Bill Clinton famously explained, defending himself for having said under oath that "there's nothing going on between" him and Monica Lewinsky. He continued: "if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."
I'm reminded of the ballsy precision of Clinton's defense as I read the NYT live reporting from Day 1 of the Hunter Biden trial:
[Abbe] Lowell, Hunter Biden's lawyer... implies that the present tense of the question about drug use on the form to buy a gun — the verb “is” — means the government must prove Biden was getting high at the exact time he bought the gun.
It's called the Rule of Lenity.
Let me quote a SCOTUSblog piece from 2016, "The Court after Scalia: The Rule of Lenity":
One of Justice Antonin Scalia’s many contributions to Supreme Court jurisprudence was to revitalize the rule of lenity – the ancient maxim that ambiguous penal statutes should be construed narrowly in the defendant’s favor....Courts often associate the rule with due process principles of fair notice, the idea being that defendants should not be held to account for violating prohibitions they could not anticipate....
In my view, the rule of lenity is justified and important because it advances crucial structural values in criminal lawmaking and enforcement.... [Lenity] ensures... that “politicians must lay bare the full extent of the conduct they intend to criminalize, exposing themselves to whatever resistance or ridicule their choices entail; they cannot use vague or general language to obscure the law’s reach.”...
AND: Yes, of course, this is relevant to Donald Trump's "hush money" case. Here's Ian Millhiser, back on April 4th, "The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained/No one knows if Donald Trump can be prosecuted for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels" (Vox):
The Supreme Court has long held, under a doctrine known as the “rule of lenity,” that “fair warning should be given to the world, in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.” Thus, when the meaning of a criminal statute is unclear, the Constitution sometimes requires that statute to be read narrowly because an unclear criminal law did not give potential defendants “fair warning” that their conduct was illegal....
[The Supreme Court] could easily invoke the rule of lenity to justify asserting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the case.... Many justices have argued that this rule of lenity is implicit in the Constitution’s guarantee that no one shall be denied liberty without “due process” of law. So Trump could ask the Supreme Court to rule that this prosecution is unconstitutional....
The current Court is divided on how broadly to apply this rule of lenity, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch arguing for a more expansive approach, while Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh push a more pro-prosecution approach....
পোস্টগুলি
১১৪টি মন্তব্য:
Right because that’s exactly the kind of clarity and lenity used in the Trump trial…
One system of justice indeed.
Scalia was right- you can't have the intention to break a law if you can't understand the law you are alleged to have broken. This is just one of the things that was unjust about the Trump trial and not even among the 5 biggest of the things that were wrong with it.
the ancient maxim that ambiguous penal statutes should be construed narrowly in the defendant’s favor....
if they're Democrats. On the other hand, if it's Donald Trump, it's okay to make up whatever shit you want.
"means the government must prove Biden was getting high at the exact time he bought the gun"
Some things are so stupid only a government lawyer could possibly believe them. Now, put Donald Trump in Hunter Biden's place. Would Abbe be making the same argument? Everybody knows the answer to that question is "No."
Is the justice system in this country really trying to destroy every last bit of respect for it that's somehow managed to persist up until today? It sure looks like it.
One’s “ballsy precision” is another one’s shameless mendacity.
I try to follow the Rule of Lemity which is similar to the Rule of Lenity but with more affability and good humor.
I hope he walks. I'm not a fan of this law nor its potential penalty, and the contrast with Trump's phony-boloney conviction would be fun.
So if a drug user is not a drug user during the exact moments when the drug user isn't using drugs, what's the difference between a drug user and a non-user? Is a drunkard a teetotaler between sips?
This is another farcical trial. We all know Hunter will get off scot-free, as Delaware loves their Bidens. The Intel agencies are jokes, the judicial is turning into a joke, the Politicians are mostly jokes, and the American taxpayers are getting fucked whilst watching these million dollar show trials that won't change anybody's minds.
“[Abbe] Lowell, Hunter Biden's lawyer... implies that the present tense of the question about drug use on the form to buy a gun — the verb “is” — means the government must prove Biden was getting high at the exact time he bought the gun.“
This law has been used in hundreds of convictions, and just now the present tense on the form is an issue? Is the government gonna accept vacating those hundreds of convictions if that argument stands?
Hmmm? Wow! Althouse theme of the day seems to be flagrant Democratic Party self-contradictions.
The lenity argument follows several years of Biden's ATF (actually Michael Bloomberg's Everytown surrogates) inventing new gun laws whole cloth as "rule interpretations" because they don't have the votes to pass the laws they want. These invented rules run several hundred pages long (i.e., new definitions of a firearm, ban on pistol braces, definition for being engaged in business as a dealer/de facto registration, etc.) but the words mostly say "we feel, we believe, we want" and read more like a vacuous filibuster than lawyer language.
The pro-gun groups have been going hard on lenity in response (and have routinely destroyed ATF in court), so a lenity strategy is logical here. But be consistent. Use lenity to throw out all of ATFs rules and Hunter's answers on Form 4473. Use lenity to throw out a bunch of inconsistent, functionally illogical, classist (pay-to-play), and overtly racist anti-gun laws from 1934, 1968, and 1986...
"means the government must prove Biden was getting high at the exact time he bought the gun"
This seems like an absurd interpretation of the language on the form. What purpose does the question serve, if the shop owner can just look at the heroin needle sticking out of your arm?
That was very informative. The rule of lenity is fundamental to civil society and legitimate justice. And could be key to a Trump appeal.
The court had to recently refuse to take any more complaints against Judge Connor in the MarLago witch hunt trial. There were 1000 complaints in a single week.
Democrats have successfully used lawfare against Trump, Gov Rick Perry, Speaker of House Tom Delay, Gen Flynn, Attorny General Ken Paxton and thousands of J6 political prisoners.
To think our justice system is anything but corrupt is silly.
Oh and I forgot Gov Sarah Palin.
Drug use tends not to be a momentary thing.
I don't really give two shits about Hunter S. Biden's problems with guns and drugs. It's smokescreen to cover up hs real crimes which were to take money from the Ukrainians and to involve his father.
The Rule of Lenity: to err on the side viability.
No objective person can understand how Trump broke the law and committed a felony, so how could he have avoided breaking the law?
If a biased Judge decides an apple is equal in value to a piece of Gold, and therefore stealing it is a felony, that may or not be true, but its competely unjust to charge someone with Grand theft for eating a Grocery store apple and forgetting to pay for it.
The reason the NY Judge refused to let cameras in the court and put a gag order on trump, is becasue the more you know about the case, the more its obvious that this is a political show trial disguised as a criminal case.
But now we depend on Judges to follow the law and put aside their hatred of Trump.
Big news tor the Sanctuary States.
BTW VDH has a few thoughts...
https://amgreatness.com/2024/06/03/the-destructive-generation-proving-americas-weakest-link/
Old and childless. The catbird seat!.
@Meade -- hahaha! thanks
Trump called an expert to discuss Federal election law. The judge refused to let him testify, and declared only he - the judge - could tell the jury what the law meant.
that strikes me as grounds for an overturned verdict right there. But again, judges can do anything they want. They can make up laws, or refuse to consider the existing laws, or twist the law to mean the opposite of its plain meaning. They can follow precedent, or ignore it.
They can do anything, because the public gave them this power.
"[Lenity] ensures... that “politicians must lay bare the full extent of the conduct they intend to criminalize, exposing themselves to whatever resistance or ridicule their choices entail; they cannot use vague or general language to obscure the law’s reach.”..."
Well, the petty government functionaries in the bureaucracies will not like that rule. Their bread and butter is vagueness and general language that they rush into define as they see fit. As well as the low life prosecutors and government lawyers who use it "to harrass our people, and eat out their substance" of the citizens
Hunter's lawyer uses the argument of many drug addicts, that all past and future misbehavior must be ignored, because the addict isn't high at the moment, although planning to be high again asap. Sorry, that may work for a line cook, but not for signing a Form 4473.
I recall Dementia Joe being asked why there was no federal prosecution of felons attempting to buy guns, a commonplace occurrence, where they lied on form 4473s and subjected themselves to years of potential jail time. Seems a good way to get gun-using criminals off the streets, yes? Dementia Joe replied literally that "Nobody has time for that" and that banning Ar-15s was the way to go to reduce gun violence. Which only goes to show that Hunter may not be as stupid as his father regarding gun crime, despite contributing to it himself.
When DOJ dropped its case against General Flynn - based on DOJ guidelines and new evidence - Sullivan the leftwing judge refused to accept that.
He hired his old friend to come into the trial and review the evidence and decide whether DOJ was correct or whether the prosecution would continue. He then decided the trial would continue, strung the case out for another 4 months and forced Trump to pardon Flynn
Even then he slow rolled dismissing the case to the last moment. Another Judge has just sentenced a 72 y/o women to 5 years in prison for obsctructing an abortion clinic and praying. She sneered at the pleas from her husband for mercy, since "she doesn't want to die in prison". Our Democrat Killer-clowns in the law and congress applauded. No doubt Biden got a laugh out of that.
Old and childless.
In view of climate progress, carbon emissions and footprint must be reduced, which necessarily includes planned parenthood, Planned Parent/hood, and Planned Parenthood.
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
Does this mean, to a reasonable person, that it applies only at the point of sale?
The ATF form in question (Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record) asks (at question 21f):
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
There is no "is" in this question, and no language to pin it to the exact moment of purchase or of signing the form.
This is probably why no U.S> news source that I looked at referenced the actual form or the actual language - then they couldn't make this bullshit argument.
In Massachusetts it is legal for union members to commit crimes but only in the course of conducting union business. The law is funny sometimes…
Hunter documented everything.
I'm guessing he was stoned shortly before signing the form.
I would want to know how long traces of crack cocaine stay in one's system.
If within the time frame of signing the form, even if he wasn't technically high, that would be sufficient to find guilty.
But again, this is just playing their semantic game.
Btw, I'd also want him to take a drug test today...right now.
I'm guessing he's still on something.
Tommy,
"Are" is the is.
"Are YOU a MURDERER?"
..."Oh! Heck NO!"
"what's with all the blood? and the body parts? and the necklace you're wearing of human ears?"
..."That's ALL IN THE PAST!"
or
"Are YOU f*cking 12 year olds?"
..."No, of course not.. i'm in a court of law"
https://x.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1798027743218831771
https://instapundit.com/651450/
This is all proceeding excellently.
Trump is the only person in the world who has been accused and convicted of the felony of “falsifying business records.”
It is a misdemeanor for everyone else.
I don't really give two shits about Hunter S. Biden's problems with guns and drugs. It's smokescreen to cover up hs real crimes which were to take money from the Ukrainians and to involve his father.
Funny, isn't it, that the only current charge of the many that could have been brought is the one that doesn't implicate the President in some way?
Lawyer Abbe Normal…
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
Does this mean, to a reasonable person, that it applies only at the point of sale?
It is one of those things that you could only misunderstand if you were already high.
Then again lowell is also representing mendez who tipped the doj off in that case
Menendez the second time the time was for donations from a corrupt eye doctor that affected ports in the dominican republic
Menendez the second time the time was for donations from a corrupt eye doctor that affected ports in the dominican republic
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13492945/hunter-biden-trial-live-opening-statements.html
"Is" is functionally so various that some of its meanings aren't even meanings.
Jamie said...Funny, isn't it, that the only current charge of the many that could have been brought is the one that doesn't implicate the President in some way?
I'm actually cheering for Hunter in this case because if he is exonerated or pardoned by his father (more likely), this will not sit well for those of us who suspect higher crimes and misdemeanors. An exoneration/pardon will also not sit well with American blacks.
I think we might find that the NY Times reporter's version of what Lowell said is incorrect.
The "is" defense related to currently being addicted (the second clause in the form's question) rather than currently being under the influence.
In short, I wish the utmost ill on the modern Dem party and their puppermasters.
We're back to a discussion of "dog law!"
In “Truth vs. Ashurst” Bentham calls it “dog-law“: “When your dog does anything you want to break him of you wait till he does it, and them beat him for it. This is the way you make laws for your dog: and this is the way judges made law for you and me.”
We're back to a discussion of "dog law!"
In “Truth vs. Ashurst” Bentham calls it “dog-law“: “When your dog does anything you want to break him of you wait till he does it, and them beat him for it. This is the way you make laws for your dog: and this is the way judges made law for you and me.”
It is a federal form and the language is actually pretty straight forward. Hunter clearly lied on the form. So he lied to actually keep from self-incrimination - he took the fifth amendment in spirit. Maybe his lawyer could try that as a defense.
Hunter Got His Gun
mindnumbrobot said...
“I hope he walks. I'm not a fan of this law nor its potential penalty, and the contrast with Trump's phony-boloney conviction would be fun.”
The potential penalty for lying on the form (which can’t be proven in any sane world) is 25 years.
What human being thinks that makes sense?
Defund the courts. Turn the court houses into Walmarts and Dollar Tree stores. Let’s stop pretending we have a functioning judicial system.
Ballsy precision? Hmm, not sure that is the most accurate description of his nerdy geek-refuge-seeking.
Ballsy would have been Clinton saying, Yes, I have had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and I needed it. Judge me as you wish. I am doing the job for which I was elected to the best of my abilities.
3 years, suspended, 5 years probation, $1,000.00 fine in order to show "nobody is above the law"
He could have omitted, She's a real cute kid, isn't she? Luv her!
Interesting to see Kavanaugh pushing back a bit on lenity by saying that most of those issues could be solved by addressing mens rea.
I wonder how the Trump conviction is set up for an appeal based on either lenity or mens rea.
Meade said...
I try to follow the Rule of Lemity which is similar to the Rule of Lenity but with more affability and good humor.
I thought following the Rule of Lemity meant you're a Motorhead fan!
The Times does not reproduce the question. If it was "are you high right now?" then the lawyer's demand that Hunter be high right now is fair. If the question was "do you use or are you addicted to drugs?" then the argument should fail.
Either way, it's a sign of desperation. If he had a better argument, he'd've used it.
As in the Clinton testimony, this is called 'lying'
A federal ATF form asks, "Is you high?" Maybe the Plain English movement has gone too far?
"The Times does not reproduce the question."
In other words, reproducing the question would make the defense look bad. Can't have that.
I assume the judge will find for him and he'll be acquitted.
Like others I agree the language is straightforward and easily understood. The plain reading is that drug use is habitual or continual, and Lowell's lawerly skills would have to be quite impressive to convince the judge and appeals courts that the question of drug use implies it is continuous. You might be able to bafflegab a jury and confuse the terms, but I expect a judge to be able to easily distinguish between continual and continuous even if a non-native English speaking officer of the court.
Either way, it's a sign of desperation. If he had a better argument, he'd've used it.
Disagree. I think there is no upside (except a small one to Hunter himself) to Hunter's being acquitted, and some downside, especially in light of Trump's having been convicted - if he's convicted, the judge can take time in sentencing so that Hunter won't be incarcerated for long (if at all) before the election, at which point Biden pardons him no matter what the election outcome.
So why waste a strong argument (if you have one) when a lame argument will do very well to provide a means for judge and jury to convict, and will also give the impression that there's no stronger argument available, if you see what I mean? You tell Hunter, "You might have to suck it up for a little while for your dad's sake," you pretend to mount a vigorous defense, your client is convicted, you put on a solemn face and say, "Naturally we're upset that we didn't prevail, but this is the way the justice system works and we are duty bound to uphold it," Hunter serves a little time perhaps, and Joe's your uncle, and almost certainly your president.
Didn't he video himself in the act of getting high and holding the gun?
And, I forgot to add, Hunter's conviction gets the entire body of the American media chorusing, "No one is above the law! Move on!"
Or maybe it'll be a fugue. Who can say?
chickelit said...
I don't really give two shits about Hunter S. Biden's problems with guns and drugs. It's smokescreen to cover up hs real crimes which were to take money from the Ukrainians and to involve his father.
6/4/24, 11:15 AM
chickelit said...
Jamie said...Funny, isn't it, that the only current charge of the many that could have been brought is the one that doesn't implicate the President in some way?
I'm actually cheering for Hunter in this case because if he is exonerated or pardoned by his father (more likely), this will not sit well for those of us who suspect higher crimes and misdemeanors. An exoneration/pardon will also not sit well with American blacks.
6/4/24, 12:21 PM
I agree with both of you.
Note: I and many of my friends gave false answers on this form multiple times and considered the question intrusive and irrelevant. It was the moral equivalent to going 60 in a 55 MPH zone, in our reasoning. Now I could answer it honestly, and do. But I still feel it is intrusive and unnecessary and probably was written by anti-gun people for the express purpose of excluding pot-smoking teens from buying guns. They don't ask about abusing alcohol.
And there is a conservative legal foundation taking a similar case hoping to get SCOTUS to disallow questions about drugs that are legal in the jurisdiction where the firearms applicant lives. I believe they filed an amicus brief in Hunter's case, because the Conservative view of the law is that it doesn't change with your party registration.
Good example of why people hate "the law" as invented by lawyers.
Ordinary people don't have a prayer.
Meade said...
"I try to follow the Rule of Lemity which is similar to the Rule of Lenity but with more affability and good humor."
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...
"I thought following the Rule of Lemity meant you're a Motörhead fan!"
The Rule of Lemmy: Follow the decadent Rock n Roll lifestyle, sing loud, and play the bass even louder in an unorthodox style all while rocking muttonchops.
It depends on the meaning of the word "word"... the, of, meaning, and so on and so forth.
The audacity of "depends".
Bill Clinton lying about cheating on his wife with a teenage White House intern = Ballsy and precise.
Oh, you awful AWFL, you- Don't ever change!!!!
It is not the meaning of "is". It is the meaning of "acquaintance".
I’m partial to the rule of solemnity myself. The rule says that the so in solemnity is silent.
So also needs to be silent because it has been identified as a… mansplaining adverb.
Yancey Ward said...
"Scalia was right- you can't have the intention to break a law if you can't understand the law you are alleged to have broken. This is just one of the things that was unjust about the Trump trial and not even among the 5 biggest of the things that were wrong with it.'
There was no evidence put forth by the defense that Trump did not understand the law.
COCEAN II said...
"The reason the NY Judge refused to let cameras in the court and put a gag order on trump, is becasue the more you know about the case, the more its obvious that this is a political show trial disguised as a criminal case."
Wrong-its the law in NY-no cameras in court. No one even raised this issue and Judge Merchan did not rule on it. I suspect that if Trump had been caught snoozing on camera even the know Nothings would be hard put to defend him.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-court-new-york-cameras-d2b8b34aedbdce0aab5bbbf492fdc83a?utm_source=pocket_saves
There was no evidence put forth by the defense that Trump did not understand the law.
That's because there was no law, Mutaman.
Of course, you know that. The gaslighting will continue until all resistance is futile.
I was not surprised to hear So and So got banned for life from all women matches.
the rule of lenity – the ancient maxim that ambiguous penal statutes should be construed narrowly in the defendant’s favor....
so, how does this fit in with the Chevron Doctrine?
where the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute
If 'ambiguous penal statutes should be construed narrowly in the defendant's favor..
How is it? that if a challenge centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail?
In my life, i've NEVER seen two things So Completely Out of Phase...
Can someone square this circle?
Judge Noreika is not permitting the defense to represent that prosecutor Hines did not provide the original application for the gun purchase which only showed a passport given as identification before the gun seller altered the form years later.
Additionally, Hines claimed and the judge accepted that a picture showing sawdust on a table provided by "Trump Nazi" Garrett Ziegler was really cocaine. Garrett did not take the photograph; instead, he illegally accessed a password-protected phone backup (for which Hunter Biden is suing him). This is a photo from the office of licensed psychiatrist Keith Ablow, which Ablow sent Hunter Biden, explaining that the photo came from an expert carpenter who was trying to kick a coke habit.
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell will not let these errors stand.
Dude1394 said...
"Democrats have successfully used lawfare against Trump, Gov Rick Perry, Speaker of House Tom Delay, Gen Flynn, Attorny General Ken Paxton and thousands of J6 political prisoners."
----
And they will continue to do so until slapped down hard. Prosecutors bringing these political charges need to be punished severely to make the lawfare stopped. Jail time, loss of Bar license, and monetary fines that come from their own pockets sounds appropriate.
"Trump allies Chesebro, Troupis, Roman charged in Wisconsin over fake electors scheme"
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/coastal/news/2024/06/04/trump-allies-chesebro-troupis-roman-wisconsin-charged-fake-electors
If the Hunter prosecution was real, Hunter would be the Michael Cohen of a justice department investigation into the dealings of VP Joe Biden and Ukraine.
The question: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
As to "unlawful user," I think the average person would say that someone with Hunter's record of drug use IS an unlawful user, whether using or not at the moment the form is signed. But, arguably, if sober at that moment, one might say he IS (meaning, right now) NOT an unlawful user. Close call, for which the lenity rule maybe requires acquittal.
As to "addicted to" [various drugs], I think addiction is generally understood to be a condition one has from the moment they can no longer say no to drugs, until "cured," and even the idea that one can be cured is questioned by many. Narcotics Anonymous, I've heard, urges its members to acknowledge themselves as addicts, no matter how long they've been clean. Once an addict, always an addict.
I haven't read Hunter's memoir, but I understand that he acknowledges, maybe even pity-wallows in, his "addiction." I understand that the prosecution is using this against him, as they should.
I would be stunned if "what the meaning of 'is' is?" carries the day in this trial.
Wasn't there some brat teen kid in Dallas a few years back that tried to get out of a criminal prosecution by claiming he was an overprivileged white kid, and therefore had no idea that what he had done, was wrong?
PS - If the gist of the Hunter Biden defense, now being put on by the high poobahs of the Democrat party, is that this form you have to fill out to buy a gun is meaningless bullshit, then what does that do to their stance on gun control? They're always going on about "loopholes" which exempt certain transactions from having to clear this hurdle, like the "gun-show loophole," but if the form is just BS, then there's no reason for it, in any context, right?
Almost makes it sound they're being insincere. Could that possibly be right?
There was no evidence put forth by the defense that Trump did not understand the law.
Know why? Because the prosecution never identified the law.
Stop acting like you don't know this.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/06/04/prosecutor-hallie-biden-to-testify-about-embarrassing-use-of-crack-with-hunter-biden/
They caught cha with teh cocaine they found with yo gun
No smooth talkin’ lawyer gonna get it undone
Is there any article in the New York Times suggesting that the narrowest possible interpretation of the law should be made and that the law should be interpreted as far as possible in the benefit of the defendant when said defendant has the intials DJT?
Mutaman,
I will make this simple for you and the entire commentariat can judge your answer should you deign to provide it:
Did you know it was against the law to pay for an NDA by having a lawyer deal with the matter then reimburse him with funds labeled by someone else as legal fees and then not declare these personal funds a campaign expenditure just because you yourself was running for office?
I will give you my answer- I didn't know any of that was illegal before they brought the indictment against Trump and I think it absolutely certain that 99.999% of Americans didn't know that either. And I still don't think any of that is illegal despite the trial and the conviction. So, by all means- answer my question and let us know where you learned that this was an obvious violation of the law- and note- that source of your knowledge can't be related to this indictment and trial.
Like I wrote yesterday- were I on this jury I would acquit simply because I don't believe the potentially harsh penalties align with the seriousness of the charges- no way I am going to take the risk of sending a man to prison for lying on this useless form.
Jim at said...
"There was no evidence put forth by the defense that Trump did not understand the law.
Know why? Because the prosecution never identified the law."
Stop acting like you don't know this.
The jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for intentionally falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10. If Trump had had the courage to testify and had convinced the jury that he did not understand that he was breaking the law, he would have been found not guilty. But he lacked such courage.
Free advice: watch less Hannity and read the indictment.
Yancey Ward said...
Mutaman,
"I will make this simple for you and the entire commentariat can judge your answer should you deign to provide it:
So, by all means- answer my question and let us know where you learned that this was an obvious violation of the law- and note- that source of your knowledge can't be related to this indictment and trial."
if I would have been charged with fucking a porn star while my new wife was pregnant and then paid off said porn star and falsified business records to influence the election, and I didn't know that this was "an obvious violation of the law", I would have testified to this and subjected myself to cross examination. But Trump didn't and no evidence was put forth as to his ignorance of the law.
So what you thought was illegal and what I thought was illegal is pretty irrelevant.
Yancey Ward said...
"Like I wrote yesterday- were I on this jury I would acquit'
I can just see the App Div, First Dept decision : "We reverse the trial court because if Yancey Ward had been on the jury he would have voted to acquit."
The Rule of Lemity the artificially intelligent
Mutaman, which trial do you think I am talking about, you dumb fuck?
As for your answer to my question, I will let the commentariat have a good laugh at your expense, Mutaman. It really does reveal how utterly stupid and insipid you are.
Lem got Rock n Roll
It satisfy Lem soul
Yancey Ward said...
"As for your answer to my question, I will let the commentariat have a good laugh at your expense, Mutaman. It really does reveal how utterly stupid and insipid you are."
Eloquently put, Robespierre. If you had been in the pool I would have definitely
put you on the jury.
We know there was no underlying crime the fec commissioner has said so we dont even know if the event in question happened diubble hearsay
Mutaman said...
Jim at said...
"There was no evidence put forth by the defense that Trump did not understand the law.
Know why? Because the prosecution never identified the law."
Stop acting like you don't know this.
The jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for intentionally falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10. If Trump had had the courage to testify and had convinced the jury that he did not understand that he was breaking the law, he would have been found not guilty. But he lacked such courage.
Free advice: watch less Hannity and read the indictment.
What requirement is there for falsifying Business records, New York Penal Law §175.10, to be a felony?
The problem you fools have is there has to be a second crime and the defendant has to be found guilty of that crime in order for this to be a felony.
It cannot be a felony without that other crime.
The obviously corrupt judge who was personally profiting from this trial and this conviction and a donor to Biden knew that.
You all know this is going to get reversed.
But before that happens everyone else is going to realize that you Regime supporters are vicious poisonous insects that need to be dealt with.
See Jamie- there are no good lefty posters on this blog- we get the idiots like Mutaman, Freder, and Inga. Robert Cook is as good as it gets.
Mutaman... Split the tablet in half next time.
Achilles said...
"The obviously corrupt judge who was personally profiting from this trial and this conviction and a donor to Biden knew that."
link please
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/03/joe-bidens-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-criminal-prosecutions-of-trump/
"Is you White?
"Yes, your honor."
"Well all right then."
Free advice: watch less Hannity and read the indictment.
What does that even mean? I've never watched Hannity in my life.
The law he allegedly broke was a misdemeanor. A state law upon which the statute of limitations had run out.
In order to charge him with felonies, there had to be an underlying crime committed other than the bookkeeping error.
The prosecution never identified that underlying crime.
I'm done with your sorry ass. It's not even worth the effort.
if I would have been charged with fucking a porn star while my new wife was pregnant and then paid off said porn star...
That. Is. Not. A. Crime.
No wonder you don't get it.
Jim at said...
"I've never watched Hannity in my life."
https://search.app.goo.gl/GuKEva9
Anyone else remember when Abbe Lowell had hair?
(paraphrasing) "if Trump didn't know it was a crime, he should have gotten on the stand and testified to that"
Tell me you know nothing about being a defendant in a criminal trial dealing with a felony, without telling me ....(you know the rest).
I suppose you will post here that you think Hunter should take the stand in his own defense.. Bwhahahaha
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন