Cardin Drake

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I agree.  I have always believed that this should have been brought by the DOJ or not brought at all.  That said, you and I both know that the crimes Cohen spent time in prison for are the crimes that he committed for and at the direction of  Donald Trump.  To claim otherwise is silly.

You can make the argument that neither should be prosecuted for their actions.  I am fine with that, just don't pretend that one is not connected to the other/.

This is the same man that went around the country encouraging chants of "lock her up" directed at Hillary Clinton.  He apparently believes that karma is afraid of him.

This ill-informed opinion is exactly why they thought prosecuting Trump for this nonsense is a good idea.   Even with an acquittal or a hung jury, they are counting on folks thinking like this.  The truth is Cohen was convicted for crimes Trump had absolutely nothing to do with, most notably evading millions in income tax, and lying on bank loan application forms. The DOJ gave him a sweetheart deal to also plead guilty to campaign finance violations, which was the least of his criminal offenses.  He exceeded campaign limits when he made the 130K payment that Trump re-reimbursed him for.  Ironically, that limit does not apply to Trump since it was his own campaign.  Even now after the prosecution has rested, nobody can say exactly what crimes Trump is alleged to have committed. 

I've never understood the prosecution's theory of the case.  Even if everything Cohen said is true, where is the crime?  The defense shredded Cohen's credibility yesterday for sure, but I will be very surprised if this jury doesn't convict anyway.  The prosecution has  been planning on the opposite of jury nullification all along. 

Dems will dump Biden after the convention. 

We are turning into a 3rd world political system. Idiots suggesting we should criminalize opposition to the regime and we have lunatics cheering them on.  Should you succeed, you aren't going to like the system you are installing, 

Sounds about right. Let's try to criminalize somebody's campaign promise to oppose Biden's plan to end fossil fuels.  And gosh, why would oil companies want to contribute to somebody who opposes the plan to end fossil fuels? 

The only testimony Daniels gave that was relevant to the case on trial. 

Daniels conceded she never spoke to Trump about her hush money and has no personal involvement in the repayment scheme that the former president is charged over. Trump nodded his head affirmatively as she remarked on her lack of knowledge about his role in the hush money deal. 

“I’m just here to answer questions about me,” Daniels told Necheles.

Her testimony is however, good grounds for appeal of the case.  No normal judge would have allowed this prejudicial testimony in at all.  The judge then had the chutzpah to say the defense didn't object enough. 

CNN, surprisingly:

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There were reasons other than age.  All Trump had to do was to return the damn documents and work with the Archive as he is legally obligated to do and he would not have been charged.  The only one with blinders on is the person that cannot see the difference in the cases.  You might want to try laying off Hannity and Laura for a few days.

Trump had the documents stored securely. Regardless of the difference in the cases, Biden was guilty. And he didn't have a poor memory when he took the documents. It's just a big F.U.  He's guilty but we ain't charging him. What are you going to do about it?   As they put it:

"uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified information after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said. We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.  

And don't expect us to turn over the tape either. 

13 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I get what you are saying, and would agree with you if it were anyone without Trump's history. Trump has been involved in over 3000 court cases before he made his original presidential bid. 

So, he's a billionaire. Most of those are as a plaintiff chasing guys who stiffed his casinos.  He went his whole life without being charged with a felony, and now he's got 91 indictments just in time for his Presidential campaign. Nobody is buying that is a coincidence. There's an interesting dynamic going on. If he is convicted, I think he may gain as much support as he loses. He will lose a small percentage of his support, but it's actually surprising how little he lost with the indictments.  The credibility of the justice system is that damaged by these twisted Rube Goldberg indictments.  But there is also a backlash helping him, especially in the black and Hispanic communities.  Apparently, those communities know prosecutorial abuse when they see it.

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I can’t keep up with the number of things that are rigged against Trump. It’s literally never ending.

I agree. You would have to be willfullly blind not to see the DOJ is actively working against Trump. They literally said that Biden was guilty of mishandling classified documents, but they weren't going to charge him "because the jury would likely not convict" because he is elderly.  Yeah, they always let people go based on that. And then charge his political opponent for the same crime. You can't make this stuff up. They aren't even trying to hide it any more. It's part of the intimidation factor for others who want to oppose them. It will be interesting to see if Judge Cannon throws it out based on selective prosecution.  That issue is now on her docket. 

On 5/4/2024 at 4:07 PM, auburnatl1 said:

Look at these 180 interpretations of hicks testimony. 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ny-vs-trump-braggs-witness-hope-hicks-implodes-case-against-trump

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/05/03/hope-hicks-trump-hush-money-trial-reid-digvid.cnn

Honestly, there is some truth to both sides, if that is possible. This case is a perversion of justice that will never survive appeal.  Everybody understands this case would never have been brought against anyone else, and would not have even been brought against Trump if he were not running for President. Heck, even you lefties can probably admit that.  Ok, nevermind, you can't admit anything. 

Nevertheless the jeopardy is real, and if I had to bet, I'd bet on conviction. The best Trump can hope for is a hung jury.  12 New York liberals voting to acquit is about as likely as 12 Alabama grads unanimously voting an Auburn grad Miss Alabama over a Bama grad when the contestant is one of their daughters. The link details some of the incredible dirty dealings done by the Judge so far. His rulings are astonishing!  It's hard to believe this is America. Long but definitely worth the read.  Most incredibly, he won't allow the defense to bring up the fact that Trump was never charged by the DOJ with a campaign violation, even though that goes to the heart of the case, and won't let them bring in an expert witness to testify about what constitutes a campaign finance violation. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/how-judge-merchan-is-orchestrating-trumps-conviction/

So yeah, the case is utter garbage, but CNN may very well be correct that so far Trump is losing.  Bragg and the judge don't care if Trump wins on appeal, because they can delay that until after the election.  All that matters is getting convicted felon next to  Trump's name for the rest of the election cycle.  The only conspiracy to commit election interference is coming out of Bragg's office.

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I do think it is important for people to realize that Bragg's decision to bring this case is not connected to the Justice dept in any way. 

Except the leading prosecutor in the case was a top Biden DOJ official:  https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/prosecutor-trump-hush-money-case-previously-paid-dnc-consulting-report

Fifty's Jesus brought to life:

13 hours ago, AURex said:

It does no good to counter the crazoid wingnut propaganda with actual factual information. I've given up even trying. They are lunatics.

 

Man, talk about a complete lack of self-awareness regarding a response to a detailed, factual, legal argument citing precedents by a subject matter expert...

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

But just look at these responses and comments.    Trump haters attack the writer.   What did the guy say that was false?   And if anyone can’t see that this particular trial is bogus, then this country will never come together.   

Yeah, and the writer was a commissioner on the F.E.C.  He understands the issue.  And it's not like the Washington Post or NY Times were going to print that article.  

Don't worry, the economy is in the best of hands:

Yep, it's also why it's impossible to have a serious discussion on this forum.  I think the last time this country was this divided was 1860. Hopefully, not quite as divided. 

I don't know, AU9377, I think the prosecutors are counting on the same kind of sterling legal analysis from the jury that we just got from Homer and Rex.  Trump..duh...orangeman bad...guilty.

The case will never survive appeal, but then that's not the point of the prosecution.  

More humor from Bama. Gotta commend them:

Caution: Language

Nice straight forward explanation of why Bragg's case is ridiculous:

https://thelibertydaily.com/trumps-hush-money-prosecution-is-bogus-case-bogus/

Here’s a quick tutorial on why Bragg doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on—call it “Federal Campaign Finance Law for Dummies 101”—an apropos title, given what’s going on.

Bragg contends that Trump falsified business records, a misdemeanor, when this payment was listed as legal expenses instead of a campaign expense.

Supposedly, according to Bragg, that converted the misdemeanors into felonies because Trump was concealing another crime. That other crime, according to prosecutors, is a violation of Section 17-152 of New York law, which make it a misdemeanor to “promote … the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.”

Besides the fact that it’s very strange to allege that the commission of a misdemeanor for the purpose of covering up the commission of another misdemeanor is enough to allege a felony, the only plausible theory that Bragg is pushing for the alleged “unlawful means” was a violation of federal law by concealing a campaign-related payment.

But Trump was running for president. The raising and spending of money for campaigns for president and Congress is governed by federal law, the Federal Election Campaign Act, not state law. Any wrongdoing related to federal campaign financing falls under the enforcement authority of federal officials, not a local prosecutor like Bragg.

In fact, the Federal Election Commission, on which I served as a commissioner, has civil enforcement authority and the U.S. Department of Justice has criminal enforcement authority over violations of this law.

For the nuisance-value settlement payment to Daniels to fit within Bragg’s rickety legal structure, it would have to be a crime under federal law. In other words, it would have to be considered a campaign-related expense that was falsely reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

If you want an example of such a violation, just look at the $113,000 civil penalty the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee agreed to pay in 2022. They listed the payments for the opposition research that formed the basis for the infamous Steele dossier, which fabricated the entire Trump-Russia collusion hoax, as legal expenses instead of opposition research.

But opposition research on the opposing candidate is obviously a campaign-related expense under applicable federal law, so the FEC had authority to investigate and enforce the law against this deception.

That’s not the case with the Daniels’ payment. For starters, the incident in question that led to the payment is alleged to have happened 10 years before the 2016 campaign. More importantly, the payment fails the test the FEC applies to determine whether an expense is campaign-related.

Under federal law and corresponding regulations, the FEC applies the “irrespective test” to “differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses.” As the FEC explains on its website, under the irrespective test, “personal use is any use of funds … to fulfill a commitment, obligation, or expense of any person that would exist, irrespective of the candidates’ campaign.”

In other words, if the expense would exist even if the individual were not a candidate, then it’s personal and not a campaign expense.

The payment to Daniels clearly fails that test. Trump was a celebrity long before he ran for office, and celebrities get these kinds of nuisance claims all the time. In fact, the prosecution’s first witness in the New York case, David Pecker, said he had helped settle similar claims to avoid legal costs and embarrassment by suppressing stories for numerous other celebrities, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tiger Woods.

The easiest way to understand this test is to take the example of a personal injury claim.

Candidate A has a car accident several years before he runs for Congress that injures another driver. After the campaign has started, the candidate decides to settle the personal injury claim made by the other driver by paying that driver $130,000 in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement.

Settling and paying the claim may help the candidate in his campaign by avoiding personal embarrassment. But that doesn’t make it a campaign expense. It’s a claim that would exist even if the candidate were not running for office and is thus considered a personal expense under federal law.

Daniels’ claim is also a personal claim that existed long before Trump ran for the presidency and, given his celebrity status, would have continued to exist even if he never ran for president.

That’s no doubt why neither the FEC nor the Justice Department ever filed an enforcement action against the Trump campaign or Trump personally over the payment; specifically, because it was not a campaign-related expense.

You know what would have led to enforcement actions? If Trump had actually claimed this was a campaign-related expense and had used campaign funds to make the payment, I have no doubt he would have been prosecuted by the feds for the illegal use of campaign funds to pay a personal expense.

That’s what former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., went to prison for after he pleaded guilty in 2013 to spending $750,000 on personal expenses.

Keep in mind that Bragg’s entire manufactured case of 34 counts of falsifying business records depends entirely on the legitimacy of his contention that the settlement payment should have been listed as a campaign-related expense.

It shouldn’t because it wasn’t.

And all of the other testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses about this payment and other settlement payments that are obviously intended to blacken the character of the former president and prejudice the jury doesn’t change the fact that none of these payments were campaign-related expenses. Period. End of story—or at least it should be.

Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe floods, years-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and widespread flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense.

There is no data that supports this.

This statement from NOAA in no way shape or form says the same thing. Notice how carefully it is worded. An increasing trend in intensification rates is not the same as an increase in intensity. And it's limited to the East coast.  But they do know how the press will report it. 

2022) report an increasing trend in hurricane intensification rates near the U.S. East Coast since 1979.

And this statement here from NOAA actually acknowledges the truth: in summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity,

Reading comprehension should be better from an Auburn grad. As usual, when confronted with the truth, blatant denialism takes over.  Since this conversation is no longer civil, I'm out. You can have the last word, Homer.

On 4/30/2024 at 7:07 AM, homersapien said:

You are wrong.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/

What Do the Models Show?

Tom Knutson, senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, is a leading scientist on hurricanes and climate change.

He notes that “even if hurricanes themselves don’t change [due to climate change], the flooding from storm surge events will be made worse by sea level rise.” In addition, he says models show increases in a hurricane’s rainfall rate by 2100. This means that hurricanes are likely to cause more intense rain when they come ashore.

Scientists have long predicted that climate change would increase extreme rainfall events. In a warmer world, there is simply more moisture in the air in the form of gaseous water vapor. Think of heating up a pot of water on the stove. Once the liquid water becomes hot enough, it boils and creates steam (or hot water vapor). This process is called “evaporation,” or when a liquid changes to a gas.

A similar process happens at Earth’s surface. As surface temperatures rise, more liquid water evaporates from the land and ocean. Evaporation adds moisture to the air. How much water vapor the air can hold is based on its temperature. Warmer air temperatures can hold more water vapor. The increased moisture in the air leads to more intense rainfall, especially during extreme events.

In a hurricane, spiraling winds draw moist air toward the center, fueling the towering thunderstorms that surround it. As the air continues to warm due to climate change, hurricanes can hold more water vapor, producing more intense rainfall rates in a storm.

Moreover, according to Knutson, most models show that climate change brings a slight increase in hurricane wind intensity. This change is likely related to warming ocean temperatures and more moisture in the air, both of which fuel hurricanes. While most models show either no change or a decrease in hurricane frequency in a warmer climate, a greater proportion of the storms that form will reach very intense (Category 4 or 5) levels. In other words, while there may be fewer storms, the ones that form have a greater chance of becoming stronger.

Scientists continue to research these topics along with other important hurricane metrics, including any potential changes in the speed at which hurricanes move across the ocean, how large storms will get, and where hurricanes will go.

What Do Observations Show?

Climate models that help us understand future changes are a key part to the story, but have any changes in hurricane activity already been observed in recent years?

Since the 1980s, the hurricane record has shown a more active period in the North Atlantic Ocean. On average, there have been more storms, stronger hurricanes, and an increase in hurricanes that rapidly intensify. Thus far, most of these increases are from natural climate variations. However, one recent study suggests that the latest increase in the proportion of North Atlantic hurricanes undergoing rapid intensification is a bit too large to be explained by natural variability alone. This could be the beginning of detecting the impact of climate change on hurricanes, the paper states. In contrast, the frequency of hurricanes making U.S. landfall (a subset of North Atlantic hurricanes) has not increased since 1900, despite significant global warming and the heating of the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

One current focus of hurricane research is “sampling hurricanes by flying into them for more accurate data,” says Shirley Murillo, deputy director of NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division.

These higher-quality data are important for improving hurricane model forecasts now and in the future. NOAA partners with NASA to collect measurements of various aspects of hurricanes over time. “NASA weather satellites are a powerful tool for observations, as people cannot fly into every storm to gather data,” Murillo says. Satellites help expand the observational record. With a longer, more detailed record, scientists can detect changes in long-term data trends over time.

This partnership is also developing the next generation of satellites to further improve hurricane observations for models. Dr. Marangelly Fuentes, meteorologist and program manager for one of NASA’s Earth research contracts, says researchers “run tests with potential new data to see how they would impact the model’s ability to correctly forecast a hurricane.”

For example, researchers may test to see if more detailed data about the ocean’s surface temperature in front of a storm help to accurately predict its intensity. If they find something useful, they can use this information to inform the design of instruments on future satellites. Then as more data are collected, this will lead to a better understanding of forecasting hurricanes and how they may be impacted by climate change.

------------------------------------

So, hurricanes have increased in frequency and intensity. 

What cannot be claimed - as yet - that this is a result of global warming. Not enough data.

But as a matter of physics, more heat - as illustrated by auburnnatl1's post - equals more energy. This will undoubtedly result in stronger and/or more frequent storms.

That is as certain as is more speed produces more damage when a car strikes a tree (for example.)  This is why the models predict more frequent and/or stronger hurricanes.

A lie repeated 10,000 times in 10,000 places is still a lie. Have NASA take it up with NOAA.  I know the left will keep repeating it no matter what the data shows. It's too central to the idea of catastrophic global warming.  Take it away and what do you have left?  A more fertile world where plants thrive. Hard to make a doomsday scenario out of that.

A post about Biden being owned by China...and the Ukraine.