Trump grand jury poised to take pre-planned break from case | AP News
By: MICHAEL R. SISAK (AP NEWS)
hahahaha pre-planned..........guess they thought they may be through but just in case??
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By MICHAEL R. SISAKMarch 29, 2023 GMT1 of 3 Former President Donald Trump listens as he speaks with reporters while in flight on his plane after a campaign rally at Waco Regional Airport, in Waco, Texas, Saturday, March 25, 2023, while en route to West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) 1 of 3 Former President Donald Trump listens as he speaks with reporters while in flight on his plane after a campaign rally at Waco Regional Airport, in Waco, Texas, Saturday, March 25, 2023, while en route to West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
NEW YORK (AP) — The Manhattan grand jury investigating hush money paid on Donald Trump's behalf is scheduled to consider other matters next week before taking a previously scheduled two-week hiatus, a person familiar with the matter said Wednesday. That means a vote on whether or not to indict the former president likely wouldn't come until late April at the earliest.
The break, which was scheduled in advance when the panel was convened in January, coincides with Passover, Easter and spring break for the New York City public school system.
The person who confirmed the grand jury's schedule was not authorized to speak publicly about secretive grand jury proceedings and did so on condition of anonymity. A message left with the district attorney's office was not immediately returned.
In a statement released through a lawyer, Trump said: "I HAVE GAINED SO MUCH RESPECT FOR THIS GRAND JURY."
The grand jury has been meeting regularly Monday and Wednesday afternoons. It met Monday and a longtime Trump friend and potential key witness in the investigation was seen leaving the building where the grand jury has been meeting. The grand jury was not scheduled to meet Wednesday.
News earlier this month that Trump had been invited to appear before the grand jury fueled widespread speculation that an indictment would soon be forthcoming. Trump himself added to that anticipation with a post on his social media platform saying that he expected to be arrested soon, though his representatives later said that they had not received any such indication from prosecutors.
But the district attorney's office has made no public statements on the timing of any possible indictments, continuing its work in secret over the last two weeks. On March 20, the grand jury heard from a witness favorable to Trump.
People familiar with how grand jury processes typically unfold cautioned that the schedule could change and that prosecutors could still ask jurors to consider charges or vote on an indictment on one of the days they're expected to meet on other matters.
Few people — Manhattan District Alvin Bragg and the prosecutors in charge of the grand jury investigation — know precisely how the grand jury investigation is proceeding and at what pace. They control when witnesses are called to testify and will be the ones deciding whether, and when, to seek an indictment.
Since Trump's March 18 post, authorities ratcheted up security, deploying additional police officers, lining the streets around the courthouse with barricades and dispatching bomb-sniffing dogs.
They've also had to respond to myriad threats, including bomb and death threats, a suspicious powder scare and a protester who was arrested Tuesday after witnesses say she pulling a knife on passersby outside the courthouse.
The grand jury is investigating money paid during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to two women who alleged that they had extramarital sexual encounters with him. Trump has denied the allegations.
Trump's former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, who has testified as a key prosecution witness, paid porn actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 through a shell company he set up and was then reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses.
Earlier in 2016, Cohen also arranged for former Playboy model Karen McDougal to be paid $150,000 by the publisher of the supermarket tabloid the National Enquirer, which squelched her story in a journalistically dubious practice known as "catch-and-kill."
Meanwhile, other Trump investigations have been busily proceeding with crucial wins for prosecutors.
A Trump lawyer appeared last week before a federal grand jury in Washington investigating Trump's possible mishandling of classified documents after prosecutors were able to persuade a judge they had evidence that the former president was using his legal representation in furtherance of a crime.
And a judge has also ruled that former Vice President Mike Pence must provide some grand jury testimony in a separate investigation into efforts by Trump and his allies to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election.
If the Manhattan grand jury's schedule holds, that panel wouldn't return to the Trump matter until April 24. That's five days after Trump's longtime finance chief Allen Weisselberg is slated to be released from jail for his role in a unrelated tax fraud scheme involving fringe benefits from Trump's company.
Weisselberg made key decisions in how Trump and his Trump Organization kept their books, and Cohen alleges he was involved in the hush-money arrangements, but Weisselberg does not appear to be cooperating with the grand jury investigation.
Meanwhile, a former magazine columnist's rape lawsuit against Trump is set to go to trial April 25 at a federal courthouse steps away from where the hush-money grand jury has been meeting. Both Trump and rape accuser E. Jean Carroll are expected to testify in the civil trial.
She alleges he raped her in a luxury department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. He denies it and says he had no idea who she was before she went public with the allegation in 2019.
The AP does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly.
Tags
Who is online
111 visitors
So if this is a slam dunk "surely we have him this time" didn't quite pan out yet, why?
Guess "surely" wasn't listening.
And of course they had to end the article with the cursory "other trials in the works" for when this one falls through so as to not discourage the never Trumpers.
So what is your position on Trump's Big Lie behavior ... should we make no attempts to hold him accountable? Should this simply be forgotten with no investigation as to whether Trump violated the CotUS or the law in general? Should Trump's historically terrible precedent simply stand unchallenged?
All questions ... no statements. Asking you to opine.
Not the topic.........................this has to do with the hush money nothing burger..........
I have worked with several companies who require an NDA and they always compensated for signing. A few were a single dollar, highest was a twenty. It isn't illegal. And it wasn't campaign funds. In this case they don't have much of a leg to stand on in my opinion.
You wrote this:
I asked you questions on it. Why make a statement if you are not going to stand behind it?
It stands on its own. That you can't see why isn't really something I care to get involved with. Draw your own conclusions. You usually do.
Do you believe people have the right to question elections?
Of course. Why do you ask?
You ask about the "Big Lie" and should he be held accountable, Do you feel he should be held accountable?
Yes, Trump should be held accountable for any wrongdoing in his Big Lie campaign.
Do you and Just Jim think Trump should be held accountable for trying to suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act of tabling certified votes from select states so that Trump could (via his theory) win by plurality?
Do you and Just Jim think Trump should be held accountable for refusing to act for three hours to stop a violent breaking & entering of the Capitol building by his supporters to disrupt the proceedings of Congress?
Do you and Just Jim think Trump should be held accountable for lying to the world that the USA electoral system was rigged and that he is the rightful PotUS and Biden is illegitimate?
etc.
If he committed a crime he should be charged.
Not really sure what you wanted him to do, he doesn't have mind control over these people. Did you expect him to run into the crowd with a bull horn and tell everyone to go home. Do you hold Pelosi accountable for not taking any measures to secure the Capital?
I found the 2020 Election to be very questionable. There were many states that broke election laws and many things happened that brought into question the outcome we were given, don't know if I would have used "rigged". To say it was the most secure election ever I feel is an outright lie.
Well of course. (Here we go again.) But we are not talking about crimes, we are talking about wrongdoing. Holding Trump accountable for lying about a rigged election can be accomplished by not supporting someone for PotUS who would, as PotUS, irresponsibly claim that our system was rigged and agitate supporters by virtue of the authority of his office.
How about: "Cease and desist; leave the Capitol building and go home"? You know, take the good parts of what he did three hours later and do it sooner. Like his family, friends and advisors were pleading with him to do.
Big difference between that and —as PotUS— telling the world, incessantly and continuously that the USA electoral system was rigged and that Biden was not the legitimate PotUS and that his supporters votes were disenfranchised.
I don't support him, but I will never vote for a Democrat.
Don't you find it strange that Biden who never really campaigned, was not a great Senator or Vice President and a known liar. Got more votes then any President in history including Barack Obama.
Why limit yourself? If Trump gets the nomination for the GoP would you vote for him?
More people voted in the presidential election of 2020 than any time in history. Why would you be surprised that the winner sets a new record? Hell, even the loser set a record.
In 2008, McCain received 59,948,323 votes and Obama received 69,498,516 votes. (129,446,839 votes total)
In 2012, Romney received 60,933,504 votes and Obama received 65,915,795 votes. (126,849,299 votes total)
In 2016, Trump received 62,984,828 votes and Hillary received 65,853,514 votes. (128,838,342 votes total)
In 2020, Trump received 74,223,975 votes and Biden received 81,283,501 votes. (155,507.476 votes total)
A much bigger pie so the pieces will naturally be bigger.
Disregard talking points and just think things through yourself. Much better results.
As for your question, Biden was running against Trump whose saving grace, the economy, was faltering and while the voters had his crappy handling of the pandemic in mind.
You need to ask the Secretary of Defense that. The NG request was approved. HOW they are utilized in on the Secretary of Defense and local authorities.
Do you mean in almost the same fashion Democrats made the same claims after the 2016 election? If I recall the Democrats started investigation after investigation in failed attempts to back up their "Big Lie".
That has nothing to do with Trump refusing to intercede for three hours as the Capitol building was violently broken and entered by his supporters.
Deflection! You continue to defend Trump. What Trump did in his Big Lie was at a scale, scope and duration that has never been done in US history. No other PotUS (or candidate) comes close.
Your (and like minds) continued defense of Trump is what keeps him relevant and continues to ruin the GoP's chances to win in 2024. You shoot yourself in the foot as you continue to carry Trump's water.
Maybe if you don't know how the process works.
Nope. Don't get all pissy because I called out the hypocrisy.
To the TDS driven.
Our disagreement with your narrative is not defending Trump in the least. We're merely calling out your bullshit.
I believe the 'rule' here is if you aren't in a constant state of outrage about all things Trump, then whatever you say is 'defending Trump'.
We see the same old tired, lame, wrongheaded, illogical accusations daily from the same ignorant people.
You're not gonna win that argument, it will continue to spin. I had a similar discussion a while back where I said IMO there is really no difference between stealing $1 and $1,000,000. Both are crimes, both are thefts of money. No difference. And the return argument was that the latter was so much worse than the former due to the volume. His argument as proof was that the penalty was so much worse for the latter, while ignoring that the penalty is really an after effect for the crime and while the volume of the crime can influence the penalty, it doesn't change the initial crime of theft.
It seems the more their old tired, lame, wrongheaded, illogical accusations get called out the more pissy they get.
This one has been spinning that nonsense for a while now. It's like trying to talk to a toddler.
Trump's friends, family and advisors pleaded with him to intercede. He could have walked down the hall and within minutes have a live national multimedia broadcast to send a message of cease and desist. Hell, instead of tweeting that Pence let them down (throwing his own VP under the bus) he could have tweeted "Go home".
Your 'rebuttals' are pathetic.
Your ongoing defense of Trump is counter-productive because you and others like you are what give Trump his current influence over the GoP.
And of course you simply make shit up and declare it fact.
Defending Trump = making excuses for Trump, deflecting criticism of Trump, denying facts about Trump, etc.
Amazing that you actually think that the above is a good argument.
You say there is no difference between some kid stealing a $1 cheap toy and a con-artist stealing one million dollars. Right off the bat the law provides a major difference: the former is a minor misdemeanor whereas the latter is a felony.
In essence you argue: because they are both in the general category of theft, these two acts are equivalent.
Accusations of defending Trump seems to be a theme for you.
Damn pity you don't really know what a defense looks like.
If not by the legal system exactly what would you consider to be "held accountable"?
You know, Texan, when you defend Trump we all pretty much can see it. It is not as if your denials will influence anyone. Your fellow deniers will agree that you are not denying and everyone else will likely roll their eyes.
Your "argument" is there is no difference between someone who goes into a grocery store and shoplifts (steals) a candy bar and someone who goes into a grocery store and steals 5000 dollars.
I seriously doubt that very many people would agree with that.
How many times do I have to break this down?
Simple. If voters hold Trump accountable then that will influence their decision to fund his campaign, to defend him, to vote for him.
Trump should never have a chance at the GoP nomination yet, as we can see, that is not the case.
And he actually replayed that entirely stupid argument ... he actually thinks it is a good argument. Fascinating.
I guess we may be headed for defeat in 2024.
Tell me you don't know what you're talking about without telling me you don't know what you're talking about. Oh wait, you did (several times).
The approval for use of the national guard was given. It is on the Secretary of Defense and local authorities to put them in place. Try doing some research for once.
You 'see' only what you wish to or can imagine.
From reading your posts, it appears you wouldn't know a defense if you ever saw one!
The GoP is in trouble. Do you not see this?
If Trump is the nominee, he will lose in the general election. I would say 95% likelihood here.
If Trump is not the nominee, he might run third party as a spoiler. I say maybe 60% that he would go third party.
If Trump does not run third party, a large portion of his supporters will not vote for anyone else. I say maybe 25% that this would spoil the GoP nominee.
In short, as long as Trump is provided political clout by his supporters and defenders, he has a very good chance of ensuring the D party wins in 2024.
Focus if you can. The National Guard is an entirely different matter than what I have been talking about. I have been talking about Trump, the individual, communicating to his supporters to cease & desist.
Attempt to comprehend what I wrote.
Thank you for proving once again that you dont know what the hell you are talking about.
This is from the document you linked to
Yet DOD did not authorize the deployment of D.C. National Guard troops to the Capitol until nearly four hours--four hours-- after local officials first pled for help. Even though we were under full-scale assault, DOD hesitated until Vice President Pence--not President Trump--gave the order to ``clear the Capitol.''In which case the only conclusion is not everyone shares in your opinion that he should be held accountable or don't agree with your analysis for what he did. America is a great country.
Apparently, condemning Trump in the Court of Left Wing Public Opinion loudly and often is holding him accountable!
Lmao!
Tigs comment is completely in line with what the document you linked to says. Shoot yourself in the foot much?
Do better than John did and don't half ass read the link I provided.
Keep reading.
Do you hold Trump accountable for his wrongdoing? For example, do you hold Trump accountable for falsely claiming to the world that the USA electoral system was rigged and the Biden is not the legitimate PotUS? Do you hold Trump accountable for suborning his V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act of tabling certified votes so that he could win by plurality?
I notice you half assed it as usual and didn't give all the information. Just 3 questions for you to look up in that link:
I am talking about Trump, the individual, communicating to his supporters.
You, as usual, merely deflect. The National Guard has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump acting as an individual (as the PotUS) and using the media/tweets to intercede and tell his supporters to go home.
Faux obtuseness.
Your ADHD is kicking in. Take a look at your own comments.
[✘]
Nicely worded.
Given Trumps words and behavior over the past 8 years, there is no such thing as TDS.
A "derangement syndrome" implies it is unreasonable to hold a certain position regarding the individual (in this case Trump). There is nothing unreasonable or "deranged" about concluding Trump is a lying cheating sack of shit.
It is your person responsibility to make sure he isn't on the ticket . Or my favorite.
Exactly what does this mean? do you destroy his books? do you put a Scarlet T on your clothes if you voted for him? It's like watching Dustin Hoffman in Rain man scream 10 minutes to Wapner on a never-ending loop, and you don't even have a TV, let alone the remote.
This is exactly why the term TDS was created and so desperately needed sometimes.
[deleted]
The acting Sec of Defense was reluctant to order National Guard deployment to the Capitol on Jan 6th on his own say so. That is obvious.
So tell us when and how and to whom, on Jan 6th during the riot, Donald Trump ordered ANYONE to send troops or more police to the riot area.
Its a very simple question - when and how and to whom did Trump order or request more law enforcement at the Capitol building on Jan6th during the "insurrection" ?
We know that he was aware of what was going on because there was testimony from numerous people that he was watching it on television.
WHAT did he do, as commander in chief to try and stop it?
Give details please.
I guess that means he is a politician after all.
The denial of what is blatantly obvious is not mere difference in interpretation. It is blatantly obvious that Trump falsely claimed to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that Biden was an illegitimate PotUS and that American voters were disenfranchised.
There is no interpretation involved here when determining if this was right or wrong to do.
If any non-R PotUS did what Trump did, you and I (and everyone else) knows that most (writ large) of the R Trump supporters would deem it wrong. So not acknowledging the wrongdoing of Trump is defending him and that, when done by others, is what keeps him relevant and what keeps him able to harm the GoP.
It means you do not support him politically. You do not defend him, you do not send him money, you do not vote for him. If one holds Trump accountable for his Big Lie campaign actions and inaction one would take actions that would inhibit him from ever holding office again.
The then Sec Army McCarthy testified that he ordered MG Walker (DC NG CDR) at 3 pm,. to mass the entire D.C. Guard at their armory and come up with a plan for how they would approach the Capitol. By 4:30 pm, there was a plan to link up with Capitol police and McCarthy execution would then begin.
BG Walker testified that he didn’t believe he had full authorization to head to the Capitol until he saw McCarthy announce the Guard’s activation at 5:09 pm, during a press conference with DC’s mayor and chief of police.
I personally believe, without much evidence, that the Army leaders and the Chairman of the Joint Staff, was concerned that Trump might try to call for martial law and have the troops seize Congress.
In itself is open to interpretation. What is blatantly obvious to some is not to others. While I agree some people have blinders on I stand by my statement.
What he did was assholery. Many people might agree with that but again holding accountable can mean take what he did into consideration when voting, not necessarily have this being the over riding factor and ignoring all else, including who he is running against.
I do agree that if the tables were turned many staunch Republican politicians would be screaming from the mountain tops. Just as many things the republicans do is spun to try and benefit the Democrats and ignored when the democrats do the same thing. This hypocrisy is on display daily and the sad thing is that it must be effective for them to keep doing it.
No it is not.
Nobody can credibly claim that Trump did not falsely claim to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that Biden was an illegitimate PotUS and that American voters were disenfranchised.
We can watch him on video making these statements. This is blatant.
Maybe.
As I read the discussion here, Tig made the argument that Trump was negligent on the afternoon of Jan 6th. I await anyone demonstrating that was not the case.
Jeremy posted something from a congressional committee, that contains the sentence that Pence, NOT TRUMP, ordered the National Guard to the Capitol. Why? What was Trump doing while the riot was taking place? He was watching it with enthusiasm because they were his people fighting for him.
That is what Jeremy and the rest do not get.
Isn't it weird that they don't hold Biden to the same standard? or any democrat politician.
There are lots of internet forums with a tilt to the right that you may enjoy more than NT.
Yes!
You should take your own advice, it makes no sense, how Biden motivated any one to vote for him. The only motivation was to vote against Trump, can't you see that!
The economy wasn't faltering until Covid! The pandemic is what lost the election for Trump otherwise it wouldn't have even been a contest. The problem, much of what was labeled as misinformation and censored (by our government) was in fact true.
More deflection.
Do you consider it wrong for Trump to falsely claim to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that Biden was an illegitimate PotUS and that American voters were disenfranchised?
As I figured.
You pretend as though I argued the opposite. Making up both sides of an argument is a slimy tactic. My position is that Biden won largely because he was not Trump.
True. Did I write otherwise? Again, if you cannot engage in honest debate, it is slimy to invent positions for your interlocutor.
Pretty much my analysis two years ago. So yet again you illustrate a strawman argument.
Donald Trump is an obvious traitor. If you knew jackshit about what the Jan 6th committee discovered you would know that.
So you think a traitor might be the "lesser of two evils". Really?
Attaboy!!!!!!
I gave you the information. It's now a matter of you actually doing the work.
You need to pay attention to the bigger picture. There is more to it than the shit sandwich you ate from the J6 clusterfuck.
What a giant waste of my time.
Theft is theft, that's all there is too it. The fact that you want to ignore theft because it's a small amount is more telling. You continue to push that the punishment is what makes them different and what I keep saying is that theft is theft. It doesn't matter to the individual who does it, they are still taking something by theft that doesn't belong to them and yes by ONLY that definition they are equivalent. The charges and punishment for theft will change based on the volume of the matter, but it doesn't change the underlying issue of theft.
The simple fact that you refuse to acknowledge this is the problem.
I agree. If you put forth a strawman, you should expect it will fail.
It is fascinating watching you attempt to justify this nonsense.
Theft is theft. Assault is assault. Killing is killing. For that matter, crime is crime.
But within theft, assault, killing, etc. major categories lie myriad crimes with differing characteristics (including damage to individuals, property and society).
So why do we have laws and punishments for the various crimes? Why not just follow your ‘logic’ and have a single law for crime?
Bottom line, there is a material difference in both damage and consequences between stealing $1 and stealing $1,000,000. There are many crimes that fall under the major category of theft; that does not in any way make them equivalent.
Amazing that this is even a question in your mind.
Everything is open to each individual interpretation even if you don't like it. What was said, what the context was, if it was important........all of it. Just as everyone can determine exactly what "hold accountable" means to them.
I guess everyone doesn't think just like you. It seems to infuriate you.
Then when it is raining outside, you will claim that "raining" is open to interpretation.
No, RDtC, it is NOT open to interpretation when you can watch Trump speak (repeatedly, incessantly for months), listen to his words and hear him declare to the world that the USA electoral system is rigged and that he actually is the winner.
There is no room for interpretation there. He lost and the system had nothing to do with his loss. His declaration was absolutely false. It was thus wrong for him to falsely portray our system as rigged and himself as the true winner.
What prompts people like you to defend the indefensible ... to make ridiculous claims like this which you must know will not influence anyone and simply make you look foolish?
Funny, that is exactly what I think about people that keep saying everyone has to think, interpret things and agree to a punishment the way they do.
Hard telling from here. Was that comment coming from the pot or kettle...........
Lockstep is very important to some people. Heaven forbid someone has an independent thought
OK so let's look at this in a different perspective.
I will once again, for the millionth time, say Trump engaged in wrongdoing.
So, now....what do you want to do about it. A slap on the hand, on the ass, yelled at....what?
Saying an election is rigged is not illegal.
Hillary proved that by essentially blaming everyone but herself for losing and calling Trump an illegitimate president and she is walking free today.
Whatever it is you want Trump "held accountable" for, you should feel the same about Hillary
Or do you?
It is foolish to deny that Trump told the world that the USA presidential electoral system was rigged and that he is the rightful PotUS.
You might as well deny that Nixon stated: "I'm not a crook".
In both cases we have the video (many videos with Trump) with sound track.
Saying this is an matter of interpretation shows a remarkable denial of reality.
What could you possibly hope to accomplish by claiming it is a matter of interpretation that Trump told the world the electoral system was rigged and that he actually won?
( Also check out the host's comments after Trump finishes ~18:50. Seems he had no problem understanding what Trump just stated. )
Explain that to RdtC. (the millionth time
)
Who said that it was illegal? Why are you et.al. unable to deal with wrongdoing without trying to move the goalpost to criminal activity?
Hillary was wrong to use a private server and to delete emails. She should be held accountable for her wrongdoing. I think the electorate might have just done that given she wound up losing the election to —of all people— Trump.
And I have stated clearly what I think Trump should be held accountable for. There should be no need to pretend (" whatever it is you want... ") that I have been unclear.
I don't need to explain anything to him. He, too, has answered your question many, many times. Just because you do not like his answer does not mean you need to continue to pester (troll) him(us) with your persistent obtuse interrogations.
"And I have stated clearly what I think Trump should be held accountable for. "
Boy do we know, but what you have not stated is what you want to do with him for these "wrongdoings".
So tel us what you think should happen...a spanking? firing squad? A night sleeping with Hillary? What?
What is it you want to happen to someone you hate so much for some assholery "wrongdoing"?
Remember...there was no illegal activity for being an asshole.
You are not paying attention. I have stated this multiple times.
You acknowledge that Trump engaged in wrongdoing with his Big Lie. But you are ★at a loss★ as to how the electorate would hold a wrongful politician accountable. Amazing that an adult does not understand the most basic concepts of our electoral process.
He says that Trump's declaration to the world that the USA electoral system was rigged and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS is merely a matter of interpretation.
Denial of watching Trump do exactly that on video (which I provided).
Or are you going to feebly attempt to argue that Trump might have not actually done that and it depends on context / interpretation or some other equally ridiculous bullshit?
Then get off it. It is your opinion only. Others have different opinions and you fail to recognize, nor accept that. Contrary to your your narcissism is not the end all to what should be believed.
"But you are ★at a loss★ as to how the electorate would hold a wrongful politician accountable. "
I am at no such thing. Tell you what. Simply follow your own OPINION and don't vote for him, don't send money, don't support him politically. That will fulfill at least one person's belief that their opinion is the right one.
"Amazing that an adult does not understand the most basic concepts of our electoral process"
Amazing that some go to insults when others don't fall on their needs and worship at the feet of those that think they and their OPINIONS are the rule of law.
I don't care what he says. That is his opinion. You don't have to keep whining about it. Get over it and grow up.
"(which I provided)."
Nobody cares
"Or are you going to feebly attempt to argue that Trump might have not actually done that and it depends on context / interpretation or some other equally ridiculous bullshit?"
I have already told you what I thought ad nauseam. Your constant trolling to get preferred answers should really be looked at by the mods as trolling.....because that is what you are doing.
You asked and I answered. Now you complain that I answers.
If you knew what to do, why ask me what to do?
If you already know the answer then don't ask the question. If you ask a question, don't complain that it was answers. If you ask a truly stupid question, don't whine when it is called out as such.
Here is an idea that should keep you busy
Bring this up to the liberals on here. Pester (troll) them for several months with the same question, demanding they answer the exact same way YOU believe.
After all, you have done it with us for months. Maybe you can do it to them for several more months.
Thus you agree that RdtC is wrong about it being a matter of interpretation that Trump declared to the world that the USA electoral system was rigged and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS is merely a matter of interpretation.
You agree that Trump actually did that and it was wrong, thus you agree that RdtC is wrong to deny it as merely "interpretation".
We have been trying to tell you this for a very long time.
Try following your own advice for once.
It is the conservatives (not all, but too many) who are defending / supporting Trump after all he has done. It is the conservatives who, more than the libs, engage in mind-numbingly feeble arguments / deflection / lies and other tactics in a hopeless attempt to defend Trump. And they do so even though defending Trump is what gives him the power to ruin the GOP's chances for the presidency in 2024.
That level of dishonesty and non-thinking is the 800lb gorilla in this room. Right now, it is the conservatives / GOP supporters who are far more irrational / emotional and living in a fantasy world so that is who I will wind up challenging the most.
What I agree is that you need to bring this up to him and stop trolling others to call someone out simply for their opinion that you don't like.
I think you meant to type "who I will be trolling the most"
It's obvious you don't want to ruffle fellow leftist feathers with the same incessant questions about your queen Hillary.
Another failure by you et. al. is to engage in presumption via stereotype. You apparently presume that simply because I am for holding Trump accountable that somehow this means I am a Hillary supporter.
Your presumption causes you to be wrong and thus make foolish comments.
Nope...don't presume.
Your hatred for one person and insistence others follow suit in your hatred shows your undying support for another.
Take my challenge. Ask the same questions you pestered us about Trump and his "wrongdoings" to liberals.
Troll them until you get the answer you want...or don't want to hear.
Right back atcha
Your stubborn insistence that I am a Hillary supporter illustrates the profound failure of reason which underlies your comments. You truly have no clue what you are babbling about.
You have zero right to tell us what we are or are not presenting. Your insistence we follow suit with your forever fantasy of Trump has devolved long ago into trolling.
You insist we respond to your "challenges" but refuse to follow suit. We know why and it is obvious.
My advice is that you get over it. Find something else to fester on. Trump will be gone one day and you can rejoice, but for now, stop with the infatuation and find a different hobby other than trolling.
Just a little friendly advice.
We all have the right to challenge any comment on the site. Deal with it or go find an echo chamber (what you apparently want).
My advice to you and everyone else who is not trying to push Trump out of the GOP is that any support / defense you give Trump makes him that much more able to be the spoiler for the GOP.
How you do not comprehend that is fascinating (and pathetic).
Yes, we do, but we don't have he right to troll other members. Well, apparently some do as we have seen over and over with you, et al.
"Deal with it or go find an echo chamber (what you apparently want)."
Sorry, but it is obvious those here on the left want this site to be an echo chamber and they are getting close to what they (you, et al) want.
"My advice to you and everyone else"
We, et a;, didn't ask for it, but thanks anyway.
"support / defense you give Trump "
We, et al, are not doing any such thing, however, when you, et al infatuate over some "wrongdoings" for months on end are the ones keeping him in the news. Most conservatives, including me, et al, would like him to go away.
"How you do not comprehend that is fascinating (and pathetic)."
What is pathetic is your, et al"s infatuation of one man.
Trump is discussed because he is still relevant and, importantly, he is running for the GOP nomination. He remains relevant because people continue to support and defend him. Trump supporters like you react to news of Trump by attempting to downplay his wrongdoing and make excuses for him. For years now, Trump supporters denied Trump's wrongdoing and deflected with the cliche "so why has he not been indicted?", "what crime did he commit?", etc. This is obviously a (feeble) defense of Trump that 'argues' if Trump has not been convicted of a crime no one has a right to criticize his actions.
When that obvious nonsense is challenged, Trump supporters complain that they are being treated unfairly by mean people trying to tell them how to think. (An attempt to play victim.) There is no argument made, just slimy tactics like ignoring reality, strawman claims, deflection, projection (what you have been doing mostly), faux obtuseness, etc. When that fails, the "victim" takes things personal ... moving from criticism of the comment content to attacks on the comment author.
Ultimately the pathetic game is to say whatever one can dream up to attack those mean Trump critics who dare criticize Trump and who dare challenge individuals to back up their defense of Trump. It does not matter if one makes foolish 'arguments' (like stating it is mere interpretation that Trump was wrong to declare to the world the USA electoral system was rigged) because the main objective is not to make a cogent, adult argument, but rather to get a high-five for attacking (no matter how feeble) those mean critics of Trump.
Your tactics are obvious, who do you think you are fooling?
[DELETED]
Nice rant but a failed one.
You whined that I called you a Hillary supporter without backup, but then you label me as a Trump supporter, also without backup.
Saying far leftists (you, et al) are fucking up by infatuating on Trump is an understatement.
John, I have handed you your ass many, many times on here. You, on the other hand, have never done the same with any conservative
BTW.....have you ever come up with any proof of those hundreds of "I hate Trump" and " we got him now" seeds over the years.
At last count(today), the answer remains NO.
Well, 'bugsy', I have never supported Hillary and have stated numerous times that she was a horrible candidate. You, however, have a history of defending Trump. So, basically, you deliver bullshit.
On top of that, your labels (e.g. calling me a far leftist) show that you are simply here to troll.
Finally, your laughably stupid list of defining characteristics of "the far far left" shows that you have no idea what you are yapping about.
You made my point. Great job.
"On top of that, your labels (e.g. calling me a far leftist) show that you are simply here to troll. "
No, demanding others answer your same question over and over and over again, not letting up when the question has been answered numerous times, or when it was not answered per your approved response.... is trolling.
"Finally, your laughably stupid list of defining characteristics of "the far left" shows that you have no idea what you are yapping about"
Oh, I know.
I have been dealing with one on here for the last several days. A definite far leftist.
BTW...you never answered my question I posed to you before.
What accountability do you believe Hillary should face from her "wrongdoings" during and after the 2016 election?
Every witness called by the J6 Committee was a Republican; a dismissive comment without a single word of specific rebuttal offers nothing of value. It’s just a rant.
As long as the DNC can find 80 million votes without a functioning candidate (or an incumbent candidate with a terrible record), the GOP may be doomed anyway.
[DELETED]
Previously they wore disguises?
Somehow only Trump was a sore loser.
What does that say about our critical thinkers?
The GOP (healthy) could clearly win with a quality candidate. Not in 2024 (likely) but in the future if they detach from Trump.
That many Trumpsters are not among them.
Vic, one of the reasons I engage you in an adversarial manner is because of crap like this. You are yet again trying to insult those of us who espouse critical thinking and you yet again do it with blatant intellectual dishonesty.
Vic, Jeremy and Just Jim, if all that Trump did was be a sore loser, he (and that) would be merely a historical footnote at this point. Kind of like how Hillary's sour grapes is now.
Trump went waaaaaay beyond merely being a sore loser. One would have to be delusional to deem the actions Trump took during his Big Lie campaign as merely being a sore loser.
For example:
(I have more)
Comments like yours are counterproductive for you. They inspire people to engage you as an adversary while illustrating blatant intellectual dishonesty on your part.
At this point, in my opinion, we are way past the point when it makes any sense to try and reason with these people. Tig, they dont know about any of the things you bring up about trumps guilt, because they dont want to know, and these things are not brought up in the right wing media they get almost all their news from. Time after time on this forum Vic and these others have demonstrated that they dont know what they dont know. They would rather argue from a place of ignorance than learn the truth about their hero.
You mean like the Democrats did in 2016. I think the difference is there wasn't investigation after investigation spawned like we saw with the Democrats "Big Lie" that wasted millions.
Vic gave you 3 examples of Democrats doing exactly what you are all up in arms about with Trump. Yet, you are silent. I recommend you start being intellectually honest. Don't get all pissy because we (Vic, Jim and myself) won't capitulate to your narrow view of things. All three of us have pointed out issues coming from both sides of this. Being critical of what the left and democrats are doing isn't "defending Trump". You've dismissed them all as "defending Trump". Reality is, that's all in YOUR mind.
I agree. Reasoning is pointless. Calling out the foolishness is what is left.
I just made it crystal clear that Trump merely being a sore loser is NOT why I and others continue to criticize Trump.
And your reply ignores that and attempts to distill all that Trump did to merely being a sore loser.
Who is dumb enough to buy your nonsense?
What you've actually made crystal clear is your hypocrisy over this whole thing. If you are good with the likes of Clinton, Gore and Abrams making the same claim then it's hypocritical to be outraged over Trump. If you are willing to overlook the investigations spawned by Clinton's claim then it's hypocritical to get outraged over Trump.
My reply doesn't ignore it. You just don't like it because it includes Democrats and the left's similar actions.
More cliche bullshit from you.
You continue to try to reduce Trump's wrongdoing into merely being a sore loser.
You ignore what people write [deleted]
You draw an equivalence between a mountain of wrongdoing by Trump and a relative molehill of wrongdoing by Clinton, Gore, Abrams, etc. This is nonsense [deleted]
[deleted]
What I'm doing is not giving in to your hypocrisy. You want to be outraged by one, you need to be outraged by them all.
You or Tig haven't proven anything differently. All we've heard is variations of "orange man bad" with some accusation and nothing to back it up. A comparison is made (with video proof) and you both ignore it and continue on with your ranting and raving.
This is the indication that you have nothing. Being critical of what the left and democrats are doing isn't "defending Trump". You've dismissed them all as "defending Trump". Reality is, that's all in YOUR mind.
You are falsely claiming that my objection to Trump is merely him being a sore loser.
I have told you that this is incorrect and have explained that my objections are way beyond merely being a sore loser.
You ignore what I write, put words in my mouth and falsely (trollishly) call me a hypocrite.
Pathetic. Who do you think is stupid enough to buy your bullshit?
[deleted]
Where are your facts, quotes, links, statistics? All you do is regurgitate crap like "orange man bad", as if there is not more than a decade of trump being a low life. Remember his birther lies? That was 2011. 12 years ago and its been all downhill since then.
[Deleted] If you pay attention to what I and others have told you it would be apparent.
We have told you time and again - Being critical of what the left and democrats are doing isn't "defending Trump". NONE of use said we support the former POTUS. That's all in your head. Use that critical thinking you claimed to use in 1.1.116.
So you are changing gears to "he lied". So he's different than any other politician. You know like the ones that claimed "russia collusion" when they realized they lost an election.
Of course merely being critical of "the left" and democrats is not ipso facto defending Trump. Another bit of nonsense you simply made up.
Defending Trump means making excuses for Trump, deflecting from criticism of Trump, refusing to acknowledge that Trump has even engaged in wrongdoing (your GOP cohorts are leaving you behind here ... several of them have mustered the strength to actually acknowledge reality ... you still refuse to even acknowledge wrongdoing).
And your pitiful attempt to argue that all Trump did was be a "sore loser" is a clear example of defending Trump.
You agreed that being critical of the left and Democrats ISN'T defending him to "if you don't agree you are defending him" all in one run on sentence. If you want me to capitulate that he did something wrong then prove to me he did something wrong. So far, everything you and the rest of the left and Democrats have brought to the table has failed. I'm not going to give a nod to an OPINION that I don't agree with.
I wasn't trying to show he was a "sore loser". That's you. I, like Vic, was merely pointing out your hypocrisy. And you backed up that hypocrisy several times.
I have come to the conclusion, based on reading the posts here, that no matter what you say, you will be accused of 'defending Trump' and absolutely nothing you could ever write will change that.
The evidence is clear.
I noticed it as well. The only way to change that is to give in to their opinion and that's not going to happen.
Yet you are quite about Clinton making similar comments.
Why be silent about one and have your panties in a wad over the other?
I think everyone on this forum knows that you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing of Trump in the Big Lie campaign. You responses are akin to those of a flat-Earther ... denying the obvious.
Again you flat out lie; I have weighed in on Hillary multiple times in this forum. Hillary said the election was stolen from her; she is a sore loser. You desperately try to pretend that all Trump did in his Big Lie campaign was make a few mentions that the election was stolen from him.
I suspect everyone on this forum knows (including you) that Trump went way beyond merely being a sore loser. And if you have forgotten, here is a list of wrongdoings by Trump that are well beyond mere "sore loser" related to his Big Lie campaign ... a list which you refuse to acknowledge as wrongdoings:
You want to wrap all this up into a nice little package and label it: "Just Trump being a sore loser". That, Jeremy, is you (feebly) defending Trump (with a lie, no less).
I base it on what you and others have posted. If I am not supposed to believe what I read, do alert me.
Do you think Hillary should be held accountable by saying the 2016 election was stolen from her and blaming everyone but herself for her loss?
Do you think by her saying these things played a part in all of the rioting for days after the 2016 election?
There are none so blind as those who will not see
I see said the blind carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw.
They have said this same thing literally hundreds of times since 2020, with perhaps a slightly different wordage here and there. It is perhaps a mental illness at this point.
Donald Trump alleged that there was an organized attempt to cheat him across the entire span of the United States. He claimed voter fraud in Arizona and he claimed voter fraud in Georgia and Wisconsin and Michigan. His claims were visibly absurd. Hillary Clinton claimed that Russian internet propaganda (which Trump approved of) tipped the election to Trump. Two entirely different things.
The thing that is really mind blowing to me is that Trump let everyone know in advance that he would claim voter fraud if he lost (just as he had done in 2016) and still people cant see what is going on. When you make it known before the election that you are going to be cheated if you lose and then it (losing) comes to pass it is a self-fulfilling prophecy so to speak.
Trump had a throw the kitchen sink at it approach to contesting the election. He claimed that dead people voted, he claimed that mail in votes for him were hijacked and dumped in remote places. He claimed that poll workers produced votes out of thin air, he claimed that voting machines were manipulated against him from foreign countries. He claimed that mail-in votes for Biden were counted twice. He claimed that people with fake id's voted against him. Anyone who needs to claim he was cheated in a dozen different ways, across multiple states, is full of shit. Period.
Excuse me everyone for thinking this through. It is easier to be a Trumpster and just hide your head in the sand.
I'll tell you what has been done hundreds, if not thousands of times, is the hundreds, if not thousands of "we got him now" seeds one particular member has seeded here over the years, zero with proof and none has come to fruition.
"We got him now" has become the rallying cry of a deluded cult.
Fuck off Bugsy. Read my comment again [Deleted]
[Deleted]
Do you think Hillary should be held accountable by saying the 2016 election was stolen from her and blaming everyone but herself for her loss?
Don't you remember my answer? I told you that it is wrong for anyone (and that includes Hillary and Trump) to falsely declare that an election was stolen. Especially if the claim is by a presidential candidate (or worse, the sitting PotUS). The problem is that causes people to incorrectly doubt the integrity of the USA electoral system, voting technology etc.
That is not good, the claims are wrong and the claimers should be held accountable.
Now, you also asked me how Hillary should be accountable for her sour grapes. Well, if she were running for office the obvious way to hold her accountable is to not promote her and not vote for her. Since she is retired, she simply loses face.
For Trump, however, the accountability is at a broader scope and much deeper. Trump went waaaaay beyond mere sour grapes (did you notice?). Plus Trump is running for office. I think you should be able to figure out proper accountability for Trump.
Now bookmark this comment because unlike you, I do not try to weasel out of answering direct questions. Next time you want to ask me the same question, refer to my answer here (it will almost certainly still be correct).
You should already know that when a public person (especially a presidential candidate or PotUS) makes a claim against the government, that will trigger millions of people. Those triggers can easily lead to riots. So it would not surprise me if people acted on her sour grapes attitude.
Now, if you think Hillary's relatively few comments played a part in rioting you surely must think that Trump's over-the-top, incessant claims of a rigged election, etc. triggered millions of his supporters and played a key part in the insurrection.
So do you think Trump's Big Lie campaign played a key part in the Jan 6th insurrection?
“…I'll tell you what has been done hundreds, if not thousands of times, is the hundreds, if not thousands of "we got him now" seeds…”
…focus on seeds and seeders as you feel compelled. But do not ignore the reality.
And yet you fail to hold her (and the Democrats) tot he same standard you are trying to apply to the former POTUS. Which brings in that hypocrisy I mentioned earlier.
And we've seen Clinton and the Democrats have gone further with their fabricated accusations. And yet, again, you fail to hold them to the same standard you trying to apply to the former POTUS.
So you gave a whish list. Now back them up for once. Hell, some of the accusations you make aren't even illegal. And some done by Democrats. But you're silent about them. Which, again, brings in that hypocrisy. But don't let that slow your rant.
What an utterly stupid claim. There is no equivalence of Hillary's sour grapes and Trump's Big Lie.
A perfect example of trolling. You literally make up allegations about me that contradict / ignore what I have written for years.
Again, I have listed wrongdoings and explicitly distinguished them from crimes. No doubt the entire forum understands this by now. You have no argument so you substitute blatant lies.
You refuse to hold Trump accountable ... you refuse to even acknowledge his wrongdoing. What do you think you will accomplish by denying reality and then inventing lies? Attempting to use the Trump model?
If Trump secures the GOP nomination, those like you will be the reason.
Your hissy fit is proving that statement false.
Maybe if you don't pay attention. But we already know where you stand on that one.
Actually it's a perfect example of you throwing a fit because I'm telling you what you don't want to hear.
You've listed. That's it. A wish list. No different than a child's letter to Santa.
Being critical of what the left and democrats are doing isn't "defending Trump". No matter how many times you say it.
Feel free to prove them as such.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bragg and his minions have got to be getting just a bit panicked by now just knowing what shaky ground his case is on.
Better for the nation if Bragg does get out of the way. Trump's actions as PotUS are what make a difference historically and as part of the big picture. His shady dealings as a private citizen pale in comparison.
Grand jury is not running on your personal schedule, and are taking a pre-planned time off from their duties. And somehow you translate that to mean they are on "shaky ground"?
that's what happens when a Soros-backed idiot DA campaigns on getting someone.
if the case is such a slam dunj, it shouldn't take so long
Exactly right. They've had witness after witness and a little over a week ago the anticipated ending, Trump in handcuffs or not, could have been the end. They don't have the 12 votes and are dragging it out to try and wear out the hold outs.
Not to mention that Bragg is trying to get a indictment on a non capital case that is seven years old that the statute of limitations expired on after five years. That's why he is on such shaky ground and he knows it I'm sure.
The five year statute of limitations is for felony charges. The initial issue of bookkeeping is a misdemeanor which has a two year statute of limitations, the only way Bragg can elevate this to a felony from what I understand is if he adds in federal campaign finance laws which the state really can't do. So I'm really waiting to see exactly what he is trying to charge Trump with.
Show me where the DA claimed it was a slam dunk.
2 points.
His whole campaign was predicated on it. If that isn't an arrogant proclamation that is was a "slam dunk" what the hell was it?
Yes I was
See 1.2.10
show me where I said he did.
many fine folks here have already convicted Trump.
without basing it on facts.
is this the Durham investigation or are you deflecting?
Especially someone who hates Trump as much as Soros does.
He's playing the wet spaghetti noodle on the wall trick and is desperate to find something that might stick. He may also be afraid Soros will pull the funding out from under him for the next election campaign. There is probably a lot riding on this case.
That may be, but also might not be relevant or germain to this particular case.
Not sure I follow. If you are saying that Bragg does not care about the big picture, I would tend to agree with you.
All I'm saying is that his sole focus is on the Stormy Daniels case right now, nothing else.
I'll go with #2 for the win.
His = Trump or His = Bragg?
If Bragg, I have already stated my agreement.
If Trump, I am not so sure about that.
His = Bragg.
So you are making this claim based on something someone unrelated to the investigation said? Awesome work there........
No. I am saying it based on how many TDS sufferers have told us that Trump is guilty as hell. And how they really, really got Trump NOW!
Maybe in your haste to deflect, you didn't read all the comments here.
That does not even apply to your claim that it was a "slam dunk" according to your unnamed source.
Maybe in your haste you forgot what YOUR comment was about. Either that or you are once again spinning and dodging your best to deflect from what you actually claimed.
Why are there so many gnats here?
They show up when their attempts to "get Trump" fail and try to distract you away from said failure.
You can’t possibly conclude that since the indictment is sealed!
thank you for your obviously important "contribution".
Since the indictment is sealed, you don’t know what the 30 some charges are, thus your “shaky ground” opinion is whistling passed the cemetery.
actually when one actually takes time to read and comprehend my post, one finds i never said it was a slam dunk, but feel free to invent something else you wanted me to say but never did.
It’s not clear that a statute of limitations clock starts while a SITTING POTUS CANNOT BE INDICTED BECAUSE OF a DOJ RULE written in 1973 preventing it.
There is no law in existence that prevents a sitting President from being indicted.
My statement was based on info available before the indictment was sealed. Check the time frame of my original statement.
Where did Bragg find jurors who can afford to skip so much work? Don't these jurors have other things they need to do?
40 dollars a day? That’s pretty good money for someone too stupid to get out of Jury duty.
Some people take their civic duties to heart. Some people have employers who grant them time for jury duty.
I have lived in my current location for 26 years. I’ve always wanted to serve on a jury because I thought it would be interesting and I fortunate to be granted paid time off while serving. I finally got a summons to potentially service on a Federal Grand Jury and a County Jury in the summer of 2020. Unfortunately, health issues kept me from both. I hope I get another summons.
If only I lived in DC. That's the kind of jury I'd want to be on, especially in any case involving Trump.
You may recall the movie "twelve angry men?" I can guarantee 11 real pissed off, frustrated jurors
I was on a two year wheel and served on three trials during that time. Actually I think two were on the State wheel and one was federal. It was interesting but a little concerning that a few on the jury did not take it as seriously as they should have. One of the cases was a "Christmas shipment" of cocaine going from a southern state to New York in a Winnebago. They caught them in Tennessee and let them head to New York to be part of a sting. It was like watching an episode on CSI when they do a major drug bust. It was all on film.
Thanks, I not sure what a two year wheel means . I don’t think we have them in VA. As I remember, both of my summons would have been juries for 1 specific case.
Back in the 90's a two year wheel meant you were put in a pool of names and could serve on a trial up to 3 times (I believe) in the two years and not be called to serve after the two years were up. Not sure if that is what it is now but I do know I have not been called to serve after my 2 years was up. I was actually called about a half dozen times but only actually served on a few trials. The rest were just waisted days in a waiting room until they told you that you would not be on a trial and could go home.
Do you really thing prospective jurors admit that they have an opinion?
Most likely, I'd never be called in Manhatten or DC because I have an (R) behind my name.
Vic,
Are you implying you would lie?
And that is why you are not jury material.
No, I'd be honest.
Do you think Donald Trump is going to get a fair trial via a Manhattan jury?
Do you think that Trump is being treated fairly with this?
Well, obviously the 6th amendment isn't going to be used - "jury of his peers" just doesn't ring true in Manhattan. I mean - how many millionaires/billionaires will be on the Trump cases???? A cab driver his peer? A chef his peer - c'mon - let's really be honest 'cause there won't be a damn peer on the jury(ies).
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Thompson vs Utah - 170 U.S. 343, 349-350 (1898)
“The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . . [T]he jury trial provisions . . . reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power—a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power . . . found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence.”
I was called for jury duty a few years back. Had to decline.
Was suffering from long covid. Still am. Might just kill me yet.
And here is a sampling of the jurors being selected on Trump juries:
Evidently, the leftwing media finally got her to shut up!
Trump's defense may seek a change of venue. I suppose the most they can hope for is Staten Island.
I'm predicting a guilty verdict to be quickly overturned by an Appeals Court. In the meantime the cases (should the others be prosecuted) should drag out through the 2024 election. So the political trials of a Presidential candidate will stink to high heaven and will rally support for Trump. Ron DeSantis may have to pass on being a candidate in this election, giving democrats what they want: to run again against Trump. It was all well planned and as far as the left is concerned, the country be damned.
Juries are never selected based on who can monetarily afford to miss work. And I explained that Easter and Passover results in many school children at home necessitating child care for young children and/or family trips.
The pause was in deference to what millions of Americans regularly deal with every year at this time.
Well, duh. That's a carefully worded statement of the obvious. However, hardship for the individual or their employer is a legitimate justification for being excused from serving on a jury.
Hence the pre-planned break. Most competent district attorneys are aware of holidays and avoid convening a grand jury around those holidays. There wasn't any urgency for convening this particular grand jury so that it's work would be interrupted by the holidays.
Why did Alvin Bragg convene this particular grand jury knowing that its work would be interrupted by the holidays? Obviously Alvin Bragg knew since the break was pre-planned. Convening a grand jury that is not engaged in urgent business and whose work must be interrupted by a pre-planned pause gives credence to allegations that Alvin Bragg is playing politics.
Well, duh yourself.
Trump sent his attorney Bob Costello to stand on the street corner in front of the cameras to denigrate Michael Cohen, which then added a witness, a delay tactic so typical of Donald Trump. And now you have an answer to your rhetorical question. No need to thank me just consider me the dispassionate chronicler of events.
Dispassionate doesn't seem to be an appropriate label. And defending Michael Cohen doesn't seem to be an appropriate addition to a discussion about Alvin Bragg's grand jury or Alvin Bragg's management of the schedule for that grand jury to do its work.
Just keep in mind that a grand jury can also serve as a prosecutor's scapegoat. Perhaps that has been pre-planned, as well.
"Dispassionate" applies to making an argument with specifics, a.k.a. "facts". A fact is a fact and whether or not stated as such unequivocally, whether or not its presenter has an emotional tie to it, IT IS NEVERTHELESS, still a fact.
I'm neither defending nor castigating Cohen, rather, delineating his culpability WHICH IRONICALLY IMPLICATES TRUMP as "INDIVIDUAL ONE" … BECAUSE Cohen's CULPABILITY IS INSEPARABLY TIED TO TRUMP'S DIRECTING HIM TO MAKE A CASH PAYMENT that TRUMP could, and, subsequently did, FRAUDULENTLY claim as "LEGAL FEES" for services rendered for him by Cohen rather than hush money to Stormy Daniels!
"Just keep in mind that a grand jury can also serve as a prosecutor's scapegoat. Perhaps that has been pre-planned, as well."
You're going to need to explain that; if a grand jury votes to indict, it does so based on testimony it heard from various sources.
I've explained the "scheduling" at least three times now; as additional witnesses came forward (Trump's lawyer Costello, David Pecker, and who knows, maybe even Weisselberg who figured "why should I suffer in Riker's if Trump's going to be indicted - my loyalty to Trump, now only get's me more prison time.
The additional witness time took the procedure to EASTER/PASSOVER week and for that reason, deference to what has been perennially "family time" in America.
Saw "12 Angry Men" back when I was a kid and always thought that I'd make a good juror.
The first time I get called up I am dealing with serious long covid symptons.
I turned down the role of juror # 3
Of course. If it's at all possible enough reasons can be discovered or manufactured to keep a trial from occurring until after the 2024 elections. After all, its been a pretty successful stall so far. So much for "Justice delayed is Justice denied." (William E. Gladstone)
Or to try to make sure it does happen. Just a matter of perspective.
It sure would have been nice to have been a D.A. in America - it wouldn't have taken too many cases for a lifetime of paid service. When it takes at least two years to bring a case to trial - 25 cases is a life's work. If I were an accused I'd damn well plead that I've been denied justice, as in Gladstone's quotation.
Maybe that's just a perk for Soros-backed DA's?
What's the perk for Lonard Leo backed DAs?
Don't you know?
Now that is hilarious. It appears the case isn't that important if they are taking time off.
An indictment on a charge that the statute of limitations ran out on more than 4 years ago?
It's at what, 7 years now?
You know the Democrats only apply laws that fit what they want.
"...a previously scheduled two week hiatus."
Yeah right, now that sure was convenient wasn't it? Bragg probably set that up to try to figure out how he in going to get his behind out of the quagmire he has created!
My money is that he realized he is just another in a long line of prosecutors who failed and is trying to cover his ass.
That and how he is going to explain his screwups and failures to his election sugar daddy George Soros.
They took time off to relocate because of all of the far right wing threats.
How much do I have to drink for that to even be remotely plausible?
"NEW YORK (AP) — The Manhattan grand jury investigating hush money paid on Donald Trump's behalf is scheduled to consider other matters next week before taking a previously scheduled two-week hiatus, a person familiar with the matter said Wednesday. That means a vote on whether or not to indict the former president likely wouldn't come until late April at the earliest."
PAY ATTENTION TRUMPERS; THIS WEEK millions of school kids will be out-of-school because both Easter and Passover will be celebrated AND MANY FAMILIES TYPICALLY ARE IN CHILD-CARE and/or TRAVEL situations which have been given deference to JURY MEMBERS as a common courtesy.
And references to George Soros are ANTISEMITIC TROPES, typical of individuals who have no facts to substantiate allegations … so they appeal to the "blame the Jews" crowd, an integral component of the current GOP!
Such bullshit.
It is well known Soros has donated millions to either candidates themselves or groups that in turn take those donations and give them to candidates Soros wants to back
This not a secret and anyone making these accusations are dishonest and use the word antisemetic like they would use the word racist.
It no longer has meaning.
The Antisemitism Lurking Behind George Soros Conspiracy Theories
The connections between him and Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, are real but overstated. In reality, Mr. Soros donated to a liberal group that endorses progressive prosecutors and supports efforts to overhaul the criminal justice system — in line with causes that he has publicly supported for years. That group used a significant portion of the money to support Mr. Bragg in his 2021 campaign.
A spokesman for Mr. Soros said that the two men had never met, nor had Mr. Soros given money directly to Mr. Bragg’s campaign.
It is an undeniable fact that Soros has funded some far-left individuals in their campaign as DA's.
The same DAs who are soft on crime.
How convenient that the Fishwrap of Record failed to note that Soros gave a million bucks to a PAC that donated to Bragg's campaign.
Crying anti-Semitism every time Soros is criticized for supporting soft-on-crime DA's is a child-like response to legitimate criticism.
Instead of crying about it, why not simply defend the idiot DAs he helped put in office. Defend their track records.
Exactly.
When people consistently, falsely accuse others of anti-Semitism, racism, fascism, etc., they are really displaying their own lack of knowledge and jumping on some bandwagon they don't even understand.
Jewish Reporters Harassed By Trump's Anti-Semitic Supporters
Trump attacks American Jews, says they must 'get their act together' on Israel 'before it's too late'
Trump accuses Jewish leaders of a lack of ‘loyalty’
Trump had dinner with two avowed antisemites. Let’s call this what it is
Shall I go on?
Not at all necessary if you are going to simply label any and all legitimate criticism of Soros as anti-Semitic.
That is and always has been a poor, weak argument, and calling everything anti-Semitic is a poor defense.
"Not at all necessary if you are going to simply label any and all legitimate criticism of Soros as anti-Semitic."
LEGITIMATE CRITICISM … emphasis on LEGITIMATE.
Soros has nothing to do with Trump's indictment … NOTHING! The fact that he contributed to an entity that funded a number of candidates has nothing to do with the indictment. To bring in Soros's name under those circumstances is to imply the decision of a grand jury, was influenced by a JEW to whom somehow Bragg is indebted.
I did not "simply label any and all legitimate criticism of Soros as anti-Semitic." YOU IMPLIED THAT I DID! Go back and read what I wrote.
" … calling everything anti-Semitic is a poor defense."
I didn't do that, YOU IMPLIED THAT I DID!
Your views are clear from your statements here. No need to try and walk any of it back now.
Soros backed Brag, who vowed in his campaign to "get Trump".
I see no where here that anyone said Soros was responsible for Trump's indictment, although his hefty campaign contributions undoubtedly helped elect the man who wanted to do his bidding.
"Your views are clear from your statements here. No need to try and walk any of it back now."
Please QUOTE VERBATIM to which of my views you refer, and, then SPECIFICALLY state the "views" they make clear to you.
Making pronouncements without backing them with specifics seems to be what you do.
I DID NOT STATE that anyone said "Soros was responsible for Trump's indictment," I responded to all those references in this thread to Soros, and that merely by doing so, the tactic intends to, and in fact does, invite antisemitism to unjustifiably become implicit.
You seem unable to argue point-counterpoint. Quote precisely any of my comments to which you take exception and DO SO WITHOUT MAKING ALLEGATIONS, INNUENDOS or CONCLUSIONS unless you can factually rebut them.
I do believe these are your words which were located in post 5.
Correct me if you didn't write that crap.
Of course your claim is bullshit, no reasonable person would believe that any reference to Soros is an ANTISEMITIC TROPE.
Don;t you even remember what you wrote?
I just did so by quoting your very own words to you.
[Deleted]
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An integral component of the left is to accuse others of things just because they want to shut them down.
Much like they use the no longer have meaning words like racist, white supremacist, nazi, etc.
[Deleted]
We know the left uses words like Uncle Tom to describe a black person that identifies as a conservative.
[Deleted]
Exactly what was it I just "did"?
Please leave your feelings out of it.
[Deleted. Stop asking insulting loaded questions.]
[Deleted]
You asked a loaded question with an implied allegation and did that to evade the fact that Soros’s name was tossed into this as the typical red meat deflection, I specifically explained the pause which you failed to acknowledge.
Then came the MAGA LOADED QUESTION ABOUT how did Bragg find jurors
There was no loaded question.
You accused ANYONE that tried to tie Soros to Bragg as anti semetic. That is insulting and taunting, but apparently allowed here.
[Your insults were directed personally at another Newstalker.]
[Deleted]
That is factual, proven and exactly 100% correct. Reactionary propagandists and neo-fascist fellow travelers might continue to lie and try to deny it, but no one sane is buying their crap.
And here I was actually hoping that Jewish space lasers existed.
An example of loony progressive logic at work:
Rational Person: Soros spends tens of millions to elect progressive prosecutors.
Progressive: No he doesn't,
Rational Person: Soros wrote an op-eds bragging about it. Here it is.
Progressive: It's racist to criticize Soros. [Deleted]
Michael Cohen was indicted by the TRUMP DOJ FOR A CRIME WHERIN TRUMP IS INDIVIDUAL ONE! It’s the very basis for the indictment of Trump. Unless Soros was Stormy Daniel’s pimp, he has no direct nor even indirect bearing on the indictment any more than the Koch brothers nor any other backer of political candidates!
So now you are believing a convicted felon who is only trying to get his ass out of trouble.
You do realize Cohen also stated in a written statement that he paid the money out of his own pocket and Trump had nothing to do with it.
Now, which one of those statements is a lie?
He's the prosecutor. It was literally his decision to go forward with this after six years.
You know, the thoroughly political prosecutor who bases his decision on who to charge with a crime based on politics..
It's a murder!
Wait, I'm being attacked for charging the person and it will hurt my popularity?
Just kidding!
The NEW YORK POST … owned by Rupert Murdoch!
Sean, you know better. The DOJ Office of Legal Council created a RULE in 1973 … NOT A LAW, an arbitrary RULE preventing the prosecution of a sitting POTUS!
In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.
“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.
The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution.
Do your homework before challenging my assertions.
Otherwise, after all these years, I hope you are safe and well, Sean.
Cohen paid the money out of his own pocket at the direction of Donald Trump and did so in order that Trump could reimburse him from a business account. And why would Trump do this? He did it in order to report the payments of reimbursement as legal fees for Michael Cohen, a fraudulent claim and cover-up for the reality of the hush money payment.
That could be a felony.
That applies to the DOJ, not local district attorneys. Regardless, Trump has not been President for over two years. Many crimes (including the underlying one Trump is charged with) have a 2 year statute of limitation.
Bragg literally campaigned on indicting Trump. CAMPAIGNED!. and then it took him another two plus years to figure out how to do it. The idea this isn't political is pure, unadulterated nonsense.
o your homework before challenging my assertions.
I have, and I don't think you've actually addressed what I wrote.
all these years, I hope you are safe and well, Sean.
The feeling is mutual. Be well.
The Constitution does not mention prosecution by a state of a sitting president. But the Constitution neither created the states nor granted them power, for the states pre-existed the Constitution. Thus, where the Constitution limits state power, it typically does so explicitly, and it is silent on whom the states may prosecute.
But, any state or local prosecution/indictment of a sitting POTUS, despite a pre-1788 does not EXPLICITLY limit the inherent "political" & public fallout regarding such a step, deference to the OLC memo cries "err on the side of caution" to would-be state and local officials.
"Bragg literally campaigned on indicting Trump. CAMPAIGNED!"
WASHINGTON – For a second straight presidential election, President Donald Trump is calling for the arrest and prosecution of his political opponents, never mind a total lack of probable cause.
There has never been a law about not being able to indict a President or ex-President.
OK....and?
An NDA is still not illegal.
You are showing a random check made out to Cohen, probably one of many over the years. How do you even know this check is authentic?
We know many leftists like to make up crap all the time.
Again....Cohen has made the statement that he paid the money out of his own funds, without the knowledge of Trump.
So, again....was he lying then, or is he lying now to save his ass?
I stated that. It's a long standing RULE of the OCL of the DOJ; In recent years, Mueller declined to recommend indictment of Trump based on the memo!
What's your point in noting what has already been noted?
Mueller himself has said:
Mueller corrected that in the very article you linked!
"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
Former special counsel testified Wednesday that he did not indict President Donald Trump on obstruction of justice charges because of Department of Justice guidelines barring a sitting president from being indicted — but later clarified his remarks. Jul 24, 2019
Gee, a reasonable person could read that and determine that Mueller could not find enough credible evidence to indict Trump even without the memo coming into play.
I think you are as wrong about this as you are for calling criticism of Soros anti-Semitism.
Apparently SG's of calling anyone that links Bragg to Soros is OK on here.
heck, he went even further and said that the MENTION of Soros was anti-Semitic.
"Again....Cohen has made the statement that he paid the money out of his own funds, without the knowledge of Trump."
Trump Admits To Authorizing Stormy Daniels Payoff, Denies Sexual Encounter
That admission directly contradicts what the president told reporters less than a month ago. Trump denied knowledge of the payments, telling reporters on Air Force One, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney. You'll have to ask Michael."
Even if true, where is the illegality of it?
Again, NDAs are legal and are completed every single day.
At least Soros is not a fascist. He believes in and funds regular folk.
I bet you have never even MET a fascist.
"Even if true, where is the illegality of it?"
If the payment is fraudulently reported as, instead of a campaign finance related payment, as a "payment to Michael Cohen" for "legal fees" as a cover-up, and in addition, made from a "business account" and fraudulently claimed as a business expense, that could be a felony.
"Again, NDAs are legal and are completed every single day."
A Non-Disclosure agreement to conceal a crime - Courts have found that an NDA that attempts to bar someone from reporting a crime is against public policy.
Do you ever say "I stand corrected"
That one word right there shows the desperation of the triggered left just hoping beyond hope that this comes to fruition.
Again, you are taking the word of a convicted felon who lied to try and get out of prison time.
Yes, I have stated "I stand corrected" on here, but this is not one of those times.
You're completely misconstruing A. Macarthur's comment. That shows the utter desperation of the Trump cultists when faced with the reality of their Lord's predicament.
That statement shows that you have no understanding of how conspiracy cases are almost always proved in Court. Furthermore, you are also apparently unaware that it is being reported that there is corroborating evidence.
More pronouncement and an apparent willingness to avoid acknowledging Cohen’s felony having been directed by Trump and charged by Trump’s own justice department as a felony, of which Trump himself was co-conspirator “individual one”.
There’s no having a true point-counterpoint discussion here.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]