Posted on 04/26/2024 10:48:31 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
Isn't that the same campaign violation that Pecker was investigated for?
-PJ
Bingo. Colangelo and Bragg keep asking for bigger shovels. None of this has anything to do with the underlying crime — supposedly, falsified business records.
This is the ultimate Groundhog Day trial. Yawn.
On the same line, did not the Los Angeles Times acquire a video of Obama that would hurt his presidential prospects and then bury it?
You might be thinking of Andrew Breitbart's speech at the 2012 CPAC.
Breitbart said:
I have videos, this election we’re going to vet him. We are going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008. The videos are going to come out, the narrative is going to come out, that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver ponytails in the 1980s, like Bill (Ayers) and Bernadine (Dohrn), who said one day we would have the presidency...
Less than four weeks later, Andrew Breitbart was dead.
-PJ
Anybody gotta link?
Neither cams or mics are allowed in the courtroom.
did not the Los Angeles Times acquire a video of Obama that would hurt his presidential prospects and then bury it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wasn’t it a dinner attended by/honoring Faisal Kahn? 0bie gave a speech...
Something like that?
But, yes, I do recall LA Slimes burying the vid/story.
The left stops at nothing to get their way
No surprise. The Left always operates their deceptions and lies in secret.
I was perusing some old posts of mine when I came across this one from 2012:
I should add: Seth Rich is killed before he could be questioned about the DNC emails leaked to Wikileaks.
No one wants to be, what it is appearing more and more, the next victim of a criminal administration.This is a pattern with threats to the Left. I can't recall a similar history against the Right.
Ruby killed Oswald before he could testify about assassinating JFK.
Ron Brown dies before he testifies before Congress.
Vince Foster dies before he can resign and leave Washington.
Carlos Ghigliotti, FLIR expert, dies of a heart attack before testifying about the Waco massacre.
Lt. Quarles Harris Jr. is shot before testifying about improperly accessing Obama's passport records.
Breitbart dies suddenly after threatening to expose Obama.
Now the LA coroner lab technician dies before the final report on Breitbart comes out.
Hmmmm...
-PJ
I wonder how many of the people on the Arkancide list are there because of their intent to testify.
I won’t start celebrating yet. SCOTUS scares me to no end.
It’s right there in the indictment. Thirty-four counts of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, in the County of New York and elsewhere, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.
(The other crime the defendent intended to commit and conceal will be revealed at a later date.)
But seriously folks -
After reading and viewing commentary on how confusing and unclear the charges are, I took a look at what the pundits at CNN and PMSNBC were saying. They are as bufeddled as everyone else on what Marchant and Bragg are trying to do.
Oh, I see. Expired misdemeanors — but there’s this other secret “crime,” you see! Makes perfect sense.
I meant befuddled, not befeddled. Even Maddow and her ilk can’t make sense out of it.
I have been struggling to make sense out of what the ‘get Trump’ crowd is trying to do. Then it occurred to me. They are not interested in following the rule of law. They want to use the law to obtain their desired end. In this case, it means getting a conviction on Trump before the election, even if it means abusing the rule of law.
I believe that the underlying crime will not be identified. Rather, the prosecutors are repeatedly stating that there was a conspiracy to commit election fraud. This is being done to convince the prosecution-friendly jury that there is no doubt that Trump et al conspired to commit election fraud.
When it goes to jury, Merchan will instruct the jurors to determine whether they believe that the evidence presented by the prosecutors demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed election fraud. It doesn’t matter that no specific charge was presented. It doesn’t matter that Trump was never indicted, brought to trial, or convicted for election fraud. If the jury believes that Trump committed election fraud, they can use it as the underlying crime to bring about a felony charge.
Great point. I remember when that happened.
I have been struggling to make sense out of what the ‘get Trump’ crowd is trying to do. Then it occurred to me. They are not interested in following the rule of law. They want to use the law to obtain their desired end. In this case, it means getting a conviction on Trump before the election, even if it means abusing the rule of law.
I believe that the underlying crime will not be identified. Rather, the prosecutors are repeatedly stating that there was a conspiracy to commit election fraud. This is being done to convince the prosecution-friendly jury that there is no doubt that Trump et al conspired to commit election fraud.
When it goes to jury, Merchan will instruct the jurors to determine whether they believe that the evidence presented by the prosecutors demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed election fraud. It doesn’t matter that no specific charge was presented. It doesn’t matter that Trump was never indicted, brought to trial, or convicted for election fraud. If the jury presumes that it is true that Trump committed election fraud, they can use it as the underlying crime to bring about a felony charge.
Do you think it’s possible that they will try to do this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.