Below is my column in The Hill on the man who lit himself on fire outside of the New York courthouse last week. What does matter may be the reaction to such “demonstrations.”
Here is the column:
The scene outside of the New York courthouse holding the Trump trial has become a microcosm of our deep political divisions and rage this month. Images of citizens screaming at each other from across security barriers have played out nightly on news programs.
But few were prepared for what occurred Friday night, when a man threw flyers in the air, poured a flammable liquid on himself and lit himself on fire.
Some immediately rushed to use the incident to fuel their own rage. On the far left, postings and comments declared MAGA supporters were lighting themselves and “MAGA Terrorist just set himself on fire.”
For many, it seemed a fact too good to check. Even after the police and fire officials explained that the material distributed by the man did not seem to relate to the trial, journalists pushed for a connection to the pro-Trump protesters. Officials reported that the flyers concerned wacky conspiracy theories related to schools and other matters.
Max Azzarello, 37, of Florida worked briefly for Rep. Tom Suozzi (D., N.Y.), but has a criminal record of property offenses that included throwing a glass of wine on a photo of Bill Clinton. We know little of his political views beyond his conspiracy obsessions. However, does it really matter?
What should be clear is that he was a deeply disturbed individual. Yet even self-immolation may no longer be treated as per se evidence of mental illness. In today’s politics, even setting yourself on fire can be rationalized.
An event was held recently at UCLA in which two psychiatrists appeared to rationalize self-immolation in the cause of people in Gaza.
Ragda Izar and Afaf Moustafa were reportedly discussing the self-immolation in front of Israel’s embassy of airman Aaron Bushnell in February to protest Israeli policies. It was referred to as a “revolutionary suicide” on the panel on “Depathologizing Resistance.”
UCLA’s Izar stated that Bushnell “carried a lot of distress…but does that mean that the actions he engaged in are any less valid?” She suggested that it is “normal to be distressed when you’re seeing this level of carnage [in Gaza].”
Moustafa is quoted as saying that “Psychiatry pathologizes non-pathological…reactions to a pathological environment or pathological society. It’s considered illness to choose to die in protest of the violence of war but perfectly sane to choose to die in service of the violence of war.”
There have been a few prominent historical self-immolations in protest, including the famous case of Thich Quang Duc, who burned himself alive to protest the Vietnam War in 1963. However, as lay persons, most of us would hazard to say that it is not “normal” or “valid” to set oneself on fire in a protest.
The dividing line between rage and reason has always been contextual. In my forthcoming book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how we have faced regular periods of rage in our history. How one views rage depends largely on the underlying viewpoint. This country was born in rage with the Boston Tea Party, where a riot with massive property damage is celebrated as a moment of liberation.
Yet even self-immolation may now be viewed as somehow valid when used to oppose Israeli policies or other “distressful” realities. If Azzarello was motivated by his view of a conspiracy among educators or Trump’s trial, would his self-immolation also be viewed as valid?
Relativism has become deeply embedded in our politics, as we see in the continuing efforts to shut down opposing views. A year ago, Stanford University was the scene of a disgraceful shout-down of a federal judge who wanted to share his jurisprudential views.
The university apologized to federal appellate Judge Kyle Duncan, particularly after a dean appeared to blame him at the event for “triggering” students by sharing his opposing views.
The situation did not improve after the response of the university. At the time, I criticized Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez after they declined to punish any students. Instead, all students were required to watch a widely mocked video on free speech.
One year later, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released “The Judge Duncan Shoutdown: What Stanford Students Think.” It turns out that 54 percent of Stanford students believe Judge Duncan’s visit should have been canceled by the administration. Seventy-five percent said that “shouting down speakers to prevent them from speaking on campus” is acceptable at least sometimes.
Most chilling, almost 40 percent of the students stated that using physical violence to shut down a campus speaker can at times be acceptable.
Of course, the same students supporting violence to silence opposing views would be triggered and traumatized by others preventing them from hearing their own preferred viewpoints or speakers. For these deluded young people, violence is righteousness when used to silence others, but reprehensible if ever used to silence themselves.
This relativism is taught by many faculty who have publicly discussed “detonating white people,” abolishing white people, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and making other inflammatory statements.
Violent acts against others (or even against oneself in the case of self-immolation) can become “normal” once you accept that others have triggered a response through their conduct or speech. In recent years, we have seen journalists and lawyers throwing Molotov cocktails at police, and some justify it as a form of protest.
What we are losing is a sense of clarity or objectivity. Self-immolation is not normal whether committed by a monk or a madman. Likewise, violence against political opponents is not contextual, but wrong.
The alternative is to come up with excuses about how we must not “pathologize non-pathological…reactions to a pathological environment or pathological society.” That gobbledygook merely rationalizes the irrational and justifies the unjustifiable.
I have no familiarity with either Bushnell or Azzarello, but I know that setting yourself on fire or violently attacking others is indeed “less valid” than alternatives, such as participating in the political system. Before we stretch the spectrum of what is the new normal, we might want to consider the implications of this radical relativism that is taking hold in our political discourse. If you are heading to a rally with matches and a can of accelerant, then you have issues, and they are not political.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
“BARBARIANS AT THE GATE”
How long will it take actual Americans to realize that adverse and inimical foreign standing armies have been ensconced in the American landscape since 1863 through illegal immigration and invasion, and at gunpoint?
What sane country promotes the passage of multiple diverse “Trojan Horses” through the gates of its border, understanding that the heterogeneous enemy is now within?
Why is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. risking his life to skew the election in support of Joke Biden for the Deep Deep State that assassinated his father and uncle?
@George, how is he skewing in support of Biden and not Trump?
He’s sucking O2 out of Biden along with the other lunatic fringes.
Trump is winning over the hearts and minds of the independents and not really losing the ‘Never Trumpers’.
You can be a never Trumper, but would you cut of your d*ck to spite your wife?
-G
You, as impertinent as you are, should watch the MSM, which has a different “perspective,” shall we say?
Why would anyone choose to watch those who have been wrong about pretty much everything for the past 15 years ?
Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me.
OK, so RFK Jr. is assisting Trump. Even better, but the last two Kennedys who ran for president met an early demise.
George – It is hard to believe that Kennedy hurts Trump more than Biden, n/w/s the NBC polling. The Kennedy name has magic for Demo’s, not for Repub’s. If the Dems did not agree, they would not be trying so hard to get him off the ballot.
I do not care why RFK Jr. is running. He is free to do so. Those who want to – republican or democrat are free to vote for him
They are free to do so even if that alters whether Trump or Biden wins.
The rest of us need not vote for YOUR prefered candidatebecause your affraid that our vote for our prefered candidate will cost you the election.
I did not vote for Clinton or Biden and there is zero chance that I will.
I am highly unlikely to vote for RFK Jr. But there is nothing wrong with those who do.
I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.
I will decide what I will do in 2024 after the libertarian party convention in may.
I may hold my nose and vote for Trump. I may vote for the libertarian candidate.
I may not vote.
Whatever I do that is MY choice. Just as it is those who vote for Biden or Trump or RFK Jr. or West or Nader, or Stein.
Those who try to deny me my choice are evil.
Those who try to keep others off the ballot – whether Trump or RFK jr. or MTG or ….
Those who try to cheat by censoring political speach are evil.
Those who try to cheat by ballot harvesting are evil.
Those who try to cheat by lawfare are evil.
Make your arguments at the debates, at campaign events and speeches, and let citizens vote without coercion, at the polls in person,
count THEIR ballots and only their ballots.
When you conduct free and trustworthy elections. Then we can all accept the results whether we like them or not.
Democrats continue to show their hatred for and violation of civil rights of Jews. That Eric Holder did this is fantastic because now Joe Biden is on a rapid descent into one term president. Awesome!!! Party on Holder!!!
“Eric Holder Says Columbia’s Campus Agitators Have ‘Legitimate Concerns.’ His Law Firm, Covington & Burling, Said Their Behavior ‘Would Not Be Tolerated.’”
Holder’s defense of the Columbia protesters, who were violating of university policy and shouting anti-Semitic slogans including “Globalize the intifada” and “NYPD, KKK, IDF, you’re all the same,” does not square with his law firm Covington & Burling’s decision late last year to sign a letter, along with dozens of white shoe firms, expressing zero-tolerance for the disruptive, anti-Semitic protests taking place on college and law school campuses across the country.
“As employers who recruit from each of your law schools, we look to you to ensure your students who hope to join our firms after graduation are prepared to be an active part of workplace communities that have zero tolerance policies for any form of discrimination or harassment, much less the kind that has been taking place on some law school campuses,” the letter stated.
Chants calling for “the death of Jews and the elimination of the state of Israel,” Covington and other firms said, are “anti-Semitic activities” that “would not be tolerated at any of our firms.”
https://freebeacon.com/campus/eric-holder-says-columbias-campus-agitators-have-legitimate-concerns-his-law-firm-covington-burling-said-their-behavior-would-not-be-tolerated/
C’mon mate, get real.
Holder is being a lawyer and knows that he’s going to get the call to defend them when they are tossed out of the schools.
If mommy and daddy can spend either 30K a year for Columbia or 90K a year for whatever that joke of a woman’s college… then they can afford him and his firm.
Even if his firm and every other normal person thinks these kids should be B slapped and sent packing… he see’s it as a meal ticket.
Seriously: those that are not trolls, stop posting anonymously. You can post here without revealing your identity quite easily; if you worked for someone that makes you that paranoid, it may be time to consider that part of your life. This really is just a blog. We are just talking. Even with a screen name and a proxy email address you can comment. If you aren’t a random paid troll spewing gibberish, please distinguish yourself.
Sometimes its just easier.
If I say
-G
(For Gumby) You know who it is.
Daily transcripts of Trump’s hush money trial will be released to the public
By: David Artavia – Yahoo!News ~ April 22nd, 2024
Daily transcripts of Trump’s hush money trial will be made available to the public on the New York court system’s website before the end of the next business day.
According to a media release shared by Law360 reporter Frank G. Runyeon, the court calls it a “novel step” towards ensuring “broad and continuous public access to this extraordinarily high-profile case.”
Traditionally, transcripts may or may not end up in a case file. Never is it automatically added as a part of the record, explained Runyeon. Court stenographers — those present in the courtroom to record the transcript of the trial in real time — tend to control their work and charge their own rates.
The decision to make the transcripts public was made by Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas and First Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Norman St. George.
“This measure is in the interest of the public good and aligns with the court system’s commitment to judicial transparency and its ongoing efforts to enhance public access to, and understanding of, the courts and justice system,” Zayas said in a statement.
“This historic case, which has generated unparalleled public interest, calls for this historic step by the court system,” said St. George. “This will serve to enhance public understanding of the trial.”
Re: Daily transcripts of Trump’s hush money trial will be made available to the public on the New York court system’s website before the end of the next business day.
Main Links Index:
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml
[See Links: People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal)]
People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal)
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/people-v-donald-j-trump-criminal-37026
Well this escalated fast.
“Jewish Professor Says Columbia Barred Him From Campus”
Published Apr 22, 2024 at 1:52 PM EDT
“Jewish professor at Columbia University says he has been barred from campus after criticizing the university’s response to antisemitism in the rise of Free Palestine protests.
Shai Davidai, an assistant professor in the management division of Columbia Business School, said he has been banned from campus after being vocal against the Free Palestine movement on campus and the lack of protection from the university for Jewish members of the community.
“I have not just a civil right as a Jewish person to be on campus,” Davidai is shown saying in a video released by @UESpeeps on X, formerly Twitter. “I have a right as a professor employed by the university to be on campus.”
https://www.newsweek.com/jewish-professor-barred-columbia-campus-1892874
Of course if we had a US President who defended Democracy, he could order the Department of Justice and FBI to descend on Columbia University campus, press charges on anyone who violated the civil rights of Jews and broke local / federal laws, revoke the green cards of Columbia U students here in America participating in this violence, and the university could expel US students if they violated laws as well. However, Biden relishes the fact Columbia University is doing what the University of Virginia at Charlottesville did under Trump when it came to antisemitic, nazis, causing a mostly peaceful protest. Columbia University is a shining, nay, glorious moment for Biden. If you listen closely you can hear Jill and Joe Biden chant “from the river to the sea”
Wrong Anon…
Look, yes we have a serious problem.
Yes the University is definitely on the wrong side and this is going to end up in court against the University.
Yet Brandon can’t just call in the troops to shut it down.
What he could do is pick up the phone and say …
‘Yo! Bee-itch. Remember that Billion Dollar aid package I threatened to hold up for Ukraine?’
‘How hard do you think it would be to make your life a living hell? ‘
Which will get her to move her butt.
Then she’ll do the following:
1) Let NYPD in.
2) Arrest the agitators.
3) Identify non-students and bar them from campus.
4) Identify the students and expel them.
End of story.
He can then call Bragg and others in the DA office and AG office and say… you know those Federal Hate Crime laws…
Time to use them and get them to plea out to a felony w no time served.
That will end this quickly.
-G
I am glad Columbia is screaming “Juden Raus!” I am 12% or more Ashkenazi Jew myself, so it is not anti-Semitism that makes me say that. Just that the Liberal Jewish Establishment needs a dose of their own medicine. Like Cheminersky out at Berkeley. They have pushed divisive identity politics for decades, so let them experience what they have been putting the rest of the country through. Maybe that will poop their stupid heads out of the Democrat Party’s RearEnd. Maybe Columbia can bring out the 1930s board game, Juden Raus! Sort of a merch thing for the Left! Yes, there really was such a board game!
“Juden Raus! (1936)
Juden Raus! (lit. “Jews Out!”) is a cross and circle-style game published in Germany by Günther & Co. in 1936.[3][4] The game was advertised as “entertaining, instructive and solidly constructed”.[5] The game’s equipment includes a pair of dice, a game board, and several game piece figurines with large pointed hats meant to represent Jews.[6]
Players take turns rolling the dice and moving their “Jews” across the map toward “collection points” outside the city walls for deportation to Mandatory Palestine.[7] Written on the game board, it says “If you manage to send off six Jews, you’ve won a clear victory!”[6]
Juden Raus is a commercial boardgame rather than a Nazi propaganda effort,[8] and contains no Nazi symbolism.[9] The game was criticised by the SS journal Das Schwarze Korps, which believed the game trivialised anti-Semitic policies.[9] Ben Barkow of the Holocaust museum at the Wiener Library recounts it being documented as a “considerable commercial success”, with possibly a million copies of it being sold.[8][9] However, an article in the Board Game Studies Journal suggests that the game’s commercial performance may never actually be known because it may have been exaggerated in advertising material. The article considers it unlikely that the game could have been successful in Germany after having been condemned by the SS.[9]
The article published by the International Board Game Studies Association calls it “history’s most infamous board game”. The review says, “Juden Raus! shows that after decades of propaganda, anti-Semitism was so deeply rooted in German society in the 1930s, that someone thought it would be a good subject for a children’s game. Racism is present in many board games, but Juden Raus! is unique in its portrayal of how racism manifests itself in society and is a terrifying example of the banality of evil. … There are many areas of the world where such a game might still find a receptive audience. … Juden Raus! is a warning to us all”.[9]
HOMOGENEITY
___________________
Birds of a feather flock together.
“It is simple to know the cause, for just as birds of one kind and color always flock and fly together, so the Papists will always be together, that they may help each other – not only with sheer numbers as starlings do when threatened by a hawk, but also to consult and plan together as to how their religion may be best maintained, promoted, and popularized.”
– “The Rescuing of the Papist Fox,” William Turner, 1545
_____________________________________________________________
Homogeneity
1: the quality or state of being of a similar kind or of having a uniform structure or composition throughout : the quality or state of being homogeneous
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The imperative of domestic tranquility through homogeneity in a society of self-governance is what the American Founders understood.
Homogeneity is what the American Founders intended, required, and established to form and constitute the population of their United States of America within the year of the adoption of their Constitution.
The Founders passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and three subsequent iterations for reinforcement and clarity.
And for good reason.
It is impossible to mix oil and water; emulsifiers are required.
To mix political oil and water, political emulsifiers must be applied liberally.
Communist redistribution of wealth, social engineering, and suspension of Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment right to private property are the political emulsifiers required to mix political oil and water.
Communist redistribution of wealth, social engineering, and suspension of Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment right to private property are invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional.
The final Naturalization Act of 1802 caused the immigration law of the Founders to persist for 74 years.
The Naturalization Act of 1802 was never legally or legislatively abrogated but extirpated by unconstitutional acts of violence and brutality.
The Naturalization Act of 1802 was abolished with a gun to its head.
In a society of laws, laws must be strictly adhered to until such time as they are modified through a legislative process consisting of duly elected officials.
But for illegal and unconstitutional acts of violence and brutality, the immigration law of the American Founders, the Naturalization Act of 1802, would enjoy full force and effect to this day.
Never was a more cogent argument made for preserving the 2nd Amendment rights including but not limited to, the right to self defense.
@Anonymous
Yup. 1A and 2A. There are sane reasons the left are doing their level best to eliminate them. The globalists the bow to never had them in the first place, just their hereditary privilege.
Trump and the grabbing comment- he was saying it in surprise as in, I can’t believe they let men do that. 😏
It does not matter – you can judge the comment and the rest of Trump’s comments or Biden’s recent My Uncle was eaten by canibles remarks weighing them as you please when deciding on your vote.
They are still protected speech and can not be legally sanctioned. They have no place in a court of law.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. That’s why it’s important to e exercise your right to remain silent.
It may be protected speech. It can also be used against you in court. So yes, it does have a place in court. Jurors get to determine how your statements affect their judgement.
@John Say…
The cannibals said it didn’t happen.
They were giving up eating meat for lent at the time. ;-P
(You know those missionaries …)
Also they were on a Japanese food diet kick at the time too.
-G
Absolutely.
The “grabbing comment” is itself a commentary on modern women.
Women are imperative for humanity and civilization; without women, humanity and civilization cease to exist.
Women are to be sheltered and protected as embryos, fetuses, and infants.
Trump expected more of women; Trump expected women to shelter and protect women.
In this case, they did not.
The American fertilization rate is in a “death spiral.”
More Americans die than are born.
Where’s the future in vanishing?
@Anonymous
I don’t ordinarily have the time because i am doing a real job everyday that actually contributes to people’s live, but today, I am just going to point and laugh at you. hope your dollars improve your self-esteem. Given that you have been doing this for years at this point, I thin that’s unlikely.
“Moustafa is quoted as saying that “Psychiatry pathologizes non-pathological…reactions to a pathological environment or pathological society. It’s considered illness to choose to die in protest of the violence of war but perfectly sane to choose to die in service of the violence of war.”
*************************
If you want to “flame on” like a human torch, that’s your problem. It’s never persuaded me about the efficacy of your cause that you’re willing to die for it. Living for one is a much harder thing to do. Checking out is what cowards do. And comparing dying in a war to a suicide flamer is just further evidence of the Left’s manifest psychosis.
I tried to make that distinction below – between self-immolation and dying in combat when one would prefer to survive – but dgsnowden told me I was all wet. I maintain there is a relevant distinction. Soldiers do not go into combat with the intention of getting killed, but to fight and hopefully survive. Soldiers are not irrational or psychotic, whereas this self-immolator was clearly both.
OldManFromKS,
I can tell you, no, no we do not enlist with the intent of dying on the battlefield.
Our job is to make the other SOB do it.
Lighting oneself on fire takes a new kind of “special.”
Spot on.
I didn’t say you were all wet old man. .. I said everything is relative.
At least the suicide didn’t take the world down with him.
I suppose if this flaming suicide had died fighting Hamas [terrorism] in Gaza you’d be singing his praises? Or Russian aggression in Ukraine? (special note. I support MTG bill that all those who voted for this Funding insanity should go over there and fight.)
The statement in question concerns norms of ‘illness/sanity’: “It’s considered illness to choose to die in protest of the violence of war but perfectly sane to choose to die in service of the violence of war.”
Crazy is what Sen. Rand Paul said: ‘Ukrainian flags fly in the chamber of the UNITED STATES House of Representatives as they vote to send more of your hard-earned money to a corrupt foreign regime.’
In fact, afaict, arming and funding the most vile, corrupt, psychopaths on the planet is U.S. policy.
*I never had to kill nobody. .. but I hurt somebody’s feelings once./
I suppose if this flaming suicide had died fighting Hamas [terrorism] in Gaza you’d be singing his praises?
Whether I’d sing his praises or not is irrelevant. Many IDF soldiers have died that way, and my point is that they are not irrational or psychotic.
I do agree with you on this: the hysterical waving of Ukraine flags in the US Congress (while voting to bankrupt America even further) was a low point for that body.
@Old Man…
Well.. there’s something irrational wanting to jump out of a perfectly good airplane… but hey… maybe its just me.
And yes. In combat you want to kill the other guy before he kills you. That’s rational, yet maybe psychotic because you don’t think about the overarching political reasons… just doing what needs to get done.
But to your point.
Yeah the guy was a nutter. Maybe he self identified as a S’more and found out he was wrong but it was too late to do anything?
-G
I’m all for helping them achieve martyrdom on their chosen path.
Self-immolation is not relative and is not a normal reaction to distress. If it were than every city would see this behavior on a continuing basis.
Why does it have to be political? Why can we no longer just call disturbed individuals just that? The entropy and madness are so interwoven into the cultural fabric at this point – we may have to start over. Whimsicalmama is right – the under forty and radical, regardless of ideology are mentally ill, and likely ruined for life. There are many conflating factors that have led us here, but here we are, and we have to deal with in.
*it
James,
It is the default reaction by people to just make an assumption without waiting for details or facts.
When I first heard about this, first I questioned if it was real or a internet hoax.
Once reporting confirmed it was real, then I waited for more information, like, did he write a manifesto, letter, post a note on SM as to the reason behind his actions.
Now that it has in fact been determined it was NOT a “MAGA terrorist” but someone with some deeply strange ideas.
Anyone with any degree of common sense would come to the conclusion that he did it outside the Trump trial for maximum media attention to his . . . cause?
@Upstate
Boy do I screw these things up when I’m at work. 😂 But yes, agreed. I am sorry, but the left have absolutely lost their damn minds. I harp all the time on it being generational, but the source is the real culprit. There is absolutely nothing ok about this at this point, and people not paying attention are quite possibly going to destroy us and themselves. These are folks that will never even see your warnings about stocking up. It really is just an intellectual, hypothetical, possibly emotionally mast****tory exercise of them. I actually really appreciate you are where you are; people often think Manhattan or Brooklyn is where it begins and ends. I feel for you being beholden to the *true* unwashed deplorables (that would be the younger left, folks; Columbia kids whose parents can easily afford the multimillion dollar real estate prices in NYC) when you are just trying to live and preserve your very well earned livelihood.
I predict the odds of trump taking the stand in his hush money trial near zero. His criminal history about lying about anything and everything will come up making his testimony not only subject to perjury, but also the jury will be able to see what a lier he is and nothing he says has any meaning.
Poor guy, what are the odds of a rich guy going to prison?
“The judge said that, if Trump testifies in the trial, the prosecution will be allowed to tell the jury about four past legal entanglements that ended poorly for Trump in order to impeach his credibility.
They will be able to bring up the February verdict finding that Trump fraudulently stated the value of his assets for economic benefit, including two instances in that case in which Trump was fined a total of $15,000 for violating a court order by attacking the judge’s law clerk.
Prosecutors can also bring up the outcome of two defamation-related cases brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll, and a 2018 order dissolving the Donald J. Trump Foundation, the former president’s charitable organization, over fraud claims.”
Lying about everything… um, so says “anonmymous”?
Pecker.
YAWN
Anonymous: All that is the reason DJT probably won’t testify. If he does he will be charged with perjury!
Pecker.
‘For any of you who might be watching hours upon hours of CNN and MSNBC Trump trial talk: Does anyone ever say, ‘You know, this stuff isn’t actually illegal.’?’ @ByronYork
Like, for you dumdums in the way back, this is NOT a real case!
I do not believe Trump will take the stand either – but for radically different reasons.
Contra Coangello – the Trump statements he intends to use are NOT admissible, Those cases are all on appeal and those appeals directly challenge the false conclusions of the judge and jury. Further even if Merchan would admit them – which he may or may not – that would open the door for Trump and attorney to rebut each and every one of them in court. Merchan is politically biased, but I doubt he wants to make this into a circus anymore than it it.
But Trump is unlikely to testify because I think it is near certain at the appropriate moment that he tests Merchan’s orders.
He will either go to Baron’s graduation, or attend SCOTUS oral arguments. Merchan has already said he would sanction that by denying Trump the right to testify. So Trump gets to skip on testifying – aside from the nonsense about Daniels which is truly tangential to the case,
there is nothing in the case in cheif that is not fundamentally bookkeeping.
While it appears that a great deal of the court time will be wasted on the Daniels saga. Trump is not being tried for that, Brag is using that to avoid having the case in cheif dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.
Further by getting Merchan to sanction Trump – he creates a new appeal issue, but more importantly builds even more sympathy with the jury and with voters.
Ultimately this trial is NOT about crimes or the law. It is about the election. Democrats have a dead man walking candidate, who can not campaign and who will be crushed by Trump in anything close to a fair election – and they know it. They can not get rid of Biden, so they are stuck trying to figure out how to take out Trump.
Some polling shows that between 3 and 10% of voters will not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a felony.
What those polls do not tell us is whether the public needs to believe the conviction is legitimate.
Democrats are betting that even a Kangaroo court star chamber conviction will win them enough votes to tip the election.
They MIGHT be right.
But this is a dangeorus game – only 30% of those polled trust Judge Merchan as being fair and honest and only 20% trust Bragg.
It is just as plausible that a conviction will result in a backlash against democrats.
But it gets worse – while the trial is taking place in just about hemost politically biased jurisdiction in the country,
The rushed Jury selection appears to have favored Trump. There are whispers among democrats and the press over what must be done if they get a hung jury.
That would be a political disaster for democrats.
My spider senses say Johnnie Say is itching to predict another 10 point win for trump! Just like in ’20!!
@anonymous
There aren’t words for your idiocy, paid or not. Pretty clear you are a privileged idiot, though.
In addition to the fine examples cited by Professor Turley (detonating White people, et cetera), I would add the following from the UN Secretary General’s “youth climate advisor” which received surprisingly little coverage in the press: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/un-secretary-general-youth-climate-adviser-calls-for-whites-to-be-stripped-of-power-in-revolutionary-fights/ar-BB1kcZy0.
“Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the fact we’ve let a rogue president so abuse the rule of law that we’re going to leave it up to 12 jurors in NY to reign him in are two issues that fit the self immolation bill to me.”
This statement perfectly encapsulates the pickle we find ourselves in. Debate will never bring us to acceptable terms with one another because I cannot understand the thinking of these “progressives”, and I am surely not alone. They obviously think the same of me. Ask how Trump abused the rule of law and one will either not get a response, or will get a rationalization, or even a myth that once again can’t be understood without further interrogation. Point out that our response to Covid was wrongheaded and destructive because we handled all previous pandemics more sensibly, and the response might very well be to express surprise that there were previous pandemics. One cannot make headway toward a resolution when caught in infinite regressions of this sort. Apparently the conclusions come first, and the chain of logic leading there is simply cobbled together to fit the bill.
That we’ve come to a point where 12 very biased jurors, under the guidance of a very biased legal system, cheered on by rabid partisan media, are being given national power to “reign in” an allegedly intolerable partisan, reveals us to be on a long, steep slope of loose materials. Stupid.
Doesn’t your argument fall down completely by virtue of the fact that any ‘progressive’ would just list the felonies trump has been charged with formally? The fact you don’t like, or don’t agree with, those charges is your opinion. It doesn’t translate into not being able to name those charges.
@Anonymous
Yes. I am so sick of seeing the ‘convicted felon’ boosheet, with no grounding in fact of any kind (largely because it isn’t true, and anyone not too lazy to check could look at the public record instead of getting their daily mind b*ner on Instagram), I could throw up. We are not supposed to be this stupid in America, and yet . . .
Perhaps your nausea will be relieved by sticking to what either of us actually said and not projecting your fever dream?
Love the term ‘mind boner’ though!!!
The Response to that would be to demand the ACTUAL crimes.
Anyone can list a sequence of laws.
If you wish to claim Trump is a felon – you have to prove that he did something that is actually wrong.
I can say “Biden is a pederast” – something there is more evidence of than anything thrown at Trump.
But just saying it does not make it credible. While AShley Biden’s diary telling of Joe Biden showering with her may not PROVE the pederast claim but it certainly makes most of us go Ew.
The claims that Trump is a felon – do not hold up – the evidence you use to support them is weak and the conduct does not create the perception of a Crime.
When you charge someone with murder – there is a body – often mangled and bloody.
People KNOW something really bad happened.
There are 3 basic crimes Trump is accused of:
1). Not beleiving his own claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Given that now as much as 70% of people beleive the 2020 election smells rotten – that is a hard sell.
2). mishandling of classified documents.
No expresident has ever been charged with that. There are excellent legal reasons that is not even a crime that an ex-president can commit. Worse still – pretty much every ex-president has done as Trump has – all the way back to Washington. And worse still,
Biden and Clinton were both given a pass for much more egrgious conduct – and neither was president at the time.
Regardless, Unlike Biden and Clinton – where classified information with near certainty ended up with hostile foreign govenrments AND was used for personal profit – there is no evidence that Trump’s documents left his residence at MAL.
3). This nonsense of Brags, That Trump somehow lied to his own personal checkbook. There is no Tax issue here – no tax deduction was claimed. The allegedly false documents are arguably truthful – regardless Trump did not foist them on the Government. There is no claim that Trump filed false documents with the state of New York – again the claim is that he lied to his own checkbook – in secret, which is just an absurd claim. The alleged falsified documents were not found by reviewing Trump’s tax filings, They are a result of subpeonas of his personal records.
There is a reason that Fraud requires actual harm – it is to THWART this kind of nonsense.
“ There is no claim that Trump filed false documents with the state of New York – again the claim is that he lied to his own checkbook – in secret, which is just an absurd claim.”
There is. He did file documents known to be false. Falsifying business documents is a crime in NY. He lied to the state of NY claiming certain expenses were campaign related but were payoffs for hiding an affair. The affair is not the issue. It’s the falsifying of documents making fraudulent claims to the state. That’s a crime. The purpose of the trial is to prove why and how NY’s charges are valid. A jury will decide if the state proved Trump committed a crime.
“It’s the falsifying of documents . . .”
Those *misdemeanors* are the “crimes?!” The statute of limitations expired on them long ago.
Care to try again?
*Nobody* has clearly articulated the theory of the crime. Not the prosecutors. Not the judge. Not the charging documents.
Criminal trials are not supposed to be based on hand-waving.
Kevin T Kilty,
Well said and you are not the only one.
also where the covid fraudster and borderline stalker also ran against gaetz, he’s also from New York, where he worked for Tom Suozzi’s campaign,
No truer words could describe America’s present trajectory.
Xi Van Fleet
@XVanFleet
I know it’s confusing, so let me spell it out for you:
Palestine is just an excuse.
The issue is never the issue. The issue is ALWAYS the Communist Revolution.
9:09 AM · Apr 21, 2024
https://twitter.com/XVanFleet/status/1782033989894558112
-Estovir, Although Xi Van Fleet (and You) see the “The issue is never the issue.”,
as it is a ‘Distraction’. Endless War has a purpose, to maintain the rank & file order of the World.
The ‘Issue’ is that; WE the People do not want to be controlled’.
That’s the Issue and has been since the inception of this Country and many Others.
Today’s Sampling:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/04/13/the-intel-agencies-of-government-are-fully-weaponized/
The “Communists” in America are apparently funded by billionaire financiers, like George Soros. And many the same.
All these woke lunatics are anarchists. They are not really communists. There is a very real difference. Moreover, how can they supposedly be communists, even if they stupidly say so, if the western CAPITALISTS are funding them? I mean not just Soros, there are a hundred other billionaires in America who are heavy donors to the Democrats – its all on the FEC data, look it up
This makes less and less sense. I get tired hearing this nonsensical story from Epoch times and all their motley crue of dissenters. I used to read it and then I learned a few things that discredited that publication.
Anyways, I’ve also heard the story that the American billionaires and the CCP are in bed together. In George Soros’ case, that is provably false. He is a super sharp critic of the CCP and XI.
The people I’m worried about have the ability to tax and imprison us, and that is obviously not the PRC government.
That’s the racketeers in DC
Saloth Sar
The latest news from Hollywood is about the grooming of child actors. In this context we should remember that Anonymous and Dennis McIntyre have defended books that depict a ten year old boy giving a blow job to another ten year old boy being distributed in schools in Ohio and Florida. You can see people like them invited to a party on the Whitehouse lawn where they display their newly minted bare breasts. What will it take to make you not vote the way that they vote?
You asked, “What will it take to make you not vote the way that they vote?”
I agree. I have been asking how any decent, intelligent person could vote for a party that encourages the castration of young boys and the cutting off of the breast of young girls? Do they think that they can be “good Nazis”, who like road-building and free day care, while they ignore the concentration camps and the murder???
Anybody who still votes for the Democrats, or supports them, is a sick, evil person.
‘vote for a party that encourages the castration of young boys and the cutting off of the breast of young girls”
There is no party that encourages such action. There is a party that believes in personal freedom and there is a party that believes in banning books and preventing women from exercising their own reproductive freedom.
Don’t make stuff up. No party encourages the castration of young boys or cutting off of breasts of young girls.
Pecker.
Legislation has been implemented to prevent any medical intervention into gender disphoria in children. MANY Democrats vote against those laws. Democrat governors veto those laws
anonymi:
You said, “Don’t make stuff up. No party encourages the castration of young boys or cutting off of breasts of young girls.
You need to read this and then you need to walkaway from the Evil, Twisted, and Immoral Democrat Party:
SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco)’s legislation to provide refuge for trans kids and their families, Senate Bill 107. It will take effect on January 1, 2023. SB 107 will protect trans kids and their families if they flee to California from Alabama, Texas, Idaho or any other state criminalizing the parents of trans kids for allowing them to receive gender-affirming care. If these parents and their kids come to California, the legislation will help protect them from having their kids taken away from them or from being criminally prosecuted for supporting their trans kids’ access to healthcare.
SB 107 is co-sponsored by Equality California, Planned Parenthood, TransFamily Support Services and Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis.
“As so many states work to erase trans kids and criminalize their families, California must always have their backs,” said Senator Wiener. “With SB 107 signed into law, California is forcefully pushing back against the anti-LGBTQ hatred spreading across parts of our nation. The rainbow wave is real, and it’s coming. Thank you, Governor Newsom, for standing with our community.”
This legislation has inspired 19 other states to introduce similar “trans refuge state” bills, as trans kids and their parents are currently under assault by executive and legislative action in Texas, Idaho, Louisiana, Arizona, and other states. For example, under far-right, anti-LGBTQ Governor Greg Abbott, Texas began investigating, and potentially prosecuting, parents of trans kids who receive gender-affirming care. Governor Abbott also directed state agencies to consider removing trans children from their parents and placing them in foster care. While Governor Abbott’s directive was temporarily placed on hold by a state court, the state is appealing that ruling. Similarly. Alabama enacted a law to put parents and physicians in prison for up to 10 years for allowing or providing gender-affirming care to trans kids.
Given recent trends in anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion legislation, other Republican-controlled states no doubt will pursue similar legislation and executive action.
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20220930-senator-wiener%E2%80%99s-historic-bill-provide-refuge-trans-kids-and-their-families-signed-law#:~:text=The%20bill%20would%20prevent%20California's,children%20taken%20away%20from%20them.
ROFL
Where is that freedom you are ranting about – when adults wish to chose their own cars, dishwashers, stoves, doctors ?
Please have the decency not to wrap yourself in some obvious lie that you care about Freedom.
I am not aware of anyone outside the left seeking to use government force to bar the publication or sale of the books you think are being banned.
What you call book banning is restricting GOVERNMENT from inflicting pornography on children.
At what point do people have the “personal freedom” to demand their bodies be multilated to conform to some sexual fairytale they have been sold ?
18 ? 15 ? 12 ? 7? 3?
We do not allow people to drink alcohol until they are 21,
We prevent them from getting tattos, smoking, having sex with adults, signing contracts.
Whether you like it or not – society and the law long ago decided that Children do NOT have the same freedom to make choices that will permanently change their lives that adults do.
Human brains are not fully developed until about 35.
I will be happy to discuss how old a person must be to be permitted the freedom to make choices that will radically alter the rest of their lives. I will consider any reasonable arguments.
I do not beleive there is an easy answer to that question.
But almost all of us understand that Children do NOT have the same freedom that adults do.
If you are not challenging that – then you are merely fighting over the age at which specific decisions can be entrusted to the child.
You are right that children do not have the same freedoms as adults. But, parents have parental rights to determine what’s best for their children and states have been very vocal about supporting parental rights and keeping government out of their decisions about what’s best for their children. It’s a big deal for the majority of conservatives that they get to decide, not government what is best for their children.
Here we have a situation where government is telling parents what is best for their children when it involves healthcare. Parents choosing to have transgender healthcare for their children because they believe is best for their children are being criminalized because other people don’t like their decisions. If parents can have the freedom to choose whatever education is best for their children and government officials don’t. Why don’t they have the right to choose the healthcare of their children?
They are not mutilating children or sexualizing them. That kind of demagoguery is being peddled by people who love to shove their noses into other people’s business. Such claims are used to denigrate and defame parents or children or young legal adults because they don’t like the idea that others make choices that don’t conform to their values. It’s hypocritical.
An 18 year old is legally recognized as an adult. They can vote, join the military, get married, buy a house, and pay for their education. Those younger than 18 have their parents who make the decisions on education, healthcare, and what they can and cannot do in their own homes.
You cannot buy alcohol until you’re 21, but if a parent allows their 18,17, or even 15 year old to drink alcohol in their home nothing really stops them. It’s the same with smoking.
Parental rights is sacrosanct with republicans until it comes to transgender care or letting their children identify as a different gender. If you support parental rights you have no business calling for government to interfere with parental rights when it comes to transgender children. None.
“Anybody who still votes for the Democrats, or supports them, is a sick, evil person.”
And voting for a person that loves to grab em by the pussy, who is a convicted fraudster is not a sick and evil person?
Who doesnt love grabbing women by the pussy??
What are you, some kind of kunt?
@Anonymi
Again, you are a ridiculous person. And the sane among us, the actually intelligent with an IQ above 90, not beholden to whatever the TV tells them – there is nothing remaining but 😂😂. You aren’t just a troll, you are also a clown, and I honestly thought that profession was dead. Maybe try balloon animals or a squirting flower next time, because nobody is paying attention to you. I only responded because I was bored. If you are being paid to be a clown, dang, that’s a nice gig. But you are still a clown at the end of the day. The rest of us aren’t. And we vote for EVERYTHING.
Thanks for reading!
Which would you rather have happened to your daughter, or your wife, or your sister, or your girl friend:
1) Someone grabbed them by the p*ssy
2) Someone cut their breast off
TiT,
Well said.
The leftist Democrat party is the party of all that which you describe and more.
TiT,
To add to your list, anti-Jew too.
Jonathan: Today will be the opening statements in DJT’s Manhattan criminal trial. Everyone has been curious about who will be DA Bragg’s first witness. We now know. It will be David Pecker, the former head of the National Inquirer. Why him?
In 2015 Pecker and Michael Cohen met with Trump in Trump Tower where they conspired to develop the “catch and kill” program–to silence anyone who might publish stories that could hurt DJT’s chances of winning the 2016 election. In 2016 they focused on three people–a doorman at one of DJT’s properties who claimed DJT had fathered a “love child”, Karen McDougal who had an illicit affair with DJT, and Stormy Daniels. Pecker arranged to “catch and kill” their stories. The doorman received $30,000 and McDougal got $130,000. Michael Cohen was the “bagman”. He arranged the $130,00 payoff to Daniels, including a NDA, and then was reimbursed by DJT along with a “sweetener”–totally about $400,000.
Why is Pecker so important as the first witness. He knows where all the bodies are buried. In 2018 Pecker entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Bragg in exchange for his truthful testimony before Bragg’s grand jury. When DJT found out he went ballistic. In a recorded phone call by Cohen, DJT told his lawyer “wouldn’t it be nice if Pecker got hit by a truck”.
So Pecker is the perfect witness to testify first. And of all the witnesses who will testify DJT worries about Pecker the most. But there is something interesting going on. While DJT continues to attack Cohen and Daniels he has not said as word about Pecker on Truth social. Why is that? Does DJT expect Pecker to lie for him at the trial? Like Alan Weisselberg? May be DJT thinks Pecker owes him because DJT rewarded Pecker by giving him a front row seat at the 2016 inauguration. Not going to happen. Pecker doesn’t want to end up in prison with Weisselberg!
+100
“BREAKING: Fmr Garland official Matthew Colangelo is now delivering the opening argument in the Trump prosecution
This is a direct signal that the case against Trump comes straight from the Biden Admin, in the middle of an election year” @jackposo
@MZHemingway: “Matthew Colangelo…used to be the #3 under Merrick Garland at the Department of Justice. He left that cushy job…to be a line prosecutor in a city office? That shows how coordinated this is…This is part of a widespread and coordinated effort.”
@Lancegooden: Under the unconstitutional gag order imposed by Judge Merchan, who is a major Biden donor, Trump and his lawyers are specifically instructed to NOT talk about the Colangelo/Biden DOJ connection.
The Biden Administration is 100% coordinating this witch hunt!
Pecker.
Pecker will in turn be a pecker.
D Mc Even Michael Avenatti is being less biased than what you parrott daily. The Manhattan trial of today will eventually be rendered moot upon arrival in appeals courts, even up to SCUS. So you just assiduously continue your daily DT hating venom spewing. You best watch those trucks also. LOL
Dennis always refuses to defend his lies.
Dennis, Name the crime.
iowan2; Don’t be lazy! Read the indictment. It’s all there1
“If paying hush money to a porn actress was a crime then Congress would be empty.” @EmeraldRobinson
We have. Its not.
There are a list of laws that were allegedly violated, along with evidence of perfectly legal conduct.
Dennis what evidence of crime did todays testimony present?
YAWN
@Dennis
You are also a brainwashed tool. It is so easy to debunk your nonsense, and in realtme; why do you bother? A paycheck, perhaps?
Matthew Colangelo gave the opening statement in this unprecedented Communist show trial being conducted against Joe Biden’s political rival.
Biden is also Colangelo’s former boss.
“Who is Matthew Colangelo?
When Bragg appointed Colangelo in December, CNN simply reported he was “a senior official in the US Justice Department and before that served as an attorney on the Trump Foundation investigation with the New York attorney general’s office.”
But CNN failed to report Colangelo is a lifelong leftwing activist (including NAACP lawyer for 7 years) and senior Democrat political appointee for nearly 15 years:
– currently appointed to made-up position in Soros-backed Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office (to get Trump; first indictment ever of a former president; bogus, trumped-up charges previously declined by prior Manhattan DA, US Attorney, FEC, and Bragg himself)
– acting #3 in Biden Justice Department (then as #2 to radical #3 Vanita Gupta, when Biden and Garland appointed her; leader in politicizing and weaponizing Biden DOJ, including prosecuting Christians praying outside of abortion clinics while giving amnesty to abortion-industry activists terrorizing Catholic Churches, crisis-pregnancy centers, and Supreme Court justices and families in homes)
– senior lawyer for disgraced Democrat New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (including his Executive Deputy Attorney General for Social Justice) (to get Trump) (Bragg served as chief deputy attorney general when Colangelo brought dozens of lawsuits against Trump administration and led investigations into Trump Foundation and Trump’s finances)
– senior White House economic advisor to President Obama
– top aide to Obama Labor Secretary (and future DNC chair) Tom Perez
– top lawyer to Obama DOJ Civil Rights Division head Tom Perez
Colangelo has never served as a line prosecutor or defense attorney.
He is simply a senior Democrat operative, brought in by Bragg to get Trump.”
All your comments rely on false spin.
No one was “silenced”.
Daniels and others had choices – they could tell their story to anyone they wanted. They could sell it to anyone they wanted.
You seem to think that Peckers testimony is some big deal.
Your salivating over the fact that Pecker is going to testify to something everyone already knows and that is perfectly legal.
Biden’s campaign actively twisted the arms of all the social media companies to kill the Hunter Biden laptop story.
That is disturbing, but it is legal.
What was illegal was when CIA, DHS, FBI did the same.
Also interesting is that you mention the “doorman” – that “doorman” received 30,000 for a story that was FALSE.
All these people had a choice. There is an interview of a slate reporter on Youtube. He also had the Daniels story and wanted to go public with it. Daniels refused to let him publish – unless he paid her for the story.
No one FORCED anyone’s silence. They were given what they wanted – MONEY.
I have no idea what Bragg’s deal with Pecker is because there is nothing Bragg can prosecute Pecker for.
So Bragg/Coangello/Biden are starting with a salacious non-crime that is not even admissible in this trial.
Your off to a good start.
P{lease provide a source for the claim that Trump told Cohen that it would be nice if Pecker get hit by a truck – one other than perjurer Cohen.
Google does not provide any evidence that anyone has ever even reported such a claim.
There are also problems with the story because Cohen was PNG after the election. It is well documented that Trump would not take or return Cohen’s calls after the election.
So we will hear Peckers testimony shortly. Followed by a post from you claiming how damning it is, even though the actual testimony will tell us all nothing new and nothing that is a crime.
How do we know that ? Because the facts are all public – The Enquirer bought McDougals story and decided not to run it. Perfectly legal, happens all the time.
Mueller investigated this – or probably more accurately Andrew Weisman – because Mueller was a potted plant through most of his enquiry.
Weissman has repeatedly told us that he has the goods on Trump – but produced zippo, zilch NADA,
And Weisman had the Pecker story in 2018. Pecker was investigated then, interviewed then.
No indictments, no grand jury testimony – no charges. Did not even get mentioned in the Mueller report.
Then SDNY investigated the same thing. Long investigation, interviewed Pecker and others. no grand jury, no indictment, zippo, zilch nada.
There are only two things that have changed regarding Bragg – the first is that any deal with Peckman is meaningless fodder for the press.
Because there is no NY crime by any stretch.
The 2nd difference is that Bragg after vascilating repeatedly has eventually decided to proceed forward without an actual case.
That is it. neither you nor I know what Pecker will testify, but we should both know that he will NOT provide evidence of a crime.
How do we know that – because if Mueller and the SDNY passed on this – it is because there is no there there.
Weisman would have gone after Trump like a pitt bull if there was anything substantive.
He is still raving about Trump on the press – where he does not have to provide a real crime and actual evidence.
It is just ridiculous that political violence is actually being taught in universities. Who are the people teaching this garbage? Why were they hired? Why weren’t they fired after teaching such nonsense? Have our universities been taken over by antifa?