One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Liberty Tree
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 2039 next>>
Apr 23, 2024 20:17:02   #
proud republican wrote:
Should Nationa Guard đź’‚ step in during violent pro- hamas protests??

The National Guard was used to walk minority students to class with segragationists stood in the way. Why cannot they be used to protect Jewish students?
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 19:29:24   #
Kevyn wrote:
Moronic spin doesn’t cut it in court. A lesson the Cheeto Faced S**tgibbon is soon to learn, as is his i***t cult.

It is working for the D.A. and judge.
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 19:07:52   #
AuntiE wrote:
How Strong Is Bragg’s Case?
Andrew C. McCarthyApril 23, 2024

How might former president Trump’s team might go about the cross-examination of David Pecker? A Trump pal and formerly the chief of the National Enquirer’s parent company, Pecker is the first witness in the trial of elected Democratic DA Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of the de facto GOP p**********l candidate.

Prosecutors always want to start strong. Normally, one would assume that, since Bragg thinks Pecker an important enough witness that prosecutors are leading off with him, Team Trump will have to go hard at him — grill him aggressively to shake his story and damage his credibility.

Notice, I said “normally.” There is nothing normal about this case.

Pecker is likely to be a very good witness for Trump. The misimpression that he is apt to be hostile stems from a basic misunderstanding of this strange prosecution.

In the usual media-Democrat-complex organs on yesterday’s real first day of trial, the refrain was the same: Bragg has a very strong case against Trump . . . except that the charges are complex.

This gets it backward. Bragg has a weak case because the charges are not merely complex. Bragg is trying to convict Trump of a charge he hasn’t actually brought and that he cannot prove because the allegation is neither true nor a crime.

In the purported “statement of facts” written by Bragg — but, vitally, not charged by the grand jury in the Trump indictment, as the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires — the district attorney alleges that Trump stole the 2016 e******n by conspiring to suppress politically damaging information about extramarital affairs. In t***h — and notwithstanding that Alvin Bragg is a 2016 e******n denier, which Democrats tell us is a terrible thing, at least as concerns the 2020 e******n — T***p w*n the 2016 e******n fair and square. The grand jury’s indictment, moreover, does not charge Trump with the crime of conspiracy; it alleges that Trump falsified business records with fraudulent intent.

It’s not enough to say that the indictment does not charge conspiracy to suppress politically damaging information. It could not have charged such a conspiracy. In the criminal law, conspiracy is simply an agreement by two or more people to commit a statutory penal offense — a crime. It is not a crime to suppress politically damaging information. Unlike, say, murder, bank robbery, and distributing illegal narcotics, which are all offenses in the penal code, there is no statutory crime of “suppressing politically damaging information.”

Furthermore, as should by now be apparent, suppressing politically damaging information is something campaigns routinely do. Yes, even Democratic campaigns, as Joe Biden of the lucrative Biden family influence peddling business and Bill Clinton and his the “bimbo eruption” rapid-response team could tell you. Since suppressing politically damaging information is not a crime, an agreement to do it cannot be a crime — even if that agreement is hyperbolized by Bragg and his prosecutors as a “scheme” or a “conspiracy.”

When Bragg’s apologists say he has a “strong case,” what they mean is that the evidence of what happened is overwhelming. That should not surprise us because the evidence proves activity that was legal.

When people engage in legal activity, it is generally not difficult for prosecutors to prove what they did. Of course, if the legal things that people do are unsavory, people are often reluctant to admit them — e.g., Donald Trump continues to deny that he had a tryst with porn star Stormy Daniels in 2006, when recently wed to Melania, who was home with their just-born son, Barron. By and large, though, it is not hard for prosecutors with subpoena power to gather immense evidence of legal activity because, even if they are reluctant, witnesses tend not to be self-destructive. They know they can can get in more hot water by lying to investigators than by admitting to shady but lawful conduct. Hence, they acknowledge it.

Pecker has been called by prosecutors to explain the “catch and k**l scheme.” That is the pejorative term by which Bragg is trying to hoodwink the jury into believing a conspiracy was afoot.

To the contrary, it is not a crime to plan to pay money and other consideration to people who possess information that could be politically damaging — or at least claim to possess it — in order to secure their silence. In reality, what Bragg wants the jury to see as a lawless “catch and k**l” device is well established in the law as a non-disclosure agreement. In an NDA, for the payment of money and other consideration, a person or entity in possession of potentially damaging information is paid by the person or entity whom it could damage.

Though darkly described as “hush money” deals, NDAs are neither illegal nor untoward. That is because they are legally enforceable only insofar as there is no legal obligation to disclose the information suppressed by NDAs. For example, let’s say X suspects his business is being embezzled. He brings in his accountant friend, Y, to scrutinize the books. But because X does not want the world to know he suspects one of his business partners is crooked, X and Y execute an NDA requiring Y to keep the investigation confidential. That would be a civilly enforceable NDA — if Y ran to the media to reveal what he’d learned about X’s business, X could sue him. But on the other hand, if X paid Y for his services, Y would have to reveal that money payment to the IRS — the NDA cannot defeat the legal duty to report income and pay taxes. In addition, if the local prosecutor suspected criminality at X’s business and issued a grand-jury subpoena to Y, then Y would be required to testify; the NDA would not shield X and Y from their legal obligation to disclose relevant evidence in a law-enforcement investigation.

Contra Bragg, there is no legal obligation to disclose extramarital affairs. There is no law that says candidates for public office — particularly Republican candidates loathed by Democrats — must publicly expose every skeleton in their closets.

Not surprisingly, then, payments to silence people in that context are not campaign expenditures under federal law. That’s because they are not obligations directly related to advocacy for the e******n of one candidate or the defeat of another. Unlike, say, polling or political advertising, such payments are private obligations independent of a political campaign. That doesn’t change even if the fact that a candidate is running for office gives him more incentive to pay for an NDA — i.e., the political motive to pay for an NDA does not t***smogrify it into a campaign expenditure. (If it did, that would mean candidates could use campaign donations to silence porn stars with whom they’ve had flings, which would itself be scandalous.) That is why the Federal E******n Commission and the Department of Justice — the federal agencies with exclusive jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign laws in e******ns for federal office — did not even seek to fine Trump civilly, much less prosecute him criminally.

Because what Trump did with Pecker was not illegal, Trump’s defense has no incentive to seek to attack Pecker’s testimony — at least as long as that testimony is t***hful. Trump’s quarrel is with the district attorney’s distorted application of the law (including federal law that Bragg has no authority to try to enforce) and with the judge who is allowing Bragg to proceed in this fashion.

Bragg does not have a strong case. He has a mountain of evidence that Trump engaged in conduct that was legal, even if it is evidence that illuminates Trump’s deep character flaws and cynicism.

Andrew McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor.
b How Strong Is Bragg’s Case? /b br Andrew C. Mc... (show quote)

This is NY. Trump has no chance
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 17:47:27   #
Kevyn wrote:
Neither is a felony defendant nor do they have influence over a deranged cult that poses a very legitimate threat to witnesses jurors or officers of the court.

Renounce your citizenship since you have no respect for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You are everything the founding fathers feared when they were written. If you prefer its type of government and judicial system go live in North Korea.
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 16:56:11   #
Kevyn wrote:
It has in numerous instances.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

That has nothing to do with Trump's gag order.
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 12:35:25   #
proud republican wrote:

No surprise
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 12:24:32   #
XXX wrote:
So I'm not quite sure on this but IMO since the judge has ruled Trumps bond as not fraudulent the case now goes to appeal. If the appeals court rules in favour of Trump Letitia will have to pay all the court fees of the prosecution. Would anyone know if that's right?

Court fees of the prosecution are taxpayer funded so I doubt she will have to pay anything.
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 11:59:20   #
proud republican wrote:
He actually finally condemned antisemitism yesterday, but also condemned people who don't understand what is happening in Palestine...His own "fine people on both sides" moment..

His condemnation of anti-semitism was not sincere or it would have been done much sooner. He felt forced to say something.
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 11:41:19   #
guzzimaestro wrote:

Go pound sand biden

He is a great governor
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 11:14:54   #
With all these h**e filled, violent, theatening r**ts against Israel and Jews where is Biden? All you who blamed Trump because you did not think he did not speak out enough on J6 are OK with Biden's silence now. Jews are having to leave and go into hiding and you do not care. Are you the same ones who deny the holocaust and do not care if there is another? Do you support Hamas and its horrendous acts? Do Jews have to die? Will you even care if they do? Your silence means that you condone what is happening. You have lost the right to speak out about accusing others of wanting to take away democracy when you have no objections to Jews losing their civil rights and Biden is at the head of the list on this, but you will v**e for him and this shame on America.
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 10:36:38   #
DASHY wrote:
Fox News' top brilliant legal minds think the US Justice Department is "scum" who wants to "Get Trump".

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University legal scholar, said, “The crimes indicted are an order of magnitude beyond anything that has been committed against this country by any American citizen, let alone a former president.”

“This is essentially an indictment for an attempt to overturn the republic and its most crucial process of preserving democratic governance, the process of peaceful and lawful t***sition of power,” said Tribe.
Fox News' top brilliant legal minds think the US J... (show quote)

Count on you to pull out ELWNJ Obamaite
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 09:24:18   #
NotMAGA wrote:
And what then will you do about Americans who are Muslim? Or Hindu? Or atheist or agnostic? Make them leave the country?

You can't force Christianity down people's throats. God Himself won't do that. Do you think you know better than Him?

God is only the God of the true Christian. All other gods are false.
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 09:21:48   #
NotMAGA wrote:
God give me strength...
Your interpretation of the Bible is not universal.

Unlike you I believe what it says. You believe what you want it to say and ignore the parts you do not like.
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 08:29:57   #
NotMAGA wrote:
Weasel you just can't admit that any Democrat can be a good Christian person, can you?

You cannot support the Democrat agenda and support the Bible. You cannot be a true Christian and not support the Bible.
Go to
Apr 23, 2024 08:16:51   #
Milosia2 wrote:
Words from another has been babbling old fool !
Democrat ????
Really ????

It is obvious your ignorance extends to knowing nothing about his Constitutional knowledge and his long history of fighting for civil rights. I would love to see him destroy you in a debate.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 2039 next>> - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.