mspart

White House chief of staff: Susie Wiles Attorney general: Pam Bondi (after Matt Gaetz withdrew) U.N. ambassador: Elise Stefanik Secretary of education: Linda McMahon Secretary of homeland security: Kristi Noem Director of national intelligence: Tulsi Gabbard White House press secretary: Karoline Leavitt Yep, he is scared of strong women. Good catch, I should have figured that out. mspart

I suppose. mspart

Discuss. mspart

I thought you were talking about fish. Now I get it!!!!! mspart

Hey RL, you might want to read what you responded to and see if you can see it. mspart

This ^ mspart

Let's hope so. mspart

Trump hates strong women. It's obvious. mspart

OK, I'll bite. What was he exactly charged with doing? The judge gave the jury an out: They could pick one of three things they thought he did and if they all came up with one of those, he was guilty. Similar to saying he either killed someone, kicked someone, or spat on someone. Jury gets to decide. 1/3 could say he killed someone, 1/3 could say he kicked someone, and 1/3 could say he spat on someone. And he'd be found guilty even though the jury couldn't decide exactly what he did. Please tell me how something like this could be sent to a jury trial. I've never heard of being found guilty of several separate things and that counting as convicted to charges in a felony case. There is a reason many lawyers called this a novel case never before done. Elie Honig is one. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=143384 So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.) As I said. Please tell me where he gets this wrong. mspart

So you agree with me. Very interesting. The indictment, which is the charges, do not specifically state what the actual charges are. Trump is entitled by the Constitution to know what he is being charged with so he can mount a defense. Why do you use jury instructions which is after the fact. So you are in effect saying the charges were not known until jury instructions. Sounds like a pre-determined result. It was a faux prosecution and the appeal will show this. Now why did the indictment not state exactly what law was he breaking specifically? Why term it as "another law"? You have to break a law to be prosecuted for it. You and Bragg are not able to enumerate that. Another wrinkle: How could he conceal anything when the records were made after the election? Do you ever defend a client without knowing exactly what he/she did to break the law? If so, did you not seek dismissal based on the 6th Amendment? Quoted here: Amendment VI (1791) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. mspart

How many of those are because the worker wouldn't take the jab. There were quite a number here in WA that were /are in that boat. In fact many of the Ferry workers were let go because of this. Plus this was talking about federal employees. Your site only talks about state and local employees. Next. mspart

From the indictment of the NY case. THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization. SECOND COUNT: AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization. It goes on for 34 counts. They all say roughly the same thing as is bolded. The whole felony basis of this with thee "another crime". What is that crime I wonder. Bragg didn't say, Judge couldn't say, and Jury didn't know. Perhaps you know what the specific crime was that turned misdemeanors into felonies. If you can, you would be the only one ever to know. If you can't, then saying what I wrote is flatly untrue is a bit of conjecture that is made to sound knowledgeable. mspart

This happened to at least one home in my neighborhood. And another in a few miles down the road. At least two trees fell in the neighborhood taking out over head power and other infrastructure lines. I had to drive over power lines and just underneath to get to work. One fatality in another town was a lady taking a shower when the tree came down. She was dead before aid could come. mspart

I disagree. The swamp is the entrenched bureaucracy and congressional folks will do anything to protect their way of doing things. I gave examples above. These represent the swamp. mspart

Yes, being the expert attorney that I am not, it is easy to see that the indictments upon which he was "convicted" were not valid. You cannot state clearly what he was convicted for even today. What specific crime did he commit? You can't name it, the judge could not name it, the DA could not name it, and the jury could not name it. It will get overturned on appeal. Very easily. mspart