Pressing Forward
Yesterday the Israeli war cabinet approved continuing an operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah in order to pressure Hamas to release Israeli hostages and achieve the country's other war goals, like destroying Hamas. Meanwhile as the operation began, Joe Biden called the Israeli Prime Minister to do otherwise. At the last-minute Hamas declared that they had agreed to a deal. It is comical to see how they react to their pending doom. Peter Baker, top reporter at the New York Times claims that the Biden administration sees the claim as Hamas way of making a counteroffer. And get this: Hamas is now offering the release of 33 hostages, but they are not all live hostages. Included in that number are the remains of hostages who did not survive Hamas treatment. Israeli officials did say that "Israel will send a working delegation to the mediators in order to exhaust the possibility of reaching an agreement under conditions acceptable to Israel."
After repeated requests for residents of Rafah to evacuate, Israeli tanks entered Rafah last night as part of a preliminary incursion. Israeli forces took operational control over the Gaza side of the Rafah border crossing, an important route for aid. The IDF reported that troops found three tunnel shafts near the crossing and that about 20 militants were killed during the operation. The IDF also announced on Monday that it was conducting limited operations on the eastern part of Rafah. "Palestinian residents" said there were massive air strikes going on throughout the city. Amazing that after all of the news of the military operations to take place in Rafah, that there would still be people hanging around Rafah.
I have questions:
Did Hamas really ever agree to a deal?
How many of the hostages are still alive?
There are reports that Joe Biden put a delay/halt on military aid to Israel. Could that be true?
In other news:
Pro-Palestinian protestors at MIT resisted a university order to clear their encampment.
Columbia University cancelled its main commencement citing security concerns.
The police arrested 64 people at an encampment at the University of California, San Diego, and more than 40 at UCLA. No comment from Gov Newsom.
Russian authorities detained a US soldier in the port city of Vladivostok last week on charges of criminal misconduct. No word on how he got there.
The jury in Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial were shown the very typical invoices & checks that prosecutors accuse Trump of falsifying to hide a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels.
The judge again fined Trump for violating a gag order. Trump said the jury was made up mostly of democrats. Translation: where is the jury of the defendant's peers?
Prosecutors in the rushed case have about two weeks of their case left to present. The defense then gets its turn, followed by closing arguments.
Tags
Who is online
37 visitors
Good morning.
Stormy Daniels testifies today. As far as what is important to be proved in this case, she is not an essential witness. Her purpose is most likely to make Trump look bad rather than provide any substantial evidence. Remember, the statue requires that the prosecution must prove fraudulent intent.
MSNBC is sure to cover it and they will call it "historic."
Hopefully Stormy's attorney either got her full immunity for her testimony; or has her so well coached she won't perjure herself or admit to the very real crimes of blackmail and extortion.
Would hate to see Democrats have to defend her any more than they already have; or warp our legal system even further to protect her.
The question is why a judge would let such testimony in the first place. It is nothing but salacious material that the left-wing media will be talking about for days.
The defense has to be careful not to wind up objecting to every other word, lest they look like they are hiding something.
the question is why would trump pay $130K to a porn star he claims he never had sex with?
Was it to spare his family embarrassment or to win an election.
Only a bunch of New Yorkers can get in his head and find out the answer.
My earlier on question would be: Was the "one-time" sex a freebie? Or was it 'trade'? I mean she was 27 years old at the time and Trump was 60 years old. . . .
And yes, I am throwing 'shade' in Donald's direction just to see how much 'dirt' there is to stir up.
Could be both. It is the job of the state to prove which or 'both.'
No, the former 'president' said so itself. It had nothing to do with his family.
I believe that is the "truth" that Trump deleted on his truth social page because it violated the gag order.
The asshole is not allowed to talk about the witnesses
That makes no sense, since the asshole witnesses are talking about him.
Your judge is biased, and the trial is bogus and everyone who is not a Trump-hater sees it.
now that trump can be jailed for the next violation of his gag order, he should be given the names of any witnesses that will be testifying the next day...
Trump lovers will agree to say 'anything' to support this adulterer who wears satin/silk pajamas to a dinner engagement.
By disguising his illegal hush money payments meant to silence a porn porn star and to hide Trump's sexual infidelity as attorney's fees on Trump's corporate accounts Trump committed criminal financial fraud in NY. When motivated by Trump's desire to mislead NY voters and to influence a Presidential election such a fraud is a felony criminal election crime in NY.
Don't like it? Don't commit criminal frauds in NY!
He paid his attorney who billed him for the payment HE made. Therefore, attorney fees.
Hogwash!
Remember: FRAUDULENT INTENT!
What Democrats and leftists rinse their mouths with every day.
You should really become a spokesman for the product; unfortunately there is a lot of competition on this site already.
trump's life long business model...
Prove it, just like the prosecution needs to.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ELECTION FRAUD
Laughable nonsense which many can easily see.
What? By paying hush money? WTF does that have to do with election fraud?
Nothing, nothing at all.
leftwing wetdreams.
They weren't illegal Not even Bragg claims they are. Pay attention.
Now why would they do that?
Unfortunately, that meme seem to be spot on.
"We cannot allow Ukraine to fall, because if it does, there is a significant possibility that America will have to intervene in the conflict — not just with our money, but with our troops," he told CBS News .
U.S. could allow for American troop deployment to Ukraine - Democratic House leader Jeffries (msn.com)
Money is fine. American troops are a whole different story.
Jeffries was really feeling his oats in that interview.
Neither is fine.
If Europe is so afraid of Russia they can fully fund the war; and send their own troops if they feel the need.
The US needs to do the smart thing for a change and stay in reserve and recoup our resources for the real threat China.
The IDF wants to control the Palestinian side of the crossing to review any aid flowing into Gaza, a source with direct knowledge told Axios’ Barak Ravid.
Pity they let Biden delay this so long.
Just like he did with Ukraine. Let's just say foreign policy isn't his forte.
The only reason I will agree with you is that the delay is forcing Gazan civilians to deal even longer with starvation, lack of medical attention, and exposure.
The sooner the fighting is supposedly over the better.
Not that I expect things to improve all that much with the IDF in charge. They will try to deny it; but they are the occupying force.
Then pressure can be put on Israel to actually take responsibility for the care of the Gazans (which they will deny). Israel will also be forced to figure out who will be in charge of Gaza. Since they don't want the PA in charge of Gaza; wonder what puppet they have in mind? Not that I envy any puppet they give power to. It will only be a matter of time before they are removed by force. Gazans aren't as tolerant of Israeli puppets as West Bank Palestinians are.
The never ending show that is the world's largest dysfunctional sandbox; and the US will always be stupid enough to try and play both sides- while giving billions every year to Israel to continue on as it has since the Balfour Declaration.
Evacuate where again?
Israel is turning Gaza into a ever small section of barrel to shoot fish in.
As for controlling the aid into Gaza- they always have. Of course simple things like building materials will again face restrictions. Wonder if they will keep restrictions on wheel chairs and medical supplies in place?
This takes me back to the days in college I worked for a charity trying to get aid into the West Bank and Gaza. Ever changing restrictions on goods, ridiculous demands, red tape, and inspections. Glad to see that Israel hasn't changed in the slightest in the last 34 years. Wonder if they are still charging fees for anything entering or leaving the West Bank or Gaza?
How about the West Bank? Could they transfer selected Palestinians from Gaza to the West Bank?
If it was all on the up and up why did Trump pay Michael Cohen twice for his help paying Stormy Daniels the $130,000?
all together trump paid over $400,000 in relation to the 130,000 hush money payment
trump paid Cohen 260,000 to satisfy the 130,000 he owed Cohen. That was required so that Cohen would not lose money on the deal, if he was just paid back $130,000 by Trump he would still owe 50% taxes which means he would have lost on the deal. Trump paid him double the amount that Cohen paid Daniels.
The Stormy Daniels deal of 18 years ago was common & legal.
You keep skipping the part where Cohen pleaded guilty and Pecker got immunity for his testimony for his part, in which in court he admitted he knew he committed campaign financing crimes.
You mean Cohen's advice was illegal?
Do you acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump in any of his cases?
Were the Nazis ever right about anything?
I mean actual acts committed between Cohen and Pecker entered into court records under oath.
The FEC said it's not illegal. In the history of campaign finance law, has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted for this crime at the time the supposed crime occurred? Cohen's plea is also not admissible as evidence Trump committed a crime.
What does that even mean? This case is about what was in Trump's mind, his intent and a state court trying to enforce a federal campaign law.
It is a preposterous case, yet you are going to get a conviction. Once the election is over an appeals court will toss the whole damn thing.
The only question is if Trump can overcome the real election interference.
Deflection yet again.
“…the real election interference.”
Do tell, vic.
Didn't they get Germany out of a worldwide depression and build the autobahn?
The point, TiG, is that once a government does horrendous things, being right on certain occasions is irrelevant.
You cannot arrive at justice by using unjust means.
4 trials during an election.
I thought an "election judge" would see it.
A succinct understanding of his words has him inadvertently comparing Trump to the nazis as in an equivalency. yikes.
Not possible when they hold the former 'president' to no standards whatsoever.
For crimes the former 'president' committed in his incitement and failure to overturn the election.
And where is he being charged with that?
There is no election interference. The former 'president' is only campaigning to stay out of prison on its' revenge and retribution tour since he lost.
Maybe never if ginni, I mean clarence, and the other bought and paid for judges by the cons delays their decision
Yikes! Everyone else knows that I was comparing Biden's DOJ with the Nazis.
How you missed it is beyond me.
Judge Merchan just told the prosecution to move along AFTER the jury heard Stormy Daniels go through every detail of having sex with Trump.
There is no doubt about it, Tessylo.
513 and 514 tell a different story
You are making a point that is entirely unrelated to the question I asked you:
Do you acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump in any of his cases?
They tell my story. Joe Biden's DOJ has violated every norm to try and get Trump.
How is the # 3 man at the DOJ prosecuting this case in New York?
I do not. He has not been convicted of anything. Isn't that the standard you go by?
It is really outrageous for you to ask such a bull shit question. You with your Soviet style prosecution.
For almost 8 years people have lied cheated and committed outright crimes to get him.
He must be the most honest man on the planet. What say you TiG?
Have you ever provided a single shred of evidence for your rather salacious, outrageous claims?
Exactly. You categorically dismiss every charge against Trump in all his cases.
Yes, it is just so unfair for me to ask of someone who daily defends Trump at every turn if he acknowledges any wrongdoing ( I said nothing of conviction ) by Trump in any of his cases.
I go by facts. And you ignore them.
Yes, it is just so unfair for me to ask of someone who daily defends Trump at every turn if he acknowledges any wrongdoing by Trump in any of his cases.
You finally got bit in the ass with that question. Trump has not been convicted of anything. He is about to be wrongly convicted. Do you deny that to? Even when this case is overturned.
Here you go:
You won it fair & square.
Convictions are just for Democrats. Not Trump.
uh, no.
The critical thinkers tell us that they wait for facts to come in.
Not when it comes to the one man they hate.
And they hate him because he stands against the deep state and the indoctrinated.
You also can't deal with facts either.
Any answer to my question? You and the critical thinker suddenly can't speak?
A ridiculous and demonstrably false claim.
This is quite bizarre. I did not ask you about conviction. I asked you about wrongdoing.
It is obvious, as you have now noted, that you do not acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump in any of his cases.
There is no reasoning with someone who categorically dismisses all wrongdoing by Trump in his cases.
You always ignore the facts. Who is prosecuting the New York case?
I asked you about wrongdoing.
And I answered you.
It is obvious, as you have now noted, that you do not acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump in any of his cases.
They are not legit cases!
There is no reasoning with someone who categorically dismisses all wrongdoing by Trump in his cases.
That's right, go back to your leftist bubble.
There is no doubt whatsoever that there is no election interference.
I've yet to see any facts.
The three of you have really proved that /S
That's why the critical thinker ran away and you two keep flailing.
The fact of who is prosecuting the New York case has absolutely no bearing on the question I asked. I asked you about wrongdoing in any of his cases.
Yes you did. And then you added to your answer with this notion of conviction when I explicitly asked you about wrongdoing. I am responding to your additional commentary.
Of course not ... anyone who can find no wrongdoing by Trump in any of his cases would naturally believe that all of his cases were bogus.
There are likely very few people in the world who you would not consider 'leftist'.
I do have to compliment your imagination.
And I asked you that question. Why are you afraid to answer?
Yes you did. And then you added to your answer with this notion of conviction when I explicitly asked you about wrongdoing. I am responding to your additional commentary.
Where is the wrongdoing?
Of course not ... anyone who can find no wrongdoing by Trump in any of his cases would naturally believe that all of his cases were bogus.
Are you going to sit there and tell us that any of this is legitimate. You won't even answer questions.
There are likely very few people in the world who you would not consider 'leftist'.
I think most would agree with my assessment.
heh, the maga desperation is now palpable ...
Still no rebuttal.
I thought you said you could do it all?
Yes, you are facing the fact that you have publicly admitted that you do not consider Trump to have done anything wrong in any of his cases. So naturally you will strike out with utter nonsense.
Yes, Vic, wait for facts; but that does not mean denying facts that are uncomfortable.
And this applies to Trump too. But you do not acknowledge any wrongdoing and thus toss out the ridiculous claim that any noted wrongdoing by Trump is not based on facts.
What were you just talking about? Follow the facts, Vic. Yeah, I know: "I am following the facts".
I am absolutely against Trump gaining the power of the presidency. The reasons I have made crystal clear, repeatedly, on this forum. They have nothing to do with "deep state" or indoctrination (I am not and have never been a D).
My case against Trump is strictly based on his behavior. The pinnacle being his Big Lie con job. And that is why I care far more about the cases dealing with Trump as PotUS rather than private citizen Trump.
I said I see no evidence of wrongdoing. Your people in the Biden administration need to get convictions.
Answer my question or take off.
Calm down. Your "critical thinker" insult attempt illustrates emotion is driving your posts now. I am right here in this exchange so stop pretending you have made some grand argument that stumps everyone.
Where?
next...
How is that relevant considering he was charged and pleaded guilty?
This has nothing to do with my post, but I'll bite. It's not evidence of Trump's alleged crimes, it's evidence of a crime. The prosecution is contending that Trump's payments to Cohen were to cover up this crime. Which, under NY law, make the 34 payments to Cohen felonies.
Again with the feeble attempt to insult me. And how do you conclude that I 'ran away'? What criteria are you using?
I'm stumped as to why this baloney goes on every day here.
You and I can no longer have discussions.
1) You don't answer questions
2) You ignore facts
3) I won't mention the third one in order to be nice to someone. Please take note: This is the last time I'll be gracious.
The take from the failed attempt to support Trump is the level of desperation based on the realization of the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt.
That campaign crimes were committed. Nothing more, nothing less.
No. It's about committing fraud. Whether they can make that case or not remains to be seen.
I'll wait to for the process to play out. I'm not making any claims. Only laying out the facts you seem to gloss over.
There is no fear in stating an obvious fact: Bragg. You are just deflecting. Your question had nothing to with you believing Trump has done no wrongdoing in all of his cases.
This is pathetic. Right off the bat, it is wrong for Trump to organize fake electors and try to get them submitted to replace real electors. It is wrong for Trump to try to coerce officials to use his fake electors. It is wrong for Trump to suborn his VP to table certified counts with the hope that this will force the issue to Congress to (maybe) use his fake electors. It is wrong for Trump to incite his supporters with blatant lies using the authority of the presidency, It is wrong for Trump to egg on the Capitol insurrection with tweets like "Pence let us down" and to not act to dissuade his supporters from breaking and entering the Capitol building and disrupting Congress. So much more ...
This is you tossing nonsense in a desperate hope that something will stick. Yeah, Vic, I am absolutely telling you that Trump engaged in wrongdoing. We do not yet know if his wrongdoing will result in a criminal conviction, but any level of objectivity shows that Trump clearly has engaged in wrongdoing.
Blind idealogues view anyone who is not equally immersed in their ideology to be 'the other side'. Same with partisans. It is the true partisans who cannot even comprehend the idea of someone not being aligned with a particular party. True partisans believe that everyone is ultimately tied to one party. At least, they behave as though that is what they believe. It is ridiculous behavior.
Here is one possible explanation:
Demonstrably false.
Demonstrably false.
Why not? Add in the third lie.
Get a grip. Your posts have grown increasingly shrill. They seem replete with emotion and have essentially taken a shotgun approach.
Don't make threats, Vic.
Is there any New York law or federal law which would have prevented New York from bringing this case against Trump YEARS ago?
You referring to you making some stupid unfounded comment then getting roasted for it?
Because the GOP is going to nominate Trump and all GOP loyalists are stuck having to defend their party.
Since there is no rational defense for Trump and Trump keeps on making their case more difficult, it must suck to feel obliged to defend him.
It would be strange if GOP loyalists would actually treat Trump and his behavior objectively. What we are seeing is actually what one would expect.
gee, I understood what he wrote, and it sure wasn't what you think it is.
When they dismissed the complaint against Trump.
w is that relevant considering he was charged and pleaded guilty?
For starters, Cohen plead guilty to receive favorable treatment. It was not a trial and there was no ruling about whether Cohen committed an actual crime. But the point is that despite a long use of NDA's (Clinton Bimbo eruption squad, most famously) no one had ever been successfully prosecuted for securing an NDA when Trump entered into them, so why would they think what they were doing was possibly criminal?
Th e prosecution is contending that Trump's payments to Cohen were to cover up this crime.
What crime? NDA's are not a crime.
Why don't you do the research yourself, because, frankly, the question is immaterial and irrelevant, and NO ONE CARES.
That's not acknowledgment of legality.
Irrelevant.
One does not plead to something they are not charged with. It is court record Cohen was charged and pleaded guilty. Whether he might have been found innocent had he gone to trial is irrelevant.
See above.
A simple, clear "no" would have sufficed nicely.
I did research it--which is why I was asking because a lawyer may have known what the LAW is better then I do, but then again, maybe not!
The law that controls as to when a prosecution must be filed is the applicable statute of limitations.
You are avoiding my question for a reason.
Now, whatever could that reason be?
As I stated above, your question is immaterial and irrelevant, and therefore, not valid. As such, there is no reason to otherwise consider it. The statute of limitations controls as to when a case must be filed, whether you like it or not.
That is an ignorant statement. The statute limitations control the latest date that a charge can be filed, not the length of time a piece of shit democrat turd has to wait to file a charge. A prosecutor can file a charge the very next day.
Funny how legitimate questions become something else when they stump the person questioned.
And then to try and muddy the waters with a statute of limitations derailment!
Is there anything in the law requiring them to?
Comment 5.1.64 ignorantly misquotes Comment 5.1.63.
The comment that "The statute of limitations controls when a case must be filed" is "an ignorant statement" is truly the height of stupidity.
Exactly what is the 'deep state' and who are the indoctrinated?
P.S. It stands for itself and no one else.
Projection.
Despite the phony "gotcha" effort in Comment 5.1.65, your question is NOT a legitimate question. By definition, no one can be "stumped" by an immaterial and irrelevant question. The only legitimate response is to turn the question aside and call it what it is - not valid.
No, pieces of partisan shit can wait for the election year to file their charges, But that is exactly the point isn't it? if the crime was committed in 2016/2017 as alleged, even if the prosecutor didn't want to file charges on a sitting president, what happened in 2021? 2022? 2023? the only limitation is that they file it before the statute of limitations run out.
Denial
Excellent.
I forgot these folks graduated from trumpU
I always defer to your expertise
I was a prosecuting attorney for 10 years, I know exactly what a statute of limitations is, and what it means. some obviously don't.
Nothing phony or gotcha about it, that is just your personal reaction to something which you didn't want to answer.
Even if it is, it doesn't make the alleged crimes less criminal. If Bragg loses this case he's the one that takes the political hit.
The charges were filed in 2023. It seems as if it's as much to Trump's benefit as it is to his detriment to litigate this in social media during an election year.
Which is the POINT.
Again that doesn't make the case meritless.
So... ahhh... how's Jim Jordan's House Un-America Activities Committee going? Find anything to tie Uncle Joe to his son yet? Or has he given up on Joe and now spending the bulk of his time on state DAs he has no oversite of?
Again, that isn't something I have argued, so why are you?
Ask him, not me, I am not in charge of it.
BTW, wonderful example of deflection!
Nobody is arguing the merits, simply the timing, and it is delusional to think it helps trump except with the die hard supporters, the average person isn’t a diehard partisan who follows politics closely.
Everyone should be able to easily look at the timing and know it is fishy, to say the least.
It would require actual effort to miss it.
[l][removed][✘]
Refer again to Comment 5.1.71, to wit: "your question is NOT a legitimate question... The only legitimate response is to turn the question aside and call it what it is - not valid."
So, no answer then....
Not a relevant question. If one wishes to pursue an irrelevancy, the one making the pursuit is free to so engage. Continually badgering others, and then proclaiming a non-existent outcome, or some sort of phony righteous vindication, constitutes bad faith.
Okay, like I said, no answer.
You can answer it if you wish to engage in an irrelevancy.
Nonsense.
Pursuing an irrelevant question is the epitome of nonsense.
No.
The fact is the case is being held now, the judge is present, the lawyers are talking, the jury is seated, and witnesses are testifying before them. . . it is what it is!
Now that you have supplied what I suspect is the correct answer (as I noted already in the @8.2 sub-thread), what point does this lead to?
Of course you will argue that since New York did not raise this case immediately after Trump left office that this is all political. There are no other factors that you can think of that would cause a case like this to not be brought sooner?
Let me help expand your thinking a bit. Bringing a case against a former PotUS is a big deal. Even though we are talking about the law, there are some serious extralegal factors that would give people pause. First of all, it is breaking new historic ground. Never in US history has a former PotUS been indicted for a crime (much less a felony). So there are all sorts of unknowns with no guide rails, no precedence, no established protocol. That alone would cause people to be hesitant to do this. And it would thus take time to gather support for such an undertaking.
On top of that, bringing such a high profile case against such a high profile character is a big risk so the prosecution will want to ensure they have a case they believe they will clearly win. Preparing such a case takes time. And if you wonder why they did not start preparing while Trump was PotUS, I think it is plausible that they chose to not put forth resources on a case that might never be brought ... since Trump could have won the 2020 election. So it seems reasonable to me that they started seriously considering this case only after Trump lost.
Bottom line, it takes time to prepare cases, especially if one must ensure it is rock solid given the defendant. And there will be many hurdles to get people on board to allow such a case to be raised given this is historically new territory and breaking new ground in many dimensions. Big risk. Lots of unforeseeable consequences.
Yeah, could be the beginning of a new trend.
That is one of the problems. Trump has lowered the bar and set a horrible precedent. That is part of the process of incrementalism which often leads into terrible results, one inch at a time. Relative to history, Trump did not nudge this an inch, he made a giant leap downwards into shit.
And to make matters worse, Donald, the unrepentant, is asking for 'the world' from the Supreme Court to skip incrementalism and grant him blanket immunity to literally twist this country into those cavernous dark places he travels in his mind. Even as so-called, conservative justices, would be fools to grant Donald his heart's desire to be king over a free people.
Nonsense is dismissing that which one finds uncomfortable.
Nonsense is making accusations about things of which one is completely ignorant and knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
[deleted][✘]
Like claiming that the statute of limitations determines when a case must be filed?
Unbelievable. That is the most insane, ignorant comment so far. Just pathetic. That must be a joke.
No joke at all.
I thought you might have been joking when you claimed it, but then I saw you were actually serious.
If that comment is serious, then that is really sad, sad, sad.
Ok, the expert authority is telling us that a statute of limitations doesn't determine when a case must be filed. Looks like we'll have to rewrite the law books and put out a notice so all the attorneys in America will find out that what they know is wrong and the law is really what some guy on a website says it is.
Wow.
You simply misrepresented what the sol is. It does determine the last day a case must be filed but doesn't limit the case to only being filed at that point. They could have brought the case seven years ago but chose not to for some reason, probably political. One poster claimed it may never have been brought except Trump beat The Queen.
Please show us where the Statute of limitations states the date a case must be filed, Not the last date it can legally be filled, but the date it must be filed as you have claimed.
No, just one who appears by his comments to be completely ignorant on what the statute of limitations legally controls.
So a prosecutor can file charges at any point up TO the maximum amount of time, there is nothing in the statute of limitations that requires them to wait.
I didn't misrepresent anything. I made an accurate statement of the law. Point out anywhere I said a statute of limitations limits a case "to only being filed" on the last day a case must be filed. I've filed hundreds of lawsuits on behalf of clients. What is your record in that regard?
You've been making an argument that the case against Trump should have, for no reason supported by anything you've written, been filed at a different time. You have asked many people to provide a law that says the prosecution was prevented from filing the case earlier than they did. Your question is, of course, complete nonsense. You're whole line of inquiry is irrelevant, immaterial and clearly intended to make a political point, not a legal one.
If you had any actual knowledge of the law, you would know that a case must be filed by no later than the statute of limitations.
In your legal career, how many misdemeanor cases have you personally seen filed seven years after the alleged crime?
Your comment is a display of total ignorance and a complete lack of understanding of what I said. Point out anywhere I said the statute of limitations requires a prosecutor to wait.
Point out when it must be filed. The sol provides the last day it may be filed, not what day it must be filed.
It must be filed by no later than the date of the statute of limitations. Enlighten us as to anything different.
And now you have it!
Nothing preventing it from being filed years ago.
Strictly political!
TX: Is there any New York law or federal law which would have prevented New York from bringing this case against Trump YEARS ago?
GS: Why don't you do the research yourself, because, frankly, the question is immaterial and irrelevant, and NO ONE CARES.
TX: A simple, clear "no" would have sufficed nicely.
I did research it--which is why I was asking because a lawyer may have known what the LAW is better then I do, but then again, maybe not!
GS: The law that controls as to when a prosecution must be filed is the applicable statute of limitations.
The question was, is there a law that required them to wait 7 years to file, this was the ignorant answer given, just pointing out how erroneous the comment was. people who actually graduated from law school knows the SOL only controls the last date a indictment can be filed, NOT WHEN A PROSECUTION MUST BE FILED.
Everyone knows what the question was, but it was great to see the mental gymnastics involved in not answering the question!
People who actually graduated from law school, and who actually practice law, know that the statement "the statute of limitations controls when a lawsuit must be filed" is a true and correct statement of the law. Your comment ignorantly and misleadingly implies that some law other than the statute of limitations controls.
With regard to your entire argument, S.O.L. stands for Shit Out of Luck.
Which perfectly sums up your completely feeble attempt to back track and defend your bullshit statement that says the SOL controls when a indictment must be filled.
That's a unique way of saying absolutely nothing prohibited this case from being filed YEARS ago!
The hush money payment happened in 2017 and came to light in the public in 2018. No one thought Trump might be indicted for that before he left office.
That brings us to 2021. Bragg did not take office until Nov of 2022. He filed the indictment in April of 2023 after a grand jury was held.
This "unfair delay" is imaginary.
I wish there was some way to make you people shut the fuck up.
Your comment is a fraudulent attempt to claim my comment means anything other than that the law that applies to when a case must be filed is the statute of limitations. Anyone who actually went to law school and practices law knows that is absolutely true. Your transparently misleading comment is a complete failure
Point out any law or rule other than the statute of limitations that determines by when a lawsuit must be filed.
What happened between November 2020 and November 2022? Did New York not exist as a State? Were they unable to process events from 2018 during that era?
They had people working on developing a case, which the DA at the time , Vance, decided he did not want to pursue. Bragg was elected at the end of '22 and looked back into it, as did a grand jury. The indictment was filed five months after Bragg took office. If Trump hadnt stalled the case it would have been over months ago.
I am sure someone will be telling you shortly that isn't the way forums work.
You made an ignorant comment and got caught, i made no fraudulent claim you did when you wrote this,
This comment was a bold face lie, PERIOD!
As is your question of timing.
not even close!
More ignorance, you realize this is a criminal case right? not a lawsuit.
Your comment is insane and a complete denial of reality. Your comment claiming it's a lie that the statute of limitations controls when a case must be filed is totally fraudulent. Anyone with knowledge of the law is well aware that a case must be filed before the statute of limitations runs. The ignorance of your comment is truly remarkable.
When does the sol say a case can be filed?
The sheer stupidity of your comment is breathtaking.
As the California courts, where I have practiced law for 44 years, state in their official website for the benefit of laymen such as yourself: "A criminal case is a lawsuit brought by the state against a person who has broken a criminal law."
The foolishness and ignorance of your comment is noted.
I'm not aware of any statute of limitations in my area of practice that explicitly states when a case "can" be filed. Are you aware of any?
Implicit in the language of statutes of limitations is that a case can be filed before the statute of limitations runs.
so , once AGAIN, there was nothing at all preventing NY from bringing this case years ago if it had merit.
Thank you.
[✘]
[✘]
Extrapolating anything from my comment to support your comment requires a huge leap in logic, but if it makes you feel better you are, of course, free to say anything you want no matter how tenuous, or non-existent, the connection.
Your comment lacks basic intelligence. Which comes from denying the facts contained in your comments
So a group [deleted] [✘] in California conflated lawsuits with criminal cases, thank goodness trump is being prosecuted in NY instead of California where alleged lawyers are too stupid to tell the difference between the two.
Why on earth would it take 7 years to make a case the feds declined?
They had to see how the other fictional cases panned out.
I really didn't expect an answer from whom I asked.
You could read up on the topic if you had the ambition.
[deleted][✘]
I have read plenty about it.
You could always attempt to answer if you KNEW the answer, too!
I have to assume you don't since you refused to answer.
[deleted][✘]
04/04/2023 03:52 PM EDT
That is the date Bragg indicted Trump.
The grand jury in the Trump hush money case was empaneled on January 23, 2023 . This grand jury ultimately returned the 34-count indictment in the hush-money case on March 30 1 .
One can assume a length of time before January 2023 was necessary to develop the evidence.
Trump was president from Jan 2017 to the end of 2021 , and could not be indicted during that period.
Your "7 years" evaporates considerably in the face of the facts.
Please link the New York law that prevented Trump's indictment while he was President....you know, because that would be a salient FACT, especially in light of your claim.
we are now down to one year of "wasted time". Which was most likely spent developing a case.
You can't answer the question.
These trials are nothing more than election interference.
I'm hoping Trump can overcome it all.
indictment of presidents | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information …
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has a continuing policy since the 1970s that sitting presidents cannot be indicted as it would unconstitutionally prevent them from performing their duties as the head of the executive branch (see this Attorney General Memo). Essentially, if a president became indicted, this … See more
as usual , I present facts and your side presents bs.
That's the truth.
A case that Bragg's predecessor and Bragg himself once tossed as unwinnable.
None of you can answer questions.
Just post your rants.
So you can not link any New York law OR even a federal law which would have prevented Trump's indictment years ago.
I didn't think such a law existed, and you have now proved it.
Thank you!
[deleted][✘]
I think that is in English. Whats the problem ?
Translation: WE COULDN"T FIND ANYTHING EVEN THOUGH THE FBI FALSIFIED A FISA APPLICATION AND WE FRAMED TWO PEOPLE< IT JUST WASN"T THERE!
Whatever that was, its not a response to anything I said.
[deleted][✘]
You are citing DOJ policy?
Don't they have a policy about prosecutions during an election?
Do you know about that, John?
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
Given there is no link, I think it's your imagination.
[deleted][✘]
The reason the 3 of them won't answer the question is because it proves that Joe Biden's DOJ is all over these cases.
That is one of the things that makes them political and illegitimate.
The problem with your link is it doesn't provide what was asked for.
I asked for a New York law or a federal law and you provided policy.
Policy and law are two separate, distinct things and shouldn't be confused with one another under any circumstances.
Which question are you referring to?
Its a damn shame that this has to be explained to you, but you wont fucking stop.
That's always the case.
Huh? Almost sounds like the USDOJ thinks president's have at least some level of immunity, doesn't it?
They do have some level of immunity. This was never in question. The question is the extent.
The DoJ has guidelines that prevent indicting a sitting president. This is based on many factors but one of them is the CotUS. Because the PotUS is in a very special position, the CotUS created impeachment and removal from office as the key remedy. While this does not prevent a sitting PotUS from being criminally indicted it does raise all sorts of questions and I doubt many would even attempt to run this gauntlet. And there is even a question as to circumstances under which a former PotUS could be criminally indicted. This is a complicated business and we have never had to address it in our history ... until Trump came along.
But, in direct contradiction to Trump's case, no legal authority has even implied that a PotUS has total immunity while in office and certainly not after leaving office.
Well, thank goodness a precedent can be set and we can hold all past president's to the same standards.
Given the precedent I described was a terrible one, your comment suggests you think it would be good to have future presidents be scoundrels with abysmal character as Trump.
Why would you not want a good precedent that would ideally be observed by future PotUS? You know, kind of like what we had prior to Trump? Things like supporting the peaceful, orderly transfer of power after accepting the will of the people? Acting presidential? That kind of stuff.
Please explain how.
Apparently you have not realized that I no longer bother answering your open-ended questions since they are not serious. Just an FYI since you keep trying.
CCL, FYI Seems to be a theme here...
Because Donald is an authentic scoundrel with designs of pushing 'everything' he says and does as a future president under presidential immunity then tying up the courts if and when the time comes in redux. We're tired. Our television's are 'tired' of displaying Donald. Our lives don't need to revolve around Donald, the unrepentant. Nor can we bear Donald 2 (New Edition)!
Freedom lovers existing "hand and glove" with a tryant-minded, self-serving, narcissist is an oxymoron. We want to live free of Donald, the unrepentant, who has taken over our television sets and threatening us with taking over our lives. As old people, we need to leave a better world to the children of this nation's future—not one in the thralls of a sadistic leader or his "familiar."
I suspect many of his supporters are sick of him too, but now have no choice (in their minds) given he is the presumptive nominee for the GOP.
It is our 'duty' to save our country from Donald, the unrepentant MADMAN! We have no choice now. "Madman" Donald is trying to scorch earth our legal system, our government 'norms,' and bring all of us (san Madman Donald) under the oppressive regime of Christian Nationalism.
We have to band together for the common good of ourselves, our country, and its future.
Yes the agnorance by certain people certainly does
A U.S. shipment of weapons scheduled to be sent to Israel was temporarily put on hold by the Biden administration last week.
This is the first time the U.S. has suspended an ammunition shipment to Israel since the October 7 attack by Hamas.
The incident sent Israeli officials struggling to understand why the shipment was put on hold, according to Axios , which first reported it.
It was reportedly halted because of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned invasion of Rafah in Gaza where more than one million displaced Palestinians have taken shelter.
However, a CNN report said the incident is unrelated to Rafah invasion threats.
When asked about the suspension of shipment, a National Security Council spokesperson said: "The United States has surged billions of dollars in security assistance to Israel since the October 7 attacks, passed the largest ever supplemental appropriation for emergency assistance to Israel, led an unprecedented coalition to defend Israel against Iranian attacks, and will continue to do what is necessary to ensure Israel can defend itself from the threats it faces."
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Israel last week and had reportedly warned Netanyahu that the U.S. would publicly oppose a military operation in Rafah, which would negatively impact the relations between the two countries.
Netanyahu in a statement issued on Holocaust Remembrance Day on Sunday, has also hinted that a perceived lack of support from the U.S.
"In the terrible Holocaust, there were great world leaders who stood by idly; therefore, the first lesson of the Holocaust is: If we do not defend ourselves, nobody will defend us. And if we need to stand alone, we will stand alone," the prime minister said.
Israel had also given a letter of assurance in March saying that U.S.-made weapons would only be used in accordance with international law following a request by the Biden administration.
President Joe Biden is facing strong criticism from Americans over his support of Israel, particularly following his approval of a foreign aid bill that included $26 billion for the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Biden Administration Temporarily Halts US Weapon Shipment To Israel | IBTimes
P resident Joe Biden on Tuesday issued a call to fight a swiftly rising tide of antisemitism, saying such hate has no place in America as he connected the horrors of the Holocaust to Hamas’ attack on Israel.
Biden’s speech was a somber moment of reflection amid a tense and pivotal time in his reelection push. The October 7 attack and the subsequent war in Gaza has proved to be one of the most politically fraught periods of Biden’s presidency, one that is particularly personal for the longtime supporter of Israel who views antisemitism as antithetical to American values.
Biden says antisemitism has no place in America in somber speech connecting the Holocaust to Hamas’ attack on Israel (msn.com)
I don't know who wrote it for him, but it was very well written and touched all the bases. And so contrary to Biden's actions. Yet It is certainly enough to get many American Jews right back into the Biden column.
The left has absolutely no legitimate answers as to why it would take New York seven years to twist a misdemeanor case into a felony case--none at all.
No one wants to address the timing of all of this when this happened way back when and the feds investigated and declined to bring a case or even fine the Trump campaign.
yet somehow, years and years later, the state of NY in its infinite wisdom pursued this idiotic case.
Other than it's an irrelevant question? It has little to no bearing on Trump's legal issues today other than to deflect from the proceedings.
Of course it is relevant, pretending otherwise is foolish.
New York could have brought this YEARS ago instead of waiting until now.
Now it just looks foolishly political--a hit job to bolster Biden's chances.
Outside of the right wing populist propaganda bubble it's not.
And while that might true, it doesn't give Trump a get out of court free card; It doesn't make the charges go away; it doesn't erase any possible crimes Trump is alleged to have committed.
Okay, I'll amend my comment.
It isn't at all relevant to far left fanatics obsessed with Trump and kissing Biden's ass.
Okay. We've established it's not relevant to the far left, but really enraging to the far right. Now the rest of us can get back to the facts of the case.
I think what we established is the left just doesn't care about the law or facts when it comes to Trump.
Your questioning of timing has nothing to do with the law. It's about politics, optics and deflecting from actual facts of law.
Bingo!
EXACTLY.
It is to point out the political theater Democrats are running.
Again it doesn't make the case meritless.
That isn't anything that I have argued, so why are you?
'The left'? You speak as though that is some organization with a spokesperson.
I for one (not attempting to speak for this concept of 'the left' in your head) do not know why many legal cases take so damned long to come to fruition. None of us are privy to the inner workings of each case but we do know that the following factors play a role:
So unless you know of someone on the inside of a particular case who has seen what was going on, all one can do is speculate. Partisans will naturally speculate that this is some grand conspiracy ... that cases were brought against Trump only because he chose to run for reelection. They will have no supporting evidence, but that does not stop a good conspiracy theory.
SEVEN years to develop a misdemeanor case into a felony case and to you that seems legitimate, as you provide excuse after excuse.
Alrighty then!
It is your choice to interpret my plain words as you wish, I have nothing to do with that.
Is there any New York or federal law which prevented NY from filing this case earlier?
It's indefensible and they know it. If Trump's DOJ did this to a prominent democratic rival they would have supported impeaching him for it. Democracy in peril and all the hysterics...
For once I agree with you. The left does appear a some motley group of fools running around with the decision making skills of a squirrel in the middle of the road with their hair on fire crying "but Trruuummmmppppp!!!!".
You asked why they did not indict a sitting PotUS. I gave you clear answers and you label them 'excuses' while making no counterargument.
You clearly have no interest in thoughtful discourse.
None that I know of. But there are, as I have noted, reasons for why it would take time to do so. The only explanation you will accept is that this was purely political. You can offer no evidence of same, and you reject all other plausible reasons as excuses.
That is a profound failure in objectivity.
Finally, nobody in this forum knows the actual answer to your questions. All we can do is speculate. Some speculate with clear partisan bias. Others speculate based on general understanding of how courts work, issues with sitting PotUS, constitutional questions, priorities of those in charge, etc.
Another emotional, pointless comment.
I didn't ask that. Quote me if you think I did.
You have demonstrated you don't know what it is I asked, so how could you possibly answer?
Me asking a legitimate question proves your guess wrong.
Nor, apparently, none that anyone else knows of, either.
Were you unaware that Trump was the sitting PotUS in 2017 and was so until Jan 20, 2021?
If that is supposed to be quoting me asking what you claimed, it is failing miserably.
Just responding as I see fit and honestly. It wasn't put there your approval. I could care less if you approve.
It IS indefensible, but it sure isn't preventing the sycophants from trying.
The saying goes, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
Donald, the unrepentant, who began president once is waiting with bated breath to get back in the 'saddle' on this nation's horse in order to give it the ride of its life! Get ready! Get ready! Get ready! Lots of people will be hurt, bruised, battered, and ruined as it is par for Donald's course.
Donald's 2024 theme song! Watch out, voters!
More like