https://www.breitbart.com/clip...oney-case-is-absurd/

Turley said, “Well, the more cases against Trump, the less justice we receive as a people. You know, the opponents of Trump would have been far better off with just one case, the Mar-a-Lago case. That’s based on real law, real precedent, and one can disagree with the interpretations. But it’s not a reach in the sense of this case.”

He continued, “This case is, creating something, it’s creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know, you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired, the statute limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather curious way. He’s effectively arguing that Trump was filing false business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime. But it isn’t a federal crime, this wasn’t a campaign contribution. None of that appears to matter, and that’s why a lot of us are looking at this and recoiling. This is not how the law is supposed to be.”

Turley added, “New Yorkers appear to like it this way. They elected James, who ran on bagging Trump for anything, didn’t even mention what. And they now are lionizing this district attorney who’s putting together what many of us consider to be an absurd indictment.”

Meathead hasn't changed one iota in 50 years. Still a commie.

quote:

Meathead hasn't changed one iota in 50 years.

Usually I can separate an actor from his roles and just look at the man. But in his case, this role defines him as a man.

Katie Couric blames 'anti-intellectualism,' 'class resentment' driving Trump's MAGA voters 'That is a huge problem that we have to address,' Couric told Bill Maher on Sunday


“The socio-economic disparities are a lot and class resentment is a lot and anti-intellectualism and elitism is what is driving many of these anti-establishment [people] — which are Trump voters — so, I think that is a huge problem that we have to address,” Couric explained to Maher, referring to the MAGA movement that ...14 hours ago

Link

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
..a huge problem that we have to address...

"we"?

Couric shows her ass, it's what she does.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
..a huge problem that we have to address...

"we"?

Couric shows her ass, it's what she does.

I don't know who "we" are, since I'm a anti in-tie-lect'y'all... being socio-e-con'micly dis-party'd n all....

^^^^ related

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margo...ts-glorious-n4928234

On Tuesday, oral arguments commenced in the case of Fischer vs. United States, scrutinizing the legitimacy of felony charges of obstructing an official proceeding against individuals involved in the January 6 United States Capitol riot. The court's ruling will carry significant weight, as it could potentially influence the fate of hundreds of defendants from the January 6 riot and potentially undermine certain federal charges against Donald Trump.

Currently, the conservative wing of the court has expressed doubt regarding the government's case, which U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is making. Notably, Justice Neil Gorsuch posed a question that was epic, to put it mildly.

Specifically, he inquired whether Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who infamously pulled a fire alarm to delay a House vote, could face charges under the same statute.

"What does that mean for the breadth of this statute?" Gorsuch asked. "Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler at today's audience qualify, or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?"

"There are multiple elements of the statute that may not be satisfied by those hypotheticals," insisted Prelogar. "It relates to the point I was going to make to the chief justice about the breadth of the statute. These built-in limitations are things that I think would potentially suggest that many of those things wouldn't be something the government can charge as 1512(c)(2)."

She added, "It would include the fact that the actus reus does require obstruction, which we understand to be meaningful interference. That means if you have some minor disruption or delay or some minimal outburst—"

"So my outburst requires the court to reconvene after the proceeding has been brought back into line, or the pulling of the fire alarm, the vote has to be rescheduled, or the protest outside of the courthouse makes it inaccessible for a period of time," Gorsuch interjected. "Are those all federal felonies subject to 20 years in prison?"

Of course, you can see where this is going. It's not surprising that the Biden administration's position was that pulling a fire alarm to delay a House vote wouldn't be prosecuted under the same statute because it chose not to prosecute Bowman.

I love the way that Gorsuch used Bowman as an example, yet the conservative wing of the court continued to own Prelogar. Picking up with Gorsuch left off, Justice Samuel Alito gave more examples that Prelogar argued would be difficult for the government to prove obstruction of an official proceeding, insisting that "the term 'obstruct' on its face denotes a meaningful interference with the proceeding," to which, Alito pointed out that 1512 (c)(2) "doesn't refer just to obstruct, it says 'obstructs, influences, or impedes.' Impedes is something less than obstructs."

No matter what example justices offered, including pro-Palestinian protesters blocking traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge on Monday, or the hypothetical of protesters blocking traffic from Virginia to Washington, D.C., the Biden administration's position that none of these would meet the same requirement.

Curious, isn't it?

I wonder what it was like for Prelogar to stand there as Gorsuch and Alito destroyed her case right before her eyes.

audio of Gorsuch at link

Everything is always in mid-air.

I wish we could get something definitive in all of this. Everything is always just right around the corner.

My patience grows thin and I know I am far from alone. November is taking fucking forever to get here.

President Trump meets bodega worker cleared of murder for stabbing ex-con

“Donald Trump left his criminal trial on Tuesday and visited a bodega worker cleared of murder for stabbing an ex-con to death in self-defense in his Manhattan store.

The former president headed to Hamilton Heights to speak to Jose Alba, who knifed Austin Simon to death in July 2022, when he jumped the counter in his store.

Alba's case sparked widespread scrutiny across New York City, until charges against him were dropped in July by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, who has become a frequent target of Trump's attacks on the campaign trail.

Trump received a raucous welcome as he arrived at the bodega, with the crowd chanting 'four more years' and cheering his name. …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/13316465

^^^^

https://twitter.com/i/status/1780366038237859966



https://twitter.com/i/status/1780379943496548598



https://twitter.com/i/status/1780371005334032745

If you ask me the reaction and reception Trump got in Harlem is a very good sign and one that has to be making the Dems worried.

Worried? The dems are in full blown panic mood.

Yesterday I saw a Fox poll that had Trump at 30% of black male voters. Damn.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Everything is always in mid-air.

I wish we could get something definitive in all of this. Everything is always just right around the corner.

My patience grows thin and I know I am far from alone. November is taking fucking forever to get here.

Amen, and amen!!!

OT but here is a fiery argument between a judge and a Fani Willis prosecutor

video at link

https://www.foxnews.com/us/fan...en-yourself-together

A Georgia prosecutor from Fulton County District Attorney Fanni Willis' office got into a shouting match Wednesday with the judge overseeing the trial of rapper Young Thug as the pair argued over evidentiary matters.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Adriane Love and Fulton County Judge Ural Glanville got into a heated shouting match when the judge ruled that the evidence Love wanted to introduce would be excluded.

"Why didn't we file this stuff months ago and let's wind it out and air it out at that point in time," Glanville told the defense before asking Love about the matter.

The judge asked Love if prosecutors had discussions about the evidence before excluding the material. As Love began voicing her frustration, Glanville said: "Well then you all should have gotten yourself together beforehand."

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
https://twitter.com/EndWokenes.../1780966894310187188

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&lang=en&theme=&id=1780966894310187188" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 576px; display: block; border: medium; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-image: url('https://codejanitor.net/embeds/images/bgmessage.png'); background-position: center 85px; background-size: 200px; overflow: hidden;" title="Twitter Tweet"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Prima facie evidence President Trump cannot get a fair trial anywhere in New York.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
<<snip>>
Prima facie evidence President Trump cannot get a fair trial anywhere in New York.

That's what I've assumed so far. Despite the fact that a lot of New Yorkers like and support Trump, there are still way too many that hate him, beginning with the judge! Getting a fair trial there will be next to impossible. Only by the grace and intervention of God Almighty will Trump get through this unscathed... and I trust God will handle this according to His will.