Image of the day

Captured by
RICHARD COFER

Lunar Occultation of Jupiter (Egress)

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: James Brown

April 4, 2023 03:19 AM Forum: Politics

Jay Sekulow, US Constitutional legal scholar who has argued before the Supreme Court nearly 2 dozen times..

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis
In cases involving our Basic 1st amendment rights to free speech, now says we are living in a Banana Republic, reminiscent of countries like Venezuela.

Imagine that.  shocked

A real, honest, rule of law driven lawyer who has argued many, many times in front of the US Supreme Court, and not only argued but Won the majority of cases he represented.

Just read his statement below:  

Jay Sekulow:  


"The radical Left has turned America into a banana republic. The indictment and political prosecution of President Trump weaponizes the justice system – lawfare.

Rather than prosecuting rising violent crime, a rogue, Soros-backed prosecutor in New York City indicted President Trump.

I personally argued at the Supreme Court on behalf of President Trump that we can't allow 2,300 local prosecutors to harass a President for politically motivated reasons.

You expect despicable political prosecutions like this in third-world dictatorships, not America. We look like Venezuela here.

We must all stand for the Constitution and oppose this dangerous, two-tiered justice system.

At the ACLJ, we are dedicated to defending the Constitution and will raise any necessary constitutional issues as this case makes its way through the courts. 

Demand Congress investigate the abuse of power and that DAs prosecute violent criminals harming Americans. Stop the political prosecutions.

Sign Our NEW Petition: Stop the Political Prosecution of Trump.

Jay Sekulow
ACLJ Chief Counsel



Just remember folks, so many agenda driven "Lawyers" in this nation have thrown out and tossed into the waste can their ethics, their principles, and their legal character because their TDS filled minds guide them to ignore their obligation to speak out against those attempting to destroy the very foundation upon which this nation was built.  

You will see these "Lawyers" mostly on the left, because they have forgotten what it means to act on principle rather than their petty anger towards one man in this country.  

But you will also see others as well, claiming to support the Rule of Law and the Consititution of the USA. I surely don't buy it.  

Those who have ethical integrity will stand up and speak out.  Others will cower.

Jay Sekulow and others like him?  Stand up guys who are willing to speak out against tyranny.

Others who don't say a word and even stand with the tyrants?  Frauds who only talk the talk, they don't walk the walk.  

As Edmund Burke once wrote:  

"The only thing necessary for the Triump of Evil is for Good men to do nothing"

I think you might be confusing Jay with his kid Jordan, but it does not matter.    https://aclj.org/government-corruption/trump-indictment-soros-funded-da-chooses-political-prosecution-and-ignores-violent-criminals

I still can't figure out what your point in this thread or the other thread might be.   Do you deny that Trump is receiving due process?  Do you advocate for stripping grand juries of the right to indict?  I would really like to hear, in your own words, what the problem with this indictment might be?

The way I see it, is this:  If Bragg has no case he'll lose. The deck is stacked in the defendant's favor.  Trump's strategists should be and probably are rejoicing in the indictment.  This indictment and prosecution will make Trump stronger.  Unless he is convicted, maybe.  Is conviction what you are worried about?  I'm not sure even conviction will hurt Trump with his base.

Jim

April 4, 2023 04:21 AM Forum: Politics

Jay Sekulow, US Constitutional legal scholar who has argued before the Supreme Court nearly 2 dozen times..

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis
Just a reiteration of what Jay Sekulow stated in his letter (for those who need glasses and get confused with names)

Jay Sekulow wrote: 


"The radical Left has turned America into a banana republic. The indictment and political prosecution of President Trump weaponizes the justice system – lawfare.

Rather than prosecuting rising violent crime, a rogue, Soros-backed prosecutor in New York City indicted President Trump.

I personally argued at the Supreme Court on behalf of President Trump that we can't allow 2,300 local prosecutors to harass a President for politically motivated reasons.

You expect despicable political prosecutions like this in third-world dictatorships, not America. We look like Venezuela here.

We must all stand for the Constitution and oppose this dangerous, two-tiered justice system.

At the ACLJ, we are dedicated to defending the Constitution and will raise any necessary constitutional issues as this case makes its way through the courts.

Demand Congress investigate the abuse of power and that DAs prosecute violent criminals harming Americans. Stop the political prosecutions.

Sign Our NEW Petition: Stop the Political Prosecution of Trump.

Jay Sekulow
ACLJ Chief Counsel




Wow!  Jay Sekulow wrote those words.  I guess by calling the United States legal system a Banana Republic and since Jay Sekulow has pointed out above, that Alvin Bragg is a George Soros Backed Prosecutor, who has abused his power, that is an indication to some that he's a Trump Sycophant.  

In my estimation though, that just shows that he's not a coward, is quite willing to speak out against gov't tyranny, and is willing go against the tyranny of the left, unlike so many who choose to remain silent.

I think Edmund Burke would be proud of those like Jay Sekulow.  

Also, take note that Jay Sekulow made that commentary above, not his son Jordan.  Some people are very confused.

But no matter what this last week's revelation speaks to a sad day for the rule of law in this nation.  
Ok, what is your point?  In your own words?

April 4, 2023 05:11 AM Forum: Politics

Trump Indicted

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer


And therein lies the issue.....a biased and or corrupt prosecutor can present the GJ with whatever he likes whether it be provable or not. They can also use information taken out of context (and or misleading) and present it in a manner that doesnt hold water in the light of day. We already know this one is connected to Soros. So we agree that a prosecutor can get an indictment whether it will hold up or not if they really want one. I AM saying it is more likely than not that in this case the jury was manipulated. 

Were I a betting man I would bet $100 to a plug nickel the goal here was to get indictments and HOPE they can make something will stick. Come on....30+ charges? Pretty obviously the shotgun method.
This is a rational post.  I'll be more a lot more surprised than you will be, if it turns out the goal was simply to get a bunch of un-provable (or super unimportant) indictments by manipulating the GJ.  Obviously we don't know what the charges are, so who knows for sure... but:

I'll be more surprised than you for purely political reasons.  If this turns out like you think it will, and nothing significant sticks after a due and proper examination of the charges, Trump will be strengthened.  At the end of the day, if this does turn out to be just a political witch hunt, then Trump's enemies have made it far more likely that he is elected president in '24.  Are they that stupid or that strategically tone deaf?  Could be, but I doubt it.  I think Bragg knows the political risk and would not have obtained the indictment unless he thought he could get a major conviction and put Trump in jail.   The downside risk is too great.

Time will tell of course.

   

April 4, 2023 05:32 AM Forum: Politics

Trump Indicted

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll


setting up another true constitutional crisis. What happened if Trump is a felon and is still the GOP nominee? Of course DeSantis will allow him on the FL ballot, regardless of the law. How many other states will?
What law?  The Constitution does not bar felons from holding office.  Are there state laws in Florida or elsewhere that purport to bar felons from running for office?  Trump might lose the right to vote for himself, but that is about it.  I think 

If there are laws in play that would bar Trump from running for president on the ballot in any particular state, please let me know.

April 4, 2023 05:45 AM Forum: Politics

Trump Indicted

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer


And therein lies the issue.....a biased and or corrupt prosecutor can present the GJ with whatever he likes whether it be provable or not. They can also use information taken out of context (and or misleading) and present it in a manner that doesnt hold water in the light of day. We already know this one is connected to Soros. So we agree that a prosecutor can get an indictment whether it will hold up or not if they really want one. I AM saying it is more likely than not that in this case the jury was manipulated. 

Were I a betting man I would bet $100 to a plug nickel the goal here was to get indictments and HOPE they can make something will stick. Come on....30+ charges? Pretty obviously the shotgun method.
Most of the political unrest surrounding grand juries over the past decade or so is related to grand juries refusing to bring charges against police officers who kill someone in the line of duty.  The argument is that the prosecutors work closely with the police and are reluctant to indict them.  Here is one article:  https://abcnews.go.com/US/breonna-taylor-case-sparks-renewed-scrutiny-grand-juries/story?id=73438566

Some states have done away with grand juries, usually in favor of preliminary hearings in court.   The preliminary hearing focuses on probable cause and the defense can present evidence if they want to, or at least cross the prosecution witnesses.  

The secrecy of a grand jury has always bothered me, so I think alternative systems are worth looking into.  J

April 4, 2023 09:10 PM Forum: Politics

Trump Indicted

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey


If Bragg is connected to Soros, conservative prosecutors, and public servants are connected to Miriam (Sheldon) Adelson and other prolific conservative donors. The connections between Bragg and Soros are greatly exaggerated. It's another far-fetched conspiracy theory to distract us from the severe legal peril Trump faces. Only one person is responsible for Trump's current problems: himself.
Hi James:

Not sure when we will find out, but I am more skeptical than you of the legal peril being "severe."  We'll know soon enough.  

April 5, 2023 04:59 AM Forum: Politics

Trump Indicted

Posted By James Brown

The statement of facts is here:  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741595-read-trump-indictment-statement-of-facts-related-to-hush-money-payment

The indictment is here:  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741577-read-trump-indictment-related-to-hush-money-payment

The indictment is boring and repetitive.  The statement of facts seems to me to be thin soup.  Interestingly, Richard in his own charming way, has identified what will be the big issue.   The big issue sort of is, "what is the second crime?"  The big issue is more specifically, "Can any second crime Bragg intends to prove even be relied upon to support the felony version of the NY false business records statute?"  It is apparently a wide open novel issue under NY law whether an alleged federal crime (campaign finance laws or tax laws for instance, see below) are eligible to be the "second crime" under New York's business records statute.  The image below is from paragraph 2 of the Statement of Facts.

Here is a commentator from the uber-lefty Vox site who says, "Probably not."  https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg  Seems like well thought out analysis to me.  

Sorry Rod, this might just be shaping up to be my worst nightmare of an incompetent prosecutor ultimately strengthening Trump.  Jim

April 5, 2023 07:03 AM Forum: Politics

Trump Indicted

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

My read on this commentator's story is that he is trying to present different sides to this issue without deciding it for the reader. I think one HAS to read it that way without picking up a word or a phrase and then presenting this link as some sort of basis that the indictments are destined to fail. 
That said, I do think the charges should have been brought at the time by a federal prosecutor but that wouldn't have happened with Barr as AG.
Seriously, this is how you read my statement, ""Probably not." Seems like well thought out analysis to me." 

I've been thinking about it.  There are a lot of hurdles for this prosecutor, and I do think that more likely than not he loses on every felony count.  He has to convince a judge that the felony version of the NY business records law even covers federal tax fraud or federal campaign finance laws as the second crime.  Then he has to convince the NY court of appeals.  Then he has to convince the Supreme Court of the United States that this interpretation is not unfair to the accused (that last bit is from the Vox article).

Only after that does he get to try to prove that Trump authorized the business records fraud and that it was in furtherance of federal crimes that the feds chose not to prosecute.   The start witness is a disgraced lawyer.  Trump has hired a team of lawyers.  In my own opinion, I think the indictments are likely to fail.  Even though I think the Vox article was fair, the author too thinks this is a prosecution that is likely to fail.   At least the Vox headline writer sure thinks so.  Jim

p.s.  I supposed Bragg could be referencing state election laws and state tax laws.  I bet that is clarified tomorrow.

April 5, 2023 07:48 AM Forum: Politics

Trump Indicted

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Maybe I missed it but where in the Vox link does it say, "probably not"? And is that the author's conclusion about the success of the indictments or a particular facet of the case?
"Probably not" is my assessment of the gist of the article of course.  The word "dubious" in the headline is a good starting point.  Then the article goes on with things like, "And there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax. It is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him..."  "So there is a serious risk that a New York judge will toss out the charges against Trump on technical legal grounds unrelated to the former president’s actual conduct."  

And lots more.  I think my summary of "probably not" is reasonable.  My assessment was certainly nothing like: "The indictments are destined to fail."

Key point is that Bragg has to be successful on every facet of the case to convict.  He has to convince the trial and appeal courts that his interpretation of the felony business records statute even applies to Trump's behavior.  Then he has to prove his case factually, beyond a reasonable doubt.  I was expecting more in the indictments and statement of facts.

Aren't you a little disappointed?

April 5, 2023 10:05 PM Forum: Politics

Trump Indicted

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

That's not what you stated in post 115. Here's what you did state: "Here is a commentator from the uber-lefty Vox site who says, "Probably not." 
I'm disappointed in your misleading statement...
I'm curious.  You read the Vox article and you did not get the overall impression that the author believes Bragg will "probably not" win felony convictions...  I think "probably not win felony convictions" is a very fair summary of the article, starting with the title.  One does not use the word "dubious" without tipping their hand as to the author's underlying opinion.    Did anyone else read the article and form an opinion?  I get it that this is really pedantic stuff.