I posted it elsewhere: this race is close enough that itâs worth trying to convince the fence-sitters or the superficially attached that they shouldnât put the nation, again, into the hands of someone who has a history of poor management, treating his employees and colleagues unfairly, and is self-aggrandizing, treasonous, nepotistic, racist, and encourages violence between other Americans.
True, there are folks on both sides who have made up their minds, but there are also those who realize that, today, they donât have to behave as they did yesterday.
Oh, absolutely, I understand.
And I dont mean shrug , and say nothing can be done...but it seems we have the same 1/2 dozen characters here beating each other over the head.
Had the same experience with a text group after trump was elected, eventually abandoned any political talk and left it for discussion on dogs, music and family.
As for Trump, you can argue about policy, rhetoric...but what you cannot argue or excuse is what happened post-Nov 2020 election.
That unequivocally made him unelectable except for the selfish, narcissistic or unconscious types.
The DOJ is not being neutral in this matter. It is clearly acting on Biden's behalf and under his direct supervision and coordination.
Oh, and what's your source for this? "Trump says so"... well say no more.
You must be the poster boy for "Stupid".
Yea, Trump tried to use his power and influence to bend the DOJ to his will as prez so obviously Biden must be doing the same.
Hey how about this for a crazy, out-of-the-box idea and I'm just spit-ballin' here...
Maybe Trump should not have engaged in acts that are indictable? Isn't that a wild concept? If he kept his nose clean, he wouldn't be in any courtroom right now and would be free to incoherently rant at any rally in any State right now.
Trump is a propaganda machine. He spews it. His supporters regurgitate it. Repetition is propagandaâs sharpest tool. It is dangerous to leave unchallenged these propagandistic claims and assertions. It is critical not to cede the field to these people, even when the field is a small one, such as this.
Yep. This is why it's not just an exercise in pig wrestling. If you just shake your head and walk away, then others in the quiet middle ground might think there is something reasonable in the crazy postings. This is why Kurtster and crew insist on spewing to a 'hostile' audience - they know they won't sway the people they are talking to, they hope to sway those watching.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 3, 2024 - 8:09am
Steely_D wrote:
I posted it elsewhere: this race is close enough that itâs worth trying to convince the fence-sitters or the superficially attached that they shouldnât put the nation, again, into the hands of someone who has a history of poor management, treating his employees and colleagues unfairly, and is self-aggrandizing, treasonous, nepotistic, racist, and encourages violence between other Americans.
True, there are folks on both sides who have made up their minds, but there are also those who realize that, today, they donât have to behave as they did yesterday.
Trump is a propaganda machine. He spews it. His supporters regurgitate it. Repetition is propagandaâs sharpest tool. It is dangerous to leave unchallenged these propagandistic claims and assertions. It is critical not to cede the field to these people, even when the field is a small one, such as this.
Me thinks you missed the point...neither side wants to yield, so what is the point of this discussion?
better to shake the dust from your feet and move on
I posted it elsewhere: this race is close enough that itâs worth trying to convince the fence-sitters or the superficially attached that they shouldnât put the nation, again, into the hands of someone who has a history of poor management, treating his employees and colleagues unfairly, and is self-aggrandizing, treasonous, nepotistic, racist, and encourages violence between other Americans.
True, there are folks on both sides who have made up their minds, but there are also those who realize that, today, they donât have to behave as they did yesterday.
I decline to refer to Mark Levin as a starting point for discussion of legal issues in this case. Although he's practiced as a lawyer, Levin is deeply biased and often misleading in his argument. For instance, the DOJ has already stated that this case does not constitute election interference—yet that seems to be one of the major points Levin is trying case. Another e.g.: Levin notes during a hypothetical conversation in court with himself as judge that the statute of limitations has expired for this matter but fails to address Bragg's argument that it has not.
Well it is my starting point. I do at least thank you for apparently watching the video. Yes, he is biased and does not pretend to be otherwise. That does not negate his opinion which stands up on its own merits, imho.
" the DOJ has already stated that this case does not constitute election interference". The DOJ is not being neutral in this matter. It is clearly acting on Biden's behalf and under his direct supervision and coordination.
Either the statute of limitations has expired or they haven't. Clearly they have. Long ago.
A more impartial and legally experienced person to voice a legal opinion against trying Trump in this matter is Syracuse Law Professor Gregory Germain:
"I believe the District Attorney must show (1) that the payments were disguised as attorney fees to commit a fraud on someone, (2) that the underlying payments constituted an independent crime, (3) that Trump knew that the underlying payments constituted a crime, and (4) that the reason he covered up the payments was to disguise that crime. Those are going to be hard things to prove."
...
"Neither the Court nor the District Attorney has made it clear who was defrauded, what the independent crime is, or when an attempt to influence voters becomes “unlawful” and constitutes an independent crime.
There is also a question regarding the statute of limitations applicable to these claims. The statute of limitations on a misdemeanor in New York is 2 years, and would have expired long ago. NY Crim Proc 30.10(2)(c). The statute of limitations on “other felonies” is 5 years. NY Crim Proc. § 30.10(2)(b). The acts occurred in 2016 and 2017, and the District Attorney delayed filing the charges for several years. The District Attorney has argued that the statutes of limitations were tolled during COVID, or that they were extended when Trump left the state. These issues need to be addressed by the court clearly.
So while there is very strong evidence that Trump created false business record entries to cover up his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, the District Attorney needs to show multiple difficult elements to establish that the entries were made to commit “fraud,” and for the purpose of covering up a separate crime.
Finally, what is the penalty if Trump is convicted of this Class E felony? He would be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 under NY Pen § 80.1. If he received some financial benefit, he might have to disgorge three times the amount of the benefit. It is difficult to see how these minor penalties would justify such an expensive investigation and prosecution.
Is he agreeing with Levin's conclusion or not ? He seems to be, yet coming from a slightly different place.
So the goal must be to impose imprisonment. For a first time offender, the court could impose a prison term of up to one year under NY Penal law § 70(4), but it would be very unusual to impose prison time for a first time Class E felony, especially where no victim suffered financial harm."
I see that the primary goal is to interfere with the election. To get a felony conviction before the election in order to get those who say that they cannot vote for anyone convicted of a felony. A felony conviction almost certainly to be overturned ... after the election, when it no longer matters. The ends justifies the means.
This of itself is clearly is a real threat to democracy.
Do you honestly really believe that a conviction would stand up to an appeal ?
Al Jazeera references Prof. Germain's thoughts in its coverage. It also touches on a possible argument from prosecution for allowing prosecution without specifying a victim of Trump's alleged fraud:
"Gregory Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University, said that argument highlighted the central legal question in the case, which is whether Trump’s alleged falsification of business records, a misdemeanor, rises to the level of a felony crime under New York law.To be considered a felony, the falsification must have been committed with “intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime”.
Legal observers have noted it is somewhat unique – but not unprecedented – to charge a defendant in New York with felony falsification without charging him with a secondary crime.
Prosecutors will have to persuade a jury only that the falsification was done with “intent” to cover up or commit another crime, not that Trump was successful in committing that crime.
In court filings, the prosecution has suggested that the secondary crime committed by Trump could be a violation of New York state law that criminalises schemes “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”.
It could also be a violation of federal election law governing spending disclosures or a violation of New York state tax law, they said."
Based upon testimony given today, the argument of intent has been pretty much shot down.
You are opposed to agreements or treaties among countries?
Choices are made by governments, which, in a democracy, are headed by officers elected by the people in the jurisdiction. NoEnz has made this point, so I need not go further other than to say that those are the choices that matter, first and foremost.
Bill Barr is apparently making the same sort of argument—"there are these laws telling us what kind of cars and stoves to buy (not true) and that's a threat to democracy." Apparently that's why he's supporting Trump. Pathetic.
If anyone wants to have an actual discussion about what constitutes a real threat to democracy, watch the Levin video I posted below and then get back to me.
If you won't listen to my points, why should I listen to your's, who ever you may be.
And unlike someone who posted an hour long video for me to watch and then completely ignored my thoughts on it, I will address yours.
I have stayed away from this argument because of the sheer ridiculousness used to make the claim against Trump, et al.
I'm ready now. And I am starting with Levin's POV as my reference point.
I decline to refer to Mark Levin as a starting point for discussion of legal issues in this case. Although he's practiced as a lawyer, Levin is deeply biased and often misleading in his argument. For instance, the DOJ has already stated that this case does not constitute election interference—yet that seems to be one of the major points Levin is trying case. Another e.g.: Levin notes during a hypothetical conversation in court with himself as judge that the statute of limitations has expired for this matter but fails to address Bragg's argument that it has not.
A more impartial and legally experienced person to voice a legal opinion against trying Trump in this matter is Syracuse Law Professor Gregory Germain:
"I believe the District Attorney must show (1) that the payments were disguised as attorney fees to commit a fraud on someone, (2) that the underlying payments constituted an independent crime, (3) that Trump knew that the underlying payments constituted a crime, and (4) that the reason he covered up the payments was to disguise that crime. Those are going to be hard things to prove."
...
"Neither the Court nor the District Attorney has made it clear who was defrauded, what the independent crime is, or when an attempt to influence voters becomes âunlawfulâ and constitutes an independent crime.
There is also a question regarding the statute of limitations applicable to these claims. The statute of limitations on a misdemeanor in New York is 2 years, and would have expired long ago. NY Crim Proc 30.10(2)(c). The statute of limitations on âother feloniesâ is 5 years. NY Crim Proc. § 30.10(2)(b). The acts occurred in 2016 and 2017, and the District Attorney delayed filing the charges for several years. The District Attorney has argued that the statutes of limitations were tolled during COVID, or that they were extended when Trump left the state. These issues need to be addressed by the court clearly.
So while there is very strong evidence that Trump created false business record entries to cover up his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, the District Attorney needs to show multiple difficult elements to establish that the entries were made to commit âfraud,â and for the purpose of covering up a separate crime.
Finally, what is the penalty if Trump is convicted of this Class E felony? He would be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 under NY Pen § 80.1. If he received some financial benefit, he might have to disgorge three times the amount of the benefit. It is difficult to see how these minor penalties would justify such an expensive investigation and prosecution.
So the goal must be to impose imprisonment. For a first time offender, the court could impose a prison term of up to one year under NY Penal law § 70(4), but it would be very unusual to impose prison time for a first time Class E felony, especially where no victim suffered financial harm."
Al Jazeera references Prof. Germain's thoughts in its coverage. It also touches on a possible argument from prosecution for allowing prosecution without specifying a victim of Trump's alleged fraud:
"Gregory Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University, said that argument highlighted the central legal question in the case, which is whether Trumpâs alleged falsification of business records, a misdemeanor, rises to the level of a felony crime under New York law.To be considered a felony, the falsification must have been committed with âintent to defraud and intent to commit another crimeâ.
Legal observers have noted it is somewhat unique â but not unprecedented â to charge a defendant in New York with felony falsification without charging him with a secondary crime.
Prosecutors will have to persuade a jury only that the falsification was done with âintentâ to cover up or commit another crime, not that Trump was successful in committing that crime.
In court filings, the prosecution has suggested that the secondary crime committed by Trump could be a violation of New York state law that criminalises schemes âto promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful meansâ.
It could also be a violation of federal election law governing spending disclosures or a violation of New York state tax law, they said."
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 2, 2024 - 5:03pm
kurtster wrote:
The Green New Deal and the Globalists who are pushing it are the real threats to democracy as we know it here in the US.
This would be Biden.
Democracy means choices to me, not mob rule. The above are all about eliminating choices. One size does not fit all.
You are opposed to agreements or treaties among countries?
Choices are made by governments, which, in a democracy, are headed by officers elected by the people in the jurisdiction. NoEnz has made this point, so I need not go further other than to say that those are the choices that matter, first and foremost.
If anyone wants to have an actual discussion about what constitutes a real threat to democracy, watch the Levin video I posted below and then get back to me.
If you won't listen to my points, why should I listen to your's, who ever you may be.
And unlike someone who posted an hour long video for me to watch and then completely ignored my thoughts on it, I will address yours.
I have stayed away from this argument because of the sheer ridiculousness used to make the claim against Trump, et al.
I'm ready now. And I am starting with Levin's POV as my reference point.
so.. you want to prove his innocence purely on procedural grounds? Or what is your argument? Trump is innocent of everything and all the shit thrown at him is a political vendetta?
not really cutting it. try harder.
If anyone wants to have an actual discussion about what constitutes a real threat to democracy, watch the Levin video I posted below and then get back to me.
If you won't listen to my points, why should I listen to your's, who ever you may be.
And unlike someone who posted an hour long video for me to watch and then completely ignored my thoughts on it, I will address yours.
I have stayed away from this argument because of the sheer ridiculousness used to make the claim against Trump, et al.
I'm ready now. And I am starting with Levin's POV as my reference point.
Me thinks you missed the point...neither side wants to yield, so what is the point of this discussion?
better to shake the dust from your feet and move on
A bit of a comedy watching this group admit they wonât yield and admit the faults of their team, and then go on to hit each other over the head arguingâ¦as if there is some hope to convert?
I don't think conversion is the goal. That has been abandoned long ago. At this point it's just passionate, frustrated discourse.
Add whatever other mix of ingredients you believe to be present.
A bit of a comedy watching this group admit they wonât yield and admit the faults of their team, and then go on to hit each other over the head arguingâ¦as if there is some hope to convert?
A bit of a comedy watching this group admit they wonât yield and admit the faults of their team, and then go on to hit each other over the head arguingâ¦as if there is some hope to convert?
The Green New Deal and the Globalists who are pushing it are the real threats to democracy as we know it here in the US.
This would be Biden.
Democracy means choices to me, not mob rule. The above are all about eliminating choices. One size does not fit all.
You're losin' it Kurt. The Right is all about eliminating choices...as I just posted.
as for the green new deal... It remains a popular program for the majority of Americans.
You should have choices... but you don't get to choose if you want to destroy everyone else's environment.
