╌>

Pressing Forward

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  247 comments

Pressing Forward
“If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone,” Netanyahu said at a Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony in Jerusalem. “But we know we are not alone because countless decent people around the world support our just cause. And I say to you, we will defeat our genocidal enemies.”

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

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

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.

GM-hYD8WIAAgwkg?format=jpg&name=small

MSNBC is sure to cover it and they will call it "historic."

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

the question is why would trump pay $130K to a porn star he claims he never had sex with?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

 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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.4  CB  replied to  devangelical @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.5  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

Could be both. It is the job of the state to prove which or 'both.'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

No, the former 'president' said so itself.  It had nothing to do with his family.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    2 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.2  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    2 weeks ago

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...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.3  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

Trump lovers will agree to say 'anything' to support this adulterer who wears satin/silk pajamas to a dinner engagement.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    2 weeks ago

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!

original

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @2    2 weeks ago
hide infidelity as attorney's fees on Trump's corporate accounts was fraud.

He paid his attorney who billed him for the payment HE made. Therefore, attorney fees.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1    2 weeks ago

Hogwash!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Remember: FRAUDULENT INTENT!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
FRAUDULENT INTENT!

trump's life long business model...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

Prove it, just like the prosecution needs to.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ELECTION FRAUD

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

Laughable nonsense which many can easily see.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

What? By paying hush money? WTF does that have to do with election fraud?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

Nothing, nothing at all.

leftwing wetdreams.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2    2 weeks ago
uising his illegal hush money payment

They weren't illegal  Not even Bragg claims they are. Pay attention. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2    2 weeks ago
Pay attention.

Now why would they do that?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.3  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @2    2 weeks ago

Unfortunately, that meme seem to be spot on.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

"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)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    2 weeks ago
ot just with our money, but with our troops,

Money is fine. American troops are a whole different story. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    2 weeks ago

Jeffries was really feeling his oats in that interview.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

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.

rafah-map-inline.jpg?w=1024

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 weeks ago

Pity they let Biden delay this so long. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    2 weeks ago

Just like he did with Ukraine. Let's just say foreign policy isn't his forte.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.2  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 weeks ago

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?

The Israeli agency that controls access to Gaza for the multi-billion-dollar aid effort has imposed arbitrary and contradictory criteria, according to more than two dozen humanitarian and government officials interviewed by CNN.

CNN has also reviewed documents compiled by major participants in the humanitarian operation that list the items most frequently rejected by the Israelis. These include anesthetics and anesthesia machines, oxygen cylinders, ventilators and water filtration systems.

Other items that have ended up in bureaucratic limbo include dates, sleeping bags, medicines to treat cancer, water purification tablets and maternity kits.

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?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @4.2    2 weeks ago

How about the West Bank?  Could they transfer selected Palestinians from Gaza to the West Bank?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 weeks ago

The Stormy Daniels deal of 18 years ago was common & legal. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.1  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    2 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

You mean Cohen's advice was illegal?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

Do you acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump in any of his cases?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

Were the Nazis ever right about anything?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.5  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
You mean Cohen's advice was illegal?

I mean actual acts committed between Cohen and Pecker entered into court records under oath.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
he 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. 

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilone @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

Deflection yet again.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
5.1.9  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    2 weeks ago

“…the real election interference.”

Do tell, vic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.8    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @5.1.9    2 weeks ago
Do tell, vic. 

4 trials during an election.

I thought an "election judge" would see it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.8    2 weeks ago

A succinct understanding of his words has him inadvertently comparing Trump to the nazis as in an equivalency.  yikes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

Not possible when they hold the former 'president' to no standards whatsoever.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.11    2 weeks ago

For crimes the former 'president' committed in his incitement and failure to overturn the election.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.14    2 weeks ago
For crimes the former 'president' committed in his incitement and failure to overturn the election.  

And where is he being charged with that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.15    2 weeks ago

Maybe never if ginni, I mean clarence, and the other bought and paid for judges by the cons delays their decision 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.12    2 weeks ago

Yikes!  Everyone else knows that I was comparing Biden's DOJ with the Nazis.

How you missed it is beyond me.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.19  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.16    2 weeks ago
There is no election interference.

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.18    2 weeks ago

513 and 514 tell a different story

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    2 weeks ago
The point, TiG, is that once a government does horrendous things, being right on certain occasions is irrelevant.

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?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.20    2 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.23  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.21    2 weeks ago
Do you acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump in any of his cases?

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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.17    2 weeks ago
Maybe never if ginni, I mean clarence, and the other bought and paid for judges by the cons delays their decision

Have you ever provided a single shred of evidence for your rather salacious, outrageous claims?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.23    2 weeks ago
I do not.

Exactly.   You categorically dismiss every charge against Trump in all his cases.

It is really outrageous for you to ask such a bull shit question. 

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.

  196

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.26  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.25    2 weeks ago
Exactly.   You categorically dismiss every charge against Trump in all 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:

golden-bullshit-award-stamp-vector-22782033.jpg

You won it fair & square.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.23    2 weeks ago
I do not. He has not been convicted of anything. Isn't that the standard you go by?

Convictions are just for Democrats. Not Trump. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.26    2 weeks ago
I go by facts.

uh, no. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.29  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.27    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.30  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.28    2 weeks ago

You also can't deal with facts either.

Any answer to my question? You and the critical thinker suddenly can't speak?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.26    2 weeks ago
I go by facts. And you ignore them.

A ridiculous and demonstrably false claim.

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.

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.32  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.31    2 weeks ago
A ridiculous and demonstrably false claim.

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.19    2 weeks ago

There is no doubt whatsoever that there is no election interference.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.31    2 weeks ago

I've yet to see any facts.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.35  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.33    2 weeks ago
There is no doubt whatsoever that there is no election interference.

The three of you have really proved that /S

That's why the critical thinker ran away and you two keep flailing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.32    2 weeks ago
You always ignore the facts. Who is prosecuting the New York case?

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.

And I answered you.

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.

They are not legit cases!

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.

That's right, go back to your leftist bubble.

There are likely very few people in the world who you would not consider 'leftist'.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.35    2 weeks ago

I do have to compliment your imagination. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.38  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.36    2 weeks ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.39  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.36    2 weeks ago

heh, the maga desperation is now palpable ...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.40  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.37    2 weeks ago
I do have to compliment your imagination. 

Still no rebuttal.

I thought you said you could do it all?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.29    2 weeks ago

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.  

And they hate him because he stands against the deep state and the indoctrinated.

71klURtTYqL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_DpWeblab_.jpg

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.42  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.41    2 weeks ago
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.

I said I see no evidence of wrongdoing. Your people in the Biden administration need to get convictions.


Answer my question or take off.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.30    2 weeks ago
You and the critical thinker suddenly can't speak?

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.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.44  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.6    2 weeks ago
The FEC said it's not illegal.

Where?

Robert Khuzami, Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, announced that MICHAEL COHEN was sentenced today to three years in prison for tax evasion, making false statements to a federally insured bank, and campaign finance violations.   COHEN pled guilty on August 21, 2018, to an eight-count information before U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III, who imposed today’s sentence.  In a separate prosecution brought by the Special Counsel’s Office (“SCO”), COHEN pled guilty on November 29, 2018 to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Congress and was also sentenced on that case today, receiving a two-month concurrent sentence.

next...

In the history of campaign finance law, has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted for this crime at the time the supposed crime occurred?

How is that relevant considering he was charged and pleaded guilty?

Cohen's plea  is also not admissible as evidence Trump committed a crime.

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.35    2 weeks ago
That's why the critical thinker ran away and you two keep flailing.

Again with the feeble attempt to insult me.  And how do you conclude that I 'ran away'?   What criteria are you using?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.46  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.43    2 weeks ago

I'm stumped as to why this baloney goes on every day here. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.47  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.43    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.48  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.43    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.49  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    2 weeks ago
What does that even mean?

That campaign crimes were committed. Nothing more, nothing less. 

This case is about what was in Trump's mind, his intent and a state court trying to enforce a federal campaign law.

No. It's about committing fraud. Whether they can make that case or not remains to be seen.

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.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.38    2 weeks ago
And I asked you that question. Why are you afraid to answer?

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.

Where is the wrongdoing?

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 ...

Are you going to sit there and tell us that any of this is legitimate. You won't even answer questions.

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.   

I think most would agree with my assessment.

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.46    2 weeks ago
I'm stumped as to why this baloney goes on every day here. 

Here is one possible explanation:

You could read up on the topic if you had the ambition. 
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.47    2 weeks ago
You don't answer questions

Demonstrably false.

You ignore facts

Demonstrably false.

I won't mention the third one in order to be nice to someone.

Why not?   Add in the third lie.

Please take note: This is the last time I'll be gracious.

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.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.53  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.48    2 weeks ago
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.

Is there any New York law or federal law which would have prevented New York from bringing this case against Trump YEARS ago?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.54  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.46    2 weeks ago
I'm stumped as to why this baloney goes on every day here. 

You referring to you making some stupid unfounded comment then getting roasted for it?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.46    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.56  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.12    2 weeks ago
A succinct understanding of his words has him inadvertently comparing Trump to the nazis as in an equivalency. 

gee, I understood what he wrote, and it sure wasn't what you think it is.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.57  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @5.1.44    2 weeks ago
Where?

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.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.58  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.53    2 weeks ago
Is there any New York law or federal law which would have prevented New York from bringing this case against Trump YEARS ago?

Why don't you do the research yourself, because, frankly, the question is immaterial and irrelevant, and NO ONE CARES.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.59  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.57    2 weeks ago
When they dismissed the complaint against Trump. 

That's not acknowledgment of legality. 

For starters, Cohen  plead guilty to receive favorable treatment. 

Irrelevant. 

It was not a trial and there was no ruling about whether Cohen committed an actual  crime.

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.

What crime? NDA's are not a crime.

See above.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.58    2 weeks ago

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!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.61  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.60    2 weeks ago

The law that controls as to when a prosecution must be filed is the applicable statute of limitations.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.62  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.61    2 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.63  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.62    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.64  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.63    2 weeks ago
The statute of limitations controls when a case much be filed,

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. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.63    2 weeks ago
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.

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!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.66  evilone  replied to  George @5.1.64    2 weeks ago
A prosecutor can file a charge the very next day. 

Is there anything in the law requiring them to?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.67  Gsquared  replied to  George @5.1.64    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.68  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.29    2 weeks ago

Exactly what is the 'deep state' and who are the indoctrinated?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.69  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.29    2 weeks ago

P.S. It stands for itself and no one else.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.70  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.35    2 weeks ago

Projection.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.71  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.65    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.72  George  replied to  evilone @5.1.66    2 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
5.1.73  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.70    2 weeks ago

Denial

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.74  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.71    2 weeks ago

Excellent.

I forgot these folks graduated from trumpU

I always defer to your expertise

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.75  George  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.74    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.76  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.71    2 weeks ago

Nothing phony or gotcha about it, that is just your personal reaction to something which you didn't want to answer.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.77  evilone  replied to  George @5.1.72    2 weeks ago
No, pieces of partisan shit can wait for the election year to file their charges, But that is exactly the point isn't it?

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. 

what happened in 2021? 2022? 2023?

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.78  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @5.1.77    2 weeks ago
The charges were filed in 2023.

Which is the POINT.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.79  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.78    2 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.80  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @5.1.79    2 weeks ago
Again that doesn't make the case meritless. 

Again, that isn't something I have argued, so why are you?

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?

Ask him, not me, I am not in charge of it.

BTW, wonderful example of deflection!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.81  George  replied to  evilone @5.1.77    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.82  Texan1211  replied to  George @5.1.81    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.83  Tessylo  replied to  George @5.1.75    2 weeks ago

[l][removed][]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.84  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.76    2 weeks ago

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."

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.85  GregTx  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.53    2 weeks ago

So, no answer then....

jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.86  Gsquared  replied to  GregTx @5.1.85    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.87  GregTx  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.86    2 weeks ago

Okay, like I said, no answer. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.88  Gsquared  replied to  GregTx @5.1.87    2 weeks ago

You can answer it if you wish to engage in an irrelevancy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.89  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.84    2 weeks ago

Nonsense.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.90  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.89    2 weeks ago

Pursuing an irrelevant question is the epitome of nonsense.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.91  GregTx  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.88    2 weeks ago
Is there any New York law or federal law which would have prevented New York from bringing this case against Trump YEARS ago?

No.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.92  CB  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.58    2 weeks ago

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! 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.93  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @5.1.91    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.94  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.93    2 weeks ago
Let me help expand your thinking a bit. Bringing a case against a former PotUS is a big deal. 

Yeah, could be the beginning of a new trend.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.95  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @5.1.94    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.96  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.95    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.97  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.90    2 weeks ago

Nonsense is dismissing that which one finds uncomfortable.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.98  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.97    2 weeks ago

Nonsense is making accusations about things of which one is completely ignorant and knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.99  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.98    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.100  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.98    2 weeks ago
Nonsense is making accusations about things of which one is completely ignorant and knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Like claiming that the statute of limitations determines when a case must be filed?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.101  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.100    2 weeks ago

Unbelievable.  That is the most insane, ignorant comment so far.   Just pathetic.  That must be a joke.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.102  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.101    2 weeks ago

No joke at all.

I thought you might have been joking when you claimed it, but then I saw you were actually serious.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.103  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.102    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.104  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.103    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.105  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.103    2 weeks ago
Ok, the expert authority is telling us that a statute of limitations doesn't determine when a case must be filed. 

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.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.106  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.103    2 weeks ago
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.

No, just one who appears by his comments to be completely ignorant on what the statute of limitations legally controls.

What is Statute of Limitations

A statute of limitations is the maximum amount of time allowed for a party to initiate legal proceedings,

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.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.107  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.104    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.108  Gsquared  replied to  George @5.1.105    2 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.109  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.107    2 weeks ago

In your legal career, how many misdemeanor cases have you personally seen filed seven years after the alleged crime?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.110  Gsquared  replied to  George @5.1.106    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.111  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.107    2 weeks ago
The statute of limitations controls as to when a case must be filed, whether you like it or not.

Point out when it must be filed. The sol provides the last day it may be filed, not what day it must be filed.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.112  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.111    2 weeks ago
Point out when 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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.113  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.112    2 weeks ago

And now you have it!

Nothing preventing it from being filed years ago.

Strictly political!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.114  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.110    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.115  Texan1211  replied to  George @5.1.114    2 weeks ago

Everyone knows what the question was, but it was great to see the mental gymnastics involved in not answering the question!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.116  Gsquared  replied to  George @5.1.114    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.117  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.115    2 weeks ago

With regard to your entire argument, S.O.L. stands for Shit Out of Luck.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.118  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.117    2 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.119  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.117    2 weeks ago

That's a unique way of saying absolutely nothing prohibited this case from being filed YEARS ago!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.120  JohnRussell  replied to  George @5.1.118    2 weeks 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. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.121  Gsquared  replied to  George @5.1.118    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.122  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.120    2 weeks ago
Bragg did not take office until Nov of 2022

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? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.123  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.122    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.124  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.120    2 weeks ago
I wish there was some way to make you people shut the fuck up. 

I am sure someone will be telling you shortly that isn't the way forums work.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.125  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.121    2 weeks ago

You made an ignorant comment and got caught, i made no fraudulent claim you did when you wrote this,

The law that controls as to when a prosecution must be filed is the applicable statute of limitations.

This comment was a bold face lie, PERIOD!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.126  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.80    2 weeks ago
BTW, wonderful example of deflection!

As is your question of timing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.127  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @5.1.126    2 weeks ago

not even close!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.128  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.121    2 weeks ago
Point out any law or rule other than the statute of limitations that determines by when a lawsuit must be filed.

More ignorance, you realize this is a criminal case right? not a lawsuit. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.129  Gsquared  replied to  George @5.1.125    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.130  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.129    2 weeks ago

When does the sol say a case can be filed?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.131  Gsquared  replied to  George @5.1.128    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.132  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.130    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.133  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.132    2 weeks ago

so , once AGAIN, there was nothing at all preventing NY from bringing this case years ago if it had merit.

Thank you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.134  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.116    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.135  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.129    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.136  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.133    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.137  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.129    2 weeks ago

Your comment lacks basic intelligence. Which comes from denying the facts contained in your comments

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.138  George  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.131    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 weeks ago

Why on earth would it take 7 years to make a case the feds declined?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2    2 weeks ago

They had to see how the other fictional cases panned out.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

I really didn't expect an answer from whom I asked.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.2    2 weeks ago

You could read up on the topic if you had the ambition. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.2    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.3    2 weeks ago
You could read up on the topic if you had the ambition.

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.4    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.3    2 weeks ago

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. 

Why on earth would it take 7 years 

Your "7 years" evaporates considerably in the face of the facts. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.7    2 weeks ago
Trump was president from Jan 2017 to the end of 2021 , and could not be indicted during that period. 

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.7    2 weeks ago

Alvin Bragg became Manhattan’s first Black district attorney in 2022,

we are now down to one year of "wasted time".  Which was most likely spent developing a case. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.7    2 weeks ago

You can't answer the question. 

These trials are nothing more than election interference.

I'm hoping Trump can overcome it all.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.8    2 weeks ago
LII / Legal Information Institute

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

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.10    2 weeks ago

as usual , I present facts and your side presents bs. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.12    2 weeks ago

That's the truth.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.9    2 weeks ago
Which was most likely spent developing a case.

A case that Bragg's predecessor and Bragg himself once tossed as unwinnable.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.13    2 weeks ago

None of you can answer questions.

Just post your rants.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.11    2 weeks ago

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!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.12    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.16    2 weeks ago
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).

I think that is in English. Whats the problem ? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.19  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.18    2 weeks ago

Translation: WE COULDN"T FIND ANYTHING EVEN THOUGH THE FBI FALSIFIED A FISA APPLICATION AND WE FRAMED TWO PEOPLE< IT JUST WASN"T THERE!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.19    2 weeks ago

Whatever that was, its not a response to anything I said. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.18    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.20    2 weeks ago

You are citing DOJ policy?

Don't they have a policy about prosecutions during an election?

Do you know about that, John?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.23  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.6    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.7    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.24    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.26  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.18    2 weeks ago
I think that is in English.

Given there is no link, I think it's your imagination.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.27  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.26    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.28  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.27    2 weeks ago

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.


 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.18    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.28    2 weeks ago
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.

Which question are you referring to?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.29    2 weeks ago
Policy and law are two separate, distinct things and shouldn't be confused with one another under any circumstances.

Its a damn shame that this has to be explained to you, but you wont fucking stop. 

Cy Vance appeared on NBC’s   Meet the Press   on Sunday to discuss news of the criminal indictment against the former president, which a grand jury voted to approve a few days earlier. During the interview, he was asked why his office did not empanel a grand jury during the Trump presidency to hear evidence related to Mr Trump’s hush payments to Stormy Daniels.

Mr Vance replied that the Department of Justice, which typically holds seniority when it comes to investigating crimes, had asked his office to stand down its investigation into numerous aspects of the former president’s activities, presumably including the hush payments to Ms Daniels.  

Former Manhattan DA explains reason why Trump wasn’t charged earlier in Stormy Daniels case | The Independent
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.20    2 weeks ago

That's always the case.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.2.33  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.31    2 weeks ago

Huh? Almost sounds like the USDOJ thinks president's have at least some level of immunity, doesn't it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @5.2.33    2 weeks ago

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.   

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.2.35  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.34    2 weeks ago
This is a complicated business and we have never had to address it in our history ... until Trump came along.

Well, thank goodness a precedent can be set and we can hold all past president's to the same standards.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @5.2.35    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.2.37  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.36    2 weeks ago
your comment suggests you think it would be good to have future presidents be scoundrels with abysmal character as Trump.

Please explain how.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @5.2.37    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.2.39  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.38    2 weeks ago

CCL, FYI Seems to be a theme here...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.40  CB  replied to  GregTx @5.2.37    2 weeks ago

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." 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.41  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.2.40    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.42  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.41    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.43  Tessylo  replied to  GregTx @5.2.39    2 weeks ago

Yes the agnorance by certain people certainly does

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @8    2 weeks ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @8.1    2 weeks ago
Other than it's an irrelevant question?

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.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.2  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    2 weeks ago
Of course it is relevant...

Outside of the right wing populist propaganda bubble it's not.

Now it just looks foolishly political--a hit job to bolster Biden's chances.

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
Outside of the right wing populist propaganda bubble it's not.

Okay, I'll amend my comment.

It isn't at all relevant to far left fanatics obsessed with Trump and kissing Biden's ass.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.4  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.3    2 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @8.1.4    2 weeks ago

I think what we established is the left just doesn't care about the law or facts when it comes to Trump.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.6  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.5    2 weeks ago
I think what we established is the left just doesn't care about the law or facts...

Your questioning of timing has nothing to do with the law. It's about politics, optics and deflecting from actual facts of law.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @8.1.6    2 weeks ago
Your questioning of timing has nothing to do with the law.

Bingo!

EXACTLY.

It is to point out the political theater Democrats are running.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.8  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.7    2 weeks ago
Bingo!

EXACTLY.

It is to point out the political theater Democrats are running.

Again it doesn't make the case meritless.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @8.1.8    2 weeks ago
Again it doesn't make the case meritless.

That isn't anything that I have argued, so why are you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8    2 weeks ago
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.

'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:

  • Determining if the case is strong enough to bring.   Sometimes it takes a lot of time to secure the evidence necessary to meet the threshold.   
  • Priorities of those in charge.   People change roles, different leaders will have different priorities.   A pending indictment may be reduced in priority and then later raised.   Human beings do tend to introduce chaos.
  • High profile defendants.   Clearly, taking on a former PotUS will give legal officials pause.   This should not be the case, but obviously not everyone will be treated equally and if one is going to indict a former PotUS, one better be damned certain that their case is strong.   That would certainly trigger delays.

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @8.2    2 weeks ago

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!

'The left'?   You speak as though that is some organization with a spokesperson.

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?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.1    2 weeks ago
SEVEN years to develop a misdemeanor case into a felony case and to you that seems legitimat

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...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @8.2    2 weeks ago
'The left'?   You speak as though that is some organization with a spokesperson.

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!!!!".  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.1    2 weeks ago
SEVEN years to develop a misdemeanor case into a felony case and to you that seems legitimate, as you provide excuse after excuse.

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.

Is there any New York or federal law which prevented NY from filing this case earlier?

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.2.3    2 weeks ago

Another emotional, pointless comment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.4    2 weeks ago
You asked why they did not indict a sitting PotUS.   

I didn't ask that. Quote me if you think I did. 

 I gave you clear answers and you label them 'excuses' while making no counterargument.

You have demonstrated you don't know what it is I asked, so how could you possibly answer?

You clearly have no interest in thoughtful discourse.

Me asking a legitimate question proves your guess wrong.

None that I know of.

Nor, apparently, none that anyone else knows of, either.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.6    2 weeks ago
I didn't ask that. Quote me if you think I did. 

Were you unaware that Trump was the sitting PotUS in 2017 and was so until Jan 20, 2021?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.7    2 weeks ago

If that is supposed to be quoting me asking what you claimed, it is failing miserably.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.2.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.5    2 weeks ago

Just responding as I see fit and honestly.  It wasn't put there your approval.  I could care less if you approve.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.2    2 weeks ago

It IS indefensible, but it sure isn't preventing the sycophants from trying.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  CB    2 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1  CB  replied to  CB @9    2 weeks ago

Donald's 2024 theme song!  Watch out, voters!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
9.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @9.1    2 weeks ago

More like 

 
 

Who is online

afrayedknot
devangelical


42 visitors