413 private links
But don’t listen to the naysayers, Trump advised in a tongue-in-cheek Truth Social post on Saturday—just keep doing what you’re doing. “MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN!”
Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a mixed bag of a ruling on presidential immunity. In my view, they took what could've been a straightforward and elegant decision — the president is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office unless he has been impeached for those acts — and turned it into a dog's breakfast of angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin litigation about what constitutes official and unofficial acts. //
What has passed with remarkably little notice is Justice Clarence Thomas's concurrence. Justice Thomas says the Court is putting the cart before the horse. The first question that needs to be answered is not whether acts were official or unofficial. The critical first question is whether this prosecution is legal at all. Thomas's comments begin on the 44th page of the linked document.
I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.
No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.
...
Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause. For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Even if he is an inferior officer, the Attorney General could appoint him without Presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if “Congress . . . by law vest[ed] the Appointment” in the Attorney General as a “Hea[d] of Department.” Ibid. So, the Special Counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it “by Law.”
Whether the Special Counsel’s office was “established by Law” is not a trifling technicality. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office. Given that the Special Counsel purports to wield the Executive Branch’s power to prosecute, the consequences are weighty. Our Constitution’s separation of powers, including its separation of the powers to create and filled offices, is “the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government” and the liberty that it secures for us all. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 697 (Scalia, J., dissenting). There is no prosecution that can justify imperiling it.
Minister of War
2 hours ago
"the president is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office unless he has been impeached for those acts"
Bingo!
Period.
End of story.
Close the book.
John Roberts is an idiot once again & the conservative justices are required to roll their eyes & go along with his stupidity just because that was the only way to get even a partial victory.
Montana radio host Aaron Flint pointed out that replacing Biden with another Democrat will still leave in power the people currently using him like a presidential skin suit. That’s also true, to a large extent, of replacing Biden with Trump. //
However, because we’ve already had the benefit of a Trump presidency, we can see that even a president as vigorous and defiant as he struggled to truly exercise authority over the people and institutions that, constitutionally speaking, the president commands.
Some of the most egregious examples of this occurred among cabinet-level national security types. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman under Trump Gen. Mark Milley was one of the worst offenders. Washington Post and New York Times reporters say, according to excerpts from Haley McLean, that Milley deliberately stayed in his position to sabotage voters’ elected commander-in-chief, saying to staffers of Trump, “I’ll just fight him” and “I will fight from the inside. //
Milley also disobeyed Trump’s order to pull U.S. troops from Afghanistan, setting the stage for the disastrous Afghanistan pullout Milley oversaw under Biden that seriously damaged U.S. foreign policy goals, killed 13 U.S. soldiers, and left stranded thousands of American citizens. //
In my new book, I point out that scholars such as Christopher Caldwell have shown that for more than a century the United States has been living under “two Constitutions.” One is the original Constitution that secures consent of the governed, rule of law, and government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The second Constitution, or regime, is that of the “living Constitution,” which I explain is essentially totalitarian because it recognizes no limits on its powers.
That second regime now has the upper hand, and it is run by this cabal of unelected bureaucrats who believe they have the right to saddle, ride, and spur Americans and bend us to their will. They don’t care what we vote for. We’re getting what they want regardless of how we vote. That goes for Congress, too, whom the deep state also treats like window dressing and who usually lives up to that cynical expectation.
So yes, the deep state is shamefully using Biden as their puppet president. But they believe they have the right to ignore the Constitution and voters even when the president isn’t a walking cadaver. For people who know that when the Democrat press starts shouting something it’s proof the opposite is true, this puts a pretty dark cast on all the Democrat shrieks about “democracy.”
This is not a shocking discovery, but the report contains the receipts of the manipulation and shows specifics of how things transpired. Even while there was conflict and opposition within the agency, the ability to still move quickly to advance the plan to aid Biden and/or impact Donald Trump is revealing. In addition, the most disqualifying aspect of the whole laptop fable is how the CIA was working in concert with the FBI on behalf of the Biden campaign. We have learned that the intelligence community went to social media companies and instructed the executives on how they should treat any mention of the laptop as a Russian misinformation campaign. //
The way this collusion played out — between the CIA, FBI, Biden Campaign, and the press — is essentially the Deep State laid bare. The sad truth and depth of this is seen in the massive difficulty in bringing anything approaching accountability to bear for any of this for anyone involved. This is a massive example of manipulating an election result, but all of those shown as guilty are the same players today, bleating about the threats to our democracy. //
123FJB
3 hours ago
Just keep in mind that at least half of your fellow Americans have no problem with what was done and in fact are hoping for it to happen again and again.
Let THAT sink in.
Not only are the enemy inside the gates, they are having a party in the town square in broad daylight.
etba_ss 123FJB
2 hours ago
And the heads of all these agencies were appointed by the guy they were screwing over.
Trump simply cannot allow this to stand. I have zero confidence he will make any better choices in Round 2 or clean anything out or drain any swamp. His attention span is too short and he's too focused on the nightly news clip, verses the long, hard, behind the scenes slog of cleaning out the swamp.
DC_Draino
@DC_Draino
·
One of Trump’s White House lawyers now openly confirms he was secretly working against him to stop the DOJ from investigating 2020 election fraud
This is the Deep State in action to remove Trump
They wanted zero federal investigations of 2020 election fraud & got their wish
Tom Fitton @TomFitton
Former WH lawyer confirms he, behind Trump's back, organized threats of mass resignations to successfully thwart Trump from appointing an acting attorney general (@JeffClarkUS) who would seriously investigate 2020 election. https://politi.co/3Txnk93. //
Plans are no doubt underway for the second Trump administration. Those plans rightly include cleaning house of anyone who might be tempted to undermine that administration in any way. Democrats will call it "revenge." But Donald Trump will be able to quote one of his predecessors and say, "I won." //
American Accountability Foundation
@ExposingBiden
·
🚨WE ARE DECLARING WAR ON THE DEEP STATE
The Left is having a category 5 meltdown over this.
Here's what we're doing, and why we're doing it:
Our investigators at the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) are currently working on building a list of rotten bureaucrats at the… Show more
10:11 AM · Jun 24, 2024 //
Democracy is where the people rule, via their elected leaders, not where the bureaucrats rule. //
Ribs_of_Rock
5 hours ago
So the head of a federal government employees union (the most unconstitutional thing I’ve ever heard of) is saying that firing unelected bureaucrats is seeking to undermine democracy. Democracy being a system of government based on people voting on leaders and political issues. Once again I think that we overestimate the factual knowledge of the opponent. While they may be possessed of great base cunning and shrewdly manipulative with the aid of their vile media accomplices, they somehow seem to think that democracy is a system of government controlled by democrats. This is a remarkably idiotic thing to say and I can’t believe that the evil union head doesn’t know better. We are tasked with persuading or counteracting a vastly ignorant group of “voters” who vote due to government pressure and government largesse.
To get specific, the Bureau of Land Management shows that 3,377 permits were issued in 2023, supposedly outpacing the 2,507 that Trump's admin approved in its third year in office. This would bring the total number of permits approved to 9,522, leaps and bounds over the 6,541 permits approved by the Trump admin. This was heralded as a victory by press outlets like Politico, despite them all being eco-warriors in every other situation.
But the real numbers were revealed later when technical errors they blamed on the Trump administration were fixed according to the Beacon:
The spokesman added that the agency couldn't vouch for the data from the Politico report in January. And he noted the "online reporting tool can be interpreted in various ways."
BLM's online system was undergoing a system outage at the time of this report.
In February 2023, meanwhile, BLM quietly revised separate figures, lowering the number of unused fossil fuel drilling permits it had approved. The agency changed that number from 9,000 unused permits to less than 6,700, blaming the error on a Trump-era technical change.
The actual number from the Trump administration was 10,795. I'm not a mathematician, but that seems a far larger number to "less than 6,700."
Since the beginning of the Rise of Trump, I've maintained that Trump is not a cause, but a symptom. His initial seeking of political office was a reaction to what many Americans see as the rise of a political elite in the United States; politicians serve as though they were the Roman Senate, appointed for life, and many of them grow monstrously rich while in office. There are those on the left now who are comparing Trump to Caesar, but that's a canard; Trump has no military background, and he has not sought to make himself a dictator no matter what pearl-clutching claims are made by his opponents. In his first term, Trump worked within the Constitution. There is no reason to think that he would not do the same in a second term.
Trump may well be our Gracchi. The Gracchi were among the first voices calling out the corruption of the wealthy and powerful in the late Roman Republic. They called for populist reforms, and they worked to put themselves in a position to implement those reforms and, if you will allow the term, Make Rome Great Again - and the establishment of the time, those same wealthy and powerful men, destroyed them for it. (Sound familiar?) But it was that reaction to the Gracchi that led to the Sulla/Marius conflict and then to the rise of Caesar.
Whether Trump wins a second term or not, the die has been cast. The wealthy and powerful have been called out. Trump may be leading the populist movement, but he is not the populist movement, and that movement is not going away. Trump himself has proven to be notoriously resistant to any attempts to brush him aside. Will history continue to rhyme? Will there, in another generation or two, be another American civil war? An American Caesar? There may well be - but that's a story for another column. //
RSB
10 hours ago
This is where you have to be a bit more nuanced. Yes Rome lost its Republic and a LOT of that went back to corruption and a degradation of society to where the first loyalty of the troops was to their generals not the state. And yes the moral rot of Rome itself was a causal factor in this because people turned to the strong generals to give them some actual peace and security.
In one respect Rome got lucky. Caesar was not some tyrannical monster and Octavian (in one of the big surprises of history) was possibly the greatest statesman in history. He built the Empire on the notion of lowered taxes, respect for individual rights and security for trade, commerce and everyday life within that framework. And the result was the Pax Romana. True the moral issues remained (albeit lessened due the laws against theft, murder et al being enforced), it fell to later rulers such as Vespasian who threw a lot of the decadent people out of the Senate and government and promoted Italians who were more closely tied to the common folk and had more rural morals - then Roman morals improved.
So. Is America on the road to having its "Caesar"? Probably. Will we get lucky like Rome did? No way to know.
The faux dramatic ad, which highlights Trump’s legal challenges and says Biden has been focusing on "lowering health care costs and making big corporations pay their fair share," says, in part:
This election is between a convicted criminal who is only out for himself, and a president who is fighting for your family. //
Le Fromage Grande
6 hours ago edited
The only reason that there aren't two convicted felons running for president is because one of them was declared to be mentally unfit to stand trial.
Let that sink in. //
Quizzical
7 hours ago
"This election is between an unconvicted criminal who is only out for himself, and a former president who is fighting for your family."
Fixed that for the Biden campaign. //
houdini1984
8 hours ago
We rightly mock this lawfare communication strategy, but we shouldn't assume that everyone sees it the same way. Yes, we know that the convictions are bogus and the sexual abuse trial was a sham, but it's important to remember that tens of millions of Americans exist in a different type of bubble. Theirs is a fact-free, government propaganda bubble that feeds them a steady diet of Orange Man Bad lies. How many Americans will hear those lies - and ads like this - and believe them?
The far left exists in an echo chamber. To a large extent, we do too - that is, if we fail to recognize that too many in middle America only hear what the left wants them to hear. Our side better be aggressive about getting the truth out there if we want it to override the left's lies. Don't just assume that Americans are smart enough to discover the truth for themselves. If they were, the Democrat party would have ended long ago.
To put it plainly, the left hates President Trump more than they love this country. Government officials at the federal and state levels have censored President Trump, filed civil suits in order to sanction him, illegally removed him from the ballot, and perverted the law in order to prosecute him. This is a strategic attack against a former President of the United States, against a current candidate for President, and against the value we as a Nation place on our system of government, our legal system, and our very identity. The term lawfare, while apt, fails to adequately convey the moral depravity underpinning this strategic attack. I encourage this body to address each tactical front in the broader conflict provoked by lawfare. //
Bailey outlines numerous flaws inherent in the prosecution:
- Failing to uphold the rules of professional conduct by which prosecutors are bound
- Failing to specify the other crime Trump was alleged to have committed/intended to commit in falsifying the business records, such that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated
- Seeking a gag order in violation of Trump's First Amendment rights
- Perverting the law to meet the facts rather than objectively applying the law
- Failing to require unanimity from the jury on the predicate offense(s) //
Ready2Squeeze
18 minutes ago
To put it plainly, the left hates President Trump more than they love this country.
This should read:
To put it plainly, the left hates President Trump more than they love hate this country.
Ben Shapiro @benshapiro
·
What an enormously stupid and vile comment. Trump is not Hitler. And voting is not storming a beach under a hail of machine-gun fire to free millions from the tyranny of the Nazis.
Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton
Eighty years ago today, thousands of brave Americans fought to protect democracy on the shores of Normandy.
This November, all we have to do is vote.
2:16 PM · Jun 6, 2024 //
These delusions of grandeur are astonishing and pathetic. This is what happens when people, devoid of religion and purpose in life, try to project their emptiness onto politics. No, you aren't like D-Day veterans because you showed up to vote against the bad orange man. To even suggest that is insane. That I even have to say that is a sad testament to just how far the Democratic Party has fallen. //
WestTexasBirdDog
16 hours ago
Actually Hillary is totally correct. We do need to vote this November, but not with the result she wants.
Causing a false entry to be made in a company’s records is a misdemeanor offense in New York, subject to a two-year statute of limitations. The statute says, however, that if the false business entry was made for the purpose of concealing the commission of, or intent to commit, “another crime,” then it is a felony offense, which has a longer statute of limitations. //
Although this was a state prosecution, Bragg brought in Matthew Colangelo, a high-ranking official from the Justice Department, to serve as lead prosecutor in the case. Colangelo previously had served as acting associate attorney general, the third-highest position within DOJ. //
Third, although the indictment alleged that Trump caused a false business record to be entered on the company’s books for the purpose of concealing the commission of, or intent to commit, “another crime,” the indictment didn’t say what that other crime was. And Bragg refused to say what it was when asked about it during a press conference.
Trump’s legal team filed a motion for a bill of particulars, asking Merchan to compel the state to disclose what the other crime was so that Trump’s lawyers could prepare his defense adequately. Merchan refused.
Indeed, it was not until the charge conference shortly before closing arguments that the prosecution team disclosed its speculations about what that other crime might be. And it was not until the prosecutor gave his closing argument—after Trump’s lawyer already had made his and sat down—that he finally said anything to the jury about what the other crime was. //
Fifth, Merchan’s pretrial ruling severely limited what Brad Smith—a former member of the Federal Election Commission and one of the nation’s leading authorities on federal campaign finance laws—could say from the witness stand. Smith was prepared to testify that Trump’s $130,000 payment to Cohen to reimburse the lawyer for the payment to Daniels was a personal expense, not a campaign expense, which didn’t violate campaign finance laws.
Indeed, Smith would have testified that if Trump had paid this money out of his campaign coffers rather than out of his own pocket, that would have been a federal campaign finance violation. Merchan wouldn’t allow Smith to say any of this from the witness stand. His testimony was going to be so limited that the Trump legal team decided it was worthless to call him as a witness, and so they didn’t. //
Eighth, there is a strong argument that neither Bragg as the DA nor Merchan as the judge had jurisdiction to put anyone on trial—much less a former president—for alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws. Nothing in the Federal Election Campaign Act gives state court prosecutors and judges jurisdiction over such matters.
And, according to a 2023 memorandum of understanding between the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department, the FEC “has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws” and the Justice Department “has exclusive jurisdiction of criminal enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws, including related criminal offenses.”
Here, both the FEC and DOJ investigated the matter and declined to pursue it.
Constitutional law expert Hans von Spakovsky says the conviction isn’t likely to stick, for an array of reasons. Chief among them: Merchan’s convoluted jury instructions, in which the Biden campaign-donor judge framed the jury’s deliberations in a way that, according to legal expert Jonathan Turley, “seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt.” Merchan told the jurors they didn’t have to agree on the three possible “unlawful means” prosecutors vaguely alleged Trump had employed to “influence” the 2016 election.
“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,” Turley wrote in the Hill before the verdict was handed down. //
Von Spakovsky said Merchan’s instructions point to reversible error — “an error in trial proceedings that affects a party’s rights so significantly that it is grounds for reversal if the affected party properly objected at trial,” according to the Legal Information Institute. //
“That is one of the craziest things I have ever heard and it is a complete violation of President Trump’s substantive due process rights.”
Von Spakovsky said the standard in like cases is that jurors come to a unanimous agreement on each of the charges they are deliberating. He said Merchan added an absurd twist to the proceedings after handicapping Trump’s defense throughout the trial. //
As for Merchan, von Spakovsky said the judge is either one of the most incompetent judges he has ever seen or his curious instructions to the jury was “a sign of intentional misfeasance.”
“In fact, I think it’s the latter because throughout this entire case he has acted as if he is an alternate member of the prosecution team,” the legal expert said.
RNC Research
@RNCResearch
·
Follow
COMPLETELY UNHINGED: As Biden tries to JAIL his leading opponent, junior Biden campaign spokesman Michael Tyler says President Trump is a "threat" that Biden will "end ... once and for all."
4:34 PM · Jun 2, 2024
This is not a normal election. Donald Trump has already demonstrated that he is not a normal candidate. He is a fundamental, persistent, and growing threat to our democracy. And Joe Biden is running to make sure we end that threat, once and for all. //
This, as Democrats are also trying to end Trump's Secret Service protection. //
Trump isn't a threat to "democracy," he's a threat to their power. That's the real problem here and the "threat" is growing because he keeps beating Biden in the polls. The lawfare appears to have backfired so far. //
Brytek
an hour ago
When a democrat says rule of law and they see themselves as the law, it’s really their rule as everyone else has already stated.
It is an unprecedented perversion of justice by a baldly partisan alliance of people figure-headed by an immoral president corrupted by fear of losing the power to abuse power and weaken the country he vowed to protect.
“Lawfare” is an insufficiently evil word to describe this strategy.
Back when he was funny, Woody Allen once said, “Mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” //
As the astute Ben Domenech points out:
It’s been branded a hush-money trial, but it isn’t — it’s a business expense categorization trial, claimed as a campaign finance matter. This just doesn’t fly. It sounds like a rinky-dink case to the average voter. //
The judge’s rulings and jury instructions, and the prosecution’s opportunity to deliver a non-rebuttable closing argument, basically stacked the deck for Manhattan jurors to obey. //
He was on criminal trial for falsifying corporate documents to disguise hush payments to a porn star. That is a misdemeanor charge, which the feds declined to prosecute.
However, Bragg compounded the charges into 34 state counts and elevated them to felonies, which enabled him to exceed the statute of limitations and potentially involve prison time.
But wait! What about this?
After Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat, she and her campaign got caught falsifying financial reports to disguise payments to others to create the Steele Dossier and Russiagate hoax.
The Federal Elections Commission fined her campaign $113,000. No charges. No felony. No trial.
So, for an offense similar to Trump’s, she got off nothing.
Just as that same Democrat did in 2016 when FBI Director James Comey declined to recommend prosecution of her for illegally using a private email server to hide (and sometimes destroy) thousands of national security emails from Freedom of Information requests.
should Trump be reelected (Alvin Bragg may well have just sealed the deal on that), he would be a head of state, and would therefore have diplomatic immunity under the UN Convention on Special Missions of 1969. //
anon-x8p1
4 hours ago
I stand with George Washington, a felon if ever one existed.
anon-x8p1
4 hours ago
Which Founder of our entire country could not be branded as a treasonous felon against the Crown.
Happens from time to time. Go Team Trump.
GBenton anon-x8p1
4 hours ago
When the government is corrupt and the rule of law is persecution, conviction becomes a badge of honor.
Romney issued a statement on Saturday morning in which he said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg committed "political malpractice" in his pursuance of former President Donald Trump:
Bragg should have settled the case against Trump, as would have been the normal procedure. But he made a political decision. Bragg may have won the battle, for now, but he may have lost the political war. //
You may disagree with this, but had I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him.
I'd have pardoned President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, 'President Biden,' the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy. //
GBenton
4 hours ago
Totally agree on the significance but I think Romney is "right" for the wrong reasons, which is not surprising.
He didn't say the conviction was wrong or unjust, which is the correct answer.
He said it was malpractice and he bemoans winning the battle and losing the war.
He said how Biden could be the Big Guy (lol) and Trump the little guy with a pardon.
All Romney is mad about here is that the Dems have made Trump stronger in November, IMO.
He has no moral qualms with the demonizing of Trump, just the means that achieve that end.
So pigs aren't flying, Romney didn't suddenly get a clue. He's just mad that his nemesis Trump is getting an advantage from this "political malpractice". //
anon-x8p1
5 hours ago
The Biden crime family committed no crimes, regardless of evidence.
The Clinton crime network committed no crimes, regardless of evidence.
Trump now faces 139 years in prison because the court claims they knew what Trump was thinking so he is guilty as charged.
First, any civil or criminal defendant in a federal case who plausibly asserts that political or ideological factors may taint a jury pool can veto the Washington DC circuit and receive a hearing in his or her choice of another randomly chosen circuit or the circuit of his or her home dwelling.
Second, regardless of what circuit a federal case is filed in, any civil or criminal defendant who plausibly asserts that political or ideological factors may taint a jury pool shall be entitled to a jury pool that is proportionally selected from a region that did not vote more than 70 percent in favor of one party’s candidate in the most recent presidential, senatorial, or congressional election.
Third, plaintiffs or prosecutors in a federal case may elect to have the case decided in a randomly assigned circuit other than the District of Columbia. This would ensure that corrupt and criminal Democrats do not get a free pass on anything they do simply because they know a DC jury pool would never convict them of anything, no matter how egregious the offense.
Fourth, Congress should mandate that any states receiving federal funds for any legal or law enforcement purposes must abide by the same rules guaranteeing a defendant a politically fair jury pool.
Fifth, state legislators should enact similar laws ensuring political fairness for trials in their state.
In summary, all Americans are entitled to a jury of our peers, or at least a jury that is not politically biased. Unfortunately, conservative Americans are being increasingly subjected to politically weaponized lawfare. //
Indylawyer
10 hours ago
This is a badly needed reform. Excellent point. We also need to eliminate most federal criminal statutes, and make sure the ones that are left are clearly and narrowly defined. They wouldn't be able to wage most of this lawfare without these vague and overweening criminal statutes. //
anon-8gsr
12 hours ago
All this articles says to me is conservatives have been woefully neglectful in preparing to fight the opposition, and still are. We all knew that though.
GBenton anon-8gsr
12 hours ago
If Trump wins in November we have to view this as the last opportunity to right the ship. After what Biden has done, including the lawfare and threats to pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster, the mission is to destroy the corruption and neutralize the threat should a Democrat win in 2028.
That said, I think if the American people knew the full truth about the left there might not be much of a Democrat party for a while. Trump should declassify anything and everything on the Dems and their corruption going back to JFK (and before, as relevant), since I believe they had JFK killed, they set up Nixon, and they have their fingerprints on a whole lotta bad stuff including Waco, etc, not to mention what Hillary and Obama did.
Expose all the dirt. make it public.
GBenton Arik
12 hours ago
Stealing elections needs to carry a price similar to treason since it interferes with the peaceful tranfer of power and threatens the stability and survival of the republic and invites tyranny. //
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
I obviously disagree with this verdict as do many others. I believe that the case will be reversed eventually either in the state or federal systems. However, this was the worst expectation for a trial in Manhattan. I am saddened by the result more for the New York legal system than the former president. I had hoped that the jurors might redeem the integrity of a system that has been used for political purposes.
9:20 PM · May 30, 2024
I am sad for him and his family, but this goes far beyond Trump. I think I am mourning what it means for our legal system and our rule of law when you can do this to a political opponent and a former president. It means none of us is safe, that that great principle which has made us special as a nation—equality under the law—died more than a little on Thursday. And that's a horrible thing to ponder.
Democrats have sacrificed it all on the altar of power and holding onto control.
Yes, there are a bunch of potential appealable issues, and it may very well be overturned on appeal. And sentence is likely to be stayed pending appeal. But in the meantime, the Democrats have what they wanted: the ability to call Trump a "convicted felon" and the hope that in a close race, this will hurt Trump and hand the race to Biden. The case may be overturned in the future, and some may say then, "Oh, so sorry." But it will be too late for justice and too late for the Republic. And nothing will be the same again.
Tuesday, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who chairs the House Republican Conference, filed a complaint with the New York State Unified Court System alleging Judge Juan Merchan was secretly selected in contradiction to a legal mandate for the random assigning of judges. Judge Merchan, Stefanik noted, was somehow randomly selected to preside over a previous trial against the Trump Organization, an upcoming trial against former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, and Bragg’s criminal trial against Trump himself.
“If justices were indeed being randomly assigned in the Criminal Term, the probability of two specific criminal cases being assigned to the same justice is quite low, and the probability of three specific criminal cases being assigned to the same justice is infinitesimally small,” Stefanik wrote in a letter to state officials. “And yet, we see Acting Justice Merchan on all three cases.”
Those who accused Trump of being a dictator and trying to undermine our country's laws now have weaponized our judicial system to take out an opponent they weren't confident could be beat in the polls. The Democrats have started a dangerous war, and the losers are the people of this country. Election interference must not be tolerated. Trump will not give up so easily. We are witnessing another historic moment in our nation's history. The next months could change everything.