Quick Hits

Trump: The country will deliver the "real verdict" on November 5th.

The Bee seems to think that the actual crime Trump committed was just being Donald Trump.

They're right:

The Bee finds there were nine pieces of damning evidence brought forth by the Soros prosecutor:

1. Trump said he's innocent: Exactly the sort of thing a guilty person would say.

2. Before the trial, the prosecution's star witnesses both said Trump was innocent: It doesn't get any more cut and dry.

3. The judge decided Trump was guilty before the trial even began: It was that obvious.

4. No one in America has ever been charged with a felony for this crime before: Trump is so guilty they had to make up new laws. Case closed.

9. He's not a Democrat: Clearly belongs behind bars. That's just how law works.

CNN's legal analyst wonders if it's quite fair or even constitutional to allow jurors to Choose Their Own Adventure and convict a man without ever agreeing on what he's being convicted of.

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig asserted on Tuesday that there are reasonable questions about the fairness of Judge Juan Merchan enabling jurors to choose between three crimes to convict former President Donald Trump without being in unanimous agreement.

Merchan instructed the jury Wednesday that they do not need to agree on the "unlawful" means Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges the former president used to influence the 2016 election. Honig said that the instruction is likely permissible, but that it is justified to question its fairness.

"There's three menu items: federal campaign finance violations, tax violations and then falsification of other business records," Honig said. "And what's become a little bit controversial is the judge said, you can choose any of those three options. You don't have to be unanimous as to which one. That's caused some controversy. It's probably allowable under New York law because all they have to show is an intent to commit some other crime, but there are fair questions about whether that's a fair way to charge it."

Liberals like Jake Tapper keep insisting that it's "not true" that they can pick their own underlying crime. Um, yes it is, Fake Jake.

Tapper is really arguing, as all of these liberals are arguing, that as long as they find he acted "unlawfully," they can each Choose Their Own Adventure as to exactly what was "unlawful" about his conduct.

CNN host Jake Tapper said the characterization of Merchan not requiring unanimity from the jurors is "kind of true, kind of not true," while network legal analyst Elliot Williams said it is "kind of grossly misleading."

...

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy McCarthy said on Wednesday the jury instruction by Merchan is an aberration.

"This is anything but standard. It's the antithesis of standard," McCarthy said. "The idea that they do not have to agree on what the other crime is. We spent six weeks wondering what is the other crime and at the end the thud we all get hit with, there's three or four of 'em and you could pick one or the other and they don't have to agree on it."

Trump has strong grounds for appeal:

Greg Price @greg_price11

Just a quick recap of the Juan Merchan/Alvin Bragg show trial in NYC:

- The Soros funded DA elevated a misdemeanor to a felony despite lowering 60% of all felonies for actual criminals in his jurisdiction

- The lead prosecutor resigned his position as the 3rd highest ranking member of Biden's DOJ to join Alvin Bragg's team going after Trump.

- The judge donated to Joe Biden and has a daughter who raised millions of dollars for Democrats off the Trump prosecutions

- The other lead prosecutor also donated to Joe Biden

- The lead witness that the whole case relies on is a convicted perjurer and serial liar who admitted during the trial to stealing money from the Trump organization

- The judge put a gag order on Donald Trump for pointing out the political conflicts of interest of the people prosecuting him

- The "crime" relies on the idea that Trump paid off Stormy Daniels to conceal another crime, which is not mentioned in the indictment.

- The judge barred Trump's defense from explaining to jury that no campaign finance violation occurred but allowed prosecutors to assert as fact in their closing that there was.

- The judge cleared out the court room when Michael Cohen's former attorney was exonerating Trump but allowed the prosecution to bring in Stormy Daniels to talk about whether or not Trump used a condom.

- The judge barred a former FEC commissioner from testifying that Donald Trump did nothing wrong.

- The judge is allowing the jury to not have to reach a unanimous verdict on the underlying, unnamed crime Trump committed.

I have a prediction: The judge will attempt to appoint himself Trump's Personal Censor at sentencing, telling Trump he can stay out of jail if and only if he agrees to the judge's list of things he's not allowed to say. Merchan will insert himself as a permanent part of the Trump Campaign, threatening jailtime if his demands are not met.

James Carville says don't bank on Biden being the Democrat nominee just yet.

Democratic strategist James Carville said there is apprehension in the party and that people should not disregard the possibility that President Joe Biden will not be a presidential candidate by the election.

Former President Donald Trump is beating Biden in the five critical swing states of Nevada, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to a May New York Times/Siena College survey. Carville said on the "Politics War Room" podcast that there is a chance Biden will not be the Democrats' nominee in response to a question about whether the president should exit the race if he does poorly in his upcoming debate with Trump, and as he continues to struggle in swing state polls.

"I got to tell you, there's, I don't say panic, but there is real, real unease in the party," Carville said. "And you know, sometimes you go years with nothing happening, and then you go weeks with everything happening."

"It's politics. Anything can happen. Don't discount it," he added, although he agreed with co-host Al Hunt that Biden most likely will be the candidate.

Biden proposed two presidential debates with Trump, suggesting a slew of guardrails such as no live audience and having microphones turned off when it is not the candidate's turn to speak. Trump consented to both debates, the first of which is slated for June.

A unanimous Supreme Court, in a ruling credited to Sotomayor (or at least her clerks), reaffirms that no, the government cannot encourage/demand third party corporations to punish persons and groups that the state wants to silence.

By the way: Reluctant justices will sometimes join an opinion in order to weaken it. It's a balancing act for the other justices to decide, how much do we want this to be unanimous? versus how much are willing to let other justices weaken it for the sake of unanimity?

No real insight on my part -- but I do not trust the Wise Latina and Marxist chaos agent troll Sotomayor.

Surprise, surprise, surprise! Not only did the Supreme Court resuscitate the National Rifle Association's lawsuit against the state of New York, they did so unanimously. Advertisement

And guess who wrote the opinion that directed the lower court to take up the NRA's First Amendment claim in NRA v Vullo? Justice Sonia Sotomayor, last seen lamenting her Kleenex consumption in a conservative-dominated SCOTUS:

Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity's "threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion" against a third party "to achieve the suppression" of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that. As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA's pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.

As Sotomayor lays out the claim, it is clear that Vullo intended to use her power and jurisdiction to punish the NRA for its speech, specifically in opposition to gun-control proposals after the Parkland shooting. Sotomayor's narrative makes a pretty good case for tortious interference too, but Sotomayor necessarily sticks to the speech issues:

Around that time, Vullo also began to meet with executives at the insurance companies doing business with the NRA. On February 27, Vullo met with senior executives at Lloyd's. There, speaking on behalf of DFS and then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, Vullo "presented [their] views on gun control and their desire to leverage their powers to combat the availability of firearms, including specifically by weakening the NRA." Id., at 221, [Paragraph] 67. She also "discussed an array of technical regulatory infractions plaguing the affinity insurance marketplace" in New York. Id., at 199, [Paragraph]21. Vullo told the Lloyd's executives "that DFS was less interested in pursuing the[se] infractions" unrelated to any NRA business "so long as Lloyd's ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA." Id., at 199--200, [Paragraph]21; accord, id., at 223, [Paragraph]69 (alleging that Vullo made it clear to Lloyd's that it "could avoid liability for infractions relating to other, similarly situated insurance policies, so long as it aided DFS's campaign against gun groups").1 Vullo and Lloyd's struck a deal: Lloyd's "would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business," and "in exchange, DFS would focus its forthcoming affinity-insurance enforcement action solely on those syndicates which served the NRA, and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies." Ibid., [Paragraph]69.

Read the whole thing.

Might mean something when it comes time to rule on the Republican AGs lawsuit over the Biden Administration demanding that Twitter (x.com) censor its political opponents.

The US government funds groups which pressure advertisers not to pay disfavored outlets for advertising. This, too, is government tortious interference.

The former Western democracy of Australia has established a cabinet-level office in the state of Victoria called "The Secretary of Men's Behavior Change."

Note that this is an Australian state, not the Australian government as a whole.

But it's alarming nonetheless.

Labor Premier Jacinta Allan of Victoria, the second most populous state in Australia, announced on Monday that a new position had been created in her government: "Parliamentary Secretary for Men's Behaviour Change."

Allan selected Tim Richardson, the State Labor MP for Mordialloc, to fill the position.

"Tim Richardson will become Parliamentary Secretary for Men's Behaviour Change, continuing the Allan Labor Government's priority to make Victoria a safer place for women and children and work to end the tragedy of deaths of Victorian women at the hands of men," Allan stated. "This is the first position of its kind in Australia -- and will focus largely on the influence the internet and social media have on boys' and men's attitudes towards women and building respectful relationships."

Tim Richardson says we need boys and men working in close, sweaty quarters to bring about change.

Tim Richardson MP @TimRichardsonMP

Some pretty hectic reactions here to an important role and Australian first.
It will be about modelling positive role models for boys and men and ensuring we break away from gendered based stereotypes and building respectful relationships.
As boys and men we need to lead this.

The man she selected for this role looks much as you would imagine.

I would rate that a four-dick mouth, five on Friday nights when he's all hopped up on Zima and White Claw.

Don LeMon insists that Trump inherited an economy that was "on fire" from Obama, and then destroyed it. When the podcast hosts object that the economy only cooled down because of the virus invented by Biden's pal Anthony Fauci, he insists that doesn't matter, and that "the reality" is that the economy cooled down when we imposed the worldwide shutdown that leftists insisted on.

This is pretty maddening so maybe take an extra beta blocker.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 06:20 PM

| Access Comments