MONOKULTUR

Joe Biden fokuserer på ikke at vælte og ænser ikke de saluterende kadetter. Trump Force One vækker folks begejstring og Folk råber “I love you!” – Trump griber så langt ned i folkedybet, at han kommer forbi katten med de onde øjne. Derfor beskylder regimet ham, for deres egne forbrydelser, minder Jonathan Turley om

[I]t was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that lied about funding the Steele dossier and then hiding the funding as a legal expense through then Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias.

The Clinton campaign staff has never been known for transparency. Buried in the detailed account is a  footnote stating that Elias “declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.” Likewise, John Durham noted that “no one at Fusion GPS … would agree to voluntarily speak with the Office” while both the DNC and Clinton campaign invoked privileges to refuse to answer certain questions.

Elias, his former partner Michael Sussmann, and the campaign were later found involved in not just spreading the false claims from the Steele dossier but other false stories like the Alfa Bank conspiracy claim.

It was Elias who managed the legal budget for the campaign. We now know that the campaign hid the funding of the Steele dossier as a legal expense.

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

Elias was also seated next to John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, when he was asked about the role of the campaign, he denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Even assuming that Podesta was kept in the dark, the Durham Report clearly shows that Elias knew and played an active role in pushing this effort.

Elias is now ironically advising Democratic campaigns on election ethics and running a group to “defend democracy.” He is still counsel to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) headed by Rep. Suzan Kay DelBene, D-Wash. Elias was later severed by the Democratic National Committee from further representation and has been previously sanctioned in federal court in other litigation.

Notably, the Federal Election Commission sanctioned the Clinton campaign for hiding the funding as a legal expense. The Clinton campaign litigated the issue and insisted that the term is broadly used to cover a wide array of payments through counsel. That is precisely what the Trump team is arguing in the Manhattan case.

Lying to the media and hiding the funding was a conscious effort to hide “relevant information that may have influenced” voters. With the help of the media, these false stories were spread throughout the country and later were used to start the Russian collusion investigation.

Famous philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal once declared that “the only shame is to have none.” Hillary has finally achieved that ignoble status. She appears now to have lost even the capacity for shame.

Turley sammenligner i The Hill retssagen med et billede af den abstrakte kunstner Jackson Pollock – det er ikke meningen at man skal leve efter en mening. Først var der måske fire mulige forbrydelser, nu synes der at være tre, som juryen ikke behøver at være enige om. De bygger på noget, der måske ikke er noget, men hvis det var noget, er det forældet. Det eneste vidne som er relevant er dømt for mened i mange sammenhænge, hader tiltalte og tilstod i vidneskranken at have stjålet 60.000 dollars fra samme. Det eneste vidne, der kan be- eller afkræfte vidnets påstande, måtte ikke vidne for anklageren. Alle teorier om eventuelle ulovligheder begået af tiltalte hviler på tankelæsning af tiltaltes motiver.

As Pablo Picasso said, “there is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.” Bragg started with nothing and sold it as a legal abstraction. 

E Jean Carrolls søgsmål var muligt, fordi New York udvidede forældelsesfristen for sager om seksuelle overgreb. Derfor blev det også modtaget med en hvis moro, da en af lovgiverne bag dette politiske angreb på Trump, selv er blevet stævnet for et gammelt overgreb. Han forsvarer sig med, at den lov, som han selv har stemt for, er Forfatningsstridig. Byron York skriver om stemningen i New York

TRUMP TAKES THE BRONX. It would be an understatement to say that official New York — that is, Democratic officials in New York — was hostile to former President Donald Trump holding a campaign rally in the Bronx. They hated it. They really hated it.

When Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) was asked on CNN about Trump’s effort to appeal to Hispanic and black voters, two critical parts of the Democratic coalition, she replied: “I’ll tell you what won’t make a difference at all … and that’s for Donald Trump to be a ringleader and invite all his clowns to a place like the Bronx.” Hochul called the Trump event a “made-up, fake rally” in which Trump was “pretending there’s support here.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who represents a district near Crotona Park, where Trump held the rally Thursday evening, said, “He’s doing it in the South Bronx, not to make a point, but because he’s got court, and the man practically has the legal version of an ankle bracelet around him, and he can’t leave the five boroughs because he always has to be in court — and so it is truly an embarrassment to him.”

So the message of the Democratic establishment, by far the most dominant political force in New York, was: “We hate you. Stay out.” But the message of the thousands of New Yorkers who showed up for Trump’s rally was: “We love you. Come back.”

How many thousands? That’s always a question at Trump rallies. Trump says they are huge, and his detractors say he’s making it up. In fact, Trump rallies are almost always far bigger than anyone else’s, sometimes by multiples. In the Bronx, the New York Post reported, “The event was permitted to host up to 3,500 people, but thousands more gathered outside security checkpoints in the hope of catching a glimpse of the 45th president or a sample of his remarks.”

https://x.com/LivePDDave1/status/1794746139952005274

Why do finance records show that Democrat politicians like Kathy Hochul, Hakeem Jeffries, Adam Schiff, and Dan Goldman are sending millions of dollars to the Virginia home address of Loren Merchan, daughter of highly conflicted judge Juan Merchan, for supposed “digital consulting”?

As @LauraLoomer has reported, the enormous sums being sent to Loren’s home are far outside the norm for regular “digital consulting.” What’s going on? Is this some kind of pay-for-play scheme for rigged judicial rulings from Judge Merchan? 

This judge, who was just “randomly assigned” to Steve Bannon’s upcoming trial, has a history of handling high-profile cases involving President Trump’s associates. 

President Trump’s attorney Alina Habba says, “Judge Merchan has somehow, randomly selected, had Steve Bannon’s case, had Allen Weisselberg’s case … somehow, he randomly also gets Donald Trump. That’s not the way the system works. You assign a case randomly. But in the new America, under the Biden Regime, we are witnessing the politicization of all our judicial systems.”

Men et er, hvad alle kan se, noget andet er loven, som ikke er overtrådt, slår Jonathan Turley fast

The argument of critics is that the daughter is obviously within “the sixth degree of relationship” and would be “substantially affected” by a conviction with her Democratic donors. The problem with this argument is that any child involved in political activisim could be accused of being substantially affected by a conviction with political implications. The question is the limiting principle. Frankly, in another Trump related case (like the one involving the Trump corporation) I would not view the personal donations or the daughter’s major political role to be as problematic. It is this unique case and this historic moment that tips the balance for me.

The reason for my view in favor of recusal is three-fold.

First, Merchan is the trial judge, not one of nine justices in an appellate review. While the recusal standard is the same for trial and appellate judges (though Supreme Court justices are not technically subject to those rules), the context for a trial judge is different.  Merchan would make highly sensitive decisions in a trial where appeals are limited until after a possible conviction. He would then have to make immediate decisions on the admissibility of evidence or objections at trial.

Second, this is no ordinary trial as the first prosecution of a former American president. Recusal is a judgment call on not just actual conflicts but the appearance of a conflict. His daughter is a major Democratic operative and raised a large amount of money for people like Schiff who have targeted Trump. With many Americans viewing this case as politically motivated (as I do), Merchan seriously undermined the credibility of the process by refusing to step aside. The result was not just his family’s political interests being raised by critics, but a lead prosecutor who came directly from the Biden Justice Department and was once a paid DNC adviser.

Finally, with Trump, critics were calling for recusal in any Trump or election related case. This is a case that specifically seeks to put Trump in jail. There was a stronger case for recusal of Thomas in a case dealing with the compelled release of material that might have included his wife’s communications. The latter arguments were ridiculously overbroad in my view. This case seeks to jail Trump where the family connection is more concerning.

Alan Dershowitz trækker på sin lange erfaring, som nok er uden sidestykke, og fælder sin dom: “There has never, in my experience, been a weaker case than this one! Never!”

Det er svært at afgøre, hvilket argument, der er det mest absurde, for at dømme Trump. Fordi en serial løgner påstår han er skyldig? Hvis juryen finder ud af at et eller andet, selv om de ikke er enige om hvad, har han sikkert gjort? De fleste amerikanere tror at, Trump nok er skyldig i et eller andet, ifølge en CBS måling. Fordi han selv troede, at han gjorde noget ulovligt, selv om det var ganske lovligt? Eller at han, ved at tilbageholde en historie om et påstået besøg i høet, svindlede vælgerne ved således at forholde dem afgørende “viden”.

Apropos det at forholde vælgerne afgørende viden “The defendant’s laptop is real.”

With those words and pictures like this one of Biden using crack, the Justice Department introduced the Hunter Biden laptop as evidence in his upcoming trial over federal gun violations.  The federal prosecutors went on to denounce suggestions of Russian disinformation, long peddled by the Bidens, the media and former intelligence officials, as nothing more than a “conspiracy theory.”

The media eagerly spread the claim of Russian disinformation before the presidential election. Twitter and others suppressed the story. This was done through one of the most skillful disinformation campaigns in history.

It later came out that associates of the Biden campaign (including now Secretary of State Antony Blinken) pushed a long effort to get former intelligence officials to sign a letter making the claim, knowing that an ever-accommodating media would accept the claim without question or further inquiry.

Turley “still believe that a hung jury might even be the most likely possibility” og Trumps folkelige demonstration i Bronx vil være med til, at give tvivlende jurymedlemmer indre styrke og tro på at de ikke er alene. Demokraterne, hvis  vil selvfølgelig gerne give illegale migranter stemmeret.