Donald Trump gaffe and verbal bungles watch

[BDKJMU]

Why should it be months before we get the full scoop? There's an indictment and now the full arraignment, so whatever they're charging him with we should know now, in full, what the charges are. I get it that they're going after the $150,000 payment, and how it was recorded. But for it to be a felony it has to be tied to another crime - campaign finance violation for instance. Or blocking information from the public (not sure that's actually a criminal statute but if it is then it's easy to reference it). Why does the indictment not just come out and say that? You have to admit, it's weird that there's 30 some charges for the same payment (which I get, if it had to be recorded in many different areas it's a potential crime every time it got recorded), but it's always been clear that this has been the weakest of all cases against Trump. Not really referencing the extra crime that makes this a felony versus a misdemeanor is an odd thing.

I believe it is because the felony would be federal (campaign finance violation) and the FEC already has said it isn't a violation (and reiterated that this past week) along with the DOJ. The FEC also has a lower burden of proof (due top it operating civilly not criminally) and if it couldn't find wrong doing under those standards, then Bragg (having to meet a higher standard) is going to find it tough to do.

I am going to quote the article I referenced above:

In the first place, prosecutors are generally not allowed to withhold charges in an arraignment. An arraignment is supposed to formally satisfy the constitutional requirement that defendants get fully apprised of the charges against them. It’s not unusual to add counts to indictments after arraignments as investigations proceed, but it’s unheard-of to predicate misdemeanors into felonies on the basis of covering up another felony without naming the felony on which the other felony charges are predicated. We do not allow prosecutors to use secret charges in American courtrooms, or at least we didn’t until now. That defect is front and center in Bragg’s presentation in court even before a judge tackles jurisdiction

...

But what if the predicate felony isn’t a federal campaign-finance violation? Bragg hinted at the presser after the arraignment that the underlying felony was a state crime, even though his statement of facts attached to the indictment hinted at a federal campaign-finance violation. Another theory floating since the arraignment is that Bragg will charge Trump with conducting a fraud on voters in New York County through paying off Stormy Daniels (and presumably Karen McDougal) to keep them from talking about his extramarital affairs. That theory has any number of problems, starting the John Edwards precedent in which it became impossible to prove that Edwards paid off Rielle Hunter to protect the campaign, as opposed to just keeping the tryst from his terminally-ill wife. Trainor doesn’t cite US v Edwards, but points out that the FEC had the same impossible burden of proof in the Trump-Cohen case:

Winterborn beat me to it. The other crime can’t be just federal.

[BDKJMU]

I read an article a couple of days ago about Bragg withholding the details as a strategic move and it left me scratching my head because that isn't how our legal system works. The prosecution has to provide the defense with it's evidence and list of witnesses so the defense can review it and interview them and prepare their defense. If the prosecution surprises the defense then the defense gets time to review the new information. I'm not an attorney and my knowledge could be flawed but I don't think it's that far off.

Well, since legal things take forever to move through the system, it may very well likely be that he'll have more information come December when they next meet on this case. He just needs to give them everything prior to trying the case, which could be a long time from now.

The judge should recuse himself due to conflict of interest.
-The judges daughter worked for the Harris campaign and indirectly for the Biden-Harris campaign
-The judge donated to the Biden campaign.
In other words the judge is overseeing a case against the chief political rival that his daughter worked for and he donated to.

Also the judge didn’t set the trial date this summer. He didn’t set it this fall. He set it 9 months from now in Jan 2024 (would tum into at least Feb) literally at the height of the primary when the campaign will be decided.

The whole thing reeks of bananna republic politics..

[kalm]

Well, since legal things take forever to move through the system, it may very well likely be that he'll have more information come December when they next meet on this case. He just needs to give them everything prior to trying the case, which could be a long time from now.

The judge should recuse himself due to conflict of interest.
-The judges daughter worked for the Harris campaign and indirectly for the Biden-Harris campaign
-The judge donated to the Biden campaign.
In other words the judge is overseeing a case against the chief political rival that his daughter worked for and he donated to.

Also the judge didn’t set the trial date this summer. He didn’t set it this fall. He set it 9 months from now in Jan 2024 (would tum into at least Feb) literally at the height of the primary when the campaign will be decided.

The whole thing reeks of bananna republic politics..

So similar to the Clarence Thomas thing?

[houndawg]

My favorite was at the recent SOTU where he called California a stanktuary.

That will end up on Urban Dictionary! No gaffe there!

noun: a place reserved for the cultivation and consumption of premium cannabis flower

[houndawg]

Well, since legal things take forever to move through the system, it may very well likely be that he'll have more information come December when they next meet on this case. He just needs to give them everything prior to trying the case, which could be a long time from now.

The judge should recuse himself due to conflict of interest.
-The judges daughter worked for the Harris campaign and indirectly for the Biden-Harris campaign
-The judge donated to the Biden campaign.
In other words the judge is overseeing a case against the chief political rival that his daughter worked for and he donated to.

Also the judge didn’t set the trial date this summer. He didn’t set it this fall. He set it 9 months from now in Jan 2024 (would tum into at least Feb) literally at the height of the primary when the campaign will be decided.

The whole thing reeks of bananna republic politics..

Live by them, die by them.

[UNI88]

Well, since legal things take forever to move through the system, it may very well likely be that he'll have more information come December when they next meet on this case. He just needs to give them everything prior to trying the case, which could be a long time from now.

The judge should recuse himself due to conflict of interest.
-The judges daughter worked for the Harris campaign and indirectly for the Biden-Harris campaign
-The judge donated to the Biden campaign.
In other words the judge is overseeing a case against the chief political rival that his daughter worked for and he donated to.

Also the judge didn’t set the trial date this summer. He didn’t set it this fall. He set it 9 months from now in Jan 2024 (would tum into at least Feb) literally at the height of the primary when the campaign will be decided.

The whole thing reeks of bananna republic politics..

Gotta love the irony of followers of a tinpot dictator wannabe complaining about banana republic politics.

[UNI88]

Speaking of pathetic ...

[BDKJMU]

[kalm]

Jesus….2nd is just 1st loser. SAD!

[houndawg]

Speaking of pathetic ...

When its time to haul ass he'll have to make two trips.

[UNI88]

Speaking of pathetic ...

When its time to haul ass he'll have to make two trips.

A trip for each cheek. Won’t he need a third and probably fourth trip for his yuge gut?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

When its time to haul ass he'll have to make two trips.

A trip for each cheek. Won’t he need a third and probably fourth trip for his yuge gut?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They may just do like they did with the dead whale that washed up on the beach in Oregon.....kaboom

[UNI88]

he didn't want to speak in front of a jury under oath. he wanted to be able to lie to the press and people on truth social.

[UNI88]

[UNI88]

[UNI88]

So much for the 14th Amendment. Proof that both extremes want to tear down or ignore the institutions and parts of the Constitution they disagree with.

[BDKJMU]

So much for the 14th Amendment. Proof that both extremes want to tear down or ignore the institutions and parts of the Constitution they disagree with.

The 14th Amendment was passed/ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship & rights to former slaves & their descendants. It had nothing to do with children of illegal immigrants.

What other modern industrialized countries grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants?

[kalm]

So much for the 14th Amendment. Proof that both extremes want to tear down or ignore the institutions and parts of the Constitution they disagree with.

It’s not so much that he says it, it’s that it resonates with 10’s of millions.

[UNI88]

So much for the 14th Amendment. Proof that both extremes want to tear down or ignore the institutions and parts of the Constitution they disagree with.

The 14th Amendment was passed/ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship & rights to former slaves & their descendants. It had nothing to do with children of illegal immigrants.

What other modern industrialized countries grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants?

You sound amazingly like a gun control advocate talking about the 2nd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

The 14th Amendment was passed/ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship & rights to former slaves & their descendants. It had nothing to do with children of illegal immigrants.

What other modern industrialized countries grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants?

You sound amazingly like a gun control advocate talking about the 2nd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong. But nice try.

[UNI88]

You sound amazingly like a gun control advocate talking about the 2nd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong. But nice try.

Why not?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. If it is interpreted literally then all people born in the United States are citizens.

The only way to get around that is to argue that the times have changed which is what gun control advocates do. Gun control advocate also like to point out the laws in "other modern industrialized countries".

trump and MAGAts want to erode the 14th Amendment just like gun control advocates want to erode the 2nd. Both sides want to pick and choose which laws and institutions should be respected rather than respecting them all.

[kalm]

Wrong. But nice try.

Why not?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. If it is interpreted literally then all people born in the United States are citizens.

The only way to get around that is to argue that the times have changed which is what gun control advocates do. Gun control advocate also like to point out the laws in "other modern industrialized countries".

trump and MAGAts want to erode the 14th Amendment just like gun control advocates want to erode the 2nd. Both sides want to pick and choose which laws and institutions should be respected rather than respecting them all.

“No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation.”

~ Jefferson

[GannonFan]

Why not?



The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. If it is interpreted literally then all people born in the United States are citizens.

The only way to get around that is to argue that the times have changed which is what gun control advocates do. Gun control advocate also like to point out the laws in "other modern industrialized countries".

trump and MAGAts want to erode the 14th Amendment just like gun control advocates want to erode the 2nd. Both sides want to pick and choose which laws and institutions should be respected rather than respecting them all.

“No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation.”

~ Jefferson

Also,

"I'm keeping my slaves."

- Jefferson

[BDKJMU]

Wrong. But nice try.

Why not?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. If it is interpreted literally then all people born in the United States are citizens.

The only way to get around that is to argue that the times have changed which is what gun control advocates do. Gun control advocate also like to point out the laws in "other modern industrialized countries".

trump and MAGAts want to erode the 14th Amendment just like gun control advocates want to erode the 2nd. Both sides want to pick and choose which laws and institutions should be respected rather than respecting them all.

That’s not how originalists interpret the law. An orginalist would interpret it as to how it was intended to be understood at the time it was written.

2A has been interpreted by originalists to be understood AT THE TIME it was written to be the individual right to keep and bear arms. Ex at the time the phrase ‘well regulated’ meant proficiency in marksmanship..

How would an originalist interpretation of the 14th be interpreted to be understood AT THE TIME (shortly after the War Between the States ended) to be anything other than dealing with citizenship for the freed slaves?

[BDKJMU]

There is an arguement that the president has the authority to issue an exec order to end birthright citizenship because legally birthright citizenship no matter the circumstances is more a literal interpretation (not an originalist interpretation) of the 14th than a law. It has never been adjudicated through the fed courts, at least not by SCOTUS.

It is certainly something that the left would immediately legally challenge, and would probably be litigated all the way to SCOTUS, and Trump would may very lose even with this current SCOTUS (because there’s not 5 true originalists). But that didn’t stop Trump, and certaibly hasn’t Biden, from issueing exec orders that have been shot down in the fed courts. IMHOP its an issue that probably should have been ruled on by SCOTUS sometime in the last century.