posted
Trump was fully cooperative with the National Archives, who made a false assertion when it came to documents that were in fact declassified. When the National Archives becomes politicized, then we are in deeper trouble than one could heretofore assert, it seems.
Posts: 808 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, has anyone made sense of Merchan’s dictates (which he calls “instructions”) to the jury? Looks to me like it’s filled with several violations of the Bill of Rights. Might be a good sign that the jury came back demanding clarifications.
Posts: 808 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
State of New York v. Donald J Trump is hardly over. Trump is ROR - Released Own Recognizance. The certain appeal will move forth likely over the next presidential term - who is @ 1600 notwithstanding.
The ironic thing about this whole matter is that it could have been entirely avoided if Trump had chosen to pay the hush money from his personal funds. If the Organization was the only source available to him, then simply take a Bonus "grossed up" for Medicare tax and Income Tax withholdings.
To have a consensual romp is not a crime, and to pay another party for an NDA - Non Disclosure Agreement- is also not a crime.
Posts: 10666 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The whole thing was predicated on whether the alleged misdemeanor was done in order to cover up another crime, which was not disclosed at any time and even not disclosed now.
Juan Merchan violated almost all of Trump’s civil rights from Amendments 1 through 8. There will be a reckoning for this.
PS. The Associated Press website’s front page currently has “Trump found guilty on all counts in hush money case” emblazoned at the top in all caps. Certainly shows their commitment to unbiased reporting, right?
Posts: 808 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Los Angeles Times; op-ed is titled “The Guilty Verdict Only Makes Trump Stronger”.
quote:They finally got him. Not on Russia collusion. Ukraine phone calls. Jan. 6 riots. Classified documents. Or mean tweets.
They finally got Donald Trump, after everything, on filing the wrong financial ***-story coverup paperwork.
Who but Donald Trump could even be indicted for such a thing? As CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said a few days ago: “I doubt the New York indictment would’ve been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump.”
It was jarring to hear my CNN colleague Jake Tapper say “guilty” 34 straight times, as the verdicts rolled in Thursday afternoon. A historic moment that further divided an already divided nation.
And it was equally jarring to see text after text pop up on my phone from decidedly non-MAGA Republicans, but also not Never Trumpers, all sounding the same note: I don’t like this man, and now I think I have to vote for him.
Lest you think that’s just anecdotal or a sign that Scott (Jennings) has weird friends, the Trump campaign reported a deluge of online contributions in the minutes following the verdict crashed their system.
The polling indicates the guilty verdict won’t make much of a difference to how most Americans vote. But Republicans are madder than wet hens that the party’s nominee for president — and, according to the polls, likely the next president of the United States — was indicted for 34 felonies that few can fully explain, in a very Democratic jurisdiction.
Basically, the prosecution argued that Hillary Clinton might have won if Trump hadn’t paid Stormy Daniels for her silence, and so you must convict him for covering up what amounts to a campaign finance violation that he was never charged with or convicted of in the first place. The Department of Justice and Federal Election Commission declined to pursue this novel theory, but it found a home in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
posted
Hang tight Mr. Helfner, Trump is going to be elected I think "decisively"; that is when Joe had best have good Defense lawyers lined up.
It simply astounds me that Joe even sought the nomination when he could have retired having attained the career politician's ultimate prize. Now he's going out in all likelihood defeated and likely, if not certainly, looking at criminal prosecution.
There is nothing compassionate about Trump and and a lot vindictive. His goal will simply be to see Joe behind bars.
Posts: 10666 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that if Trump was about vindictiveness, then Hillary Clinton would have spent time behind bars from 2017 to about 2021, as would have others such as James Comey, Robert Mueller et al.
Posts: 808 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually doubt that Trump cares whether Biden ends up behind bars or not. To simply be ignored would probably hurt Biden more than anything else. Given his obvious mental decline, not even sure he would know what is happening, and he would certainly not be a factor politically in anything after November. For Trump to go after those in the Executive Branch participating in the most lopsided vindictiveness against those they disagree with politically would be another story. At this point it appears that all the Executive Branch needs a thorough housecleaning. (Yes, drain the swamp.)
Posts: 2945 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mr. Biden isn’t FDR, whom his party could just barely justify nominating, given his D-Day success and wartime prestige, while hiding from voters that he probably wouldn’t last out his term. How idiotic—how disingenuous, given everything Democrats say is at stake in the election—to require voters to weigh, practically before any other consideration, whether the candidate might be alive and lucid on Inauguration Day. In my book, the verdict already is final: One of the worst decisions by any president in history is Joe Biden’s decision to seek a second term. This decision is so terrible it may not be redeemable in the eyes of history even if his roll of the dice succeeds and he blocks Trump’s return to the presidency rather than being the vehicle for Mr. Trump’s restoration.
quote:The tragedy is that one of two old men, neither of them great, neither of them distinguished in terms of character or intellect, who are each in his way an embarrassment, and whom two-thirds of voters do not want as presidential candidates, will be chosen, in this crucial historical moment in which the stakes could not be higher, to lead the most powerful nation on earth. One will likely fail physically in coming years—he’s failing now—and be replaced by a vice president who is wholly unsuited for the presidency because she is wholly unserious, who has had four years to prove herself in a baseline way and failed to meet even the modest standards by which vice presidents are judged. The other may, on being elected or even before then, be thrown into the slammer for one of the felony charges against him, including those connected to attempting to overthrow a democratic national election.
I'll of course vote; it's my duty as a citizen. But for the reasons set forth above, I could very easily on my ballot's President line write in "Present".
Posts: 10666 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A further thought regarding Mr. Jenkins' column, I presume he is referencing 1944 when Harry Truman was picked by FDR as his V-P.
FDR only lived for three months of his fourth term (tragic he was not able to live another four to "see it over"); and Truman, who served out FDR's unexpired term plus an additional term to which he was duly elected during '48, is ranked by the Notable Scholars as our sixth best President (1 Lincoln, 2 Washington, 3 FDR, 4 TR, 5 Ike, 6 Truman).
Perhaps, and "Pro Bono Patria" should Joe win, Kamala is a latent Harry Truman. Unfortunately, neither columnist appears to hold such a view.
Posts: 10666 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Perhaps, and "Pro Bono Patria" should Joe win, Kamala is a latent Harry Truman. Unfortunately, neither columnist appears to hold such a view.
????? She is nearly as much, if not more of a dud in office than Joe. I cannot picture her even being as good as the worst that has ever held the office.
Posts: 2945 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thank you for all your hard against the MAGA crazies! My cousin is a juror on Trumps (sic) criminal case and they are going to convict him tomorrow according to her. Thank you 🙏 New York courts!!!! 💜
This was posted on the NYS Unified Court System’s Facebook page under a username “Michael Anderson”. Currently being investigated. Speculation includes the idea that this can result in a hung jury and retrial.
Posts: 808 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
However Mike, if there is any foundation to the "Michael Anderson" report, then such could be an issue at Appellate level.
Now beyond "Michael Anderson", this Times columnist, holds nothing is in the bag with regards to a reversal:
Fair Use;
quote:As a prosecutor and a defense attorney for decades, I have argued hundreds of cases at this court. I’ve looked closely at the Trump case. The burning question now is, could his conviction be reversed on appeal? My answer is, the chances of that are not good.
Posts: 10666 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
