Below is an expanded version of my New York Post column on the appearance of Michael Cohen Monday in the Manhattan prosecution of former President Donald Trump. His testimony will not be for the intestinally weak or ethically strong viewers. It has all the draw of a Nascar race on a rainy day.
Here is the column:
Michael Cohen is to criminal justice what car crashes are to Nascar: few want to admit it, but he is the perverse draw for the wreck-obsessed. The difference is that Cohen was already a rolling smoking wreck when he pulled up to the track.
Even for those of us who have long been critics of this case and its dubious legal theory, it has been surprising to see that the prosecutors had no more evidence than what we previously knew about. The assumption was that no rational prosecutor would base a major criminal case virtually entirely on the testimony of Michael Cohen who was just recently denounced by a judge as a serial perjurer peddling “perverse” theories in court.
The calculus of Alvin Bragg is now obvious. He is counting on the jury convicting Trump regardless of the evidence. He believes that all he needs is to check the boxes on the elements of the crime, no matter how unbelievable the vehicle.
The reason is that Bragg likely fears a directed verdict more than a jury verdict. After the government closes its evidence, the defense will move for a directed verdict on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
In other words, when the prosecution rests this week, Trump’s counsel will stand and ask Merchan to end the case before it is even given to the jury. Many of us agree with that assessment. After three weeks of testimony, there is still confusion on what crime Trump was allegedly seeking to cover up.
Bragg has vaguely referred to using the denotation of payments to Daniels as “legal expenses” as a fraud committed to steal the election. However, the election was over when those denotations were made. Moreover, many believe that such a characterization for payments related to a nondisclosure agreement was accurate. (Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed in the same election that hiding the funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly accurate).
Judge Juan Merchan, in my view, has failed repeatedly to protect the rights of the accused in this case. However, he can claim that there was enough alleged to give Bragg the chance to make his case. Thus far he has not done so and, if he is truly neutral, Merchan should grant the motion.
Bragg is counting on not only a motivated jury but a motivated judge to keep this anemic case alive. All he hopes that he needs to do is get this to a Trump-loathing jury to set aside any reasonable doubt. To do that, he found the ultimate motivated witness with a record of saying whatever serves his interests and those of his sponsors.
Even with a New York jury, however, you cannot assume that every juror will jettison doubt when it comes to the unpopular defendant. Yet, Bragg first has to show Merchan that someone claimed to have evidence directly tying Trump to an intentional fraudulent scheme to conceal a crime.
Thus far, Bragg is not even close. Indeed, many of his witnesses helped Trump more than they hurt him on the actual charges.
Bragg started with testimony on the killing of a story by David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, on an uncharged transaction to kill a story of a Trump affair with a different woman, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model.
The relevancy was marginal but the testimony backfired in that Pecker admitted that Trump told him that he knew nothing about any reimbursement to Cohen for any hush money. He further said that he had killed or raised such stories with Trump for decades before he ever announced for president. He also said that he had killed stories for other celebrities and politicians, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, Rahm Emanuel and Mark Wahlberg.
For good measure, Pecker noted that Cohen often exaggerates and became loud and argumentative.
Witnesses said that Trump likely had a mix of motivations including sparing his family from embarrassment. Daniels’ own counsel contradicted the prosecution’s reference to the payment as “hush money.”
Prosecutors now need Cohen to check virtually every box on his own. It is not enough to say that Trump wanted to hush up the alleged affair. That is no crime and NDAs are common and legal.
Cohen has to say that Trump specifically knew and approved of the characterization of the payments as “legal expenses.” He further has to establish that Trump intended the denotation to conceal the payments for the purposes of election violations or fraud.
That could make this a “he said, he said” case, but only if Trump were to actually testify. However, Merchan’s earlier rulings make such testimony highly unlikely. The court approved a sweeping scope for cross examination if Trump dares to take the stand. No competent lawyer would advise him to do so after Merchan’s rulings.
That is exactly where Bragg wants to be: with a “he said” not a “he said, he said” case. With Trump effectively silenced, Bragg will argue that that is enough to get this to the jury and he can then allow the New York jury to jettison any notion of reasonable doubt when it comes to Donald Trump.
For most people, this cynical calculation will be immaterial when Cohen is called. Calling a convicted, disbarred, serial perjurer to any court is a spectacle in itself. Cohen seems like he has never met an oath that he does not want to break.
Indeed, he appears eager to expand his collection by announcing in the midst of the trial coverage that he is running for Congress. Given the blind rage of many New Yorkers, he could well succeed with single-issue, anti-Trump voters. If so, we will all be back just to see if a vortex to the netherworld opens up when Cohen stands on the House floor and swears that he is taking the oath “without . . . purpose of evasion.”
But before he becomes Rep. Michael Cohen, he will have to appear for his Nascar moment, though he will be the first wreck in search of a race.
We all will look back up this period of time, April and May and even June of 2024 as the ‘quiet times.’ After June has come and gone, we’ll have entered the ‘hot zone,’ where the campaigns of both candidates will feel like a boxing match. And on top of that, at the Dem convention in Chicago, somehow I don’t see a peaceful time. It’s only 3 months from now, and the anti-Biden forces are busy laying the groundwork for disruptions, hard to know in what form they will disrupt but it’s a certainty, the professionals in the art of disruption know exactly how to cause as much ‘damage’ as possible.
And then —- September and October?
Cohen has a day of testimony on the books.
As I have been listening to the leftist reporting, the Narrative has supplanted the facts. It seems the convicted perjurer as testified that Trump did approve the execution of an NDA.
Cohen the expert psychologist, or amateur mind reader, or really peeved toady, contradicts have a dozen other credible witnesses that the only motivation was to win the election. We all know that candidates running for office often run afoul the law, by taking 100% legal actions to assure their victory at the ballot box.
No matter, Cohen stayed on the prosecution road map. That map is designed to sway young women voters away from Trump and force them to vote for The husk of the former Joe Biden.
The road map, while hoping for a conviction, dead ends at a trial, and narrative vehicle, but fails at sustaining a conviction that survives the appeal. As a crime has yet to be identified.
Juan “The Con” Merchan ism’t stupid. He knows that if he doesn’t guide, and effectively instruct, the jury to find Trump guilty of some manufactured crime or another that Loren Merchan and her funders will be severely dissapppointed. So, millions and millions of dollars are at stake. This renders a directed verdict favoring Trump impossible.
The jury members know it’s their job to convict Trump of whatever Alvin Bragg tells them to convict him of. The jury knows it must obey or there will be severe consequences. They could be harrassed for decades and decades if not the remainder of their lives by the Deep State. Word would quickly circulate that “this is the juror who held out” of “this is the juror who failed to convict Trump as instructed.” Death threats will follow them whevever they go. So, a guilty verdict of whatever manufactured “crime” is alleged is a fait accompli.
Plus, in addition to making his daughter Loren Merchan a very wealthy woman, Juan “The Con” Merchan can also look forward to a well-funded retirement, thanks to a numbered Swiss bank account waiting for him to use at the safe, right moment with a wink and a nod.
This sounds a LOT like the way courtrooms were fun in the South, back before JFK and RFK and MLK (all assassinated) brought us actual changes. And now, 60 years later, we have a Black man (Bragg) and a Black woman (Leticia James), and limousine liberals on ‘the Coasts’ trying in the most flagrant way to ‘lynch’ a former POTUS on no true evidence of a crime.
And the great wheel of justice doth turn —
O T – there has been discussion on this blog about the consequences of a ruling that Jack Smith was not legally appointed to serve as Special Counsel. John Say, for one, has suggested that the two Trump indictments would not be affected if Smith were removed and replaced by a properly approved U S Attorney. Without conducting much research on the subject, I do not think that is the right answer. The acts of an unauthorized agent are usually void.
“Authority is central to the law of agency—if someone takes an action on behalf of another without the authority to do so, the action is usually void. Actions carried out beyond or outside the scope of one’s authority are ultra vires (beyond the powers).”
aw.cornell.edu/wex/authority#:~:text=Authority%20is%20central%20to%20the,vires%20(beyond%20the%20powers)
I suspect that a Court would rule that all of Smith’s actions as “Special Counsel” were ultra vires, and thus void. The new Special Counsel would need to start from scratch. There must be a price for ignoring the statute; letting the actions of an unqualified SP would undermine the limitations of the statute. Any SP could build a case up to trial and then suddenly resign in favor of a properly appointed SP. There is no point in removing him/her at that point.
Edward – lets presume I am right – Smith is effectively stalled now. There is little change he can get anything back on track before the election.
Worse, if I am right and Garland latterally replaces him – even if it did not require starting over – it would delay things further.
If you are correct, starting over is not all that difficult Smith left a road map.
The more relevant issue is that two different people are unlikely to make all the same decisions in exactly the same way.
Looking toward the middle. I am not exactly sure how the courts would see alot of the things Smith has done.
As an example – the SC asked for an indictment – but a grand jury issued it.
Is the Grand jury indictment illegitimate because the SC is ?
You have a point, but I am not sure how deep the courts would go with it.
Regardless, I beleive the Courts should toss Smith – because that would follow the rule of law.
I noted that putting the SC before the senate is unnecescary – as the AG can just make a lateral move.
SCOTUS has already blessed that. But I think that was a mistake. The Senate vets you for the position you seek, not for any position.
I think we would be better off if ALL presidential appointments had to be senate approved – not just as a person, but for a specific position.
But that is not what SCOTUS decided.
Your legal argument sounds pretty good. But ultimately I do not think it matters. I think the courts are going to try hard to duck the issue entirely. I do not as an example think Cannon is going to give Trump ANYTHING significant he wants —- Except time.
I think the supreme court will be happy when this all dies after the election and they do not have to decide issues like is Jack Smith a legitimate SC.
Right now, SCOTUS is holding up the DC case over the immunity issue.
I think they are going to preclude using 1512(c) at the very least in cases where free speech is involved. I think that is close to a no brainer.
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech” Either 1512(c) does not extend to speech that “interferes with a proceding” or it is unconstitutional.
I think that SCOTUS is not going to give Trump the big victory on Immunity that we really need – Trump’s lawyers did not argue for that.
But the fact is we really really need bright lines.
Regardless SCOTUS is with near certainty going to reject the DC appeals courts decision, create some rule regarding Presidential criminal immunity and remand the case to Chutkan to censider what is left of the case based on that rule. All that will assure that the DC case is effectively dead.
The FL case is on hold. Cannon now has a long list of motions and arguments that she can hear to delay this as long as she wants.
She SHOULD toss this for any number of reasons – but she is not going to. Trump is going to lose every motion in front of her that ends this case. But she will delay the case past the election.
The GA case is also dead. The GA appelate court has agreed to hear the DQ appeal. I think they are likely to DQ Willis. But even if they do not, the case is stalled – probably through the election.
Bragg has managed to get Trump into a courtroom – with the worst case of all of them. It is so bad that there is a small possibility of a directed verdict – even with Merchan. Atleast one reputable legal scholar stated that while directed verdicted are rare – he thought 95% of US judges would toss the Bragg case without going to the defenses case. But Merchan wont.
I think this case is so bad that there is a reasonable possibility that even a Manhattan Jury might hang. But that is less than 50:50.
Among other reasons because the Jury KNOWS Trump will win on appeal. They KNOW there is little possibility of Trump actually going to jail. That this case is entirely about winning the 2024 election. They will convict – because the case is about the election – not about sending anyone to jail. Trump will with certainty win on appeal. Possibly – but not likely before the election.
At the same time I am not sure how a conviction will effect Trump in the election. The pre indictment polls were wrong about the effect of indictments. I think they are wrong about the effect of a conviction.
Regardless, Trump has an almost 7pt edge over Trump – Trump lost the popular vote in 2020 by 4%. But very nearly won the electoral vote.
Trump is almost 3pts ahead. a 5pt loss due to a conviction would leave him 2pts behind – and still result in an EC win.
But I am not sure that a conviction will not lead to a backlash, and Trump may well go up if convicted.
The above is what I think will happen. And my core point is that NO ONE – not Cannon, not Merchan, not SCOTUS is going to make the tough bright line decision that is best for the country.
This is a mistake. Kicking the can so that nothing more happens until the election is past is as big a win for Trump as Tossing the SC, making the right decision on Immunity, the right decision on Presidential records, ….
If Trump wins the legal battles almost no matter what the courts do, the RIGHT decision is to forget Trump and decide what si best for the country in the long run.
But that is NOT what the courts are going to do.
Government MUST follow the rule of law. If Citizens are unhappy with that – We work to change the law.
When government does not follow the rule of law, it undermines its own legitimacy.
I think the correct supreme court decision on immunity is “impeach, remove, indict” – in that order only.
I think the same standard that SCOTUS used for civil immunity applies to criminal immunity – the outer periphery of offical acts.
I think that same immunity must extend to ex-presidents.
Does the constitution litterally say exactly that ? No, but it is the most consistent with what the constitution does say – if we do not like that – we can change it.
Everything I think the courts SHOULD do – would benefit Trump. But that is not why they should do it. The should do it because if we do not stop this nonsense we will continue this game tit for tat forever.
But the courts are not likely to do as I think they should. I do not think the courts fully grasp the serious danger we currently face.
Degrading the rule of law further undermines everything – including the courts.
Your arguments are good – possibly even constitutionally correct. But I do not think that is what the courts will do.
They will duck making a decision and delay til this is all moot.
Must listen —->
https://rumble.com/v4uxvpl-mike-davis-they-can-wait-until-after-the-election-to-go-after-trump.html
Alan Dershowitz says ruling would be overturned on appeal if Trump is convicted in New York
Dershowitz said he cannot see any crime that the former president allegedly committed, and that testimony from Cohen could not be taken seriously. He also slammed allegations that Trump was attempting to defraud voters.
By: Misty Severi ~ May 13, 2024
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/alan-dershowitz-says-ruling-would-be-overturned-appeal-if-trump
Comer investigating constitutionality of Biden’s voting executive order
GOP lawmakers say their “concern has been exacerbated by the continued lack of transparency from federal agencies and the White House regarding the implementation of this executive order.”
By: Nicholas Ballasy ~ May 13, 2024
[Link] justthenews.com/government/congress/gop-led-house-oversight-committee-investigating-constitutionality-bidens-voting
House Republicans Schedule Markup to Consider Resolution Recommending That AG Garland Be Found in Contempt of Congress
By: Debra Heine ~ May 13, 2024
https://amgreatness.com/2024/05/13/house-republicans-schedule-markup-to-consider-resolution-recommending-that-ag-garland-be-found-in-contempt-of-congress/
House Judiciary GOP Demand Testimony From BOP Director After Matt Gaetz Blocked From Speaking To ‘Political Prisoner’ Peter Navarro
By: Debra Heine ~ May 10, 2024
[Link] amgreatness.com/2024/05/10/house-judiciary-gop-demand-testimony-from-bop-director-after-matt-gaetz-blocked-from-speaking-to-political-prisoner-peter-navarro/
Michael Cohen went to what is rated the worst law school in America, Cooley Law School.
https://abovethelaw.com/2014/04/atl-march-madness-the-worst-law-school-in-america-champion/
That’s why he ended up working for a total LOSER of a failed businessman.
Losers attract each other.
They love their own company.
And you need look no further than this website for evidence that losers always gravitate towards each other’s company.
Trump is such a loser that his net worth went from 2.6B to 7.8B while those oif you on the left were claiming he was bankrupt.
DJT stock bottomed out at 22 a month ago and has been rising since it is now at 51.
It is likely the value may move up and down a bit over time, but the claims that it would turn into a penny stock are past refuted.
It is highly unlikely that Trump will fall off the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest men in the world.
Trump remains ahead of Biden nationwide by nearly 3pts and is ahead in all swing states.
Further states like WA, NJ, and NY are not likely to be won by Trump, but are likely to be far more competitive than in 2020 or 2016.
Biden is playing Defense and Trump is on offense.
If this is what it means to be a loser – “Please sir can I have more ?”
So why are you losers and suckers sending him millions of dollars to pay his legal bills
No wonder you want to be anonymous, Michael ….
Greetings Losers!!!!!
So it looks like your stable genius, brilliant business man, cult leader is in a spot of bother with the IRS.
Trump Tower in Chicago opened in 2009. In 2008, before it even opened, Trump declared it “worthless” and wrote off the $650 million he had put into it.
“Worthless” pretty much sums up his entire business career.
Trump in trouble with the Biden IRS ? Don’t you mean Nixon sorry Biden is weaponizing the IRS against political enemies ?
The IRS pretty much never cares about things like this. Why ? Because it Trump is wrong he will owe capitol gains taxes on whatever he wrote off in the future.
Businesses and Business taxes are a continuous thing. If you loose money – in reality or on paper one year, and you get a tax break for that,
and you later make that back or your claimed losses recover – you now in the future owe new taxes on the gains or recovery -as if it was income you just received.
If as you claim the IRS is going after Trump – they will be shot down.
[“Worthless” pretty much sums up his entire business career.]
because the $7 billion net worth is the definition of ‘worthless’
“Indeed, he appears eager to expand his collection by announcing in the midst of the trial coverage that he is running for Congress. …”
Michael Cohen says he is “running” for Congress – Where are the Filings to prove it?
Federal Election Commission: Registering a candidate
Candidates must register using a Statement of Candidacy (Form 2) within 15 days after becoming a candidate. A candidate, including an incumbent, must file a Statement of Candidacy for each election cycle in which they are a candidate.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-reports/registering-candidate/
ArtI.S2.C2.1 Overview of House Qualifications Clause
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S2-C2-1/ALDE_00013371/
Ballot access requirements for political candidates in New York
[Link] ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_New_York#Process_to_become_a_candidate
Note to FEC: Fund Raising Grift in currently in Progress, Lying under Oath in a Court Proceeding, and Falsifying facts to defraud Donor Donations.
Why does a protester’s right to free speech trump my right to get to work on time, my right to get to a hospital when I’m bleeding out or having a baby, my wedding I’m going to, my flight I have to catch, my education my time, the cost of gas I burn waiting for protesters blocking highways to clear, my right to life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness?
Rights end where a protester asserting them infringes on the rights of others. Their right to protest is NOT superior to the rights of others. That’s why permits are issued, zones are cleared, detours are laid out in advance. Just because they and their enablers in government claim a moral superiority that trumps the rights of others doesn’t make it so. Our rights are not inferior. And government fails when they pretend otherwise. And when government fails citizens become vigilantes. And if I were ever asked to serve on a jury of someone accused of running over and killing protesters who willfully infringe on the rights of others by putting themselves in the middle of a street I would make sure that driver went free, unconstitutional instructions elevating the rights of a preferred class over the rights of all others from a judge who’s violated his oath to uphold the US Constitution be damned. I’d make sure that driver went free. And treat him/her to the nicest dinner in town
***Why does a protester’s right to free speech trump my right to get to work on time, my right to get to a hospital when I’m bleeding out or having a baby, my wedding I’m going to, my flight I have to catch, my education my time, the cost of gas I burn waiting for protesters blocking highways to clear***
Please tell us where these rights are enumerated in the Constitution.
I read the entire document tonight and I could not find these rights, but I did find the right to free speech.
You do not have a right to any of the things mentioned – because you have no rights to anything that imposes a positive duty on others.
No one is obligated to get you to work on time.
No one is obligated to get you to a hospital.
….
HOWEVER, There is also no right to interfere in the liberty of another.
Just as no one is obligated to get you to work on time. No one is permitted to actively interfere in your ability to do so.
It is called tort law. While you generally can not bring a tort claim for things that are deminimus, and you usually can’t against the government, when people deliberately act to cause you harm – such as protestors shutting down a road, or a college,
you likely have a tort claim against them for damages.
That is in the constitution – 7th amendment.
Those rights don’t have to be enumerated. There is no right, EVER, to obstruct someone going about his lawful business. The fact that you’re protesting something doesn’t give you any extra rights. The freedom of speech means exactly what it sounds like: You have the right to speak, but not to break any law while doing so. Blocking a highway while protesting something is exactly like robbing a bank while protesting something. The protest is protected, the offense is not
Always helps to check the backgrounds of attorneys with auch a special interest in a defendant’s prosecution, that they will leave their private practice to help out the fellow travelers. I’m too old and too experienced to fall for a phony trial by communist tropes.
I am hoping trump will call Hannibal Lecter when it’s his turn to call witnesses. Maybe he will pick him as his running mate?
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1790010954173792673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1790010954173792673%7Ctwgr%5E7584c4552a51e1de5c8db291a702d03bbf5168c8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fhannibal-lecter-trump-hush-money-trial_n_66422cdfe4b062adda34ba70
The wreck-obsessed go to different types of auto race tracks than NASCAR. They’re called Demolition Derby’s. Probably bigger in the South than the North. And so, so perverse!!
Check out all of this rolling, smoking wreckage on the track, if you’re up for it:
https://imgflip.com/i/8pxm2b
Gigi and Dennis,
linked is an excellent article about the current protests that I expect YOU are likely to mostly agree with.
https://dnyuz.com/2024/05/11/i-was-once-a-student-protester-the-old-hyperbole-is-now-reality/
I have a small number of Quibbles – the Author does not mention J6 – which is entitled to EXACTLY the same treatment as other protests.
I have posted to both of you frequently that when the time does come for law enforcement to terminate a protest that has gotten out of hand,
We SHOULD prosecute criminal offenses that occur during protests and exercises of free speech with caution and attenuated.
Just as this author is recommending.
Another quibble is that while she mentions the transfer of military gear to law enforcement which is an incredbly stupid policy of both the right and left, but started primarily by the right. There is a difference between giving Police M16’s and assault vehicles and providing them with riot gear – which is primarily protective equipment – sheilds helments non-lethal weapons.
I agree with the author that even when protests violate property rights, and otherwise get out of hand – that so long as the disorderlyness is limited Protestors should be left alone. Occupying buildings on campus so long as the college can work arround that to continue its job of educating students should be ingored – even if the occupations last months.
I somewhat disagree with the author – I do NOT think dialogue is usually wise. Ignroe the protestors and wait for them to go home.
Identify the few who are violent – and arrest and expel those.
We saw lots of commencements cancelled – what is the reason commencment can not be moved ? Are there no venues elsewhere to hold Graduation ? Like a football stadium or Concert hall ?
I do think that there is a time in which the police must be called in. But that is long after the point at which police can be called in.
It is better to wait for MUST rather than move when you CAN.
With these ProHamas protests there were specific things that had to be punished.
Kidnapping Janitors and Jews. Or acts of violence against jews or counter protestors (or by counter protestors).
These are things that police can address without addressing the protest as a whole.
Regardless, I agree with the author that regardless of the political positions of the protestors, they should be allowed to protest.
AND that illegal conduct such as tresspassing, and camping, and other acts of civil disobedience and polical theater should be ignored to the greatest extent possible – work arround these disruptions and punish only actual violence.
Address the petty offences such as tresspass or Graffetti or even violent speech AFTER the fact. And address it minimally.
Chose explusion over criminal convictions for non-violent offenses.
Just to be clear though – my recomendation that we should tolerate SOME disorder in protests is NOT the same as asserting there is a RIGTH to destructive and disorderly protest.
I absolutely beleive there was nothing wrong with the Tom Cotton editorial in the New York Times.
I also beleive that he was WRONG.
There are times when it is legitimate to bring in law enforcement or even the national guard – RARELY to break up protests that have gone completely out of control and become dangerous. More Commonly to allow the protests to continue with more ORDER.
The author mentions Charlottesville. The police and or National guard should have been present as a buffer between protestors and counter protestors.
Trump was absolutely correct to try to get the NG deployed to the Capitol for J6.
While I absolutely beleive the J6 porotestors should have been allowed to enter and march through the capitol on J6 Chanting and protesting.
The presence of the NG would have allowed doing that in an orderly manner. Protestors could have been searched for weapons before letting them into the capitol. The numbers allowed int he capitol at one time could have been restricted. Protestors could have been kept to the public areas o f the capitol and prevented from doing any damage.
Often that can be done by law enforcement, but sometimes Law enforcement does not have sufficient resources for that.
There are legitimate reasons to bring police or law enforcement in to both protect the rights of protestors to protest AND to prevent protests from getting out of hand.
While the Chauvin Trial was a horible miscarraige of justice. Adn George Floyd is a very stupid person to frame as a hero.
If hundreds of thousands of people want to protest over Floyds death or to “defund the police” – they are free to do so – peacefully.
And if Police and or the national guard are necescary to preserve the protest by preventing it from becoming a riot – I am fine with that.
We do not do so often enough but In the US different from the rest of the world, law enforcement is often deployed – not to end protests, but to protect the protest itself from deteriorating to disorder and violence or from a conflict with counter protesters.
I beleive the police and NG should be deployed MORE frequently – not to END protests, but to keep them under control.
Whether to discourage property destruction adn violence or to keep protestors and counter protestors apart.
John Say, don’t ASSume liberals support Hamas. That’s just a stupid, Fox News talking point that makes no sense at all.
Where did I assume that Liberal support Hamas ?
I assume that protesters that say they support Hamas support Hamas.
I do not beleive that the majority of democrats or even 1/4 of democrats support Hamas.
That Said as I addressed in other posts. Biden’s failures that have resulted in these wars has put himself between a rock and a hard place.
There is a small portion of Democratic voters that are intensely anti-israel and even pro hamas. And these people have pretty much announced this is so important to them they will not vote for Biden if he does not reverse his support of Israel.
Conversely a significant portion of the democratic party as well as independents. is to varying degrees unlikely to support Biden if his support of Israel is too weak.
So we currently have a president using military aide to an allie in the midst of an existential war as leverage to win a US election.
Didn’t democrats impeach Trump on the pretense that he had done that ?
Regardless my posts on protests above are not specifically about What you are protesting for.
Your right to protest is not conditioned on advocating for things I or really anyone else supports.
Free speech is the right to say things that offend others – even everyone.
Why does a protester’s right to free speech trump my right to get to work on time, my right to get to a hospital when I’m bleeding out or having a baby, my wedding I’m going to, my flight I have to catch, my education my time, the cost of gas I burn waiting for protesters blocking highways to clear, my right to life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness?
Rights end where a protester asserting them infringes on the rights of others. Their right to protest is NOT superior to the rights of others. That’s why permits are issued, zones are cleared, detours are laid out in advance. Just because they and their enablers in government claim a moral superiority that trumps the rights of others doesn’t make it so. Our rights are not inferior. And government fails when they pretend otherwise. And when government fails citizens become vigilantes. And if I were ever asked to serve on a jury of someone convicted of running over and killing protesters who willfully infringe on the rights of others by putting themselves in the middle of a street I would make sure that driver went free, unconstitutional instructions elevating the rights of a preferred class over the rights of all others from a judge who’s violated his oath to uphold the US Constitution be damned. I’d make sure that driver went free. And treat him/her to the nicest dinner in town.
Lotsa Lotsa said – hmmmph – IMO the graduates who PAID the tuition & put in the work take precident! Let the protesters move the date or move to the dump to exhibit their ‘free speach’.
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
– Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
___________________________________________
Exactly how long will actual Americans slumber and allow their progeny to be brainwashed, propagandized, and indoctrinated by inimical anti-American communists and their nation to be totally subsumed and razed by parasitic banana republicans who, incidentally, were not even admitted to become citizens by the American Founders and Framers?