TRUMP AHEAD?

[Harbal]

How else does one analyze the system?

By systems analysis, perhaps?

[attofishpi]

How else does one analyze the system?

I was hoping for far more depth on the field of Zionism per possible conspiracy - still ranking the top dogs of Gods chosen people!

I don't think you understand how to analyze the GOD system...I could be wrong.

Perhaps this entity (intelligence) that permeates all matter has shown its interface to you..in I must INSIST a more subtle way.

Other_wise?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here is the best analysis I have come across, offered by Jack Marshall. If those here read it, I think they will grasp that the entire incident, and the issue of 'lawfare' at this level, is quite serious.

Jack Marshall writes: I’ve been getting a lot of inquiries about the verdict in the falsely dubbed “hush-money trial” that came down with unseemly speed yesterday. As with other high profile trials where I have not been on the jury or in the courtroom, I don’t have a legitimate basis for much ethical analysis of the trial itself, including the competence of the attorneys or the judge. The Kyle Rittenhouse prosecution was an exception, because of the blatant prosecutorial misconduct in that case that was evident from direct quotes (and the defense’s ethics were dodgy as well).

The position that it was unethical to bring this case to trial as a form of what has been dubbed “lawfare” by critics is already locked in for me, and that is the most important feature of the case. As to the substance of the charges, the absurd number of counts in the indictment were obvious over-charging, an unethical prosecution trick but one that isn’t ever punished. The fact that Michael Cohen was the “star” witness against Trump should have, in my view, made the prosecution’s case insufficient to sustain a conviction on its face. Maybe others in historically significant criminal trials have been convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” based on the testimony of such a throbbing habitual liar—the Lincoln assassination conspirators and Sir Thomas More come to mind—-but the former was a pro forma military tribunal affair where the defendants’ rights were severely restricted and there was never any chance that they would not be convicted, and the latter took place in England under the direction of a vengeful despot.

The fact that the verdict came down so quickly in what was a very strange and complicated case—with judge’s instructions to the jury that would take me a couple of days to read and understand—strongly suggests a jury that had made up its mind already. I believe that it was wrong not to sequester the jury: I did see a lot of the broadcast media coverage, and it was generally disgusting. The ugly cheerleading for a conviction on all the channels except Fox News, which sounded like an arm of the defense team, couldn’t help but bias the jury.

Oh—those jury instructions are here. Good luck.

Last night, one of Trump’s attorneys said that the former President was “very involved” in choosing the jury. Well, Trump’s an idiot, and this time, far from the first, his hubris bit him in the…face. Putting two lawyers on the jury was insane. I’d estimate that in the nation as a whole, at least 75% of all lawyers detest Trump—heck, his own lawyers hate him—and in Manhattan, where Trump is even more spectacularly unpopular, I’d guess it’s closer to 90%. Lawyers on juries have undue influence: I know, because I’ve been a lawyer on a jury. Sure, one effective, fair, articulate lawyer who could break down the case for laymen might have been able to explain to jurors why the case was political and the prosecution’s theory was weak, but that was reckless gamble to bet on. After my experience with my ethics lawyers professional association and their unconscionable analysis of the recent Alito flag “scandal” as well as my conversations with my sister, I no longer have sufficient faith in most lawyers’ abilities or inclinations to avoid bias guiding their judgment in all matters related to Trump. I have a bit more faith in the analysis offered by legal experts like Prof. Turley and Andrew McCarthy, neither of whom are Trump admirers and who have shown the ability to be independent in their assessments of partisan-poisoned issues in the past.

There is no question in my mind, however, that the guilty verdict is a disaster on many levels, no matter what happens going forward. The case was election interference and designed to be. Even if it ends up having exactly the opposite effect the Democrat totalitarians who engineered the “lawfare” strategy to rescue Joe Biden and themselves seek, the damage to the nation, the democracy, the legal system and the public trust is incalculable. I hope it can be repaired or at least mitigated, but I sure don’t know how.

I’ll leave you with the ethics-tinged observations of three legal analysts.

First is hyper-partisan conservative Mark Levin, whom I cannot stand listening to on the radio because he is so extreme in his rhetoric and has one level: angry and nasty. However, he is a brilliant man and a genuine expert in American history, legal history, and the law. His long tweet yesterday (before the verdict) was illuminating:

It has been 6- weeks since this star chamber, kangaroo court proceeding started, preventing President Trump from campaigning on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays in the critical few months before the general election. This case has prevented hundreds of thousands of voters from hearing President Trump at rallies, meeting him in person, and the usual and normal activities a presidential candidate engages in to reach and persuade voters. This trial has forced President Trump to pay untold sums of money to defend himself, funds that would otherwise be used in campaign events and advertisements. Meanwhile, the court’s extreme gag order has prevented President Trump from speaking to voters about the full array of events taking place in the courtroom, while his political opponents can fashion statements and advertisements aimed at persuading voters that Trump should not be elected and Biden should be.

For these reasons and many more, it is the voters who are being disserved by this unlawful abomination. To put it bluntly, the is no law, state or federal, that has been broken. The statute of limitations on the state law had already run anyway. There is no federal campaign issue, which is why no federal campaign law has been specifically cited at any time during the trial. Moreover, no other American, let alone presidential candidate, has been subjected to such a preposterous case, which further underscores its purpose.

Furthermore, there is no state jurisdiction in a case that supposedly relies on a federal campaign law to create 34-state felonies, which federal authorities have examined and never charged. And the violations of President Trump’s due process rights are so numerous as to be impossible to comprehensively list here — from the filing itself to the jury instructions and everything in between.

All of this is directed at the voters — that is, to influence and interfere in the federal presidential election by a state prosecutor, a state judge, in a state courtroom, with a jury chosen from a limited jury pool. That’s the purpose of this entire exercise.

As I watch TV lawyers and others talk about Trump’s appeal options, I am surprised that they ignore a federal path to the Supreme Court. At issue is our federal voting system for president, the office of the presidency, and the ability of any local prosecutor to bring charges, even preposterous charges, against a presidential candidate. Appealing a guilty verdict through the state judicial process on, let’s say, a guilty verdict on a state issue, would be understandable. But it does not address the more significant constitutional issue: what I will call reverse federalism, that is, the seizing of federal jurisdiction by a state. This issue will not go away as other local and state prosecutors find political benefit in continuing this kind of lawfare. The entire poisonous effort must be addressed, and only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. The federal, presidential election process is at stake as is the office of the presidency. No appeal to higher state courts will not resolve what is now a horrendous federal election problem created by a single DA and acting state judge. The damage has already been done, and every day that passes the damage increases.

For this reason, and others, Bush v. Gore is the only path the Supreme Court has provided for review. The Equal Protection Clause was used by the High Court when the Florida Supreme Court continually altered the state voting system in an apparent effort to deliver the electoral college votes to Al Gore. The High Court found, among other things, that in doing so, the state court was imposing an “unequal” application of the election law on voters depending on what county they resided in, in violation of the 14th amendment.

In the case at hand, the principle of equal protection also applies. In fact, it is even more compelling than it was in Bush v. Gore. A single Democrat-elected DA, who ran for office campaigning that he would get Trump, a single Democrat-appointed acting judge, who is conflicted by his donations, associations, and daughter’s fundraising on the case, together are preventing the putative Republican nominee for president from running a campaign for president (at least severely handicapping the campaign) for the first time in our nation’s history. Never before have a DA and state judge so abused their offices as to even attempt to influence or interfere with a presidential election. The TV lawyers and others are gnashing their teeth over this, and rightly so. They are appalled at what they are witnessing inside the courtroom — the motions, the rulings, the judge’s behavior, the jury instructions, etc. They are laying out reason after reason the case will be reversed on appeal, while lamenting that state appellate review is too slow to matter for purposes of the election. Former federal prosecutors opine that they have never seen a pro-prosecution judge like this. Defense attorneys are stunned at the multiple due process violations. Like a choir, the sing again and again about the damage this is doing to the rule of law, the justice system, the federal electoral process, and the federal election system, but they are blind to taking the only legal step that can be taken to at least attempt, in a serious, substantive, and federal constitutional way, to bring this case to the foot of the Supreme Court’s steps, so that the High Court can at least decide whether it needs to intervene, as it did in Bush v. Gore, or should allow local and state officials bulldoze through our federal election system and, more specifically, through the public’s ability to choose a president, the most important and powerful governmental official in our country.

The TV lawyers and others simply throw up their hands. This is the difference between analysts and advocates. It is also the difference between Democrat-Party and leftwing lawyers and “our” lawyers. I was president of Landmark Legal Foundation (I am not chairman) for years. Our exclusive focus was on difficult legal and constitutional matters. We have been plaintiffs and we have provided scholarly briefs to state and federal courts, and often federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court. We have litigated against numerous federal departments, including the DOJ, the IRS, Treasury Department, the EPA, the Interior Department, etc. We have litigated in dozens of states. We have challenged tax laws, campaign violations, administrative regulations, voting laws, etc. We have filed ethics complaints, briefs against presidents and major organizations and institutions. And we have done this for almost 50-years. Most of all, we have frequently found ourselves on the opposite side of the radical left, which is not shy about using the legal system as it is today — for lawfare in a presidential election.

The Manhattan case is intended to interfere with the normal and routine campaign process to Trump’s detriment and Biden’s advantage. Too many lawyers will not bring themselves or are simply by experience and knowledge not able to bring themselves, to the point of using the legal system in a legitimate and, indeed, necessary way to confront what has occurred here. More to the point, by their actions, they are intending to deny millions of citizens, especially those who have not decided how they will vote in November, in what is expected to be a very close election decided by a handful of states, full access to and participation in a federal, presidential campaign process in which candidates use multiple methods and means to reach them and persuade them. Elections are how we select our top governmental officials. Unconstitutional interference by anyone or anybody must not stand.

Finally, if there is a guilty verdict of some kind, that is what the state court sought by its own conduct. The label “convicted felon Donald Trump,” which the Biden campaign is reportedly intending to call the former president, clearly is intended to influence enough voters to impact the election results. The long state appellate process cannot fix that, and certainly not in time. Indeed, the matter becomes even more urgent. In my view, if there is a guilty verdict, Bush v. Gore and the Equal Protection Clause must be considered, even though we cannot predict in advance if the Supreme Court will take it up (it won’t have the opportunity if it is not asked).

Next is Professor Turley, critical of the case from the start (and he was in the courtroom) who wrote (in part) yesterday and today, before the verdict:

At the start of closing arguments, most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records.

Then came the closing arguments. Around the country, it is standard for the government to go first with a closing to allow the defense to respond. The government is then given the privilege of a rebuttal after the defense rests. In New York, the defense must go first, giving the government free rein over its closing with no risk of contradiction from the defense. With the exception of objections, any abusive or improper arguments are left to the judge to address.

In the case of Judge Merchan, that protection was all but absent as the prosecution engaged in flagrant violations from offering testimony on unestablished facts to directly contradicting prior instructions. In one of the most egregious moments, Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that it is an established fact that former Trump counsel Michael Cohen committed a federal election law violation on the direct orders of Donald Trump. Merchan had repeatedly said that Cohen’s earlier plea could not be used to imply the guilt of Trump. Merchan overruled an objection and Steinglass proceeded, as he did earlier in trial, to repeat the false statement.

Merchan did nothing as Steinglass told the jury that Hope Hicks cried in court because she knew that she had destroyed Trump’s defense (Hicks has never explained why she cried). Merchan did nothing as Steinglass falsely told the jury that the media and political campaigns do not do what Trump did in seeking to kill and plant stories. (This ignored, for example, that the Clinton campaign did precisely that repeatedly in the very same election, including with the false Russian collusion allegations)…

….the court allowed the jury to be told repeatedly that there were federal campaign violations committed by Trump. That is not true. Putting aside that the federal government found no basis to impose a civil fine, let alone bring a criminal charge, the court barred a legal expert who could have shown that no such violation occurred. The jury does not know that. Instead, the judge allowed them to be repeatedly told a false fact that could make it difficult for anyone to acquit.

However, the instructions then went in for the kill and turned the jury deliberations into a canned hunt. Consider just a few highlights from the curious aspects of these deliberations.

First, the judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the “unlawful means” used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation. The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime.

Second, the judge said that he would instruct the jury on the law but then omitted the key elements that established there was no federal campaign violation….Moreover, even if Trump’s legal settlement money could be viewed as a federal campaign contribution, it could not have been part of a conspiracy to influence the election since any reporting of a contribution would have had to occur after the election.

Third, not only can the jury disagree as to what occurred, but one of the three crimes is so circular as to produce vertigo in the jury room. The prosecutors zapped a dead misdemeanor back into life by claiming a violation under New York’s election law 17-152. The argument is that the crime was committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, that other crime can be the falsification of business records. So the jury (or some jurors, at least) could find that some documents were falsified as an unlawful means of falsifying other documents.

Finally, Merchan is allowing conviction based on a “general intent” to defraud “any person or entity,” a dangerously vague concept in this novel criminal case…

Given the instructions and the errors in this trial, it would seem that an acquittal is almost beyond the realm of possibility.

... and after (the verdict):

I am obviously saddened by the verdict, but not surprised. Until the very end, I was hopeful that there would be a hung jury, a result that could restore some integrity to the New York criminal justice system. However, I previously noted that the jury instructions made conviction much more likely. I referred to the deliberations as a legal “canned hunt” due to instructions that made conviction a near certainty….

Obviously, appeals will be taken. As I said last night, we must keep the faith. Indeed, moments like this require us to take a leap of faith in a nation that remains committed to the rule of law. Manhattan is neither the entirety of the country nor the legal system. I believe that these convictions will be overturned, but it will take time. Judge Merchan committed, in my view, layers of reversible error. Eventually, this case may reach the United States Supreme Court.

It has been suggested that an appeal could be taken directly to the Supreme Court. I find that doubtful after the Supreme Court rejected an expedited process for Special Counsel Jack Smith in his federal prosecutions. It will work first through the New York appellate system….

Merchan could also tailor a sentence to require home confinement or even weekend jailing. Those options would raise serious conflicts with his campaigning and obviously, if elected, serving as president. Even the probation process will be awkward since a convicted defendant ordinarily has to get approval for any travel outside of the state from his probation officer….

After his ruling in this trial, it is impossible to rule anything out. However, any jail sentence would add even more outrage to an abuse of the criminal law system.

Finally, here’s substack pundit John Lucas, also a lawyer, who adroitly expresses my problems with the case from an ethical, historical and democratic system perspective:

[T]hose gleefully cheering the result do not care about the damage that they have done to the nation….this New York judge, jury and prosecutors have flung this Country into a downward spiral from which we may never recover. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not.

… The rules are now set. When Republicans have the chance, they will play the game. Many, perhaps most, will think that a response is mandatory and that “taking the high road” is no longer an option. Instead, it would be regarded by the “progressive” left — that is to say those now in charge of the Democratic party — as weakness if they roll over and fail to respond. This is an existential threat to the stability of our political system and nation. That risk makes this the most dangerous day in the history of the Country, at least in our lifetimes. Henceforth, weaponization of the justice system against a political opponent will be the norm. Political grudges will be resolved by political opponents in cherry-picked courtrooms where conviction is most likely. All this confirms that when controlled by scoundrels, our judicial system is becoming more like what we expect in places like China, Cuba or Venezuela, where political opponents are routinely imprisoned or worse.

Where do we go from here beyond a never-ending fight where the latest victors attempt to bankrupt and imprison their adversaries? Solving that problem has just become exponentially more difficult.

Exactly.

[attofishpi]

OMG. You have no idea how happy I am - half way through the last beer (off only a 6 pck) 11pm and thinking - ah, this is prolly last beer, so can't be bothered with u lot..

Well, I call it Schoedinger's beer - is there 1 left in the fridge or not?

AND YES! Quantum universe of God didn't steal my beer to piss me off...yippy - so I can stay and be your oracle for a little longer, you are so lucky.

www.boonyism.com - explains the perfect religion created by the Life of Brian. - Schoedinger's beer is explained in great detail - it is very important if one is to be a bona-fide boonyist of boonyism.

[attofishpi]

Here is the best analysis I have come across, offered by Jack Marshall. If those here read it, I think they will grasp that the entire incident, and the issue of 'lawfare' at this level, is quite serious.

Y did U inflict that upon me?

All I asked was to hear about your experience of divinity. I could not give a flying fart about reading that (and I am pretty good at speed reading - I scanned - I realised NOPE - not interested)

NEXT Jacobi..

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are too weird for me, Mr FishPie.

All I asked was to hear about your experience of divinity.

I thought I made this clear by reference to a quote from Ortega y Gasset. I am not that interested in someone's *experience* and far more interested in what has been concluded, and expressed in theological terms, that provides substantial outlines for our conduct.

Theology over *mystical transports*.

I did not post Jack Marshall's piece for you. I posted it to the forum. I realize that most will not care to read it, or to be concerned about American politics, and to prefer *bickering*, and so be it ...

[attofishpi]

You are too weird for me, Mr FishPie.

All I asked was to hear about your experience of divinity.

I thought I made this clear by reference to a quote from Ortega y Gasset. I am not that interested in someone's *experience* and far more interested in what has been concluded, and expressed in theological terms, that provides substantial outlines for our conduct.

Theology over *mystical transports*.

I did not post Jack Marshall's piece for you. I posted it to the forum. I realize that most will not care to read it, or to be concerned about American politics, and to prefer *bickering*, and so be it ...

Well stop talking to me then like the village idiot that is handing out pamphlets from some other twat that they revere in the hope that all the villagers will also revere the same twat..

..just saying..

[Harbal]

I did not post Jack Marshall's piece for you. I posted it to the forum. I realize that most will not care to read it, or to be concerned about American politics, and to prefer *bickering*, and so be it ...

For the record, I didn't care to read it, and I much prefer bickering. Just a bit of feedback in case you want to consider making your posts more appealing.

[attofishpi]

..we villagers and our gossip & bickering, tis all that matters.

[Harbal]

..we villagers and our gossip & bickering, tis all that matters.

I see it as being more like a local pub than a village. A sort of international Rovers Return.

R.jpeg

[attofishpi]

..we villagers and our gossip & bickering, tis all that matters.

I see it as being more like a local pub than a village. A sort of international Rovers Return.

R.jpeg

As much as I love a place where Ale is flowing. It is definitely too cramped of a space to put up with all the Americans especially that want to drink coffee and talk about how the gay of the village popped in last evening and they could never keep track of their conversations with such a distraction.


OK, so Rovers Return exists within...:-



..the VILLAGE.

What shall we name our utopian Village Harbal?

[mickthinks]

Here is the best analysis I have come across, offered by Jack Marshall. ...

I find it odd that you are so impressed with that, because I can't find anything that could be called "analysis" by Jack himself* there; just his clearly partisan personal opinion. Can you cite your favourite passage, Alexis, so I can see what I have so far missed?

*The "by Jack Marshall" caveat is because I didn't wade through any of the stuff by other pundits that he has included, because I am not ready to give up that much of my life. If it turns out tat the best analysis you have come across is actually by Levin or Turley or Lucas, then why credit Marshall?

[Harbal]

..we villagers and our gossip & bickering, tis all that matters.

I see it as being more like a local pub than a village. A sort of international Rovers Return.

R.jpeg

As much as I love a place where Ale is flowing. It is definitely too cramped of a space to put up with all the Americans especially that want to drink coffee and talk about how the gay of the village popped in last evening and they could never keep track of their conversations with such a distraction.


OK, so Rovers Return exists within...:-



..the VILLAGE.

What shall we name our utopian Village Harbal?

How about Bonking-on-the-Wold?

[attofishpi]

How about Bonking-on-the-Wold?

I tried, I asked the villagers and they said 'no'...then I asked the computer and it said 'no'.

Thus we are a village of no name - perhaps we call it ..Twitfuddle?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here is the best analysis I have come across, offered by Jack Marshall. ...

I find it odd that you are so impressed with that, because I can't find anything that could be called "analysis" by Jack himself* there; just his clearly partisan personal opinion. Can you cite your favourite passage, Alexis, so I can see what I have so far missed?

*The "by Jack Marshall" caveat is because I didn't wade through any of the stuff by other pundits that he has included, because I am not ready to give up that much of my life. If it turns out tat the best analysis you have come across is actually by Levin or Turley or Lucas, then why credit Marshall?

The piece expresses a range of analyses and I attributed the piece to Marshall because he put it together.

I find Levin to be extremely accurate within the analysis that he offers. He is as Marshsll says “brilliant” in his field (Constitution, US history). I cannot bear his Zionism but that is another category.

I find it odd that you are so impressed with that.

With what? What you did not bother to read?