Friday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, March 31. 2023

Diversity Training Disaster

Pols, teachers unions aim to scrap tests to hide huge learning loss

TGIF: Showdown Edition - DeSantis vs. Disney. Scotland vs. the UK. The IRS vs. Matt Taibbi. Plus: Gwyneth vs. an Optometrist.

Joe Biden: ‘Transgender Americans Shape our Nation’s Soul’

"WTF Is Wrong With You": Columbia Center & Law Students Protest Meeting With Justice Kavanaugh

How the tech elites lost touch with reality - Joel Kotkin on the growing rift between Silicon Valley and the masses.

Unprecedented: Former President Donald J. Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury

Democracy in America on life support as President Trump is indicted

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:30 | Comments (57) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Obviously, standardized testing is a poor way to assess learning since it highlights what students [i[don't[/i] know rather than what they do know. A fairer test would answer such questions as do the kids know how to tie their shoes? Can they eat with a fork without poking their eyes out? Can they tell the difference between a truck and a banana? Do they know that pants are not generally worn on the head? I think most 12th graders could pass this sort of test. Well, maybe not most of them, but a lot of them. Some of them.

#1 Jerryskids on 2023-03-31 08:56 (Reply)

There are times when it can be more valuable to find out what the kids DON'T know than what they do. Our offsprings were all in a private school which did have standardized teaching for Grades 3 - 6. I heard from a teacher that they all took a hard look at the results for their students to see if they (the teachers) weren't teaching something properly or had missed a concept. But then, that's what real teachers do; take a hard look at tests and see where the teaching needs improvement.

#1.1 Frances on 2023-03-31 22:10 (Reply)

>Unprecedented: Former President Donald J. Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury

The worse part isn't that he's a "former President," it's that he's the "leading opposition party candidate." That's some serious bannana republic stuff.

#2 OldCurmudgeon on 2023-03-31 09:12 (Reply)

Democracy in America on life support as President Trump is indicted

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/03/democracy_in_america_on_life_support_as_president_trump_is_indicted.html

#2.1 feeblemind on 2023-03-31 10:28 (Reply)

And that is an important point. Trump could win in 2024 and that terrifies the swamp creatures. They needed to fabricate or flip 25 million votes in 2020 to elect the zombie but they had a perfect cover with covid and lockdowns to allow them to do it. They could and will still cheat but they couldn't cheat by 25 million votes again without getting caught. They need Trump off the ticket and this is their game of thrones play to do it. If this indictment fails there will be another and another.

#2.2 OneGuy on 2023-03-31 10:30 (Reply)

OldCurmudgeon: That's some serious bannana republic stuff.

There's a process for that. It's just an indictment. It's not a conviction or sentencing. We don't even know the exact charges or the evidence. There will be hearings to determine whether there is probable cause or other problems with the indictment, so it may not even make it to trial. If it does go to trial, there are numerous safeguards to protect the rights of the accused. If convicted, Trump can appeal to a higher court. It's not a perfect system, but hardly the stuff of a "banana republic."

Nor is it as if Trump is without resources to mount an effective defense. Gee whiz. He even picked three of the nine justices on the Supreme Court. as well as a slew of appellate judges.

#2.3 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 10:38 (Reply)

The average person on the street does not know the difference.
It's all about the optics. If he is indicted he must be guilty. If they can drag him through the mud enough it accomplishes the objective. The truly sad thing is this all we are going to see from now on from both sides.

#2.3.1 Don (Link) on 2023-03-31 10:56 (Reply)

Don: The average person on the street does not know the difference.

If you envision a world where a prosecutor can't bring charges against someone because of their power and position, then that undermines the entire notion of justice.

If the indictment is tossed due to lack of probable cause, then people will take that into account. If there is probable cause to sustain the indictment, then that is something people can and should consider when hiring a president. Regardless, Trump would retain the presumption of innocence with regards to criminal liability.

#2.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 11:04 (Reply)

Just stop. Again, you sound like a foolish child.

Nobody thinks you actually believe that any other citizen would have been treated like Trump or that this represents equal standing before the law.

Bragg campaigned saying that he would investigate Trump until he found something to get him on--that turns hundreds of years of common law and US jurisprudence on it head and you know it.

You're happy about it. Why can't you just admit it? Why the pose? You're not fooling anyone.

#2.3.1.1.1 SK on 2023-03-31 11:14 (Reply)

SK: Nobody thinks you actually believe that any other citizen would have been treated like Trump or that this represents equal standing before the law.

That's right. Trump has been afforded far more rights and privileges than an ordinary citizen. Compare to just about anyone else caught up in the justice system.

Ὀψὲ θεῶν ἀλέουσι μύλοι, ἀλέουσι δὲ λεπτά

#2.3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 11:20 (Reply)

You need new material, little one. Stop deflecting and trying to make the discussion about something it isn't. This isn't about his ability to fight the charges--it's about the fact that he was pursued in this way in the first place when other instances have been handled as civil matters.

The Clinton campaign laundered money--over 1 million $-- thru Perkins Coie to Fusion to Steele to Russian intelligence to FBI to falsified FISA app--she claimed it as lawyer's fees. FEC said it was a mischaracterization and amounted to campaign expenditures and fined her campaign 8K and the DNC 100K. No criminal investigation, no charges, she's still on the lecture circuit.

At the time YOU, Zachie poo yourself, called it a mistake by the campaign, simply a technicality.

As I said before, you have zero credibility because of your utter lack of integrity.

#2.3.1.1.1.1.1 SK on 2023-04-01 08:16 (Reply)

SK: No criminal investigation, no charges, she's still on the lecture circuit.

There was no criminal investigation because it was an alleged violation of FEC reporting rules, which is a civil violation. It doesn't become criminal because you don't understand the law.

#2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-04-01 09:45 (Reply)

Correct. It was handled the same way these things always are and the way the Trump issue would have been handled if he weren't who he is--as a civil matter.

Just go ahead and say it--the law should treat differently those whose ideology doesn't mesh with yours. Many around here won't agree with you, but we'll have a bit of respect that you at lest possess a degree of integrity and honesty.

#2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 SK on 2023-04-01 11:05 (Reply)

SK: It was handled the same way these things always are and the way the Trump issue would have been handled if he weren't who he is--as a civil matter.

They are different laws, different facts, and even different jurisdictions. We don't know the charges or evidence that the grand jury used to indict. However, purposefully using corporate funds and misreporting on tax reports to hide the transaction, as purportedly done, is a criminal offense in New York.

#2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-04-01 11:36 (Reply)

I do believe that justice should be blind, I don't believe it is blind all the time, and definitely do not believe it is blind in this case. Time will tell.

#2.3.1.1.2 Don (Link) on 2023-03-31 11:18 (Reply)

Don: I do believe that justice should be blind, I don't believe it is blind all the time, and definitely do not believe it is blind in this case.

As noted, Trump has far more advantages than the average citizen caught up in the justice system.

Don: Time will tell.

As also noted, it's just an indictment. We don't even know the exact charges or the evidence.

#2.3.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 11:24 (Reply)

Ahh, but we all know how this plays in Peoria. I'm not holding my breath until the other side gets indicted. Should be interesting when Biden is out of office.

#2.3.1.1.2.1.1 Don (Link) on 2023-03-31 11:31 (Reply)

Don: I'm not holding my breath until the other side gets indicted. Should be interesting when Biden is out of office.

If Biden broke the law, he should be held to account. If he skirted the law, it should be made public. So far, the evidence does not support criminal charges, but his son may have criminal liability on a number of issues.

#2.3.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 11:44 (Reply)

"The truly sad thing is this all we are going to see from now on from both sides."

You'll never see this from the right. There are several reasons for that, but the main one is that the right doesn't have the propaganda machine of corporate media, big tech, the academic class, as well as a huge swath of DOJ, State Dept, etc.

Look what the elite power structure got away with in the last two presidential elections--literally working with Russian spies and partisan FBI agents to interfere in an election and open up investigations on a presidential candidate. Just a few days ago a journalist was testifying before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government--that very day his home was "visited" by an IRS agent. He--Matt Taibbi--has been the subject of constant attack by members of corp media for daring to expose the collusion of govt types and big tech and media to suppress information.

The right doesn't have that sort of cover being run for them.

This is and will remain one sided.

#2.3.1.2 SK on 2023-03-31 11:29 (Reply)

SK: You'll never see this from the right.

"Lock her up!"

#2.3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 11:34 (Reply)

Seriously? A campaign slogan? I must have missed her indictment.

#2.3.1.2.1.1 Lord Heathen on 2023-03-31 15:47 (Reply)

Lord Heathen: A campaign slogan? I must have missed her indictment.

Trump was a presidential candidate threatening to use the power of the office to lock up his political opponent.

#2.3.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 20:54 (Reply)

Amazingly, you're even more un-self aware and fatuous than Trump at his worst.

#2.3.1.2.1.2 SK on 2023-04-01 08:31 (Reply)

For comparison, a Cheyenne and Arapaho woman, Patricia Spottedcrow, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for selling $31 worth of marijuana. It was her first offense. She did not have money to mount the type of defense that is the norm for the rich and well-connected; nor did she have the opportunity to appoint three of the Supreme Court justices or a slew of appellate court judges that might oversee her case. Her situation is far more common than that of Trump.

After her release, Spottedcrow was rearrested because she couldn't afford to pay her fines.

#2.3.2 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 10:56 (Reply)

Stop deflecting. You know full well what curmudgeon means. You sound like a child.

And everyone here knows you know precisely how ridiculous all this is--everyone also knows you approve of this sort of abuse because it supports your ideology.

It's a damned sad day for the country. Mostly thanks to gullible twits like you, blinded by anger, hate, bigotry, and rage. Like your buddy Comey who just tweeted about how happy he is. He's good company for the likes of you--a former FBI director who was the subject of a criminal referral by the DOJ IG--and was never charged.

Shouldn't you be out curing cancer or proving covid didn't come from a lab?

#2.3.3 SK on 2023-03-31 11:05 (Reply)

SK: You know full well what curmudgeon means.

Indeed, we do know what OldCurmudgeon means, but we disagree. OldCurmudgeon claimed that the indictment is "banana republic stuff." But that's not a valid characterization for the reasons given. Trump will have the full panoply of rights and defenses available to any (well-connected and rich) American. The prosecutor will have to show probable cause and sustain legal objections to the indictment, or it will be tossed. How did you think it worked?

#2.3.3.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 11:15 (Reply)

"Trump will have the full panoply of rights and defenses available to any (well-connected and rich) American."

That is the definition of "lawfare" Drag the through a long and public legal process that destroys their reputation and depletes their wealth. You don't need a conviction and jail; the process is the punishment.

#2.3.3.1.1 OneGuy on 2023-03-31 11:19 (Reply)

Z: Trump will have the full panoply of rights and defenses available to any (well-connected and rich) American.

OneGuy: That is the definition of "lawfare" Drag the through a long and public legal process that destroys their reputation and depletes their wealth.

Huh? That's the definition of plutocracy.

#2.3.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 11:22 (Reply)

The point, you pompous ass, and you well know it, is that the charges should never have been brought in the first place, and would not have been in any other instance or against any other person.

Again, stop deflecting and stop lying.

You're happy that Bragg is using what's come to be known as "lawfare" to rid us of this turbulent priest. You just don't have the integrity to say it.

#2.3.3.1.2 SK on 2023-03-31 11:33 (Reply)

SK: you well know it, is that the charges should never have been brought in the first place

We don't know that. We haven't even seen the indictments or the evidence.

SK: and would not have been in any other instance or against any other person.

The rich and well-connected rarely get charged for criminal behavior, even when the facts are well-established.

SK: You're happy that Bragg is using what's come to be known as "lawfare" to rid us of this turbulent priest.

If Bragg is acting in bad faith, he should be sanctioned by the court and legal profession. However, a grand jury reviewed the evidence and found probable cause.

#2.3.3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 11:39 (Reply)

The grand jury only reviewed the evidence that Bragg submitted to the grand jury. That is lawfare and has been used by Weissman to find Sen Stevens of Alaska guilty and Arthur Anderson Co guilty because Weissman withheld evidence exonerating Stevens and Arthur Anderson. Both were found not guilty later but lawfare promoters simply don't care. They are search and destroy thugs. Nothing was done to Weissman and sure enough, he shows up as the actual operator of the Mueller scandal. Another lawfare operation.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-03-31 12:29 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The grand jury only reviewed the evidence that Bragg submitted to the grand jury.

That's how it works.

indyjonesouthere: That is lawfare

No. That's how it works. The grand jury investigates. If they find probable cause, they can indict. That's only the first step in the process, though. Then the prosecutor, if he decides to proceed, must show probable cause before the court. Only then does the trial process occur.

It's always weird when people on America's political right, with a prison system filled with millions of mostly poor and minority people, suddenly discover how the legal process works. Oh, when will rich, well-connected white people ever catch a break?!

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 13:01 (Reply)

That is lawfare. It is a specialty of the democrat party. The two biggest practitioners are Weissman and Elias. They always start with the grand jury and always attempt to keep evidence from those charged when it hits the regular courts. And the evidence I have shown about Weissman is that they are never punished for withholding evidence. In the Whitey Bolger case, even Mueller knew that four men were being held in prison on false testimony but he did nothing to set them free. Two died in prison. This is typical behavior for lawfare organizations and institutions. Even Weissman and his cohorts in the Mueller investigation erased their phone data by inputting the wrong password until all data was erased. Those phones were requested for investigation by the Barr team. Bragg is not calling the play on the indictment ... that play is being called by the coach.
I suspect this will go poorly for Bragg. Now numerous people are calling for state AG's to begin indicting Bidens family, Soros, and even Hillary Clinton. And why not Garland himself, he refuses to have the Marshalls service charge the SCOTUS protesters. Everyone can play the lawfare game.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-03-31 13:45 (Reply)

Do you always have to confirm that you are a race retard?

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-03-31 13:47 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: That is lawfare.

Repeating your claim without addressing the response is not an argument. Your claim was that the prosecutor only providing to a grand jury evidence of guilt but not providing exculpatory evidence is "lawfare." That is false. The grand jury process has been a part of common law for centuries, and represents a check on prosecutorial power. Instead of a prosecutor bringing charges, the matter is brought to the grand jury to view the evidence for probable cause in secret. That's how the grand jury system works. That's how the grand jury system has always worked. (Not all jurisdictions use the grand jury system. The prosecutor makes the decision on their own. In either case, there is a court hearing to determine if the probable cause standard has been met.)

indyjonesouthere: Do you always have to confirm . . .

Notably, you didn't address the claim. For instance, jail conditions have been poor in DC for decades, but the political right were never concerned for the poor and minority people held in those conditions. But when J6 defendants, mostly white and mostly middle class, were held in better conditions than most other prisoners in DC, there were an outcry on the political right.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 14:02 (Reply)

D.C. is run by blacks from top to bottom. Wasn't Pelosi just the most recent democrat that could have improved those conditions? Where is Biden? But lost in the ether.

Bragg could easily have entered exculpatory evidence. He chose to make headlines by having the same old rewind judge release the indictment. This is for theatrical purposes.

Now I really want to see state AG's go after the Biden family and after Garland.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-03-31 14:37 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: D.C. is run by blacks from top to bottom.

No. The top of the DC government is Congress, which wields veto power. Nor did you address the point about racial disparities in the reaction of the political right.

indyjonesouthere: Bragg could easily have entered exculpatory evidence.

Trump sent a witness, who testified before the grand jury. But that's immaterial to your claim about grand juries and lawfare.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 14:43 (Reply)

Pelosi and Shumer jointly held the reins of Congress for the previous two years. So why are the Democratic/progressive racists not doing something about the jail conditions? Are they racists? Can you show Pelosi/Schumer legislation that would have addressed DC jail conditions and also which Congress critters voted it down.
I want to see this grand jury testify before the House of Reps even if it requires a Subpoena. Let's keep up the lawfare for all. Who picked the jurors and who picked the witnesses?

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-03-31 14:55 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Pelosi and Shumer jointly held the reins of Congress for the previous two years.

That's also immaterial to your claim about grand juries and lawfare.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 20:57 (Reply)

It sure replies to your racial disparities from the right and you blaming Congress for the DC jail condition. You and the democrat/progs are the actual racists. You all talk a good game but it is always talk. Pelosi and Schumer could have dealt with the jail problem but didn't do a damn thing and you are back to avoiding and deflecting.
Bragg always had a choice on allowing all evidence be presented to the grand jury. He didn't. When he gets blowback he will holler racism all over the media. He isn't calling the shots anymore than Biden is calling shots. They simply follow orders.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-03-31 22:21 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: It sure replies to your racial disparities from the right and you blaming Congress for the DC jail condition.

We didn't blame Congress. We corrected your claim that DC was "run by blacks from top to bottom." DC has only limited home rule.

indyjonesouthere: Bragg always had a choice on allowing all evidence be presented to the grand jury. He didn't.

We don't know what prosecutors provided to the grand jury, nor is the grand jury where a defense to charges is raised. You had claimed "The grand jury only reviewed the evidence that Bragg submitted to the grand jury." That is true. You then concluded "That is lawfare," which is false. Grand juries work in secret based on evidence and witnesses that the prosecutors submit. They act as a check on prosecutorial power.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-04-01 09:40 (Reply)

Bragg and the grand jury are simply more lawfare practiced against Trump which the democrats fear. None of their lawfare turns up illegalities but the purpose is to occupy Trumps time and money and keep him from going after their illegal spying regime. It also deflects the Biden family crimes, failure to try SCOTUS protestors, the Covid lockdown scam, the Ukraine money laundering scheme, continued banker bailouts, and the tranny and pervert killers.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-04-01 13:37 (Reply)

Grand juries are NOT a check on prosecutorial misconduct. They are used to conduct prosecutorial misconduct. As most any prosecutor would admit that they control all the elements of establishing a grand jury and as many have admitted that they could indict a ham sandwich. It seems they also plan to indict the cheese that was added to the sandwich by picking the judge as well.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-04-01 13:44 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Grand juries are NOT a check on prosecutorial misconduct.

There are two systems: one where a grand jury of citizens conducts an investigation in secret, then vote on any indictments; and the other where a prosecutor investigates in secret and decides on indictments independently. In either case, the allegations go before a court to show probable cause before a trial is set.

indyjonesouthere: As most any prosecutor would admit that they control all the elements of establishing a grand jury

Grand jurors are randomly selected to represent a fair cross section of the community, much like trial jurors.

Grand juries not only review the information provided by the prosecutor, but can also ask for additional witnesses. The prosecutor may not remain in the room while the grand jury deliberates. It's far from a perfect system—nothing humankind does is perfect—but having to convince a grand jury helps to discipline the prosecutor more than simply allowing the prosecutor to make all such decisions by themselves.

#2.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2023-04-01 15:12 (Reply)

Judge signs off on DA request to publicly disclose Trump indictment that was returned, records show

#2.4 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 13:35 (Reply)

Anti-gun protesters storm Tennessee state Capitol, attempt to shove past troopers — media claims, 'This was a peaceful protest'

QUOTE:

Twitter users slammed Gibbs and the corporate media for favorably reporting Thursday's Tennessee rally as a "peaceful protest" after the same left-leaning outlets labeled the January 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol an "insurrection."

One user replied to Gibbs, "People spent two years in solitary confinement for less than that."

https://www.theblaze.com/news/anti-gun-protesters-storm-tennessee-state-capitol-attempt-to-shove-past-troopers-media-claims-this-was-a-peaceful-protest?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

#3 feeblemind on 2023-03-31 10:31 (Reply)

feeblemind: Anti-gun protesters storm Tennessee state Capitol, attempt to shove past troopers

If it can be proved that someone assaulted police officers, they should be charged under Tennessee law. (J6 rioters were charged under federal law.)

#3.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 10:42 (Reply)

If Trump is indicted for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels, the list of all Democrat congressmen and senators who had sexual harassment charges settled with taxpayer funds should be released.

#4 mudbug on 2023-03-31 11:20 (Reply)

mudbug: the list of all Democrat congressmen and senators who had sexual harassment charges settled with taxpayer funds should be released.

Settlements have been made concerning both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Most of the settlements are subject to non-disclosure agreements, and the members involved typically deny the accusations. There are probably many other claims that are settled through severance pay out of local offices that are not reported as such.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 11:57 (Reply)

Z: Settlements have been made concerning both Democratic and Republican members of Congress...

Let the Democrats out the Republicans. It will just further prove what a farce an indictment about "hush money" really is. It should also be pointed out that Democrat John Edwards was charged for the same thing and that didn't work.

Z: Most of the settlements are subject to non-disclosure agreements, and the members involved typically deny the accusations.

And how is that different from the "hush money" case against Trump? Except for the fact that those cases were paid with taxpayer money.

Z: There are probably many other claims that are settled through severance pay out of local offices that are not reported as such.

Those Democrats should be disclosed too. And then there are the ones like the president who when he was a senator (with the complicity of the media) crushed the staffer who complained of being sexually assaulted.

I'll add that the slush fund used to settle those complaints should be deleted from the next and all following budgets.

#4.1.1 mudbug on 2023-03-31 12:35 (Reply)

mudbug: Let the Democrats out the Republicans.

Non-disclosure agreements and lack of due process tend to make such disclosures less likely. Neither party has an interest in outing the other, as it will also out their own members.

mudbug: And how is that different from the "hush money" case against Trump?

There's no way to know without the actual charges being disclosed. The settlements in Congress were for claimed damages and were allowed by law, Congress being the employer. A new law requires members to pay out of pocket in most cases.

Based on public information, Trump misstated the purpose of the payments he made, including payments from corporate accounts, even though the matter was personal.

#4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 13:10 (Reply)

Z: Non-disclosure agreements and lack of due process tend to make such disclosures less likely. Neither party has an interest in outing the other, as it will also out their own members.

In my recommendation, the two parties of the NDA are not the ones exposing the situation. For example: Democrat Senator Dullard is accused of rape by one of his staffers. Republican Congressman Hero leaks the fact that the staffer was paid to keep quiet.

Z: There's no way to know without the actual charges being disclosed. The settlements in Congress were for claimed damages and were allowed by law,

That's right, so lets find out what the actual charges were. It's quite likely that they were at least embarrassing otherwise, why try to cover it up?

Z: Based on public information, Trump misstated the purpose of the payments he made, including payments from corporate accounts, even though the matter was personal.

You'll have to help me out here. What was purpose for the payments he made?

#5 mudbug on 2023-03-31 13:40 (Reply)

mudbug: That's right, so lets find out what the actual charges were.

The non-disclosure agreements and lack of due process mean that going back is probably not going to be fruitful. The purported victims may not want to dredge things up for your gratification. Looking forward, the law is more straightforward.

mudbug: What was purpose for the payments he made?

Again, we don't have all the evidence. But from what has been publicly reported, it was for campaign purposes, which would make the payments an illegal contribution by Trump Org that was hidden by funneling the money through Michael Cohen. Keep in mind that Michael Cohen went to jail for acting at the behest of Individual 1. If Trump made the payments, they probably would have been legal, as there were no limits on his contributions to his own campaign. But Trump would chisel a nickel.

#5.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 13:49 (Reply)

Quibble-DickZ: Again we don’t have all the evidence.

Ahem. Same as with Russia collusion, Ukraine, etc. Anything involving Trump.
Y'all make it up as you go along, or better yet y'all lie.

#5.1.1 Zachinoff on 2023-03-31 15:52 (Reply)

Z: The non-disclosure agreements and lack of due process mean that going back is probably not going to be fruitful. The purported victims may not want to dredge things up for your gratification. Looking forward, the law is more straightforward.

That assumes there was no record keeping about where taxpayer money was paid in these cases. With congress as corrupt as it is, that may be the case but I expect there is a record somewhere that tells how much was paid to cover up whose allegation.

Z: ...But from what has been publicly reported, it was for campaign purposes...

That's what I thought you were going to say. That is totally bogus and you should know it. As I mentioned earlier, the same allegation was made about John Edwards and the decision was that his payments could just as easily been made to save his him and his wife from embarrassment rather than a campaign expenditure. If that's what Bragg is going to argue, he should be disbarred for using the justice system for a political hit. He might also be subject to being disbarred if he puts Cohen on the stand. As Alan Dershowitz says, “If he uses Cohen as a witness, he could actually lose his bar license. It’s unethical to put a witness on the stand who you know is lying and he has to know that Cohen will be lying.” (https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/03/27/legal-expert-alan-dershowitz-says-bragg-could-be-disbarred-if-dares-to-put-star-witness-on-the-stand-1344469/)

#6 mudbug on 2023-03-31 15:40 (Reply)

mudbug: That assumes there was no record keeping about where taxpayer money was paid in these cases.

There was undoubtedly record keeping, but there are contracts involved that presumably preclude disclosure.

mudbug: As I mentioned earlier, the same allegation was made about John Edwards and the decision was that his payments could just as easily been made to save his him and his wife from embarrassment rather than a campaign expenditure.

That argument was made at court, but rejected by the jury because the payments were not shown to be closely tied to the campaign, while Trump's payments were days before the election. And the payments were made by his business and misreported. It is certainly an argument the Trump defense may make, though. Of course, we don't know what other evidence the prosecutors may have. We don't even know the actual charges.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2023-03-31 20:52 (Reply)

You can tell the president wants to end this misery

#7 Corn pop on 2023-04-01 08:04 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, March 31. 2023

Friday morning links