diy solar

diy solar

Trump

A little lawyerly insight into the Supreme Court hear about Presidential immunity ...... My key take away is that judges have immunity .... congress has immunity .... Shouldn't the executive branch have AT LEAST the same degree of immunity as the other branches?


☕️ BAD LUCK ☙ Friday, April 26, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
The Trump trial resumed yesterday. The whole day was filled with David’s Pecker, sorry, I mean David Pecker’s, testimony, which thrust its way through hours of continuous testifying for the state. Whatever happened, Trump seemed pleased in his post-trial appearance, but details were scarce, which was probably also a good sign for Trump.
Today, Trump’s team get its chance to cross-examine Pecker, who will hopefully spurt out some helpful facts for the President.
Since we don’t yet have details on what Pecker might have said, today’s update starts with yesterday’s CNN story headlined, “CNN Poll: Few think Trump is being treated the same as other defendants | CNN Politics.”
The results of the poll were predictably divided along party lines:

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say Trump is being treated more leniently than other defendants by the criminal justice system (61%), while Republicans and Republican-leaning independents largely say he’s being treated more harshly than others (67%). Independents who don’t lean toward either party tilt toward his treatment being more lenient (27%) than harsh (15%).​

Lack of confidence in the selected jury to reach a fair verdict is deepest among Republicans and Republican-leaning Americans (37% say they have no confidence at all), but even among Democrats and Democratic-leaners, 40% say they have little or no confidence in the jury’s ability to reach a fair verdict.​

Click to expand...
Given that nobody has ever been prosecuted for Trump’s alleged crimes, it’s painfully difficult to imagine how democrats could possibly think he’s being treated more leniently than other defendants. But whatever. I’m not interested in trying to resolve that impenetrable conundrum.
There was more action at the Supreme Court yesterday than in Manhattan. The nine justices took two hours of oral argument on Trump’s presidential immunity defense, which holds out hope of shifting all his cases in his favor. I listened to the whole thing.
The liberal justices were preoccupied with extreme hypotheticals. What if the president ordered an assassination on his political rivals? What if the president ordered a military coup? Does immunity mean he can never be criminally charged, ever, no matter what?
The conservative justices pushed back. Could Obama be prosecuted for his drone strikes on civilians? Going forward, what’s to stop every President from being targeted once they leave office? Is it risky to leave prosecution decisions in the hands of a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president?
Best I can predict, the case boils down to whether Trump’s actions on January 6th were “official, public” acts or “personal, private” ones. The justices seemed inclined to send the case back down to the lower courts to figure that out first. But even that was not completely clear. For instance, Justice Kavenaugh tellingly asked whether every act of a first term president can be described at least partially in support of his re-election?
In other words, doesn’t a first-term president do everything for both public and private reasons?
In light of that question, my guess is the final decision, expected soon, will include some kind of test or formula for how to determine whether a particular presidential action is official or personal.
The Justices all seemed keenly aware that this decision will be historical and could permanently change the President’s role forever. And that’s just the first groundbreaking, history-making development in today’s roundup.
🔥🔥 Before leaving the Supreme Court story, I’d like to briefly point out a few things that exasperate me about the discussion of presidential immunity. I’m only a commercial litigation attorney, not a constitutional scholar, and nobody listens to me, but during the entire two hours of oral argument and hundreds of probing Supreme Court questions, it struck me the Justices were largely missing the point.
All nine Justices, including the liberals, seemed shocked by the concept of absolute presidential immunity. Like me, you’ve probably heard the media’s vomitous, broken-record jargon until your ears were bleeding: “nobody is above the law.” Really? Is that true?
Let’s start with judges. Judges are immune. If a judge makes a mistake, and an innocent person goes to the electric chair, what happens? Nothing. Even if the judge intentionally railroaded the defendant because of racial bias or for any other reason, what happens? Nothing.
How about Congressmen? Congressmen are immune. If they start a war that gets thousands of Americans killed, for illegal reasons (Wag the Dog), what happens? Nothing. (Critics will yap about bribery. So what? How many successful prosecutions have there been? At best, which is a stretch, bribery prosecutions only show a limited exception to Congress’ broad, general immunity.)
How about City Commissioners? City Commissioners are immune. What if a city commissioner violates citizens’ constitutional rights in Florida by mandating vaccines, and an outraged lawyer (me) proves the constitutional violation in court? What happens to the Commissioners?
Nothing.
How about cops? Cops are immune. At least, they enjoy qualified immunity. What happens if a cop negligently mows down grandma while chasing a teenaged jaywalker at irrationally high speeds? Nothing. Immune.
For Heaven’s sake, the entire government is immune. It’s a concept called sovereign immunity. The only way ‘round sovereign immunity is when the government graciously de-immunizes itself by passing a law allowing certain types of claims against government officials. Otherwise, tough luck, starbuck.
Although his immunity produces extremely vexing results in many cases, it is just as necessary as other types of government immunity. The President is not even an ordinary government official. He’s an entire branch of government. Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the Executive Branch. Under the Constitution, the President enjoys powers exceeding those of any other government official, so it seems uncontroversial that he would also enjoy immunity exceeding that of any other government official.
I mean, through his pardon power, the President can even dish out immunity to anybody else, for any crime, no matter how horrible, even mislabeling checks. Why not himself?
Would I love to see Barack Hussein Obama tried for his crimes? A hundred percent. But that would open Pandora’s immunity box and start the political prosecution train going. Next stop, Banana Republic.
What to me was unaccountably absent from yesterday’s oral arguments was any discussion about the mountain of broad immunities already enjoyed by government and whether the President’s immunity should rest somewhere near, if not right at, the peak.
In other words, at minimum, a president should never have less immunity than every other government official. We put up with immunity so judges can rule without fearing personal consequences. We want Presidents to execute their duties boldly and decisively.
Nobody made that point yesterday.
What can I tell you? It’s a super strange year.​
 
If Trump wins, I don't think Barr is going to be part of the administration.

1714157584338.png
 
Bob B said:
View attachment 211543

https://twitter.com/x/status/1783504813570801744
Click to expand...
That is difficult. As he mentioned it could set a precedence but most likely not. None of the ppl mentioned will be prosecuted. Never.

I feel that They have made a permanent power grab.

Ppl like this one wearing a split Israel and Ukraine flag are example of the problems. Zionist. It is a waste of time talking about this shit. It is not good shit. Plain and simple it is literally shit.

IMG_6204.jpeg
Rep. Michael McCaul

Bob B said:
A little lawyerly insight into the Supreme Court hear about Presidential immunity ...... My key take away is that judges have immunity .... congress has immunity .... Shouldn't the executive branch have AT LEAST the same degree of immunity as the other branches?


☕️ BAD LUCK ☙ Friday, April 26, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
The Trump trial resumed yesterday. The whole day was filled with David’s Pecker, sorry, I mean David Pecker’s, testimony, which thrust its way through hours of continuous testifying for the state. Whatever happened, Trump seemed pleased in his post-trial appearance, but details were scarce, which was probably also a good sign for Trump.
Today, Trump’s team get its chance to cross-examine Pecker, who will hopefully spurt out some helpful facts for the President.
Since we don’t yet have details on what Pecker might have said, today’s update starts with yesterday’s CNN story headlined, “CNN Poll: Few think Trump is being treated the same as other defendants | CNN Politics.”
The results of the poll were predictably divided along party lines:

Given that nobody has ever been prosecuted for Trump’s alleged crimes, it’s painfully difficult to imagine how democrats could possibly think he’s being treated more leniently than other defendants. But whatever. I’m not interested in trying to resolve that impenetrable conundrum.
There was more action at the Supreme Court yesterday than in Manhattan. The nine justices took two hours of oral argument on Trump’s presidential immunity defense, which holds out hope of shifting all his cases in his favor. I listened to the whole thing.
The liberal justices were preoccupied with extreme hypotheticals. What if the president ordered an assassination on his political rivals? What if the president ordered a military coup? Does immunity mean he can never be criminally charged, ever, no matter what?
The conservative justices pushed back. Could Obama be prosecuted for his drone strikes on civilians? Going forward, what’s to stop every President from being targeted once they leave office? Is it risky to leave prosecution decisions in the hands of a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president?
Best I can predict, the case boils down to whether Trump’s actions on January 6th were “official, public” acts or “personal, private” ones. The justices seemed inclined to send the case back down to the lower courts to figure that out first. But even that was not completely clear. For instance, Justice Kavenaugh tellingly asked whether every act of a first term president can be described at least partially in support of his re-election?
In other words, doesn’t a first-term president do everything for both public and private reasons?
In light of that question, my guess is the final decision, expected soon, will include some kind of test or formula for how to determine whether a particular presidential action is official or personal.
The Justices all seemed keenly aware that this decision will be historical and could permanently change the President’s role forever. And that’s just the first groundbreaking, history-making development in today’s roundup.
🔥🔥 Before leaving the Supreme Court story, I’d like to briefly point out a few things that exasperate me about the discussion of presidential immunity. I’m only a commercial litigation attorney, not a constitutional scholar, and nobody listens to me, but during the entire two hours of oral argument and hundreds of probing Supreme Court questions, it struck me the Justices were largely missing the point.
All nine Justices, including the liberals, seemed shocked by the concept of absolute presidential immunity. Like me, you’ve probably heard the media’s vomitous, broken-record jargon until your ears were bleeding: “nobody is above the law.” Really? Is that true?
Let’s start with judges. Judges are immune. If a judge makes a mistake, and an innocent person goes to the electric chair, what happens? Nothing. Even if the judge intentionally railroaded the defendant because of racial bias or for any other reason, what happens? Nothing.
How about Congressmen? Congressmen are immune. If they start a war that gets thousands of Americans killed, for illegal reasons (Wag the Dog), what happens? Nothing. (Critics will yap about bribery. So what? How many successful prosecutions have there been? At best, which is a stretch, bribery prosecutions only show a limited exception to Congress’ broad, general immunity.)
How about City Commissioners? City Commissioners are immune. What if a city commissioner violates citizens’ constitutional rights in Florida by mandating vaccines, and an outraged lawyer (me) proves the constitutional violation in court? What happens to the Commissioners?
Nothing.
How about cops? Cops are immune. At least, they enjoy qualified immunity. What happens if a cop negligently mows down grandma while chasing a teenaged jaywalker at irrationally high speeds? Nothing. Immune.
For Heaven’s sake, the entire government is immune. It’s a concept called sovereign immunity. The only way ‘round sovereign immunity is when the government graciously de-immunizes itself by passing a law allowing certain types of claims against government officials. Otherwise, tough luck, starbuck.
Although his immunity produces extremely vexing results in many cases, it is just as necessary as other types of government immunity. The President is not even an ordinary government official. He’s an entire branch of government. Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the Executive Branch. Under the Constitution, the President enjoys powers exceeding those of any other government official, so it seems uncontroversial that he would also enjoy immunity exceeding that of any other government official.
I mean, through his pardon power, the President can even dish out immunity to anybody else, for any crime, no matter how horrible, even mislabeling checks. Why not himself?
Would I love to see Barack Hussein Obama tried for his crimes? A hundred percent. But that would open Pandora’s immunity box and start the political prosecution train going. Next stop, Banana Republic.
What to me was unaccountably absent from yesterday’s oral arguments was any discussion about the mountain of broad immunities already enjoyed by government and whether the President’s immunity should rest somewhere near, if not right at, the peak.
In other words, at minimum, a president should never have less immunity than every other government official. We put up with immunity so judges can rule without fearing personal consequences. We want Presidents to execute their duties boldly and decisively.
Nobody made that point yesterday.
What can I tell you? It’s a super strange year.​
Click to expand...

Imagine if you will that Biden sees he can do anything and have no repercussions.? He has already done a ton. Got away with it.
 
D71 said:
View attachment 211553
Rep. Michael McCaul
Click to expand...
He's a 10 term Republican congressman .... Texas neeeds to send him a message ..... He supposed to be representing Texas.
D71 said:
Imagine if you will that Biden sees he can do anything and have no repercussions.? He has already done a ton. Got away with it.
Click to expand...
It is congress job to hold him responsible for high crimes and misdemeanors ..... Unfortunately Democrats are a LOT better at impeachment than the Republicans are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D71
Bob B said:
He's a 10 term Republican congressman .... Texas neeeds to send him a message ..... He supposed to be representing Texas.

It is congress job to hold him responsible for high crimes and misdemeanors ..... Unfortunately Democrats are a LOT better at impeachment than the Republicans are.
Click to expand...
Exactly….Look at Mayorkaus.

Edit:
The minute Mayorkas spit out the holocaust story knew they would drop it.
 
Since 9-11 we have put about $30 trillion dollars on our national debt.

We are now supposedly putting $1 trillion dollars every 100 days onto the national debt. Do you really think it can be saved?

What happens when the tv gets cut off and the welfare stops?
 
Bob B said:
We all knew they were lying about this ... but now the proof that they were lying is out.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

COVER-UP EXPOSED: Judge Cannon Unmasks Redacted Documents Revealing Biden White House Direct Ties to Mar-a-Lago Raid, Jack Smith Investigation | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday ordered key evidence in Jack Smith’s classified documents case to be unredacted.
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, Im spreading this far and wide. This is bigger than watergate not that the media will cover it.
 

Trump-RFK Vaccine War Finally Erupts​

Once upon a time, before his administration had been largely co-opted by the Deep State via strategically placed plants like Jared Kushner, Mike Pompeo, etc., Trump had reportedly taken an active interest in recruiting RFK Jr. as the chairman of a vaccine safety commission.

Via Politico, January 2017 (emphasis added):


“President-elect Donald Trump has asked Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a major source of disproved theories imputing harm to vaccines, to chair a ‘commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity,’ Kennedy told reporters after a meeting in Trump Tower on Tuesday.
Kennedy, who said he accepted the assignment, has been insisting for over a decade that traces of mercury in a preservative formerly used in childhood vaccines caused a massive increase in autism diagnoses. He has clung to the theory despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
Later in the day, however, Trump appeared to be backing off Kennedy’s report. In a statement released by the transition team, Trump said he ‘enjoyed his discussion’ with Kennedy and was ‘exploring the possibility of forming a committee on Autism, which affects many families; however no decisions have been made at this time.’”
Click to expand...
Fast forward seven years — with no changes in RFK Jr.’s consistent and principled position on vaccine safety — and Trump is suddenly singing a different tune, the only conclusions to which being that he has no truly sincerely-held beliefs on this issue and that his strategery is lacking miserably.

Via The Independent, present day (emphasis added):

“Donald Trump has begun lashing out at independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr amid recent polling indicating the anti-vaxxer is attracting the support of potential Trump voters.
Over the weekend, Mr Trump made at least four Truth Social posts attacking Mr Kennedy, falsely asserting he is a ‘Democratic plant’ installed to help President Joe Biden win, that he is more liberal than any other candidate and that his views on vaccines are ‘fake.’
‘A Vote for Junior’ would essentially be a WASTED PROTEST VOTE, that could swing either way, but would only swing against the Democrats if Republicans knew the true story about him.’ Mr Trump wrote on Saturday.
The sudden ramp-up of attacks arrives after polling from Quinnipiac, Marist and NBC News shows that Mr Kennedy’s campaign is taking votes away from Mr Trump.
An NBC News poll shows that in match-ups between Mr Trump and Mr Biden, the former president has at least a two-point lead. But when Mr Kennedy is thrown into the mix, Mr Biden then takes the lead. Marist polling indicates Mr Kennedy has managed to increase his support among independents from 21 per cent to 27 per cent – meanwhile, Mr Trump has gone from 38 per cent to 30 per cent.”
Click to expand...
Morality aside — I’m not sure Trump has ever been or could ever be swayed by pleas to morality; it’s not in his DNA — this is total strategic buffoonery for a candidate who needs every single member of his base to show out in November.

The calculus is not rocket science.

Trump repeatedly brags at rallies about Operation Warp speed and gets booed every time — the only time he ever gets booed for anything at these things — because his ego can’t cope with not being praised for what he believes was a heroic effort on his part, Operation Warp Speed.

Related: Trump Brags AGAIN About Operation Warp Speed, Shills Vaxxes

RFK Jr.’s vaxx position, on the other hand, is in line with the vast majority of Trump’s base.

If you’re Trump, why attack your opponent’s greatest strength relative to you?

There are possible explanations, of course.

Perhaps he’s been warned that going full “anti-vaxx” is a red line the permanent state won’t abide, and that he’s liable to get the JFK treatment if he pursues it. Maybe he’s been pledged some sort of bribe via industry back-channels. Maybe he’s a legitimate Kool-Aid drinker.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the same essential problem that kept him from pulling out of Afghanistan or pardoning Julian Assange rears its ugly head again: the advisers Trump allows himself to be surrounded with promote agendas at odds with his own base, yet through flattery and other means he allows himself to be led astray by these jackals.
 
Here is Jeff Childers lawyerly take on the Trump hush money trial ..... Any reasonable judge would have thrown out the case a long time ago ..... It's beyond ridiculous.
The witnesses for the prosecution couldn't be considered credible by any stretch of the imagination. An editor for a tabloid and 2 lawyers that have been disbarred and have had jail time ..... Not to mention Michael Avenatti who won't be testifying because he has a 14 year prison term.
There are a LOT of scumbag lawyers trying to shake down rich people.

☕️ BRAGGING ☙ Friday, May 3, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
As the trial reports trickle out, we begin to perceive a developing prosecutorial disaster. Prosperously shaped prosecutor Alvin Bragg started off with a tepid and flimsy premise. His witnesses are no better: each one some new and more colorful kind of character, and all of them prone to lying and exaggeration. The evidence, if you can call it that, is disorganized and if anything, mostly helpful to the defendant, President Trump.
Prosecutorial star witness and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was called to the stand and immediately wrecked the trial train. Cohen is not exactly your typical lawyer. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and tax evasion and served time in prison. In March, a federal judge refused to terminate his supervised release conditions, after Cohen “accidentally” filed an AI-generated motion citing three made-up cases. He seems much more clever than smart.​
​
Among other peculiar, non-lawyerly aspects of his personality, the jury learned that Cohen had a very bad habit of secretly recording most of his conversations with his clients (and lots of other people), which shatters nearly every rule of ethics on the books. His cell phone was packed with nearly 40,000 contacts, presumably only his very best friends.
The prosecution bookended Cohen’s testimony with that of Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, who might even be a bigger and more disgraceful example of an attorney than Cohen. California attorney Keith Davidson represented the Daniels in 2018, as part of a neat little niche practice he’s developed of representing adult performers, having also lawyered for Playboy “models” Karen McDougal and Shera Bechard. Stormy turned around and sued her lawyer Keith, for allegedly conspiring against her, the client, with the previously-mentioned disbarred lawyer Michael Cohen, which led to Keith’s own bar license being suspended for three months in 2021.
​
The sordid picture that emerged between the two scheming lawyers’ testimony seems more than anything to help President Trump, who is starting to look more and more like the victim of a con rather than a presidential criminal meriting historic prosecution. For example, one of Cohen’s secret recordings played for the jury this week was a conversation between the lawyers, Cohen and Davidson. In the audio, Cohen whined to Davidson about Trump never understanding why he had to pay for the NDAs:

“I can’t even tell you how many times he (Trump) said to me ‘I hate the fact that we did it,’ and my comment to him was ‘but every person that we’ve spoken to tells you it was the right move.’”​

Click to expand...

In addition to showing Trump’s obvious distaste toward the whole enterprise, Cohen’s recording also showed a shocking lack of familiarity with ethical rules about keeping the lawyer’s discussions with his client confidential. There was Cohen, blabbing about what he and Trump said, to the lawyer on the other side.
The jury also learned why Cohen flipped on Trump and now hates him so much: bizarrely, the disbarred lawyer expected a political appointment after Trump got elected, even thinking he somehow might become Attorney General. And Cohen thinks Trump stiffed him on the $130,000 NDA payment, which makes the District Attorney’s case even murkier and more confusing, since it seems to suggest that Trump may not have even paid for the NDAs at all.
Lawyer Davidson testified that in December 2016, Michael Cohen called, obviously “very despondent and saddened.” According to Davidson, Cohen “said something to the effect of ‘[Profanity], can you f-ing believe I’m not going to Washington after everything I’ve done for that f-ing guy.”
Davidson also remembered Cohen saying “I can’t believe I’m not going to Washington. I’ve saved that guy’s a** so many times you don’t even know.”
Then Davidson testified that, on the same call, Cohen said “That f-ing guy's not even paid me the $130,000 back” — meaning the payment to Stormy Daniels that Cohen allegedly advanced.
In other words, one of the reasons Cohen hates Trump so much is because Trump never actually paid for the Stormy Daniels money. This evidence would seem to greatly complicate Alvin Bragg’s case. Good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump ever paid the so-called “hush money” rather than “legal expenses.”
As far as I can tell, things got even better for Trump and worse for Alvin. While he was representing Stormy Daniels in the NDA negotiation in 2018, lawyer Davidson drafted a letter that Daniels signed, denying that here was ever any romantic affair between her and Trump. The prosecutors pressed Davidson to say the statement was false, but Davidson denied it, first seeming to admit that there really was no affair between Trump and Daniels, as Trump has long insisted:​

“In the statement, I said Daniels never had a sexual and/or romantic affair with Donald Trump. That could be true.”​

Click to expand...

So the jury just heard the lawyer who sold Daniels’ NDA to Trump admit that Daniels might have been lying about the affair the whole time. Later, with help from Bragg’s prosecutors, Daniels walked that admission back, but only by engaging in tortured, Clintonesque word-parsing, somehow arguing that the Daniels letter denying the affair could be considered true, but at the same time there was also an affair, because it all depends on how you characterize the relationship.
According to reports, that part of Davidson’s testimony provoked guffaws from the gallery.
But apart from the humor and lawyer hi-jinx, a truly troubling pattern emerged.
Under questioning from Trump’s lawyers, Davidson admitted that he’d approached many other celebrities, and sold them NDA’s like the one he sold to Trump, to keep the unflattering details out of the tabloids and gossip websites. In some cases, even though the pressured celebrities paid for the NDA’s, the details leaked out in various places anyway.
Just like how Stormy Daniels broke her NDA with Trump.
For example, Davidson admitted being involved in deals around actress Lindsey Lohan's rehab, a sex tape involving TV star Tina Tequila, a Hulk Hogan sex tape, something with boxer Manny Pacquiao, and with actor Charlie Sheen. Trump’s lawyers started using the word ‘extortion’ to describe Davidson’s burgeoning NDA-selling practice (which Davidson strenuously disagreed with).
Of course, this kind of thing absolutely is extortion, and finding out how common it is raises a lot of sympathy for celebrities, politicians, and other people in the public eye. How many crooked lawyers like Davidson are running around scraping up unethical people to invent some kind of barely credible-sounding story defaming a famous person?
Presumably it’s easier for the celebrity to just pay for an NDA, rather than pay a public relations firm to litigate the scandal in the courts and the media, and risk real damage to their public persona. I could see advising someone to take that deal. But it must be extremely frustrating.
Now we can understand why Stormy Daniels only got $130,000 for her story and not a million. It was nuisance money.
The trial is not being broadcast, so all we have to go on is what is reported by people attending in the gallery. But from yesterday’s reports, it seems like the evidence is developing well for the former President. So far, Alvin Bragg only has a creative, novel legal theory about check stubs, a pornographic actress, a crooked tabloid publisher, and a pair of scheming, not-too-smart, extortionist lawyers.
I won’t even try to predict what the jury might do, but this is absolutely not a good look for a trial that is supposed to represent the pinnacle of legal ethics and a historic first presidential prosecution.
​
 
Bob B said:
Here is Jeff Childers lawyerly take on the Trump hush money trial ..... Any reasonable judge would have thrown out the case a long time ago ..... It's beyond ridiculous.
The witnesses for the prosecution couldn't be considered credible by any stretch of the imagination. An editor for a tabloid and 2 lawyers that have been disbarred and have had jail time ..... Not to mention Michael Avenatti who won't be testifying because he has a 14 year prison term.
There are a LOT of scumbag lawyers trying to shake down rich people.

☕️ BRAGGING ☙ Friday, May 3, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
As the trial reports trickle out, we begin to perceive a developing prosecutorial disaster. Prosperously shaped prosecutor Alvin Bragg started off with a tepid and flimsy premise. His witnesses are no better: each one some new and more colorful kind of character, and all of them prone to lying and exaggeration. The evidence, if you can call it that, is disorganized and if anything, mostly helpful to the defendant, President Trump.
Prosecutorial star witness and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was called to the stand and immediately wrecked the trial train. Cohen is not exactly your typical lawyer. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and tax evasion and served time in prison. In March, a federal judge refused to terminate his supervised release conditions, after Cohen “accidentally” filed an AI-generated motion citing three made-up cases. He seems much more clever than smart.​
​
Among other peculiar, non-lawyerly aspects of his personality, the jury learned that Cohen had a very bad habit of secretly recording most of his conversations with his clients (and lots of other people), which shatters nearly every rule of ethics on the books. His cell phone was packed with nearly 40,000 contacts, presumably only his very best friends.
The prosecution bookended Cohen’s testimony with that of Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, who might even be a bigger and more disgraceful example of an attorney than Cohen. California attorney Keith Davidson represented the Daniels in 2018, as part of a neat little niche practice he’s developed of representing adult performers, having also lawyered for Playboy “models” Karen McDougal and Shera Bechard. Stormy turned around and sued her lawyer Keith, for allegedly conspiring against her, the client, with the previously-mentioned disbarred lawyer Michael Cohen, which led to Keith’s own bar license being suspended for three months in 2021.
​
The sordid picture that emerged between the two scheming lawyers’ testimony seems more than anything to help President Trump, who is starting to look more and more like the victim of a con rather than a presidential criminal meriting historic prosecution. For example, one of Cohen’s secret recordings played for the jury this week was a conversation between the lawyers, Cohen and Davidson. In the audio, Cohen whined to Davidson about Trump never understanding why he had to pay for the NDAs:


In addition to showing Trump’s obvious distaste toward the whole enterprise, Cohen’s recording also showed a shocking lack of familiarity with ethical rules about keeping the lawyer’s discussions with his client confidential. There was Cohen, blabbing about what he and Trump said, to the lawyer on the other side.
The jury also learned why Cohen flipped on Trump and now hates him so much: bizarrely, the disbarred lawyer expected a political appointment after Trump got elected, even thinking he somehow might become Attorney General. And Cohen thinks Trump stiffed him on the $130,000 NDA payment, which makes the District Attorney’s case even murkier and more confusing, since it seems to suggest that Trump may not have even paid for the NDAs at all.
Lawyer Davidson testified that in December 2016, Michael Cohen called, obviously “very despondent and saddened.” According to Davidson, Cohen “said something to the effect of ‘[Profanity], can you f-ing believe I’m not going to Washington after everything I’ve done for that f-ing guy.”
Davidson also remembered Cohen saying “I can’t believe I’m not going to Washington. I’ve saved that guy’s a** so many times you don’t even know.”
Then Davidson testified that, on the same call, Cohen said “That f-ing guy's not even paid me the $130,000 back” — meaning the payment to Stormy Daniels that Cohen allegedly advanced.
In other words, one of the reasons Cohen hates Trump so much is because Trump never actually paid for the Stormy Daniels money. This evidence would seem to greatly complicate Alvin Bragg’s case. Good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump ever paid the so-called “hush money” rather than “legal expenses.”
As far as I can tell, things got even better for Trump and worse for Alvin. While he was representing Stormy Daniels in the NDA negotiation in 2018, lawyer Davidson drafted a letter that Daniels signed, denying that here was ever any romantic affair between her and Trump. The prosecutors pressed Davidson to say the statement was false, but Davidson denied it, first seeming to admit that there really was no affair between Trump and Daniels, as Trump has long insisted:


So the jury just heard the lawyer who sold Daniels’ NDA to Trump admit that Daniels might have been lying about the affair the whole time. Later, with help from Bragg’s prosecutors, Daniels walked that admission back, but only by engaging in tortured, Clintonesque word-parsing, somehow arguing that the Daniels letter denying the affair could be considered true, but at the same time there was also an affair, because it all depends on how you characterize the relationship.
According to reports, that part of Davidson’s testimony provoked guffaws from the gallery.
But apart from the humor and lawyer hi-jinx, a truly troubling pattern emerged.
Under questioning from Trump’s lawyers, Davidson admitted that he’d approached many other celebrities, and sold them NDA’s like the one he sold to Trump, to keep the unflattering details out of the tabloids and gossip websites. In some cases, even though the pressured celebrities paid for the NDA’s, the details leaked out in various places anyway.
Just like how Stormy Daniels broke her NDA with Trump.
For example, Davidson admitted being involved in deals around actress Lindsey Lohan's rehab, a sex tape involving TV star Tina Tequila, a Hulk Hogan sex tape, something with boxer Manny Pacquiao, and with actor Charlie Sheen. Trump’s lawyers started using the word ‘extortion’ to describe Davidson’s burgeoning NDA-selling practice (which Davidson strenuously disagreed with).
Of course, this kind of thing absolutely is extortion, and finding out how common it is raises a lot of sympathy for celebrities, politicians, and other people in the public eye. How many crooked lawyers like Davidson are running around scraping up unethical people to invent some kind of barely credible-sounding story defaming a famous person?
Presumably it’s easier for the celebrity to just pay for an NDA, rather than pay a public relations firm to litigate the scandal in the courts and the media, and risk real damage to their public persona. I could see advising someone to take that deal. But it must be extremely frustrating.
Now we can understand why Stormy Daniels only got $130,000 for her story and not a million. It was nuisance money.
The trial is not being broadcast, so all we have to go on is what is reported by people attending in the gallery. But from yesterday’s reports, it seems like the evidence is developing well for the former President. So far, Alvin Bragg only has a creative, novel legal theory about check stubs, a pornographic actress, a crooked tabloid publisher, and a pair of scheming, not-too-smart, extortionist lawyers.
I won’t even try to predict what the jury might do, but this is absolutely not a good look for a trial that is supposed to represent the pinnacle of legal ethics and a historic first presidential prosecution.​
Click to expand...
Your FIRST mistake is to believe that this administration has ANY ethical fortitude at ALL.
 
grizzzman said:
Your FIRST mistake is to believe that this administration has ANY ethical fortitude at ALL.
Click to expand...
This is the one I don't understand .... The post you replied to didn't have anything to do with "this administration" ..... so, I am left trying to figure out what you are referencing.

I DO agree with you, however, that this administration doesn't have ANY ethical fortitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bob B
Kennedy
Replies
5
Views
174
Bob B
Bob B
D71
Now Trump wants to defund the FBI and Justice Dept
2
Replies
20
Views
969
Nobodybusiness
Nobodybusiness
C
Hunter Biden's Laptop is Russian Disinformation.
2
Replies
27
Views
963
DioRox
DioRox
P
Preferred LiFePO4 Vendors as of 3/25/24?
Replies
8
Views
497
JJJJ
J
Bob B
Cultural Marxism
2
Replies
31
Views
638
Nobodybusiness
Nobodybusiness
Back
Top