“Defendant’s claim is effectively that his own father targeted him for being his son, a claim that is nonsensical under the facts here. Regardless of whether Congressional Republicans attempted to influence the Executive Branch, there is no evidence that they were successful in doing so and, in any event, the Executive Branch prosecuting Defendant was at all relevant times (and still is) headed by Defendant’s father.”
The court also rejected Hunter Biden’s effort to subpoena Trump, former attorney general Bill Barr, and two other senior officials who served in the Trump Justice Department. Again, she noted that it was the Biden administration that decided to prosecute Hunter Biden on the firearms offenses.
Here is the decision: Hunter Biden Gun Decision
O T – let’s talk about double standards. In several states, Republican who were contingent electors in 2020 have been prosecuted for engaging in fraud. Now Joe Biden is facing a problem: he cannot get on the ballot in a few states b/c the deadline for registering as a candidate expires before the Democratic Party convention. In order to get around this problem, Democrats are talking about submitting the names of contingent candidates to state election officials. Is there really a difference between contingent electors and contingent Presidential candidates?
Edwardmahl: Yes. In 2020, those people who signed fake Electoral College certificates claiming Trump had won were engaging in FRAUD. There is no such thing as a “contingent” elector–you are a valid elector if your candidate won in your state. Trump didn’t win in Georgia and other states where this procedure was utilized, all as part of a plot to subvert the will of the American people, and those who engaged in fraud by signing Electoral College ballots who said that he had LIED. It’s not a lie to say that Biden is the Democratic candidate.
Are you going to answer Edwardmahl’s question?
It’s not a lie to say that Biden is the Democratic candidate.
Then why have a convention?
“The presidential and vice presidential nominees of major political parties are not nominated through primary elections, but are selected by delegates at each party’s national convention. The number of delegates and alternates to be sent to a convention is determined by the national party committee’s written rules governing the primary process in each state.”
https://www.ohiosos.gov/globalassets/publications/election/2024-presidential-guide.pdf
In other words, someone becomes ballot eligible in Ohio AFTER being nominated at the party convention, and not before. It is not enough to say “I am a candidate.” If that were sufficient, there could be hundreds of candidates for each of the major parties.
All the Democrats can do at this point is try to persuade the legislatures in state like Ohio the change the law or to file some kind of “contingent” written statement, not on the official form of the Secretary of State, declaring that Biden anticipates being the nominee, and then bringing suit to force the SOS (or other responsible state agency) to put Biden on the ballot.
Filing a provisional petitition would not be materially different than Republicn electors declaring that they anticipated being recognized as official electors when the “correct” result of the Presidential election is determined. That is in fact what Democrats did in Hawaii in 1960.
This is a big story because if Biden cannot persuade Washington State to changes its rules, Biden will be deprived of that state’s 12 electoral votes, a loss which would ipso facto cost him the election. Although he is not likely to carry either Ohio or Alabama, the absence of a Presidential candidate on the ballot is likely to suppress Democratic turn-out, hurting candidates throughout each State.
Lert’s think further, the inability of the Democrats to get their candidate on the ballot in some states looks like pure incompetence and will affect votes.
Let’s assume that Democrats can find friendly judges to set aside the rules in Ohio, Alabama and Washington. Once again, Republicans will be outraged and energized by the sight of Democrats changing the rules of the game during the election cycle by undemoratic means.
Independent votes will probably also be disgusted by judicial manipulation of the election rules, and will be reminded of the efforts of Democrats to “cleanse the ballot” of Donald Trump. We all like to see bullies get their comeuppance.
You’re explanation is very welcome and very interesting. I’m old enough to remember smoke-filled rooms, dark-horse candidates and nominees being chosen on the umpty-ninth ballot.
My comment was actually a rhetorical question, directed at Gigi’s silliness. I would be surprised if she profits from what you’ve posted.
Biden’s mafia is succeeding in driving Americans to loathe them, according to December 2023 poll done by Pew Research. Not surprisingly, Pew released their findings only recently Thursday, April 11. What is more is that they were at great pains to simply state it as plainly as possible. Instead their verbiage was that of a contortionist.
TL;DR: Less than 25% of Americans in Dec 2023 had a favorable opinion of Biden’s Federal Govt. It is likely worse today April 2024
Americans rate their federal, state and local governments less positively than a few years ago
Our December 2023 survey of 5,203 adults finds: Just 22% of U.S. adults have a favorable opinion of the federal government, down 10 percentage points since 2022.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/11/americans-rate-their-federal-state-and-local-governments-less-positively-than-a-few-years-ago/
What Pew failed to mentioned is that under Biden anti-semitism is raging out of control that would make Adolph Hitler envious.
Meanwhile
Marie AntoinetteHillary Clinton looked regal at a Biden White House state dinner according to MSMthat was me
Jonathan: On the eve of DJT’s first criminal trial you think discussing Hunter Biden’s pre-trial motions are more important that all the pre-trial motions filed by DJT in his case staring Monday? Really? Your column is the oldest trick by magicians–distraction and deflection. The real elephant in the room–the real action is in Judge Merchan’s courtroom.
DJT faces 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records to cover up his tryst with porn star Stormy Daniels. In that case Todd Blanche, DJT’s attorney, has filed no less that 10 pre-trial motions in the past two weeks to either delay the trial or get Judge Merchan recused. All of Blanche’s motions were rejected by the NY Appellate Division. In his latest motion yesterday Blanche asked Merchan to delay the trial because of “pretrial publicity”. In a blistering decision Judge Merchan rejected Blanche’s latest motion:
“Defendant appears to take the position that his situation and this case are unique and that the pre-trial publicity will
will never subside. However, this view does not align with reality. In just the past 12 months, Defendant has very
publicly been involved in a multitude of criminal and civil cases across several states in both federal and state
jurisdictions [ref. AG James civil fraud and E.J. Carroll cases]…In those two matters, he was personally responsible for
generating much, if not most, of the surrounding publicity with his public statements…and with his unrelenting media
posts attacking those he perceived to be responsible
for his plight”.
In other words, DJT can hardly complain about “pretrial publicity” when he was the person who generated it. Regarding all of DJT’s failed pre-trial motions Jimmy Fallon had fun on his show last night: “Well, former president Trump’s hush money trial is set to start on Monday, and for the third time in three days, a judge just rejected his attempt to delay it. Trump is trying everything. He even requested a delay so he could mourn the loss of O.J.!”
The Q is why you would ignore the first ever criminal trial of a former president to discuss Hunter Biden’s pretrial motions? In the scheme of criminal trials the Hunter’s case, involving a gun charge and failure to pay taxes, is really small potatoes. The answer is the magician’s oldest trick–distraction and deflection. Keep us focused on Hunter rather than the real elephant in Judge Merchan’s courtroom.
The whole country and world will be focused on the trial starting Monday. That’s the reality you can ignore–but it only makes you look foolish. Only Houdini could make an elephant disappear. I think you should stick to your day and give up trying to pretend you are a magician!
It’s always funny when Dennis, who no one sane wants to read, or takes seriously,
repeatedly tries to tell Mr. Turley what HE should be writing.
The same Mr. Turley most of us are here to read because we appreciate his writing.
-Cat
If you “appreciate” Turley’s purchased punditry, it’s because you are a starry-eyed disciple of the Cult of Trump. The rest of us know BS when we see it and Dennis does an excellent job of calling it out.
And yet here you are. Every day. With nowhere else to go.
Well, The difference is that Trump’s indictments are political in nature and involve novel legal theories never used to charge anyone before. Jonathan has analyzed this in detail. Did you not read those columns Dennis? Just in terms of the classified documents there is a huge double standard at DOJ. Biden took scores of classified documents out of a sciff while a Senator and Vice President. He did this willfully and only surrendered them when caught. Trump took classified documents as part of his Presidential papers which was legal based on the Presidential Records Act and previous case law such as the Clinton sock drawer ruling. Trump hatred is a disease and you should perhaps seek treatment in order to reconnect with reality.
Dennis,
There is little reason to discuss the faux bragg/merchan trial.
There is not crime. It should not be taking place.
And frankly – you and democrats should be ASHAMED of this kind of repugnant abuse of power.
This is a corrupt prosecutor, with a corrupt judge – a Judge who is ACTIVELY committing the same crimes that Joe Biden has – using his public office to financially benefit his family. As Turley noted with Biden – that actually is a crime. While Republicans HAVE connected Joe to the money – legally that is NOT necessary. It is public corruption regardless.
You can tell how corrupt this is when the judges participation in the trial is actually a crime – and not only won’t he recuse himself – appeals courts will not do it for him.
The “story” about the Bragg case is NOT one of Trump’s criminal conduct – that is trivial. There is none.
It is the criminal conduct of those going after him.
It is not just that it is weak, it is that there is no legal merit to any part of it.
Not only Turley, but many other actual legal scholars – you know the people who have been RIGHT about all this nonense from the start,
have noted there is no there there.
There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Daniels and Trump had a one night stand. Without that – there is no case.
The standard of the law is NOT I believe something to be true. It is not more likely than not. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Daniels has denied the central claim – publicly, in writing and in court filings at least 8 times.
There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump through Cohen offered money to Daniels for her silence. Without there is no case.
Attny Avenatti is barely more credible than Micheal Cohen, but he was Daniels attorney and he claims that he dropped her as a client when he encountered EVIDENCE that She initiated this. That would make her actions a crime – extortion.
All of the above is necescary – but NOT sufficient to prove that a federal election law violation occured.
First the courts – the Supreme court have said for decades that a political candidates own spending on their campaign can not constitutionally be subject to election law. Trump can spend his own money on his political campaign and not tell the FEC anything at all.
But beyond that the courts and the FEC has Also said that dual purpose expendatures are NOT subject to federal election laws.
This is consistent with the same standards for such expenditures in Tax Law.
The courts and the FEC has said that so called “hush money” payments when paid by Donors – not the candidate themselves,
are NOT violations of election law. Multiple FEC decisions over 30 years have concluded that.
But to ice it all – Jack Smith tried to prosecute this against Democratic Presidential candidate Johnathan Edwards 30 years ago and LOST.
Next, New York State courts do not have jurisdiction over Federal laws. Bragg is attempting to improperly prove that a federal election crime has taken place, even though he has no power to prosecute much less convict of a federal crime, because without winning ALL of the4 above – without proving that not only was federal election law violated – but so egregiously that it is a felony – to my knowledge NO ONE has ever been prosecuted for felony federal election law violations. Crafting a fake dosier with Federal Election funds – laundering it through a law firm to falsely calling it “legal expenses”, resulted in a SMALL fine to the Clinton campaign.
But without establishing that there was a federal felony commited – one that no one is attempting to charge,
Braggs entire case goes away.
All of the above is just to get to Braggs actual claim which is that Trump improperly reported “hush money” as a legal expense.
The first problem is that “hush money” is a legal expense. NDA’s are perfectly legal, they are typically procured through lawyers and the process of Negotiating them and paying for them is a legal expense.
The next problem is that There is no NDA between Trump and Daniels. The NDA is between Daniels and Cohen. Trump is not a party to the NDA. He did not sign the NDA. He may indirectly benefit, but he does not directly benefit. If Daniels breached the NDA she owes money to Cohen not Trump.
All of that has already been litigated – 7 years ago – and not only did Daniels lose – she had to pay legal fees to Trump, for trying to make him a party to a legal agreement he was not part of.
Bragg and Merchan are “collaterally estopped” from trying to claim that Trump had anything directly to do with the NDA.
Again assuming that you somehow manage to get past all the hurdles above – you still have no FRAUD.
A common law required element for ALL fraud is actual harm. But this is not only a common law requirement – it is a constitutional requirement. The foundations of the social contract – the sole reason that we allow government to infringe on our liberty is to protect us from actual harm. Government may not enact laws that arbitrarily decide that A is a Crime while B is not.
The FACT that I am here discussing the application fo the social contract, the rule of law, common law and the foundations of all law,
are the evidence that this prosecution is an Egregious fraud.
This is EXACTYLY like the nonsense going on in Brazil right now – where a single judge is making criminals and jailing those who disagree with him.
This is LAWLESS.
“This is a corrupt prosecutor, with a corrupt judge – a Judge who is ACTIVELY committing the same crimes that Joe Biden has – using his public office to financially benefit his family.”
Biden has not committed any crimes. No evidence has been presented. The judge’s daughter is not benefitting financially from the judge’s position. How? Saying she does without proof is not evidence. Jared Kushner is mentioned on some comments. Clearly he did benefit from his father’s position financially. Why isn’t Kushner accused of the same? He sold his office to the Saudis in exchange for protection from the Kashoggi murder investigation.
Of course Trump can complain about Pre-Trial publicity.
He did not charge himself. He is being drug into court by force by a corrupt judge and prosecutor.
Nor did Trump gag himself while allowing all other participants – including witnesses to say whatever they please on television.
You are making this absurd argument that by protesting the illegal conduct of prosecutors and the courts – you loose your right to demand a fair trial.
Regardless, the constitution and due process are ENTIRELY burdens on the GOVERNMENT – not the defendant.
You claim to be a lawyer – but you are ignorant of very basic things.
Again I would refer you to the Glenn Greenwald vlog on the situation in Brazil – that is EXACTLY what YOU – the left are trying to do here.
You are Silencing your political enemies and then criminally prosecuting them for conduct that is NOT a crime.
There has been some rare revolting conduct in the US in the past – but NEVER have we seen anything this absolutely disgusting.
This is the very nonsense that the US has berated Putin or Banana Republics for in the past.
Worse still you have even lost the claim that the WH and Biden are not involved.
The lead prosecutor in this case – Coangelo has gone from the WH to the Trump J6 prosecution to the Willis case to the JAmes case and now to the Bragg case.
Making them all part of an Overt conspiracy to “Get Trump”.
Biden is ACTUALLY guilty of the offense that you tried to impeach Trump over.
YOU are the tyrant. You are the “threat to democracy”
@ John Say,
What conduct of the prosecutors and the courts is illegal? He’s charged with violating NY laws, falsifying documents. According to NY law it’s a crime. Prosecutors are required to carry out the prosecution of the alleged crime in court. How is that illegal? Gag orders have not been found to be unconstitutional and are generally accepted when applied in limited measure. But Trump likes to push those limits deliberately and uses the judge’s increased frustration and impatience to cry foul. Judges have become aware of his tactic and Trump wants more so he can claim he’s being treated unfairly. It’s Trump who is creating his “unfair treatment”.
No prosecutors are not required to carry out prosecutions of “alleged” crimes. They are unfortunately not even required to prosecute actual crimes.
I have further noted – and this came up in the EnMoron case – Criminal laws exist solely to punish or prevent actual harm.
Numerous lawyers – Turley , MacCarthy, and Derschowitz in particular keep saying “But no one was harmed” as if that is an excuse for violating the law that should mitigate the crime.
They are right that the fact no one was harmed is important. What they are NOT properly articulating is that any interpretation of the law that bars activity that can not harm others is unconstitutionally over broad.
The point is not that no one WAS harmed, it is that the alleged misconduct COULD NOT have harmed anyone.
It is not an accident or random chance that no harm resulted from Trump’s conduct in the EnMoron case.
It is a direct consequence of both the law and reality fo mortgaging properties. It is a consequence of the 2 millenia old legal standard Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware. Buyers are ALWAYS responsible for assuring that they are buying what they want.
For many reasons, but among them Sellers can only know what Sellers want. Sellers are not mind readers.
In the case of mortgages banks are responsible to verify that the property they are using as collateral meets their expectations for collateral. Because only the mortgagor can not what those requirements are.
It is not that Trump DID not defraud Deutsche bank. It was that he COULD NOT defraud Deutsche bank.
No fraud no crime.
You say falsifying documents is a crime in NY – I do not know the exact text of the language. But I do know that it is highly unlikely that the text of the law is anywhere near as broad as Bragg is trying to claim. Because we actually have spent hundreds of years learning how to write laws and it is not common for them to ACTUALLY be so overly broad as to criminalize conduct that causes no actual harm. But in the unlikely even the NY Statute does criminalize conduct that does no harm – it is the Law that is in error.
Regaredless, prosecutors stretching the law – is LAWLESS, it is MISCONDUCT.
It is Lawless and misconduct whether done by republicans or democrats.
Myriads of legal experts – Turley included note this case is “weak” – in reality it is NON existant.
You say that Prosecutors must prosecute allegations – that is OBVIOUSLY false.
“I hearby accuse YOU of falsifying documents in NY”
Must Bragg now prosecute you ?
Of course not.
An allegation does not make something into a crime.
An allegation is the first necessity to conduct a criminal investigation.
And an allegation alone is not even sufficient legally to get a warrant.
It is not even alone sufficient to open an investigation.
There is an escallating scale of evidence that MUST be established to proceed trough the steps in the process of getting a case before a jury.
The evidence in this case is not sufficient to bring it before a grand jury.
In other posts I have pointed out the flaws in this case – the first MAJOR issue is that Bragg must successfully prosecute a federal crime that he has no jurisdiction over, both to overcome the statute of limitations for the alleged crime has actually has jurisdiction over and to escalate it to a felony.
This is much like the Colorado 14th amendment cases. The courts had to presume they were entitled to adjudicate a crime that was outside their jurisdiction, with no indictment, charges or prosecution, much less conviction, in order to go to the next step and Remove Trump from the ballot.
Only courts can not properly do that.
The next major flaw is there is no fraud. Even deliberately erroneous documents without some actual harm are not and can not be a crime.
If you list your house as green, when it is actually beige on some government form – even if you did so deliberately, that would not and could not be a crime.
If I list my business internet service as a computer expense rather than a communications expense on my taxes have I committed a crime ? Of course note. I will owe the same taxes regardless. Even if I deliberately lied on my taxes, it still would not be a crime unless there was harm or atleast the potential for harm from the deception.
Much of this was addressed in the Flynn case. While 18 US 1001 actually started life much as the NY law Trump is alleged to have violated – 18 US 1001 was initially a providing the government with false documents law initially passed in the mid 19th century.
During the Flynn case it was repeatedly addressed that to be a crime a false statement must:
Deceive – if the government knows you are lying there is no crime. This is actually why Sussman and Danchenko were acquitted.
The FBI testified that they KNEW that Denachenko and Sussman were lying. No deception not crime.
There must be harm – in the context of 19 US 1001 that means the Government must have taken action relyuing on the false statement that resulted in some loss – as an example misdirecting resources in the investigation.
In the case of 18 US 1001 it is also necescary that the decption must have been during an actual investigation.
One of the reasons that Bar ordered the Flynn plea deal dropped was because the FBI tried to close Crossfire Huricane in late December 2016 – the investigation had died they evidence did not exist to continue lawfully.
But Strzok directed an FBI administrator to keep the investigation open. He went and interviewed Flynn about 20 days later.
The investigation was no longer properly open, therefore the Flynn interview was not part of a legitimate investigation, therefor no harm.
Materiality is important. You can lie to the FBI about what you had for lunch without being charged – unless there is some actual reason what you had for lunch matters.
These requirements are not listed in the text of 18 US 1001, but they are part of the basic caselaw for ALL crimes of deception.
Like Falsifying documents in NY.
Absent materiality and harm there is no crime. Further that is a matter of LAW not fact. A prosecutor is not supposed to bring a criminal case where all the LEGAL elements of the case are not established. A judge is not supposed to allow a trial when all the legal elements of the case are not established.
Bragg has not alleged harm. There are no tax evasion charges as an example.
Without something else – the issue is NOT that Trump DID NOT cause harm, it is that he COULD NOT.
It is SOMETIMES a crime to lie when you COULD cause harm – you do not get a get out of jail free card because you get lucky and no harm is done. It is NEVER a crime when a false statement CAN NOT cause harm.
A prosecution that moves forward when the legal requirements for the crime do not exist is actually a federal crime – it is a violation of ones civil rights under color of law – that is 18 US 1983 if I recall correctly. That is the same crime the officers who beat Rodney king were found guilty of.
And in this instance Bragg and Merchan are guilty of it.
While they are not likely to ever be prosecuted for i – This is also the crime that the FBI agents running Crossfire Huricane are guilty of.
When the FBI testified that they KNEW that Sussman and Danchenko were lying about the steele dosier they effectively confessed to the violation of Carter PAge and many many others rights under color of law. They held open an investigation after the foundation for the investigation had evaporated.
The FBI is not the KGB or the Gestapo, They may not investigate whoever they want for whatever they want. That is a violation of peoples civil rights. That is a crime.
Some of us will be focused on the Trial in Manhattan starting Monday.
But the entire world will not.
Most people will not.
Most people do not care at all.
It is difficult to predict what will happen.
And more difficult to predict what the consequences of that will be
And more difficult to predict whether it will matter at all.
Most people do not care at all. While they do not realize the complete and total lack of merits to this case, and they do not realize the tremendous corruption necescary to even bring it into a court. Most people do know this is inconsequential.
Most people understand that paying 100K for an NDA is a far far far cry from taking millions to use US government power to obstruct justice in a foreign country.
It appears likely this trial is going to occur no matter what – but only because the judge involve is hell bent on assuring that Trump is convicted and does not care if that conviction is overturned later by the courts. Most people do not understand that.
But an awful lot of people DO understand that a judge should not be sitting on a case that his daughter will financially benefit from the outcome.
I would further note that though it is a foregone conclusion that Judge Merchan is not going to allow anything to interfere with conducting this lawless trial. And he is not going to allow anything to interfere with trying to leave the jury no alternative but to convict.
I fully expect lots of evidence that is inadmissible to be allowed in an the defense to be prohibited from making any case at all.
I fully expect a star chamber trial – one in which Merchan has already limited public access to. Merchan has fought to prevent docketing motions in this case. Fought to prevent disclosure of his own ex-parte conduct, pretty much fought public disclosure in every way possible. Gagged Trump, and is not allowing cameras in the court room – put simply to the greatest extent possible Merchan is trying to deny the public the oportunity to see this miscarraige of justice.
But ultimately he does not control the jury. And will Trump has a toxic jury pool in manhattan, it only takes ONE stubborn Juror to thwart this nonsense. To that end Merchan has already biased the jury selection process.
Regardless, there is pretty much no doubt at all that if MErchan can railroad a conviction here that this case will be reversed later on appeal.
The goal is NOT to prosecute Trump for a crime he actually committed.
It is the typical left wing nut nonsense of labels and identities.
It is to Tag Trump as a convicted felon, in the hopes that will hjold back the tidal wave of an election that is coming.
And Dennis – it MIGHT work.
But so far this nonsense has backfired.
And This could very well backfire big time too.
@ John Say, What conduct of the prosecutors and the courts is illegal?
You keep saying the courts and prosecutors are being lawless. Have you any evidence to show it is?
It’s not about people caring. They don’t matter. Prosecutors are doing what the law says they are allowed to do. Trump is accused of breaking NY laws. To prove it they must show in court that Trump broke the law. How is that illegal conduct?
“Trump is accused of breaking NY laws.”
Actually, not.
The politically motivated “prosecutors” accuse Trump of breaking *federal* laws (over which they have no jurisdiction) to bootstrap state misdemeanors with expired statute of limitations.
Leave it to the Left to drop context, to make lawfare look pure and innocent.
Since you are Way OT.
for the 3rd straight month Inflation has risen – not alot, but enough that any hopes of an actual economic recovery in the coming months are dashed.
It is HIGHLY unlikely that the Fed will lower rates, they may even be forced to raise rates, which will likely push the country into recession.
In the event the FED does lower rates that will be viewed as a political move, election interferance. And worse still it will cause inflation to spike.
Now people are starting to talk not just about the failure of Bidenomics, but of Bidenflation.
Next on the News we are all at the moment on Pins and needles anticipating a Iranian attack on Israel and possibly the US.
What could be better proof of Biden’s incompetence and idiotic foreign policy.
What could better demonstrate YOUR personal stupidity in citing charlatan expert Rhoades over someone who actaully accomplished something remarkable in the Mideast – Jared Kushner.
We are all on pins and needles waiting for Iran – the rogue terrorist nationstate that Rhoades and Obama and Biden have been repeatedly trying to tell us could be bribed and flattered into good conduct prepares to attack the only actual democracy in the entire mideast.
When Trump left office the world was at relative peace – MUCH more peaceful than 4 years earlier.
Today The US is more deeply entangled than it has been since the vietnam war.
We have troops on the ground and at risk – even dying thoughout the mideast.
We are losing a fight to keep the Suez Canal open a failure that is harming all of those European Allies that you claim prefer Biden over Trump and have allegedly celebrated Biden’s presidency.
How do you think that Europeans are going to like even higher prices for goods, and even higher unemployment and lower standard of living ? Because that is the cost to Europe of Biden’s failures in the mideast.
Separately we are heavily involved in a proxy war with the most heavily nuclear armed power in the world that has threatened to go nuclear if thwarted. We were not this close to global nuclear war since the Cuban Missle Crisis.
This is your idea of Competence ?
We are now starting to see increases in illegal border crossings allong the northern border – this tend to be more dangerous types that can not risk getting caught at the southern border.
And this is just some of what Bad News Biden has wrought on us all.
Dennis,
I could not care less about a bogus trial. I am concerned that it now takes 20,000 dollars more per year for a family to live since Joe Biden became President. The world is a much more dangerous place in the past three years. The so called media outlets have ditched any form of professional ethics.
I am glad you are so concerned with the 45th President. That way the rest of the world can concern themselves with more important things of life. For that, thank you.
Hey Dennis, I am new around here but have noticed you have an answer for most things. Here’s my question to you. What, exactly, do you expect to happen in our country in the event DJT wins in November? Calm, peaceful transfer of power and general support for the duly elected POTUS as his team works to right the ship? Something else? Whaddya think Dennis?
There’s one big issue the professor left out. The constitutionality of the gun charge. Hunter Biden may not have succeeded in dismissing the case by claiming selective prosecution. That does not mean the charges against him are constitutional in the first place. Judge Noreika did not address the constitutionality of the charges question and it is likely that it will be Hunter Biden’s best defense.
There have already been cases and Supreme Court Rulings pointing out why the charges against Hunter are unconstitutional. The prosecution will have to show why it’s illegal for an addict to buy or own a gun after the Bruen decision. Bruen essentially made lying on the form moot. The selective prosecution claims were easy to dismiss, but the constitutionality of the charges were not.
The crime Hunter committed is not buying a gun while a drug addict. The crime is lying on the ATF firearms purchase form. It is written right there on the form that you sign this form under penalty of perjury.
Lying on the form is moot. Because the fact that he was supposedly an addict at the time of purchase and it is not illegal for an addict to purchase one lying on the form becomes irrelevant.
Lying is what you’re paid to do. So of course its moot just like all of your trolling
I have not lied in any way. The Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that someone under the influence of a controlled substance cannot be denied the right to own a gun. Addiction which is hard to prove at the time of purchase. He was sober when he bought it, allegedly. The charge of lying on the form requires the prosecutors prove Hunter was under the influence of a drug when he filled out the form. The memoir account is not enough.
It’s funny to see posters here talking about Biden pardoning Hunter. Trump pardoned Roger Stone after he was convicted of multiple perjury charges, witness tampering & obstructing a Congressional hearing. Hey, what’s the big deal about repeatedly lying under oath & obstructing a Congressional hearing?
Trump pardoned Manafort, who was convicted on five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and failing to disclose millions of dollars in a foreign bank account. Hey, why get upset about filing false tax returns & hiding millions of dollars in a foreign bank account?
Trump pardoned Jared Kushner’s father, who pleaded guilty to 16 counts of tax evasion, one count of retaliating against a federal witness, and another count of lying to the Federal Election Commission. Hey, why get upset about a President pardoning an in-law who pleaded guilty to multiple tax evasion charges?
No biggie when Trump pardons serial liars & serial tax cheats, right?
Manaford went to prison, but go on lying with your half truths. Stone was arrested, cuffed and torn assunder by a SWAT TEAM with CNN filming it. Did that happen to Hunter?
“President Donald Trump on Wednesday pardoned former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law, in the latest wave of clemency to benefit longtime associates and supporters.”
Associated Press, December 23, 2020
Hullbobby, feel free to further explain what you characterize as “lying with your half truths.”
Roger Stone was convicted in federal court on 7 felony charges, but you’re more upset about him getting arrested? Thanks for making my point that Trump defenders don’t believe it’s a big deal when a buddy of Trump is proven to be a serial liar in federal court.
Trump pardoned Manafort, . . .
Trump has issued multiple pardons. He stands before the voters to answer for those Pardons
Biden, the demented soul that he is, will not issue pardons until after the election.
Who’s transparent now?
“He stands before the voters to answer for those pardons.”
After the 2020 election, Trump pardoned Manafort, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Kuschner, GOP Chairman George Gilmore, RNC finance chair Elliott Broidy, & GOP Congressman Duke Cunningham who was convicted of the largest congressional bribery scandal in history.
And on his last day in office, Trump awarded a Presidential Commendation to Dr. Fauci.
iowan2, I wholeheartedly share your support for full transparency.
Turdley, and the rest of the morons here, have absolutely nothing to say about the fact that in the past week alone 3 different judges have denied Trump’s preposterous claims to dismiss the Stormy Daniels case. One of the ludicrous claims by Trump is that the trial should be dismissed because excessive publicity has made it impossible for him to get a fair trial. The judge pointed out that the only source of pre-trial publicity has been from Trump himself.
The judge pointed out that the only source of pre-trial publicity has been from Trump himself.
That’s half of the leftist media content. Yet another lie you insist on spreading
Moron, no one but you cares.
Well said, Farmer dude!
Regards to Ralph de Minimouse 🐁
I am more concerned about this, Man on terror watchlist was released by Border Patrol
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/man-terror-watchlist-remains-us-released-border-patrol-rcna147192
And this is much more interesting, Tiger Woods Makes Masters History, But Not Satisfied Yet
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/39929697/masters-history-2024-tiger-woods-not-satisfied
than your TDS blathering.
Anonymous, every legal person that has an ounce of respect KNOWS that this case is phony. Cy Vance didn’t pursue it, the DOJ didn’t pursue it, the SOL lapsed and not until Biden got his hands on Bragg did it go forward. It is an appeal waiting to happen.
And the statute of limitations has long gone on this case. And I believe I read a ruling from the 9th Circus court that Stormy owes Trump 500K as she has lost every lawsuit she’s brought against him.
It is good to see these small pockets of rational thinking that still want to maintain the rule of law. How many there are of these pockets and how long they will last; now that is a perilous question for our Republic.
I thought Abby Lowell was supposed to be the greatest criminal defense lawyer since Johnny Cochrane?????
Selective prosecution!!. Seems a stretch for the privileged 1st son, aka black sheep, dolt, bs artist, drug user, narcissist, etc.etc. I agree that Daddy Prez will pardon Hunter but the real story will begin when and if he is required to testify about other things and individuals. It’s like a black hole. We know the whole story is likely to be sucked in past the event horizon and never heard from again. Now if Hunter was tossed out of the spaceship and arrived at the event horizon then that would be far more entertaining and reportable. Call me when and if he goes into a cell or disappears into the black hole. Then I’ll drink a beer of celebration.
Having watched a lot of film noir, and from reading crime novels,
the bagman doesn’t always make it to end.
Whether there’s some there to ‘pardon’ him or not.
-Cat
I love noir movies from the 40s.
Don’t get the ref to Menendez in the sixth paragraph. Should it be re Hunter instead?
The nonsensical part is believing that Biden wouldn’t pardon Hunter. If he loses the election, it happens on his last day in office, if he wins in November, it really doesn’t matter when it happens. Republicans will pound the table, Dems will claim it was all “political” and view it as perfectly justifiable, and that will be the end of it. That was probably the argument the Biden white house made to the DOJ to get them to agree to the original sweetheart plea deal. Why bother going after Hunter when everyone knows how it will end up? Does anyone seriously think that Joe is going to let Hunter spend one day in prison when with the stroke of a pen, it all goes away? The ability to grant pardons without any review whatsoever, including, possibly even the power to pardon yourself, even for “crimes” you haven’t been accused of committing, makes the Trump prosecutions for classified documents and the questions surrounding presidential immunity look ridiculous. I suppose if Biden tries to pardon Hunter, a Repub DOJ could charge him with some crime, claim that some exception exists to doing this, and until the SC clarifies how far the president’s power reaches, just like in the classified docs case, the question is still open.
Anon: You provide a very pragmatic and, possibly, accurate forecast but, assuming you are generally correct, there’s a hidden “poison pill” here worth thinking about. A person receiving a presidential pardon must admit to the offence for which she is being pardoned. Should Joe pardon Hunter, the latter would have to admit to the offence(s) for which he is being pardoned. And since the pardon effectively immunizes Hunter from being prosecuted, he loses whatever 5th Amendment privilege he may have had. He then can be called before Congress or a grand jury, assuming there’s a change of administration, and forced to testify about his father’s criminal involvement in the influence peddling family business as well as the involvemnt of anyone else. Thus, old Joe might be causing his own demise by pardoning Hunter. That said, I agree with you that stringing this out as long as possible favors the Bidens. Perhaps if it can be delayed long enough, Hunter might claim to be a “well-meaning old man with a defective memory” and avoid prosecution entirely!
Anon and JJC,
Very interesting analysis.
Thank you.
—Hunter might claim to be a “well-meaning old man with a defective memory”
He’s already been using the ‘I was a drug addict, feel sorry for me and excuse my actions’ move
(despite his father bragging for years about his Crime Bill that threw other crack addicts in prison)
-Cat
The drug-addict “defense” is pretty worthless and may resonate with a sentencing authority if and when the criminal is convicted of the underlying behavior. Unlike dementia, the accused drug addict cannot claim that his memory loss was unintentional or non-voluntary as a dementia victim may claim. At some point, a drug addict made a voluntary choice, albeit a poor one, to use drugs. That places responsibility for whatever happens on the drug addict who made that poor choice.
That is an interesting take that I had not considered. I have to admit that I am not aware of the boundaries of presidential pardons but I wonder if an admission is actually required by the constitution or if that is just something that tradition has called for. I know that when prosecutors grant immunity deals, 5th amendment rights are forfeited and the recipient cannot refuse to testify, if asked to do so, but I wonder if presidential powers come with the same requirements. People have been pardoned for crimes without even requesting it. The idea of a president pardoning himself, which seems hard to believe could occur, and appears to fall into that untested area, would make this requirement pretty difficult. This is why I believe that presidential immunity and the power to grant pardons are somewhat connected. As to the hypothetical of “could a president murder their political rival in DC and be immune from prosecution after leaving office”, I would say yes. If a president could ask someone to commit a murder (and let’s face it, presidents often ask this of soldiers, contractors, CIA, etc.), and the murder was committed in manner that could make it a federal crime (murdering a non-US citizen, in a foreign country, is still a crime in the US), there would appear to be no question that the killer could be pardoned by the same president that ordered the murder. However, if you believe that a president loses immunity when they leave office, then how could the murderer go free, but the person that had the power to pardon him could be tried as a co-conspirator after leaving office. It seems that if you have the power to pardon others, then the question of your own immunity continuing after office would make perfect sense. That would negate the absurdity of having to pardon yourself. And if immunity doesn’t survive your term in office, then I wouldn’t really call that immunity at all. It would be equally absurd to allow a predecessor to be able to prosecute a former president, when the had the power to let others go free for the same crime.
Joe is off the hook for any criminal prosecution due to the Dementia Defense.
Have you noticed how haggard and worn Hunter appears lately? I wonder if he is regretting the lifestyle he lived or being the pawn (forced to be?) for the Biden family cash extorting machine.
Daddy also looks worse for wear. They could be yucking it up and enjoying their millions. No, they cling to their lust for money and power.
Daddy is at the jumping off place and it is doubtful that Hunter will live a long a prosperous life on this trajectory. Was it worth it?
I do not envy them. “What shall it profit if a man gains the whole world but loses his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Andrew Weismann is an overly aggressive partisan hack that probably should be disbarred for the many subversions or law that he has committed. He was the driving force under Mueller and had a checkered past before he was gifted that position.
Not one democrat has been convicted to date for anything, Hunter skates. The rules, regulations and enforcement are for the law abiding Americans only.
Margot,
Well said and spot on!
I always say, how me ONE Democrat (Administration friendly) that has been arrested, cuffed and marched off IN FRONT OF CAMERAS like Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Peter Navarro or other Trump supporters were.
Correction….”the rules, regulations and enforcement are for the law abiding Americans only, and Republicans, Rinos, Libertarians, and other similar un-worthies.”
The give-and-take process is part of the bazaar (and bizarre) process of plea bargaining and settling government claims of criminal behavior. A trial of Hunter Biden is not in the offing here because, let’s face it, the evidence is overwhelming and most of it comes from the defendant himself. That said, any discussion of a plea deal should contain a cooperation agreement in which Hunter responds to all, not some, but all the questions of the prosecutors and any other investigative authority of the US Government. This is boilerplate language in federal criminal plea agreements, according to the Justice Department manual for US Attorneys. An important aspect is that it covers requiring Hunter to answer questions by Congress as one of the other investigative authorities of the US Government. Some of Hunter’s responses might be covered by a 5th Amendment privilege but that doesn’t necessarily cover facts he might know about the criminal behavior of others. I also would like to know the disposition of the automatic handgun displayed by Hunter in his nude photos on his laptop. I’m sure that by now the FBI has identified the make and model of the gun so it should be pro forma for the prosecutors to ask about it, where it is, how he acquired it, etc. Don’t forget, the weapon in his current gun charge case in Delaware is a Colt .38 Detective Special- a very different gun from the automatic handgun displayed prominently in his nude photo spread.
JJC,
Thank you for that interesting analysis.
Hunter is just delaying any court time until after November.
That is exactly what I was just going to write. The media loves to talk about Trump trying to stall, but Hunter doesn’t want to need his pardon until after November.
Obviously, after November is the favorite timeline for the pardon. If a pardon would be necessary before November, the public may dislike it and it may negatively impact on daddy’e re-election. After the election the Bidens are safe. Either Joe is reelected for his, then, final term and voters can no longer respond to Daddy’e pardon; or, Joe lost and then Hunter is free and nobody can touch him.
“Nonsensical” is where the Democrat/Left lives nowadays. So the only thing different here, is that a judge is saying it. What is not different, is that a major media outlet, MSNBC, continues to push the nonsense. And, others.
Floyd,
Well said.
This is all Kabuki Theater. Does anyone seriously doubt that Big Daddy will give his boy a full pardon as long as “Mr. Ten Percent for the Big Guy” is still alive after Election Day? This is one of the things that make me wish for a Kamala Harris Presidency so we can enjoy the spectacle of Hunter going under the bus.
Yet more reason to doubt the veracity, not only of Hunter Biden, but of Andrew Weismann, the Justice Department, the Biden Administration, and the “mainstream” media.