Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

Jesus Christ. Change the name to anything you fucking want. You in your typical fashion glam onto something that is not relevant and base your bullshit off of it.

Change it to Juan, change it to CGVT. I don't give a shit.

This "approach" is to deal with gun violence of all kinds.

If Juan or Bubba or Talent or anyfucking body does not take reasonable measures to secure his or her, (I certainly don't want Talent to spend two days saying that women get a pass. Fuck. What a tedious bastard) gun that person should be held accountable.

I said throw them in jail, of course, to keep Talent for glamming onto that, I should have said prosecuted or charged with a crime, but Jesus, as I said, Tedious bastard.

I really don't know how any law abiding responsible gun owner would be opposed to that.

I have no problem with that in theory. But will prog prosecutors prosecute it regardless of the race of the suspect? I doubt it. I suggest they start enforcing the laws that we already have. It will be like it's brand new!

[THE_WIZARD_]

EF to the EFZ

[iam416]

Correct Talent. Progs don't want to solve gun violence...they need it to advance their agenda...so meaningful legislation that would actually make a difference is not on the plate...just spend money...acquire more power and control...and grandstand when there is a mass shooting...but ignore the daily violence happening in their own backyards...

Well, to be fair, they DO want to ban all guns. They just can't. The pesky Constitution gets in their way as does pesky democracy or rather pesky constitutional republic. And, yes, at that point they do exactly what you say.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Correct...and they KNOW that. But Progs are not about results.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Filing his notice to appeal a bit prematurely but I'll allow it.



FsjbK9vWwAIUBt-?format=jpg&name=small.jpg

[iam416]

The more you read on the presumed charges the more you are left shaking your head. If I'm DJT, I'm calling employees of the previous DA and having them testify that they didn't bring the charges because it was a "novel" or "weak" theory.

I dunno. This just seems like a really bad idea.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The more you read on the presumed charges the more you are left shaking your head. If I'm DJT, I'm calling employees of the previous DA and having them testify that they didn't bring the charges because it was a "novel" or "weak" theory.

I dunno. This just seems like a really bad idea.

Is the speculation you're seeing about Trump using the money to cover up "crimes" committed by Cohen? And that's how it somehow reaches felony status?

[iam416]

This is from Geraghty, but it's mostly quoting:

Mark Pomerantz was a retired lawyer who joined the staff of Cyrus Vance, the then-district attorney of New York County, in February 2021 to work on Vance’s investigation of Trump. This year, Pomerantz’s book about his time on the DA’s staff, People vs. Donald Trump, was published. Pomerantz wrote:

Legally, the money-laundering charges held together only if the hush money was “dirty money,” that is, the proceeds of a crime. I thought that the hush money could be charged as the proceeds of Clifford’s extortion of Donald Trump. [Stormy Daniels’s real name is Stephanie Clifford.] Admittedly, this was a somewhat awkward construct. Step one would be to prove that Trump was, in effect, a blackmail victim. We would be claiming that Clifford had committed larceny by extortion when she threatened to publicize her alleged tryst unless Trump paid her money. We did not actually have to bring a criminal case against Clifford (or her lawyer), but we would have to allege that Trump had been extorted. If we established the extortion, we could go on to step two: charging Trump with money laundering because he had worked with Cohen to conceal his identity of the extorted funds. It was a creative legal theory, neither intuitive nor obvious. The district attorney raised his eyebrows at the notion that we would be claiming that Donald Trump was the victim of blackmail, but he was intrigued by the idea.

At this point, however, my creative theorizing smacked into [the District Attorney of New York]’s cautious and conservative culture, as it would several times during my tenure. Some of my new colleagues balked at the notion that Clifford’s demand for hush money qualified as extortion. I was told that the extortion cases that the office had brought in the past had involved threats of physical violence, and that explicit demands to pay money “or else” something very bad would happen to the victim. By contrast, Clifford had retained a lawyer and had been shopping the story to the media when Michael Cohen reached out to “purchase” her silence. This so-called “extortion” had been very soft and unthreatening, and therefore might not constitute a crime at all, or so the pushback went.

A few paragraphs later, Pomerantz laid out another legal complication:

Under New York law, the crime of “larceny by extortion” is complete only when the perpetrator actually obtains money by making a threat. Until the money is received, there has been no larceny, because the essence of a crime is an illegal taking. Similarly, if you are mugged on the street, the crime of robbery occurs only when you hand over your wallet or pocketbook — that is when your property has been illegally “obtained” by force.

In the Trump case, this meant that Clifford had not committed larceny by extortion until she or her lawyer received the $130,000 in hush money that Michael Cohen had agreed to pay on Trump’s behalf. At that point, the crime of larceny by extortion was complete, and the hush money became “criminal proceeds” within the meaning of the money-laundering statute. But this was too late to support the money-laundering charge I had in mind. The money had to qualify as “criminal proceeds” when Cohen sent it; otherwise sending it was not money laundering. If the money became criminal proceeds only when received, the crime of money laundering had not taken place. Money laundering involves dealing in “dirty money.” Legally, the hush money payment had not become dirty money until Clifford (or her lawyer) received it, so neither Cohen nor Trump had committed money laundering by sending it.

Note that in the mentality of Alvin Bragg, Stormy Daniels did not commit a crime worthy of prosecution when she blackmailed or extorted Donald Trump, but Trump did commit a crime worthy of prosecution when he paid her because he was being blackmailed. I think that, to the average American, this is an absurd argument — and perhaps the average Manhattan juror will agree.

In New York, the statute of limitations for a felony charge of falsifying business records is five years, which would have passed in 2021, although Bragg apparently convinced the jury that the time that Trump spent out of state should not apply toward the statute of limitations. The case will rely heavily on the testimony of convicted felon Michael Cohen.

[iam416]

I think there are other theories, too -- I'll see I can dig up analysis on those, too. But, in general, when the NYT call the legal theory to get DJT "novel" you know you're treading into dicey waters.

[iam416]

I think in Georgia they can actually make out a case based on normal and accepted legal theories. They might not be able to convict -- I dunno -- but they won't (IMO) run the risk of dismissal or losing on appeal or whatever.

It's a real shame that the NYC case got a head of the others -- where there probably are at least credible charges.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I wonder if all this is just a pathway to a "We'll go easy on DJT...if you back off Hunter & Joe..."

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think in Georgia they can actually make out a case based on normal and accepted legal theories. They might not be able to convict -- I dunno -- but they won't (IMO) run the risk of dismissal or losing on appeal or whatever.

It's a real shame that the NYC case got a head of the others -- where there probably are at least credible charges.

Yeah the Georgia stuff and Jack Smith stuff definitely more serious. I mean it seems like they are pretty close to establishing he lied to the government in order to avoid returning shit that wasn't his. It's just that if that turns out to be really stupid shit, like love letters with Kim Jong Un, is it worth prosecuting over that? Are you setting a bad precedent if you DON'T prosecute? Trump's an enormously petty person and it's believable to me that he'd pick a fight over something extremely stupid just because he doesn't like being told what to do.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Meanwhile….if you have questions about public corruption, ask an expert

[THE_WIZARD_]

...speaking of public corruption...
Billary.jpg

[THE_WIZARD_]

Just announced...DJT will be arraigned on Tuesday at 2:15PM EST...and will not be in cuffs...