So much has come to light through the Hearings to suggest that Incumbent President Trump, directed, participated, and committed acts that could be considered criminal between the Election (Nov 3, 2020) and the Certification (Jan 6, 2021).
If the person so accused was less than a former president, a grand jury would surely hand up indictments. Therefore, there is all too great a chance a former president will stand indicted of Federal crimes.
The partisans (I know many of such) will cheer should they see a "perp walk" (never mind out on bail an hour later), but would this really be "pro bono patria"?
Yes, a message would be sent; no one is "above the law". But the likelihood of such matter being brought to trial to trial is "slim" and a conviction "nonexistent".
Even if an arrest were to be made tomorrow, the defense could easily "drag things" for another two and a half years. At that time, the President will likely be a Republican, who would instantly pardon Trump. Even if that president were to be Trump himself, he could still grant a pardon.
So my best advice; Dems, have your fun with what amounts to a "televised Grand Jury" between now and November, because that's all it will ever amount to.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Suggest? Not so far. Much of what this illegal committee has scraped together has actually proved the opposite. Never mind the outstanding questions of why both Nancy Pelosi and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser refused Trump’s offer of National Guard troops. If Merrick Garland does somehow use something tenuous at best to concoct a charge particularly when two “impeachments” could not (the second was about January 6, remember), then he is in serious violation of the Constitution.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
If Bragg does it on his phony charge Tuesday, he really demonstrates that the justice system is shattered. Bad idea to have the people believe that the social contract has been broken.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
We have now had 6+ years of "Get Trump" Enough!!! If they had enough real evidence for anything, there would have long since been trials and sentencing. Even the Keystone Kops could do better than this if there was anything real there.
There are plenty of real crimes out there, both political and non political. Go after them and quit wasting resources and time on this stuff.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Well Messrs. Harris and Helfner, since this topic was last active some eight months ago, the only thing that really has changed is that Joe has not resigned, as I thought he would after delivering the SOTU, and is highly likely to be the Democratic POTUS nominee come next year.
Just when the indictment against Mr. Trump will be handed up is a "who knows", but in the overwhelming Democratic sentiment of New York City, it will.
But the NYPD, with some 34,000 sworn officers that represents a police force that would be the seventh largest army in the world, plus another 16,000 in the NY National Guard that will be "locked and loaded" for deployment, there will be no rerun of Jan 6 (I think Mr. Trump's militiae know that).
But with the inevitable continuances, and with Mr. Trump free on bail (likely confined to the USA with his Passport lifted), the judicial proceedings will drag on through the entire '24 election process ending with a Republican (maybe Mr. Trump himself) moving into 1600. At that time, any judicial proceeding will stop, and Mr. Trump will be given as blanket a pardon as Mr. Nixon was given by President Ford.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Media reports are too conflicting to draw a conclusion right now. But yes; the public at large is sick to death of the “Get Trump” meme (cue Get Smart theme).
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
So far, no indictment. Jury deliberations postponed until next week.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I have a feeling that the timing of any indictment being handed up is a closely guarded secret. Outside the Judiciary, the NYPD surely has most knowledge. So likely are the logistics to deliver Mr. Trump and his attorneys to New York.
One ritual of the New York judiciary that could well be avoided is the "perp walk" that serves no purpose beyond a display of "we gotcha".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
NBC saying that according to sources, no indictment this week either.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, NBC is my TV newssource as well.
Honestly, "if you're gonna nail him", do it for something that matters - theft of government property, mishandling of classified information, coercion of a State official (Georgia), inciting a riot, sedition - and not for some romp with a "Porno Queen" for which some hapless "fall guy" has already done some time.
Mr. Bragg, drop it!
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Possibly getting closer to a drop. The Daily Mail now reporting that the grand jury is going on a scheduled hiatus for a month, without hearing anything related to Trump beforehand.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
NY Times was in a hurry to report the grand jury voting to indict on phony charges.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, "we wuz rong".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
I wonder where they possibly got “thirty counts” from. This looks like a great miscarriage of justice with a broken braking system.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I think the Judiciary, regardless of whether some local DA or the USDOJ, would have been wise to forego this little "romp", for which a "fall guy has already done some time", in favor of something that counts.
I realize there are some here (or at least my Sister) who hold "he's done nothing other than faithfully serve as our 45th POTUS becoming one of our top five", but there are some who hold otherwise. Whatever laws Mr. Trump has broken, if any, should be decided by the applicable level of the Judiciary, and not any level of such seeking to grab headlines and "perp walks".
Finally, however Mr. Trump travels to NY to surrender, it should be done in the most discreet manner possible (not on one certain B-752) with "an in the basement" arrival and in some nondescript rented auto.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
There is no way to be discreet about any travel to NY by Trump, given he still has the right to SS entourage.
Politicization continues, with Pelosi speaking up and saying that “everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence”, which implies that the Fifth Amendment has been upended and replaced with Code Napoléon under which one is presumed guilty until proven innocent. (Never mind the Fourth Amendment w.r.t. Mar-a-Lago.) Even former FBI director James Comey could not resist tweeting “It’s been a good day” in response to the news.
Alan Dershowitz has taken Trump’s side here, saying of Bragg’s allegations, “(i)n 60 years of practice, this is the worst case of prosecutorial abuse I have ever seen” and declaring that “today, the rule of law in the United States of America died”.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A grand jury handed up the indictment, sought by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, on Thursday afternoon. The charges aren’t public and are expected to remain sealed until Mr. Trump makes an initial appearance in court, scheduled for 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday. He is first expected to report to the district attorney’s office that morning, when he will be arrested, fingerprinted and photographed.
Mr. Trump is planning to fly from Florida to New York on Monday and spend the night at Trump Tower before heading to the courthouse Tuesday, according to people familiar with his schedule.
Streets surrounding the lower Manhattan courthouse are also expected to be blocked off, officials said. The U.S. Secret Service is expected to accompany Mr. Trump during his time at the courthouse.
You can be sure that Mr. Trump's arrival (at KTBO in a Pvt Jet and not in his B-752) and motorcade will be covered all the way (maybe not while in the Lincoln Tunnel) to Trump Tower. Then the motorcade to the NY County Courthouse, and then as a bailee, barring "interference", to KTBO and "lift off".
All I know is that the NYPD would be the seventh largest standing army on this planet; the protesters, peacful and otherwise, know that as well.
but why...why...why!!!
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton now voices concern that Bragg’s unwieldy juggernaut could serve as “rocket fuel” for Trump’s campaign.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Of greater concern will be if the thoughts of this Times contributor come to pass:
Fair Use:
But at least one thing seems clear: Mr. Bragg may have been the first local prosecutor to do it, but he will probably not be the last. Every local prosecutor in the country will now feel that he or she has free rein to criminally investigate and prosecute presidents after they leave office. Democrats currently cheering the charges against Mr. Trump may feel differently if — or when — a Democrat, perhaps even President Biden, ends up on the receiving end of a similar effort by any of the thousands of prosecutors elected to local office, eager to make a name for themselves by prosecuting a former president of the United States.
Talk about how to have a controlled society; be elected POTUS and expect to be prosecuted for "whatever the opposition dreams up".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Just now, it's"Lift off" from KPBI (Palm Beach International) in "one certain" B752 (Boeing 757-200) with Registration Number N757AF.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Touchdown N757AF 328P KLGA Rwy 22
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Talk about how to have a controlled society; be elected POTUS and expect to be prosecuted for "whatever the opposition dreams up".
That is exactly what we have had since Trump was nominated. He has been out of office for two years and those trying to take him out still won't give up. From day one of his inauguration, it seems the Democrat Party obsession has been, "We are going to impeach Trump for ___________________." And no matter how much they have tried to find the right thing to fill in the blank, they have never managed to make anything stick.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
OMG OMG...what a Circus!!!!!
All three news networks having "wall to wall". It could have been so easily avoided.
Small chartered private jet aircraft flying into KTBO (Teterboro; NY area "Execuport"), staying somewhere in the Outer Boroughs (Brooklyn has perfectly nice hotels and some sections of Queens as well), and being transported around in non-descript rented autos.
This all could have been avoided; but meantime, sit back and enjoy the show - as I will as soon as I get back from voting (just a "Dogcatcher or two" this year).
addendum 121P CT: all four broadcast networks have now joined the circus.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: OMG OMG...what a Circus!!!!! .... addendum 121P CT: all four broadcast networks have now joined the circus.
And I wouldn't watch it unless tied to a chair with my eyes glued open.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
N757AF now taxiing @KLGA.
Lift off 421P ET Rwy 13
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Somehow Mr. Harris, I think you and Journal columnist Gerald Baker are "on the same page".
Fair Use:
That we are all subject to the law’s authority doesn’t mean we all feel its weight for every breach of its many proscriptions. Prosecutorial discretion is exercised every day by people like Mr. Bragg. There are no hard-and-fast rules, but it’s a fair bet that most prudential legal brains would caution restraint when considering the prosecution of a former president and current candidate on a charge built on weak evidence and a fragile legal theory that wouldn’t be pursued against anyone else. But in this case there was never any question of exercising “discretion,” since the prosecutor had found a crime and culprit before he had even begun investigating—before he was even elected district attorney in 2021.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Both leading newspapers have now weighed in on their Editorial pages regarding the strength of the case against Mr. Trump.
With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.
The judge and jury will make the ultimate determination, but they will be far from the first to consider this question, and the answer has usually been a guilty verdict.
The public can now read Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment against former President Trump, as well as his more voluble “statement of facts,” but the speculation and leaks of recent weeks were well informed. There are few surprises, except perhaps astonishment that Mr. Bragg’s case looks even weaker than we expected.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The Times has to push the big lie, I see. Everybody knows that Trump was indicted for absolutely nothing.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Just think, if Mr. Trump could have seen beyond "L’entreprise, c’est moi" and paid the hush $$$ for his "romp" with Stephanie/Stormy (presuming consent, not a crime in itself) from his personal funds, "we wouldn't be here", or for at least this offense.
If he needed additional funds to "cover" at personal level, then take additional compensation from The Organization, upon which, sorry 'bout that", he would have to pay taxes at individual level, offset by a deduction at Corporate.
How often did I need to counsel clients, who had their businesses incorporated for the provisions of limited liability, that this corporation is a separate entity and that anytime there is a transaction between it and yourself or other non-business party, a taxable event has occurred.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Nobody should be punished for something that is not a crime. Even the left agrees with that, for now.
Even if Trump was squeaky clean morally, Bragg would have attempted to invent something else.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, I'm inclined to agree with you.
If this action against Mr. Trump, results in dropped charges (nolle prosequi) or an acquittal, guess who POTUS 47 (48 if Joe doesn’t make it) will be?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Well, E. Jean Carroll may end up getting her pound of flesh, I mean $5 million over “defamation” and the perpetually-redefined “battery”; Trump is appealing (multiple shenanigans by presiding judge et cetera).
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, while you and I are well aware of such, I believe that we should clarify, for the possible benefit of any "lurkers" we have around here, the distinction between the matters of EJC v. Trump and the SofNY v. Trump.
These are separate matters; the first matter, EJC, noted is a civil matter for which the maximum penalty would be the $5M awarded the Plaintiff. Even if a criminal act occurred, any alleged act is long past the Stature of Limitations for criminal charges to be pursued.
The second matter, at which discussion at this topic has been directed, SofNY v. Trump, is a criminal, which resulted from a Grand Jury indictment being handed up to the District Attorney for prosecution. In that matter, the criminal trial is set to begin no earlier than Summer 2024, or more than a year from now.
And finally, as is appropriate in any discussion of criminal judicial proceedings, the accused, which is in this case Former President Trump, is presumed innocent until such time that a court of law finds otherwise.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The second matter is still a violation of Trump’s Fourth Amendment rights since the details remain under seal and should never have been under seal; should be thrown out on that basis alone.
George Santos is getting similar treatment, being arrested for charges that are still “unclear” at the time of writing.
No justice department has the right to shred the US Constitution. This is indeed a political witch hunt.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Now the DOJ follows Bragg’s modus operandi with indictments that are not crimes, using tainted grand juries.
Some talking heads (e.g. Rachel Maddow) are actually suggesting that if Trump dropped out of the 2024 race, these “charges” would suddenly become far less severe. That is an admission on their part that this is Soviet-style political persecution.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
More fake charges, all utterly absurd. Accusation of conspiring to defraud the USA out of absolutely nowhere?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Funny how the Trump charges seem to come out just after some new dirt surfaces on the Biden Crime Family. Hey, I hear Joe finally admits he has SEVEN grandchildren.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
CNN today "rated the strength" of each case against the Former President. Here is as I recall it.
1) Theft of Classified Information 2) Post '20 Conspiracies (today's) 3) Georgia election (if indictment is handed up) 4) Stephanie/Stormy; Trump Organization business funds' misuse.
Now let me throw this out; in the name of "national unity", win or lose next year, Joe PARDONS Trump.
A big difference from Jerry during '74; he had to stand for re-election; for all intent and purpose, neither Joe or Trump do (OK; in theory the loser could run again come '28; come on now, an 82 or 86yo private citizen running?)
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, more directly responding to your immediate, yes; Hunter is indeed an embarrassment, and while at this time, I think Trump will win next year - criminal indictments notwithstanding (don't breathe that around my Lib friends), Hunter is a "drag" on whatever chance Joe would have had in '24.
But please give Joe credit for one thing - loyalty. As soon as Hunter started doing bad stuff - even as Obama's VP - he should have "dissed" him essentially locking him up in Wilmington.
But Joe is loyal, he really hasn't had that much turnover amongst his staff, and sticking with Kamala is "not exactly" improving his '24 chances. Between Hunter and Kamala, the "ship has hit the iceberg".
Finally, we must wonder, considering what a loyal VP Joe proved to be, why Obama "threw him under the bus" during '16 probably escapes many an observer. However, and this is simply my theory, Obama and Hillary "had a deal" in place. The deal was that she would accept a high level and visible position (SECSTATE certainly is) in his administration in which she would serve through the first term. During '13, she would be free to resign thereby not running against him, but allowing her ample time to get ready for '16.
Can't prove it, but I just feel it.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
If Joe pardons Trump, I will be looking for the next sunrise in the west.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: If Joe pardons Trump, I will be looking for the next sunrise in the west.
Better that, Mr. Harris, then Trump pardoning himself as POTUS 47. That would be fraught with all too many Constitutional challenges than a politically divided nation could handle.
A CNN commentator yesterday noted "Trump is running first and foremost to keep his personal freedom".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I realize that to throw Hunter a pardon by Joe on his way out (I think he will lose to Trump; the indictments only solidify Trump's support), but I think it would be part of a "National Unity" initiative by Joe - and for which he does not need any "advice and consent" from Congress.
Possibly, Joe's legacy will be that even in defeat, he appeased the best way he could - for both sides.
What Trump will do during his Second Presidency is what he will do. His supporters, like my Sister, will think of him as one of the Five Greatest we ever had. Others will agree with the Scholars he will be close to the bottom (Joe will be there as well).
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Theft of Classified Information
Denial of the fact that the Presidential Records Act applies here. There is no “classified information”. No sitting POTUS can reclassify something that is freely declassified by predecessor.
quote:Post ’20 Conspiracies (today’s)
Made up out of whole cloth. Never mind violation of First Amendment rights.
quote:Georgia election (if indictment is handed up)
Making requests is not a crime. The states are empowered to investigate.
quote:Stephanie/Stormy; Trump Organization business funds’ misuse
No such thing. Never mind the absurd claim that it was misuse of election funds, in fact; also made up of whole cloth.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, if either Mr. Harris, myself, or any others around here who have worn the uniform and served, decided "oh it's just a souvenir" and helped ourselves to some classified material, maybe by now we'd be out of Leavenworth.
What gives a Former President exemption from such rules? He is no longer in office, and hence no longer has "need to know", which is the underlying principle for anyone having access to such information.
Honestly, if they are going to nail Trump for something, I hope it's for this. I could care less who he had a romp with and how he paid her off.
Posted by MontanaJim (Member # 2323) on :
I will go to my grave shaking my head regarding the trump cult in this country. And thats exactly what it is--a cult. Now i know how charles manson, david koresh and the like can get followers. Also trump was exactly right when he said he could kill someone on the streets of NYC and his supporters would stay with him. i can think of millions more people one could idolize who would be a more suitable idol than the orange criminal.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A book that I'm reading that supports Montana Jim's immediate thought:
I might have taken some pictures of things prohibited to be photographed while in Nam. I will say that my father and i worked out a system so they could locate me if I got sent to some place where US forces were not supposed to be. Fortunately never needed to use it. I will say that my father had a couple of pictures of Panama Canal locks taken when he happened to fly over it during WW2. His comment was, "What do they think I am going to do? Sell them to the first German I can find."
I have had to sign nondisclosure statement on a few issues on transit projects iI have worked on, Time and place to remain nameless. With one exception these appeared have had the primary purpose of keeping secret something incredibly stupid the owning agency had allowed to be done. In short, I am convinced that many classified are more for the purpose of hiding stupidity and preventing embarrassment than anything else.
Oh, by the way, how about all the various and sundry classified documents Biden had in unsecured locations? Seems to be media amnesia and blindness on that.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
On our respective points, Mr. Harris, what will be interesting is how the case of this E-3 Air Guardsman plays out.
To date, nothing has been brought to the media's attention that he intended to sell what he (allegedly) stole to an adversary; he just wanted to enhance his standing as an "internet influencer".
Now regarding necessity of some classifications, I can recall in a training film how the script said "somebody has just gone wild with a Secret stamp" (followed of course by the stern narrator's voice "that's not your call to make").
However what got me is when I had to ZDK (retransmit) a message classified Secret and already the content was in the papers!!!!
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
"That's not your call to make." Exactly. No matter how nonsensical it seems to be. A good example: My yet to be wife was allowed to tell the world she worked for the CIA, but not where. (or doing what.) My comment was, anyone who wanted to know where just had to follow you to work at least once. The building had a sign for one government agency but most of the traffic went through an unmarked door. What was also interesting, after it was known we were planning marriage, my parents got calls from several people in our hometown wanting to know what I was up to, because they had had people that would not identify themselves as to who they were or why they were asking coming around asking questions about me. At the time I was a just out of Nam 1LT looking for a job in the DC area. (Anyone having the urge to prosecute a 76 old woman with advanced Alzheimer's for revealing a jiblet of top secret information over 50 years ago can just have at it if they like making fools of themselves.)
As to our E3 in question, guess he hadn't figured out that trying to puff up your own self-importance is one of the best ways to look stupid.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by MontanaJim: I will go to my grave shaking my head regarding the trump cult in this country. And thats exactly what it is--a cult. Now i know how charles manson, david koresh and the like can get followers. Also trump was exactly right when he said he could kill someone on the streets of NYC and his supporters would stay with him. i can think of millions more people one could idolize who would be a more suitable idol than the orange criminal.
All your post consists of is ad hominem, appeal to emotion and false comparisons. With all due respect, is that all you live for?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Helfner, if either Mr. Harris, myself, or any others around here who have worn the uniform and served, decided “oh it’s just a souvenir” and helped ourselves to some classified material, maybe by now we’d be out of Leavenworth
What gives a Former President exemption from such rules? He is no longer in office, and hence no longer has “need to know”, which is the underlying principle for anyone having access to such information…
False comparison between POTUS and service members; also spurious quotations.
Trump, as POTUS, has the Presidential Records Act apply to him, which includes whatever formerly classified material he brought with him at his discretion that cannot be re-classified by Biden (which would be illegal in and of itself). Also, the National Archives has no authority here.
False citation of “rules” to boot. Applying this new, alleged (false) standard to Trump alone has to mean that all living predecessors must be held to it, which they are not. Never mind such material being (actually) illegally in the hands of former vice presidents.
quote:Honestly, if they are going to nail Trump for something, I hope it’s for this. I could (not) care less who he had a romp with and how he paid her off.
So you want him “nailed” for something that is not a crime. Got it.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
To close, let's have a "we report, you decide"; which was the more controversial election; Hayes-Tilden'76, or Trump-Biden '20?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Fani fabricated them all, more like; again, nothing in there is a crime.
And we are getting more evidence that the grand jury system is tainted; fewer and fewer will now trust it, since the grand jury system was intended to help the defendant and not the prosecutor.
Also coming out is Obama appointee Tanya Chutkan and her familial ties to communists in Jamaica.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Act 22 cited in the Georgia indictment charged Trump with conspiracy for encouraging supporters to watch hearings broadcast on One America News Network.
“Georgia hearings now on [One America News Network]. Amazing!” the president tweeted.
“This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,” the indictment read.
Act 100 of the indictment faulted the president for encouraging supporters to tune into Newsmax.
Act 101 listed another tweet that encouraged supporters to tune into the Right Side Broadcasting Network as an act of “conspiracy.” …
That is quite the redefinition of “conspiracy”, indeed.
quote:Act 38 of the criminal indictment charged Giuliani for retweeting a “Patriot Call to Action” that encouraged voters to call their members of Congress to advocate for their cause.
The tweet stated, “Georgia Patriot Call to Action: today is the day we need you to call your state Senate & House Reps & ask them to sign the petition for a special session. We must have free & fair elections in GA & a this is our only path to ensuring every legal vote is counted @realDonald Trump.”
“This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,” the indictment read.
So calling on people to call Congressmen, which is perfectly legal, is “conspiracy”.
Redefining non-crimes as crimes, particularly when such redefinition attacks the First Amendment, is egregiously criminal in and of itself.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From United Airlines Polaris Lounge O'Hare
How say he invite, in the interest of fairness and balance, his "followers" to read the lead Editorial appearing in The New York Times today.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
We are looking more and more like some banana republic or other country led by some want to be dictator which has prostituted the press and the court system to prosecute their opposition and ignore any illegal acts of their compatriots. Their first success was electing an incompetent "community organizer" as president mainly by labeling anyone opposing as "racist" to squelch anyone pointing out his inadequacies. Now the concept of the Democrat Party and the media whih for the most part is essentially their lapdog is to try to get people to lookie lookie at Trump to try to obscure the multitudinous malfeances of Joe Biden, ete al. More and more I see current of the office as a geriatric nincompoop who, or his handlers or puppetmasters, has made some of the worst decisions in the country's history. While I may have pulled the lever for Trump in 2016 as the least bad, he proved himself far ahead of both his 2016 competition and the current White House occupant. As this point I do not see Biden or any of the potential Democrat party alternatives that my gag reflex would allow me to vote for.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Starbucks @ Salzburg Hbf--
First, a thanks to the Barista who got WiFi "up and running" on my phone.
Yesterday. On the "jam-packed" train from Munich, I was seated with three English speaking, university graduates, Georgians (2 gals, guy).
We talked at their invitation, politics. They are aware of Trump's bombast that he'd end The War in 24 hours, resulting in Ukraine’s fall. They all said they're fearful Trump is going to win, and if that being the case, to Putin "we're next".
So much for "things 1100 miles from The Front".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Pitter Hotel, Salzburg--
Mr. Harris, I 'm afraid anyone unfamiliar with the views you and Mr. Helfner hold, could look at that statement and conclude it was directed towards someone other than your intent.
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: We are looking more and more like some banana republic or other country led by some want to be dictator which has prostituted the press and the court system to prosecute their opposition and ignore any illegal acts of their compatriots.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Pitter Hotel Salzburg--
Fair Use---
quote:A second Trump term “would be different from the first, and much worse,” said Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, a former German government official who is now with the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. “Trump has experience now and knows what levers to pull, and he’s angry,” he said.
Mr. Kleine-Brockhoff said he remembered talking with then-Chancellor Angela Merkel the night she returned from her first meeting with Mr. Trump as president. As usual, she was “all about managing the man as she had managed dozens of powerful men,” he said. “But no one will think” they can manage “Trump Two.”
As it can be seen from my Dateline, "over there" is presently my "over here".
While I'm not about to suggest "they're lining up" to talk with me about anything, some talk is simply unavoidable.
My "on the ground consensus" is that the article is "on mark".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Funny they throw around the term “worse” without saying what was “bad” in the first place. The EU, which is an imperialist project designed to empower Germany at the expense of its other member states but the USA particularly, need things to go “worse” for their goals, and I speak as one who is outraged at what they have done to Ireland.
Well, back on topic: Some on the left find Trump’s Fulton County GA mugshot unnerving, particularly after all the phony mugshots that depict him with a defeated look on his face.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Well Mr. Helfner, at least Donald John and his cohorts were not required to change into that "Orangewear" and have "full frontal and sides" taken.
Also regarding the EU, the Republic chose to stay in; a handy time to have pulled out would have been when the Brexit initiative moved forth, but obviously, they held their best interests were to stay in.
Funny, how when I was "over", I did not meet a Brit who was particularly happy about how things have turned out. Just think, an economy as sick as any in Europe, and the inconvenience of having to have a passport, instead of a simple EU ID, now to travel to Salzburg or anywhere else on the Contiment.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
IMI (repeat) THESE ARE JOURNAL COLUMNISTS
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Yes; the same Journal whose editorial board demanded “a five-word Constitutional amendment: ‘There shall be open borders’” three years after I graduated high school (cf. “The communists are further reproached for desiring to abolish countries and nationality” from the Manifesto).
The Republic of Ireland staying in the EU served the interests only of the political class. Control of its borders was ripped away by their foreign masters also; I also do not see how that is in the country’s interest any more than foreign fishing boats in Irish waters per the so-called Common Fisheries Policy, or so many other collectivist abuses.
quote:What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?
The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.
The WSJ editorial board aligns itself with this goal of the communists directly via their demand for an open borders amendment.
Edit #2: To drag us back on topic, former RNC chairman Michael Steele appeared on MSNBC and fearmongered the notion that Trump may suddenly make himself “president for life” if re-elected.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr.Helfner, while not sure what this is all about, it certainly appears that Trump could not accept he lost the Election and was prepared to try to suspend the Constitution that determined he lost.
He certainly had it drilled into him at an early age that "you never lose".
On that point, the high note of that s%&tshow otherwise referred to as a Debate (I had just gotten back from overseas and can't promise anyone as to my state of mind) was Gov. Christie praising Vice President Pence for putting the Constitution first, even though that document would have him unemployed two weeks later.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Not accepting an election loss per se is not a crime any more than seeking verification of election results after a highly-unusually-conducted election. If the former were criminal, then people like Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams should have been indicted if not subsequently convicted.
Going back to CNN and their old mendacious headline, Trump clearly stated, rather than say the Constitution must be terminated to guarantee him an undeniable win (CNN guilty of putting words in his mouth), that the act of committing fraud woud enable the termination of the Constitution by the fraudsters, since it would be the first stage of a coup du publique. Hopefully it is not too late to heed that warning.
PS. What Christie praised Pence for is the opposite of what the Constitution says. Not to mention, Pence denied the people the day in Congress he openly promised them on 01/04/2021, to wit:
quote:“I know we all have got our doubts about the last election. I want to assure you that I share the concerns of millions of Americans about voting irregularities. I promise you, come this Wednesday, we will have our day in Congress!”
That day never came, thanks to Mr. Pence.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: The Republic of Ireland staying in the EU served the interests only of the political class. Control of its borders was ripped away by their foreign masters also; I also do not see how that is in the country’s interest any more than foreign fishing boats in Irish waters per the so-called Common Fisheries Policy, or so many other collectivist abuses.
One Irish man I was working with at the time of Ireland's entrance into the EU said they should change their name to the "Republic of Esau." Recall the Bible story how Esau sold his birthright as oldest son for a good meal. (Genesis Chapter 25, particularly verse 34: "Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright." (KJV)) His feeling was that Ireland had sold their independence for some hope of financial gain. (If your freedom is not more valuable than what is in your wallet, you do not deserve freedom.)
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
After reading Maureen's thoughts on this past Thursday's events, lest we forget they could have had him and his accomplices dress up in Orange and have full frontal and side photos taken.
However, lest we not forget this tagline:
Cops Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Maureen seems more deliberately mendacious than usual in that latest screed. Hopefully Brutus’ curse upon Cassius does not fall upon her next time she feels splenetic, for her sake (Act IV Scene II).
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Newsweek notes that arresting and indicting Trump is actually not reinforcing Democratic voters, but alienating them.
quote:A majority of Democrat voters who backed President Joe Biden in 2020 think the investigations and criminal indictments against Donald Trump constitute “an interference in the 2024 presidential election,” according to a new poll conducted exclusively for Newsweek.
The Redfield & Wilton Strategies survey reveals a majority in every age group, gender and geographic location, except for the Northeast, think Trump’s ongoing legal difficulties constitute election interference in a major boost to the Republican frontrunner. …
The Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll found an average of 59 percent of Americans believed the four cases are an interference, versus 19 percent who disagreed, while another 22 percent said they didn't know. …
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
"Real Republicans" - those who hold to the traditional cornerstones - fiscal responsibility, strong foreign policy, conservative values - can take heart from the views held by one Journal columnist and their Editorial Board:
quote:The good news for the party is that this was a solid event, showcasing several capable, qualified and at times inspiring contenders for the Oval Office. Donald Trump chose to duck the debate, and one consequence was that he was largely reduced to an afterthought. The eight participants instead sparred over their own differences—on domestic policy, global involvement, priorities and qualifications.
Nikki Haley was notably adult. The former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador showed a command not only of policy issues, but of her own convictions. She broke with the others to make a compelling case for Republicans to approach the divisive issue of abortion with more compassion, and to leave the tough particulars to the states. She called instead for federal lawmakers to focus on widely held “consensus” views—on late-term abortions, the merits of adoption, the need for available contraception.
quote:Ms. Haley’s honesty didn’t stop there. “Donald Trump added $8 trillion to our debt,” she said. “You look at the 2024 budget: Republicans asked for $7.4 billion in earmarks. Democrats asked for $2.8 billion. So you tell me who are the big spenders.” Those figures are backed by a Roll Call story last month: “House Republicans have so thoroughly stacked the earmarking deck in their favor in appropriations bills for the upcoming fiscal year that the top Democratic recipient doesn’t even appear in the top 60.”
Then there was the elephant not in the room, as Fox News host Bret Baier put it, meaning former President Trump. “Three-quarters of Americans don’t want a rematch between Trump and Biden,” Ms. Haley said. “And we have to face the fact that Trump is the most disliked politician in America. We can’t win a general election that way.”
All told; "Nikki, Nikki, she's our gal."
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
I would say that such real Republicans so defined eschewed any Murdoch-controlled publications decades ago, particularly now under the dominion of liberal heir Lachlan.
The low-rated debate was also eschewed by such conservatives, mostly for the same reason but also because of the connections of participants to left-wing donors and/or ideology. The biggest strike against the debates would be ignoring the elephant in the room whose name starts with the sixth letter of the alphabet.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, I'm with your thoughts regarding the Debates. "We're here to discuss the issues" in a mature and respectful manner so a voter can determine amongst the several candidates who best will put forth their "personal agenda" should they be elected.
The best one I can recall meeting that end was a V-P debate during 2K between Lieberman and Cheney, where both were seated at a "Meet The Press" or other Sunday talk show stage set discussing the issues. The moderator was "just kind of there".
These Jerry Springer charades with their hooting and screaming audiences do nothing to accomplish those ends. All they do is decide who is the best showman.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Time to "resurrect" this topic in that a jury has been seated and opening statements are to be presented in the matter of People (NY) v. Trump.
Even The Times holds the Felony case against Mr. Trump is weak (the charge, Falsifying Records is generally brought as a Misdemeanor and "the romp", if consensual, is not a crime) and if somehow it results in a conviction, such would likely be overturned on the certain appeal.
Now it is true that this, just like the Georgia case, is a State case. As such, should Donald Trump again be addressed Mr. President come January, he cannot pardon himself should there be an upheld conviction.
And finally, for those who have little or nothing to do with their day, no TV unlike OJ.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The wording of Article II Section 2 says “offenses against the United States” and does not specifically say “federal” anything, to be frank; the Supreme Court has not ever ruled on this, but rather the source of this assertion is the opinion of the Department of Justice, which was not established by the US Constitution.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, while it appears roundabout, it is the language of Article 2 that empowers the President to establish Departments as he pleases. However of course, Congress funds these Departments, so we are back to a "no tickie, no washie":
quote:He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
There is nothing in there as to the establishment of infinite executive departments, even by Congress. Certainly nothing in the Constitution about Congress delegating de facto legislative power to those departments (which makes them a mere rubber stamp for an overpowered executive that is not given any legislative power whatsoever by the Constitution, and there is a big reason for that); any executive departments are charged to follow the Take Care clause of Article 2 Section 3 since they are under the command of the POTUS, in addition, and not become a law unto themselves.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
At this time, here are my predictions regarding the outcomes of the several criminal matters pending against Mr. Trump:
S of NY v. Trump; 50-50 chance of conviction. 100% of overturn on appeal. It's simply a weak case arising from a "consensual romp" which, in itself is not a crime, as well as falsification of business records, which is usually a misdemeanor. Had the "hush money" (sorry, Mr. Helfner; but right or wrong, the term is actively used when addressing this matter) been paid out of Mr. Trump's personal pocket without any kind of reimbursement from the Organization, this matter would have never seen the light of day.
US v. Trump; the Defense has maneuvered enough delay tactics such as having the US Supreme Court (five Justices aligned with Trump) rule upon "immunity" so that the trial will not start until after the Elections.
US v. Trump, Nauta, and De Oliveira; this matter in Florida, presided over by a Trump appointed Judge, has too been delayed account a volume of motions submitted by the Defense and, too, will not start until after Election Day.
Trump will win the Election "decisively but not by a landslide" (do not expect another Jan 6 to occur); at that time the Federal charges will be dropped. After all, who does the incoming Attorney General, who presses and withdraws Federal charges at his pleasure, work for?
Oh and almost a postscript: Georgia v. Trump et al will be withdrawn. After all, State level offices are Republican and likely to stay so. Further, sufficient events have occurred regarding this matter to have "persecutorial misconduct" attached to its mishandling.
disclaimer: author's Presidential voting record to date is 7R, 7D, 1I
addendum: author had not read this Journal column prior to posting this material.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Had the "hush money" (sorry, Mr. Helfner; but right or wrong, the term is actively used when addressing this matter) been paid out of Mr. Trump's personal pocket without any kind of reimbursement from the Organization, this matter would have never seen the light of day
That is an absurd assertion on the part of the prosecution. Turning a non-crime into a crime merely due to the opinion of a prosecutor is attainder. And there is still a difference between so-called “hush money” and perfectly legal nondisclosure agreements without which legal confidentiality could not exist and business could not be done.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Again Mr. Helfner, this is a weak case, and if the Jury from "deep Blue New York County" does convict, it will be quickly overturned on appeal.
After Stephanie/Stormy, what can Mickey Cohen come up with to convince the Appellate Court?
Now on the classified matter, when it was found at "Lake by the Sea", did Trump instantly cooperate (such as did Joe) to return it to the National Archives? Uh, don't think so. This is the one that I think he is most vulnerable to an upheld Appeal on. What if any of us here such as Sgt. Norman, 1st Lt (Capt ?) Harris, Capt. Ocala Mike, or "Chicken" ("Full Bird"?) Col. Pullman, and anyone else who wore the uniform of our country and with a security clearance, had we done same maybe they'd let us out of Leavenworth by now!!!
That's the one I'd like to see him go down for, but alas, it will never come to trial.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: 1st Lt (Capt ?) Harris,
1LT Harris.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
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.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Still not a crime.
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?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
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.
It sounds crazy just typing it. …
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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.)
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Two Journal columnists appearing today with the same view:
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".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
It is notable, however, that Harris was the preferred candidate of Barack Obama back in 2020.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
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.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Not likely - the guy is a shit poster!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Hyatt Regency Old Greenwich CT--
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.
