Below is my column in The Hill on the curious claim of executive privilege over the audiotape from President Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. It is the first time that I know of where the content of a presidential conversation was treated as unprivileged but the audio of the conversation claimed as privileged. It is also an invocation on answering questions about alleged criminal acts committed while a private citizen. It is, in my view, entirely without merit but Attorney General Merrick Garland appears more interested in running out the clock than prevailing on the claim.
Here is the column:
While all eyes were focused on a Manhattan courthouse for Donald Trump’s trial, a curious thing happened in Washington. President Joe Biden invoked executive privilege in defiance of Congress.
It is not the invocation that is particularly unusual. What is curious is that Biden is withholding the audiotape of his own interrogation by Special Counsel Robert Hur, even though the transcript has been released as unprivileged.
It appears that Joe Biden is “he who must not be heard.”
The invocation of privilege over the audiotape is so transparently political and cynical that it would make Richard Nixon blush. Multiple committees are investigating Biden for possible impeachment and conducting oversight on the handling of the investigation into his retention and mishandling of classified material over decades. Classified documents were found in various locations where Biden lived or worked, including his garage. The mishandling of classified material is uncontestable. Broken boxes, unprotected areas and lack of tracking are all obvious from the photos.
The comparison to the Trump case in Florida is both obvious and disturbing. Where Trump was charged with a litany of charges, including mishandling and retention of documents (in addition to obstruction), Hur decided not to charge Biden at all. His reason was outright alarming: The president is an elderly man with failing memory.
Biden made the situation even worse with a disastrous press conference in which he attacked Hur and misrepresented his findings. Biden told the public that the special counsel did not find willful retention of material. This was untrue — Hur not only found that Biden had done this, but repeatedly detailed such violations in the report.
Biden also claimed that he had not shown classified material to third parties, even though Hur specifically found that he had and established that there is a witness to that violation.
Biden also attacked Hur for bringing up the death of Beau, his son who passed away in 2018. In showing why Biden could use his diminished faculties as a defense, Hur had noted that Biden got the date wrong of his own son’s death.
In the press conference, Biden angrily asked “How in the hell dare he raise that?” Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business.”
It was later shown that it was not Hur but Biden himself who raised his son’s death, which he often does in speeches.
Hur’s view that Biden’s diminished cognitive abilities would undermine any prosecution left many dumbfounded. After all, the man who is too feeble to prosecute is not only running a superpower with a massive nuclear arsenal but running for reelection to add four more years in office.
From impeachment to oversight to the 25th Amendment (allowing the removal of a president for incapacities), there are ample reasons for Congress to demand information and evidence from the government on these questions. Congress is also interested in looking at repeated omissions for “inaudible” statements. Under this sweeping theory that Biden can legitimately withhold these recordings under executive privilege, any president could withhold any evidence of incapacity or criminality.
The House is poised to find Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for refusing to release the audiotapes. It is a cynical calculation. Garland knows that his own department will never prosecute him for contempt of Congress. Obama Attorney General Eric Holder was clearly in contempt of Congress and abused executive privilege arguments to shield embarrassing details tied to Operation Fast and Furious. His department refused to even submit the matter to a grand jury.
Garland also knows that it will take months to get any ruling on the matter once Congress can file with a court. That will push any decision and release until after the election. While the administration and liberal legal analysts insisted that courts should expedite any and all trials of Donald Trump before the election, they are not eager for the public to know this information about whether Biden seemed feeble or confused under questioning.
A court may be a tad confused as to why a president’s answers are not privileged, but the actual audio recording of those answers can be privileged.
White House counsel Edward Siskel added to the dubious basis for the claim in a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio.) and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) on Thursday. He suggested that, if there were a compelling reason for the audiotapes, it might be different.
“The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal—to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes,” wrote Siskel. But that is not a basis for an executive privilege assertion. How material would be treated is not relevant to whether Congress has a right to the information.
Past presidents have routinely over-extended privilege claims for political purposes. Nixon had his own tapes in the Watergate scandal. Of course, he was denying access to all of the information on the tapes. Yet, in a strange way, that may have been more compelling, since Nixon was arguing that the disclosure would compromise the content of privileged conversations.
Biden is not claiming the actual conversations as privileged; only how he sounded and spoke the words that are already in available transcripts.
For the Justice Department itself, these pendulum swings between being a contempt hawk and dove are enough to give a judge vertigo. The department just prosecuted Trump officials for refusing to appear or supply evidence to Congress. Likewise, arguments of privilege by former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows have been rejected. Yet privilege is now being asserted for this conversation between Hur and Biden, concerning potentially criminal conduct committed when Biden was a private citizen — neither vice president nor president.
In other cases, federal and state prosecutors have argued that Trump’s statements on Jan. 6 were criminal, made in relation to private interests and not protected under executive privilege or immunity. Notably, unlike in Biden’s case, these were statements made while Trump was president and concerned matters raised during Trump’s term. Likewise, prosecutors rejected claims that Trump has any protection over his call with Georgia officials over the demand for a recount. Imagine if Trump had argued that it was privileged to hear his voice, but not to read his words in the call.
Biden’s Voldemortian theory of privilege is unlikely to succeed legally, but that is not the point. Garland knows that it is likely to succeed politically. With generally favorable judges in Washington, the Biden administration hopes to run out the clock on the election. If Biden wins the election or the Democrats win the House, there may be no ongoing investigation or justification to support the demand in court. Of course, unlike Voldemort, who simply did not want to be named, Biden wants to remain “he who must not be heard” outside of short, carefully controlled settings.
What Hur heard could therefore remain a privilege of office.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Oh boy, looks like Costello may have perjured himself already. Prosecutors have successfully been lodging objections to Costellos’s testimony and being sustained. It’s obvious Costello is in it to lie for Trump. That’s my opinion at least. Judge Merchan has been admonishing Costello multiple times while he is visibly frustrated by the continued objections from the prosecution. Cohen has behaved much better than Costello and it seems he can’t’ control his outbursts. That’s not a good look in front of the jury.
That’s my opinion at least. Judge Merchan has been admonishing Costello multiple times
Merchan won’t let Cosetello to answer. Cant lie if the judge wont let you speak.
You “opinion” ignores all the facts, and calls heavily on TDS
@Iowan2,
No, Merchan won’t let Costello disrespect the court and whine in front of the Jury. Judge Merchan made clear that Costello’s testimony is limited to certain issues. Costello seems to keep wanting to argue about issues not related to the court and prosecutors correctly objecting to them are being sustained.
It seems Costello is trying to derail the court proceedings by speaking about issues not related to the case. Costello’s behavior is not helping the defense. Judge Mercahan just cleared reporters from the courtroom.
Costello has 200 pages of phone logs and text message, plus his partner to corroborate Cohen repeatedly stating he, Cohen, and Cohen alone acted of his accord executing an NDA with Daniels.
Merchan is working hard with the Prosecution to suppress the facts.
@iowan2,
Costello is lying for Trump. He’s doing what Cohen would be doing if he was still Trump’s lawyer.
He’s already been admonished by judge merchan and the prosecution has successfully objected to his inappropriate statements in court. It’s obvious Costello has an ax to grind with Cohen.
His behavior in court is not bound to sit well with the jury compared to Cohen. They might see it as an act of desperation from the defense.
It’s very likely Judge Merchan will deny the motion to dismiss tomorrow.
Iowan2,
Well said.
UpStateFarmer,
bien dicho (well said)
😎
Oh, Costello has been called to the stand. This will be interesting. Will Costello lie on the stand for Trump? Trump likes lawyers that are willing to lie for him. Costello is Trump’s current “Cohen”. How ironic.
There is no jurisprudential case against Real President Donald J. Trump.
Your only hope is venue corruption.
Michael Cohen’s ex-lawyer to nuke Cohen’s tale before Congress: ‘Habitual liar, totally unreliable’
“Each time Cohen said to me: ‘I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump,’” Costello’s prepared testimony states. “Cohen must have said this at least ten times because I kept coming back to it from different approaches.
“Cohen kept on saying: ‘Guys I want you to remember, I will do whatever the F … I have to do, I will never spend one day in jail,’” Costello recalled. “I even said to Cohen at one point: ‘Michael, now is the time to tell the truth and cooperate if you want your legal problems to disappear.’
Cohen would again reply: “I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/michael-cohens-ex-lawyer-provides-counter-story-congress-habitual
🎶 Honesty is such a lonely word
Everyone is so untrue 🎶
Costello keeps getting admonished by the judge for his disrespectful behavior. It’s not looking good for Costello or the defense. So far. Now prosecutors are cross examining.
The entire corrupt justice department has lied for the corrupt president Biden.
Cohen testified this afternoon that he stole $50k or $60k from the Trump Organization. Meanwhile, Biden is defying a Congressional subpoena. This proves my point that the relative positions of the parties in the courtroom should be reversed.
Edward – these days it does seem that the whole world is upside down, in virtually every area.
You are surprised that there is no honor among thieves ??????? Come now.
The Trump Organization is a den of thieves and vipers. It is nothing more than a criminal enterprise.
They are ALL thieves, cheaters and con-men. Why would you be surprised that they steal from each other.
The Trump Organization?
Have you ever seen what Google does?
Edward mahl,
The defense just eviscerated the prosecutions star witness.
Again.
Edward mahl said: “Cohen testified this afternoon that he stole $50k or $60k from the Trump Organization.”
How long before one of the resident idiots here responds that, because Cohen was honest about revealing that he stole from Trump, he is trustworthy and his testimony should be regarded as truthful? Countdown begins: 9; 8; 7; 6…
where only the police have guns- is called a police state . political power comes out of the barrel of a gun- the party must have all the guns mao- to disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them george mason 1788
OT: The ICC put out warrants for the leaders of hamas AND the leaders of Israel in the latest example of moral equivalence between evil and those fighting evil.
Of course this has reportedly upset Joe Biden, who, with Blinken, has been attacking Israel on a daily basis. Biden said he advised the ICC against taking such a dramatic action. I guess he told them DON’T and we all know how effective that policy is.
PS. The ICC referred to the two sides as the “Territory of Israel” and the “State of Palestine”.
Boy, it stinks not having an American president.
And here is the face of the “State of Palestine” in Gaza:
https://x.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1791903302235369604
Gazans celebrating the rape of an innocent 19-year-old Israeli girl. That’s what Israel is dealing with on its borders.
The only remaining questions I have about the current occupant of the White House is who changes his diaper and who stands to gain by keeping this incoherent creature in the White House.
The ICC, like the UN, is invalid, illegitimate, and entirely without legal basis and authority.
The ICC and the UN are attempts by global communists to impose their “dictatorship of the proletariat” which is merely a tool of the “intellectuals” who assume and exercise control over the working class masses.
So if the ICC issues arrest warrants for Bibi and Hamas leader, shouldn’t they also issue one for Biden? Afterall, Biden has continually provided the weapons of mass destruction to Israel as well as funding Hamas through the backdoor, humanitarian aid:-/
War is a money maker!
Jonathan: On another topic we thought all along that Todd Blanche was representing DJT in the criminal trial in Manhattan. Guess not. It’s actually the Fox legal team of Turley, Dershowitz, Jarrett, McCarthy & Levin. Quite a lineup. At least if you believe DJT who said outside the courtroom on Thursday: “There’s no crime. Jonathan Turley, every single person, Gregg Jarrett, Andy McCarthy, anyone you want to name, Mark Levin, great legal scholars [???], every single one said there’s no crime. The crime is that they’re doing this case”. Todd Blanche was standing next to DJT when he made that claim. No doubt Blanche was surprised to find out there is another legal team representing his client.
Unfortunately for you and the other spin artists on Fox, Blanche and his partners are the only ones representing DJT in Justice Merchan’s courtroom. DJT’s fate is in their hands–not yours nor your law partners on Fox!
Judge, not Justice. There’s no Justice in that courtroom.
I don’t think there is a judge there either.
It reminds me of Ann Coulter’s assessment of one of Wm Clinton’s claims of executive privilege: Executive privilege does not apply to presidential dating habits.
Jonathan: The Q is what legitimate purpose would be served by producing the audio recording of Biden’s interview with SC Robert Hur? For the following reasons I think the Twin “Jims” are only on a political fishing expedition.
First, the full transcript of the Hur/Biden interviewed was released by the Administration before Hur testified before Congress. It’s now part of the Congressional record. In courts across the country trial transcripts are also immediately available to the public. We see that in the ongoing criminal trial of DJT in Manhattan. We don’t hold criminal trials in secret. Trial transcripts are the OFFICIAL record of any court proceedings and no litigant has ever demanded there also be an audio tape of any court proceeding. Trial transcripts are universally accepted as the OFFICIAL record. Not even you would argue that the Hur interview was not part of an OFFICIAL proceeding.
Second, would the audio recording of the Hur interview add anything to the record? I don’t think so. Every single Q by Hur and Biden’s responses were documented for the OFFICIAL record. Nothing added or deleted. It’s pretty clear the Twin “Jims” won’t find anything in the audio tape that differs from the transcripts. They are engaged in a political fishing expedition hoping they can find something to use in the political campaign against Joe Biden–selectively editing the tape for their own political purposes. That’s not a legitimate legislative purpose.
Third, the Nixon Watergate tapes are irrelevant. Nixon lost his claim of executive privilege over the tapes because those tapes were the ONLY evidence of his crimes. There was no Hur-like interview by a Special Counsel that revealed those crimes that could serve as an OFFICIAL record.
Fourth, this is the only time Biden has asserted executive privilege. DJT has done it several times. In 2019 DJT made the claim over the Mueller report. He did it again in 2022 to block the National Archives from turning over WH docs to the Jan. 6 House Select Committee. In Trump vs Thompson the SC denied DJT’s claim of executive privilege. Former DJT officials Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro made similar claims. The latter two are going to prison for refusing to comply with lawful subpoenas.
From the DC Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, courts have ruled there must be a legitimate legislative purpose for any congressional subpoena. I doubt the courts will find any legitimate purpose for the Twin “Jims” demand for the audio tape of the Hur/Biden interview. It’s just an exercise in political postering. So, no, the president’s voice “must not be heard”. It doesn’t add anything to the OFFICAL record. I think the courts will so rule!
@Dennis
It’s unlikely Turley will respond to you, but I will: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah , *media approved talking point* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . Pollute the feed some more, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. I hope your dollars or wasted time are worth it, whichever the case may be. The difference is, I fully expect people to ignore this nonsensical posting, and I didn’t get a penny for it. 🙄🙄
Exactly!
James,
As usual, I scrolled right past Dennis’s comments.
But I did read yours! 🙂
It was much more enlightening.
So I guess you want a doddering old man with a poor memory act as the leader of the free world? Or maybe you want domestic political operatives like Blinken and Sullivan running us into WW 3.
Dennis is going over like a lead balloon on this site.
Why does he persist?
Answer: He is assigned to the Turley Blog by the Communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) Party, oops, I mean the DNC.
Therefore, the question is more appropriately posed to the DNC: Why do you communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) believe your ludicrous but compelling-by-way-of-entertainment Psy-Ops are worth the expense?
Answer: Dennis is a cheap w—- and eminently affordable.
In the absence of even a scintilla of shame, Dennis muddles through, living from cheap paycheck to cheap paycheck.
He persists because people have heard of Turley and nobody’s heard of him.
George said; “Dennis… Why does he persist?”
Um, I think that is largely because so many other posters on this site seem to lack the self-discipline to simply ignore him.
My finger gets exhausted scrolling down past his convoluted dissertations of complete and utter sheeeeeit!
Traveler said: “My finger gets exhausted scrolling down past his convoluted dissertations of complete and utter sheeeeeit!”
And if you add the effort of scrolling past the comments of those who insist on (uselessly, imo) engaging his arguments on a point-by-point basis, it becomes even more tedious.
Second, would the audio recording of the Hur interview add anything to the record?
McIntyre, you’ve dodged your own question. Since the “audio” recording of the interview has not been added to the record, the most obvious answer to your question is that by releasing the full audio of the interview, it would add it to the public record. DUH! Will anyone then use any portions of that recording to misrepresent what that recording actually revealed? Again, DUH! Of course they will. Both in Biden’s favor and in opposition to him. Currently, those in favor of Biden and those in opposition to him are using what is in the public record (the transcript and the Hur report) to advance a narrative. The most obvious way to prove what narrative the American people should believe, is by releasing the full audio, so the American people can draw their own conclusions. You know, something we should all support in our democratic process.
There is only one logical conclusion as to why anyone would oppose releasing that recording: It would damage a narrative. You know, the thing, a story, that to date does not completely reveal the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Hear, hear!
“The Q is what legitimate purpose would be served by producing the audio recording of Biden’s interview with SC Robert Hur?”
While that is NOT the legal standard – the courts generally do not get to second guess the reasons for a congressional subpeona – though if you wish to put into law or constitution some actual limits on congressional subpeonas I would likely support you.
Regardless the OBVIOUS purpose of demanding the recordings is to determine if Biden is competent.
That is within the legitimate oversight role of congress.
Separately, the Hurr SC investigation is extremely problematic.
Hurr found willlful and reckless violations of the espionage act by Biden as Senator, and as VP.
Hurr’s conclusion was that Biden was sufficiently demented that he did not have criminal intent and therefore could not be prosecuted.
Most of us beleive Hurr is likely correct.
The problem is that there is no cure for dementia, and if Biden is too demented to have criminal intent – he is too demented to govern.
That is BTW fully within the houses oversight role.
So What purpose would be served ?
Easy – either Hurr is correct in his assessment of Biden and he should be removed as president – either by the 25th amendment or by impeachment or by the voters in November, or in the alternative – Biden is actually competent – in which case – he should be impeached for high crimes and misdemenaors and removed from office.
Those are just the TOP of the list of legitimate purposes for demanding the video.
@John Say,
“ Regardless the OBVIOUS purpose of demanding the recordings is to determine if Biden is competent.”
No, that’s not the purpose for demanding the recordings. Congress does not get to determine if the president is competent or not. The only reason for wanting the recording is purely for political reasons. To invoke the 25th only the vice president and the cabinet get to make that decision. Not Congress.
It has already been established that Biden has not committed high crimes or misdemeanors or engaged in bribery. Comer’s impeachment inquiry has not found anything alluding to an impeachable offense.
You seem to want to impeach Biden because you believe in the notion of an eye for an eye kind of retribution. Not because of a legal or constitutional rationale. Republicans have only been able to offer allegation after allegation purporting them to be evidence without offering actual evidence to s support the allegations. The reasons you cite for the need to see the video don’t hold up water. The transcript is from a republican investigation by a republican appointed SC. You’re saying you don’t trust them to be telling the truth? Or are you claiming that because they did not find enough evidence to indict Biden there must be something wrong. Because you already know, somehow, Biden is already guilty of a crime that you cannot prove, but just know?
All the evidence points to a lack of evidence or enough for a conviction to succeed if it went to trial.
Dennis,
You are correct that the transcript is the official record. It is not however the only record.
Video of congressional hearings only started during my lifetime.
The OJ Simpson was the first major trial to be broadcast live.
Now the Supreme court is providing live audio of oral arguments.
Most of us – right and left WANT the Trump trial to be broadcast.
The Trial in GA has been broadcast live todate.
A few decades ago police bodycams were rare – now when we do NOT have bodycam audio and video we are legitimately suspicious of the police.
Increasingly we live in a world where the people are not satisfied with written records – they want to see the whole enchalida – the tenor and demanor of witnesses.
The MSM has fromt he start of the Manhattan case been reporting on Trump’s body language at trial.
And that is legitimate. The problem is that we do NOT Trust reporters and want to see for ourselves.
But specifically with respect to the house subpeona:
Sorry – Congress has legitimate oversite responsibilities here.
Hurr has reported that Biden is not competent enough to stand Trial.
If that is correct he is not competent enough to be president. Congress has a duty to expose that – hopefully triggering the exececise of the 25th amendment, alternatively triggering impeachment and worst case providing voters with the truth before the election.
If it is NOT correct – then Biden should be impeached for violating the espionage act as a senator and VP.
Regardless, this is not a fight over what is “the official record”.
This is a fight over Congress obtaining access to evidence related to the criminal conduct of the president of the united states.
@John Say,
Biden cannot be impeached for violating the espionage act. Hur stated there’s not enough evidence to indict much less convict Biden of a crime. Therefore he cannot be impeached.
The allegation that Biden is not competent to stand trial is pure fabrication. That is not what Hur reported.
Congress has oversight responsibilities that are legitimate. Wanting the recordings is not a legitimate request, not after the transcript and the investigation by Hur is over. What Jordan and Comer want is fodder for the election. That is not a legitimate congressional need.
“Second, would the audio recording of the Hur interview add anything to the record? I don’t think so. Every single Q by Hur and Biden’s responses were documented for the OFFICIAL record.”
Do you understand why prosecutors and police record interviews ?
They do so because they will likely be used as evidence in court.
BTW this was an interview – it is NOT a court proceding – the transcript is NOT an official record it is just one of many records.
“Nothing added or deleted.”
False there are many sections were the Transcript merely reports that something was unintelligable.
“It’s pretty clear the Twin “Jims” won’t find anything in the audio tape that differs from the transcripts.”
So what ? Then there is no good reason not to provide it and make it public.
“They are engaged in a political fishing expedition hoping they can find something to use in the political campaign against Joe Biden”
Absoilutely, But they are fishin in a pond with more fish than water.
Regardless they are also engaged in legitimate congressional oversite. The fact that is may also serve a political purpose does not change anything.
There is no problem with President Biden criminally investigating and prosecuting Trump – so long as.
Due process is followed,
DOJ/FBI investigate CRIMES not people.
Trump had sufficient basis to ask Zelensky to investigagte the Biden’s in Ukraine.
The fact that there was also a political benefit – even that the political may have been the driving force is irrelevant.
The house has far more basis for investigating Biden than any of the investigations of Trump.
The prosecution has presented its case in Manhattan, and not only have they failed to state a crime.
They have failed to provide any basis for an investigation. That makes everything in Manhatten a violation of civil rights under color of law.
There is already a prima fascia criminal case regarding biden.
Classified docs were found in his posession that could not legally be where they were.
Unlike Trump – There is no legal argument of any kind that Senators and ex VP’s can have classified docs in their homes.
So We have a real crime that Hurr chose not to prosecute. The reason that he chose not to do so was the Inability of Biden to form criminal intent, and/or to defend himself at trial.
All of which are reasons he should not be president.
“the Nixon Watergate tapes are irrelevant. Nixon lost his claim of executive privilege over the tapes because those tapes were the ONLY evidence of his crimes. ”
False – there was a transcript.
The courts found that was not sufficient.
“There was no Hur-like interview by a Special Counsel that revealed those crimes that could serve as an OFFICIAL record.”
There is no “official” record of an interview.
There are a variety of records.
The video
The recollection and notes of those participating.
It is NOT normal to have a court reporter present for a law enforcement interview.
Though it is the norm for depositions.
I do not KNOW what occurred here – but what likely occurred is that like Watergate the transcript was created from the recordings.
Regardless there is no “official” record – the interview was not a hearing or deposition.
“Fourth, this is the only time Biden has asserted executive privilege.”
False. This executive has been claiming executive privileges and various other privileges
from day one.
There were very few claims of executive priviledge by Trump as president.
There were several by Trump’s advisors in 2021.
The Biden admin waived Executive priviledge for Trump advisors – I beleive the first time a sitting president has EVER done that.
The most narrow and normal place that Executive privilege applies is the direct exchange of advice between the president and subbordinates.
When Biden waived that for Kushner, Navarro, Bannon and others – he opened pandora’s box.
This is one of the many reasons that Democrats are terrified by a Trump victory in 2024.
That would mean that in 2025 – there would be no priviledge for communications between Biden advisors and Biden during his presidency.
If as most beleive – Biden is incompetent – there would with near certainty be numerous crimes that would arise.
And incompetent president can not issue a lawful order. But worse, an advisor can not on their own act as president because the president is unable to.
Many of us beleive that the Executive is being run by Biden’s subordinates. If that is true – that is a crime as they have no authority to do so.
Regardless, interviews between the president and investigators as opposed to advisors are NOT priviledged.
That is an on its face stupid claim.
Most presidents make overly broad claims of priviledge. The courts do not give them what they want but on the whole grant more priviledge than they should.
This is not even in a grey area.
This is a litmus test for judicial bias. If you do not quickly reject this claim of priviledge – you are too politically biased to be a judge.
“DJT has done it several times. In 2019 DJT made the claim over the Mueller report.”
False.
“He did it again in 2022 to block the National Archives from turning over WH docs to the Jan. 6 House Select Committee.”
Correct, communications between the President and advisors enjuy the highest level of executive priviledge.
Biden waived priviledge -t he first time a president had ever waived much less failed to defend an ex-presidents claim of executive priviledge
This set a precedent that democrats are going to rue in 2025.
If Biden could waive Trump’s executive priviledge – then Trump can waive Biden’s.
Turn about is fair play
Have fun in 2025.
” In Trump vs Thompson the SC denied DJT’s claim of executive privilege.”
Only partly correct – they affirmed Biden’s power to waive privilege.
A decision Democrates will rue in 2025
” Former DJT officials Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro made similar claims. The latter two are going to prison for refusing to comply with lawful subpoenas.”
These are far more complicated cases and wrongly decided – and still working their way to the supreme court.
Due process was NOT folowed in these cases.
Navarro and Bannon were prosecuted WITHOUT a PRIOR determination by the courts that priviledge did not apply.
The court under Judge Carter decided the issue AND imposed criminal sanctions BEFORE allowing the defendents the oportunit to comply.
The Normal process – due process, is congress issues a subpeona, the target refuses, congress goes to court, the court decides the validity of the subpeona – often narrowing the subpeona. The target then can comply or not. If after a court order the target fails to comply the matter is refered to DOJ for prosecution.
In Bannon and Navarro, the entire portion where the court decides the validity and scope of the subpeona was skipped and the case went from subpeona to prosecution.
As I understand it the House is currently using an unusual form of Contempt to try to do the same thing with Garland.
This form of contempt would allow the house sargent at arms to take custody of Garland and drag him to the house to provide the required documents and not release him until he has done so.
Regardless, left wing nuts have opened pandora’s box.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
You have cut down all the trees of the law and now the devil has turned on you and there are no trees(laws) to protect you.
As you note – SCOTUS has allowed incumbent presidents to waive the executive priviledge claims of former presidents advisors without a hearing on whether priviledge applies.
YOU have effectively destroyed executive priviledge.
In 2025 you get to enjoy living in a world without it.
“From the DC Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, courts have ruled there must be a legitimate legislative purpose for any congressional subpoena.”
Both incorrect and irrelevant.
There must be a legitimate constitutional purpose given to congress for a subpeona.
Executive oversite is UNVERSALLY legitimate. Or put differently the house gets to second guess the decisions of officers of the united states (with EP limits on the president himself).
Congress can subpeona the SC records of an investigation of the president – that is oversite.
Separately – it is trivial to conduct a legislative purpose.
Jordan has subpeanad Bragg and Willis, and Smith’s records of the Trump investigation. The House has no oversight responsibility regarding Bragg and Willis and the subpeona’s have been upheld.
” I doubt the courts will find any legitimate purpose for the Twin “Jims” demand for the audio tape of the Hur/Biden interview”
There is pretty much zero chance you are correct. The only question is how far up the ladder that the House has to go to win – because the DC courts are politically corrupt.
But that may not be far – as it is the DC courts that allowed fishing expiditions into Trump.
There are fenced in by their own precidents.
Regardless, this video will become public.
The only question is when.
As with many many many things that Biden has hidden – it would have been better if it happened NOW or earlier – when people have time to forget how bad the video is.
The worst possibility for Biden is the courts finally release the video just before the election.
But Biden is delaying – because he not only needs to worry about Trump, but efforts within his own party to replace him.
I personally think Kennedy made a mistake running third Party. I think he should have remained a democrat through to the convention.
That would make him the most legitimate possibility when the convention determines that Biden must go.
Regardless, Biden is delaying for more reasons than to prevent Republicans from using this.
DM – there is no circusmstances in which this ever would be a close issue.
Biden is not trying to permanently stop the release of this video.
He is primarily trying to stop it from being released before the June debate,
Then before the Democratic convention
and only then before the general election.
He might succeed in the first two, it is unlikely he succeeds in the 2nd.
Your official vs. unofficial ague is BullSchiff
There is no official proceeding — there is no official record.
Further it is UNLIKELY there were court reporters at Biden’s interview.
The transcripts were likely created from the video not the other way arround.
But that does not matter.
This is a criminal investigation involving the president.
That falls SQUARELY within the powers of congress – again all this nonsense ended with Nixon.
Further this claim does not even fit Executive prividege.
EP covers the advise of presidential counselors to the president.
Hurr was not providing advice, he was interviewing the target of an investigation.
DM – your arguments have absolutely no legal merit.
Even though tghe DC courts are drowning in political bias and MAY delay ruling on this to protect Biden – this is a dead bang loser.
EP does not apply to the interviews of US Attorney’s or Special counsel – there is a possible claim of a criminal defendants right to privacy in a case where no prosecution occured, But that is weak as this is an investigation for acts performed as a Senator, and VP.
SC Hurr was engaged in a criminal investigation – there is no EP in those at all.
And Watergate demonstrates that EP not only fails with prosecutors but with congress where there is a criminal investigation.
A legitimate legislative purpose is A standard for congressional subpoenas – and you easily have that here.
But so is executive oversite,
And in the context of impeachment – the investigative power of congress.
This is a dead bang loser.
The purpose here is SOLELY delay.
Even if the audio was released maybe 50 former government personnel will sign a document saying the audio sounds like a doctored recording of Putin and not Joe?
Yeah, and the global communist Deep Deep State “Swamp” Regime, after its “executive action,” told the world that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy even though Oswald was an “employee” of the CIA and the clandestine governmental security state.
Moral: If you want something done, don’t petition the so-called “government”; petition the global communist Deep Deep State “Swamp” Regime—the “dictatorship of the proletariat” of Karl Marx and his regional ambassador, Abraham Lincoln.
Yes, the puppet strings are being held.
Merrick Garland (and all of the others in the administration) have their middle finger up at the public. This is payback by Merrick Garland. To me he is a hateful man. He feels the public are stupid and uneducated. Merrick Garland likes to “run out the clock.”
I say, people do your research. Don’t rely on soundbites in commercials. Read, read, listen, find. Be very careful how you use your most valuable possession this year–your vote. Don’t waste it.
One group I do want to get rid of is the elected news performance artists, who are doing nothing to support the voters (who “hired” them by their votes) but they get their soundbites on the evening talk shows.
OT –
“Supreme Court turns away challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban”
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court turned away an appeal from Maryland gun owners who challenged the state’s ban on the assault weapons, which were used in recent mass shootings in a south Texas church and at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas.
The justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that cast doubt on whether ownership of assault weapons is protected by the Constitution, while upholding the Maryland law that does not permit the sale of a range of semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.
In the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling earlier this year, Judge Robert King wrote “we have not power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war.”
– CBS News
______________
ENOUGH OF THE SEDITIOUS AND TREASONOUS JUDICIAL BRANCH!
The Justices of the Supreme Court have sworn an oath to support the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America, not to make it up as they go along. There is no excuse or juridical rationale for this delay and behavior by the Supreme Court.
The 2nd Amendment was ratified specifically to allow and protect the possession of weapons of war, and the American Founders and Framers established the right to keep and bear arms to effectively oppose like arms borne by a tyrannical government, with the ancillary benefits of providing personal security, hunting game et al.
Judge Robert King must be ripped out of his seat and sent to prison for wilful and deliberate nullification and anti-American, seditious, and treasonous behavior.
The Supreme Court must be impeached and convicted for infringing the right to keep and bear arms, illicitly amending the Constitution, and treating the fundamental law of the Constitution as frivolous afterthought.
_____________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Please take note of the words “well regulated”.
What do you think these words mean.
Can the people regulate their own militia or do we need the government to do that for us? Remember the constitution is supposed to protect us from the government.
So which “people” are actually doing the regulating, and how exactly are they achieving that “regulation”.
Does “people” include those “people” opposed to the free availability of guns.
Is it the case that only certain “people” can have a role in this regulation.
Regardless, the right is guaranteed to “the people” not to a militia.
*** Regardless, the right is guaranteed to “the people” not to a militia. ***
I find this statement highly confusing.
If the right is guaranteed to “the people” and NOT to a militia, then logically “the people” and “a militia” must be two different entities. So if “the people” cannot be part of a militia, then what exactly is a militia if it does not consist of people.
And which people are allowed to do the regulating. Are all “people” entitled to a role in this regulation, or are only certain “people” entitled to this responsibility. If not all “people”, then which “people” can do the regulating in your opinion. Can “people” opposed to gun ownership have a role in this regulation.
I think I know what your answer will be. The only “people” permitted to do the regulating are gun owners. So this would mean that certain “people” would have more rights than other “people”, and an ability to regulate those people who do not agree with them, a concept that is clearly enshrined in the Constitution. Right?
No, my answer is that your response is incoherent and illogical. What I said is straightforward, and I believe you are merely pretending to be confused. Have a good evening.
Your inability to answer a simple question is just making my point.
I will make it very simple with just one simple question. An answer would be greatly appreciated.
In the absence of a response, I will assume you have accepted my point.
Which “people” get to do the regulating ??????
Not what you think – the administrative state was a creation of the early 20th century.
Our founders never would have used the word “regulated” to mean constrained by laws or bureaucrats.
Regardless, the Judges political throw away line is absolutely FALSE.
The 2nd amendment ABSOLUTELY applies to “weapons of war”
At the time of the revolution the Pennsylvania riffle was the “assault weapon” of its time,
And just like an Ar-15 it can be used to hunt, protect your home, and go to war.
Many revolutionary cannon were privately owned – and private ownership of cannon, and even tanks is still legal in the US
The ONLY firearm that has EVER been significantly constrained by law is the machine gun – an automatic weapon.
While it is unclear why machine guns are not protected and cannon and tanks are. That is what the courts have found.
But even machine guns can be privately owned – they are not outright banned, they just require a special license.
One of the earliest “semi-automatic” weapons was the 1838 Colt.
Civil War Gatling Guns are the equivalent of Machine guns – but they remain Legal to own. Continuous fire requires continuous effort by the operator so they are NOT a machine gun.
While this is NOT a constitutional argument,
The FACT is that all this left wing nonsense of banning guns flies in the face of reality.
There is no consequential evidence anywhere that banning guns has reduced violent crimes.
The English have a near total ban on firearms and now are looking to ban table knives in public in london because of the high number of knife murders.
Through out the entire world the rates of violent crime can be predicted by the demographic makeup of the country – entirely independent of the laws.
Blacks have the highest rates of violence – double that of whites.
Hispanic rates of violence fall between that of blacks and whites.
Asians have the lowest rates of violence – half that of whites.
We have established rates of violence for other ethnic groups.
If you take the demographic mix of a country you can predict very accurately that countries rates of violence.
NOTHING else has nearly the same predictive power.
AU banned guns decades before NZ did – with near identical demographics it would not surprise then to find that in the several decades were AU and NZ laws were completely opposite – they continued to have the same rates of violence.
SOMETIMES “gun violence” drops as a result of gun laws – though not usually.
Often it increases – because criminals do not care about laws. Gun laws have no effect on criminals. Their effect is only on the law abiding.
Regardless, there is no statistically positive impact on violent crime from gun laws.
As with pretty much everything the left does
They are a “feel good” measure to prove left wing nuts care and are acting – while accomplishing nothing.
Certainly nothing beneficial.
That is universally true of ALL “regulation”.
And most everything the left does.
@John Say,
“ There is no consequential evidence anywhere that banning guns has reduced violent crimes.”
They have reduced violent crimes involving guns. In Australia that has proven to be correct.
Let’s keep in mind that regulation is not infringement. Just as it applies to free speech. There is regulation of speech such as obscenity laws, and time and place rules. With firearms regulation is constitutional.
“They have reduced violent crimes involving guns. In Australia that has proven to be correct.”
Correct – and I said exactly that.
What they have NOT done is reduced violent crime.
The rates of violence for AU and NZ are very nearly identical and have been for decades.
These rates of violence did not change as a result of any changes in gun laws.
In AU the rates of violence continued to decline – as it has in most of the west, and as it did in NZ
after AU passed draconian gun laws and NZ did not.
There was changes in the specific patterns of violence. In AU mass killings by Arson spiked after gun laws went into effect.
But there was no change in mass killings – just changes in HOW people were killed.
There was no changes in trends of violence and violent crime – just HOW the violence was comitted.
“Let’s keep in mind that regulation is not infringement.”
FALSE
You really are ignorant of rights and constitutional law.
The fundimental change that Heller and MacDonald brought about was NOT whether end amendment rights can be infringed.
ALL RIGHTS can be infringed and ALL laws infringe on rights.
The Question is WHAT is the standard that government must meet to be permitted to infringe.
Prior to Heller and McDonald 2nd amendment infringements were subject to intermediate scrutiny – a standard that is relatively easy for govenrment to meet.
After Heller 2A cases were subject to a new form of scrutiny between intermediate and struct scrutiny.
Infringement on firearms rights were deemed legal If and only If they can be shown to be consistent with similar laws at the time of the founding and more importantly after the passage of the 14th amendment.
If you actually want some excellent history as well as understadning of the way that our founders viewed the constitution and the bill of rights and later the 14th amendment as well as the early conflicts between congress and the courts over the scope of the constitution and individual rights, try reading Randy Barnett’s “Restoring the last constitution”. it is available on Amazon.
It is NOT specific to 2A, it is more about the war over what is an individual right and what is the extent to which government is free to infringe on it and what is the role of the courts.
First the priviledges and immunities clause in the constitution proper predates the bill of rights and was intended to be a large blanket grant of individual liberty. with respect to a citizen “priviledges and Immunities” was a BROADER term that rights in the rhetoric of our founders.
While SCOTUS reserved for itself early on the exclusive right to interpret the constitution – that is NOT found in the constitution itself, and was a very unigue expropriation of power that has very poor english common law precedents.
At the same time as they took that power for themselves, they near universally put their imprimatur on anything passed by congress. A position ALSO at odds with our founders.
This conflict went on until the end of the civil war.
The Reconstruction amendments server many purposes.
As SCOTUS correctly noted in the 14S3 case – the reconstruction amendments and particularly the 14th amendment were intended to DISEMPOWER states.
The 14th amendment was explicitly intended to incorpoarate the Bill of rights as applying to States as well as the federal government – something that was intended explicitly immediately after the civil war – hut is not complete even today – the courts have SLOWLY been applying the Bill of rights to the states – not immediately as intended by the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment Further explicitly contains its own priviledges and immunities clause – which was explicitly intentded both to apply to the states and as a message to the courts – “We Really Meant it, when we say the scope of govenrment is narrow, and the “priviledged and immunities” (which was intentionally broader than rights) enjoy significant protection.
As noted despite the actual intentions of the founders to constrain themselves and the reconstruction amendments to slapp the courts into recognizing those constraints AND apply them to the states, we STILL have made slow progress in doing so.
With respect to Gun Rights – the 14th amendment is actually MORE significant than the 2A.
Why ? Because a WELL DOCUMENTED purpose of the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause was to absolutely guarantee the right of freed slaves to posses firearms. That is not conjecture – those who write the 14th amendment were vocal in that intention, and they faced opposition so this issue was debated and gun controllers LOST.
If AR-15’s existed at the time the 14th amendment was passed – those who passed it would have expected that Blacks could own AR-15’s.
Post Civil War many people – black and white owned Henry and other repeating rifles. Further Semi-Automatic pistols date back to 1838 atleast. Revolvers – and early form of semi-automatic gun existed as early as 1838. For a variety of reasons the Henry proved more popular, but Revolver based long guns existed too.
There were guns after the Civil War that had all the core features that an AR-15 has today.
One of the reasons that Custer lost the Battle of Little big horn is that he split his forces and went ahead without his Gatling gun, and his soldiers had primarily bolt action rifles and the Souix had primarily Henry repeating rifles.
But as an aside – if you wish to build yourself a gattling gun today – or to buy and own one – you can.
The Federal law barring machines guns distinguishes machine guns from other guns based on whether you must do something more than hold down the trigger to keep them firing. A gattling gun fires only as long as you crank it, and therefore is NOT a machine gun – despite having a very very high rated of fire and belt fed ammunition.
But back to the core – All laws and regulations infringe on rights.
That infringment is weighed against the puropose of the paw by the courts in determining whether that law is constitutional or not.
First amendment rights enjoy the strongest protection. TODAY the 2nd amendment enjoys the next strongest.
SCOTUS has not been willing to subject infringement on the 2A to “strict scrutiny” but it has created a new standard that is less than strict scrutiny and higher than intermediate scrutiny.
“There is regulation of speech such as obscenity laws, and time and place rules.”
Correct, but the constitutional presumption regarding laws and regulation regarding free speech is that they are by default unconstitutional, and must pass a very high bar to be found constitutional.
“With firearms regulation is constitutional.”
Absolutely, SOME laws and regulations reqarding firearms is constitutional.
I would note that this is true of all rights, and it was true at the time of the founding.
All government laws and regulations infringe on rights.
SOME infringements are still constitutional. ALL are not.
you noted ” obscenity laws, and time and place rules” with respect to the first amendment.
But even within that scope – all obscenity laws are not constitutional, all neutral laws regarding time and place are not constitutional. All first amendment infringes come before the courts presumptively unconstitutional.
SOME survive strict scrutiny.
The same is true of gun laws.
Well regulated means the commander of the militia must maintain good order, discipline, and training among the troops of the militia who will enjoy their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that right not having been infringed, and manipulate their arms for the security of the free state, comrade!
Excuse me, comrade, but your Dunning-Kruger effect is showing—you being too incompetent to recognize your own incompetence.
It doesn’t make you a bad person, just one who is pro-communist, pro-dictatorship, anti-American, and anti-Constitutional, and one who should be denied the vote per the intent of the Framers and Founders when they established their severely restricted-vote republic with States empowered to set voter qualifications.
I would further note – the militia clause is an independent justification clause.
It essentially says ONE of the reasons we need a right to bear arms is so that the citizens can form into militias in order to thwart invaders or tyranny.
Well regulated is an aspiration. It essentially says – Citizens must be allow to own Guns – including weapons of War so that when we call up the citizens militia – the citizens will be skilled int he use of firearms so that we only have to train them to work as a unit.
Contra the left the militia clause justifies not just citizens owning hunting weapons but owning and being familiar with weapons of war.
I would put forth it means they should formally organize and regularly meet to ascertain the issues of the day, evaluate their elected officials and overall status and condition of their federal and state government. Given the spirit and intent to which the second amendment was written the framers knew well that it was the citizens last resolve against tyranny.
Traveler said: ” it means they should formally organize and regularly meet to ascertain the issues of the day, evaluate their elected officials and overall status and condition of their federal and state government.”
Also, the comma after the first clause in the 2nd Amendment is critical. The text is semantically equivalent to the statement: “BECAUSE a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The uninfringeable right does not in any way depend on the existence of such a militia, nor is the exercise of that right in any way restricted to members thereof. The people are not to be denied that right, because if they were, the formation of a well-regulated militia capable of keeping an abusive government in check would be impossible.
Respectfully, the milita clause is not a direction to compel everyone into a militia, but a restriction barring government from allowing citizens to learn the art of war or access to the tools of war.
John,
Don’t disagree at all, however if you travel back in time circa 1800’s, I found most Southern States were broken down by county into camps. These camps were the locals organized into the militia that would address any issues transpiring in their area. From my research I believe these were basically about the county and they often had a military presence as their leadership that they were to report under. This was before the civil war and seemed to be the common practice in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia etc. They dealt with disease outbreaks, Indian uprisings and enforcing law and order in these sparsely populated areas.
The people keep and bear arms.
Then the people join the militia of their choice.
On the weekends, they practice their marksmanship, target shoot, hunt for food, etc.
Whenever necessary, they use the arms they may keep and bear for personal protection.
Also for the purpose of waging war – and even “insurrection”.
The claim that our founders though that the right to bear arms had to do with personal protection or hunting is false.
The expectation was that all male citizens from 15-65 would be familiar with weapons of war in the event of war (or the need to overthrow the government).
Cohen is running rings around defense this morning. Making Blanche look like a fool.
Blanche establishes that Cohen now makes most of his income from attacking Trump on a podcast and Tik Tok.
Then Blanche tries to get Cohen to say that he stands to gain financially even more from podcasts if Trump is convicted.
Cohen answers, “I would make a lot more if Trump is NOT convicted, because I would have a lot more to talk about in podcasts”
Courtroom and jury all erupt in laughter.
Blanche has no more questions.
The jury erupted in laughter? Really? Or is that just another of your masturbatory fantasies?
According to reporters in the room
So ? Cohen can tell a joke, or make his testimony humorous – and get the jury laughing – and still undermine his own credibility.
The issue is not is Cohen funny
It is not is Cohen skillfully evasive.
It is “is cohen honest”
Cohen’s testimony on direct, left the prosecution without a case.
If you beleive absolutely all of Cohen’s testimony – there is still no case.
But several aspects of Cohen’s testimony have been further eviscerated on cross.
Cohen was caught lying about the phone call to Shiller – which is the only testimony in this entire trial that establishes prior knowledge on the part of Trump of the Daniels NDA.
Without that the case devolves down to this bizzare claim that AFTER the election Trump tried to hide the Daniels story in order to influenced the election.
From beginning to end you have had the problem that trying to influence the election is legal.
That Democrats do exactly this all the time.
That there is no there, there.
But Bragg has not even provided evidence that Trump tried to influence the election.
The evidence Bragg presented in 18 days is that Cohen tried to influence the election.
The next problem that you have is that while again – the recording of the payments to Cohen is NOT fraud and therefore not a crime
Trying to make it a crime falls even flatter when Trump’s involvement is entirely after the fact.
There is no reason to conspire to falsify records of effort to influence an election AFTER the election – unless your motive had little to do with the election.
@John Say,
“ Cohen’s testimony on direct, left the prosecution without a case.”
Did you mean redirect?
How so? You don’t fully explain it.
Cohen was not caught lying about the phone call with Schiller. The prosecution just tried to introduce evidence showing Schiller with Trump on a still from C-SPAN which judge Merchan denied, but a C-SPAN witness will testify on tomorrow.
Cohen’s testimony is all about corroboration and insight into the scheme to avoid the accounting of the nature of the payments to Daniels. Reporting states the jury seems to be growing bored with Blanche’s questioning possibly meaning most already made up their minds about Cohen or his testimony. They were ready to move on.
“Did you mean redirect?”
No I mean Direct. By the conclusion of Cohen’s direct – the last witness in this case, some evidence of all required elements of the charged crime were not provided.
The first HUGE issue is that the only charge of which there are 34 counts is the falsifying records. While that was not even close to proven. There was minimal evidence provided – though not even to preponderance of the evidence.
But that charge is a misdeamor and way past the statue of limitations and the case dies if that is all Bragg has – and that is all brag has presented evidence. of.
What is both required and based on the way the case was charged is impossible to reach is ANOTHER CRIME.
The only way the business records counts are a felony is if the purpose is to hide another fellony.
There is no other felony charged, there is no evidence of another felony.
Colangello mentioned a NY election interference statute in his opening – but that is not charged, and no evidence of that was presented and that statute is much like the records statute – it does not bar influencing an election. It bars illegally influencing the election – in other words ANOTHER felony must be charged and proven to reach the NY election statute.
There is no evidence of the elements of any alleged crime except records issues. All the rest of the evidence is about perfectly legal activity.
“Cohen was not caught lying about the phone call with Schiller.”
Of course he was. And Cohen has all but admitted that. His FINAL word on Cross was that as near impossible as that would be, he still beleives he recalls talking to Trump on that call.
The call was 95 seconds long. Cohen Texted Schiller about the 14yr immediately before calling.
Schiller TOLD Cohen to call for that purpose. Cohen admits to talking to Schiller on that call about the 14yr old.
Cohen has NOW admitted all of this – which was NOT part of his testimony on direct.
Now you have to fit into this call – Cohen having a conversation with Schiller about the 14yr old.
Then asking Schiller to find Trump and then to pass the phone to him, and then to have a conversation with Trump that would have taken 96sec according to Cohens Direct testimony.
This call is of critical importance. It is the ONLY evidence so far that Trump was aware of Cohen’s activities regarding Daniels PRIOR to the election.
You can not prove any motive or intention or anything of TRUMP related to the NDA that has anything to do with the election, until you prove Trump KNEW about the NDA prior to the election.
Now to get to an actual crime – you need FAR MORE than just that.
But without that – everything is AFTER the fact.
Even the claim that the records were falsified fails. There is no reason to falsify the records after the election even by Braggs theory. Without this call everything election related drops out of Braggs case.
“The prosecution just tried to introduce evidence showing Schiller with Trump on a still from C-SPAN which judge Merchan denied, but a C-SPAN witness will testify on tomorrow.”
So ? Absent video from CSPAN times-stamped at the time of this call with Trump on the phone the testimony is meaningless.
Schiller was Trump’s protection detail – they were together alot.
We do not KNOW that Cohen used Schiller as a back channel to Trump – beyond that Cohen testified that he did,
with this ONE call as the evidence. Absent evidence that Trump was on THAT call – the claim that Schiller was a back channel fails.
“Cohen’s testimony is all about corroboration and insight into the scheme to avoid the accounting of the nature of the payments to Daniels.”
Correct. But Cohen is NOT an accountant – his testimony regarding accounting is near useless.
One of the other – comon stupid arguments the left makes is that providing evidence of a bad reason for an otherwise legal act, makes the act illegal.
That is false.
An illegal act may not be prosecutor if the actor did not have consciousness of guilt.
But a legal act is legal – even if you believe you are doing wrong.
Cohen testifying that something he and Trump did was illegal tells us nothing about the legality of the act – only about Cohen’s state of mind, and only if you beleive him.
Cohen did not testify to a single criminal act that Trump was part of.
” Reporting states the jury seems to be growing bored with Blanche’s questioning possibly meaning most already made up their minds about Cohen or his testimony. They were ready to move on.”
Possibly, That tells us nothing about what they have decided.
It is generally not good to bore juries,
but sometimes it is necescary.
Jurrors did not take an oath to pay attention to only the interesting parts.
They swore to pay attention to all the evidence – even the boring parts – and to do justice.
at mid day – you and those of you on the left were again reporting that Trump’s attorney’s were being played by Cohen.
They could not lay a glove on him.
By the End of the Day we have Blanche elicting a confession to a far more serious crime than anything that Trump is being accused of. We have Costello undermining Cohen – as he did in the house and we have Merchan losing it with Costello – who has far better and more legal qualifications that Merchan.
And Merchan refuses to allow a former FCC chair to testify as an expert witness.
We can prosecuted Trump for a non-crime, but Trump can not defend himself against it.
WE have the MSM near universally noting that today was DISASTROUS.
And that is just the Trump trial news.
It was a bad day for the left.
Is one of those “reporters” Karl Marx?
According to multiple reporters from multiple sources, who made the same observations simultaneously while live tweeting.
Of course, they are the communist Main Stream Media.
Westernized Pravda and Izvestia are eminently believable, if a subject of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” desires to keep his head.
The fact that Cohen has a pecuniary interest in being an enemy of Trump is obvious. If he could help get Trumpp convicted, he would be a hero to the Loony Left, at least until the election. Then he would be an embarrasment.
ATS – we constantly hear this “The prosecution is going great” stuff from those like you.
Then when we review the live streams or the transcripts – or even what the left wing nut MSM says we get the opposite.
Further, usually what left wing nut statements like “running rings arround” means is being evasive, deceitful and impossible to pin down.
Blanche is focused on proving Cohen is a liar and can not be trusted.
It requires absolutely no cross at all to do that.
It is a FACT that Cohen is a liar and can not be trusted.
Regardless, Cohen establishes credibility by telling the truth – even when it is harmful to himself and to this case.
And by doing so ALWAYS.
A known liar getting caught in ever more lies – is NOT credible about anything.
A witness that is engaged in game playing – “running rings arround” the lawyer cross examining them – is not credible.
Credibility is not earned by skill in evasion. It is earned by brutal honesty.
@John Say,
The defense’s only option is painting Cohen as an untrustworthy liar because the rest of the evidence has not been challenged as untrue. They have spent too much time trying to discredit Cohen after he freely admits to lying and the prosecution admits he has lied in the past.
What is notable is the fact that the defense has not refuted anything regarding the documentation and the other witnesses. Cohen has been brutally honest about his lying. Which works in his favor and makes the job of defense attorneys much harder in front of the jury.
Cohen knows what to say and how to behave for a jury. That’s why Trump hired him in the first place. It’s pretty ironic.
You are absolutely correct. Cohen is a liar and a cheat.
How do know this ?????
He worked for the Trump Organization, which is and always has been a criminal enterprise, no different from all the other organized crime families in New York. They are all completely untrustworthy liars, cheats, con-men, grifters, back-stabbers and criminals.
Weisselberg is doing his SECOND term of imprisonment for criminal activity.
McConney was convicted, but avoided jail time by cutting a deal to testify against Weisselberg.
They are a den of thieves and vipers who will turn on each other at a moment’s notice.
You are taking the position that Cohen is a liar, therefore Trump is indisputably innocent. This is absurd. This conclusion does not follow from the premise that Cohen is a liar.
The NY prosecutors have a long and successful history of prosecuting organized crime and using members of the crime families to testify against each other.
Cohen is running rings around the defense…
The only thing Cohen is running ring’s around is the toilet bowl as he circles the drain. The star witness has been exposed as a liar, a felon, a habitual perjurer and now a thief. The best outcome for this may be for a conviction that will guarantee Trump the Whitehouse. America sees through this sham.
ABJECT PANIC HERE!
SOMEONE CALL 911 FOR THE DNC.
Don’t worry, Big Mike will pull out as Biden slobbers off the stage.
“Cohen is running rings around defense this morning. Making Blanche look like a fool.”
By admitting under oath that he stole Thousands from the Trump Organization ?
As Republicans sat back and allowed the communist democrats to burn America to the ground… we conservatives heard a mere whimper… the real shocking news no one writes about.
Guess Jan 6th shut you up.
@Judith
Wish you’d elucidate a bit; I personally, as a lifelong independent, have a difficult time ascribing any of this to party but rather something broader, but I get the feeling I like what you are saying. Elitist numbskulls are in both parties and part of the same cabal. Obama and W have metaphorical tea.
One thing I will say: I have never seen candidates that do get elected switch with the rapidity of an eye-blink to party narrative when they were not previously influenced by it as we see these days. Makes me think ‘someones’ higher up send directives.
For me, it is part of what makes Fetterman so astonishing; most, and yes, I have firsthand experience in the city we left, would capitulate in the first 60 days, and where we came from, indeed they did. To the dang letter. The narrative is so premeditated it is very easy to predict, and it never skips a beat from the script. That led to the awful 8 years that made us move, and we took our tax dollars and purchasing power with us. And these are not ‘radicals’; these are the seasoned that presumably know better (they actually do, but they will ignore it to stay in power).
James – the entire 21st century has been going badly.
Bush was elected – much as Trump was to get the US out of foreign entanglements.
He attacked Gore over the Balkans and other “nation building” excercises of Clinton.
And then went on to drag the country into the most protracted period of war and conflict that the nation has ever known.
Obama was elected – much as Trump was to get the US out of foreign entanglements.
The Bush economy was the weakest since Carter. Obama was weaker still.
Biden’s economy is a complete and total disaster and getting worse by the minute.
Trump is not the stellar president he claims to have been.
But he without any doubt at all is the best president of the 21st century.
He is way at the top of the bottom of the class.
A juicy trove of anti Biden quotes for radio/TV ads waiting to be leaked by someone. What is not to love?
Prior to Obama and all of his malfeasance (which was only apparent to me personally in his second term), never in my life had I had a reaction to simply seeing a politician’s face. Biden is that on ALL the steroids. There are no words for the very intentional dismantling of our societies that has taken place since 2020. I’m not a lawyer (my wife is the one with the CUNY degree, and she initially turned me on to the blog), so I really enjoy the perspectives and insights of the posters here who are; I am sorry my comments drift further from salience into repetition, but really: in 2024, the modern left, across the globe, are going to take us all down if we do not course correct – there is no other word for what they represent than ‘regime’. That anyone could view what is akin to a Mao’s Cultural Revolution as a positive is beyond concerning, particularly when those at the top know better and simply seek power and control; and it unfolds more and more, and more openly, with every passing month as things are currently constituted. Thank you for your commitment to sanity, Professor, and sensible posters.
Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable. Be honest and transparent anyway. Mother Teresa
A lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity. Dalai Lama
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. Patrick Henry
And what would Biden’s former boss advise?
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government. Barack Obama
Nope, the Regime actually believes in something else altogether:
Better to remain silent and be thought
than tomentally unfit for office than tospeakrelease the audiotapes and remove all doubt.Maybe there are nonverbal accidents on the tape.
The country and world would be safer if we were confident our President didn’t depend on Depends.
There is no legal justification for hiding it, but then there is no legal justification for much of what these radicals do.
Robert Hur described Joseph Biden in the following terms: “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
That is Hur’s subjective, non-medical professional opinion. If Americans were to listen to the audio and observed Biden as babbling incoherently, to simple questions, and demonstrated evidence of neurocognitive deficits, people might come to a far different conclusion than Hur’s “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”. This is the crux of the issue.
Whether Biden’s Handlers™ edited the audio is less of a concern than simply listening to Biden speak extemporaneously. Biden’s Handlers™ can not edit that out of the audio. Given that the world stage has mocked Biden as incoherent and compromised neurocognitively, releasing the audio would be his death knell. It would also save America from the continual assault on Democracy by having Biden’s Handlers™ lose power and shown as evil bozos.
Merrick Garland should be held in contempt by the US House, and the Sergeant at Arms should hold him in custody until he complies, per US House rules as Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna read. US Democracy is at stake and Biden needs to be ousted, as well as his entire cabal of Marxist infidels.
Rep Luna is becoming one of the warriors for freedom. Lucky we have her.
“No one is above the law.” Sorry, just kidding.
Edawardmahl: “No one is above the law.” Sorry, just kidding.”
+++
Yes, I agree. That has become a joke, a tragic joke for the country and for each of us, but a joke nonetheless.
I see that the International Criminal Court is seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu and others in the Israeli government for the crime against humanity of being Jewish.
This isn’t law. It is war disguised as law. If Israel took kinetic war against members of the ICC I think it would be justified. Like so many institutions, the ICC has been corrupted by evil. At the very least those involved with the ICC can start having accidents. Maybe Hillary has her uses after all.
But from the outset I thought Israel has been too decent, too humane and too delicate in its response to the satanic attacks on Oct 7th. They put their own soldiers at risk by being too careful of ‘civilian’ lives and they gave too much time for the international storm clouds of evil to build against them.
I said here, back then, that they needed to go all Hamburg or Dresden on Gaza and carpet bomb them out of existence. The world would would get the vapors for about a week and then begin to forget about it…and worry what might happen to them if, for example, they began to issue arrest warrants for leaders of a sovereign nation not subject to their jurisdiction.
When law dies….
Estovir,
And it appears Biden thought he was the Vice President during the pandemic.
“When I was vice president, things were kinda bad during the pandemic.”
And what happened was Barack said to me, ‘Go to Detroit and help fix it’. Well, poor Mayor, he spent more time with me than he ever thought he was going to have to, God love you.”
Biden called Trump supporters “erectionists.” LOL!
U F – He was probably dreaming of Tara Reade.
UpstateFarmer said: “And what happened was Barack said to me, ‘Go to Detroit and help fix it’.”
Well, there frequently are opinions expressed here that Biden is serving Obama’s third term…
Question. Will there be celebrations if Crooked Joe dies in an accident?
That’s what is happening in Iran. Iranians are privately celebrating the death of President Ebrahim Raisi.
Have we ruled out that the transcript might be inaccurate?