me a pair of glasses for my indigestion.

    nk (7001e3)

  73. Now would be an good time to read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural. Especially that amazing final paragraph:

    With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful, if that were included in both official party platforms?

    What comes before that paragraph amazes me, too, with its change from lawyerly, to philosophic, to deeply religious.

    Jim Miller (361429)

  74. I think your analogy 1 and 2 are different. Your optometrist prescribed you the wrong prescription, you think. You know you need a prescription, but don’t think this is the right one.

    Many other patients think they received good service.

    I think the docs case is the strongest, then the GA one, but Willis has ruined that one, the J6 one in don’t know if you can connect the dots, criminally. In that one he’s traitorous, evil, and a general scumbag, but what’s new.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (un-ret) (96f56a)

  75. Better late to retract than never…

    ATLANTA (AP) — The publisher of “2000 Mules” issued a statement Friday apologizing to a Georgia man who was shown in the film and falsely accused of ballot fraud during the 2020 election.

    The widely debunked film includes surveillance video showing Mark Andrews, his face blurred, putting five ballots in a drop box in Lawrenceville, an Atlanta suburb, as a voiceover by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza says: “What you are seeing is a crime. These are fraudulent votes.”

    Salem Media Group said in the statement that it has “removed the film from Salem’s platforms, and there will be no future distribution of the film or the book by Salem.”

    “It was never our intent that the publication of the 2000 Mules film and book would harm Mr. Andrews. We apologize for the hurt the inclusion of Mr. Andrews’ image in the movie, book, and promotional materials have caused Mr. Andrews and his family,” the statement said.

    I’m guessing Andrews and Salem settled his lawsuit, with Salem the poorer for it. D’Souza and TrueTheVote are still being sued.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  76. 35 felonies if you include this.
    I imagine this conversation afterward…
    “Mr. President, how would you like to score this hole.”
    “Par.”

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  77. nk gets it.

    We give the State incredible power over our lives so that they can keep us out of the nasty, brutish and short State of Nature. But the State is never satisfied it has enough power. In New York they write laws that are almost blank checks, with every table sloping their way.

    I can’t imagine that Wall Street is going to be very happy with the implications of this.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  78. What I posted at TD

    I’m starting to wonder whether prosecuting Trump for J6 and its election interference or the classified documents obstruction would be seen as any less “political” than what we have here.

    Certainly Trump will call those federal prosecutions witch hunts brought by Joe Biden’s DoJ…with an out-of-control and corrupt prosecutor. It’s not like the GOP electorate or its current representatives are especially bothered by inciting a riot, disrupting a Congressional proceeding, or trying to substitute fake electors. There would be a different presumptive Republican nominee if any of those behaviors truly bothered them.

    This is the problem with this discussion: it’s not really in good faith. If faithful Republicans…..one of which I used to be pre-Trump….cared about adjudicating Trump’s role in his autogolpe, we would see different commentary. The reality is that the GOP has no interest in holding Trump to account….AT ALL. Either out of fear, hyper-partisanship, ignorance, or strange amusement, the party and the bulk of its media enablers can’t distinguish right from wrong. And for many like Tuckser Carlson, they’ve figured out how to monetize the moral confusion. We see it with the false equivalencies, distractions, rationalizations, conspiracies, and memes.

    The response from GOP diehards to Trump engaging in fraud is…..SO * expletive * WHAT.

    There’s not much more left to say when half the country is ambivalent about a President failing to intecede when the Capitol is sieged….with the perpetrators now lauded as “hostages”. Of course covering up hush money payments to clean up the Access Hollywood mess would generate a collective yawn. The GOP base…. along with Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, et al…..is compromised. Their judgment is impaired. They’re blowing the equivalent of 0.25 on the political breathalyzer. What’s the point of humoring a bunch of drunks?

    AJ_Liberty (20ffd7)

  79. @66:

    How about:

    President Clinton goes to NYC. Part of the trip involves him visiting a bordello. He instructs his protective detail to record the stop as a “campaign stop” so that the government is not being billed for their time.

    After Clinton leaves office, Governor Pataki, outraged at the failure of the impeachment trial, has his staff investigate all of Bill Clinton’s trips to New York, and they find this. He gives this to a Clinton-hating prosecutor who files charges, alleging that the secret service record was fraudulent to cover up the crime of engaging prostitutes. Since he has done this a dozen times, and the money was paid out of campaign funds, Bill Clinton is looking at several dozen felonies.

    His argument that it was “just about sex” doesn’t impress the judge who bars the defense from making that argument.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  80. I’m starting to wonder whether prosecuting Trump for J6 and its election interference or the classified documents obstruction would be seen as any less “political” than what we have here.

    Not by me. You are throwing up straw men. The difference in those cases is fundamental: the charges began with a crime, not with a defendant.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  81. The crime happened in 2015 the conspiracy into the presidency. Trump did the deed, but you don’t care. Actually that’s not true, you like that he did and thumbs his nose at the judiciary. When he’s convicted of all the other charges you’ll be saying how its corrupt blah blah.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (un-ret) (96f56a)

  82. Burying the lead (under the mislead):

    Exclusive: One in 10 Republicans less likely to vote for Trump after guilty verdict, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

    WASHINGTON, May 31 (Reuters) – Ten percent of Republican registered voters say they are less likely to vote for Donald Trump following his felony conviction for falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Friday.
    The two-day poll, conducted in the hours after the Republican presidential candidate’s conviction by a Manhattan jury on Thursday, also found that 56% of Republican registered voters said the case would have no effect on their vote and 35% said they were more likely to support Trump, who has claimed the charges against him are politically motivated and has vowed to appeal.

    The potential loss of a tenth of his party’s voters is more significant for Trump than the stronger backing of more than a third of Republicans, since many of the latter would be likely to vote for him regardless of the conviction.

    Among independent registered voters, 25% said Trump’s conviction made them less likely to support him in November, compared to 18% who said they were more likely and 56% who said the conviction would have no impact on their decision.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  83. Starliner launch scrubbed.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  84. I may not agree entirely with Jonah’s opinion, but fair points…

    Donald Trump had sex with an adult film actress while his third wife was nursing their newborn child. He had an affair with a former Playboy model. He denies this, but as far as I can tell no one else does. Even Trump’s staunchest defenders don’t try—at least not very hard—to do so. He falsely recorded his effort to pay off to Stormy Daniels as legal expenses. He spent his entire professional life abusing the legal system, stiffing contractors out of their fees by threatening to bankrupt them in frivolous legal actions. As a landlord, he violated fair housing laws. As a presidential candidate, he promised to put his business interests in a blind trust, but once elected he didn’t and monetized the presidency for his own benefit. Also as a presidential candidate, he led chants of “Lock her up!” about his political opponent. He invited Russia to release information about her. He was impeached (the first time) for abusing his power in an attempt to intimidate a foreign leader to investigate Joe Biden for corruption. When he tried to steal the 2020 election, he pressured his own Justice Department to allege crimes to buttress his false claims that the election was illegitimate. This was also around the time he encouraged a mob that visited riotous violence upon the Capitol in an effort to intimidate Congress out of fulfilling its constitutional duties. He’s promised to pardon people who beat up cops on his behalf. He calls them “hostages” and plays their warbling rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” before his rallies, like some weak-tea Americanized version of the “Horst-Wessel-Lied.” He defended the mob that chanted “Hang Mike Pence.” He’s argued—through lawyers in court—and in his own words that he should be immune to any criminal charges that stem from actions he took as president, and to a certain extent, as ex-president. He’s vowed that when he’s president again he reserves the right to do what he’s outraged is being done to him. I could go on, but you get the picture.

    Now, I want to be clear: Except for the misdemeanor of false records, none of these things are proven crimes and some of them are not crimes at all. Contrary to a lot of talking heads, politicians are not legally barred from trying to “influence an election.” That is what running for office is. Nor is paying off parties to adulterous engagements illegal. If it were, I have no doubt many politicians would be in the clink.

    But as a matter of common sense, karma, moral intuition, or whatever term you like, I am utterly incapable of mustering the slightest sympathy for Donald Trump. If I were to publish a dictionary of common phrases, I would put his picture next to the entry on “F—k Around and Find Out.”

    His entire life has been one extended experiment with testing, violating, and abusing the rules—some legal, some moral, some normative—for his own benefit. The system isn’t supposed to apply to him. This, in almost dialectic fashion, has invited responses that also violate the rules of the system. I’ve been making this point for nearly a decade now. Trump’s violations of norms have elicited countless violations of norms from his opponents. That’s what happens when you break the rules: You give permission to others to break them, too.

    The amazing thing is how people go blind to the rule-breaking of their own team. Sen. Mike Lee thinks that the prosecution of Donald Trump is an affront to all he holds dear, invoking A Man for All Seasons with the Democrats as Richard Rich, defenestrating the rule of law not for Wales, “But for Biden.” Trump’s myriad transgressions seem to be utterly invisible to him.

    But as I said, we can hold two ideas simultaneously. I think this case against Donald Trump should never have been brought. As a matter of law—not karma—Alvin Bragg is in the wrong. I don’t necessarily believe that he thinks he’s breaking the rules, but there’s a lot of that sort of motivated reasoning going on with rule-breakers these days. This case would not have been brought against anyone but Trump, as Elie Honig and others have argued. I am unconvinced by the argument he committed a felony. I don’t blame the jurors for reaching that conclusion. I might have reached the same given the instructions of the judge, the evidence presented by the prosecution, and the abysmal defense mounted by the Trump team. But I still think the verdict is wrong.

    This brings up another reason to blame Trump. He didn’t let his lawyers mount the sort of defense that might have gotten him acquitted. Refusing to give an inch, he wouldn’t let them concede the affairs, or pursue a strategy that didn’t align with what he thinks are his political and psychological interests. “Deny everything,” and “always punch back,” are the Roy Cohn rules Trump lives by, and why not? They’ve worked for him until now.

    And they may continue to work for him. One of the problems with the backlash that Trump invites from his enemies is that it often elicits yet another backlash against them. The flimsiness of this case is causing some people—and nearly all elected Republicans and most conservative pundits—to rally to Trump. It’s not at all far-fetched to imagine that Trump comes out of this stronger. Or he might not. No one really knows. But the fantasy that this will be the thing that rids us of Trump has taken many forms and has never paid off.

    I have no problem with reasonable criticism of this case and the verdict. Why would I? I agree with much of it. Where I part company is with the idea that this proves Donald Trump was “right” about the system. He’s like a human monkey wrench hurling himself into the gears of the system and then, when mangled by it, crying about how he’s a victim and that his victimhood proves the system never worked.

    It is abhorrent and reprehensible to call this case a Stalinesque show trial. If you know anything about Stalin’s Great Terror and say this, you are whitewashing profound evil and slandering the United States. In Stalin’s show trials, the accused were tortured. Their families were tortured. Victims were threatened with death—and the deaths of their families—if they didn’t sign and repeat false confessions. Rep. Nancy Mace plays a similar game. “There’s no difference: Putin silences Navalny, Biden’s DOJ targets Trump. The left’s outrage over Navalny is hypocritical as they cheer on Biden’s tyranny.”

    If you know anything about Putin or Navalny and can say, with a straight face, “There’s no difference” the best one can say in your defense is that you are a staggering idiot. I don’t think Mace deserves such generosity. This is not like Castro’s Cuba, as Marco Rubio says either.

    It is entirely defensible to say that this verdict undermines faith and confidence in the judicial system. That is exactly what I thought it would do, and so I was a skeptic of bringing it all along. But you know what else undermines faith and confidence in the judicial system? Claiming that we are no different than Stalin’s or Putin’s Russia.

    Our legal system has never been perfect. It’s produced a fair number of miscarriages of justice. But normally, politicians—particularly ones who claim to be conservatives and admirers of the American experiment—do not respond to such mistakes by defecating from a great height on their country. But they are willing to do so, not for Wales, but for Trump.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  85. No surprise Paul loves to cite Yglesias.

    https://instapundit.com/650961/#disqus_thread

    True conservatives love hateful leftists.

    NJRob (6920ef)

  86. 35% said they were more likely to support Trump

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/1/2024 @ 9:12 am

    AKA the Kevin M demographic.

    Rip Murdock (839852)

  87. I’m starting to wonder whether prosecuting Trump for J6 and its election interference or the classified documents obstruction would be seen as any less “political” than what we have here.

    Not by me. You are throwing up straw men. The difference in those cases is fundamental: the charges began with a crime, not with a defendant.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/1/2024 @ 8:33 am

    LOL! The J6 case, along the with Georgia RICO case, wouldn’t have been considered without Donald Trump.

    Rip Murdock (839852)

  88. Persuade me that people prefer evidence to spin.

    Here, whembly will simply vector to whatever Jonathan Turley and Andrew McCarthy tell him to think. And both are invested in their anti-anti-Trump persona…they will not have an 11th hour epiphany about the events. They are Republican lawyers and whembly will follow them over some unknown Jack Smith. Add in FNC and Talk Radio and few on the Right have the stomach to hold Trump accountable over J6 or the classified documents. The moment has passed. If people wanted accountability, the nominee would be DeSantis or Haley.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  89. SAD!

    Licensed gun owner Donald Trump will have to turn over all of his firearms in the coming weeks now that he has been found guilty of felonies in the Manhattan “hush money” case.

    Under New York state and federal law, convicted felons are banned from possessing any type of firearm, and the former president must have his weapons legally passed off to another person or surrendered to authorities by his July 11 sentencing, criminal defense attorney Peter Tilem said.

    “There is no grace period,” Tilem told The Post. “You are federally prohibited once you are convicted.”
    ……………
    Convicted felons who’ve had their gun rights revoked can surrender their weapons at the local police precinct, experts said. (Criminal defense attorney Jeffrey Lichtman), however, predicted Trump likely will just transfer ownership of his guns to one of his sons through a federally licensed gun dealer, which costs less than $50, and wait out the appeals process.

    Trump has publicly discussed his gun ownership, including in a 2012 interview with The Washington Times where he acknowledged he had a concealed-carry permit for a Heckler & Koch HK45 and a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson.
    ………….

    As I’ve said in the past, the prohibition on a felon owning firearms should be limited only to those that have committed violent crimes. White collar criminals don’t pose the same threat to society.

    Rip Murdock (839852)

  90. Maybe he can sell them to his sons at a gun show

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  91. No surprise Paul loves to cite Yglesias.

    I literally said “Granted, it’s Yglesias”, but noted that the illiberal intolerant right-wing has spoken.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  92. AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 6/1/2024 @ 11:24 am

    As the article said, Trump can transfer his firearms to his sons through a federally licensed firearms dealer for 50 bucks.

    But he shouldn’t need to-the felony firearms prohibition is way over broad..

    Rip Murdock (839852)

  93. Now this is an original pre-game Star Spangled Banner. Well done. Take note, Roseanne.

    And this is quite the commercial. Note his ragged shirt, to mention the growling cougar sound while showing his sales staff. Background story here.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  94. Cult
    A cult is a group which is typically led by a charismatic and self-appointed leader, who tightly controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant (outside the norms of society). It is in some contexts a pejorative term, also used for a new religious movement or other social group which is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals, or its common interest in a particular person, object, or goal.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (un-ret) (96f56a)

  95. Added un-ret to my handle and now I’m in moderation jail.

    Colonel Klink (un-ret) (96f56a)

  96. LOL! The J6 case, along the with Georgia RICO case, wouldn’t have been considered without Donald Trump.

    So, any losing candidate who sent a mob to invade Congress would be let off lightly, but only Donal;d Trump would be charged?

    Or, any candidate who conspired to send false electoral votes to Congress would non be charge, unless he was Donald Trump?

    This isn’t an argument you are making, it’s somewhere between dishonest obfuscation and outright trolling.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  97. Now this is an original pre-game Star Spangled Banner. Well done. Take note, Roseanne.

    I expect to hear it farted at an NBA game.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  98. the illiberal intolerant right-wing has spoken.

    As opposed to the illiberal intolerant left-wing that spoke yesterday.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  99. <

    So, any losing candidate who sent a mob to invade Congress would be let off lightly, but only Donal;d Trump would be charged?

    Or, any candidate who conspired to send false electoral votes to Congress would non be charge, unless he was Donald Trump?

    1. There is no direct evidence of Trump sending the mob to invade the Capitol, it’s just an inference from his speech, for which he has a valid 1st Amendment defense. Those who took it on themselves to do so and actually invaded the building have been successfully prosecuted.

    2. The Georgia RICO case is a complete mess, gathering disparate people together who are not accused of working in concert to influence the Georgia election, but also in other states. Like I said, it’s an octopus, really more like a hydra. The Fulton County jury pool will have the same partisan bent as Manhattan, with an equally partisan DA. I expect that whomever takes over its prosecution after Fani Willis is forced out will dismiss most if not all of the allegations.

    Rip Murdock (839852)

  100. (The Reuters/Ipsos poll) found that 56% of Republican registered voters said the case would have no effect on their vote and 35% said they were more likely to support Trump…….

    Not sure why the fact that a third of Republicans would say they are more likely to support Trump after the verdict is a surprise. The question is they were weak Trump or anti-Trump supporters to begin with and the conviction pushed them over edge.

    Most Republicans will end up voting for the party’s nominee in any case (as we have seen with Haley).

    Emphasis in original post.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  101. So, if, out a bunch of Republicans who before were 80% likely to vote for Trump, 10% said they were only 70% likely and 35% said they were 90% likely, this means that Republicans are walking away from Trump?

    Because that’s what the story pretends to show. It’s not about Trump, it’s about liars in the press.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  102. Ouch!

    ………….
    In a YouGov snap poll conducted just hours after the verdict was announced, 50 percent of the 3,040 U.S. adults who were polled said they believed Trump was guilty, while 30 percent said they believed he was not guilty. Another 19 percent said they were not sure. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percent.

    When broken down into party lines, 15 percent of Republicans think he is guilty while 64 percent do not, 48 percent of independents think Trump is guilty while 25 percent do not, and 86 percent of Democrats believe he is guilty while 5 percent do not. A total of 831 Republicans, 1,114 independents, and 1,113 Democrats were surveyed. …..

    A Morning Consult poll conducted on Friday found 54 percent of registered voters approve of the jury’s verdict while 39 percent disapprove. Across party lines, 18 percent of Republicans approve of the verdict while 74 percent disapprove, 52 percent of independents approve while 33 disapprove and 88 percent of Democrats approve while 8 percent disapprove. The poll surveyed 2,220 registered voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. …………
    …………..

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  103. So, if, out a bunch of Republicans who before were 80% likely to vote for Trump, 10% said they were only 70% likely and 35% said they were 90% likely, this means that Republicans are walking away from Trump?

    LOL! I hated these kind of math problems.

    There’s no evidence (right now) that Republicans are walking away from Trump. The primary results and the reaction of Republican Senators to the verdict is proof of that.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  104. The votes of a weak Trump supporter or an enthusiastic Trump supporter are of equal weight. In the end, strength of support is irrelevant.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  105. What I’ve never seen is an explanation of how Trump should have reported those expenses in order to avoid prosecution.

    He can’t call them campaign expenses; then he’d be indicted federally like Silky Pony John Edwards. He kept them completely out of campaign funds as precedent required.

    There’s no difference here between ‘personal expenses’ and ‘legal expenses’ – they come out of the same pocket (this will change in 2018-2019 but that’s after these payments are made).

    There’s no tax difference on Trump’s side, nothing he or his company should have done different that would have resulted in him paying – or forwarding for payment – a dollar more or a dollar less. There are no tax charges.

    So how should these payments have been properly reported to avoid indictment?

    Randolph Carter (4416e2)

  106. Sad!

    Donald Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani is one step closer to being disbarred.

    The professional responsibility board in Washington, DC, recommended Friday that the ex-New York mayor and federal prosecutor lose his law license because of his involvement in a bogus 2020 election fraud lawsuit.
    …………….
    “We conclude that disbarment is the only sanction that will protect the public, the courts, and the integrity of the legal profession, and deter other lawyers from launching similarly baseless claims in the pursuit of such wide-ranging yet completely unjustified relief,” the attorney discipline board wrote Friday.

    …………..Giuliani was accused of violating attorney conduct rules with a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania that sought to throw out more than 1 million votes in the state, which President Joe Biden won in 2022.
    …………….
    “We agree with the Hearing Committee that the Pennsylvania litigation was based ‘only on speculation, mistrust, and suspicion,’” the opinion said.

    The board concluded that Giuliani had put forward “no facts to support the claims he made and his opinion that election impropriety occurred does not meet the requirements for filing a lawsuit.”
    …………..
    Earlier this week, attorney Jenna Ellis saw her Colorado law license suspended for three years because of her guilty plea in the criminal 2020 election interference case brought in Georgia. …………
    ……………

    How the mighty have fallen.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  107. So how should these payments have been properly reported to avoid indictments?

    Randolph Carter (4416e2) — 6/1/2024 @ 1:32 pm

    He should have paid Cohen from his personal checking account rather than listing them as Trump Organization corporate expenses; but he was afraid Melania would find out.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  108. Then he wouldn’t need to report the payments to anyone.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  109. He should have paid Cohen from his personal checking account rather than listing them as Trump Organization corporate expenses; but he was afraid Melania would find out.

    So, adultery was the crime he was trying to cover up?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  110. Then he wouldn’t need to report the payments to anyone.

    Who did he report them to?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  111. There’s no evidence (right now) that Republicans are walking away from Trump

    There is “evidence” if you read headlines by news organizations willing to twist facts. If you read the whole story, not so much. Which is what I was calling out.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  112. but he was afraid Melania would find out.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 6/1/2024 @ 1:45 pm

    So you admit it was to keep it from his wife

    NJRob (6920ef)

  113. There was a civil war already going on in the form of all these legal skirmishes. Now that blood has been drawn, the civil war goes into a new phase.
    What that looks like, I can’t tell you. But there will be retaliation which will in turn escalate.
    There are 50 states with thousand of GOP lawyers, so we are going to get a wide variety of responses on a scale of Louie Gohmert to John Yoo (just as a sample)

    Some will be very refined but still very painful. John Yoo

    Others will be more of and “if we are going to blow this “s” up then lets get on with it. Rip off the duct tape we’ve been using as a bandaid and get on with it” Louie Gohmert

    I’m starting to get very worried on behalf of Hunter Biden. Do not use the troubled son as a proxy for his Dad. Slap his wrist over the gun and that needs to be the end of it.
    My prayer for this day is that Hunter will be treated very fairly within the situation he is in and that will he be protected by God from people who would look to hurt Hunter because they can’t get at his father Joe.

    steveg (25401a)

  114. So, adultery was the crime he was trying to cover up?

    Yes

    Who did he report them to?

    He reported them as business expenses to the State and Federal Govt not personal expenses. He already paid $187k in fines for the FEC violation.

    So you admit it was to keep it from his wife

    Sure, and it would have been fine as a personal expense, but since he committed fraud to cover it up as a business expense, now he’s a felon.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  115. Tax fraud, it’s what got Capone. Trump likes to compare himself, now it’s even more true.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  116. but he was afraid Melania would find out.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 6/1/2024 @ 1:45 pm

    So you admit it was to keep it from his wife

    NJRob (6920ef) — 6/1/2024 @ 2:11 pm

    It is only speculation on my part as to Trump’s reasons for allowing the creation of false business entries in the Trump Organization accounts. What I believe were Trump’s reasons and what the Manhattan DA decided were Trump’s motivations are two different things.

    Since Trump has completely denied he slept with Stormy Daniels and didn’t take the stand to explain his motivations for creating the false entries, we really don’t know.

    Of course, it’s the worse of both worlds now for Trump: Melania knows he slept with Stormy (unrebutted by the defense); and Trump is now a convicted felon.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  117. So, adultery was the crime he was trying to cover up?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/1/2024 @ 1:55 pm

    Adultery is not a crime, the only one who would care would be Melania. Trump supporters wouldn’t care, they would cheer him on.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  118. Rip is admitting that the trial was a sham. But he’s happy with the result.

    NJRob (6920ef)

  119. Rip is admitting that the trial was a sham. But he’s happy with the result.

    NJRob (6920ef) — 6/1/2024 @ 3:11 pm

    I don’t know how you can say I think the trial was a sham. Bragg made his own decisions about Trump’s motivation in his legal case, my personal opinion counts for nothing.

    Trump made a personal embarrassment into a crime. Once Trump decided to cause false corporate records to be created, it was a whole new ballgame.

    Given Trump’s obsession with his image, it’s not hard to believe he would do anything to cover up by any means necessary his one night stand.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  120. There are 50 states with thousand of GOP lawyers, so we are going to get a wide variety of responses

    I expect to see a number of senators of both parties indicted in their home states for corruption charges, generally by opposition party DAs (e.g. Travis County, Orange County)

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  121. Sure, and it would have been fine as a personal expense, but since he committed fraud to cover it up as a business expense, now he’s a felon.

    Except “adultery” is not a crime (and even if it is still on the books, anyone who tried to use it would be sanctioned).

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  122. I’ve made several full-throated defenses of Bragg’s prosecution and the NY laws used to try Trump, so it’s quite disingenuous to say I think the trial was a sham.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  123. He reported them as business expenses to the State and Federal Govt not personal expenses.

    Cohen may have, but Trump did not. Or at least no one claimed he did. Among other things, Trump pays AMT so any deductions on personal taxes are moot.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  124. Adultery is not a crime, the only one who would care would be Melania.

    But you claim it was his motive to hide adultery, and his motive is what makes the false entries a felony.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  125. I expect to see a number of senators of both parties indicted in their home states for corruption charges, generally by opposition party DAs (e.g. Travis County, Orange County)

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/1/2024 @ 3:24 pm

    We’ll see, but I seriously doubt that.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  126. More wishcasting.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  127. I’ve made several full-throated defenses of Bragg’s prosecution and the NY laws used to try Trump, so it’s quite disingenuous to say I think the trial was a sham.

    The trial was about Trump hiding a crime with false entries. You say he did it to hide adultery, which is not a crime. You have to recant something here.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  128. The trial was about Trump hiding a crime with false entries. You say he did it to hide adultery, which is not a crime. You have to recant something here.

    You’re confusing why with how. He had a choice, legal means, fraudulent means, he chose fraud and people found out. If they’d found out he covered it up via legal means he’d have been fine.

    Shortcuts have a way of backfiring, he’d been so successful at the fraudulent way, he believed it was low risk. He was wrong, you are wrong.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  129. Klink,

    you are lying just like Bragg did. The so called felony was because he covered up a crime such as election interference or some other bunk. Saying it was to cover up adultery would specifically exonerate him from the felony and the statute of limitations expired on the other BS.

    NJRob (6920ef)

  130. No, the crime underlying felonies were the FEC violation (he paid $187k fine) and NY State Tax fraud.

    I know it’s confusing, doing things in an illegal scheme is…illegal. Now if he would have done the thing in a legal way…I forgot, it’s you, so if there was a legal alternative, even if it was a pain, then shortcutting it the illegal way doesn’t matter. To you.

    You continue arguing the counterfactual. In another reality he did it legally, in this reality, not so much.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  131. The trial was about Trump hiding a crime with false entries. You say he did it to hide adultery, which is not a crime. You have to recant something here.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/1/2024 @ 3:30 pm

    I don’t have to do anything of the sort. As I said above, <strong>my personal belief that Trump’s adultery was at the core of his decision not to use his personal checking account to pay Stormy Daniels was simply that. As the trial evidence showed, avoiding adverse election publicity was another motivating factor. We will never know what Trump’s true intentions were as he declined to testify.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  132. Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/1/2024 @ 3:38 pm is absolutely correct.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  133. Adultery is not a crime, the only one who would care would be Melania.

    But you claim it was his motive to hide adultery, and his motive is what makes the false entries a felony.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/1/2024 @ 3:28 pm

    I claim (without evidence) that Trump’s adultery was his motivating factor to not pay Cohen (or Karen McDougal) from his personal checking account, lest Melania found out. But now she has, and Trump is a felon.

    That’s all.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  134. I expect to see a number of senators of both parties indicted in their home states for corruption charges, generally by opposition party DAs (e.g. Travis County, Orange County)

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/1/2024 @ 3:24 pm

    As I said above, I really doubt we’ll see a wave of such prosecutions, but if the DA’s can find state crimes they have committed more power to them. Most public corruption cases come from the Federal government though, since they can use interstate wire or mail fraud and related laws.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  135. Surprise attendee at the KC Chiefs White House visit:

    President Joe Biden on Friday congratulated the Kansas City Chiefs on their second Super Bowl victory in two years, joking, “back to back … I like that.”

    “When the doubters question whether you could pull it off again — believe me, I know what that feels like,” the president said, welcoming the team back to the White House. “I don’t think anyone’s doubting you now.”
    ………….
    The visit carried an underlying level of tension not often felt at championship celebrations at the White House.

    It’s been only a few weeks since Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, who joined the team’s visit to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, criticized Biden, who is Catholic, and other unnamed Catholic leaders for “pushing dangerous gender ideologies onto the youth of America” — an apparent reference to transgender rights. His commencement address at Benedictine College contained other controversial statements, such as calling Pride Month a “deadly sin,” bemoaning diversity and equity initiatives, and suggesting women find more fulfillment from getting married and having children than from their careers.
    …………..
    For (Patrick) Mahomes, the Super Bowl victory over the San Francisco 49ers in Las Vegas cemented the Texas Tech alum as one of the greatest quarterbacks in the game’s history, even though he’s just six years into his career and is not yet 30 years old.

    He said last year’s visit to the Oval Office was one of the highlights of his career.
    ………………

    Harrison Butker is a class act.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  136. No, the crime underlying felonies were the FEC violation (he paid $187k fine) and NY State Tax fraud.

    They should have been charged in the indictment, each element by element, and the jury instructions should have mirrored the indictment with a requirement that each element be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    nk (d98a63)

  137. How much money should the USA borrow via Treasury bonds to fund the rebuilding of Gaza?

    I’d be willing to match whatever Iran pays (not pledges) on a $2 USD USA per $1 USD Iran but not more

    steveg (25401a)

  138. They did.

    Excerpt of document

    In determining whether the defendant conspired to
    promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office
    by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations
    of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA;
    (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of
    tax laws.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  139. They specify exactly the statutes. Like NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE etc.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  140. In the jury instruction

    In order for you to find the defendant guilty of the crime of
    Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree under Count 1
    of the Indictment, the People are required to prove, from all of
    the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of
    the following two elements:

    1. That on or about February 14, 2017, in the county of
    New York and elsewhere, the defendant, personally, or
    by acting in concert with another person or persons,
    made or caused a false entry in the business records of
    an enterprise, specifically, an invoice from Michael
    Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of
    the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept or
    maintained by the Trump Organization; and

    2. That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that
    included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or
    conceal the commission thereof.

    If you find the People have proven beyond a reasonable
    doubt each of those two elements, you must find the defendant
    guilty of this crime.

    If you find the People have not proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt either one or both of those two elements, you
    must find the defendants not guilty of this crime.

    You have now heard me define the law for Count One.
    There are thirty-three remaining counts in the indictment. Each
    for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree and each
    occurring in New York County. The only difference is that each
    count pertains to a different business record and possibly a
    different date. The underlying law applies in the same way to
    each of the remaining counts so I will only repeat it in full one
    more time before I read Count 34. Of course, you can ask me to
    repeat the law in its entirety as many times as you wish and I will
    be happy to do so

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  141. Motive When Not Element of Crime

    Let me now explain motive, and in particular, the difference
    between motive and intent.

    Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a
    person commits a criminal act with intent when that person’s
    conscious objective or purpose is to engage in the act which the
    law forbids or to bring about an unlawful result.

    Motive, on the other hand, is the reason why a person
    chooses to engage in criminal conduct.

    If intent is an element of a charged crime, that element
    must be proved by the People beyond a reasonable doubt. In
    this case, intent is, as I have explained, an element of the crime
    of Falsifying Business Records in the First degree.

    Motive, however, is not an element of the crimes charged.
    Therefore, the People are not required to prove a motive for the
    commission of the charged crimes.

    Nevertheless, evidence of a motive, or evidence of the lack
    of a motive, may be considered by the jury.

    For example, if you find from the evidence that the
    defendant had a motive to commit the crime charged, that is a
    circumstance you may wish to consider as tending to support a
    finding of guilt.

    On the other hand, if the proof establishes that the
    defendant had no motive to commit the crime charged, that is a
    circumstance you may wish to consider as tending to establish
    that the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  142. @135. I see. Thank you, Colonel Klink. The “means” versus “elements” distinction by the plurality in Schad v. Arizona.

    nk (d98a63)

  143. Wasn’t it 34 counts of the state of NY crime of falsifying business records to influence the outcome an election? In this case, the 2016 federal Presidential election. Even though by federal (FEC standards) the law was probably not violated?
    And it seemed a pretty convoluted law with a pretty convoluted method of implementation from the jury instructions.

    I can see state interests being involved in federal races, but historically the feds would sue and claim authority over federal election issues, no?

    I can’t see a state law against committing fraud to influence federal immigration status and benefits to be allowed on a state by state basis but guess that since each state is allowed to have its own election laws (to a degree) this is different

    steveg (25401a)

  144. So, why he did it, coverup for marriage, coverup for election, coverup for brand, is irrelevent.

    It’s how he did it. His method for the coverup was fraudulent, i.e. a crime. Ergo if he’d used a different method, not a crime.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  145. Trump’s defense stipulated in the arguments that the FEC violation occured. It’d be pretty hard not too, they paid a $187k fine on this incident.

    So, the in the best interpretation for the appeal would be that he’d already settled the Fed charges.

    The State Tax fraud and Election violations were underlying predicate felonies not charged. Which sounds hinky but apparently is SOP.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  146. They could throw out the conviction and order a new trial for the 34 counts plus the tax and election violations or just as misdemeanors.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  147. Wasn’t it 34 counts of the state of NY crime of falsifying business records to influence the outcome an election?………

    See the Col. Klink’s posts 135, 137, & 138 above.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  148. If the jury were to consider violations of the “Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA” then shouldn’t Trump have been able to bring witnesses to testify about what constitutes a violation of that act? I know he tried but the Judge said no.
    It seems like a fly in the ointment of appeal. Wouldn’t someone argue that they weren’t allowed to defend this very item?

    steveg (25401a)

  149. @142 answered my question

    steveg (25401a)

  150. I’m in over my head on the Trump case, so I’m gonna to stick to other topics

    steveg (25401a)

  151. https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/05/trump-guilty-verdict-it-smells-rotten-because-it-was-rotten/

    Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in a trial in Manhattan on May 30. Democrats are singing with joy, but it was a truly sad day for America.

    This was a prosecution that never would have been brought had the defendant not been Donald Trump, and had Trump not run for reelection in 2024. Rather than prosecuting an obvious crime, prosecutors set out to prosecute a political opponent. And to do so, they invented a criminal theory to pursue.

    For many years this case, involving alleged bookkeeping issues in recording payments to ‘Stormy Daniels’ to buy her silence, had lingered unprosecuted for so long that the charges, low-level misdemeanors, no longer could be brought because time had expired.

    But then along came Alvin Bragg, a Left-wing prosecutor who ran for office on the promise that he would do what prior prosecutors had failed to do, to get Donald Trump. The case was politically motivated from the start. To get Trump at all costs to try to stop his presidential campaign.

    Yet to get the case to court, Bragg had to turn the charges into felonies, with longer time limits. So he invented a novel and untested legal theory, maligned even by liberal legal commentators, that the bookkeeping issues were to illegally influence an election – his own 2016 winning election.

    There is nothing illegal about paying money to buy silence. It happens every day in court cases and business deals, where money is paid for non-disclosure agreements. And there is nothing illegal about politicians hiding their dirty laundry, happens every campaign. The bookkeeping issue was the hook to turn lawful political activity into a crime.

    This case born in politics then turned into a circus. The trial judge, whose family had strong political ties to Democrats, issued ruling after ruling hamstringing Trump’s defense. The prosecution was allowed to play hide and seek with its legal theory of criminality, so much so that Trump never really knew what he was defending until the very end.

    Then the judge issued jury instructions that seemed to fly in the face of our jurisprudence, by allowing the jury convict on felony charges without unanimous agreement as to what were the specific illegal acts to influence the election.

    If you insist on charging a former president and clear front-runner in a presidential election, then you better be sure those charges are clear, concise, and legitimate. This was certainly not the case here. The jury was drawn from one of the most heavily Democrat jurisdictions in the country. So the likelihood of Trump prevailing always was slim.

    A politically motivated prosecution by Democrat prosecutors presided over by a politically connected Democrat judge in a politically Democrat jurisdiction against the likely Republican presidential nominee in an election year. It smells rotten because it was rotten. The whole thing stinks.

    Whether you love or hate Trump, this conviction should appall you. This is not about Donald Trump. It’s about the weaponisation of the criminal justice system against a political opponent. It’s the type of prosecutorial and judicial conduct we expect in Putin’s Russia. Prior to this case, America was deeply divided. Now it’s tearing at the seams.

    Lawfare very easily can become warfare when people lose trust in the institutions that are supposed to protect against political persecution. There were so many errors in the trial proceedings that the likelihood of the case being overturned on appeal is high, but that will come after the November election. The damage to the legitimacy of our system has been done regardless of how the appeal turns out.

    I’ll stick with the legal expert.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  152. Trump have been able to bring witnesses to testify about what constitutes a violation of that act? I know he tried but the Judge said no.

    No, Trump said the judge said no. In fact, no he didn’t, he limited the testimony to specifically what you asked, and the Trump defense team wanted him to opine on these charges which is a no-no.

    I’ve seen the echo-chamber posts repeating some of the lies, but they are just that.

    CLAIM: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan wouldn’t let the defense call campaign finance expert Bradley A. Smith to testify in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial.

    THE FACTS: Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue. The ruling echoed his pretrial ruling on the matter. Social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

    Trump:

    “The expert witness that we have, the best there is in election law, Brad Smith, he’s considered the Rolls Royce, or we’ll bring it back to an American car, Cadillac, but the best there is, he can’t testify. He’s not being allowed to testify.”

    Retweeted about a billion times, but just repeating a lie a billion times doesn’t make it true.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  153. Trump Has Few Ways to Overturn His Conviction as a New York Felon
    ……………..
    ……………. Several legal experts cast doubt on his chances of success, and noted that the case could take years to snake through the courts, all but ensuring he will still be a felon when voters head to the polls in November.
    …………..
    The former president’s supporters are calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, though that is highly unlikely. In a more likely appeal to a New York court, Mr. Trump would have avenues to attack the conviction, the experts said, but far fewer than he has claimed. The experts noted that the judge whose rulings helped shape the case stripped some of the prosecution’s most precarious arguments and evidence from the trial.
    ……………
    Mark Zauderer, a veteran New York litigator who sits on a committee that screens applicants for the same court that will hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, said that Justice Merchan avoided pitfalls that often doom convictions.
    ……………
    Even if Justice Merchan’s rulings provide little fodder, Mr. Trump could challenge the foundation of the prosecution’s case. Mr. Trump’s lawyers note that Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, used a novel theory to charge Mr. Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

    ………… Mr. Bragg argued that Mr. Trump had falsified the records to cover up violations of a little-known state law against conspiring to win an election by “unlawful means.”
    ……………
    In an appeal, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that Mr. Bragg inappropriately stretched the state election law — a convoluted one, at that — to cover a federal campaign. And they could claim that the false records law itself does not apply to Mr. Trump’s case.
    …………..
    But now, just like every other criminal defendant in New York, the deck is stacked against him. Appeals courts typically frown upon overturning jury decisions, barring some glaring error or misconduct.
    ……………
    The sentencing (on July 11th) will start a 30-day clock for Mr. Trump to file a notice of appeal. That notice is just a legal stake in the ground. Mr. Trump will then have to mount the actual appeal at the New York State’s Appellate Division, First Department. The panel of appellate court judges most likely would not hear arguments until next year, and might not issue a decision until early 2026.

    ………….. Mr. Trump or Mr. Bragg’s office could ask the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, to review the decision.

    Mr. Trump might also have a final option: the U.S. Supreme Court. ………….It would be a long shot. Procedurally, it is exceedingly difficult for a state defendant to reach the Supreme Court without exhausting state appeals.

    “This is a garden-variety state court conviction,” Mr. Zauderer said. “I don’t see a plausible path to the Supreme Court.”
    ……………

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  154. Your legal expert didn’t actually address guilt, just that in his opinion the charges shouldn’t be brought because they’re unicorns only charged to Trump.

    Except that they’ve charged 166 people this year on these specific charges, 40 as felons.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  155. Laura loomer calls for execution of democrats in revenge for trump on tim pools show. (DU)

    asset (342e59)

  156. I do think Bragg used a law as the basis that doesn’t get used much, mainly because very few would ever be in these specific situations.

    Again, Trump could have paid out of pocket for Stormy’s NDA. I don’t really buy the Melania argument, I don’t think it’s reasonable that he doesn’t have a bajillion accounts. He’s supposed to be rich.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  157. Then the judge issued jury instructions that seemed to fly in the face of our jurisprudence, by allowing the jury convict on felony charges without unanimous agreement as to what were the specific illegal acts to influence the election.

    Not required by New York Penal Law § 175.05 and 175.10 or by the Supreme Court in Schad v. Arizona

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  158. Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 6/1/2024 @ 6:14 pm


    Also, Merchan was required to give that jury instruction:

    In 2015, the First Department of the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division—whose rulings are binding on Justice Merchan—applied Taveras in a case structurally similar to Trump’s. …….. People v. Thompson concerned a defendant convicted of § 175.10—along with “offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree”—for “ma[king] a false entry on a form regarding his purported disposal of a firearm … with the intent to commit or conceal his unlawful possession of the firearm.” The First Department upheld the conviction even though Thompson was not charged with the object offense of unlawful possession.

    As in the Trump case, in Thompson, the Manhattan district attorney charged § 175.10 without charging the underlying object offense.
    ………..

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  159. More:

    Here, the appeals court found that the district attorney was not required to prove that the object offense had been committed. “The People were not required to establish that [the] defendant committed, or was convicted of, the crime he intended to conceal,” the First Department ruled, pointing to Taveras. That seems pretty definitive. And indeed, Justice Merchan cites Thompson in his ruling on Trump’s motion to dismiss, stating that the statute “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed. Rather, all that is required is that the defendant … act[] with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”
    ………..

    When you go to trial, you go with the way the law is written and interpreted by higher courts, not the way you wish it to be.

    Rip Murdock (6afd61)

  160. Can you imagine how bad USA military recruiting would be for a war like the one in Ukraine.

    steveg (25401a)

  161. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/romney-bragg-political-decision-trump-case-malpractice

    NeverTrumper torches corruption leading to case. NeverTrumpers hardest hit.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  162. Yet another lying article on the effect of the convictions.

    In one recent survey, an NPR/Marist/PBS poll in late May, some 7% of Trump supporters and 11% of independents said they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he were convicted in the hush-money trial.

    Among voters overall, most believed they would shrug off a Trump conviction. More than two-thirds of voters, including 74% of independents, said a guilty verdict in the trial would make no difference to their vote in November.

    Left out is that 24% of Trump supporters, 26% of Republicans and 15% of Independents said they’d be MORE likely to vote for Trump if he were convicted (vs 7%, 10% and 11% less likely, respectively).

    Why is it that reporters have to announce the one end of the stats and ignore the other end?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  163. Of course the numbers were pretty much the same were he to be found NOT guilty, so you gotta wonder.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  164. You’re confusing why with how.

    No, I am not. There’s a lot of intentional obfuscation going on here.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  165. So, why he did it, coverup for marriage, coverup for election, coverup for brand, is irrelevent.

    Yes it is. Only one of these is a crime, and only covering up a crime makes it a felony.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  166. No, I am not. There’s a lot of intentional obfuscation going on here.

    Yes, the irony is stong in this one

    Yes it is. Only one of these is a crime, and only covering up a crime makes it a felony.

    Well, he did choose the one that’s a crime and covering it up with fraud added lots of felonies. Again, why isn’t important, it’s the how. That’s how criminal prosecution works in this country, what you did matter’s more than why you did it, except for tiny instances.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  167. It’s how he paid for the coverup. Fraud.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  168. Yes, the irony is strong in this one

    Spoken like he’s not the one doing it.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  169. Spoken like he’s not the one doing it.

    Correct

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  170. Klink, you have made all kinds assertions about the “underlying crime” that Trump attempted to conceal. Crimes charged, crimes not charged, non-crimes and mere face-saving.

    I’d need a whiteboard to diagram the goalposts you have moved. As far as I can tell your whole point here is to obfuscate.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  171. I have made exactly two claims in all of this:

    1. That targeting a citizen for prosecution — any prosecution — is an abuse of power, even if that citizen is a double-dipped assh0le. There is no double-dipped assh0le exception to the Bill of Rights.

    2. That Cohen’s admissions in court as to his own culpability prove nothing about what Trump did, and certainly not about what Trump thought or why he did what he did.

    To my regret I have also responded to idiotic statements like “Trump was trying to avoid Melania from finding out.” Since that would make him innocent of each and every one of the felony charges

    2. That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that
    included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or
    conceal the commission thereof.

    since adultery is not a crime and “Melania finding out” is also not a crime.

    I should know not to feed the troll.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  172. I posted the charging sheet, and the jurors instructions. Others have tried to explain to you how criminal charges work. You refuse to know things. No, that’s not true, you know 100% that he did it and is guilty of these charges and are intentionally obfuscating.

    1. That targeting a citizen for prosecution — any prosecution — is an abuse of power, even if that citizen is a double-dipped assh0le. There is no double-dipped assh0le exception to the Bill of Rights.

    Then how is the judicial system to deal with criminals?

    2. That Cohen’s admissions in court as to his own culpability prove nothing about what Trump did, and certainly not about what Trump thought or why he did what he did.

    The testimony of a co-conspirator, which Trump was specifically named at the time as, just not indicted while he was a sitting president. You know, for LOLZ. And the documentary evidense of a second co-conspirator in Allen Weisselberg. Both of whom took plea deals on these exact transactions. That’s how you flip a conspiracy.

    To my regret I have also responded to idiotic statements like “Trump was trying to avoid Melania from finding out.” Since that would make him innocent of each and every one of the felony charges

    2. That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that
    included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or
    conceal the commission thereof.

    since adultery is not a crime and “Melania finding out” is also not a crime.

    Well, I never said the Melania bit because it’s irrelevant. It’s the method of the coverup that is the crime. If he’d just not tried to launder the payments through his business, and paid out of pocket, he’d have been fine. But he didn’t so he’s not.

    You can believe that they shouldn’t have brought the charges, but you can’t argue that they weren’t crimes. When the crimes were provable, they were proven and a jury only 26 minutes 25 seconds to reach a unanimous guilty on each charge speaks volumes to both how strong the evidense was and how absolutely horribly the defense performed. Driven by Trumps desire to both not testify and testify by instructing Blanch and co to “go after” folks on things that were not important to his defense and actively opened lines of questioning that wouldn’t have been except for that. Plus, they looked idiotic doing it.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  173. Glad you’re back, Klink.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  174. Those here upset with trump prosecution had no problem with law and order or mass incarceration of black people and complained when clinton wasn’t prosecuted. Justice Jackson said it many years ago Prosecutors prosecute who they want to prosecute not who they need to prosecute! What goes around comes around your turn for a change.

    asset (6fc3ba)

  175. Does anyone really think it is inappropriate to investigate, charge, and try other parties involved in a crime after one of the parties involved was already convicted for their part in the crime?

    SamG (4e6c22)

  176. The classified documents case appears stalled in part because of the complexity of dealing with classified material in court and in part because the judge seems overwhelmed. There is fair criticism that she is simply taking too much time deciding straightforward motions. There is little hope that it will get adjudicated before the November election.

    The J6/election interference case is also stalled because of the significant question of Presidential immunity and its appropriate scope. The Supreme Court chose not to expedite the matter and so we sit and wait weeks to likely arrive at the Solomon-like conclusion that it depends on how close the action is to an official Presidential duty. It may even get punted back to a lower court to further cogitate on the question of Presidential duties. As irritating as this is, it is our process and the Supreme Court is looking beyond the Nov 5th deadline. I disagree that a question of Presidential criminality is not both important and urgent for an informed electorate…just as there was some urgency in deciding Bush v. Gore.

    The Georgia case appears mired in the side theater of whether Fani Willis should be removed for ethical breaches. The decisions to keep her on the case is being reviewed. The continuing soap opera makes it less and less likely for this case to start sufficiently before Nov 5th. At some point all of this gets too close to the election and offends basic election fairness.

    Trump is luxuriating in due process, specifically because if he’s re-elected, he can dismiss the federal cases and then delay the remaining state case….likely forever. That brings us back to Bragg. He has no influence over these other cases and why they’ve been delayed.

    He did have prosecutorial discretion with Trump but the scheme in question was well understood with the previous prosecution of Cohen. The only question was whether the “top guy” should be insulated from charge. So the claim that this started with Trump and not a crime is incredibly weak.

    Bragg is also not responsible for the breadth of the statute that he used to prosecute Trump. It was created by the representatives of the people of NY to fight fraud. If the law is later found to be constitutionally defective, so be it. It’s part of the process too, but Bragg has no responsibility to preemptively decide that. Bragg followed the law and his team made arguments that persuaded a jury. He seems to have done his job.

    Some here also seem stuck in what the law should be versus what the law is….and what the prosecutor’s duty is with respect to the political element. It would have been equally political to cancel the prosecution due to the impending election. It would also seem perverse that in a 4-year window, no alleged criminality would be tested in court…with the possibility that an election would erase all accountability. That just doesn’t seem like due process either….but justice denied.

    AJ_Liberty (eb3071)

  177. Left out is that 24% of Trump supporters, 26% of Republicans and 15% of Independents said they’d be MORE likely to vote for Trump if he were convicted (vs 7%, 10% and 11% less likely, respectively).

    Im not sure why some think these numbers are significant. As I said above, those who say the trial verdict makes them more likely to vote for Trump (26% of Republicans) indicates they were leaning towards Trump and likely to vote for him anyway.

    How does the verdict make the 24% of Trump’s supporters more likely they would vote for Trump if they already self-identify as Trump supporters? Strength of support is irrelevant-they (presumably) can only vote once.

    The only interesting number is the 15% of “independents” saying the verdict makes the more likely to vote for Trump; but again they probably lean Republican anyway.

    Now 15% of Biden supporters suddenly saying the verdict made them more likely to vote for Trump that would be Big News.

    Rip Murdock (66c03d)

  178. those who say the trial verdict makes them more likely to vote for Trump (26% of Republicans) indicates they were leaning towards Trump and likely to vote for him anyway.

    You certainly won’t see 26% of Republicans voting for Biden.

    Rip Murdock (66c03d)

  179. Then how is the judicial system to deal with criminals?

    Again, obfuscation and misdirection. They are supposed to deal with CRIMES, not declare someone a criminal and then have a task force search for some crime to charge them with.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  180. So a series of crimes were committed that multiple people were charged and convicted shouldn’t investigate the crime to conclusion because that person is Donald Trump.

    That would be completely and totally stupid.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  181. Rip, I agree the poll question is silly, particularly when the “not guilty” version of the question gets the same response.

    What I am pointing out is that the news media report it as “republicans/independents abandoning Trump in wake of guilty verdict” when the poll, if it says anything, it says the opposite.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  182. So a series of crimes were committed that multiple people were charged and convicted shouldn’t investigate the crime to conclusion because that person is Donald Trump.

    Because the crime* they ended up charging is picayune, leveraged up by legal technicalities from an (unchargeable) misdemeanor, and we have a tradition of not ankle-biting former presidents.

    If anything this was all ignored because it WAS Donald Trump.

    —-
    * one crime divided for press purposes into 34 charges.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  183. Monday’s market opening should be interesting:

    Shares of Trump Media & Technology Group closed lower Friday after swinging wildly over the course of the day following the conviction of former President Donald Trump in his hush money trial.
    …………
    After rising more than 2% at the opening of trading Friday, the shares ended the day down 5.3% (to $49.09 a share, after opening at $53.70).
    …………..
    ………….. It peaked at nearly $80 in intraday trading on March 26. For context, the S&P 500 is up almost 10% year to date.
    ……………
    Earlier this month, Trump Media reported that it lost more than $300 million last quarter, according to its first earnings report as a publicly traded company.
    ………….
    Trump Media & Technology fired an auditor this month that federal regulators recently charged with “massive fraud.” The media company dismissed BF Borgers as its independent public accounting firm on May 3, delaying the filing of its quarterly earnings report.
    …………..

    Rip Murdock (3ace4f)

  184. Breaking-

    Magnitude 3.5 earthquake strikes near South Pasadena.

    Rip Murdock (3ace4f)

  185. “There is no way that the American people are going to vote for a convicted criminal. They’re not.”
    Nikki Haley, no longer on Trump’s SecState short list, February 2024

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  186. The list of Trump’s former team members who’ve been convicted of a crime is expansive. Among them: Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and former campaign vice chairman, Rick Gates; his former fixer, Michael Cohen; his former chief strategist, Steve Bannon; his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn; his former trade advisor, Peter Navarro; and his former foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos; his former CFO of his company, Allen Weisselberg.

    His former mentor and Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel, Roy Cohn. His other clients included Fat Tony Salerno, Carmine Galante, and John Gotti.

    When you wallow with pigs, you’re pure as the driven snow.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  187. RIP Pulitzer Prize winning AP photographer Ron Edmonds (77):

    …………
    Mr. Edmonds, assigned to cover (President Ronald Reagan), was the only news photographer able to chronicle the full sweep of events on March 30, 1981, from the sounds of gunshots — which Mr. Edmonds at first thought might be celebratory firecrackers — to the chaotic moments that followed.

    He directed his lens across the top of the presidential limousine for a sequence of frames showing Reagan wincing and then being pushed inside the vehicle. Mr. Edmonds then swung around to the sidewalk, snapping images of Hinkley under a pile of bodies and Secret Service agents on alert with their weapons drawn. Also on the ground were the others wounded by Hinckley’s .22-caliber revolver: press secretary James Brady, Secret Service Agent Timothy McCarthy and D.C. police canine officer Thomas Delahanty.
    ………….
    …………. Mr. Edmonds expected a routine few seconds — a smiling nod to the onlookers by Reagan and then back to the White House.

    But he was always ready for some kind of unexpected expression or gesture by Reagan that could make the wire. “He came. He waved. I made one image,” Mr. Edmonds recalled in a 2021 interview with PBS Hawaiʻi. “And then bangs went off.”

    The presidential motorcade roared away, including the press van. If the van had stayed, Mr. Edmonds would have needed to jump aboard — and miss the events unfolding in front of the Hilton. “My job was to stay with the president,” he said. “Never leave the president.”

    This time, he was left behind. Meanwhile, in the presidential limousine, Secret Service agent Jerry Parr radioed that “Rawhide is okay,” Reagan’s Secret Service code name, and that they were returning to “crown,” code for the White House, according to transcripts released in 2011.

    Reagan’s condition, however, deteriorated rapidly………..
    ……………
    In a 29-year career with the AP, Mr. Edmonds covered four presidential administrations and events including Super Bowls and Olympics.
    ……………

    Rip Murdock (3ace4f)

  188. Monday’s market opening should be interesting:

    I think that shorting DJT would be a mistake. Buying it, also, but for different reasons. Meme stocks are tricky.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  189. “Rawhide Down” is the definitive book on the Reagan shooting.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  190. Irony: Stormy complains she was “slut-shamed” by Trump’s lawyer.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  191. Trump and his supporters often complain when Democratic officials in blue States/cities let minor crimes go uncharged and unpunished.

    Republicans used to support the broken windows theory that if prosecutors ignore lesser crimes, it encourages more crime and more serious crime. They supported charging lesser violent and non-violent crimes, including business and tax crimes. I agree with that.

    It is a double standard when Republicans oppose holding Trump responsible but want zero tolerance by prosecutors in blue States/cities.

    DRJ (f65e25)

  192. This is not a surprise about Grayzone, of which Glenn Greenwald is a contributor, given their pro-Putin, anti-Ukraine stance.

    Hacked emails and other documents from the Iranian government-funded Press TV show payments of thousands of dollars to a writer who is now a Washington-based editor for Grayzone, whose founder regularly appears on Russian television and once accepted a trip to Moscow for a celebration of Russian state-controlled video network RT that featured Vladimir Putin.

    Misinformation experts say the overlap in funding underscores concern that the spread of falsehoods and propaganda online is entering a more complicated stage as the November election draws closer.
    […]
    That reporter, Wyatt Reed, had nine bylines in the online publication Grayzone in 2019 and 2020, followed by a gap of 2½ years. He has had 24 more Grayzone bylines since mid-2023, when he was identified as managing editor.

    Grayzone posts content on the web, X and YouTube and has been highly critical of Iran’s regional enemy Israel and its supporters in the United States. Reed did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Grayzone top editor Max Blumenthal did not answer emails seeking comment.
    […]
    Reed is not the only Grayzone author to have worked for Russian outlets. Grayzone contributor and London journalist Mohamed Elmaazi wrote full-time for Sputnik between 2019 and 2021, he says on his LinkedIn profile. Regular Grayzone freelancer Jeremy Loffredo was full-time at RT in the same years, according to his LinkedIn. Neither responded to requests for comment.

    The payments to Reed documented in the hacked Press TV documents came before last year, when the Iranian outlet was singled out for U.S. sanctions that went beyond the general ban on imports from and exports to Iran that was set by presidential executive order in 1995. But Press TV’s parent, state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, was specially sanctioned in 2013, which attorneys said automatically barred transactions with subsidiaries without special permission.
    […]
    Grayzone does not disclose its financial backing. Little-known among most segments of the population, it has hundreds of thousands of followers on both YouTube and X, and its stories sometimes ricochet among both the far left and far right. X owner Elon Musk has helped that, corresponding on his platform last year with Grayzone personality Aaron Maté when Maté accused the investigative website Bellingcat of being a NATO front and said the White House had squelched talk of a negotiated settlement in Ukraine.

    Grayzone founder and editor Blumenthal appears on RT and attended the same 2015 Moscow gala dinner for it that Michael Flynn famously joined. More recently, he promoted the false theory that Russia’s bombing of a theater full of refugees in Mariupol in 2022 was carried out by Ukraine’s forces.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  193. The prosecution was very political.

    I think Bragg abandoned a stronger case (he same thing the Trump Organization was convicted of – property evaa]
    luation and deliberately picked a weak case because:

    1) He didn’t want a case that could create law that could be used against anyone else – as the property evaluation case could have. This case had facts almost unique to Trump.

    2) He thought he could win this case, too.

    3) He didn’t want to send Trump to jail, partly for political reasons.
    He was taking advice from Biden’s man in his office,

    I think he took the advice of the man the Biden Administration sent there,rump to jail..

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 6/2/2024 @ 12:55 pm

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  194. The Gaza ceasefire proposal looks like a repeat of the one from November. It will fall aprt in Stage 2 – Biden thinks Stage 2 is enough,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  195. Here’s one of Patterico’s recent tweets on “unlawful means”.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  196. Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/1/2024 @ 10:08 pm

    It’s the method of the coverup that is the crime. If he’d just not tried to launder the payments through his business, and paid out of pocket, he’d have been fine. But he didn’t so he’s not.

    But Michael Cohen was not fine with that.

    When the crimes were provable, they were proven and a jury only 26 minutes 25 seconds to reach a unanimous guilty on each charge speaks volumes to both how strong the evidense was and how absolutely horribly the defense performed.

    There were basically only three charges. One of them was apparently notes to himself on his check stubs I have heard.

    There was a defense that undermined the whole thing: that thee records were accurate, Making a sweetheart deal with someone because you feel a moral obligation to give him money or because you are afraid he could turn on you and reveal a secret does not make the deal false,

    steps were skipped including proving thaat there was any pre-existing agreement to pay someone off.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  197. Ye, the second crime was trying to win an election by unlawful means – which is kind of aague.

    It posited a conspiracy going back to July or August 2015 – but, carefully examined, the NDAs were not part of any such conspiracy.

    And the only thing the records covered up was the reimbursement of a payment that Michael Cohen had made, ON HIS OWN!

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  198. Trump lost because he did not testify and I think his lawyers did noot want to put him on because they thought he might lie,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  199. Rather, all that is required is that the defendant … act[] with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”

    The problem with that is that the business recordkeeping came AFTER not BEFORE the other crime. The election was over,
    ………..

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  200. In determining whether the defendant conspired to
    promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office
    by unlawful means, you may consider the following:

    How about whether the election was over or not at the time the record was falsified?

    It seems to have been assumed, but not proven, that there was an intent too falsify records before the election and that that was a condition of Michael Cohen paying the money.

    Neither was Trump charged with being responsible for Michael Cohen creating the corporation that he did.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  201. 137. steveg (25401a) — 6/1/2024 @ 4:59 pm

    How much money should the USA borrow via Treasury bonds to fund the rebuilding of Gaza?

    Nothing or not much more than it is now giving in relief according to the Ukraine/Taiwan/Israel aid bill..

    It is Arab countries like Qatar that are supposed to put up the money,”This is just another part of the Bidenpplan that is unrealistic
    But things won’t get to that point,

    People are also supposed to return to their homes – 90% or more which have been destroyed,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  202. And there is nothing illegal about politicians hiding their dirty laundry, happens every campaign. The bookkeeping issue was the hook to turn lawful political activity into a crime.

    No, Michael Cohen advancing the money was. Except Trupp never agreed to that! But was afraid to testify to.,

    Alternatively, paying the money was part of a larger conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  203. Randolph Carter (4416e2) — 6/1/2024 @ 1:32 pm

    So how should these payments have been properly reported to avoid indictment?

    As reimbursement and bonus salary to Michael Cohen. And been made for less money (not grossed up)

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  204. It is a double standard when Republicans oppose holding Trump responsible but want zero tolerance by prosecutors in blue States/cities.

    DRJ (f65e25) — 6/2/2024 @ 1:05 pm

    I know you don’t believe this. It’s disappointing you would even post it.

    It’s clear that this is a political persecution and that the left decided they would find a crime, any crime to go after Trump. That is not the way the law works. If it does, we no longer live in a society of law, but of men.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  205. Trump lost because he did not testify and I think his lawyers did noot want to put him on because they thought he might lie,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 6/2/2024 @ 1:30 pm

    Trump lost because he was placed on trial by fraudulent means with a jury of corrupt souls that would’ve convicted him for jaywalking.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  206. https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2024/06/02/feds-announce-settlement-with-peter-strzok-and-lisa-page-over-privacy-claims-n2174959

    2 corrupt dirt bags who did all they could to destroy the President of the United States are rewarded with taxpayer dollars. The left protects and rewards its own.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  207. How much money should the USA borrow via Treasury bonds to fund the rebuilding of Gaza?

    Not the US. There is no incentive for Arab countries to do so either.

    Rip Murdock (3ace4f)

  208. I’m for law and order and am pleased when DA’s run on that platform and come through on their promises but less than pleased when they run and fundraise on vowing to find something to prosecute a former President on.
    Regardless to the merits, the case became political at that point.

    There is an old saying “let the chips fall where they may” and that does not always work.
    I realize law enforcement needs to be carefully crafted, but I am not happy when a DA carefully crafts reasons based upon bias to convict or release, and Alvin Bragg showed clear bias, he raised election campaign funds with his bias.
    So in my amateurish way am arguing that I am being consistent here.

    I’ll extend my thoughts to the Jan6 cases where in my view the SCOTUS is correctly looking at the application of financial crime law to semi civil and very uncivil protest. I understand laws are tools to get criminals off the streets and sometimes we do need to find some way to get an evil person, so the DA goes on a treasure hunt- for example, we can’t get this guy right now on the trafficking of children so lets see what else we’ve got. I get it. But the SCOTUS is going to rule on over reach. Law enforcement can push too far here and there and needs boundaries.

    I kind of liked the old USA where we gave the stink eye to legal minded people combing the lawbooks for stuff to prosecute former Presidents over. GOP opened pandora’s box by using Monica Lewinsky to put an anchor on Clinton, and here we are.

    I know I am all over the place here, so I will conclude. I see prosecutions of current and former Presidents sort of like the last two minutes of a tied professional championship playoff basketball game where typically the refs get out of the way and historically only call the most egregious of fouls. Chick Hearn called it “no harm, no foul”. But now we’ve made a change in protocol and have flooded the field of play with dozens of refs and legions of people in the first three rows and up in the press box combing the rule book. They are ruining the game

    steveg (5ca2c8)

  209. Comedy gold!

    Rip Murdock (3ace4f)

  210. #198 You think the Loser’s lawyers “thought he might lie”.

    That does seem plausible, based on past experience.

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

    Jim Miller (d9ae75)

  211. If write it, I believe it. Please don’t tell me what I believe.

    DRJ (496584)

  212. Trump is the one who wants different treatment based on who the defendant us, not based on the law. And it is very sad to see so many people agree with him.

    Remember when he said his voters are so loyal that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and they would support him? He believed that and he was right.

    DRJ (496584)

  213. You don’t believe for a second that this charge was just. You know full well that Bragg ran on finding something to “get Trump” and that he finds ways to turn felonies into misdemeanors.

    So yes, I’m calling you on it.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  214. 2 right wing cabinet members threaten to resign if Israel/biden peace deal stops them from stealing any more palestinian land for settlements. (DU)

    asset (2aa7ad)

  215. You are wrong. Period.

    DRJ (496584)

  216. And all his other recent tweets.

    DRJ (496584)

  217. @191 Not only trump look at texas a.g. ken paxton.

    asset (2aa7ad)

  218. Twitter person asks if this is the part in the 1953 sci-fi movie where the scientists realize that the high voltage lines & atom bombs only make the monster bigger?
    Sadly, no.

    steveg (5ca2c8)

  219. @204 you noticed that too.

    asset (2aa7ad)

  220. DRJ,

    Bragg ran his campaign on getting Trump. Period.

    Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.

    If that’s the world you want to live in, you aren’t who I thought you were.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  221. Matt Labash

    Let this be a lesson to everybody who diddles a porn star right after his wife has a baby, then buys the porn star’s silence, then lies about it on their campaign finance reports. Oh wait, nobody else does that. Except the guy who is leading the 2024 presidential polls. God help America, because America doesn’t seem to be helping herself.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  222. I voted for Trump twice. I am a perfect example of how voters can get so frustrated with politicians and the political process that we will ourselves to believe anyone.

    I can understand why some voters still want to believe in Trump. What I can’t understand is why they are willing to give up on the legal system because of one narcissist.

    DRJ (f65e25)

  223. Just admit to yourself that Trump did all the things ge was accused of but you don’t care.

    DRJ (f65e25)

  224. DRJ – Good to see your thoughts. (Unlike some others, I don’t claim to have ESP, so I rely on what your write here to know what you are thinking.)

    Speaking of thoughts worth reading, I bought the June issue of The Atlantic, mostly for Anne Applebaum’s “The New Propaganda War”. I can already give it my highest award: “Worth buying”. (The other awards, in descending order, are “worth study” and “worth reading”.)

    (Some years ago, I bought her history of the Gulag and can recommend that, too.)

    Jim Miller (d27b9c)

  225. A story from that Applebaum history worth sharing: A woman was brought into a camp wearing only a summer dress. The women in the camp made her a heavier dress from towels. Having nothing to cut the towels with, they folded them where they wanted to cut, and then burned the towels along those lines. Thanks to their ingenuity, that new woman survived the winter.

    Jim Miller (d27b9c)

  226. DRJ,

    I see him for what he is. He is no different in his personal life than Clinton, Biden, Obama, who all invited disreputable people into their lives. I can separate the politics from the person. His positions in office are better for me and for America than Biden. I tried to get people to support DeSantis who was a better option. It was not productive.

    What is worse is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you are willing to trash our system of governance because you think Trump is the worst and not worthy of a fair system of justice, then you are willing to destroy the nation to get the devil. What does that mean going forward?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  227. Trump tried to “destroy the nation” with his coup attempt.
    In his bumbling 41 months in office, Biden has been inept but not destructive.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  228. They charged 34 counts of felony and got 34 counts of conviction so now they should have to sentence accordingly even though Trump has no priors. Sentence Trump according to the overwhelming weight of the 34 felonies he was found guilty of. Treat Trump like any other guy who was found guilty of 34 felony counts. Show the world that in our democracy ex-presidents are not above the law. He should do no less than maximum for 1 count. I could see slap of wrist for one or two, but 34? He’s got to do maximum time for one count or the whole thing was a charade. You can’t charge someone with 34 felonies, win 34 counts of verdict and then say never mind

    steveg (5ca2c8)

  229. Even with max, he’d not do more than 2 years. Logistically I don’t think he can go to prison, so house arrest is probably the max. If he gets the same restrictions, i.e. no access public access, no internet, etc. That is about the max he can realistically get, but that would be after his 2 appeals in NY and denial of cert from the SCOTUS.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  230. Yes, thank you Rob! Finally someone is willing to say it. Sure, Trump is not perfect, but Obama and Biden were exactly the same (let’s be honest: worse).

    Yes, Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4000 legal disputes over the last 50 years, but what LEFTISTS (which I think most posters on this conservative blog really are) don’t realize is that A) I bet Obama and Biden have like triple that, and B) Probably all of Trump’s have been due to people persecuting him because they knew that eventually he would be a Republican and they were basically persecuting all Republican voters through Trump, you know.

    And sure, Trump has been declared to be a rapist in a court of law and accused of such by like 30 women, and yes he did get caught on tape admitting to such things, but what these NEVER TRUMPERS who bury their heads in the sand about is that Joe Biden even worse: he is a PEDOPHILE. Want proof? Just google Joe Biden Pedophile and you can find tons of videos of clips of him standing near women, and sometimes even young girls. And if you squint you can hear him sniffing their hair, and I imagine based on that that he’s raped way more women (and young girls) than Trump! But you won’t hear the liberal media talking about that. And don’t get me started on Obama. The fact that the liberal media doesn’t report on him raping people is just proof that he’s way worse than Trump.

    Did Trump try to extra-judicially install himself as President after he lost the 2020 election? Maybe. Probably not but if you say he did, then you have to admit that Obama did the same thing. Remember the time Obama tried to warn Trump not to hire Manafort as his campaign manager because the CIA was watching him, but then TAPPED TRUMP’s PHONES to listen to Manafort? Isnt’ that basically worse? And listen, if Joe Biden loses this election you and I both know he’ll do way worse than Trump.

    And that’s the thing that Rob and I know that other people here just won’t admit. Yes, Trump is not perfect, but what I imagine democrats to be is at least is bad if not worse. And that’s why the only RATIONAL choice is to vote for Trump.

    Thank you Rob, for having the strength to say what these other guys here won’t.

    Nate (cfb326)

  231. 70% of similar E-class felonies don’t get prison time.

    Non-violent crime, first time offender, 77 years old, logistic nightmare….work in his favor.

    No remorse, 10 counts of contempt, 3 pending felony cases, complete jack-assery behavior toward the judge and the process….work against him.

    If there was ever someone who needed to be in pink jumpsuit picking up trash along the highway, it’s this fella….but alas I agree that house arrest and a fine seem like the likely result…suspended until appeals have been exhausted.

    If Jack Smith gets him, he won’t be so lucky

    AJ_Liberty (778c4f)

  232. Nate nails it, I’m not sure what +2 means, but he gets it…

    AJ_Liberty (778c4f)

  233. Nate+3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  234. Nate,

    you’re a troll. Thanks for your contribution. I know it’s appreciated as long as you attack Trump.

    Now go back to showering with your daughter and being best buds with terrorist Bill Ayers and Iran.

    Have a good day.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  235. Good to know I hit a nerve with our resident Billy Kristol’s of the world. Hope you guys are at least getting paid for it like he is.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  236. Rob, don’t be jelly, you’ve been lying here for years, just because you’re transparently bad at it, take it as a complement. I mean come on, no one can actually be that completely stupid, it must be a put on.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  237. Yeah, if I were to say who’s the troll, Nate or Rob, I pick the latter, the guy who scaremongers and uses ridiculous hyperbole and exaggeration, bordering on delusion and gaslighting.

    BTW, Obama had eight years, and he was more liberal than Biden, yet our nation wasn’t “destroyed”, and he didn’t do a thing to question our democracy or undermine our electoral process. Granted, he had his own fascism issues, such as NSA surveillance and killing Americans in Yemen, which sucked but didn’t signal the imminent end of our republic.

    The problem with right-wingers is their failure to realize that Obama was still a capitalist who did little to stop fracking and oil production, and signed onto a sequester deal that actually lowered our deficits, until Trump killed the sequester ramped up deficit spending.

    The irony is that there’s practically no difference, economically, between Obama’s last three years and Trump’s first three years, except Trump added around $300 billion more per year to our national debt than Obama, and then came Covid, where he lied and misled and mismanaged a pandemic. Trump should’ve never killed the sequester, especially when he pledged he would balance the budget, and he shouldn’t have lied to The People. But he did and he lost, fair and square.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  238. This is funny, that Rob maligns a Republican, “Billy Kristol”, who is apparently a “leftist” or socialist or something, which should be a surprise to anyone with a lick of common sense, but that’s where Rob’s perspective is, which isn’t “moderate”, no matter how much he leans on a 23-year old superficial survey.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  239. https://x.com/tedcruz/status/1796324042146038147?

    Ted Cruz nails it as usual.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  240. Paul, I don’t often agree with Rob, but he’s obviously right that I was trolling there. Perhaps it was a moment of weakness, but it was tough to pass up “they’re all the same in their personal lives.” I didn’t understand the showering with your daughter or Billy Kristrol references though.

    Nate (cfb326)

  241. Nate, I see a difference between trolling and troll, where you did the former and Rob’s the latter.

    This doesn’t mean that Criticism of Party A = endorsement of Party B. I really don’t give a rip about the Democrat Party, but I do care about a GOP that has gone wholly off the rails in obeisance to Trump, who isn’t a conservative but is a proven fraud and obvious bully, and that’s why I criticize my party more, because we’ve descended to a gutter political party.

    I didn’t need a reason to support Biden, because he’s a Democrat and I don’t cotton to Democrat policies. If he actually diddled his daughter, as alleged, it ain’t going to change my non-vote for him, and I’m in a state where 80% of America has the luxury of voting for neither of these gasbags.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  242. Ted Cruz, the most toady, tiniest weenie, in the Senate. Good lord, the puckering it takes to kiss the butt of someone who staight up accused your dad of murdering Kennedy and called your wife ugly. What a pissant.

    The Texas congressional delegation is full of mental defectives, but even the 2nd dumbest of the century Gohmert Pile has more cajones than Cruz.

    1st is Tommy Gooberville (also a massive fraudster), man, when he was the UC coach, the board was PO’d that the AD had publicly announced the hire before they got to approve, and canned him as soon as the fat buyout went away.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  243. @240 the only thing cancun ted cruz nails were found in the D.C. madams little black book.

    asset (2aa7ad)

  244. @231 Most of the posters here are leftists! REALLY! You could have fooled me and I am a proud lefty!

    asset (2aa7ad)

  245. @244 j.d vance was against trump before he need trumpster votes to win in ohio. Look it up.

    asset (2aa7ad)

  246. JD Vance, great book of fiction that got him elected. Nice story, 75% invented for the page. I laughed outloud several times reading it, in the serious parts where he’s supposed to be creating the lynchpin of his justifications. He did have a pretty crappy set of parents in real life, hence living with grandma, but his inferences on Appalachia were truly unhinged and based on what would sell, not reality.

    He’s a smart guy, and look at his rise from VC to a potential VP pick. That was engineered in detail, and he’s most certainly not MAMAMan, but it’s working for him on TV. He’s more center-right than Boehner ever was, but that doesn’t work in the age of Trump; he’d have been a GWB guy, a Teaparty guy, or whatever else he needed to be to get the deal done.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  247. I do think Vance did a tremendous job taking the difficulty in growing up poor, in a not great area, and is an incredibly well educated guy in the Senate. Without Hillbilly Eligy, it would have taken more than just Peter Thiel’s money to get him elected, but it did fit the perfect narrative for 2016…and there’s a specific reason why.

    I have a true soft spot for him, our families are from the part of Kentucky, both moved to the same part of Ohio, my parents 10 miles away, both OSU, both military, both went to the valley and came home. The my mom had a PHD, my dad an MBA and owned a pretty large logistics company when they just called them trucking companies, so my childhood was pretty different. I couldn’t sell my soul like that for getting ahead, but I guess I’d been born on second base really, and have been moderately successful, fulfilled is probably a good description, but I know a lot of folks who grew up in his situation that still have that hole in them somewhere that they keep trying to fill. Some take it a different direction, so credit where it’s due, he engineered his life to get here, and put his nose to the grindstone.

    But he’s still playing lickspitle on TV, and that, loses some serious points for me, but he could very well be VP, and positioned for Prez in ’28.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  248. Bill Clinton lost his Arkansas bar license for lying under oath about an affair. The Democrats claimed he lied for for personal reasons to protect his marriage and objected to his impeachment on that basis, but there wasn’t much objection to the loss of his bar license. They understood there were legal consequences to lying under oath.

    Comparing that to Trump and Republicans that support him, the Democrats showed they are better than Republicans in accepting legal consequences when it comes to philandering politicians. Those are words I never thought I would write.

    DRJ (f65e25)

  249. If you want to read something a bit less “invented” on Appalachia try What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  250. Yeah, Biden could just issue a blanket pardon for his son, maybe he will after the election, but he hasn’t.

    I was surprised Trump could have been talked out of it, but apparently he was. Not for altruistic reasons, but he listened to cooler heads.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  251. Yeah, Biden could just issue a blanket pardon for his son, maybe he will after the election, but he hasn’t.

    I was surprised Trump could have been talked out of it, but apparently he was. Not for altruistic reasons, but he listened to cooler heads.

    As Ramius said about Tupolev failing to sink the Red October due to the safeties on his torpedoes, “he won’t make the same mistake twice.”

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  252. As someone who really dislikes Donald Trump, this says things better than I could:

    Why Republicans Hate the Trump Verdict

    Even those who dislike the former President see a case of legal and political malpractice.

    How dare Mitt Romney. And Sens. Susan Collins and Mitch McConnell. The anti-Trump press corps is dismayed that Republicans of all stripes, even those who aren’t fond of Donald Trump, have criticized the Manhattan prosecution and guilty verdict.

    The media coverage after the verdict has followed the usual Trump-era pattern. Democrats pursue some anti-Trump operation—impeachment, a Russia collusion probe, a prosecution. The press then descends as one to chide Republicans, with the unsubtle implication that they must be unethical sellouts if they oppose what Democrats are doing.

    There’s rarely a fair-minded media accounting on the legal or substantive merits. But note that the critics of Alvin Bragg’s case aren’t merely J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio and other campaigners for Vice President. This time the critics include Sens. Romney and McConnell and Collins, as well as those of us in the media who are often critical of Mr. Trump.

    Maybe they see the case as the egregious misuse of the law that it is. And maybe they worry about the consequences for public confidence in the rule of law when a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations has expired is twisted into a convoluted felony.

    “Bragg should have settled the case against Trump, as would have been the normal procedure. But he made a political decision,” Mr. Romney told a writer for the Atlantic. “Bragg may have won the battle, for now, but he may have lost the political war. Democrats think they can put out the Trump fire with oxygen. It’s political malpractice.”

    And the political war is what matters. Anti-Trump partisans, and you know who you are, are doing the Snoopy-dance regarding this verdict, and thinking this will be the nail on Trump’s electoral coffin. In fact, it’s a Pyrrhic counting-coup. This is what he wanted. Not only does it strengthen his prospects among his supporters, it weakens respect for the Law in their eyes (and yes, that’s important even if they are all toothless smelly Walmart shoppers), and the optics and precedent of a state trying to scuttle a presidential campaign with charges like these is terrible. Don’t think it won’t happen again.

    Many Republicans we talk to are now more likely to vote for Mr. Trump after watching how Democrats have politicized the law to target a presidential opponent. They worry that a vote for Mr. Biden would vindicate this Democratic campaign by lawfare. Don’t be shocked if Mr. Romney proves to be right.

    –Wall Street Journal editorial

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  253. It’s probably a good thing that the Senate did not agree to Nancy Pelosi’s House when they wanted to allow discarding electoral votes for “insurrectionists.” As much as I wanted to see Trump disqualified in February, it would be different to do so after he won the election. It would have been an actual theft of an election rather than just an incompetent attempt at one.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  254. Comparing that to Trump and Republicans that support him, the Democrats showed they are better than Republicans in accepting legal consequences when it comes to philandering politicians. Those are words I never thought I would write.

    One lied under oath as a president, the other put lies on the memo lines of checks and other internal documents, none of it under oath and ALL of it beyond the statute of limitations. The same thing, really.

    I will point out that while a number of Republicans voted to convict Trump in 2021, no Democrat voted to convict Clinton, and he never paid any penalty for the obstruction charges.

    You really have to get your mind in a twist to see Democrats acceptance of a light sentence for a real crime to be the same as Republican opposition to these made up charges.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  255. Citizens, friends, neighbors!

    A married man had a one-night stand with a strange woman and then paid a sleazy lawyer $420,000 for (unsuccessfully) attempting to buy the strumpet’s silence for $130,000.

    If that is not why governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, I don’t know what is.

    nk (bb1548)

  256. It’s more fraud and double dealing.

    You don’t get to sidestep campaign finance laws because of “schtupping”.

    Will voters be sympathetic? It will probably cut both ways. Poor Donald yet caught in one more fraud does not make for the most sympathetic character.

    It’s also hard to hide the fact that there are even bigger frauds pending. If you feel this is the time to side with Trump, does that mean J6 is not important? Does it mean that ex-Presidents get to conspire to hide classified documents from people trying to retrieve them? It sort of seems like it. An E-felony for a first-time non-violent elderly offender….with likely no prison time…somehow erases his unfitness? Meh.

    The fact that this isn’t the biggest fraud doesn’t mean it’s not a fraud or that people shouldn’t care.

    Right now we see partisan sorting. One side says that neither the GOP Senate or the law should hold Trump to account. This is where we get left…

    AJ_Liberty (778c4f)

  257. Presidents get to conspire to hide classified documents from people trying to retrieve them?

    You mean like Biden’s testimony classified as “top secret” to hold it from the public’s right to know?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  258. We’ve been hearing for weeks about how Joe Biden is planning a big “crackdown” on illegal immigration in the face of plunging poll numbers over this issue. Don’t fall for it. Much the same as almost everything you hear from this White House, it’s a sham. As the New York Post reported yesterday, the real action is taking place in the background. The vast majority of the migrants have been allowed to submit an application for asylum, despite being clearly unqualified for the program. They were then released after being given a date to appear in immigration court to make their claim, sometimes as much as a decade later. But with little to no notification to the public, more than a quarter of a million of these migrants later had their cases closed by the federal government with no resolution. More are on the way. This means that they have neither been granted nor denied asylum but simply turned loose to go where they please with no fear of deportation and no legal status in terms of citizenship. This is truly a case of mass amnesty in an extralegal fashion, which is what the Democrats have been trying to achieve all along.

    Then there’s Biden spitting on the law allowing the invasion on the southern border and his fraudulent amnesties. Also buying votes with illegal “debt forgiveness.”

    And on and on. But carry on carrying water for the left as they turn us into the U.S.S.A.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  259. About Ted Cruz: His career — to date — reminds me of what George W. Bush said about Bill Clinton: “All that talent. Wasted.”

    As for the Democratic Party, any true patriot will be sorry to see the way it has declined in recent decades. For example, there are no Democratic senators who could match “Scoop” Jackson, Patrick Moynihan, Mike Mansfield, Bill Bradley, and others I could name, either in character or competence.

    We need at least two parties that are capable of governing.

    Jim Miller (a953cf)

  260. DRJ,

    I see him for what he is. He is no different in his personal life than Clinton, Biden, Obama, who all invited disreputable people into their lives. I can separate the politics from the person. His positions in office are better for me and for America than Biden. I tried to get people to support DeSantis who was a better option. It was not productive.

    What is worse is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you are willing to trash our system of governance because you think Trump is the worst and not worthy of a fair system of justice, then you are willing to destroy the nation to get the devil. What does that mean going forward?

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 6/2/2024 @ 5:38 pm

    Just when i thought NJRob’s moral compass couldn’t get any more warped by partisanship.

    Both Trump and Clinton have been credibly accused of rape and sexual assault. I think both have committed rape, but there’s no jury finding of that. Both Trump and Clinton were friends of Jeffry Epstein. I have no problem highlighting Obama and Biden’s moral failings, but putting them into the same category as Don Trump and Bill Clinton is just silly. If you want to support him despite what a horrible person he is that’s your choice. But to quote Whembly “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”

    Time123 (316585)

  261. Speaking of Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime. Jury selection begins in the Hunter Biden Trial.

    FWIW I’m fine with the powerful and the children of the powerful being held to the letter of the law and hope Whembly is correct in his threats that this is the start of a series of retaliatory investigations where elected officials and their progeny are investigated thoroughly and cut no slack. I honestly don’t see a lot of downside to that and I hope insider trading and influence peddling are intense areas of focus.

    Time123 (316585)

  262. Presidents get to conspire to hide classified documents from people trying to retrieve them?

    You mean like Biden’s testimony classified as “top secret” to hold it from the public’s right to know?

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 6/3/2024 @ 6:23 am

    Biden may be misusing the classification process.

    Trump is credibly accused of moving boxes containing national secrets in order to hide them from their rightful owner, the US government.

    Very different things, but both are bad.

    Time123 (316585)

  263. Trump and his supporters claim this is a political witchhunt, even though these laws aren’t new and apply to everyone. Meanwhile, Romney, Collins, and the Wall Street Journal object to this prosecution because it might help Trump politically.

    Each one of them are deciding what the law should be/do because of how it might impact politics. They and everyone that agrees with them are the ones politicizing the law.

    DRJ (496584)

  264. @88

    Persuade me that people prefer evidence to spin.

    Here, whembly will simply vector to whatever Jonathan Turley and Andrew McCarthy tell him to think. And both are invested in their anti-anti-Trump persona…they will not have an 11th hour epiphany about the events. They are Republican lawyers and whembly will follow them over some unknown Jack Smith. Add in FNC and Talk Radio and few on the Right have the stomach to hold Trump accountable over J6 or the classified documents. The moment has passed. If people wanted accountability, the nominee would be DeSantis or Haley.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 6/1/2024 @ 11:12 am

    I’m going to remember this AJ…

    What will your reaction be if this conviction is overturned at appeal?

    whembly (b00359)

  265. Looks like my question at #175 has been ignored, so I’ll ask it again:

    Does anyone really think it is inappropriate to investigate, charge, and try other parties involved in a crime after one of the parties involved was already convicted for their part in the crime?

    Sam G (87ab56)

  266. @113

    There was a civil war already going on in the form of all these legal skirmishes. Now that blood has been drawn, the civil war goes into a new phase.
    What that looks like, I can’t tell you. But there will be retaliation which will in turn escalate.
    There are 50 states with thousand of GOP lawyers, so we are going to get a wide variety of responses on a scale of Louie Gohmert to John Yoo (just as a sample)

    Some will be very refined but still very painful. John Yoo

    Others will be more of and “if we are going to blow this “s” up then lets get on with it. Rip off the duct tape we’ve been using as a bandaid and get on with it” Louie Gohmert

    I’m starting to get very worried on behalf of Hunter Biden. Do not use the troubled son as a proxy for his Dad. Slap his wrist over the gun and that needs to be the end of it.
    My prayer for this day is that Hunter will be treated very fairly within the situation he is in and that will he be protected by God from people who would look to hurt Hunter because they can’t get at his father Joe.

    steveg (25401a) — 6/1/2024 @ 2:33 pm

    Yup.

    Consider this:
    https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/39A.2.pdf
    …makes it a feolony when someone “Pays, offers to pay, or causes to be paid money or any other thing of value to a person to influence the person’s vote”.

    Student loan forgiveness is a thing of value…

    The Biden camp has legit said that loan forgiveness would influence the vote. It’s generally understood that the Biden Whitehouse has been pushing this terrible policy for electoral reasons. Biden is literally campaigning on it.

    Oh look! Floriday has the same sort of law:
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0104/Sections/0104.061.html
    …is acting “unconstitutionally” corrupt with respect to this code?

    Oh, look again! Wyoming has something similar too:
    https://wyoleg.gov/statutes/compress/title22.pdf
    Biden lost Wyoming under similarly losses that of Trump at NY… you think democrats would argue that Biden couldn’t get a fair trial?

    We are on a dangerous precedent here, whereby prosecutors stretching the law for political purposes.

    There’s a lot of reaping now…

    …the sowing is going to be painful.

    whembly (b00359)

  267. @136

    No, the crime underlying felonies were the FEC violation (he paid $187k fine) and NY State Tax fraud.

    They should have been charged in the indictment, each element by element, and the jury instructions should have mirrored the indictment with a requirement that each element be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    nk (d98a63) — 6/1/2024 @ 4:51 pm

    This.

    Because that wasn’t done, the case will be overturned at somepoint. Even SCOTUS required that juries must be unanimous on the underlining basis for convictions.

    whembly (b00359)

  268. @266, I’m inclined to trust the appellate courts decision

    Time123 (c4fcc7)

  269. @157

    Then the judge issued jury instructions that seemed to fly in the face of our jurisprudence, by allowing the jury convict on felony charges without unanimous agreement as to what were the specific illegal acts to influence the election.

    Not required by New York Penal Law § 175.05 and 175.10 or by the Supreme Court in Schad v. Arizona

    Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 6/1/2024 @ 6:14 pm

    But it *is* required under Ramos v. Louisiana.

    whembly (b00359)

  270. 268, I’m not too worried that courts are going to find that it’s illegal to enact policies you expect to be popular with voters. Which is what you’re calling for in this one.

    Time123 (c4fcc7)

  271. @269, I’ve read that it was a strategy by both the prosecutor and defense not to as that a lesser included charge be included. I wonder if the decision you’re advocating for would result in a new trial that needed to include those instructions?

    Any lawyers here feel like educating/ opining?

    Time123 (c4fcc7)

  272. @272

    268, I’m not too worried that courts are going to find that it’s illegal to enact policies you expect to be popular with voters. Which is what you’re calling for in this one.

    Time123 (c4fcc7) — 6/3/2024 @ 9:17 am

    No, that’s not what I’m saying.

    Under Bragg’s theory, I’m literally saying that Biden’s unlawful student loan forgiveness, that’s being smacked DOWN by the court by the way… could be used to criminally prosecute Biden (and his staff) for influencing the election by illegal means.

    This is/would be a clear cut partisan prosecution.

    But, that’s where we’re at.

    I don’t see how this can be avoided now.

    whembly (b00359)

  273. whembly —

    I am willing to stipulate that the New York appellate court will get New York state law right when they hear the Trump case, so long as you are willing to stipulate that the jury is not corrupt (contra NJRob) and made determinations in line with the facts that were presented to them at trial.

    Appalled (ff50a7)

  274. 267.

    Looks like my question at #175 has been ignored, so I’ll ask it again:

    This calls for an answer only if the answer is YES. But it’s NO.

    Does anyone really think it is inappropriate to investigate, charge, and try other parties involved in a crime after one of the parties involved was already convicted for their part in the crime?

    No, but the problem is that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty as part of a negotiated plea bargain that Trump had no opportunity to challenge and that seemed to go against precedent. There was no federal prosecution, and Michael Cohen did NOT get any credit for coo-operation because he was still lying, and they couldn’t ethically use him.

    Now what Cyrus Vance and Alvin Bragg did (and so did Fani Willis in Atlanta) was to undertake a state prosecution, probably at the instigation of the White House) that a Republican could not pardon in the future, but they were focusing on a different case and Vance dropped this Michael Cohen derived case and decided to try to prosecute Trump for the same thing his company was prosecuted for (valuing his properties at different prices for different purposes) but his term ran out and Bragg took over and Bragg decided to drop the financial accounting case (probably because if he won on the law many Democratic contributors could be prosecuted also) and many prosecutors in his office resigned over that but he revived this case because he felt he could win it and he only needed one case against Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  275. @274, That is what you’re saying. Generalize it.

    Biden’s unlawful student loan forgiveness, that’s being smacked DOWN by the court by the way… could be used to criminally prosecute Biden (and his staff) for influencing the election by illegal means.

    An elected official’s policy act, that’s being smacked DOWN by the court by the way… could be used to criminally prosecute Biden (and his staff) for influencing the election by illegal means.

    If some moron with a law degree in a deep red district wants to take this action against Biden there’s nothing stopping them. But I expect that it won’t get very far and the threat of the attempt doesn’t fill me with dread. I’m hoping your team continues to focus on retribution through things that will spiral to reduce corruption. But I’m usually disappointed by politics.

    Time123 (316585)

  276. The jury can be corrupt and still rule according to how the judge stipulated they must.

    When 2/3 of your jury pool walked out immediately because they admitted they could not be unbiased, that shows the pool is endemically tainted.

    NJRob (d406b8)

  277. @274, Or they could go hard on campaign finance laws. Investigate every elected official they don’t like to see if they did anything wrong on the money side. That would be another vengeance scheme that might make things better.

    Time123 (316585)

  278. @278, where are you going to find jury pool that has no strong opinions about Donald Trump? If you moved the trial to rural Oklahoma you’d have the same problem for the opposite reason. If you moved it to a swing district you’d still have the problem, only some of the people would be unable to render a fair verdict because they love him and other because they loathe him.

    At some point with a defendant this famous we have to count on the process to find jurors who can render a verdict based on evidence despite what they already know about the defendant.

    Time123 (316585)

  279. Appalled (ff50a7) — 6/3/2024 @ 9:30 am

    ) and made determinations in line with the facts that were presented to them at trial

    And the law as presented to then.

    They may also have overlooked some facts because, for one thing, the records were created AFTER the alleged first crime not BEFORE.

    But something in the instructions (and an alleged conspiracy that included this) may have covered that. And Trump may not effectively challenged that he did nit approve the payment to Stormy Daniels in advance, meaning it was nit an illlegal contribution of unsecured loan to the campaign by Michael Cohen,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  280. @275

    whembly —

    I am willing to stipulate that the New York appellate court will get New York state law right when they hear the Trump case, so long as you are willing to stipulate that the jury is not corrupt (contra NJRob) and made determinations in line with the facts that were presented to them at trial.

    Appalled (ff50a7) — 6/3/2024 @ 9:30 am

    No. I will not play that game.

    Political abuse of the legal system is a lethal poison to our Republic. It must be called out and condemned, no matter who’s the defendant.

    Its not toxic partisanship to point this out and to condemn this prosecution, judge and jury perpetuating this.

    The ideals of “upholding the law” does not require silence nor acquiescence in the face of corruption.

    whembly (86df54)

  281. whembly #283:

    Its not toxic partisanship to point this out and to condemn this prosecution, judge and jury perpetuating this.

    The ideals of “upholding the law” does not require silence nor acquiescence in the face of corruption.

    So we’re clear — the guilty verdict by the jurors is a result, in part, of knowingly corrupt actions by the jurors. They were not misled by the judge and the prosecutor. They were all in on the scam.

    Appalled (ff50a7)

  282. @284 Appalled (ff50a7) — 6/3/2024 @ 11:22 am
    I’d appreciate that you don’t read into more than what I’ve already stated.

    Juries has agency.

    They’re the last “check” against a corrupt prosecution.

    It’s rather easy to see how much BS this case is… and this jury wiffed.

    whembly (86df54)

  283. For those who practice law… what do you think of McCarthy’s post here:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/06/the-other-crime-in-the-trump-trial-conflating-ends-and-means/

    whembly (86df54)

  284. > But it *is* required under Ramos v. Louisiana.

    No, it isn’t. Ramos requires that the jury unanimously agree on all of the elements of the crime. The element here is that there *is another criminal act*, not the specifics of the criminal act.

    This is exactly the way burglary works — burglary is entering a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony, and all that is required is that the jury unanimously agree that there was intent to commit a felony, they do *not* have to agree on a *specific anchor felony*.

    Ramos did not upend burglary law across the nation.

    aphrael (1797ab)

  285. Democrat and never trump lawyers are looking at this wave of lawfare and saying bring it, we are smarter and better than those gop mouthbreathing trumpsters-remember that week we did in middle school mock trial camp! we ruled bro. gop nerds are saying the same thing.
    Band camp for lawyers

    F.

    Its bad for the country you giddy little tw-ts

    steveg (3af029)

  286. If the electorate “wiffs” when they’re asked to decide the election in November, should we say that was a corrupt election and not accept that result either?

    Turd Ferguson (115608)

  287. Political abuse of the legal system is a lethal poison to our Republic. It must be called out and condemned, no matter who’s the defendant.

    Do you feel the same way about Hunter Biden’s trial? He’s being criminally charged with tax crimes that are usually handled civilly and changed with a gun crime that’s rarely prosecuted as a stand alone crime. It seems obvious to me that he was selected for special focus entirely because of who is father is. I’m not much bothered by it for reasons that I’ve stated previously, including because “who his father is” is his primary job qualification.

    Clinton’s impeachment trial was based on perjury over an affair. They nailed his lying a$$ fair and square, but they were investigating a land deal and managed to get him in a perjury trap on a completely unrelated matter. I’m fine with how it turned out, but this was definitely a weaponized legal system.

    You call this corruption, I think the investigation was motivated in part by partisanship by Bragg, but Trump appears to have done what he was accused of. Ppl have been charged under the false records law as well as for misusing campaign funds to hush up an affair

    While I still would rather he have been acquitted (or convicted of a misdemeanor) I don’t see this as the totally new thing you seem to.

    Time123 (316585)

  288. Yup. Toldja so…
    https://hotair.com/generalissimo/2024/06/03/the-mask-comes-off-anthony-faucis-pandemic-response-n3789524


    In short, the response to the pandemic – the masks, the social distancing, the separation of families, the 6-foot spacing signs graffitied all across the country, the plexiglass walls erected to wall people off from each other, the closed schools, all of it was bovine excrement. All of it. There wasn’t a lick of science behind any of the policy.

    whembly (86df54)

  289. @277

    No, but the problem is that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty as part of a negotiated plea bargain that Trump had no opportunity to challenge and that seemed to go against precedent. There was no federal prosecution, and Michael Cohen did NOT get any credit for coo-operation because he was still lying, and they couldn’t ethically use him.

    Why would Trump have any part in challenging Cohen’s criminal guilty plea (which to be clear – he could have pardoned Cohen prior to being charged/pleading guilty and didn’t), and how does this have any difference to any other case where there are multiple parties involved in a crime and one of those parties taking a plea deal and testifying against the other parties?

    Vance’s investigations started while Trump was still in office.

    Sam G (87ab56)

  290. whembly,

    I am giving you the opportunity to be clear — I do not want to put words in your mouth. What I understand you to say at this point is the jury blew it by handing Trump a guilty verdict. You are making no judgments on whether that was due to corruption, prejudice, inattentiveness, etc. Nevertheless, you do see it as a dereliction of their duty as jurors.

    Appalled (ff50a7)

  291. aphrael

    Good morning

    Not trying to but in on your larger conversation on Ramos v. Louisiana in @287
    Can you clarify this: burglary is entering a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony

    It jumped out at me because when I burglarize, my intent is to raid the beer fridge of Natty Light.

    steveg (3af029)

  292. @274 and @278 – the part that was blocked by SCOTUS was using the HEROES Act to cancel student loan debt, not cancelling student loan debt in general. Someone would need to sue and show that any student loan forgiveness violated the relevant laws that were used to cancel said debts.

    Sam G (87ab56)

  293. Isn’t Biden canceling student loan debt based on the broad authority that Congress has given to the Department of Education? I oppose it both as bad policy and as Congress delegating too much of its power to executive agencies, but it’s hard to say it’s unconstitutional.

    So, how is an authorized use of government power converted into a criminal act…especially bribery? Would any tax cut or regulatory cut similarly be bribery? It’s absurdity. I suspect that we will see quite soon in what matters a President will be immune. That immunity likely will not cover obstructing the return of classified materials upon leaving the White House…and it won’t include a plan to substitute fake electors to steal an election. I would also imagine it will not include fraudulent hush money schemes to hide damaging allegations.

    Obviously this is ludicrous….and would violate good-faith legal ethics…and would likely bring forth legal sanctions. It would be transparent abuse of process….and would be the rare occasion where a ham sandwich is not indicted by a grand jury. The fact that some here want partisan lawyers to flop on their swords to make a dumb point is eye-popping.

    Maybe a class-E non-violent felony charge for a rapidly aging first-time offender is not as sexy as an obstruction charge….but it’s still fraud in service of avoiding campaign finance restrictions. If you have the facts, you argue the facts. When you don’t, you apparently put on the clown nose….

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  294. @290

    Political abuse of the legal system is a lethal poison to our Republic. It must be called out and condemned, no matter who’s the defendant.

    Do you feel the same way about Hunter Biden’s trial? He’s being criminally charged with tax crimes that are usually handled civilly and changed with a gun crime that’s rarely prosecuted as a stand alone crime. It seems obvious to me that he was selected for special focus entirely because of who is father is. I’m not much bothered by it for reasons that I’ve stated previously, including because “who his father is” is his primary job qualification.

    Yes.

    But, I think Hunter’s lawyer’s strategy is what contributed as to why it’s still ongoing, with more serious charges.

    Remember, his lawyers, with the help of prosecutors willingly to go along with a scheme that would give Hunter a super-sweat plea deal that ALSO immunize any other potential infractions he may have committed in the past.

    Clinton’s impeachment trial was based on perjury over an affair. They nailed his lying a$$ fair and square, but they were investigating a land deal and managed to get him in a perjury trap on a completely unrelated matter. I’m fine with how it turned out, but this was definitely a weaponized legal system.

    And that was a civil case… and not during the presidential election.

    You call this corruption, I think the investigation was motivated in part by partisanship by Bragg, but Trump appears to have done what he was accused of. Ppl have been charged under the false records law as well as for misusing campaign funds to hush up an affair

    While I still would rather he have been acquitted (or convicted of a misdemeanor) I don’t see this as the totally new thing you seem to.

    Time123 (316585) — 6/3/2024 @ 11:41 am

    It’s a partisan corruption, meaning this wouldn’t have happened to someone else not-named Trump.

    You have a prosecutor who campaigned on to “get” Trump.

    You have a judge who donated to an anti-Trump PAC.

    This is literally the case whereby the prosecution/judge has announced to the world that they support “getting” Trump.

    whembly (86df54)

  295. @293

    whembly,

    I am giving you the opportunity to be clear — I do not want to put words in your mouth. What I understand you to say at this point is the jury blew it by handing Trump a guilty verdict. You are making no judgments on whether that was due to corruption, prejudice, inattentiveness, etc. Nevertheless, you do see it as a dereliction of their duty as jurors.

    Appalled (ff50a7) — 6/3/2024 @ 11:50 am

    Correct.

    But I do place MOST of the blame on this prosecution/judge though.

    whembly (86df54)

  296. I still see no one attemping to argue that Trump is guilty. Lots of arguments about why he shouldn’t have been charged with crimes that other people, including his co-conspirators who have already been convicted and served jail time for, have been. So it’s politics if he’s charged with crimes that others get charged for because he’s an ex-prez, but if he’s not charged with crimes (again that no one seems to argue he actually perpetrated) because he’s an ex-prez it’s not politics. The former seems less political than the latter.

    Basically, justice for thee and not me. That’s about as anti-American as you can get.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  297. Looking at the quoted jury instructions again:

    1. That on or about February 14, 2017, in the county of
    New York and elsewhere, the defendant, personally, or
    by acting in concert with another person or persons,
    made or caused a false entry in the business records of
    an enterprise,

    He can be deemed to have caused it if he agreed something false would be recorded.

    specifically, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017,

    He caused Michael Cohen to send that invoice?

    And then there’s the argument that that was treated, for all intents and purposes as valid, and therefore was the truth.

    marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept or
    maintained by the Trump Organization; and

    2. That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that
    included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or
    conceal the commission thereof.

    The key thing they are relying on is the word “conceal”

    The crime is conspiring to elect someone by unlawful means. Meaning, in this case, the fact that Michael Cohen advanced the money. He claims he was directed to do so by Donald Trump and that Trump approved it in advance and that in a specific phone call lasting just over 1 and a half minutes he notified Donald Trump that it had been done except that that last claim was exposed as almost certainly a lie in cross examination. (it was about something else, as indicated by text messages and he did not talk to Trump)

    What is unlawful about Michael Cohen making that payment has been described in strange terms. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said, probably for popular consumption, that it was a “scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.”

    https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/05/30/breaking-trump-found-guilty-on-34-felony-counts-in-ny-hush-money-trial

    One writer wrote:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/opinion/trump-trial-defense.html

    Although these so-called catch-and-kill schemes were not inherently illegal, prosecutors demonstrated that the scheme was carried out through several unlawful methods. These included creating false documents in A.M.I.’s records; false statements that Michael Cohen, who was then Mr. Trump’s lawyer and fixer, made to a bank related to an account he opened for a shell corporation to handle the payments; and false documents reflecting the tax status of the payments to Mr. Cohen.

    That he owed taxes when he did not. That’s the misreporting tax offense.

    And the scheme also included the primary allegation: that the catch-and-kill payments amounted to illegal contributions to the Trump campaign — a crime for which A.M.I. was investigated and Mr. Cohen was later convicted.

    He pled guilty to that in order to have a Trump-related crime he could plead guilty to. But even if this was a crime for him, it would not have been a crime for Donald Trump. In fact, it would probably have been a crime for him to use campaign funds for that purpose. Trump was prevented from presenting testimony that would have informed the jury of that last point, on the grounds that expert testimony could not be accepted on that point, and Bradley Smith, the former Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission was not out up by the defense as a witness at all…

    In this light, prosecutors argued, the false documents in the records of the Trump Organization should be viewed as some of the final criminal steps in an ultimately successful scheme to suppress damaging information. After Mr. Trump won the election, the conspirators needed to cover their tracks by falsifying paperwork to explain the reimbursements to Mr. Cohen.

    Explain to whom? Why? Because of Michael Cohens paranoia? When would it come out? In the event of a divorce from Melania? We only know about this because Michael Cohen volunteered it.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  298. @287

    > But it *is* required under Ramos v. Louisiana.

    No, it isn’t. Ramos requires that the jury unanimously agree on all of the elements of the crime. The element here is that there *is another criminal act*, not the specifics of the criminal act.

    This is exactly the way burglary works — burglary is entering a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony, and all that is required is that the jury unanimously agree that there was intent to commit a felony, they do *not* have to agree on a *specific anchor felony*.

    Ramos did not upend burglary law across the nation.

    aphrael (1797ab) — 6/3/2024 @ 11:37 am

    Now, you’re just playing word game.

    How do you get a decision that requires that the jury unanimously agree on all of the elements of the crime…to not having the jury to agree unanimously on the underlining second crime as somehow constitutionally kosher?

    This is one of the reason it can be reversed.

    whembly (86df54)

  299. @299

    I still see no one attemping to argue that Trump is guilty.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/3/2024 @ 12:02 pm

    I’m here saying he’s not guilty.

    Now what?

    whembly (86df54)

  300. To those supporting this Trump conviction… please answer me this:

    How likely would Alvin Bragg bring the same sort of charges to Hillary Clinton?

    In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was fined $8,000 for violating federal campaign finance laws.

    Why?

    Because her team falsely reported the funding of the Steele Dossier as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting.”

    Actually this “opposition research” was an attempt to smear her opponent with false and salacious allegations.

    Obviously, it was also intended to influence the 2016 election.

    Moreover, Hillary’s campaign was headquartered in New York State (out of Brooklyn, NY), which would make it fall under the jurisdiction of New York Penal Law §175.10, the state law which makes it a felony to falsify business records with the intent to conceal the commission of a crime.

    What is the key distinction between Hillary’s campaign violation versus this Bragg’s case against Trump?

    With Hillary’s violation, I doubt there’s a Manhattan prosecutor politically motivated to bring an unprecedented case to trial.

    Please do tell me where I’m wrong.

    ::patiently awaits the retorts::

    whembly (86df54)

  301. Except for myself and nk, I think that the reaction to the NY verdicts by people here follows exactly one’s willingness to vote for Trump (or the lack thereof). In short, the right ox got gored.

    I would be interested to hear from one of the anti-trump tribe why they think Susan Collins, a senator who voted to convict Trump, voted against Amy Coney Barrett, and who may be retiring, argues against these verdicts.

    Is she trying to pander to the Trumpists? Because that’s what it seems you think.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  302. What happened later:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal

    …Daniels filed three lawsuits against Trump and/or Cohen. In the first lawsuit she argued that the NDA was invalid. She won the lawsuit, though it was dismissed after Trump and Cohen agreed not to enforce the NDA.[55] A California court subsequently ordered Trump pay $44,100 to reimburse her legal fees.[56] She lost the second lawsuit, in which she argued she was defamed, and was ordered to pay almost $300,000 in legal fees and court sanctions.[57] In the third lawsuit she claimed that Cohen colluded with her previous attorney Keith Davidson against her interests when he negotiated the payment. The lawsuit did not name Trump as a defendant, and settled in May 2019.[58]

    Later there was another development:

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-avenatti-argues-overturn-conviction-defrauding-stormy-daniels/story?id=106135030

    Michael Avenatti argues to overturn conviction for defrauding Stormy Daniels

    Avenatti was convicted of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

    ….Avenatti was convicted of aggravated identity theft and is serving prison time for defrauding his best-known client, adult film actress Stormy Daniels, out of the proceeds of her book contract.

    On appeal, his defense argued the trial judge added inappropriate and prejudicial instructions to the jury about the seriousness of Avenatti’s crime because it represented a breach of a lawyer’s ethical duties.

    He argues, I suppose, that that was not an additional element of the crime and it’s only prejudicial

    Avenatti was convicted of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft for stealing from Daniels about $300,000 she was supposed to receive in connection with a book contract.

    “Avenatti stole from his client. He did so to support his own business and fund his own lifestyle. He did so despite presenting himself to the world as his client’s champion and defender and despite using that feigned credibility to secure fame and pursue political influence,” prosecutors said.

    The judge allowed Avenatti to serve about half of his sentence at the same time he serves prison time for extorting Nike. He will spend an extra two and a half years in prison for stealing from Daniels.

    That Nike case is problematical. Maybe it was extortion if Avenatti was in effect admitting he was threatening Nike with an unfounded lawsuit.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  303. Meanwhile, Romney, Collins, and the Wall Street Journal object to this prosecution because it might help Trump politically.

    And clearly DRJ has slipped the traces if he thinks that Collins and Romney are now Trumpists.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  304. Trump and his supporters claim this is a political witchhunt, even though these laws aren’t new and apply to everyone.

    Yeah, countless cases of that NY law when applied to documents never used externally. Because you cannot count “zero.”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  305. Whembly – the specific anchor felony is not an element, the existing of *an* anchor felony is.

    This is standard law in by and many other jurisdictions.

    See https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/1700/1700/ for the California jury instructions for burglary. It’s quite clear that prosecutors can allege multiple possible anchor felonies and the jury does not have to agree on which one, they just have to agree that there was intent to commit a felony.

    American law has worked like this forever. Ramos did not upend it

    aphrael (8c08ec)

  306. whembly (86df54) — 6/3/2024 @ 12:16 pm

    Please do tell me where I’m wrong.

    The District Attorney of New York County only has jurisdiction over crime committed in the borough of Manhattan. His jurisdiction does not extend to Brooklyn (Kings County)

    Even the federal prosecutors are different.

    But I’ll tell you something else: Bragg dropped a stronger case against Trump in favor of this case, which the previous DA had abandoned. (I think the other case could have impacted other people)

    That’s how political this was.

    The pro-Democrat justsecurity web site comes to Bragg’s defense:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/85015/pomerantz-v-pomerantz-an-annotation-of-his-leaked-2022-resignation-letter-in-manhattan-trump-investigation

    On Feb. 23, 2022, veteran defense lawyer and prosecutor Mark Pomerantz resigned from the Manhattan District Attorney Office where he had helped lead a criminal investigation over the past year into former president Donald Trump’s finances and business practices. His resignation letter, which was shortly thereafter anonymously provided to the New York Times, set off an outcry in some quarters against Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

    The resignation letter asserted that Bragg’s predecessor, Cy Vance, had directed the office to seek an indictment of Trump and that Bragg had decided to effectively drop the case. Now, one year later, Pomerantz has released a book containing his account of his year in the DA’s office. But many of the assertions in the book, rather than support Pomerantz’s resignation letter, cast a very different impression of his prior claims….

    :

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  307. Does anyone really think it is inappropriate to investigate, charge, and try other parties involved in a crime after one of the parties involved was already convicted for their part in the crime?

    Not at all. But they did not do that. Cohen was never charged for trying to cover up a crime, which is ALL that Trump was charged with. Cohen pleaded guilty to a package of crimes, of which the one that implicated Trump was the least serious, then got a reduced sentence for the serious one.

    Trump could not be charged with the crime that Cohen actually pleaded to — the statute of limitations had run out, so they found a meta-crime that allowed them to charge a felony for a limited-out misdemeanor.

    Then they charged it 34 times, even though it was one crime spread over time. Even then the judge thought it was all one crime as he only read the one charge and suggested it wasn’t possible to split the verdicts.

    So, no, your dishonest spin on what happened isn’t even true.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  308. I still see no one attemping to argue that Trump is guilty.

    Oh, he’s guilty of a lot. He’s even guilty of this charge. But that’s not the point.

    The argument here is that they searched high and low for a crime to charge because the DA was under a great deal of political pressure to charge something. That is using the law for political ends, and we should have a law againat that.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  309. That isn’t accurate.

    DRJ (496584)

  310. 310 and 311.

    DRJ (496584)

  311. There are charges filed in every community where there is pressure on DAs to bring charges. That doesn’t make the charges unfair or political, simply because community concern led to investigations and charges being filed.

    Just because a politician was a target doesn’t make these charges political, provided there ws a basis in fact and law to bring the charges. There was here.

    DRJ (496584)

  312. The argument here is that they searched high and low for a crime to charge because the DA was under a great deal of political pressure to charge something. That is using the law for political ends, and we should have a law againat that.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/3/2024 @ 12:45 pm

    A pointless argument given the fact that Trump was tried and found guilty. Reality can’t be changed. Don Quixote would be proud.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  313. Even on Pomerantz’s own telling, the meeting persuaded him and Carey Dunne at this late date [Dec. 9, 2021] to drop their theory of the case as a scheme to defraud and switch instead to falsification of business records that would not require proof of financial loss (pp. 189-90).

    I am thinking this did not, as yet, referring to the payments to Michael Cohen.

    It is pretty clear from all of this, anyway, that they were looking for something to charge Donald Trump with, and not just doing their jobs. (althouh that could be characterized as doing their job)

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  314. To those supporting this Trump conviction… please answer me this:

    How likely would Alvin Bragg bring the same sort of charges to Hillary Clinton?

    In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was fined $8,000 for violating federal campaign finance laws.

    Why?

    Because her team falsely reported the funding of the Steele Dossier as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting.”

    Did she falsify business records in her NY corporation to cover up her false campaign reporting? The fact that her campaign was located in New York doesn’t mean its a New York corporation.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  315. I think they searched high and low for a crime to charge Donald Trump with whose premise would not impact any other person and certainly not other people in the real estate business.

    I am assuming that the arguments offered, or the decisions on what investigations to pursue made were not entirely made on the stated grounds.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  316. @308

    Whembly – the specific anchor felony is not an element, the existing of *an* anchor felony is.

    This is standard law in by and many other jurisdictions.

    See https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/1700/1700/ for the California jury instructions for burglary. It’s quite clear that prosecutors can allege multiple possible anchor felonies and the jury does not have to agree on which one, they just have to agree that there was intent to commit a felony.

    American law has worked like this forever. Ramos did not upend it

    aphrael (8c08ec) — 6/3/2024 @ 12:35 pm

    You’re misapplying the standard with respect to this Bragg’s case.

    How can there be guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury doesn’t agree on whether prosecutors have proved a key element of the case? And which one or ones of the menu items did the jurors pick? We’ll never know. This hack of a judge dispensed with the routine procedure of jury interrogatories. Interrogatories, after all, would have documented the jury’s conclusions for appellate courts to review.

    This is one of the biggest reason, if not only, why this case will be overturned.

    whembly (86df54)

  317. @317

    Did she falsify business records in her NY corporation to cover up her false campaign reporting?

    Yes.

    The fact that her campaign was located in New York doesn’t mean its a New York corporation.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/3/2024 @ 12:59 pm

    It was, and thus under same NY jurisdiction.

    whembly (86df54)

  318. The *exact same way* that there is guilt beyond reasonable doubt if half the jury thinks someone broke into a house intending to commit larceny and half the jury thinks someone broke into a house intending to shoot heroin. Everyone agrees there was intent to commit a felony.

    The standard is the same.

    Your theory would overturn centuries of precedent regarding burglary law.

    aphrael (99fd6b)

  319. Whembly, According to this letter the FEC tied it to the treasurer and not to Clinton directly.

    The Commission further found probable cause to believe that Hillary for
    America and Elizabeth Jones in her official capacity as treasurer (“HFA”) violated 52 U.S.C.
    § 30104(b)(5)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(4)(i)

    If there were similar evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton personally as there was about Donald Trump I think it would have been likely that Hillary was charged, but I think the push for the charges would have come from republicans and that it’s very likely that the elected prosecutor would have been reluctant to bring them.

    However, I’m not aware of any evidence that HRC was personally involved or that her created fraudulent business records to cover it up (as opposed to simply reporting it incorrectly to the FEC).

    Donald Trump is horrible at coloring inside the lines. I understand that this feeds the perception of a two tiered justice system as small distinctions like this, while important, aren’t emotionally satisfying in the face of watching ‘your side’ punished for things both sides do, simply because they did them worse or poorly.

    As I’ve taken the time to educate myself somewhat about the details behind your question and given you an honest answer, do you mind answering my questions about Hunter Biden and Bill Clinton? How are those not also examples of ‘weaponizing the legal system’?

    Time123 (316585)

  320. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/alvin-bragg-trump-case-legal-theory-rcna154413

    When the indictment was unsealed in April 2023, it revealed 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 17-152. It’s important to take a minute to digest what the prosecution had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt: Trump, with the intent to defraud, made (or caused to be made) false entries in an enterprise’s business records, and his “intent to defraud included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” What is the other crime that the prosecution said Trump intended to commit or to aid or conceal the commission of? According to Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass, that would be New York Election Law Section 17-152: “Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

    I think this could violate the 6th amendment right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” against him, and to defend himself against it, especially when the law governing the second offense is complicated, unless the accusation is of a general intent to ignore and violate the law.

    And then there’s the question of whether the NDA can really be understood as being part of a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office”

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  321. @317

    Did she falsify business records in her NY corporation to cover up her false campaign reporting?

    Yes.

    Do you want to share the evidence of this? I didn’t find it when I looked into this, but my research wasn’t that deep.

    Time123 (316585)

  322. I think they searched high and low for a crime to charge Donald Trump with whose premise would not impact any other person and certainly not other people in the real estate business.

    Not true. New York has prosecuted hundreds of cases of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  323. It is true that defrauding does not have to be of money.

    The falsification of business records law was probably intended to cover things like justifying a selling price asked for a business.

    And with conspiracy to promote or prevent election they were probably thinking mainly of vote fraud.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  324. Did she falsify business records in her NY corporation to cover up her false campaign reporting?

    Yes.

    What was the name of her corporation?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  325. Did she falsify business records in her NY corporation to cover up her false campaign reporting?

    Yes.

    The fact that her campaign was located in New York doesn’t mean its a New York corporation.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/3/2024 @ 12:59 pm

    It was, and thus under same NY jurisdiction.

    whembly (86df54) — 6/3/2024 @ 1:12 pm

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  326. #304

    I have never felt especially comfortable with this case. Probably because this from nk pretty well covers it:

    Citizens, friends, neighbors!

    A married man had a one-night stand with a strange woman and then paid a sleazy lawyer $420,000 for (unsuccessfully) attempting to buy the strumpet’s silence for $130,000.

    If that is not why governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, I don’t know what is.

    That said, I’ll draw the comparison Trump drew — to that great American, Al Capone. In 1928, the IRS was tasked with a simple assignment: “Get him”. They did, in 1931, for failure to pay income taxes on his bootlegging business. I don’t think too many today would argue he didn’t merit getting.

    Trump has done a beautiful job of screwing with the US justice system, delaying the charges he should be confronting now. Welp, the consequence is that he faced and lost this one. If he had any chance of seeing the other charges before election day, I would be quite happy to see this charge just disappear. Also, Trump’s deny deny deny approach, which has worked well for him over the years, finally turned out to wreck things in this case.

    I actually do understand why others feel differently. Rough justice often turns out to be an illusion instead of justice. I am not going to weep for DJT, though.

    Appalled (ff50a7)

  327. Time123 (316585) — 6/3/2024 @ 11:41 am

    obvious to me that he was selected for special focus entirely because of who is father is.

    If not so, nobody would have been interested in the laptop, and nobody would have spent much time coming through it, and Giuliani wouldn’t have pointed out the open and shut black letter law violations of gun control laws.

    This was about to be plea bargained away, but Hunter Biden’s lawyer attempted to include in the plea bargain all other offenses, and this got noticed (maybe not by the judge at first) and here we are.

    Clinton’s impeachment trial was based on perjury over an affair. They nailed his lying a$$ fair and square, but they were investigating a land deal and managed to get him in a perjury trap on a completely unrelated matter.

    No, it was a totally separate investigation brought to their attention by the same witness, not ona land deal, but in the Vincent Foster case- she had information on when Vincent Foster left the White House and on his mood and on the removal of his records -claimed later to be of Whitewater but probably mostly consisting of legal and political secrets including I think the planning for the Waco fire.

    Vincent Foster was the deputy White House counsel and had the records not be removed they would have fallen into the hands of Bernard Nussbaum, the White House counsel, who was not privy to Bill Clinton’s legal and political secrets.

    Janet Reno separately authorized Kenneth Starr to investigate this probably because it would have looked very suspicious not to and partially maybe because it could not be prevented.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  328. Al Capone was tricked into pleading guilty in exchange for what he thought would be a short sentence.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  329. Then the judge issued jury instructions that seemed to fly in the face of our jurisprudence, by allowing the jury convict on felony charges without unanimous agreement as to what were the specific illegal acts to influence the election.

    Not required by New York Penal Law § 175.05 and 175.10 or by the Supreme Court in Schad v. Arizona

    Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 6/1/2024 @ 6:14 pm

    But it *is* required under Ramos v. Louisiana.

    whembly (b00359) — 6/3/2024 @ 9:14 am

    You are confusing the elements of a crime (which must be agreed to by a unanimous jury) with predicate offenses, which do not.

    For example, in the hush money case, the People needed to prove two elements:

    (1) That on or about the date in question, Trump made or caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or Altered, erased, obliterated, deleted, removed, or destroyed a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or omitted to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by law or by the nature of his/her position; or Prevented the making of a true entry of caused the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise; and

    (2) Trump did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

    However, under Schad the Supreme Court said predicate offenses do not need to meet the same standard. A jury can rely on one or more predicate offenses to establish that element 2 was met.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  330. Hmas is hoping for diplomatic pressure to survive.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  331. #331

    What happened with Capone is similar with what happened with Hunter Biden. He had a plea deal and the judge threw it out.

    Appalled (ff50a7)

  332. @325, Rip, I think it strains credulity not to believe that the DA was looking very closely at Trump to see if he’d broken any laws. The crime they charged him with was a real one and other have been charged for it. They didn’t invent this for Trump, but the investigation was in part politically motivated. Also, it’s worth noting that a lot of people rightly feel that he’s a crook whose escaped justice for many of his bad acts and as such this sort of scrutiny is merited. I feel that way about HRC. So it’s not just “Investigate closely because of politics and personal animus” it’s also “They’re crooks and the evidence has to be here somewhere”

    Time123 (316585)

  333. Sammy, thank you for the correction re: Clinton. I don’t think that changes my point though. They were investigating him for something unrelated to the affair and used the opportunity to get him in a perjury trap.

    Time123 (316585)

  334. @324

    Do you want to share the evidence of this? I didn’t find it when I looked into this, but my research wasn’t that deep.

    Time123 (316585) — 6/3/2024 @ 1:17

    pmhttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/6243b3f8b001843f2379a673/t/624486ac6da88f37bd43e98d/1648658094980/MUR+7449+closing+letter+to+Coolidge+Reagan+Foundation.pdf

    Basically, her treasurer misreported the Steele Dossier research as “legal services.”

    Trump’s accountant used an accounting software to document Cohen’s services as some variation as “Legal services”.

    Bragg’s theory was that Trump instructed his accountant to misreport Cohen’s services to “hide” from the public (a ledger that isn’t public in normal course anyways).

    If these are the new rules, then lets have them applied equally.

    whembly (86df54)

  335. @327

    What was the name of her corporation?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/3/2024 @ 1:21 pm

    You mean her campaign HQ.

    whembly (86df54)

  336. So, Mexico doubles down on the hard left, and gives them the power to change their Constitution. I’m glad that cannot happen here.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  337. What happened with Capone is similar with what happened with Hunter Biden. He had a plea deal and the judge threw it out.

    Just imagine if Hunter Biden was a black guy with a public defender.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  338. While Donald Trump dominated the domestic news coverage, two big elections were held last week:

    Claudia Sheinbaum, a former mayor of Mexico City and protégé of AMLO, was elected President of Mexico, and became the first woman and person of the Jewish faith to hold that office. She won with approximately 58% of the vote in a three-way race. She won by roughly 30 points, while pre-election polls had her up by 20.

    South Africa also had an election, and the ANC had the worst electoral result ever (40%). In the last national election in 2019, it commanded 57.5% of the vote, and at its height in 2004, 70%. It also lost its absolute majority in Parliament for the first time since 1994. Massive corruption, failing infrastructure, poverty and unemployment have dogged the party for years. The ANC will attempt to create a coalition government for the first time ever.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  339. You mean her campaign HQ.

    whembly (86df54) — 6/3/2024 @ 2:04 pm

    As i said, assumes facts not in evidence. If you can provide a copy of the incorporation paperwork, that is one thing. An assertion without facts isn’t worth anything.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  340. Just because a politician was a target doesn’t make these charges political, provided there ws a basis in fact and law to bring the charges. There was here.

    And here we have, I think, a permanent divide.

    Every politician in this country could be charged with *something* if the system would stand for it. Sure, the charges would be picayune, but they’d be guilty of them. They don’t due it mostly out of a mutually assured destruction theory. And some of them aren’t all that small — there was an LA City Councilman who was a cocaine addict and everyone knew it. He was eventually charged (by the Feds), but only got diversion and the conviction expunged.

    In Trump’s case the city’s rulers decided they needed to indict Trump on something, and it was NOT because they were aghast at his activities. It was solely because he was their political enemy and they had the go-ahead from on high to do it.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  341. @332

    However, under Schad the Supreme Court said predicate offenses do not need to meet the same standard. A jury can rely on one or more predicate offenses to establish that element 2 was met.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/3/2024 @ 1:44 pm

    No.

    Shad was whether or not the defendant was guilty of first degree murder or not.

    1st degree murder could be committed in two ways:
    -Premeditated
    -Felony Murder

    The jury’s question was whether or not it was 1st degree murder or second degree murder.

    If all 12 agreed that it was either “Premeditated” or “Felony Murder”, then it was 1st Degree, rather than 2nd degree murder.

    So Schad really isn’t the controlling precedent for this Trump trial, as its inapplicable.

    whembly (86df54)

  342. Whembly, this is the same letter I linked. It doesn’t show a few of things.

    -It doesn’t show that the HRC campaign created bogus business records to hide what they did.
    -It doesn’t show that HRC was personally involved in the structuring.
    -It doesn’t show that her campaign was legally formed in Brooklyn and was creating NY business records. Although since it was headquartered there it would make sense that it was.

    But if this were a way to finally make a charge stick I’d have no objection with it.

    Time123 (316585)

  343. I think I’m done with this. I stand outside either tribe and I am through being attacked with biullsh1t from the anti-Trump tribe or being tarred with the bullsh1t from the Trump tribe.

    If you don’t think you are being tribal, you need to meditate a bit.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  344. @342

    As i said, assumes facts not in evidence. If you can provide a copy of the incorporation paperwork, that is one thing. An assertion without facts isn’t worth anything.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/3/2024 @ 2:14 pm

    Why does that require incorporation?

    HRC was a Senator for NY before running for Presidency, and used the same Senatorial HQ when running for office.

    Political campaigns has accounting requirements similar to that of corporations.

    whembly (86df54)

  345. @303, Maybe the starting point is to acknowledge that the Steel Dossier was not published by Buzzfeed until January 2017, two months after the election. So, it’s a bit difficult to argue that Hillary was trying to corrupt an election by curiously having John McCain staffers leak the information. It might also be relevant that a U.S. court dismissed Trump’s defamation claim against Steel and Clinton that his dossier made him a target for the Mueller investigation (not interested in going down that rabbit hole yet one more time). Cultivating opposition research is not a crime, especially if there is no evidence that the research was purposefully directed to find false stories….unlike Pecker’s false stories about Ted Cruz’s father participating in the JFK assassination.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  346. @345

    Whembly, this is the same letter I linked. It doesn’t show a few of things.

    -It doesn’t show that the HRC campaign created bogus business records to hide what they did.

    Uh. They were fined, civilly for misreporting it. I’d say that’s a bogus “business records” to hide something.

    -It doesn’t show that HRC was personally involved in the structuring.

    Neither did Bragg’s case did with Trump. There’s zero evidence presented in trial that Trump even had campaign finance laws in his head – lack of mens reas.

    -It doesn’t show that her campaign was legally formed in Brooklyn and was creating NY business records. Although since it was headquartered there it would make sense that it was.

    She used the same Senatorial NY HQ (and campaign staff) when she ran for Presidency.

    But if this were a way to finally make a charge stick I’d have no objection with it.

    Time123 (316585) — 6/3/2024 @ 2:15 pm

    I don’t want it to stick… but, here we are.

    whembly (86df54)

  347. Uh. They were fined, civilly for misreporting it. I’d say that’s a bogus “business records” to hide something.

    -It doesn’t show that HRC was personally involved in the structuring.

    I think you’re wrong on the law (but I could be mistaken) and that how they report the spending to the FEC is in a different category.
    If they had created fake invoices, or false ledger entries to support the inaccurate filing that would be false business record.

    Also, While I didn’t follow the entire trial, from what I saw the prosecution did present evidence that Trump know what was going on with the payments to stormy Daniels. From what I recall it wasn’t incontrovertible proof, but it wasn’t zero.

    Time123 (316585)

  348. Why does that require incorporation?

    HRC was a Senator for NY before running for Presidency, and used the same Senatorial HQ when running for office.

    Political campaigns has accounting requirements similar to that of corporations.

    whembly (86df54) — 6/3/2024 @ 2:17 pm

    Because the political campaigns are overseen by the Federal government (the FEC and DOJ), through the Federal Elections Campaign Act, not state regulations.

    As far as Schad goes, most other commentators that I have read said the general principles as outlined in Schad do apply (see here). It’s not just limited to capital murder cases.

    In Schad v. Arizona, which concerned an Arizona statute that allowed first-degree murder to be charged on the basis of either premeditated murder or felony murder, a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court held that while agreement among jurors is required as to the elements of an offense, it is not required as to the means. That is, the jurors must agree as to which crime was committed, but not necessarily how it was committed. While the plurality in Schad held that there is a “point at which differences between means become so important that they may not reasonably be viewed as alternatives to a common end,” the justices also wrote: “If a State’s courts have determined that certain statutory alternatives are mere means of committing a single offense, rather than independent elements of the crime, we simply are not at liberty to ignore that determination and conclude that the alternatives are, in fact, independent elements under state law.

    My emphasis.

    There is a lot of New York State case law that allows this:

    In fact, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, considered this issue in People v. Taveras—and found that only intent is required. In Taveras, the defendant challenged his sentence under § 175.10, along with a number of other offenses, including a charged object offense. While considering sentencing matters, the court held, “Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement … not any additional actus reus element.”

    In 2015, the First Department of the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division—whose rulings are binding on Justice Merchan—applied Taveras in a case structurally similar to Trump’s. (Trial courts in New York are, confusingly, referred to as “Supreme Courts”; the Appellate Division constitutes the intermediate appeals courts, while the Court of Appeals is the court of last resort.) People v. Thompson concerned a defendant convicted of § 175.10—along with “offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree”—for “ma[king] a false entry on a form regarding his purported disposal of a firearm … with the intent to commit or conceal his unlawful possession of the firearm.” The First Department upheld the conviction even though Thompson was not charged with the object offense of unlawful possession.

    As in the Trump case, in Thompson, the Manhattan district attorney charged § 175.10 without charging the underlying object offense. Here, the appeals court found that the district attorney was not required to prove that the object offense had been committed. “The People were not required to establish that [the] defendant committed, or was convicted of, the crime he intended to conceal,” the First Department ruled, pointing to Taveras. ……..
    ……….
    ………. In People v. McCumiskey, People v. Houghtaling, People v. Crane, and People v. Holley, a jury convicted a defendant under § 175.10 but deadlocked or acquitted on the charged object offense. And in each of those cases, the appellate court upheld the conviction. In McCumiskey, for example, the Fourth Department held, “The jury could therefore convict defendant of falsifying business records if the jury concluded that defendant had the intent to commit or conceal another crime, even if he was not convicted of the other crime.” Justice Merchan cites McCumiskey alongside Thompson in his ruling on Trump’s motion to dismiss.

    ……….(T)he appeals court expanded on its reasoning in greater depth in Holley, in which the defendant argued that his conviction under § 175.10 but acquittal on the object offense of insurance fraud constituted a “repugnant verdict” under New York law—meaning a verdict in which a defendant is convicted of a crime “on which the jury has actually found that the defendant did not commit an essential element.” Pointing to McCumiskey and Crane, the appeals court held that “the jury’s not guilty verdict on the counts of insurance fraud did not necessarily negate an essential element of the falsifying business records in the first degree counts.”
    ………
    ……….New York case law seems clear and consistent that he does not have to prove the object crime itself, only the intent to commit an object crime.

    Same source as above.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  349. @350

    I think you’re wrong on the law (but I could be mistaken) and that how they report the spending to the FEC is in a different category.
    If they had created fake invoices, or false ledger entries to support the inaccurate filing that would be false business record.

    I’m simply making the argument that since Alvin Bragg was successful and using FECA as one of the three “crimes” as an unlawful means used to elevate Trump’s documents crime, that same premise *could* be employed against this HRC FECA violation.

    Also, While I didn’t follow the entire trial, from what I saw the prosecution did present evidence that Trump know what was going on with the payments to stormy Daniels. From what I recall it wasn’t incontrovertible proof, but it wasn’t zero.

    Time123 (316585) — 6/3/2024 @ 2:28 pm

    But that doesn’t mean that he understood what FECA covered and that he knew (ie, being willful) he was breaking that law.

    whembly (86df54)

  350. 346. I think I’m done with this.

    Yeah, me too. The Art Of The Prosecution. I’ll wait for the movie.

    nk (bb1548)

  351. @348

    @303, Maybe the starting point is to acknowledge that the Steel Dossier was not published by Buzzfeed until January 2017, two months after the election. So, it’s a bit difficult to argue that Hillary was trying to corrupt an election by curiously having John McCain staffers leak the information.

    Absolutely, 100% incorrect.

    It was shopped around the media during the election with stories spawning up-to the election.

    It might also be relevant that a U.S. court dismissed Trump’s defamation claim against Steel and Clinton that his dossier made him a target for the Mueller investigation (not interested in going down that rabbit hole yet one more time).

    It’s not relevant.

    Cultivating opposition research is not a crime, especially if there is no evidence that the research was purposefully directed to find false stories….

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 6/3/2024 @ 2:17 pm

    I agree it’s not a crime… if I were a prosecutor I wouldn’t be interested in campaign outfits putting out misleading/fabricated stories about their opponents is American and apple pies.

    1st Amendment is a biatch.

    The Stormy NDAs were not campaign expenditures, nor are they illegal.

    Even if the Stormy NDA on which the business-records charges were based had been a campaign expenditure, there would have been no reporting obligation until after the election. That is to say, Bragg’s whole theory of the case that Trump stole the 2016 election by skirting FECA reporting requirements was utter fiction, complete nonsense.

    And I’m still of the belief that there’s nothing wrong with Trump’s accountant, using an accounting software drop-box in selecting “legal services” to document Cohen’s payments, when Cohen delivered the NDAs to Trump could realistically fit the “legal services” descriptor. To this day, no one has made a convincing argument of WHAT exactly the ledger should say.

    whembly (86df54)

  352. @353

    346. I think I’m done with this.

    Yeah, me too. The Art Of The Prosecution. I’ll wait for the movie.

    nk (bb1548) — 6/3/2024 @ 3:04 pm

    Heh… if they make a documentary or movie on that title, you should get royalties.

    whembly (86df54)

  353. steveg, at 297:

    in California penal code 497, burglary is defined as entering [long list of different structures] with the intent to commit [grand larceny, petit larceny, or any felony]

    this isn’t the way the term is used colloquially. the ancient common law definition involved entering a structure *at night* with intent to commit a felony, but the requirement for nighttime entry doesn’t exist in california and has i think been dropped in most jurisdictions.

    anyhow, my point in raising it was that it’s an analagous legal structure — the jury has to agree on intent to commit “a felony” but doesn’t have to agree on any specific felony. this is how burglary has been defined *since pre-colonial times*, and i cannot imagine Ramos was intended to upend that.

    aphrael (99fd6b)

  354. If you feel that way, 346, then I think leaving is a good idea.

    DRJ (496584)

  355. If you feel that way, 346, then I think leaving is a good idea.

    Are you so annoyed that people step off the plantation?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  356. I’m just not going to get involved in the Trumpist vs anti-Trumpist poo flinging. There are other things to talk about.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  357. RIP Oscar winners Albert S. Ruddy (94) and Fred Roos (89), both associated with The Godfather and The Godfather Part II:

    ………
    Nothing looks better on your resume than “The Godfather,” but producing it endangered Ruddy’s job, reputation and his very life. Frank Sinatra and other Italian Americans were infuriated by the project, which they feared would harden stereotypes of Italians as criminals, and real-life mobsters let Ruddy know he was being watched. One night he heard gunfire outside his home and the sound of his car’s windows being shot out.
    ………..
    Ruddy agreed to remove a single, gratuitous mention of the word “mafia” and to make a donation to the Italian American Civil Rights League. Colombo was so pleased that he urged Ruddy to appear with him at a press conference announcing his approval of the movie, a gathering that led to Ruddy’s being photographed alongside members of organized crime.
    ……….
    With a cast including Marlon Brando, Al Pacino and Robert Duvall, “The Godfather” was a critical and commercial sensation and remains among the most beloved and quoted movies in history. When Ruddy was named winner of the best picture Oscar at the 1973 ceremony, the presenter was Clint Eastwood, with whom he would produce “Million Dollar Baby,” the best picture winner in 2005. ……..
    ……….
    After graduating from the University of Southern California, he was working as an architect when he met TV actor Bernard Fein in the early 1960s. Ruddy had tired of his career, and he and Fein decided to develop a TV series, even though neither had done any writing.

    Their original idea was a comedy set in an American prison, but they soon changed their minds.
    ………..
    Starring Bob Crane as the wily Col. Hogan, “Hogan’s Heroes” ran from 1965-71 on CBS but was criticized for trivializing World War II and turning the Nazis into lovable cartoons. Ruddy remembered network head William Paley calling the show’s concept “reprehensible,” but softening after Ruddy “literally acted out an episode,” complete with barking dogs and other sound effects.
    ………..

    And

    Fred Roos and Coppola worked together for over 50 years, starting with “The Godfather,” where he advised on the casting of Al Pacino and James Caan against the wishes of the studio, and introduced Coppola to John Cazale. He also produced Coppola’s best picture nominees “The Conversation,” “Apocalypse Now” and Parts II and III of “The Godfather.”
    ………..
    …………While developing “Star Wars,” George Lucas asked Roos for his thoughts. Lucas got the screenplay back from Roos with several names scribbled on it: Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and James Earl Jones. Roos also helped assemble the young casts for Lucas’ “American Graffiti” and “The Outsiders,” introducing wide audiences to the likes of Tom Cruise, Ford, Diane Lane, Richard Dreyfuss, Rob Lowe, Matt Dillon and Patrick Swayze.
    ………..
    Other Roos discoveries include Diane Keaton, Laurence Fishburne, Emilio Estevez, Jennifer Connelly and Alden Ehrenreich.
    ………..
    His film breakthrough came with Richard Lester’s infidelity drama “Petulia” with Julie Christie and George C. Scott, which came out in 1968.
    ………..
    That included work for the likes of John Huston (“Fat City”), Michelangelo Antonioni (“Zabriskie Point”), Monte Hellman (“Two-Lane Blacktop”) and Bob Rafelson (“Five Easy Pieces”).

    Roos and Coppola would get two best picture nominations in the same year for “The Godfather Part II” and “The Conversation,” winning for the former. Other films he produced for Coppola included “One from the Heart,” “Rumble Fish,” “The Cotton Club,” “Tucker: The Man and His Dream” and “Tetro.”
    ………
    Outside of the Coppola orbit, he produced Nicholson’s directorial debut “Drive, He Said,” Carroll Ballard’s “The Black Stallion” and Agnieszka Holland’s “The Secret Garden.” ………
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  358. Monday’s market opening should be interesting:
    ……….
    Rip Murdock (3ace4f) — 6/2/2024 @ 9:20 am

    Trump Media closes down another $2.35 (4.8%); now at 46.74/share.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  359. In other news buried by Trump’s conviction, the Chinese government successfully landed its lunar lander Chang’e-6 on the dark side of the moon. This is the second time the Chinese landed a probe on the dark side, the first probe was named Chang’e-4.

    Chang’e-6 touched down within an impact crater known as the Apollo Basin, located within the sprawling, roughly 2,500-kilometer-diameter South Pole-Aitken Basin, according to Chinese state media Xinhua. It had orbited the moon for about 20 days as part of a larger probe, which is composed of four parts: an orbiter, a lander, an ascender and a re-entry module.

    It is now expected to use a drill and a mechanical arm to gather up to 2 kilograms of moon dust and rocks from the basin, a crater formed some 4 billion years ago.

    The probe will spend two days on the far side of the moon, and 14 hours to collect moon soil samples, Xinhua reported.

    To complete its mission, the lander will need to robotically stow those samples in an ascent vehicle that made the landing with it.

    The ascent vehicle will then return to lunar orbit, where it will dock with and transfer the samples to a re-entry capsule, according to mission information provided by the China National Space Administration.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  360. Is adultery still a crime in the US? Depends on the state.

    (I must admit that I rather enjoy the idea of the Loser having to wear a big letter A, and assume he would choose orange, rather than scarlet.)

    Jim Miller (e7232e)

  361. (720 ILCS 5/11-35) (was 720 ILCS 5/11-7)
    Sec. 11-35. Adultery.
    (a) A person commits adultery when he or she has sexual intercourse with another not his or her spouse, if the behavior is open and notorious, and:

    (1) the person is married and knows the other person involved in such intercourse is not his spouse; or (2) the person is not married and knows that the other person involved in such intercourse is married.

    A person shall be exempt from prosecution under this Section if his liability is based solely on evidence he has given in order to comply with the requirements of Section 4-1.7 of the Illinois Public Aid Code.

    (b) Sentence.
    Adultery is a Class A misdemeanor.

    It’s a law from the 1960s. It’s based on the Model Penal Code and for that reason might be similar to the laws of other states. “Open and notorious” has been construed by one judge as “On the steps of the Art Institute at high noon”.

    nk (042554)

  362. But hiding a misdemeanor is, as we know, a felony.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  363. Trump Media closes down another $2.35 (4.8%); now at 46.74/share.

    25 cents higher than it was on March 5th. This is a nothingburger, and will remain so until Trump is able to sell, at which point it will drop like a rock.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  364. where he advised on the casting of Al Pacino and James Caan against the wishes of the studio, and introduced Coppola to John Cazale.

    John Cazale stared in only 5 films before his death. Three won best picture, the other two were nominated for Best Picture. Who can forget Fredo?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  365. For those who are so fickle as to consider voting for Trump after a jury verdict, Catoggio

    But I don’t doubt that there are right-leaning voters who intended to withhold their vote from him this year in good faith yet are so disturbed by the spectacle of “lawfare” in New York that they’re reconsidering. A piece published on Monday by The Free Press put a few of them on record. I myself received an email this weekend from a longtime friend in politics who refused to vote for Trump in 2016 and 2020 but is considering doing so to protest the verdict if a traditional conservative like Haley or, ahem, Marco Rubio ends up as VP.

    These people exist. Sarah isn’t wrong. Conceivably, the backlash among them might decide the election.

    And they have a point. When they say “I’m angry at Democrats for using flimsy criminal charges to go after a political opponent,” I understand. It’s a lousy precedent. If a DA is going to haul in a leading presidential candidate in the thick of a campaign, the offense should be grave and the legal theory behind it should be solid as granite. Americans should feel confident that justice in the matter had to be done, and urgently, regardless of the political implications.

    The New York case ain’t that.

    My problem with Republicans who are mad at Alvin Bragg in good faith comes when they take the next step and say “Trump is now less of a threat to the rule of law than Democrats are.”

    My dear friends, do you have brain damage?

    Any conservative who finds himself experiencing a pro-Trump conversion after the Manhattan verdict should answer this question: How do you feel about the other 54 criminal charges pending against him?

    Fifty-four is a big number, and those charges aren’t ticky-tack “paper crimes” like the ones in New York. The cases pending against Trump have to do with trying to overturn the 2020 election and obstructing the government’s efforts to recover sensitive state secrets hidden at Mar-a-Lago.

    Those offenses are grave and the legal theories at stake, particularly in the classified-documents case, are solid. Sarah is one of many lawyers who has looked at the indictment in that one and pronounced it a slam dunk. Trump is barely offering a defense in the matter beyond insisting that the documents somehow magically became his personal possessions by dint of presidential authority.

    All three cases bear directly and urgently on his fitness for the presidency. Unless you believe he’s innocent of all 54 charges alleged, you’re contemplating making someone president whom you concede is guilty of serious crimes. That cannot be the “lesser evil” on the ballot with respect to the rule of law.

    “I’m more troubled by Democrats trying to put a thumb on the scale of the election than by Trump having a criminal record,” you might reply. That would be defensible—except that Trump himself tried to put his thumb on the electoral scale as president numerous times.

    His first impeachment came after he sought to extort Ukraine for damaging information on his electoral opponent. His second impeachment arose when he pressured Republican officials to try to halt the transfer of power to Joe Biden, which is less a matter of putting a thumb on a scale than bashing the scale repeatedly with a clenched fist.

    He was happy to abuse the criminal justice system in that effort, too. When Attorney General Bill Barr declared after the 2020 election that the Justice Department had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud, a furious Trump called him into the Oval Office and dressed him down. Barr was then replaced by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, whom Trump reportedly told to “just say that the election was corrupt” and to leave the rest to him and Republicans in Congress. When Rosen wouldn’t play ball, Trump very nearly replaced him with slavish loyalist Jeffrey Clark before the prospect of mass resignations at the Justice Department convinced him to back down.

    This is the guy to whom good-faith Republicans must now reluctantly turn to defend the rule of law? The first president in American history to attempt a coup?

    Who, days after being elected in 2016, paid millions of dollars to settle legal claims arising from the massive scam that was Trump University?

    Who doled out numerous dubious presidential pardons to unworthy cronies in his final days in office and is dangling pardons for other unworthy cronies as a candidate this cycle?

    Who was found liable in civil court a year ago for sexually abusing a woman?

    Whose election lies four years ago produced an immense vortex of defamation claims that are still being settled today?

    Who, if elected in November, intends to use his executive authority to quash the entirely meritorious federal prosecutions he’s facing over the 2020 election and the classified-documents fiasco?

    To save the rule of law, you need to actively abet Trump’s attempts to wrestle it into submission?

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  366. I will vote third party which may help trump as biden only won az by 10,000 votes with democrat party preventing green party ballot access in 2020. Jill stein got 34,000 votes in 2016. why? cut flesh to cut meat! Japanese saying. Green party will be on ballot in 2024 also JFK jr. A biden win only encourages corporate establishment third way democrats and their donor class to keep throwing crap against the wall and hope it sticks. Trump win discredits clinton/biden wing of the party even more then 2016 when we got AOC and the squad in 2018. The left base of the party is ready to sweep the DNC rats out of power! Demographics will do the rest. Minority men are so fed up with biden/clinton wing of the party they are starting to think of voting for trump!

    asset (e120df)

  367. allahpundit certainly knows how to grift. Which leftwing billionaire funds his lifestyle?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  368. Maybe you should do your own research, Rob, but he was getting those same smears in his Hotair days.

    Paul Montagu (9b79a5)

  369. On topic, more or less: After Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, I found — to my distress –that I could predict most of what she would do by consulting “The Last Hurrah”, and Mike Royko’s “Boss”.

    When Donald Trump became president I found — to my distress — that I could predict about 75 percent of what he would do by consulting the comic strip, “Calvin and Hobbes”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes

    There is one particular strip that is almost eerie in its description of the Loser’s values:

    Calvin asks Hobbes: “What do you htink is the secret to happiness? Is it money, power, or fame?
    Calvin: I’d choose money. If you have enough money, you can buy power and fame. That way you’d have it all and be really happy.
    Calvin: Happiness is being famous for your financial ability to indulge in every kind of excess.
    Hobbes: I suppose that’s one way to define it. Calvin: The part I think I’d like best is crushing people who get in my way.
    (p. 35 in “The Authoritative Calvin and Hobbes” and, I imagine, elsewhere.)

    (If the headline I read recently is accurate, the Guardian — which isn’t wrong about everything –provided some documentation for the last.)

    Jim Miller (33c0dd)

  370. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/3/2024 @ 2:09 pm

    In more international election news, the largest democracy in the world (India) has been holding a vote since April 29th. In a shocking result, the ruling Hindu nationalist BJP appears to be losing its absolute majority and need to rely on a coalition to continue in power. The BJP was hoping to achieve a supermajority of 400 seats in the 543-seat lower house of parliament. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has become the first prime minister to win three terms since the country’s founding prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  371. The chief financial officer of The Epoch Times has been indicted on money laundering charges:

    ………WEIDONG GUAN, a/k/a “Bill Guan,” the Chief Financial Officer of a multinational media company headquartered in New York City with participating in a transnational scheme to launder at least approximately $67 million of illegally obtained funds to benefit himself and the media company. GUAN was arrested yesterday morning and will be presented this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
    …………
    According to the allegations contained in the Indictment:

    From at least in or about 2020, through in or about May 2024, GUAN, while working as the Chief Financial Officer of a multinational media company headquartered in New York, New York (the “Media Company”), conspired with others to participate in a sprawling, transnational scheme to launder at least approximately $67 million of illegally obtained funds to bank accounts in the names of the Media Company and related entities (together, with the Media Company, the “Media Entities”).

    In furtherance of the money laundering conspiracy, GUAN managed, among other teams, the Media Company’s “Make Money Online” team (the “MMO Team”), which was located in a particular foreign office of the Media Company. Under GUAN’s management, members of the MMO Team and others used cryptocurrency to knowingly purchase tens of millions of dollars in crime proceeds, including proceeds of fraudulently obtained unemployment insurance benefits, that had been loaded onto tens of thousands of prepaid debit cards. The crime proceeds were generally purchased by the scheme participants, including members of the MMO Team and others working with them, using a particular cryptocurrency platform, at discounted rates of approximately 70 to 80 cents per dollar, and in exchange for cryptocurrency.

    Once the crime proceeds were purchased, the MMO Team and other participants in the scheme used stolen personal identification information to open accounts, including prepaid debit card accounts, cryptocurrency accounts, and bank accounts, that were used to transfer the crime proceeds into bank accounts associated with the Media Entities. After the crime proceeds reached those bank accounts, they were often further laundered through other bank accounts held by the Media Entities, GUAN’s personal bank accounts, and through GUAN’s personal cryptocurrency accounts.
    ……….
    GUAN, 61, of Secaucus, New Jersey, is charged with one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and two counts of bank fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. The charges do not relate to the Media Company’s newsgathering activities.
    ……….

    Paragraph breaks added.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  372. Oh?

    Biden is issuing some EO on the border? Even more stringent (still ineffective) thresholds as that BS Senate border bill?

    Clearest sign that the Senate border bill was BS.

    whembly (86df54)

  373. Opening statements have been delivered in Hunter Biden’s trial:

    ……….
    “It doesn’t matter who you are, or what your name is,” prosecutor Derek Hines said, as he laid out special counsel David Weiss’ case against President Joe Biden’s son.

    Defendants are tried “because of the choices they made,” Hines said. Hunter Biden, he added, “chose to illegally own a firearm,” and “chose to lie” about his drug use when he bought the weapon.
    ……….
    “Addiction may not be a choice, but lying and possessing a gun is a choice,” Hines said.
    ……….
    (Biden’s) attorney Abbe Lowell acknowledged his client “bought a small handgun,” but said it “was never loaded” and he “never used it.”

    He said prosecutors have to prove that Hunter Biden “knowingly violated the law” when he purchased the gun, and suggested they would not be able to do so.

    He said his client did not violate the law “knowingly, and with an intent to deceive.”
    ……….
    The jury of 12 — six men and six women — and four alternates were selected from a pool of over 60 potential jurors Monday. Proceedings were delayed for about an hour on Tuesday morning when one of the jurors dropped out citing financial hardship. She was replaced by one of the alternates.

    In court Monday and Tuesday to support Hunter Biden was his stepmother, first lady Jill Biden. On both days she sat next to Hunter Biden’s wife, Melissa Cohen-Biden, in the audience.

    Also in the audience was Garrett Ziegler, a former Trump White House aide who Hunter Biden is suing for allegedly violating state and federal data laws in connection with the online publication of data he said was scraped from the first son’s notorious laptop. The suit says Ziegler and his non-profit “have, to at least some extent, accessed, tampered with, manipulated, altered, copied and damaged Plaintiff’s data.”

    Cohen-Biden confronted Ziegler during a morning break and told him, “You have no right to be here, you Nazi piece of s—,” She walked away before he could respond.

    Ziegler told NBC News “for the record I’m not a Nazi. I’m a believer in the U.S. Constitution.” …….

    At least 15 people in the jury pool said they have family members, significant others or close friends with substance abuse issues, including four who were ultimately selected. …….
    ……….
    Hines said they plan to call around eight witnesses in total. Among them are three women Hunter Biden had romantic relationships with — Hallie Olivere Biden, the widow of his late brother, Beau; a California woman named Zoe Kestan; and Hunter Biden’s ex-wife, Kathleen Buhle.

    The widow “will testify about her own crack use” with Hunter Biden, Hines said. Both she and Kestan will be testifying under immunity agreements, he said. ……..

    Live updates.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  374. 341. Many candidates for lower office in Mexico were assassinated. You have to wonder about corruption, and possible amendments to the constitution of Mexico.

    Elections for the European Parliament coming up, and on July 4 (not a holiday there) in the United Kingdom, where the Conservative Party is expected to take a big loss.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  375. (Biden’s) attorney Abbe Lowell acknowledged his client “bought a small handgun,” but said it “was never loaded” and he “never used it.”

    He said prosecutors have to prove that Hunter Biden “knowingly violated the law” when he purchased the gun, and suggested they would not be able to do so.

    He said his client did not violate the law “knowingly, and with an intent to deceive.”

    Because that day he was not a drug user, (even if he had decided that that morning?)

    If not, would you believe he had no insight into his condition?

    As for the picture timestamped 4 days before showing him with a crack pipe:

    1) It was a meth pipe, and meth is not one of the drugs that taking it regularly prohibits you from owning a firearm.

    If not:

    2) Would you believe that picture was posed, like the pictures at a wedding showing people smoking cigars?
    ……….

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  376. Trump is apparently doing much better on TikToc then Biden.

    Makes sense. He’s a lot more entertaining.

    Wonder if Trump jumping on a new social media site is bad for the one he Owns?

    Time123 (76bac2)

  377. Comedy Gold!

    Republican National Committee Co-Chair Michael Whatley told Newsmax’s Rob Finnerty on Tuesday that the GOP is indeed preparing for the possibility that Donald Trump could address the Republican National Convention from prison.

    “The convention happens next month and your nominee could be sentenced to actual jail time. Four days before everything kicks off in Milwaukee. Have you planned for that at the RNC?” Finnerty asked Whatley.

    “Yeah, we’re working on that right now. I’m actually going up to Milwaukee this week and we’re going to have a series of conversations. But look, we expect that Donald Trump is going to be in Milwaukee and he’s going to be able to accept that nomination. And if not, we will make whatever contingency planning we need to make for it. But the fact is, he’s going to be our nominee and he’s going to be the 47th president of the United States,” Whatley replied.
    ……….
    Finnerty pressed further asking, “Let’s say Trump is behind bars. And again it is a possibility. Would he make a speech from from prison? Would he make a speech before sentencing day. Just something that you could play during the RNC. Are those contingencies being thought about, considered and planned for?”

    “Everything is being thought about. Everything is being considered. ……..” Whatley replied.

    Even as much Trump would relish being sent to prison (how can you be a martyr without being sent to prison?), not only is it extremely unlikely that he will be sentenced to prison at all, in the unlikely event he is he would remain free while he appeals his conviction. One should remember that Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead attorney requested a mid to late July sentencing date. He got it.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  378. https://x.com/i/status/1798045730692812835

    Rare occasion where Matt Gaetz makes (some) sense

    steveg (972c3d)

  379. whembly (86df54) — 6/4/2024 @ 10:49 am

    Biden is issuing some EO on the border? Even more stringent (still ineffective) thresholds as that BS Senate border bill?

    Yes, and the level that triggers itt was set so that it goes into effect immediately and the level to change back set so that it will probably not happen till after the election and he waited till after the Mexican election.

    Clearest sign that the Senate border bill was BS.

    it says nothing about it one way or the other.

    It can be expected to be overturned by a court, as contrary to U.S. law, which Biden will not like because that puts pressure on Congress to change the law.

    This is what the New York Post described today in an editorial about another issue: “Signature Biden: as stupid as it is mendacious.”

    Biden is doing this in an effort to take immigration off the table.

    But Trump will say it is not enough and that Biden caused the rise in the first place, So it doesn’t take it off the table for Trump voters but it does take it off the table for people against Trump’s policy unless they study it very carefully, and are cynical.

    And if Trump lies about a connection between asylum applicants to drugs, or about people being released from prisons and mental asylums and a danger of terrorism, I doubt Biden will dispute it,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  380. Sad!

    Three allies to former President Donald Trump were charged in Wisconsin on Tuesday in connection to an alleged scheme to send slates of fake electors to Congress after the 2020 presidential election and keep Trump in power for a second term.

    Kenneth Chesebro, James Troupis and Michael Roman each face one felony count of forgery, according to court records. The three are set to make their initial appearances in Dane County Circuit Court on Sept. 19, court records show. The charge carries a sentence of up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
    ………..
    The indictment alleges that Chesebro sent a memo on Nov. 18, 2020, to Troupis and others that encouraged presidential and vice presidential electors representing Trump and then-Vice President Mike Pence to meet and cast their electoral votes on Dec. 14, 2020, when legitimate members of the Electoral College would meet to certify the results of their states’ elections.

    Chesebro, an attorney, wrote and sent to Troupis another six-page memo in December 2020 that laid out a plan for organizing Trump’s supporters to serve as fake electors after that year’s presidential election in crucial swing states where he lost. He explained in the memo that the false elector votes would be counted by Pence during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, according to the indictment.
    ……….
    Ten electors for Trump and Pence, as well as Chesebro, met at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Dec. 14 and cast their Electoral College votes for the two Republicans, according to the court filing. Chesebro sent Troupis and Roman separate, identical messages stating, “WI meeting of the *real* electors is a go!!!” prosecutors said, as well as a photograph of the meeting.
    ………..

    Both Cheseboro and Roman have been charged in Fulton County. Chesboro has pled guilty there, while Roman faces seven counts related to the Georgia fake elector scheme and has pleaded not guilty. Roman also was indicted in Arizona in a fake elector scheme there.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  381. Is there a meaningful difference between Congress demanding the Nixon Oval Office tapes…

    vs…

    Congress demanding the audio tapes of the Robert Hur’s interview of Joe Biden?

    whembly (86df54)

  382. Sammy is exactly right (in this case). An Executive Order (as Biden has previously found out) is much more susceptible to legal attack, especially if it goes beyond what Congress has authorized. Had Congress passed the Senate immigration bill, Biden would be on firmer legal ground to implement changes. I predict that pro-immigrant rights groups will sue to block the EO and probably win if Biden has exceeded his authority.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  383. Is there a meaningful difference between Congress demanding the Nixon Oval Office tapes…

    vs…

    Congress demanding the audio tapes of the Robert Hur’s interview of Joe Biden?

    whembly (86df54) — 6/4/2024 @ 11:54 am

    I expect congress will eventually get them. But I expect the white house to fight it as long as they can. They have to expect that parts will be taken out of context to embarrass Joe Biden and will exhaust all their legal options before allowing that to happen. As a transcript has already been released I’m not personally concerned that there’s anything in the Audio worse then Biden sounding old and confused. Which I already know he is.

    Time123 (316585)

  384. But hiding a misdemeanor is, as we know, a felony.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/3/2024 @ 9:03 pm

    Depends on context, if you create false business records in NYC to hide it, or lie about it under oath then yes, it is a criminal matter, as 2 of our living former presidents can attest.

    Time123 (316585)

  385. 384. Congress didn’t get the tapes. The second Special Prosecutor .Leon Jaworski, did. I think the House Judiciary Committee got copies of the tapes from the Special Prosecutor but I can’t find a reference as to how ad when they got them. It seems this would require a deep dig. It shouldn’t.

    After Maurice Stans and John Mitchell were found not guilty * on April 28,1974, of charges of campaign Finance law violations involving Robert Vesco, Nixon felt he could be treated fairly and he released transcripts of the tapes. The phrase “expletive deleted” comes from that.

    * That’s one reason I felt Donald Trump might be found not guilty of the Alvin Bragg charges. But Trump wither did not have good enough lawyers or the judge made too many rulings against Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  386. The House Judiciary Committee did get the tapes. It prepared its own transcripts (I think Hillary Rodman Clinton was involved in that as a substitute one time) which produced conversations that didn’t scan and had Nixon saying impossible things like “I want you all to stonewall it”

    They were produced on the fly – with transcribers limited to taking notes as the paused without stopping not like the way Rose Mary Woods and others in the White House had done, stopping and starting the tape. John Ehrlichman said they were more accurate and I think now it is possible to check.

    There was an erasure caused by a broken machine. It was broken, or sabotaged. The experts report is nonsense, There is no way a buzzing sound should have appeared on the tape. The tape was turned back and forth. Probably the record head was in contact when it should not have been. The White House had more than one reel to reel tape recorderand one of them was obviously defective.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  387. Time123 (316585) — 6/4/2024 @ 12:57 pm

    As a transcript has already been released I’m not personally concerned that there’s anything in the Audio worse then Biden sounding old and confused.

    Aside from the possibility of discovering errors in the transcript (and of course use of excerpts online) really it is that it might be more obvious what Biden was doing:

    he was trying to support a lie: That grief over the death of is older son might have caused him to not be careful what he took with him. The timeline didn’t fit and Biden got all confounded trying to make it fit.

    His son died at the end of May 2015. He left office in January 2017.therewas no way those two events were close in time.

    Incidentally, both Mueller and Hur, while following DOJ guidelines, could not recommend the indictment of a sitting president and both contrived to say in their report that there were independent reasons for not recommending prosecution. Mueller said it was because the prosecutors were in disagreement and also that they simply did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime and Hur said a jury would likely not convict because Biden would come across as an amiable elderly man with a bad memory.

    It seems to me that because they didn’t want the public to react adversely to those guidelines they said that even without the OLC memo they would not have recommended prosecution.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  388. So now we have five indictments involving Trump’s legal efforts to reverse the election results:

    1) An indictment in federal court in Washington, D.C. of only Donald Trump, with many named unindicted co-conspirators

    2) A state indictment in Atlanta, Georgia (Fulton County) of Donald Trump and many other co-conspirators.

    3) A state indictment in Arizona only of other conspirators. not including Donald Trump.

    4) A state indictment in Nevada (Clark County = Las Vegas) only of other conspirators. not including Donald Trump.

    5) A state indictment in Wisconsin only of other conspirators. not including Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  389. But hiding a misdemeanor is, as we know, a felony.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/3/2024 @ 9:03 pm

    Depends on context, if you create false business records in NYC to hide it, or lie about it under oath then yes, it is a criminal matter, as 2 of our living former presidents can attest.

    Time123 (316585) — 6/4/2024 @ 12:58 pm

    See my Comment @364. A sensible law, like Illinois’s Adultery statute, makes not hiding it — “open and notorious” — an element of the offense.

    Ca-coo-cachoo, Mrs. Robinson. Hide it and as far as the law is concerned it never happened.

    But like I said, it’s from the 1960s when morality laws were still meant to shield society, and not as prosecutors’ sleeve derringers.

    nk (5283ee)

  390. I predict that pro-immigrant rights groups will sue to block the EO and probably win if Biden has exceeded his authority.

    I am sure that Biden predicts that too. Collusive lawsuits and sweetheart consent decrees were a hallmark of the Obama administration and the retreads are still rolling in the Biden administration. But as long as it floats Biden until November 5 ….

    nk (5283ee)

  391. For your viewing entertainment:

    Smart kid.

    Jim Miller (6f3ca2)

  392. https://www.newser.com/story/351238/bidens-move-to-seal-border-could-take-effect-quickly.html

    …Once this order is in effect, migrants who arrive at the border but do not express fear of returning to their home countries will be subject to immediate removal from the US, within a matter of days or even hours. Those migrants would face punishments that could include a five-year bar from reentering the US, as well as potential criminal prosecution. An asylum officer will screen those who do express fear of being deported, but at a higher standard than is currently used. If the migrants pass the screening, they can pursue more limited forms of humanitarian protection, including the UN Convention Against Torture.

    Problems: Senior officials acknowledged that the administration’s goal of deporting migrants quickly is complicated by insufficient funding from Congress to do so. The administration also faces certain legal constraints when it comes to detaining migrant families, although the administration said it would continue to abide by those obligations.

    Legal challenges: The legal authority being invoked by Biden comes under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows a president to limit entries for certain migrants if it’s deemed “detrimental” to the national interest. Senior officials expressed confidence that they would be able to implement Biden’s order, despite threats from prominent legal groups to sue the administration over the directive. The ACLU already is promising to do so, per the New York Times.

    Like Trump? Former President Trump leaned on the same provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that Biden is using, including his 2017 directive to bar citizens of Muslim-majority nations and his efforts in 2018 to clamp down on asylum. However, senior administration officials insisted Biden’s proposal differs dramatically. For instance, Biden’s order outlines several groups of migrants who would be exempted due to humanitarian reasons, including victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied minors, and those with severe medical emergencies.

    Exempt: The directive would also exempt migrants who arrive in what senior officials called an orderly fashion, which includes people who make appointments with border officials at ports of entry using the US Customs and Border Protection’s CBP One app. About 1,450 appointments are made a day using the app, which launched last year.
    (

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  393. This gets it accurate:

    https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/al-capone

    On June 16, 1931, Al Capone pled guilty to tax evasion and prohibition charges. He then boasted to the press that he had struck a deal for a two-and-a-half year sentence, but the presiding judge informed him he, the judge, was not bound by any deal. Capone then changed his plea to not guilty.

    On October 18, 1931, Capone was convicted after trial and on November 24, was sentenced to eleven years in federal prison, fined $50,000 and charged $7,692 for court costs, in addition to $215,000 plus interest due on back taxes. The six-month contempt of court sentence was to be served concurrently….

    So he was convicted on that basis.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  394. RIP legendary race car driver and owner Parnelli Jones (90):

    ………..
    Jones raced almost anything that had a seat during the 1950s, but he found his greatest success in sprint cars. In 1958, he joined the California Racing Association (CRA) series and earned Rookie of the Year honors. By 1959 he was splitting his time among CRA out west, the International Motor Contest Association (IMCA) sprinters in the Midwest, and United States Auto Club (USAC) events in the east. He took USAC’s 1960 Midwest sprint-car crown, and in 1961 he earned USAC’s first national sprint-car championship.

    That success was enough to earn him his first ride in the then USAC-sanctioned Indianapolis 500.

    Qualifying fifth, leading twice for a total of 27 laps, and finishing 12th during the 1961 Indianapolis 500, Jones was named co-Rookie of the Year alongside the hard-charging Bobby Marshman, who finished seventh. He came back for the 1962 race and set a new qualifying record of 150.370 mph, becoming the first driver to qualify at more than 150 mph. Though he led 120 of the 200 laps, Jones faded at the end of that race and finished seventh.

    While 1963 was the year Colin Chapman showed up with a rear-engined Lotus that would revolutionize the Indy 500, it was also the year Parnelli Jones used J.C. Agajanian’s big front-engined roadster to win the race. Leading 167 of the 200 laps with a record average speed of 143.137 mph, Jones’s performance was one of the most dominant in the history of the Memorial Day race.
    ……….
    Jones’s now mighty reputation made him a sought-after gun for hire, running in stock cars, sprint cars, Indy cars, and sports cars for virtually anyone who would pay him. He won in practically all the series—including the stock-car division of the 1964 Pikes Peak Hill Climb—but never concentrated on any one of them to chase a championship.
    ……….
    ……….It all served as prelude to the 1967 (Indy) race, when Andy Granatelli hired him to drive the radical STP-Paxton turbine-powered, all-wheel-drive race car.

    While Jones had only qualified sixth in the turbine car, the awesome ability of the machine was obvious. On the first lap of the race, Jones swept past four cars through Turn 1 and then caught and passed pole sitter Mario Andretti on the back stretch. He led 171 of the 200 laps that day and was never seriously challenged. Then, with four laps left, a gearbox bearing failed, and the car rolled to a halt. A.J. Foyt took the victory.
    ……….
    Running a Ford-powered Colt under Johnny Lightning sponsorship with Al Unser in the cockpit, the (Vel’s Parnelli Jones (VPJ) Racing) team won the 1970 Indy 500 in only the team’s second year. Then they came back and repeated in 1971. Beyond that, the team took the USAC Champ Car crown in ’70 with Unser, then won it again in ’71 and ’72 with driver Joe Leonard. It was a spectacular start.
    ……….
    As Jones’s driving career faded, he concentrated more and more on his race team. During the 1970s, the VPJ teams would innovate at Indy, run hard in the Formula 5000 road-racing series, and even on occasion enter a Funny Car in NHRA drag racing. The team also campaigned in Formula 1 from 1974 to early 1976, although without success.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  395. @397 Are you a race car fan too?

    asset (510c68)

  396. I thought that Nikki Haley would do better in NM, but she only got 8.6%. Ir’s strange because the two contested GOP nominations in my area featured a total absence of an appeal to Trump voters.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  397. Again, Hunter is on trial because his dad tried too hard to wrestle the rule of law into submission in his case. Particularly with the blanket get-out-of-jail-free card they tried to sneak into the plea deal.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  398. Clinton’s impeachment trial was based on perjury over an affair. They nailed his lying a$$ fair and square, but they were investigating a land deal and managed to get him in a perjury trap on a completely unrelated matter. I’m fine with how it turned out, but this was definitely a weaponized legal system.

    Very similar to how they got Cohen. But it was more than just perjury — he and his team committed numerous acts of witness tampering and obstruction in trying to avoid losing the Paula Jones case. The articles of impeachment detailed this.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  399. But Trump either did not have good enough lawyers or the judge made too many rulings against Trump.

    Trump’s lead lawyer was Donald Trump and the cliche applies. He may also have WANTED to lose, thinking it would give him street cred.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  400. I thought that Nikki Haley would do better in NM, but she only got 8.6%. Ir’s strange because the two contested GOP nominations in my area featured a total absence of an appeal to Trump voters.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/4/2024 @ 8:18 pm

    LOL! Why should anyone vote for Nikki when she’s already effectively endorsed Trump by announcing she’s voting for him?

    Rip Murdock (3ace4f)

  401. @397 Are you a race car fan too?

    asset (510c68) — 6/4/2024 @ 8:12 pm

    F1 mostly; I really like the evolution of car design. Drivers of cars in the 50s and 60s sat so upright that they were lucky that weren’t decapitated.

    Rip Murdock (3ace4f)

  402. Comedy Gold!

    A section on the Republican National Convention’s website included a background picture of Ho Chi Minh City, rather than Milwaukee, an error that was quickly fixed after a screenshot went viral on Tuesday.

    Each section on the website now includes a photo of the host city and state. But a background picture for a section labeled “News and Updates” — accessible only from a menu low on the main page — had been a photo of Ho Chi Minh City since at least February, according to the Internet Archive.
    ………….
    A Journal Sentinel reporter viewed the page and the image, which included the distinctive Bitexco Financial Tower in Vietnam’s most populous city, before it was corrected. It was replaced later when refreshing the page.
    …………..

    Rip Murdock (3ace4f)

  403. In his Fox & Friends interview, Trump told the world that he doesn’t pray and isn’t a Christian.

    The question from one of the FoxNews viewers was, “What’s your relationship with God like and how do you pray?”

    If he’d kept his answer to, “Okay, so I think it’s good,” it could’ve sufficed. But instead, he word-vomited, like this…

    “Religion is such a great thing, It keeps you, you know, there’s something to be good about. You want to be good; you want to…It’s so important. And I don’t know if it’s explained. Right. I don’t know if I’m explaining it right now, but when you have something like that, you want to be good. You want to go to heaven, okay? You want to go to heaven.”

    “Religion is such a great thing?” Which one? Christianity? All of them? Who can say.
    But then he said, “you want to be good. You want to go to heaven, okay”? That isn’t the Christian faith. I don’t what faith or religion he’s talking about, but it isn’t Christianity, because John 3:16 makes clear that whoever believes in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life. “Wanting to be good” isn’t a path to salvation or heaven. It’s Christ. He’s the center.

    I also note that Trump didn’t answer the “how do you pray” part, or even “do you pray”, because he turned it around to his evangelical supporters, about “more people saying they pray for me”. As Colby Hall noted, Trump talked “not about his own faith but rather how he has benefited politically from the faith of others.” He already said years ago that he never prayed for forgiveness for his sins.

    The supreme irony is that Trump is selling a book for $60 a pop and doesn’t know what’s in it. He’s a religious fraud, in addition to being a criminally convicted and civilly liable fraud.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  404. @399 the 15 to 25% votes against biden in the democrat primary made up for it.

    asset (510c68)

  405. @401 The democrat party was severely punished (along with the american people) for not doing the right thing and convict him as we would have a president gore and no 9-II, Iraq war and possibly no katrina disaster. I still remember so called feminists in the women’s movement defending bubba and even offering him oral sex! This is the kind of BS I have to deal with in the democrat party like gays for hamas!

    asset (510c68)

  406. @404 Women’s f-1 academy has some potential f-1 candidates like ‘The pocket rocket” Doriane Pin and American Chloe Chambers who is really aggressive. Abbi Pulling is given fast cars. The best potential driver is Isabella Robusto who is driving in ARCA where Hailie Deegan won 3 races and I think is better and someday win in NASCAR CUP.

    asset (510c68)

  407. Its been long enough….
    Any poling to suggest a change since the guilty verdict?

    Joe (141406)

  408. @410

    Its been long enough….
    Any poling to suggest a change since the guilty verdict?

    Joe (141406) — 6/5/2024 @ 7:04 am

    Seems too soon.

    The Democrats/Media (BIRM) hasn’t unleashed Ads that Trump is a convicted felon…

    But Morning Consult showing no change:
    https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden

    whembly (86df54)

  409. I think we’re focusing too much on the wrong F-word. No not that one. I think emphasizing FRAUD might be more important in this context than FELONY. Take the debate over escalation off the table. The evidence clearly shows that Trump both cooked the books and schemed with Pecker to evade campaign finance restrictions. Team Biden utlimately has to leave it there and re-focus on J6 and the Mar-A-Lago obstruction.

    Certainly this fraud doesn’t prove those frauds but it does fit into a pattern. You need to hang on Trump that he simply never accepts responsibility. Ashli Babbitt would likely be alive today if Trump had sent out a two-word tweet: “Go home”. He didn’t. She’s dead.

    It looks dim that we will see either of Jack Smith’s cases. It’s sad, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that both situations should be trumpeted as gross irresponsibility. The commercials write themselves. I have little doubt that some of them have been made already. It’s about timing and impact. We will see them. In the end, those images will matter much more than opinions about arcane NY state law and escalation. Trump engaged in an unlawful autogolpe. That’s unacceptable. Trump played hide and seek with nuclear secrets. That’s unhinged. He’s not fit. Hey another F-word!

    AJ_Liberty (f2a7f7)

  410. Why should anyone vote for Nikki when she’s already effectively endorsed Trump by announcing she’s voting for him?

    Because.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  411. A section on the Republican National Convention’s website included a background picture of Ho Chi Minh City, rather than Milwaukee, an error that was quickly fixed after a screenshot went viral on Tuesday.

    This is what happens when the GOP hires millennials to do their websites. They think they are so cute, too.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  412. @406: Trump is a political “Christian” not a religious one. Biden is anti-Christian politically which makes Trump the only game in town for Christians who feel oppressed.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  413. @399 the 15 to 25% votes against biden in the democrat primary made up for it.

    Both Biden and Trump got about 85%.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  414. have a president gore and no 9-II, Iraq war and possibly no katrina disaster.

    Perhaps Gore, but 9/11 was due to Clinton aborting the hit on bin Laden, Iraq would have happened sooner or later — Clinton was fighting a small war there already — and how the F does Gore stop the weather? As far as the federal response, it was stopped due to the LA governor refusing to allow federal authorities to act (that damn constitution again!).

    You really ought to read more than bumper stickers.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  415. Starliner launch in 3 minutes, so they say.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  416. Starliner liftoff

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  417. MECO and entering orbit.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  418. Why should anyone vote for Nikki when she’s already effectively endorsed Trump by announcing she’s voting for him?

    Because.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/5/2024 @ 7:40 am

    LOL! That’s all you’re left with?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  419. The two parties haven’t left much on the table except for two steaming piles.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  420. No doubt you are as shocked as I am by this news: When the House of Representatives put in a program that allowed members to claim expenses, without saying what they were for, some members abused the system.

    For example:

    According to that data, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) was the program’s overall top spender, with nearly $30,000 in lodging expenses and more than $10,000 for meals in 2023.

    Updated data The Post reviewed Tuesday showed Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) was the program’s top spender. He was reimbursed more than $32,000 for lodging and nearly $12,000 for meals in 2023, according to data released by the House as of Tuesday.

    The program was used by both parties, but not all congressmen:

    Of the 435 voting members of the House, 319 members — 153 Democrats and 166 Republicans — received reimbursement for some food or lodging expenses last year, alongside three delegates from U.S. territories. The other 116 members received no money from the reimbursement program, according to a Washington Post review of the first 11 months of data released by the House as of last week.

    Jim Miller (a8cd1d)

  421. Oh…
    https://justthenews.com/government/congress/trumps-secret-service-driver-wanted-quickly-refute-cassidy-hutchinsons-j6-tale

    Trump’s Secret Service driver wanted to quickly refute Cassidy Hutchinson’s J6 tale but was rebuffed

    Rep. Barry Loudermilk says he’s deeply concerned by delay from Democrat-led Jan. 6 panel because it misled Americans.

    House investigators have obtained evidence showing that former President Donald Trump’s Secret Service driver wanted to quickly refute testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson alleging a struggle in the presidential limousine during the Capitol riots but the Democrat-led January 6 committee rebuffed him for months.

    The evidence was confirmed to Just the News both by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, the chairman of the House subcommittee that is investigating the Jan. 6 tragedy now for Republicans, and a transcript of the driver’s interview that was conducted months after he first offered to testify.

    Loudermilk on Tuesday evening decried the delay by the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee, saying it kept Americans in the dark for months ahead of the 2022 midterm elections that there was firsthand testimony refuting Hutchinson’s sensational hearsay narrative that Trump tried to violently commandeer his Secret Service limousine on Jan. 6, 2021, to take it to the Capitol.

    The transcript of the driver’s testimony reviewed by Just the News shows his lawyer complained that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the January 6 committee led by Chairman Rep. Benny Thompson, a Democrat, and Vice Chairwoman Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican, both fierce opponents of Trump.

    Anyone who’s’ defended this committee, and more specifically Cheney should be ashamed of themselves.

    whembly (86df54)

  422. Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 6/1/2024 @ 1:45 pm

    He should have paid Cohen from his personal checking account rather than listing them as Trump Organization corporate expenses; but he was afraid Melania would find out.

    Cohen was the one who insisted on that method of reimbursement. He worked it out with Allen Weisselberg. Cohen may have been afraid of a tax audit.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  423. 424.We knew this at the time, but the key point about Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was true – that Trump wanted to go to the rally at the Capitol.

    The J6 committee didn’t realize that that undermined he worst accusations against Trump – because if he wanted to go to the Capitol, he couldn’t have been expecting a riot – as well as the previous Democratic narrative during the impeachment, because it meant he wasn’t lying to the crowd at the Ellipse when he said he would be there with them.

    The main thing the J6 committee attempted to obscure by never mentioning it except very peripherally, was that Trump had a different plan for January 6 that did not involve storming of the Capitol and that the storming interfered with it (and Trump was calling Senator Tommy Tuberville in an attempt to try to avoid it getting knocked off track.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  424. He should have paid Cohen from his personal checking account rather than listing them as Trump Organization corporate expenses; but he was afraid Melania would find out.

    Cohen was the one who insisted on that method of reimbursement. He worked it out with Allen Weisselberg. Cohen may have been afraid of a tax audit.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 6/5/2024 @ 2:31 pm

    How would a payment from Trump’s personal account (rather than the Trump Organization) trigger an audit of Cohen?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  425. @417 President Gore would not have needed a second pearl harbor to invade Iraq. (penac 1999) Fbi unlikely be told to ignore two hijackers living with fbi informant in san diego. Fbi would have been allowed to research 20th hijackers lap top. Unlikely gore would have told CIA briefing agents when handed briefing paper bin ladin determind to attack in America with airplanes weeks before 9-II. Johnell bryant u.s. agricultural agent who was told by mohammed atta about crashing plane into govt. building would be ignored. Fbi who gave informant two lie detecter tests in philadelphia office because he passed the first one and then passed the second lie detecter test saying bin ladin was going to crash hijacked aircraft into buildings would have warned gore instead of deporting him to england because bush needed a second pearl harbor to invade Iraq and gore didn’t. Gore would not have told his AG not to fly commercial in summer of 2001. As for katrina “brownie you are doing a fine job!” Dubya.

    asset (b35470)

  426. Starship completed its flight without blowing up. It may have landed intact — the cameras were damaged in reentry.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  427. On the 80th anniversary of D-Day, let me recommend a book I have learned much from: John Keegan’s “Six Armies in Normandy”.

    It is especially good for its discussions of the strategic thinking of the allies that led to the landings. And — for Americans — its reminders of what our allies did.

    Jim Miller (6c7cc1)

  428. Boeing’s Starliner successfully docks with the International Space Station despite thruster issues.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  429. Sad!

    A federal judge has ordered Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, to report to prison by July 1 for his conviction for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee.

    U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, previously paused Bannon’s four-month sentence while he appealed his conviction. But on Thursday, Nichols ruled that the original reasons for the postponement no longer apply because a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled strongly and unanimously last month against Bannon’s position.
    ……….
    Bannon was convicted in July 2022 of two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress for stonewalling a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
    ……….
    The Jan. 6 committee subpoenaed Bannon early in its investigation as part of an initial wave of outreach to key Trump advisers involved in his efforts to subvert the 2020 election. The panel cited reports that Bannon and Navarro worked together on what they called the “Green Bay Sweep” strategy to orchestrate challenges to the election results in Congress on Jan. 6. Bannon also warned on his popular “War Room” podcast the day before Jan. 6 that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” And White House call logs obtained by the Jan. 6 committee showed Trump and Bannon were in touch at key moments in the run-up to Jan. 6.
    ……….
    “We’re going to go all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to,” Bannon said after Nichols’ decision. “There’s not a prison built or jail built that will shut me up.”

    (Bannon attorney David Schoen) called on Speaker Mike Johnson to formally declare the Jan. 6 committee’s previous subpoenas invalid, contending this would add legal weight to Bannon’s appeal.
    ……….
    Bannon…….said his decision to refuse the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena was based on the advice of his lawyer — at the time, Robert Costello — who said Bannon was immune from the panel’s demands.

    However, Nichols rejected that claim, citing the 1950s case of mobster Peter “Horseface” Licavoli, who was held in contempt of Congress despite a lawyer’s advice that he decline to appear for testimony on organized crime. The D.C. Circuit held that witnesses who “willfully” refuse to comply with valid congressional subpoenas can be punished, regardless of the excuse.
    …………

    I daresay that Bannon will have as much luck with the Supreme Court as Peter Navarro did, which is to say none at all.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  430. Also, executive privilege claims belong to the current President, not former Presidents.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  431. Ah, but Bannon’s principle, which I think is widely shared among MAGA in particular and conservatives more generally, is that the executive is simply not answerable to the legislature, that the only recourse the legislature has against executive malfeasance is impeachment, and that the executive has no responsibility to cooperate with legislative investigations. They’re a coequal branch and Congress should but out.

    aphrael (99fd6b)

  432. @434

    … that the only recourse the legislature has against executive malfeasance is impeachment…
    aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/6/2024 @ 12:08 pm

    Technically, that’s not correct.

    Congress actually has a power that can bring the executive branch to it’s knees if they all have enough of a spine.

    …and that is the Power of the Purse.

    whembly (86df54)

  433. …and that is the Power of the Purse.

    whembly (86df54) — 6/6/2024 @ 1:00 pm

    Not according to President Trump…….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  434. Congress or the Senate can retaliate against a president. The retaliation doesn’t have to be something relevant but not giving the president what he wants. A single Senator held up confirmations (because the rules or practice of the Senate lets him) because of some issue.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  435. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/5/2024 @ 3:02 pm

    How would a payment from Trump’s personal account (rather than the Trump Organization) trigger an audit of Cohen?

    It wouldn’t. I meant that Cohen may have been afraid of what would be discovered in the event of a tax audit (for other reasons).

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  436. Reimbursement would look like undeclared income and if he explained then other laws would come into play.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  437. Pure speculation.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  438. Also, executive privilege claims belong to the current President, not former Presidents.

    This seems abusable, and we may see the same complaints from Biden’s aides if a resurgent GOP under Trump decides to investigate the border issue.

    Of course, the aides may have trouble remembering…

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  439. Reimbursement would look like undeclared income and if he explained then other laws would come into play.

    Perhaps, but Trump inflated the reimbursement so that Cohen would not be out-of-pocket for taxes on the “income.” Assuming that Cohen paid taxes, that is. Cohen not paying taxes is how they flipped him.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  440. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/6/2024 @ 3:40 pm

    Pure speculation

    Of course. But it’s not real speculation that it was Cohen who wanted this arrangement (he did not want Trump to send acheck to reimburse the National Enquirer for what it spent on Karen
    McDougal story and said Allen n Weisselberg had worked out how to do it.

    That’s on a recording which cuts out before Michael Cohen got to
    describe it.

    He may have been afraid of an audit of Donald Trump,

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  441. Yesterday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul abruptly cancelled (or indefinitely postponed) implementation of New York City “congestion pricing’ I had thought it was too late to stop it.

    This as actually mainly for raising money and I think really was a scheme to raise money to pay for debt service for projects that went way over budget (officially some capital projects but money is fungible) It could in the end limit fare increases although none of that money was to be used for operating expenses.

    True congestion pricing would not be the same on all weekdays. It would give people a choice between a toll and less crowding. Days with no congestion toll should rotate.

    The congestion pricing structure for driving in Midtown/Lower Manhattan south of 60th Street, except for the West Side Highway and FDR Drive that was scheduled to go into effect Sunday, June 30, 2024 was as follows:

    $15 per day for personal cars when they enter Midtown/Lower Manhattan (charged at most once each day)

    $1.25 per trip for taxis (yellow and green cabs) for any trip that starts or ends in Midtown/Lower Manhattan

    $2.50 per trip for rideshares (Uber and Lyft) for any trip that starts or ends in Midtown/Lower Manhattan

    The toll would apply from 5am to 9pm on weekdays and 9am to 9pm on weekends, with a 75% discount in fees outside of those hours. (For example, on weekends, personal cars will be charged $3.75 instead of $15.)

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  442. Only about 200 veterans went to the 80th anniversary of D-Day the youngest age 98 or a bit less, most aged aged 98 99 or 100 with the oldest age 107.

    Les than 1% (close to about 3/4 of 1%) of U.S. World War II veterans are still alive today.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  443. I think Netanyahu offered basically the same 3 part deal (with the 3rd part and maybe the 2nd part never to happen) that was agreed to last November.

    Hamas accepted it enough to be able to say that the ball is now in Israel’s court.

    Netanyahu is the most realistic.

    In the meantime there is a danger of a war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  444. Because it was a campaign contribution, Trump’s paying Ms Daniels directly would have needed to be reported accordingly (though frankly, I think he’d likely have been able to get away with not reporting the contribution). As Cohen testified (from my recollection), he and Weisselberg tried to come up with various other means of paying – either through AMI or other entities: however, AMI didn’t want to do so due to possible campaign finance issues (as Pecker testified) and the other Trump entities because they all had Trump in their names. So Cohen made the payment himself – which is his campaign finance violation.

    Now: reimbursing a campaign contribution is itself a no-go. That said: even if $130,000 of the $420,000 was for reimbursing Cohen’s payment to Daniels, then that $130,000 should have been listed as a disbursement to Trump from the Trump Org and not entered as a legal fee paid to Cohen – which Trump would then have had to paid taxes for that $130,000 dollars (the tax violation theory).

    And thus we’re at the falsification of business records.

    Sam G (80a2a9)

  445. Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/6/2024 @ 3:52 pm

    Perhaps, but Trump inflated the reimbursement so that Cohen would not be out-of-pocket for taxes on the “income.”

    If Trump had just reimbursed him the amount would not have been “grossed up.”

    Assuming that Cohen paid taxes, that is.

    I don’t know if he did. If he didn’t pay taxes on that it might have been kept from the jury (but not from the petitions by the lawyers) or buried in the cross examination and the people covering this were not interested enough to write about it.

    Cohen not paying taxes is how they flipped him.

    But I don’t know which taxes. It could be in news stores from several years ago.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  446. @444 The monies raised from this pricing were to go to expanding ADA access to transit, as mandated by law. Now that’s going to have to come from NYC tax payers, most likely as payroll tax hikes.
    Most people in Manhattan do not own a car, and there are many transit options so one would not need to drive in unless necessary. The people this mostly affected was suburbanites that drive in rather than use transit options, often from New Jersey or Connecticut.

    Sam G (80a2a9)

  447. Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 6/6/2024 @ 4:17 pm

    Nothing is going to change:

    Hamas’s leader in Gaza told Arab negotiators that he would accept a peace deal only if Israel commits to a permanent cease-fire, affirming the militant group’s position in his first response to a proposal introduced by President Biden to end the eight-month war.

    “Hamas will not surrender its guns or sign a proposal that asks for that,” Arab mediators said Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar told them in a brief message they received Thursday, as two top U.S. officials, including Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns, hold talks in the region aimed at jump-starting long-stalled negotiations.
    ………..
    The U.S. has drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Hamas to accept the latest proposal. The three-phase plan outlined by Biden would begin with a complete cease-fire over six weeks, a withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas of Gaza and the release of some hostages held by Hamas. The second phase would see a permanent end to the hostilities, a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the release of remaining hostages. Phase three would involve a plan for the reconstruction of Gaza.
    ………..
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated after Biden’s speech that he wouldn’t accept any deal that commits to a permanent end to the war, and one of his senior advisers criticized the draft resolution on similar terms.

    “The notion that Israel will permit an armed genocidal terrorist organization on its southern border, and would agree to end the war before Hamas’s military and governing capabilities are destroyed, all the hostages are freed, and we have ensured that Gaza does not pose a threat to Israel in the future, is a nonstarter,” the adviser, Ophir Falk, said Thursday.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  448. Many people do not answer telephones anymore, I suppose caused by the large number of sales/spam calls. And if called they expect text messages beforehand.

    https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/phone-etiquette-text-before-calling-6015145b

    Don’t You Dare Call Me Without Texting First
    ‘Extremely annoyed.’

    The etiquette of unexpected phone calls divides friends, families and co-workers.

    Illustration by Chase Gaewski/The Wall Street Journal

    For some people, there is nothing more delightful than the surprise ringing of a phone that signals someone is thinking about them. For others, there is nothing ruder, more intrusive or panic-inducing than an unannounced call. You are out of your mind—and possibly not in their life—if you’re not sending them a text first.

    Phone-call etiquette has never been more complicated. Family members, co-workers, spouses and friends can’t agree on whether it’s OK to call someone without first alerting them via text that you plan to call.

    he debate is intensifying: the more entrenched texting has become, the more people have come to find a phone call without warning unacceptable. Those who call without warning, in turn, find the phone-call-phobic rigid to the point of absurdity: calls aren’t “unannounced”—the ringing is the announcement, with more than 100 years of precedent.

    “I just don’t think calling is that big of a deal,” says Aparna Paul, 41, of North Easton, Mass., director of communications for a nonprofit.

    She frequently calls friends and family out of the blue. Once when she needed to get a work task done that required contacting a colleague, she dialed him up without texting or emailing first.

    “The co-worker was very annoyed that I called him,” she says. “Extremely annoyed.” …

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  449. Hamas’s leader in Gaza told Arab negotiators that he would accept a peace deal only if Israel commits to a permanent cease-fire, affirming the militant group’s position in his first response to a proposal introduced by President Biden to end the eight-month war.

    And nobody in Israel will accept a permanent end to the war that leaves Hamas running Gaza despite what President Biden may think.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is of the opinion that pressing on is the only thing that can get Hamas to agree to the release of some hostages without a plan to end the war.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  450. The U.S. has drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Hamas to accept the latest proposal. The three-phase plan outlined by Biden would begin with a complete cease-fire over six weeks, a withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas of Gaza and the release of some hostages held by Hamas. The second phase would see a permanent end to the hostilities, a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the release of remaining hostages. Phase three would involve a plan for the reconstruction of Gaza.

    Phase I is a possibility –

    It is basically a repeat of Black Friday.

    No phase has a guarantee that the other phases will follow. They depend on agreements to be negotiated during the phases.
    ………..

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  451. You can paper over differences only so long as it doesn’t have to be translated into real life.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  452. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is of the opinion that pressing on is the only thing that can get Hamas to agree to the release of some hostages without a plan to end the war.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 6/6/2024 @ 4:31 pm

    He’s exactly right, except there are no live hostages to release. The Israeli people need to accept the fact that Hamas and affiliated groups will kill the remaining hostages before they surrender.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  453. The Biden plan was dead before it arrived.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  454. If nothing changes, he hostages will not be released, the war willl never end, Gaza will never be rebuilt (it is being slowly bombed into the stone age as they – no buildings) and there will not be any kind of peace negotiations between Israel and any Arab country.

    A caveat: They can negotiate an alliance.

    Secret agreements to remain quiescent enemies are also possible.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  455. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/6/2024 @ 4:40 pm

    The Biden plan was dead before it arrived.

    Phase I (or a partially implemented Biden plan) is alive but it requires Hamas to have greater fear of being totally destroyed.

    But stopping the war in Gaza that way may result in an intensification of the war in the north.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  456. The center opposition wants a peace in the north by September. If it isn’t achieved by diplomacy they advocate war.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  457. They can negotiate an alliance.

    Between whom-Hamas and Israel? Surely you jest.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  458. Also, executive privilege claims belong to the current President, not former Presidents.

    This seems abusable, and we may see the same complaints from Biden’s aides if a resurgent GOP under Trump decides to investigate the border issue.

    Of course, the aides may have trouble remembering…

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/6/2024 @ 3:50 pm

    Trump’s executive privilege claims were extensively litigated in 2022. He lost.

    <

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  459. Trump’s executive privilege claims were extensively litigated in 2022. He lost.

    If they are in the hands of the current president, I’d expect the next Republican president to hand out fishing licenses.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  460. Most of the time presidents care about the office and maintaining standards for the next guy. But Trump didn’t care and the sad fact is that Biden doesn’t care what happens after he leaves office because his term will end when he does.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  461. Justice clarence thomas has taken millions of dollars in gifts and more that he didn’t report that were to near bribes investigators found. (cnbc) (du)

    asset (20f110)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2454 secs.