Rebound

So you disagree with Ron DeSantis, who said: “States like California are offering all aliens free medical care and no states should be allowed to do that”

Gandhi, Mandela and MLK didn’t beat police officers in the head with fire extinguishers.

No, I left nothing out. You’re just not bright enough to understand.

Your complaints are vague. But the DC DA is not prosecuting Trump, it is the Department of Justice. Judge Chutkin is the Federal judge who the case was assigned to. I’m not aware that she’s been lying and all those other things. She is going to be the judge in the case and a jury will determine guilt. If Donald Trump wasn’t a criminal, this prosecution wouldn’t have occurred. His choice.

And that proves… zero. Got it?

The appeal will be a NY State Appellate Court. On what basis will the appeal overturn the verdict? Trump didn’t get a jury trial? Nope. Trump’s complaint that the charges are political? Nope. The failure of the DA or Judge to properly apply the law? Yes, if such a failure occurred.

They’re prisoners because they’ve been convicted of crimes. And we saw the police officers getting beat sprayed, nested with doors, speared, punched, and more.

Yes, it has been widely reported that Trump’s attorneys failed to respond to the motion for no jury trial which the AG filed. However, Judge Engoron has recently explained that, even if Trump’s attorneys requested a jury trial, he wouldn’t have permitted it, because, according to CBS News: ”Engoron said the punishment being sought by the state is an "equitable" remedy, as opposed to a "legal" remedy. A legal remedy is an award for damages, which can be determined by a jury. Earlier this year, a federal jury awarded the writer E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages after finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The damages were not an amount Trump took from her, but rather a sum the jury concluded might remedy the emotional, physical and reputational harm Trump had caused. In the ongoing New York fraud case, the state is seeking $250 million in disgorgement, a kind of equitable remedy that is a clawback of ill-gotten gains — the amount of benefit that the state says Trump and the co-defendants personally received from alleged fraud. Authorities cannot ask a jury to make that kind of calculation.“ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/

The law is the law. Judge Engoron applied the law. Not because true trial was civil, however. The E. Jean Carroll defamation case is a civil trial with a jury, for example.

I don’t know why you are calling a Federal Judge “little.” The woman’s been subjected to countless death threats, but it hasn’t stopped her from doing her job. She’s got a lot more courage than you’ve got. Truman could have been charged with a crime, but it is unlikely that U.S. Attorneys would believe that serving as commander in chief during war was a not role of the Presidency, and if they charged anyway, the judge would throw the case out. Congress formally declared war on 1941. Trump had no authority to illegally interfere with state election officials and he certainly did not have the authority to incite a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol. As President, Trump had more power than anyone in the nation to explore every legal pathway to investigate and legally intervene to ensure the election’s integrity. He had over 60 lawsuits and many recounts. But he did not have the authority to break laws to change the results of the election.

I’m sorry that you don’t understand how the law works, but it’s not my problem. I spend a lot of time explaining how our legal system works, and you anti-Americans typically spit on it. When someone commits a crime in America, the prosecuting attorney has the discretion to decide whether to prosecute or not, and which crimes to charge. The charge based on the law which closes matches the act, as well as odds of successfully prosecuting using that law. 2383 is a poorly-written law, so they chose to prosecute Jan 6 criminals under different statutes. That doesn’t mean insurrection did not occur; an Act of Congress has already established that it has.

In the history of the United States, no government official has ever been impeached after leaving office. The purpose of impeachment is removal from office. George Santos was charged with crimes without being impeached. So is Senator Menendez. There is no law or judicial precedent which has ever ruled that criminal or civil prosecution cannot occur without impeachment. The only such limitation we have is that the Justice Department has a policy, which is not law and which can be changed, stating that the President will not be prosecuted while in office. Although I believe Bill Clinton was prosecuted while in office. So I don’t think your argument has any leg to stand on, and I have very high confidence that the Federal Appeals Court will reject, and the SCOTUS will as well, probably by not even hearing the case. The only other possibility is that the Federal Appeals Court will rule that Trump’s interlocutory appeal has no standing, which will kick his case back to court and then Trump can try to raise the issue on appeal, where it will still fail. Dude, I get that you listened to some right wing media channel like NewsMax, and they’re telling you that this whole argument of Trump’s is next-level genius and perfect, but it’s not at all.

The Federal insurrection law is antiquated and probably would not hold up to modern judicial scrutiny, so the prosecutors chose other laws, such as seditious conspiracy. The law is only one sentence long: §2383. Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

But, as you will soon learn, the “He must be impeached and convicted first” defense will not work. The court will not accept it. There’s already precedent and the U.S. Constitution does not say that.

Trump’s put up one of the worst legal defenses in history in this case. No question. Trump’s lawyers waived the right to a jury trial, and then Trump continually claimed that it amounted to “taking away his rights.” He answered his deposition questions very poorly. I had to do a deposition in a divorce case once; I insisted on sitting down with a lawyer to understand how to best answer questions and anticipate possible questions. When your money is at stake, you don’t “wing it.”

Right, he didn’t say it, because that’s the question he was asked, but writing, “Trump’s Lawyer Says Yes” does not convey anything. I know you’re really stuuupid, but it isn’t complicated: The man said, precisely, that the President could not be charged even with murder unless the President was first impeached and convicted. So if the secret is discovered after the President leaves office, the President is Scott free. Or if he resigns, as Nixon did. But Nixon was pardoned by Ford because the clearly did not believe that Nixon was immune from any prosecution.

If it were anywhere else, it would be a riot. But since it directly attacked the United States Congress and prevented them from conducting business, it was an insurrection. And it was compounded by the fact that many of the rioters were preventing the government from conducting business with the specific intention to prevent, delay, impede, whatever, the peaceful transfer of power from one President to the next. The simple fact is that, for the first time in our nations history, the transfer of power from one President to the next was not peaceful. There is not way you can say that the transfer of power was peaceful, because the Congressional events of January 6 were part of he transfer of power, and they were clearly not peaceful, and that was deliberate.

They didn’t ask those stupid questions because normal people know that it’s horrendous to sell girls into prostitution. The point being, at the time, these girls probably thought it was the best thing that could happen to them and they loved it, because they were too young to understand what they’d gotten themselves into. And as for any age boundary (driving, alcohol, guns, etc.), of course some people are mature enough that a lower age may be appropriate and others so immature that a higher age is called for, but you’ve got to set some age and that’s all there is to it. The law is the law and folllow it or face prison.

There was collusion.

I don’t need to go to any length to prove there was an insurrection. I saw it live on TV on January 6, 2021. You are in denial of basic facts, that’s all. You saw the videos, and you deny what your eyes show you because it’s not useful for your “team,” as if there is a team. Heres the thing about being on a team: Teams win sometimes, and lose other times. If your team only accepts winning and lies every time it loses, then you aren’t competing any more. This is why it is clear that Donald Trump wants a dictatorship. If he wins an election, great. If he loses an election, he lies and encourages people to resort to political violence. A normal human being would have been mortified that people were violent on January 6. Instead, the son of a bltch is calling those people “Hostages.” He said he loves them and that he will pardon them if he’s put in power. He says he will be dictator on day one and he believes he can commit any crime he wants. I hope he drops dead and burns in Hell for it.

Just this week, Trump called to “Release the Jan 6 Hostages”, and he said he would pardon Jan 6 participants, including Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years. That’s “Giving Aid and Comfort.”

California has a massive agriculture industry. Unlike most other states, California mostly doesn’t have fields of wheat, barley, corn, sorghum, and so forth. Instead, California grows grapes, almonds, cherries, oranges, asparagus, artichokes, and strawberries. These crops must be planted, maintained, and harvested by hand. Since the inception of this industry over 100 years ago, the work has been done by migrant workers. So here’s the deal: If they don’t have adequate health care, they’ll spread diseases into the food supply.

He has been legally deemed constitutionally ineligible in two states.

What Trump’s lawyer said was neither sensible nor was it true. What he said was the only excuse he could think of to justify the absurd. The Constitution does not say that the President is immune from criminal prosecution unless convicted by impeachment. What’s more, Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump could not be convicted by the Senate because he was no longer President, and several Senators voted for his acquittal for that very reason. Thus, Trump’s logic says that if a crime is undetected until after the President leaves office, or if the President resigns one day before the Senate votes to convict, then he cannot be charged with criminal offenses. This would create a unique system of justice in which one person cannot be tried for crimes the same as anyone else.

Yes, that is so. I think the three of us are in agreement. A better example is the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case, in which the conspirators received explosives from an undercover FBI agent with the intent of using them to execute their kidnapping plot.