B-Man Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 14 hours ago, Warcodered said: Assuming this is true, I mean $15 is some serious walking around money. It's not about the amount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but you knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: It's not about the amount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but you knew that. Is it? I'm sure he also voted for one of the two of them? Is he automatically disqualified because of that? It's almost as if as the judge he has separate things like that from his decisions on the case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 36 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Is it? I'm sure he also voted for one of the two of them? Is he automatically disqualified because of that? It's almost as if as the judge he has separate things like that from his decisions on the case. I agree that quibbling over a $35 political donation is silly, you are never going to find a person who is entirely politically neutral to try a case. But the fact that he has any legal history with Trump and company is a really bad look. There are plenty of other judges that could have been assigned here. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 The ridiculous, multiplicitous, and duplicitous Bragg indictment DAN MCLAUGHLIN April 07, 2023 FTA: For now, however, I’ll wrap up with the problems with the indictment itself. It is simultaneously too much and too little. The “too much” part is how Bragg stretches eleven installment payments of reimbursement for a single debt into 34 separate felonies. Counts One through Four of the indictment present an especially egregious example of overcharging. On February 14, 2017 (a date doubtless chosen by Trump and Cohen because they are such hopeless romantics about porn-star-affair hush money), Cohen sent Trump an invoice, and Trump wrote him a check, which was recorded in two places in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. Bragg charges this as four separate felonies: one for the invoice, one for the check, and one for each of the ledger entries. I’m surprised he didn’t charge Trump in a separate count for every zero on the check. Andy McCarthy explains why this kind of overcharging, in addition to creating a misleading picture of pervasive criminality for the public, also presents an unfair risk that the jury will “compromise” and only convict Trump on a few of the charges, even though they are basically all the same crime. Also, there are rules, both constitutional and statutory, against doing this sort of thing, and Bragg is at serious risk of violating them. Under the double-jeopardy clause of the Constitution, you cannot be charged twice for the same crime. It has been recognized since the Supreme Court’s decision in Blockburger v. United States, (1932), that double jeopardy is at issue not only when the same defendant faces successive prosecutions for the same crime, but also in how indictments pile up multiple charges. The Blockburger rule is that two crimes are the same if they depend upon proof of all the same elements. There are two mirror-image problems under Blockburger: duplicity and multiplicity. more at the link: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-ridiculousness-of-the-trump-indictment-part-five-the-indictment-itself/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 8, 2023 Author Share Posted April 8, 2023 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 Is Juan Merchan conflicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 WHOOPSIE. FEC Commissioner Undermines Entire Manhattan Prosecution, The Trump-Daniels NDA Is Not an Election Campaign Violation If the other substantive weaknesses in the politically constructed Manhattan case against Donald Trump do not lead to a pre-trial dismissal, this one should collapse it. The Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) explicitly states the payments by President Trump to Stormy Daniels are not an election campaign violation. WASHINGTON DC – A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws. “It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” said FEC Commissioner James E. “Trey” Trainor. In trying to stretch the law to make it look like a violation, he added, District Attorney Alvin Bragg “is really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.” In a 34-count indictment of Trump, the first criminal case ever against a former president, Bragg charged that a $130,000 payment made by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels, which Cohen went to jail for in a plea deal, violated several campaign finance laws that splashed onto Trump. [T]he FEC and Justice Department already considered the case and tossed it. First, he said, Cohen took the blame in his plea deal. “At the end of the day, there’s the person who committed the crime, and there’s the person who is behind bars because of it,” Trainor said of Cohen. Second, the paperwork violation in question came well after Trump’s 2016 election, so it couldn’t have been done to help his election. Third, it is not obvious that the reason for the payment and the reimbursement to Cohen was to influence the election, thus failing the “objective standard” of law. “It has to be something that anybody on the street can look at and say the only reason you did that was to influence the campaign,” said Trainor. “There’s a lot of reasons that he could have done it that aren’t related to him being a candidate for president, and so therefore, it wouldn’t have met the standard as campaign expenditure under federal law,” he added. (read more) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/fec-trump-stormy-case-not-a-campaign-finance-violation . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: WHOOPSIE. FEC Commissioner Undermines Entire Manhattan Prosecution, The Trump-Daniels NDA Is Not an Election Campaign Violation If the other substantive weaknesses in the politically constructed Manhattan case against Donald Trump do not lead to a pre-trial dismissal, this one should collapse it. The Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) explicitly states the payments by President Trump to Stormy Daniels are not an election campaign violation. WASHINGTON DC – A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws. “It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” said FEC Commissioner James E. “Trey” Trainor. In trying to stretch the law to make it look like a violation, he added, District Attorney Alvin Bragg “is really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.” In a 34-count indictment of Trump, the first criminal case ever against a former president, Bragg charged that a $130,000 payment made by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels, which Cohen went to jail for in a plea deal, violated several campaign finance laws that splashed onto Trump. [T]he FEC and Justice Department already considered the case and tossed it. First, he said, Cohen took the blame in his plea deal. “At the end of the day, there’s the person who committed the crime, and there’s the person who is behind bars because of it,” Trainor said of Cohen. Second, the paperwork violation in question came well after Trump’s 2016 election, so it couldn’t have been done to help his election. Third, it is not obvious that the reason for the payment and the reimbursement to Cohen was to influence the election, thus failing the “objective standard” of law. “It has to be something that anybody on the street can look at and say the only reason you did that was to influence the campaign,” said Trainor. “There’s a lot of reasons that he could have done it that aren’t related to him being a candidate for president, and so therefore, it wouldn’t have met the standard as campaign expenditure under federal law,” he added. (read more) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/fec-trump-stormy-case-not-a-campaign-finance-violation . Geez that’s shocking B. you mean this supposedly nonpartisan FEC? https://www.courthousenews.com/watchdog-fec-ignored-claim-that-trump-campaign-laundered-millions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: Geez that’s shocking B. you mean this supposedly nonpartisan FEC? The ENTIRE case is partisan. . . . . . . . . . . . . .as you well know. JONATHAN TURLEY: Plan B From Outer Manhattan: Why the Court Should Move the Trump Trial Out of Manhattan. Even if the judge ignores the glaring legal problems with this flawed indictment, he must decide where a trial should be held. The correct answer should be “Anywhere but Manhattan.” However, the judge is likely to deny that change of venue motion, and a denial would say a great deal about this case. Bragg’s cavalier attitude only magnifies the view that Manhattan is the wrong place for this trial. It is not simply that the district attorney ran on a pledge to indict this defendant. The problem is that he was elected on that pledge by the citizens of this district — the same citizens who would comprise the jury pool in Trump’s case. When Bragg was elected, he reviewed the theories being advanced by an attorney brought into the office for the purpose of nailing Trump. Yet Bragg and some of his team reportedly balked at the efforts of fellow attorneys Mark F. Pomerantz and Carey R. Dunne; Bragg halted the case, and Pomerantz and Dunne resigned. Their resignation letter was mysteriously leaked to the media and became part of a public pressure campaign; Pomerantz then wrote a tell-all book that many legal observers considered to be an outrageous, unprofessional effort to push for Trump’s indictment. Bragg faced an outcry from constituents who called on him to make good on this election promise. So, now we have a case brought by a prosecutor who campaigned on bagging Trump, to be tried before a jury selected from a district that elected Bragg in part for that reason — a district that also voted against Trump, 84.5 percent to 14.5 percent, in the 2020 presidential election. https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/07/plan-b-from-outer-manhattan-why-the-court-should-move-the-trump-trial-out-of-manhattan/Read the whole thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 (edited) I’m sure Bragg is following this Soros backed DA template: -Indict on shaky ground, when others passed on the case. -Try the case in an area hostile to conservatives and/or conservative positions. -Unethical tactics in the prosecution of the case This is the new battleground. These DA’s let actual criminals walk as their cities fall, yet they prosecute their political opponents. Edited April 8, 2023 by SCBills 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 52 minutes ago, SCBills said: I’m sure Bragg is following this Soros backed DA template: -Indict on shaky ground, when others passed on the case. -Try the case in an area hostile to conservatives and/or conservative positions. -Unethical tactics in the prosecution of the case This is the new battleground. These DA’s let actual criminals walk as their cities fall, yet they prosecute their political opponents. Anything or anyone associated with Ronny Jackson isn't worth your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 1 hour ago, B-Man said: The Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) There is no such thing as "The Commissioner." There are 6 Commissioners, 3 from each party. Guess which party this guy is from. 1 hour ago, B-Man said: A key member of the Federal Election Commission There is no such thing as a "key member." There are 6 Commissioners. You could call the Chairwoman a "key member" but that's not this guy. This is the kind of crap people cite here. A poorly researched article, grossly misunderstood by a poorly informed reader. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: Anything or anyone associated with Ronny Jackson isn't worth your time. He’s simply one of the people tweeting at Abbott to step in. From everything I’ve seen, this case is absolutely insane. Local police cleared Perry. Nobody was going to prosecute him due to everyone believing it was self defense. Then this DA stepped in, got an indictment in Austin. Then, reportedly, disallowed evidence, and got a conviction .. again .. in Austin, a deep blue city in a red state. There is literally video of Garrett Foster, who Perry shot and killed, pointing a gun at Perry in his vehicle as the BLM crowd surrounded his car. Expect this case to get a lot of publicity. These progressive DA’s need to be the focus of every Republican moving forward. Bragg is just the tip of the iceberg. Edited April 8, 2023 by SCBills 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 1 hour ago, B-Man said: WHOOPSIE. FEC Commissioner Undermines Entire Manhattan Prosecution, The Trump-Daniels NDA Is Not an Election Campaign Violation . It's it ironic that Trump purposely didn't fill FEC seats in 2018, eh? KILMER, BUCK LEAD BIPARTISAN CALL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: FILL VACANT SEATS ON FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION IMMEDIATELY Without a functioning FEC, there will be no federal agency overseeing violations of campaign finance law during the 2018 elections. This hurts honest candidates who are trying to follow the letter of the law and robs the American people of an electoral process with integrity. OH, look at this: Russians Used a US Firm to Funnel Funds to GOP in 2018. Dems Say the FEC Let Them Get Away With It. "Republicans disregarded decades of Commission precedent.” Idiots... Bonnie tries SO hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted April 9, 2023 Share Posted April 9, 2023 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 9, 2023 Share Posted April 9, 2023 24 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Who is Jimmy the Chin...Sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 10, 2023 Author Share Posted April 10, 2023 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 10, 2023 Share Posted April 10, 2023 https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3941521-christie-trumps-post-arrest-speech-like-a-guy-griping-about-his-bad-divorce/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 10, 2023 Author Share Posted April 10, 2023 I see @redtail hawk and @ChiGoose in this. Even commie NBC is poking fun at you a holes. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts