ONLY IN AMERICA! A FORETASTE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!
President Carter’s funeral with all the living presidents and Vice Presidents, winners and losers! Trump and Obama rather talkative and friendly in the Washington Episcopal Cathedral…
"Saint" Donald Trump stole money from a charity foundation: "NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after Donald J. Trump was forced to pay more than $2 million in court-ordered damages to eight different charities for illegally misusing charitable funds at the Trump Foundation for political purposes:..."
"Saint" Donald Trump is guilty of sexual harassment: "Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M"
"Saint" Donald Trump paid hush money to a porn star with whom he had an affair. Guilty of THIRTY-FOUR felonies, he is to be sentenced tomorrow, 10 January. "New York appeals court denies Trump's bid to halt Friday's hush money sentencing"
Not only do some people have the stomach to read these accounts, they say "That's exactly the person I want in the White House."
Shocked that a “Catholic” priest would have such a laissez-faire attitude towards a child molester being pardoned. Well maybe not shocked. And those lawsuits against President Trump will all be tossed and you know it. Shall we get into the scandalous sex lives of Saints Jack Kennedy,LBJ, Clinton and Biden?
K, you are such a hypocrite because you hold Democrat presidents to different standards. The most evil is Biden who as a Catholic should know killing the innocent unborn is intrinsically evil. The SC punted but in the end all of the cases against President Trump coordinated from the White House will fail because they are all grounded in abuse of power, manipulation of the justice system, and the ultimate in election interference. The American people saw through the Dem’s dangerous scheme and re-elected President Trump. Keep voting for evil and you end up with Biden and Pelosi in the afterlife! Speaking of the evil Pelosi, she used her position for financial gain posting returns that beat not only the markets but the market’s greatest stock traders. Purely a coincidence to a leftist like you. And your Party is doing a bang up job in LA! President Trump warned CA in his first term about their forestry and water practices and most recently 3 months ago on Joe Rogan but the Dems and environmental wackos know better!
K, here is why your Party of Loons lost the election:
Who are today’s Democrats if not populist? Woke scolds. What are they really about besides encouraging bizarre social pathologies? And who really cares about those things? Yeah, the frigid wine women care about them, and the faculty lounge types, too, but the normal people don't. Normal Democrats don't have any use for this stuff. It's just that when they complained about wokeness, they got trashed by their own side so they shut up. And then what happened? Well, a lot of them left and came over to join our new coalition. They voted for Trump because they're sick of having some dude dressed as a chick leering at their daughters in the locker room because the dude now says his name is Anastasia, and the Democrats running things demand that we all pretend that he's a girl.
K, of course you know more than Jonathan Turley about the law and these cases, but here is what Jonathan said about today's sentencing:
"Today, we will see the ignoble end to a raw form of lawfare. What critics will get is the labeling of Trump as a convicted felon, a fact that will then be repeated like a mantra by the media. Merchan can be expected to add to that rhetoric with punishment soundbites. It is a sad day for the New York legal system."
Now why don't you go to confession and try to be a Roman Catholic priest instead of a shill for the evil, political left?
K, you are the Mark Thomas of clergy, ignore and deflect. You are probably the most intellectually dishonest priest I have encountered in my 70 plus years, and I have know hundreds of priests.
TJM - As for Trump's legal troubles, neither you nor I know what the evidence presented at his trials indicates. That we share in common. The difference between us is that I trust our legal system to render justice in the VAST majority of cases. You, on the other hand, conclude that ANY legal action against Trump is politically motivated and that, when it comes to Trump, every verdict against him is suspect.
My position encourages trust in the legal system on which we all depend. Your position is corrosive and detrimental to the commonweal. You are willing to decry judgments against Trump because, in your jaundiced view, Trump, a Republican, is blameless, virtually immaculate. However, you would be totally averse to applying the same thinking to the case against Hunter Biden and Senator Bob Menendez, two Democrats.
What Jonathan Turley thinks he knows is of no concern to me as it has nothing to do with the FACTS in the cases against Trump the convicted felon.
Yes, we do know what evidence was presented at the sham trial as well as the evidence a corrupt judge would not allow into the record. Unless you are living under a rock, Bragg and Letitia James ran for office expressly saying they were going to go after President Trump. Hunter Biden and Bob Menendez committed crimes clearly recognized as crimes, tax evasion and bribery.
But like a good little foot soldier, you continue to shill for a corrupt, Democratic Party which supports intrinsic evils such as abortion. They really stand for nothing else other than flooding the country with dangerous illegal aliens.
Maybe you should move to New York where you can enjoy the "benefits" of Democratic leadership, higher taxes, higher crime, maybe get tossed on the tracks in the New York subway.
The latest from Turley which even a simpleton should be able to understand:
On Friday, the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump saw one of the most impassioned defense arguments given at such a hearing in years … from the judge himself.
Acting Justice Juan Merchan admitted that the case was “unique and remarkable” but insisted that “once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique, and extraordinary than the other 32 cases in this courthouse.”
If so, that is a damning indictment of the entire New York court system. Merchan allowed a dead misdemeanor to be resuscitated by allowing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively prosecute declined federal offenses." "Even liberal legal experts have denounced the case and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently called it total “bulls–t.”
So continue to embarrass yourself with your sycophantic worship of the Democratic Party if you like, but please do the Diocese and its people a favor by resigning from the priesthood to spare the Diocese further embarrassment by your partisan antics.
"Yes, we do know what evidence was presented at the sham trial as well as the evidence a corrupt judge would not allow into the record." How do "we" know this?
Trump stole money from his foundation. Are you saying this is not a "recognized crime?"
Trump committed sexual harassment. Are you saying this is not a "recognized crime?"
I think H. Biden and Menendez are guilty of the crimes for which they were tried. So I am no shill for Democrats or anyone. If you want to see a shill, check out your bathroom mirror.
k,' you are acting more and more like Wylie Coyote.
As to the assertion he "stole" from the Foundation, here is what the judge said:
According to the final settlement, the fundraiser raised about $5.6 million — “of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans’ groups.” But the attorney general argued the fundraiser was actually carried out by Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and unlawfully leveraged for political purposes.
State Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla, in her Nov. 7 court order, wrote that the $2.8 million donated to the Trump Foundation “was used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation,” in violation of state law. However, she acknowledged that “the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans.”
Records obtained by the state show donations totaling $2.825 million were given to 34 veterans organizations between January 2016 and June 2016.
So, it’s false to claim that Trump “stole” the money and that “none of the veterans groups that were supposed to get the money got a single dime.”
As to sexual harassment, that is a laugh. He had a consensual relationship with Stormy and that crazy woman who sued him, will ultimately lose, because she made it up based on an episode of Law & Order. You should be more concerned about Bill Clinton's actual rape of a Democrat woman in Arkansas.
You are still a shill and a deeply disturbed priest.
TJM - What you leave out of your quotes is the fact that, while money did go to charitable organizations, Trump and his named co-conspirators were found guilty of fraud.
Now, I know you don't think fraud is a "clearly recognized crime," but the rest of the world does.
As for "Well, they got the money in the end," that's like saying, "Well, the bank robber gave the money back to the bank." Yeah, but in both cases, crimes were committed.
Forget about Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and other pro-Trump legal talking heads (I am sure there are as many legal talking heads on the other side) and let us instead talk about YOU. There is a very simple question that will reveal the extent of your sincerity and intellectual honesty: If Barack Obama or Joe Biden had been accused of the sorts of crimes that Trump has been accused of (including those that were being prosecuted by Jack Smith), would you argue that the legal system had been weaponized against them just as you argue that it has been weaponized against Trump? Only if you answer in the affirmative, can you claim to be principled and unbiased.
I will now speak for myself. I am in no doubt whatsoever that had Obama or Biden been accused of similar crimes, I would NOT claim that the legal system had been weaponized against them but rather that no-one, not even a former president, is above the law and that they should be brought to justice and held to account (albeit within the limits recently established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its recent immunity decision).
Surely you jest. Presently, there is a two-tier system at the DOJ which began under Obama: Republicans are targeted, and Democrats are not. There are no cognizable crimes that President Trump committed. That is the point that true constitutional scholars like Turley and Dershowitz are making. Dershowitz became so frustrated with the Dems he finally left the Party. What Obama and Biden did against their political opponents is unprecedented in American history but quite common in dictatorships and banana republics. I hope you are not teaching this nonsense to your students.
If I were advising President Trump, I would recommend that he open a special investigation into Biden, Garland, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, "Judge" Merchan, Fani Willis and Jack Smith to determine if these "cases" were in fact coordinated with the White House and let them feel the joy of being targeted. I suspect with this crew, we would discover actual, not pretend, felonies. If you can defend their conduct, I pity you.
I could go on ad nauseum about the many immoral political motivations of Biden's but here is one I just learned about:
"The Biden administration is formally considering commuting the sentence of the convicted felon who stole and leaked incoming President Trump's tax records along with those of thousands of other taxpayers, in the biggest tax data heist in U.S. history."
That would be par for the course for a slimeball like Biden, who was never bright or ethical. As Senate Judiciary Chair, his handling of the Clarence Thomas nomination hearings was abominable. Thomas' only crime was being a Black man straying from the Democrat Plantation. Biden once wanted a Constitutional Amendment banning all abortions to becoming a guy who wanted women to be able to kill their child as it came down the birth canal. I guess in lefty world, that is an example of "evolving."
What frosts lefties the most, is that President Trump in his first term, stole the Democrat's talking point about being for the little guy, and actually made working men and women's lives better. These are indisputable facts. And Biden is his only term made the lives or working men and women worse. In my lifetime, in which I once was a Democratic Party official, I have seen the Democratic Party go from that to becoming servants of billionaires, Hollywood, and catering to illegal aliens needs rather than our citizen's needs, and pushing sick agendas like DEI (racism per se), transgenderism, abortion, and mutilation of young children without parental knowledge, all aided and abetted by a corrupt, national Media. That is the reason normal, rational, Americans have said enough is enough. By the way, President Truman once said that anyone who becomes wealthy off of public service is a crook. Textbook examples of that are Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Pelosi whose portfolio has soared based on the insider information she has from her "service" in CONgress.
K,
Your moral compass was busted long ago. You cannot give one simple, "proportional" reason to sell your soul to the Intrinsically Evil Party.
I expected you to answer my simple question, if you answered at all, with distracting evasion and obfuscation, and you do not disappoint.
99% of your response is irrelevant. Here is the 1% that IS relevant: “There are no cognizable crimes that President Trump committed.”
So, back to my question: If Obama or Biden had been accused of these same crimes, you would say that “There are no cognizable crimes that President Obama or Biden committed.” Right? Please answer yes or no (and, if your answer is no, explain why you would distinguish their situation from Trump’s).
I am now retired (since June 2024). But when I was teaching students, I tried, as is our wont in legal academia, to teach our students to think, and to think critically. One classic technique is by using hypotheticals, such as the elementary hypothetical I asked you. If a student responded with the type of “nonsense” you have, I would grade the response a D at best (a generous grade giving credit for the relevant 1% despite the lack of related argument), and possibly even an F (the more deserving grade), for not answering the question but instead spewing forth a bunch of nonsensical, irrelevant BS, articulating points that might even be a decent response to a different question but not to the one that was asked.
Mark J - Conrgrats on your retirement! Hope you are enjoying.
TJM sees everything through this lens: Democratic Party BAD/Republican Party GOOD. Hence, it is impossible for him to think critically about, well, just about anything.
Facts don't sway him. Court rulings don't impinge on his fantasy world. And if tRump did shoot in cold blood somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, TJM would excuse it and DARE and New York prosecutor to file charges.
You pose a hypothetical but leave out the very important fact that the DOJ would never have gone after them. You are going to be a very disappointed former professor when all of these cases being settled in President Trump's favor.
The New York fraud case is a particularly egregious example of abuse of power. The loans were repaid in full, no one lost a dime, and the lenders all said they would loan to President Trump again. Would you like to be on the receiving end of that?
Maybe you should peruse these article which may disabuse you of your belief that the Dems did not weaponize the legal system against President Trump:
The American people have seen through these corrupt legal proceedings and have returned President Trump to power in a landslide. Because the national media is so biased and corrupt, the American people can no longer be gaslighted by them.
There is much to say in response, but all of it would just play into your continued attempt to avoid answering the question through obfuscation and distraction.
Your assertion that the Trump and his allies “would never have gone after them” is laughable (unless, of course, it served Trump’s self-interest to preserve the criminal options for himself as well), but at the end of the day it is totally irrelevant.
Come on, you have been to law school and know how this works. Just clarify the hypothetical and assume they would have gone after them. Now please answer the question: If Obama or Biden had been accused of these same crimes, you would say that “There are no cognizable crimes that President Obama or Biden committed.” Right? Please answer yes or no (and, if your answer is no, explain why you would distinguish their situation from Trump’s).
The issue is NOT whether Obama or Biden would have been prosecuted but whether, if they were (and in the hypo you must assume they were), they committed cognizable crimes. I wouldn’t let a student wriggle out of the hypo, and I won’t let you wriggle out of it either.
You don’t even need to assume they would be prosecuted. In studying criminal law, we study the elements of crimes and criminal liability, not whether someone is in fact prosecuted for the crime or not.
You stated categorically: “There are no cognizable crimes that President Trump committed.” THAT is the assertion being tested by the hypothetical.
Credit where credit is due. It seems that Trump’s blustering may indeed have helped an Israeli-Hamas cease-fire agreement cross the finishing line (although the suggestion that Netanyahu might have bowed to Trump’s pressure tactics in the hope that he would get the latter’s support in resisting Arab pressure for a two-state solution is troubling):
Well Biden did commit a cognizable crime but because he is senile, the special prosecutor let him go: Special counsel finds Biden "willfully" disclosed classified documents, but no criminal charges warranted Hur's report nonetheless contained significant criticism of Mr. Biden and his handling of classified information. "Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said.
Hur's team determined it would not be able to prove willful retention beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors said it was possible that Mr. Biden would "present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." During his interview with Hur, the special counsel wrote that the president was confused about the timeline of events and was unable to ascertain questions about his time as vice president.
Yet given this finding, the Media and Dem politicians repeatedly told us Biden was sharp as a tact (until they forced him out of running). This finding raises a legitimate question as to whether his pardons or other actions of his are valid?
I should clarify that the Israeli-Hamas cease-fire deal was not one of the campaign promises Trump is said to be walking back, as you will see if you read the linked article in the post at 9:48 p.m. on January 16.
Well, if Biden committed a cognizable crime regarding his retention of classified documents, then a fortiori Trump committed such a crime. QED. Not to mention all the other cognizable crimes, including those related to the events of January 6.
My impression is that neither Biden (as opposed to some of his officials) nor Trump wants to give the other much, if any, credit for brokering the Israeli-Hamas agreement. But isn’t the truth of the matter that the agreement would not have happened without the painstaking negotiations of the details by Biden Administration officials over several months and Trump’s recent blustering threats about “all hell to pay” if the hostages were not returned before his inauguration? See https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-says-epic-israel-hamas-deal-a-result-of-his-win-mocks-biden-administration/.
Instead of a juvenile clash of egos on the school playground, it would be nice to have seen some adult graciousness and humility on both sides.
And in the first video clip in this link Trump still perpetrates the Big Lie that the 2020 election was rigged. Pathetic!
As Catholics, should we not value virtues such as honesty, justice (giving each their due), humility, and graciousness?
32 comments:
"Saint" Jimmy Carter pardoned a child molester. Read this if you have the stomach:
https://www.distractify.com/p/peter-yarrow-pardon
"Saint" Donald Trump stole money from a charity foundation: "NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after Donald J. Trump was forced to pay more than $2 million in court-ordered damages to eight different charities for illegally misusing charitable funds at the Trump Foundation for political purposes:..."
"Saint" Donald Trump is guilty of sexual harassment: "Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M"
"Saint" Donald Trump paid hush money to a porn star with whom he had an affair. Guilty of THIRTY-FOUR felonies, he is to be sentenced tomorrow, 10 January. "New York appeals court denies Trump's bid to halt Friday's hush money sentencing"
Not only do some people have the stomach to read these accounts, they say "That's exactly the person I want in the White House."
Shocked that a “Catholic” priest would have such a laissez-faire attitude towards a child molester being pardoned. Well maybe not shocked. And those lawsuits against President Trump will all be tossed and you know it. Shall we get into the scandalous sex lives of Saints Jack Kennedy,LBJ, Clinton and Biden?
Six Lives of former presidents interest you not me. I don't wonder why. Trump is not facing lawsuits, he's facing Criminal charges.
And 13 minutes ago the Supreme Court rejected Trump's appeal, his frivolous appeal, that his sentencing tomorrow should not be executed.
In honor of failed President Carter’s funeral, Notre Dame beat Penn State!
K, you are such a hypocrite because you hold Democrat presidents to different standards. The most evil is Biden who as a Catholic should know killing the innocent unborn is intrinsically evil. The SC punted but in the end all of the cases against President Trump coordinated from the White House will fail because they are all grounded in abuse of power, manipulation of the justice system, and the ultimate in election interference. The American people saw through the Dem’s dangerous scheme and re-elected President Trump. Keep voting for evil and you end up with Biden and Pelosi in the afterlife! Speaking of the evil Pelosi, she used her position for financial gain posting returns that beat not only the markets but the market’s greatest stock traders. Purely a coincidence to a leftist like you. And your Party is doing a bang up job in LA! President Trump warned CA in his first term about their forestry and water practices and most recently 3 months ago on Joe Rogan but the Dems and environmental wackos know better!
K, here is why your Party of Loons lost the election:
Who are today’s Democrats if not populist? Woke scolds. What are they really about besides encouraging bizarre social pathologies? And who really cares about those things? Yeah, the frigid wine women care about them, and the faculty lounge types, too, but the normal people don't. Normal Democrats don't have any use for this stuff. It's just that when they complained about wokeness, they got trashed by their own side so they shut up. And then what happened? Well, a lot of them left and came over to join our new coalition. They voted for Trump because they're sick of having some dude dressed as a chick leering at their daughters in the locker room because the dude now says his name is Anastasia, and the Democrats running things demand that we all pretend that he's a girl.
K, of course you know more than Jonathan Turley about the law and these cases, but here is what Jonathan said about today's sentencing:
"Today, we will see the ignoble end to a raw form of lawfare. What critics will get is the labeling of Trump as a convicted felon, a fact that will then be repeated like a mantra by the media. Merchan can be expected to add to that rhetoric with punishment soundbites. It is a sad day for the New York legal system."
Now why don't you go to confession and try to be a Roman Catholic priest instead of a shill for the evil, political left?
TJM - And now we KNOW why you are so interested in the sex lives of former presidents...
K, you are the Mark Thomas of clergy, ignore and deflect. You are probably the most intellectually dishonest priest I have encountered in my 70 plus years, and I have know hundreds of priests.
TJM - As for Trump's legal troubles, neither you nor I know what the evidence presented at his trials indicates. That we share in common. The difference between us is that I trust our legal system to render justice in the VAST majority of cases. You, on the other hand, conclude that ANY legal action against Trump is politically motivated and that, when it comes to Trump, every verdict against him is suspect.
My position encourages trust in the legal system on which we all depend. Your position is corrosive and detrimental to the commonweal. You are willing to decry judgments against Trump because, in your jaundiced view, Trump, a Republican, is blameless, virtually immaculate. However, you would be totally averse to applying the same thinking to the case against Hunter Biden and Senator Bob Menendez, two Democrats.
What Jonathan Turley thinks he knows is of no concern to me as it has nothing to do with the FACTS in the cases against Trump the convicted felon.
Yes, we do know what evidence was presented at the sham trial as well as the evidence a corrupt judge would not allow into the record. Unless you are living under a rock, Bragg and Letitia James ran for office expressly saying they were going to go after President Trump. Hunter Biden and Bob Menendez committed crimes clearly recognized as crimes, tax evasion and bribery.
But like a good little foot soldier, you continue to shill for a corrupt, Democratic Party which supports intrinsic evils such as abortion. They really stand for nothing else other than flooding the country with dangerous illegal aliens.
Maybe you should move to New York where you can enjoy the "benefits" of Democratic leadership, higher taxes, higher crime, maybe get tossed on the tracks in the New York subway.
The latest from Turley which even a simpleton should be able to understand:
On Friday, the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump saw one of the most impassioned defense arguments given at such a hearing in years … from the judge himself.
Acting Justice Juan Merchan admitted that the case was “unique and remarkable” but insisted that “once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique, and extraordinary than the other 32 cases in this courthouse.”
If so, that is a damning indictment of the entire New York court system. Merchan allowed a dead misdemeanor to be resuscitated by allowing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively prosecute declined federal offenses."
"Even liberal legal experts have denounced the case and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently called it total “bulls–t.”
So continue to embarrass yourself with your sycophantic worship of the Democratic Party if you like, but please do the Diocese and its people a favor by resigning from the priesthood to spare the Diocese further embarrassment by your partisan antics.
"Yes, we do know what evidence was presented at the sham trial as well as the evidence a corrupt judge would not allow into the record." How do "we" know this?
Trump stole money from his foundation. Are you saying this is not a "recognized crime?"
Trump committed sexual harassment. Are you saying this is not a "recognized crime?"
I think H. Biden and Menendez are guilty of the crimes for which they were tried. So I am no shill for Democrats or anyone. If you want to see a shill, check out your bathroom mirror.
k,' you are acting more and more like Wylie Coyote.
As to the assertion he "stole" from the Foundation, here is what the judge said:
According to the final settlement, the fundraiser raised about $5.6 million — “of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans’ groups.” But the attorney general argued the fundraiser was actually carried out by Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and unlawfully leveraged for political purposes.
State Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla, in her Nov. 7 court order, wrote that the $2.8 million donated to the Trump Foundation “was used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation,” in violation of state law. However, she acknowledged that “the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans.”
Records obtained by the state show donations totaling $2.825 million were given to 34 veterans organizations between January 2016 and June 2016.
So, it’s false to claim that Trump “stole” the money and that “none of the veterans groups that were supposed to get the money got a single dime.”
As to sexual harassment, that is a laugh. He had a consensual relationship with Stormy and that crazy woman who sued him, will ultimately lose, because she made it up based on an episode of Law & Order. You should be more concerned about Bill Clinton's actual rape of a Democrat woman in Arkansas.
You are still a shill and a deeply disturbed priest.
TJM - What you leave out of your quotes is the fact that, while money did go to charitable organizations, Trump and his named co-conspirators were found guilty of fraud.
Now, I know you don't think fraud is a "clearly recognized crime," but the rest of the world does.
As for "Well, they got the money in the end," that's like saying, "Well, the bank robber gave the money back to the bank." Yeah, but in both cases, crimes were committed.
TJM:
Forget about Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and other pro-Trump legal talking heads (I am sure there are as many legal talking heads on the other side) and let us instead talk about YOU. There is a very simple question that will reveal the extent of your sincerity and intellectual honesty: If Barack Obama or Joe Biden had been accused of the sorts of crimes that Trump has been accused of (including those that were being prosecuted by Jack Smith), would you argue that the legal system had been weaponized against them just as you argue that it has been weaponized against Trump? Only if you answer in the affirmative, can you claim to be principled and unbiased.
I will now speak for myself. I am in no doubt whatsoever that had Obama or Biden been accused of similar crimes, I would NOT claim that the legal system had been weaponized against them but rather that no-one, not even a former president, is above the law and that they should be brought to justice and held to account (albeit within the limits recently established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its recent immunity decision).
Mark J.
Mark J - Yes, you are correct in your estimation of TJM's highly likely response.
Mark,
Surely you jest. Presently, there is a two-tier system at the DOJ which began under Obama: Republicans are targeted, and Democrats are not. There are no cognizable crimes that President Trump committed. That is the point that true constitutional scholars like Turley and Dershowitz are making. Dershowitz became so frustrated with the Dems he finally left the Party. What Obama and Biden did against their political opponents is unprecedented in American history but quite common in dictatorships and banana republics. I hope you are not teaching this nonsense to your students.
If I were advising President Trump, I would recommend that he open a special investigation into Biden, Garland, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, "Judge" Merchan, Fani Willis and Jack Smith to determine if these "cases" were in fact coordinated with the White House and let them feel the joy of being targeted. I suspect with this crew, we would discover actual, not pretend, felonies. If you can defend their conduct, I pity you.
I could go on ad nauseum about the many immoral political motivations of Biden's but here is one I just learned about:
"The Biden administration is formally considering commuting the sentence of the convicted felon who stole and leaked incoming President Trump's tax records along with those of thousands of other taxpayers, in the biggest tax data heist in U.S. history."
That would be par for the course for a slimeball like Biden, who was never bright or ethical. As Senate Judiciary Chair, his handling of the Clarence Thomas nomination hearings was abominable. Thomas' only crime was being a Black man straying from the Democrat Plantation. Biden once wanted a Constitutional Amendment banning all abortions to becoming a guy who wanted women to be able to kill their child as it came down the birth canal. I guess in lefty world, that is an example of "evolving."
What frosts lefties the most, is that President Trump in his first term, stole the Democrat's talking point about being for the little guy, and actually made working men and women's lives better. These are indisputable facts. And Biden is his only term made the lives or working men and women worse. In my lifetime, in which I once was a Democratic Party official, I have seen the Democratic Party go from that to becoming servants of billionaires, Hollywood, and catering to illegal aliens needs rather than our citizen's needs, and pushing sick agendas like DEI (racism per se), transgenderism, abortion, and mutilation of young children without parental knowledge, all aided and abetted by a corrupt, national Media. That is the reason normal, rational, Americans have said enough is enough. By the way, President Truman once said that anyone who becomes wealthy off of public service is a crook. Textbook examples of that are Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Pelosi whose portfolio has soared based on the insider information she has
from her "service" in CONgress.
K,
Your moral compass was busted long ago. You cannot give one simple, "proportional" reason to sell your soul to the Intrinsically Evil Party.
TJM:
I expected you to answer my simple question, if you answered at all, with distracting evasion and obfuscation, and you do not disappoint.
99% of your response is irrelevant. Here is the 1% that IS relevant: “There are no cognizable crimes that President Trump committed.”
So, back to my question: If Obama or Biden had been accused of these same crimes, you would say that “There are no cognizable crimes that President Obama or Biden committed.” Right? Please answer yes or no (and, if your answer is no, explain why you would distinguish their situation from Trump’s).
I am now retired (since June 2024). But when I was teaching students, I tried, as is our wont in legal academia, to teach our students to think, and to think critically. One classic technique is by using hypotheticals, such as the elementary hypothetical I asked you. If a student responded with the type of “nonsense” you have, I would grade the response a D at best (a generous grade giving credit for the relevant 1% despite the lack of related argument), and possibly even an F (the more deserving grade), for not answering the question but instead spewing forth a bunch of nonsensical, irrelevant BS, articulating points that might even be a decent response to a different question but not to the one that was asked.
Mark J.
Mark J - Conrgrats on your retirement! Hope you are enjoying.
TJM sees everything through this lens: Democratic Party BAD/Republican Party GOOD. Hence, it is impossible for him to think critically about, well, just about anything.
Facts don't sway him. Court rulings don't impinge on his fantasy world. And if tRump did shoot in cold blood somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, TJM would excuse it and DARE and New York prosecutor to file charges.
Father Kavanaugh:
Thank you for your congratulations and good wishes on my retirement. Those 44 years of law teaching certainly went by fast!
Mark J.
Mark,
You pose a hypothetical but leave out the very important fact that the DOJ would never have gone after them. You are going to be a very disappointed former professor when all of these cases being settled in President Trump's favor.
The New York fraud case is a particularly egregious example of abuse of power. The loans were repaid in full, no one lost a dime, and the lenders all said they would loan to President Trump again. Would you like to be on the receiving end of that?
Maybe you should peruse these article which may disabuse you of your belief that the Dems did not weaponize the legal system against President Trump:
https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/01/15/sen-schmitt-explodes-hypocritical-dem-self-righteousness-on-rule-of-law-n4936020#google_vignette''
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jeff-charles/2025/01/15/ted-cruz-turns-democrats-dirty-tactics-back-on-them-during-bondi-hearing-n2650575
The American people have seen through these corrupt legal proceedings and have returned President Trump to power in a landslide. Because the national media is so biased and corrupt, the American people can no longer be gaslighted by them.
TJM:
There is much to say in response, but all of it would just play into your continued attempt to avoid answering the question through obfuscation and distraction.
Your assertion that the Trump and his allies “would never have gone after them” is laughable (unless, of course, it served Trump’s self-interest to preserve the criminal options for himself as well), but at the end of the day it is totally irrelevant.
Come on, you have been to law school and know how this works. Just clarify the hypothetical and assume they would have gone after them. Now please answer the question: If Obama or Biden had been accused of these same crimes, you would say that “There are no cognizable crimes that President Obama or Biden committed.” Right? Please answer yes or no (and, if your answer is no, explain why you would distinguish their situation from Trump’s).
The issue is NOT whether Obama or Biden would have been prosecuted but whether, if they were (and in the hypo you must assume they were), they committed cognizable crimes. I wouldn’t let a student wriggle out of the hypo, and I won’t let you wriggle out of it either.
Mark J.
You don’t even need to assume they would be prosecuted. In studying criminal law, we study the elements of crimes and criminal liability, not whether someone is in fact prosecuted for the crime or not.
You stated categorically: “There are no cognizable crimes that President Trump committed.” THAT is the assertion being tested by the hypothetical.
And for good measure, I see that Trump is already walking back some of his most important campaign lies, I mean promises:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-is-walking-back-his-biggest-campaign-promises-before-taking-office/ar-AA1xgIcP?rc=1
Of course, who knows what he will say on January 20 (and then again on January 21 and 22 and so on).
I don’t know about the media, but doubtless the Trump cult members will continue to be gaslit by Trump (and his new first buddy Elon).
Mark J.
Credit where credit is due. It seems that Trump’s blustering may indeed have helped an Israeli-Hamas cease-fire agreement cross the finishing line (although the suggestion that Netanyahu might have bowed to Trump’s pressure tactics in the hope that he would get the latter’s support in resisting Arab pressure for a two-state solution is troubling):
https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-was-the-closer-on-the-gaza-deal/
Mark J.
Well Biden did commit a cognizable crime but because he is senile, the special prosecutor let him go:
Special counsel finds Biden "willfully" disclosed classified documents, but no criminal charges warranted
Hur's report nonetheless contained significant criticism of Mr. Biden and his handling of classified information.
"Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said.
Hur's team determined it would not be able to prove willful retention beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors said it was possible that Mr. Biden would "present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." During his interview with Hur, the special counsel wrote that the president was confused about the timeline of events and was unable to ascertain questions about his time as vice president.
Yet given this finding, the Media and Dem politicians repeatedly told us Biden was sharp as a tact (until they forced him out of running). This finding raises a legitimate question as to whether his pardons or other actions of his are valid?
I should clarify that the Israeli-Hamas cease-fire deal was not one of the campaign promises Trump is said to be walking back, as you will see if you read the linked article in the post at 9:48 p.m. on January 16.
TJM:
Well, if Biden committed a cognizable crime regarding his retention of classified documents, then a fortiori Trump committed such a crime. QED. Not to mention all the other cognizable crimes, including those related to the events of January 6.
Mark J.
My impression is that neither Biden (as opposed to some of his officials) nor Trump wants to give the other much, if any, credit for brokering the Israeli-Hamas agreement. But isn’t the truth of the matter that the agreement would not have happened without the painstaking negotiations of the details by Biden Administration officials over several months and Trump’s recent blustering threats about “all hell to pay” if the hostages were not returned before his inauguration? See https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-says-epic-israel-hamas-deal-a-result-of-his-win-mocks-biden-administration/.
Instead of a juvenile clash of egos on the school playground, it would be nice to have seen some adult graciousness and humility on both sides.
And in the first video clip in this link Trump still perpetrates the Big Lie that the 2020 election was rigged. Pathetic!
As Catholics, should we not value virtues such as honesty, justice (giving each their due), humility, and graciousness?
Mark J.
Post a Comment