Special Counsel David Weiss has filed a blistering opposition to the motion to dismiss by Hunter Biden in California that cites his own book and conflicting statements as creating “nothing more than a house of cards.” The filing (below) shows how Hunter’s claims (repeated by many in the media) collapse under even cursory review in court.
Weiss’s filing bulldozes through arguments of selective prosecution and political influence in the case. He specifically notes that Biden repeatedly makes statements without any proof or support in his filings.
The filing begins by outright accusing Hunter Biden and his counsel of lying to the court about what occurred after the earlier plea agreement fell apart in court after the judge in Delaware asked about a sweeping immunity clause in paragraph 14. Notably, Weiss said that it was Hunter Biden’s legal team that inexplicably shut down negotiations by playing hardball in seeking to preserve the original agreement:
“The government proposed changes to the agreements that addressed only the issues identified during the hearing. Exh. 3. The defendant rejected these counterproposals on August 7, 2023. Id. Instead, the defendant began insisting that the proposed Diversion Agreement had bound both parties, even though it had not been approved by the Chief U.S. Probation Officer, a condition precedent to formation that would have brought it into effect. Moreover, by taking this position, he chose to shut down any further negotiations that could address the issues raised at the hearing.”
It then accuses Biden and his counsel as outright lying to the court:
“In his motion, in multiple places, the defendant falsely states that DOJ ‘inexplicably demanded Mr. Biden plead guilty to felonies with jail time.’ He cites nothing in support of his false claims, which is a consistent theme across his motions. The government attaches as Exhibit 3 a redacted letter from the defendant’s counsel which confirms the defendant understood that the government had proposed changes to only those paragraphs that were at issue during the hearing, not paragraphs regarding the charges the defendant must plead to or any “jail time” the defendant must serve. As shown in Exhibit 3, the government proposed changes to Paragraphs 14, 15 and 17 of the Diversion Agreement, and Paragraph 5(b) of the Plea Agreement. The government proposed no changes to Paragraph 1 of the Plea Agreement, which required the defendant to plead guilty to two misdemeanors. Nor did the government propose any changes to Paragraph 6 of the Plea Agreement, in which the United States had agreed to recommend a sentence of probation. The defendant rejected these counterproposals and refused further negotiations…His newly invented claim in his motion that the government “inexplicably demanded Mr. Biden plead guilty to felonies with jail time” is patently false, unsupported by evidence, and belied by his own letter and representations in his filings in the Delaware case.”
The rest of the filing is equally devastating.
Weiss notes that Biden repeatedly misrepresents facts or claims authority that does not exist. He notes that Biden does not cite any cases of similarly situated individuals who were not prosecuted. For example, it notes:
“The only attempt the defendant makes to link animus directly to prosecutors is his claim that “reports indicate Mr. Weiss himself admitted [the charges] would not have been brought against the average American.” Motion at 13. However, his citation does not include a reference to reports (plural), rather it includes a single New York Times citation, which includes a denial immediately after the quoted excerpt: “A senior law enforcement official forcefully denied the account.” An anonymous account that is “forcefully denied” is not evidence that can satisfy the defendant’s burden of producing “clear evidence” of discriminatory intent and animus by prosecutors.”
In rejecting the two cases that he references, Weiss takes a swipe at Hunter’s book. When he published the book, some of us noted that he was making statements against his own interest in possible prosecutions. Weiss just made that a reality:
“The defendant compares himself to only two individuals: Robert Shaughnessy and Roger Stone, both of whom resolved their tax cases civilly for failing to pay taxes. Shaughnessy failed to file and pay his taxes, but he was not alleged to have committed tax evasion. By contrast, the defendant chose to file false returns years later, failed to pay when those returns were filed, and lied to his accountants repeatedly, claiming personal expenses as business expenses. Stone failed to pay his taxes but did timely file his returns, unlike the defendant. Neither Shaughnessy nor Stone illegally purchased a firearm and lied on background check paperwork. And neither of them wrote a memoir in which they made countless statements proving their crimes and drawing further attention to their criminal conduct. These two individuals are not suitable comparators, and since the defendant fails to identify anyone else, his claim fails.”
The brief even takes a shot at the use of public statements by former Attorney General Eric Holder to prove selective prosecution, noting that Holder seems hopelessly conflicted in his own claim of selective prosecution:
“The defendant cites media commentary by former Attorney General Eric Holder, who acknowledged that the defendant is not similarly situated to other individuals: ‘This isn’t some kind of ordinary run-of-the-mill tax case, [] this was an abuse of the tax system . . .'”
The filing annihilates the public claims of Hunter and his allies. It is the difference between making a case in the court of public opinion and making a case in an actual court of law.
O T – How dishonest was the J6 Committee “investigation” of the “insurrection”? Consider this story by Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist [March 8, 2024]:
Title: “Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had ‘no evidence’ to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops.”
“Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.
Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.”
https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/08/exclusive-liz-cheney-january-6-committee-suppressed-exonerating-evidence-of-trumps-push-for-national-guard/
In other words, Trump was simultaneously trying to foment an insurrection and trying to prevent one. Even a DC jury wouldn’t believe that nonsense.
Anon– “Even a DC jury wouldn’t believe that nonsense.”
+++
You are right. A DC jury probably wouldn’t believe that nonsense.
But it makes no difference. They only have to pretend to believe it and vote accordingly. And they would for rabid ideology rather than actual justice.
Do you think that the 50 former intelligence agents truly believed that Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation? Likely not. They can’t all be that stupid I expect, but they can all be that morally corrupt. We have seen many other ridiculous claims advanced against President Trump that were presented as absolute truth only to be buried when actual evidence emerged.
I don’t think a DC jury drawn from people like this would even need to hear testimony to convict Trump or J6 defendants. What would the 50 intelligence agents do? What have they already done? Is it even possible to believe that people this morally corrupt wouldn’t steal an election?
“Even a DC jury wouldn’t believe that nonsense.”
Unfortunately that is not likely true.
Hunt is an astute student of his daddy.
“Mr. President! Mr. President! Your dogs are attacking staff and guests!
Huh? Who’s stacking my chest?
No. No. Your dogs! Dogs biting staff!
Huh? Half Mast? Someone die? Not me! Lol!
No! Mr. President! Mr. President! People are being bitten and injured by your dogs!
Wha? We don’t have hogs. Sausage and hogs. You kidding me. I’ll fight you right here. Secret Service!! Get my dogs You idiots. I’ll show em”
“They ain’t my hogs”, hunt swears. “I quit dating. I’m celemaisturby.”
@william
He is, and he is emblematic of anyone in his stratum. I hate to be so simplistic, but it really is a class thing. Take away the government connotations, and you have pretty much every other well-connected/luckily born trust funder. Prior to 2020, people in non-urban areas could sort of still ignore what was going on there; that is no longer the case. Do not fool yourselves, if you are in one of those places, that it isn’t coming to you via the people that just have more money than you do. It will, if you don’t stop it. Vote your little hearts out, and demand transparency. I have been acquainted with billionaires in CA, and no, they do not exist in the same reality you do, and they do not care about the intricacies of that separation. Let’s try to do it without actual heads rolling, if we can.
U r kidding. Take some time off and ask your billionaire buddies to send u on a long cruise. Holy cow! Or, ask Joe and Hunt for a little of whatever they’re taking. Write when u feel better.
Reality has never been a strong point among liberals.
The words “liberals” and “conservatives” have NO generally-accepted, fixed meanings, but instead are constantly changing with time, depending on the viewpoint of the user. JFK was considered a “liberal” while alive, but most would agree that, in retrospect, he was actually right of center, making him a rather “conservative” president at the present point in time 60 years after his death. You might want to try putting a bit more brain-power into your comments. Personally, I’d recommend sticking to FACTS instead of making sweeping personal judgements and generalizations about entire ill-defined groups of people.
While you are correct that the meaning of political labels – as well as the platforms of parties changes over time.
That does NOT means that at at any given time – even over many years that those labels do not have very clear meaning.
Regardless, as used in politics today it is irrelevant what liberal or left or democrat meant 60 years ago.
What matters is what they mean NOW.
The distinctions between the right and left today are very clear – despite minor disputes within the right and left.
JFK was not right of center – he was left of Center. Frankly I am not even sure that is not true today.
That actual center has not shifted that much – conservatives have moved SOMEWHAT to the left,
While those on the left have moved FAR to the left.
I do not use the term liberal – because the modern left has npo resemblance to liberal in any prior incarnation – the modern left is distinctly Illiberal. The modern left tends to refer to themselves as progressives. While they are actually regressive.
It is preferable than labeling them liberal – a term with liberty at the root. The modern left is closer to fascist than liberal.
The MORONS in this comment section that pertend to know who the anonymous commenters are, AND waste time trying to assert that one of them is another of them, are merely the most-obvious reason that this comment section is a fool’s paradise and Turley’s experiment in pretend “freedom of speech” is a disaster.
Especially by thar person known as “anonymous”.
He is why we can’t have nice things.
There are probably at least a DOZEN people posting comments as “Anonymous,” you drooling MORON, as can be reasonably deduced by common speech patterns, word usage, and general semantics as well as syntax, etc.
And if you have a problem with people posting comments as “Anonymous” in hopes that the CONTENT of their comment will be considered WITHOUT dragging personalities into the discusssion, you should take that up with TURLEY, because it’s HIS rule, NOT mine.
I’ve ALWAYS posted comments under my real name an any site at which I’ve ever posted comments, UNTIL such time as a website or “moderator” began refusing to post my comments, which is what happened here in Turleyville years ago under circumstances associated with Turley’s advocacy of Michael Avenatti’s anti-Trumpism.
I suspect that’s a circumstance that the Professor has come to regret. It’s one thing to harbor an unreasonable hatred of Trump, but it’s something else when that unreasonable hatred drives an otherwise-reasonable person — a lawyer, no less — to become blind to the multiple felonies of the likes of Michael Avenatti, who turned out to be sleezier than this porn queen client.
Hey “Anonymous, pick a name or go away. If you can’t be “published” under your name for what you write you are probably an idiot anyway. I am not for censorship, but if you don’t have a name how can we know what you are saying is even factual? We have no basis to know what your history is or what past shenanigans you were pulling.
PICK A NAME.
Well I know you aint me.
-G
I know I want Me, So you know You want Me to 💋
Can State prosecutors and Federal prosecutors exchange case information with each other?
On and Off the Record (On/Off Discovery Rules Brady|Non-Brady)
That can not be answered yes/no.
State or federal prosecutors can provide the other with evidence of crimes that fall into the others jurisdiction.
But they can not coordinated an attack on a person.
And neither can wield government power for political purposes
They can and do, do it. It doesn’t matter if it is against the law. The demoncratic monster does not follow the law.
Professor Turley Writes:
“This is a moment that has been building for years”.
…………………………….
Professor Turley wrote the above on February 28, the day Hunter Biden finally testified before James Comer’s committee. Turley expected Hunter to be grilled like meat that day!
Yet here we are 11 days later and this is Turley’s first ‘Hunter-gate’ column since Hunter’s testimony. That time lapse is all we need to know about February 28th.
Had that testimony produced any smoking guns, Turley would’ve told us shortly afterwards. Instead we learn David Weiss is more diligent than James Comer.
And Weiss is NOT a Stooge for Merrick Garland as claimed by rightwing media. Weiss is only concerned with what he can prove.
REGARDING ABOVE
Said stooge was kicked off RuPaul’s Drag Contest because his test-uh-cles slipped out during a fabulous split and Ms Ru wasnt too happy. Now the failed RuPaul contestant trolls this blog and provides choice talking points like
* key points!
note to readers: true drag queens know how to keep their prized jewels locked tight
Good Point.
Rumor has it Big Jon is fleeing his position as a well paid Constitutional Professor and as the most highly sought legal scholar in the world by every t.v. network, every major newspaper, every magazine, every online streaming service, and every pundit on earth.
Wait! That’s him running into the ocean naked, bolting from left wing looney tunes. Poor fella. Them libbies r frightening.
Hunter’s legal team didn’t just get burned. They were burned to ash, and the ashes burnt.
I predict that the investigation into Joe Biden’s corruption, managed through Hunter Biden, and the proceeds funneled to the Biden family, will proceed at glacial pace, until Joe Biden passes, and then “what difference does it make?” If Joe Biden manages to win a second term, it will take more than 4 years to untangle a corruption scheme that would have taken months to charge anyone else.
There will be no fair election. It is all rigged for Democrats to steal just like in 2020. I hope I am wrong. Truly
It wasn’t stolen in 2020. It won’t be stolen in 2024 either.
welcome back Ralph De Magnesium
– your favorite paid Turley troll
If you’re referring to Ralph de Minimis, which was the screen name I used for a brief period of time after I was banned for posting comments under my real name;
(1) I’m a Trump supporter.
(2) I’ve been a Trump supporter since Trump indicated in 2015 his intent to run for president.
(3) So Ralph de Minimis wouldn’t be posting a comment claiming that the 2020 election was fair, because it wasn’t.
(4) You’re one of the most-malignant lying idiots on the web and it’s because of infestation by lying retards like you that Turley’s comment section is the JOKE that it is.
(5) Because of infestation by lying, degenerate MORONS like YOU, I only visit this waste-of-time comment section a couple of times per week, mostly just to see how STUPID it’s gotten.
(6) Get bent, “Tom.”
I’m Ralph De Kramdon. Knock it off. NORTON!
You’re an idiot by any name.
Ralphie Boy!
When Holy Joe discovered it was conservatives crossing the border in mass, he ordered megaton nukes
I’m Ralph De Lauren.
The 2020 election was rigged in many ways.
Democrats will do much the same in 2024 – plus a new collection for illegal and immoral actions.
But it will not matter. There has been a 6pt swing against Biden since 2020
Democrats do not have air tight control of social media. There will be plenty of censorship – but it is less effective today.
There will be plenty of ballot harvesting – but it will be harder to get the same numbers in 2024, and Trump will win the popular vote – which means the scale of Fraud needed to beat him will be impossible to hide.
That is why the palpable fear among democrats – Trump’s current lead over Biden is outside the margin in which they fraudulent tactics of 2020 will continue to work
You are not wrong.
But circumstances have changed.
Trump’s polling is a minimum of 6pts ahead of where it was in 2020. Possibly more in swing states.
The enthusiasm of democrats for Biden is less than half that of Republicans for Trump.
The 2020 election was decided by under 50,000 votes out of 150M. The largest estimate of fraud is about 2m – that is a bit more than 1%.
Fraud larger than 1% on the scale of a national election is very hard to pull off.
While states have NOT fixed the mess that was made of their election laws in 2020 – many many changes that tilt the election towards democrats remain unreversed.
But many many changes have been corrected.
It is going to be very hard to replicate all the advantages democrats gained for themselves in 2020.
Fraud on the scale of 8M votes is not possible without getting caught.
One of the huge advantages that Biden had in 2020 – the biggest disadvantage Trump had was that Trump lost the popular vote significantly and the vote nationwide as well as state by state was very close to the polls.
Most people do not really grasp that the election was decided by less than 45,000 votes or that 100,000 votes would have put the entire federal govenrment in republican hands.
You can get both the public and the courts to take seriously claims of Fraud when you win the popular vote – and there is significant divergance between the polls and the recorded vote.
Again Trump has seen a 6pt swing since 2020.
That is impossible for democrats to overcome without getting caught.
That is also why the ongoing but so far unsuccessful lawfare.
Democrats can not add fraudulent Biden votes – unless they can drive down real Trump votes enough for the results to be plausible.
Everything Democrats did in 2020- they will do in 2024 and then some.
NONE of it will work as well.
Dream on.
Screenshot this.
They could run ballots down the chute of a cement truck into the counting feeder in Times Square and claim it was the newest fairest election the multiverse had ever seen and totally get away with it.
Sadly all you need is fraud in PA, AZ and WI and we have 4 more years of Biden and the end of the line for America.
You’re not wrong.
OT
The actionable criminal illegal alien invaders in Dear Leader Comrade General Secretary Joke Buydone’s “Fraudulent-Asylum Trojan Horse,” who must be immediately deported with extreme prejudice, will inarguably have an immediate adverse effect on the CENSUS, which will adversely affect Congress, actual Americans, and America.
George – I think you make a good point. Our illegal visitors will be counted for census purposes, giving certain areas a competititive advantage for Congressional seats. We will be back in the day of the pre-bellum South, where slaves were partially counted for census purposes but were not actually citizens. This may have been part of the reason for the Democrats’ commitment to illegal admittance of foreign populations. Of course, the Democrats may go one step further than the slave-holders by finding a way to allow the illegals to vote (as the Democrats want).
The 10 million start with census effects while retaining the goal of amnesticized voting.
Thank you.
It is not clear that counting illegals – which the 2030 Census will do unless something is changed, will benefit democrats or republicans.
While there is little doubt that Democrats destroyed border security in the hopes of buying legal and illegal immigrant votes – that does not seem to be working.
Further illegals are MOSTLY flooding red states – and that means red states will get more seats in congress and more Electoral college votes.
Nothing like claiming you’re thriving while your throat is being sliced wide open.
California – New York – Illinois – New Jersey
________________________________________________
“A majority of U.S. unauthorized immigrants live in just six states – including California (with the largest population at 2.2 million), Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.”
– Pew Research
Illegal aliens, and possible nuclear war! I watched this last night! From 1952. It gets compelling.
Forget the notion of immigrants as posing a threat.
Living in the USA appears to be nothing more than a house of cards due to Microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) in our lives. A new study published 3 days ago in NEJM reveals MNPs were found in the arteries of patients who had cardiovascular disease. MNPs includes polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride
Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events
Polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride, in their various forms, are used in a wide range of applications, including the production of food and cosmetics containers and water pipes. MNPs have been found in drinking water, a large range of foods, cosmetic products, and air, also in a form bound to fine, inhalable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5) and transported long distances by wind. Given the wide distribution and availability of MNPs, the attribution of all potential sources in humans is nearly impossible…..
Particle size influences the ability of MNPs to reach multiple tissues. According to a World Health Organization statement, MNPs larger than 150 μm or 10 μm in diameter, respectively, are not absorbed into blood and do not penetrate blood vessels. Our findings suggest that nanoplastics, rather than microplastics, might accumulate in sites of atherosclerosis. Indeed, the large majority of particles detected in the current study were also below the 200-nm threshold suggested for gut and other barriers and were visible in the extracellular space as scattered debris, which aligns with the notion that the absorption and distribution of MNPs increase as particle size decreases. Data from studies in humans have shown that MNPs of up to 30 μm in size have been detected in liver samples, up to 10 μm in placenta samples, up to 88 μm in lung samples, up to 12 to 15 μm in breast milk and urine, and more than 700 nm in whole blood.
…results of our study show that patients with MNPs that were detected in carotid artery plaque have a higher risk of a composite end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause at 34 months of follow-up.
Marfella R, et al. Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events. N Engl J Med. 2024 Mar 7;390(10):900-910. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2309822.
Sooooooo, hit the gym regularly, eat healthy nutritious meals and lose weight so that your BMI < 25. Oh, and make friends with immigrants. They might be your future cardiologist
😉🇨🇺
regarding MNPs, see free link
Vethaak, A.D. and Legler, J., 2021. Microplastics and human health. Science, 371(6530), pp.672-674.
https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/227179799/Microplastics_and_human_health.pdf
“Forget the notion of immigrants as posing a threat.”
Estovir, Lakan Riley, age 22, didn’t die from a heart attack caused by nanoplastics or microplastics. She was killed by an illegal immigrant permitted in by a dreadful President who reversed all of Trump’s good policies involving illegal immigration.
As of today our choices are Biden or Trump. Vote Trump.
Such deep penetration of MNPs is terrible. I just read a blurb about the manufacture of nanoplastics for industrial and biomedical use.
I have deep misgivings about nanoparticles. They penetrate deeper and behave differently than their micro particle counterparts.
Unintended consequences can ensue.
glad you found it of interest. It really should interest everyone
Ive been engaged in fierce debates for 2 years with some academic Cardiologists who are stuck in obsolete paradigms, equating atherosclerosis with lipids. It is true that high concentration of Lipids/triglycerides can lead to CAD but only 50% of patients with CAD have elevated lipids. Statins have leveled the playing field regarding high lipids. But CAD continues to climb as do MIs and Strokes. Why?
Recent studies point to immune involvement: pathogen associated molecular patterns and damage associated molecular patterns (e.g. apoptosis generating protein fragments, nucleic acids, hypertension causes cytokine release, hyperglycemia causes endothelial cell damage, etc) provoke
the innate immune cells (pattern recognition receptors), and these account for the other 50%. Thus the above NEJM study is in conformity with my own findings regarding HIV and its proteins vis a vis CAD. Hence HIV is an ipso factor cardiac risk factor because it is a PAMP that generates DAMPs.
boring to some, fascinating to me and life saving to my target patient audience.
“Ive been engaged in fierce debates”
Estovir, that new causes of any disease are found doesn’t mean all other reasons are discarded. It is true that when Statins first arrived, their lipid-lowering effect was considered the basis for their reduction of cardiac disease and death. It is also true that microplastics are likely responsible for cardiac illness and death as well. Still, we can’t lose sight of the fact that cardiac disease and death preceded microplastics.
Historically, many assumed that Statins’ only advantage was their ability to lower cholesterol. That was untrue, as Statins have another effect outside of their lipid-lowering ability alone should provide. That led to the belief that Statins stabilized plaque and altered plaque behavior.
One can debate how high cholesterol should be, the ratio of good to bad, and other things, but at least today, Statins have proven themselves to prevent cardiac illness and death.
I say this not because what is stated above is wrong. Instead, some might interpret it as a reason to stop taking Statins altogether. If that happened, I predict the death rate would rise considerably.
S. Meyer– You predict that the death rate would rise considerably if people stopped taking statins. Maybe. But they are not without side effects and it can be difficult to connect cause and effect over time with multiple other factors in play. Phosamax is supposed to prevent or reverse bone loss and it may but I learned dentists are declining to do implants for patients who have taken Phosamax because the bones are brittle. We have had a surge in sudden adult deaths even among relatively young people and turbo cancers since the Covid vaccine was introduced but those responsible seem disinclined to make the connection. I have become much more skeptical of drug claims since the Covid fiasco revealed so much.
” But they are not without side effects.”
Young, I agree with you. Nothing is without effects. Statin research has occurred over time and has reliable studies and good endpoints. Researchers have fractionated lipids, which further help in the treatment of patients.
Reducing cholesterol in high-risk groups benefited them. The question became how much benefit from intervention would be seen in the rest of the population with treatment. Estovir focused on the ability of a statin to reduce cholesterol.
If cholesterol reduction were the only benefit of statins, arguments against them would be more substantial, and I wouldn’t step in. But statins stabilize plaque, and many heart attacks are seen in people without much damage to the arteries. It is that stabilization that frequently reduces death in those without significant cholesterol or atherosclerotic disease.
Therefore, when people question using Statins for milder cholesterol excess, they must consider the stabilization process. With reasonable cholesterol numbers, it might be better to assume that statins stabilize the plaque that can kill. That is the reason to take the drug.
S. Meyer, You make a number of good points and I know a quick Google search will point to many studies that support what you say.
I also like that you mentioned that some people with heart attacks do not present with high cholesterol. Some studies are now pointing to inflammation as a significant factor. That also seems likely.
Statins have been around long enough to have the profile you describe with reasonable certainty. However, if there have been studies that have uncovered more serious problems I no longer trust the industry or government to tell us. I don’t trust them any longer. It was a big blow to my trust to learn that Fauci and Collins received royalties from the drug companies. How is that not a conflict of interest?
In any event, statins are not even recommended for someone my age, so screw them.
Young, I agree with you, and have lost trust in the government and many researchers. Too many researchers need to publish, and many will compromise their integrity. Aside from publishing, they wish to be cited by the maximum number of people. They like big names, so sometimes, in research studies, the trusted name might barely have read the study.
However, statins were researched many years ago by many different countries. Much of the evidence for their use comes from research that had little to do with statins. Based on this older and multinational research, I draw my conclusions. A friend of mine was a well-known cardiac-cath guy who did this work continuously. Many years ago, he said, after looking at all those arteries, I take a small dose of statin because what I saw was too convincing. I had an opportunity to talk to a hematologist who, at the time, said there were no cases of death caused by liver failure from statins. Most of the changes that can occur are reversible. I don’t trust him as much as the cath guy, but these opinions and others, along with the research, tell me to take at least a small dose of statin.
S. Meyer, My wife, a physician, also takes a small dose of a.statin. All in all it seems like a wise way to balance risk and benefit. For someone my age it is not thought to be much of a benefit. In any event, given the ‘expert’ and government corruption displayed in the Covid fiasco it’s prudent for all of us to be cautious. Your approach of using literature coupled with actual physician and patient experience is likely the smartest approach.
“For someone my age it is not thought to be much of a benefit. ”
Why? Young, I partially agree, but though cholesterol levels aren’t my primary concern, unstable plaque is and has a shorter timeframe that fits into the geriatric patient.
If you wish, what type of medicine does your wife practice?
S. Meyer- Family practice but now part time.
It is almost like with the War of the Worlds, where the tiniest little things will lead to our tripods tipping over, and the birds eating us.
Revenge of the chickens.
Since the introduction of plastics, we have never lived longer. Using enviro math, nano plastics are good for us.
Thank you for your work and time, Jonathan.
𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐘𝐨𝐫𝐤 ‘𝐇𝐮𝐬𝐡 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲’ 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 [𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐘𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐯. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐍𝐨.: 𝐈𝐍𝐃-𝟕𝟏𝟓𝟒𝟑-𝟐𝟑]
Former president Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial in New York is scheduled for March 25th 2024 (Monday) [State of New York v. Trump, Case No.: IND-71543-23], making it the first criminal prosecution of an ex-president. Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts stemming from 2016 payments.
What is the case about? The investigation involves a $130,000 payment made to Stormy Daniels, an adult-film actress, during the 2016 presidential campaign. It’s one of many ongoing investigations involving Trump.
What are the charges? Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime.
Can Trump still run for president? While it has never been attempted by a candidate from a major party before, Trump is allowed to run for president while under indictment — or even if he is convicted of a crime.
𝐂𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞: 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 – 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲
This repository contains a collection of information for researchers, journalists, educators, scholars, and the public at large. This particular repository is part of a much larger collection – the Trump Trials Clearinghouse [https://www.justsecurity.org/88175/trump-trials-clearinghouse/] – which contains similar documents and information related to other criminal and civil trials involving former President Donald Trump.
By: Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt and Francois Barrilleaux ~ March 6, 2024
https://www.justsecurity.org/89089/clearinghouse-2016-election-interference-case-manhattan-district-attorney/
𝐑𝐞fresher Course:
𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐯𝐬 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰: 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐏𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐳 𝐩𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐀
Prosecutor who helped convict John Gotti thinks Alvin Bragg let Trump slip from the hook. His memoir proves controversial
Mark Pomerantz is a well-credentialed former federal prosecutor. As a younger man he clerked for a supreme court justice and helped send the mob boss John Gotti to prison. He did stints in corporate law. In 2021, he left retirement to join the investigation of Donald Trump by the Manhattan district attorney. Pomerantz’s time with the DA was substantive but controversial.
By: Lloyd Green ~ Feb. 11th 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/11/people-vs-donald-trump-review-mark-pomerantz-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-
NOTE: Mark Pomerantz is also buddies with Jack Smith (John Luman Smith) when they crossed paths working with Manhattan District Attorney’s Office under Robert Morgenthau and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White (Circa ~ 1999) along with buddies Todd Harrison (McDermott Will & Emery) whom represented Micheal Cohen for a short time.
-In Short- It’s complicated (the prosecution’s background story – Manhattan District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York office).
So, no more NDAs?
Oh, and how ’bout that “Biden Crime Family” that has demonstrably made millions upon millions from Ukraine, China, etc., suffering 150 bank Suspicious Activity Reports?
There are “corrupt politicians” convicted in the mainstream communist media by prevaricating spin-doctoring “Truth Twisters,” and then there are the actual, real corrupt political scoundrels, huh, jack—?
George, I was merely pointing out the tight-circle of Prosecutors (buddies) of; Bragg, Smith, Harrison, Pomerantz, and Others involved, in and between the NY Manhattan District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York office.
There is a back-story between the Prosecutors here, but make of it what you will. There’s no secret They’re after ‘𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐎𝐍ald’.
Thank you.
This is unarguably the worst case of all facing Trump.
You say it is scheduled for Trial – that means nothing Chutkan scheduled the J6 case – that is not going to trial.
None of the preliminary work that occured in the MAL case the GA case of the DC case have taken place in Braggs case – and it is by far the weakest case.
Sonny-boy Hunter Biden (my Daddy’s name is Joe) is so accustomed to getting everything (including the big money) to go his way, even his counsel have picked up his lying ways.
Hunter would likely want to have his legal problems–if any–settled in the DC ‘judicial’ system.
But for J6 defendants it appears that no trial in DC is before a jury of one’s peers.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/after-a-pause-doj-is-now-sharply-increasing-jan-6-arrests-5600972
A jury composed of career government hacks and dependents may not actually be fair. Years ago I never imagined that we in America would end up with Soviet show trials but now I seriously wonder.
None of the political trials should be conducted within 300 miles of the DC gravy bowl.
Young,
That is just it, they keep having these show trials in deep blue cities that always find them guilty the day before the trial starts and then try to claim they were found guilty by their peers with that false sense of fairness.
Upstate- I agree. Of course you are right and that is why Jack Smith was desperate to have Trump’s Florida case moved to DC. He wanted obedient drones on the ‘jury of his peers’.
I am coming to believe that DC should be broken up. It doesn’t work any better than Detroit as a city and with modern communications there is no need for so many agencies to be clustered in one spot. They only make an easier target for emerging nuclear powers to take everything out with one strike. I would like the new FBI headquarters to be in Nome or Pt Barrow and they should be stripped of enforcement authority and do investigations only. They are an embarrassment to honest, law–abiding law enforcement. The Constitution doesn’t require the existence of a Praetorian Guard holding a gladius to the throat of Lady Liberty.
from fedsurrection to fednap, it’s all crap, it’s all lies, top to bottom
You do know that the majority of people living in DC are not government employees, right? If you don’t want to be tried in DC, it’s simple: don’t commit crimes in DC.
Anon: If you are a lawyer perhaps you can present that argument on behalf of many J6 defendants who did not commit crimes. Don’t be surprised if you are charged yourself for daring to go off narrative.
You mean the people who’ve been convicted of crimes or pleaded guilty to crimes?
Wow, one of you is catching on. Congratulations. It takes many long years, though.
DC is exactly where political crimes would be committed.
Am I the only person getting tired of Hunter Biden’s problems? He acts like he is so special and privileged that he should never be found guilty for any crime or wrongdoing. After so many years of the government fiddling around with this man for things that he has done and refuses to fess up to, it has left me wishing that somehow he could be brought to trial and found guilty of some crime. There are several to choose from. We need to get closure with this guy and move on to other things. It would do him a world of good to be confined to a jail where he had no access to cocaine for at least 6 months. This will get him dried out and his body cleaned of it and he will be able to make better decisions. He also will have gotten the charges off his back and can quit with the constant defiant attitude that he has. He alone has messed up his life, he is clearly a child of privilege. At his age it is time for him to grow up and act like a man and take his punishment. He has become a needless distraction that we all would be better without.
Anon: Hunter Biden ” acts like he is so special and privileged that he should never be found guilty for any crime or wrongdoing.”
+++
Maybe Hunter’s sense of special privilege is rational. The DOJ appears thoroughly debased. It is no wonder they are terrified of a Trump presidency. I wonder how many of their tentacles are promoting and supporting the lawfare against President Trump?
All of them, or they are canned. Yes it is easy to fire, harass, and destroy their them and their families.
They just do it, then the whitsleblower videos where all the unbelievable actions taken against them are aired in the alternate social media and nothing happens. It goes on for years on end, and forever – the cases are left open or unsetlled or whatever idiot term the criminals want to use and for the rest of their lives they wait for the second red dots and the door breaking down AT 4 AM while they hear the screams get on the ground.
He is so special and privileged to the demoncratic regime that he will never be found guilty for any crime or wrongdoing.
FTFY
Jonathan: Why your continued obsession with Hunter Biden and his motion to dismiss his case? Probably because that’s all you have now that Comer’s little impeachment inquiry is dead in the water after his key witness, Alex Smirnov, is now in jail for lying to the FBI.
Now if you want to discuss motions to dismiss you should be focusing on what is going on in Judge Cannon’s courtroom. That is the trial of the century where DJT is charged with espionage and obstruction (40 counts) for his illegal retention of top secret classified material. Cannon has set next next Thursday to hear oral arguments on DJT’s motions to dismiss that case.
And what has Cannon done to prepare for the hearing? Nothing has been put on the public docket by Cannon. She has engaged in a shadow docket with paperless orders. In her last one she ordered DJT to submit his final reply brief to her by 8:00am on Thursday. The hearing starts at 10:00am. That leaves less than 2 hours for Cannon to review the filing and then hear oral arguments in the case. And remember that Judge McAffee held two days of hearings in DJT’s attempt to get DA Fani Wills disqualified. Cannon has allotted only one day to hear arguments in the most momentous case this century!
There is another part of Cannon’s handling of the case that even more bizarre. Jack Smith filed his indictment of DJT over a year ago. That is when DJT should have filed his motion to dismiss–not waiting until now. But Cannon has allowed him to drag his feet throughout this case. She apparently has assisted with her own slow walking with procedural delays so the case will never be tried before the election.
Now to the merits of DJT’s motions to dismiss. As mentioned in an earlier comment he has two basic claims: (1) that under the PRA, DJT was entitled to take all the top secret classified material because he “magically” declassified everything before leaving office and it therefore became his “personal property”–so NARA had no legal right to demand DJT return the docs.; and (2) that Jack Smith cannot prosecute the former president because a SC must first be “appointed” by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
You claim that Hunter “lied” in his filing and “repeatedly misrepresents facts or claims authority that does not exist”. That’s DJT’s filings to dismiss in a nutshell! The PRA clearly provides that all docs created by the president must be turned over to NARA before leaving office. And the idea that a SC has to be “appointed” by the president is equally specious. The appointment of a SC comes from the authority vested in the AG. It is the AG who “appoints” SC not the President.
Any competent and experienced judge would reject DJT’s motions to dismiss and set a new trial date before the election. But Cannon is neither. Her agenda is to drag every thing out until after the election. But if Cannon is smart she will rule against the guy who appointed her. Otherwise, Jack Smith is all ready and geared up (he has already taken on two more experienced attorneys) to immediately file an appeal with the 11th circuit to slap down Cannon–once again!
Once again, I scrolled past your comment without reading it. I am pretty sure that it was just repetitious DNC talking points, like always, mixed in factual misstatements and misrepresentations.
If you are NOT being paid to do this, I actually feel sorry for you. The cynical Democrat establishment has been gaslighting its mentally ill cult members for decades, and with all your time outside the echo chamber, where you have been exposed to Reality, you choose, like Coleen Stan, to return to the plywood box under Master’s bed. Whatever, prayers for you to one day see the light.
Floyd,
“Once again, I scrolled past your comment without reading it.”
And you are the better for it.
If it is not DNC talking points, it is a lame attempt to deflect from the BCF to Trump and even then it is even more lame.
Although some of John Say or Lin’s epic take downs of Dennis, you have to read Dennis’s comment to understand the context and enjoy John or Lin’s take down.
It is really amazing when Lin does it in three or four sentences with such elegance and grace yet still devastating to Dennis.
A lot of Dennis McIntyre’s comments strike me as AI generated.
The ones that I have, it is definitely a chance they are either AI, or copy/paste stuff from the DNC HQ. Whichever, or just a Democrat nut, there is not much intelligence behind the comment. I have noticed that when he/she/it gets corrected for patently false statements, it will still continue to post the erroneous stuff. If it is a real person, not a paid shill, then I truly do feel sorry for them. They are like those moonies or whatever, selling flowers in traffic. Just totally lost people, in a cult.
You assume AI and ‘copy/paste stuff from the DNC HQ’ are mutually exclusive.
*other than that, howdy do.
AI is not that stupid
Specifically, the Presidential Records Act:
Defines and states public ownership of the records.
Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent presidential records with the President.
Allows the incumbent president to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he or she has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal in writing.[7]
Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a 30‑day notice period to the former and current Presidents.
Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as presidential records.
Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.[7]
Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489
Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)
Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.
The President does not work for NARA – NARA works for the President. Second sentence “Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent presidential records with the President.”
As Commander and Chief the President has unilateral authority to classify and declassify everything and anything and he doesn’t need the approval of some minion to do it. The Presidents power flows from the Constitution and as President he sets the rules for his/her administration.
Per the PRA, agency records are not presidential records.
Not sure what agency you are speaking of. The President is in charge of that agency. Therefore they belong to the President.
No, they belong to the agencies. And if you want to know what agencies, read the indictment for yourself.
The President of the United States is the Agency.
Regardless, the documents are not one off.
The President is a person, not an agency.
Correct, but when an agency sends a copy of an agency record to the WH it becomes a Presidential record.
Bteboe: Thank you for pointing out several provisions in the PRA. But you draw the wrong conclusions. First, NARA does not report to the President. It is an independent agency. Second, you take the sentence “Places the responsibility for custody and management of incumbent presidential records with the President” out of context. The operative word is “incumbent”. While holding office the President is obligated to preserve and maintain all official records. Once leaving office he must turn those records over to NARA.
And there is no evidence DJT actually “declassified” any of the docs he took back to Mar-a-Lago. Declassification is a complicated process requiring input from many different government agencies. There would be a long paper trail had DJT actually tried to classify anything. Now if you believe the claims of DJT in his various court filings he declassified everything he took by some mental process. Unless you believe in the tooth fairy DJT’s claim is both fanciful and delusional!
Bottom line. DJT had no legal right, either by statute or under the Constitution, to abscond with top secret confidential docs claiming they are his “personal property”. If the case before Judge Cannon gets to trial anytime soon the case against DJT is overwhelming and he will be convicted. DJT knows that–that’s why he is fighting so hard to put off the trial until after the election!
Declassification is a complicated process requiring input from many different government agencies.
As laid out in a Presidential Executive Order, that is true, In the same EO, The President is exempt from all requirements.
You are correct, but it would not matter if you were wrong.
Dennis has trapped himself in an argument the equivalent of the philosophical argument – it God can do anything can god make a stone so heavy he can not lift.
A president can not by EO bind himself or take away or limit his own constitutional powers.
Nor can congress do so by law.
Dennis – NARA is part of the executive branch and ALL of the executive branch derives its powers SOLELY from the president.
There are dozens of cases on this – including the recent CFPB case.
No part of the executive branch is independent of the president PERIOD.
This is con-law 101.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Dennis – you are both wrong about incumbent and you are wrong about the PRA.
Worse you do not grasp that even if you were RIGHT, that would just means the PRA is unconstitutional.
Congress can not take away powers that the constitution gives to the president.
Please actually read JW v. NARA as well as the many cases that lead to it.
First, NARA does not report to the President. It is an independent agency.
Dennis, I consulted wiki, they have no list of Federal agencies that are independent of the President. Could you provide that list of independent federal agencies. Thanks in advance.
Thats a lengthy cut and paste from the legislative branch law, ordering the executive how to conduct its business.
Do you suppose there exists a huge constitutional conflict with separation of Powers?
Putting that aside. Who has the constitutional power to challenge the President of the United States, determining between Personal Records and Presidential Papers?
Dennis:
1) “Jack Smith filed his indictment of DJT over a year ago. That is when DJT should have filed his motion to dismiss–not waiting until now.”
Unless a deadline is created by the judge, a motion to dismiss may be filed at any time. In the normal case, you would file when the factual record was fully developed or when you have researched the law fully. Or, in a case like this, when the political climate is better for you. In the normal case, the Prosecution would not even care when the motion is filed. Why are you so desperate to have an early trial? (Of course, the answer is obvious.)
2) “DJT was entitled to take all the top secret classified material because he “magically” declassified everything before leaving office and it therefore became his “personal property.”
President Trump was entitled to take any document he wanted. He was the C-I-C, and he had absolute security clearance at the time. There is a question that must be resolved at some point as to whether he could declassify documents by merely taking and retaining them with the intent to declassify. I am not aware of any mechanism for a President to declassify documents in this situation. Perhaps this case will lead to development of a mechanism.
3) “The PRA clearly provides that all docs created by the president must be turned over to NARA before leaving office.” Tell Clinton and Obama. The latter has still not turned over the originals of his PRs, and he only belatedly turned over his classfied documents.
4) “The appointment of a SC comes from the authority vested in the AG.” The relevant Meese brief filed in the S Ct may be read here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf
As I understand the argument, or at least the central one, Jack Smith obviously is exercising the powers of “an officer of the United States”. Only Congress can create “an office” that is not described in the Constitution. U S Attorney is a Congressionally-created office. But Smith is a private citizen. Although the AG can give “special status” to someone, that person must be an “officer” at the time of the “special” designation. Therefore, in the statutes and rules that allow the designation of “special counsel”, the key term is “special” not “counsel.” The AG cannot make someone a “counsel” but he/she can make an existing counsel “special”. (My apologies to Meese, et al, if I have gotten their argument wrong.) Meese seems to have a decent change of prevailing on this point.
. I am not aware of any mechanism for a President to declassify documents in this situation. Perhaps this case will lead to development of a mechanism.
“Classified” lives 100% in the Oval Office. The rules are written by Executive Order. The last, written by Obama, states at the end The President and Vice President are exempt from the Executive Order.
The question is not, if what Trump did was proper.
The question is. Who has the constitutional power to Challenge the Presidents statement that the documents are declassified?
Same goes for what is Presidential Record, and what is personal record.
Who has the constitutional power to challenge the Presidents determination of what he has determined is personal record?
If you answer, Judge. Cite what the Judge would use as guidance to make a ruling. ie. The Judge would have to find that person enumerated in the Constitution.
JW v NARA not only decided that NARA had no power to attempt to retreive documents from clinton,
But also that the courts had no power to substitute their judgement for the presidents.
I beleive the Meese argument – and the constitutional issues are broader than you argue – though your argument is ALSO correct.
Officers of the united states are those who are empowered by the president to make policy decisions – to
ACT. Those who merely make recomendations are not officers.
All officers must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
The SC has the power – like every US attorney to prosecute a case. – by that I do not mean to stand in court, though they do that.
But to determine whether a case is prosecuted.
If you have the power to make decisions rather than recomendations – you are an officer of the united states and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
There is a massive amount of prior precident on this – the most recent case being Trumps replacement of the head of the CFPB.
The SC law is relatively new. Ken Star was an Independent Counsel – that was under different law, and the IC was as I recall appointed by Judges and reported to congress and acted under the legislative not executive branch.
it was generally recognized that the IC law was unconstitutional – congress delegated to itself an executive power.
and the IC law was allowed to quietly expire and was relaced by the SC law.
the AG determines when an SC is needed. the SC’s powers are somewhat like a Super US Attorney – they have nationwide jurisdiction. but they scope of their jurisdiction is limited to the task they are appointed to.
Except for Mueller and Smith all prior SC’s were current US attorney’s elevated to SC. Those are already appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
SCOTUS has long ago determined that they apointments clause can not be worked arround – all officers of the united states must be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
But SCOTUS has also determined that being appointed by the president and confirmed by the sentate for any position allows the president to transfer you into any other officer of the united states position.
Still at it Dennis.
Hunters motion to Dismiss is DOA.
I would note that Hunter is in a far more complicated position than Trump.
Hunter has had the benefit of a DOJ that has fallen all over itself to his benefit.
Attacking them personally and pissing them off and lying about them is HARMFUL to his case.
Conversely Trump’s strategy has always been to claim what most of us see as True – that he is being politically prosecuted for legal acts.
Trump is personally attacking Judges and Prosecutors – and the majority of people agree with him
With respect to the MAL case – you are completely incorrect.
Even if Trump’s motion had little merrit – COMPETENT judges are required to take them seriously consider them and decide lawfully and carefully.
No judge anywhere is supposed to do what you claim and off the cuff say “that is bat$hit crazy” and dismiss.
I would further note that the legal experts you have relied on have been VERY wrong so far.
CO was reversed 9-0 – despite a whole army of left wing nut legal scholars claiming it was a slam dunk.
The majority in the CO case strongly hinted that they are leaning the same way on the issue of immunity.
Jack Smith’s efforts to short circuit Due process were soundly rejected by the supreme court.
Cases you said they would not accept or would dismiss quickly – they have accepted and they are proceeding with only slightly facster than normal deliberation.
You ave ranted about the alleged poor quality of Trump’s lawyers – but it has been Smith and the whole army of democratic leagal sholars that you love that have repeatedly got their ass handed to them.
Trump posted bond on the Carrol case – the appeal is on, The award will be whittled down, and then the whole case dismissed in several years.
Expect to see the same in the Engron case.
You will have successfully cost DJT a great deal of money – that he should get bag from NY – but wont. Government is absmally bad at paying for the damages it causes.
I do not know How Cannon will rule in Trump’s motions to dismiss. Thought there are excellent reasons to dissmiss.
But I doubt she is going to rush. Any decisions she makes she is going to spend the time necescary to try to make them rock solid.
Separately Smith has pissed of the Supreme court, and he has pissed off Cannon’s court.
And your ranting and raving about the MAL case Why ? It is in an area that voted for Trump by 57%.
You are not going to win at a fair trial should you actually get to trial.
Hunter’s attack on the DOJ is just the demoncratic games they play to keep you monkeys believing things just got real.
Weiss and Hunter’s attorneys went out for a 5 grand taxpayer meal at the fanciest with 100 year old bottled scotch just after it hit the intel pushed news.
Dennis it has already been pointed out to you that if the PRA actually says and means what you claim – then it would be unconstitutional.
Technically the JW v NARA case is not binding on the 11th ct. But many of the cases it rests on ARE.
Regardless, it will be weighed heavily.
I would further note that the question “are these documents declassified” and “Are they Trump’s property” are independent.
JW V NARA does NOT address whether the classified tapes in Clintons sock drawer were “magically declassified”.
Judge ABJ decided quite simply that it did not matter whether they were classified or not – NARA had no authority to try to retrieve them, and the court had no authority to order anyone else to.
If you beleive that is not the case – When didn’t NARA seek and order fromt he court for the return of the dacs in Trump’s possession since 2021 ? That would have resolved this trivially. If you beleive JW V NARA is bad law, or means something else, then NARA would have had no difficulty getting a court to order the documents return.
The declassification issue is separate. There is no magic incantation a president has to issue to declassify a document.
There is no law regarding classified documents that binds a president while they are president.
If the president reveals classified information to the Russian ambassador, or to the NYT it is declassified.
It the president does ANYTHING to treat a classified document as if it is not classified – then it no longer is.
Contra Trump this can not be done telepathically.
But if Trump knowingly arranged for Classified documents to be Transported to MAL in the last days of his presidency – they are declassified by that act.
The transport would have to be knowing – not accidental, and it would have to be such that he Knew they would be at MAL after he left office.
If the docs were already at MAL or were transported by accident – they remain classified.
But they ALSO remain Trump’s property.
Regardless you really do not understand the legal problem you face. If the PRA does not give the president the power to take whatever documents he wishes – then the PRA is unconstitutional.
There is a reason the courts have chosen the reading o fthe PRA they have.
Because otherwise it is unconstitutional.
Dennis – you have had a horrible track record on the law.
Worse still the legal experts you rely on have a horrible track record.
Worse still the lawyers that you think are great have proven time and again to be incompetent partisans.
What do Fanni Willis, Donald Trump, and Hunter Biden have in common ?
Massive amounts of self righteous rhetoric.
What is different – Trump is actually being illegally persecuted for non crimes and is as such entitled to self righteous indignation.
Regardless go listen to the Fanni Willis hearings – or the CO SCOTUS oral arguments.
You have repeatedly claimed that Trump’s lawyers were fools.
Yet it is those on the left that are getting their ass handed to them.
The Willis case is clear – Wade Willis and her office must be disqualified.
I do not know how that Judge will rule though
At the same time – even if he gets this wrong, in multiple ways the damage has been done.
First McFee is a democrat with conflicts of interest of his own. But so far though he has been wrong in many rulings
he has not been the clearly partisan idiot that Kaplan, Engoron and Chutkan are.
As a result evidence gets in, Due process is followed. Trump’s lawyers are allowed to do their job and they have been devastatingly effective.
While Willis’s lawyers have been miserably bad.
We saw the same thing in Sctorus with the CO case.
SCOTUS has not yet Biden slapped the J6 case off the table but they have been repeatedly telling Smith he is wrong.
As has Cannon politely.
Regardless it is YOUR lawyers and YOUR legal experts that are losing constantly.
“key witness, Alex Smirnov, is now in jail”
Your people are total criminals.
Political science professor Brendan Nyhan: “Today would be a good day for the media to ask leading Republicans whether they agree with Donald Trump that drug dealers should be executed and that law enforcement should operate with impunity”
And yesterday:
“Today would be a good day for the media to ask leading Republicans whether they agree with Donald Trump’s effusive praise for authoritarian leaders like Putin, Xi, and – once again yesterday – Orbán (“There’s nobody that’s better, smarter, or a better leader”)”
Recognizing the strength in an adversary is not the same as praise.
It is the acknowledgment of that strength or intelligence or other attributes that makes one more aware of the potential dangers in an adversary.
To blindly assume one’s adversary is dumb, weak is a dangerous path to defeat.
You have very simplistic Hollywood thinking.
Read some Sun Tzu and get educated.
FDR got us involved in WW II in order to save the Soviet Union. What action, not words, has Trump done to save a mass murderer of millions of people?
Edward mahl, learn history! Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US shortly thereafter.
So Congress declared war right back!
Lend-Lease began well before December, 1944. I’m pretty sure that qualifies as involvement.
Oh, by the way, I’m glad he did.
David R. Benson – the history you have been taught is potted. We were fighting Germany and Japan long before the attack on Pearl Harbor. We were supporting the British, the Chinese and the Soviets with materiel and other supplies. Germany went out of its way to avoid fighting us. Japan was wary of fighting us, but the oil embargo forced them to make a difficult choice: cave in to our demands or start a war. Foolishly, they chose the latter. To any objective eye, Roosevelt was trying to involve our country in the war for many months before we were dragged into it. The Soviet Union and the Chinese Communist Party emerged as the true winners of that war.
The US navy was ACTIVELY at war with German submarines half way accross the atlantic long before war was declared.
DBB learn history – the US was involved in WWII before Pearl Harbor.
There are many sources – but Churchill’s multivolume history of WWII documents FDR’s heavy involvement prior to Pearl Harbor.
David, Good point. I think Hitler made a major strategic error by declaring war on the US. Many in the country were likely to say Japan was our enemy and we should leave Germany to the Brits. Hitler’s declaration ended that division. He explained that Germany was already engaged in conflict with the US at sea [true] but he didn’t understand American politics enough to recognize what a blunder it was to unify this country against Germany. But, then, he didn’t think much of us anyway.
Saying “There’s nobody that’s better, smarter, or a better leader” is praise. Said about Orban, it’s also false.
“Political science professor Brendan Nyhan: “Today would be a good day for the media to ask leading Republicans whether they agree with Donald Trump that drug dealers should be executed and that law enforcement should operate with impunity”
I bet we will never see this, from this clown:
Political science professor Brendan Nyhan: “Today would be a good day for the media to ask leading Democrats whether they agree with Joe Biden that the government should help castrate young boys, and perform double-mastectomies on young girls?
Political science professor Brendan Nyhan: “Today would be a good day for the media to ask leading Democrats whether they agree with Joe Biden that when a woman is going into labor, the EMTS should ask whether she wants to go to a delivery room or the abortion clinic?
Political science professor Brendan Nyhan: “Today would be a good day for the media to ask leading Democrats whether they agree with Joe Biden that the FBI and the DOJ should be sicced on people who disagree with their local school boards?
I could go on and on, but the point is, too many of the Brendan Nyhan-types are unable to apply their wits and keen insights in a non-partisan way. Much like SNL pretty much only pokes fun at one side of the political spectrum. Which IMHO, destroys their credibility.
Again, the stupid lack the ability to read the news properly. You should note, at least in many of the reports, that the MSM quotes Trump verbatim, but when it comes to this idea of executing drug dealers, there is no quote, so context is missing. This is typical of those who know little about the subject matter.
Let us hear an in-context quote from Trump, not your lies and suggestions taken from the leftist spin operators. Also, tell us what is wrong about Orban protecting his people and right about Biden causing the deaths of Americans. Stupidity seems to be the dominating factor surrounding you.
Hunter is used to simply citing his last name as Biden for getting anything and everything he wants his entire life. He doesn’t like being treated like some kind of ‘ordinary citizen’. Remember what Joe himself proudly said on a hot mike: “Nobody fks with a Biden”.
Dear Prof Turley, et al
I’m assuming, here, “Patently” false has some prosecutorial advantage over and above Hunter’s regular ‘lying through his teeth’ among other drug-addled flights of fancy? And that SC Weiss, at long last, has finally discovered some evidence that Hunter Biden cannot refute [in a court of law] that precludes any further FBI/Special Counsel ‘sweet heart’ deals?
SC Weiss has his hands full. Investigating both Hunter Biden and one of the FBI’s most trusted, well paid, CHS’s allegations of Biden brand corruption.
*I’m further assuming that if (as described) the FBI/DoJ can grant a trusted CHS ‘immunity’ from illegal/criminal activity during their confidential pursuit of truth and justice .. . they can do the same for a president’s son.
Looks like Annoying us did 23 and me, family tree must be a tall tree without branches!
Theater
Nothing will happen to the Biden crime family. $20M taken in Joe, tax the rich!