Pototan
Pototan's JournalI know what the 5th amendment says
but if I'm a juror and it's one person's word against another's, isn't it natural to give more weight to the person who swears, under oath and under the penalty of perjury, than to the person who refuses to testify?
We are the final judgement for Trump
Regardless of the outcome of Trump's current trials, or if they come to a conclusion before election day, the voters of the United States hold the final judgement.
We have enough information and evidence to form that judgement. We know his character and his lawless actions. We know he's a rapist and has committed fraud. We know what the Trump team has in store with a written document known as "Project 2025".
If this ends with a Trump victory, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Even if we oppose him, we have to do all we can to defeat him. Nothing should be more important than that.
And the only way to defeat Trump is to elect Biden. There are no other choices in between and we have to be convincing advocates. That's our job to save America.
Wouldn't Melania's Reaction Also Effect the Election?
When I hear commentators say that Trump wanted to suppress the Stormy Daniels story before the election to prevent the story from costing him votes and thus the election, but others say it was to keep the story from his family, especially his wife, can't they be both? And, Trump may not have cared if Meleana knew he was screwing around if he wasn't a candidate. After all, he had a more favorable pre-nuptial before the election. So, if the story came out in October of 2016, Trump also feared that his wife leaving him a week before the election or refusing to be by his side in campaigning during the election's closing days, would mean both can be the case.
In other words, Melania finding out in 2011 doesn't matter to Trump, but October 2016 would have been politically devastating.
Can the prosecution call Weisselberg?
and force him to take the fifth from the witness stand, just like Fuhrman in the OJ case.
My Prediction for Trump VP Pick
Doug Burgum. The North Dakota Governor will be chosen for one reason, his money. If he answers "yes" to Trump's question "are you willing to do whatever it takes, including investing your own money for this campaign."
Trump needs money and he won't spend any of his own (even if he still has some).
Time will tell.
The case for Democrats to vote against a motion to vacate
And let's be clear. To vote against a motion to vacate is not the same thing as a vote for Johnson to be Speaker. That may be the end result, but voting no on the motion to vacate is a separate matter.
The motion to vacate, brought by the most radical of MAGA cultists in the U.S. House of Representatives is retribution against Mike Johnson for compromising with the Democrats and allowing a vote on bills to fund our allies in Ukraine, Israel and Tiwan. To vote with Marjorie Taylor Greene would send a horrible message in an attempt to find any compromise or consensus in the House. It's not that Johnson needs Democrats to save him, it's that MTG and other extreme MAGAts need Democrats to sink him. Democrats will decide, one way or another, on this issue. And this vote against a motion to vacate is truly a lesser of two evils (I usually hate this phrase, but in this case, it's fitting. Both sides are a different degree of evil). It is a binary choice. And I think the choice is clear. MTG is more evil than Mike Johnson.
Let's look at some American Presidents and what we have endured
Let me start this post off by saying that Joe Biden has been a very good President. Recently, historians have rated him 14th out of our 46 Presidents and Trump dead last. I tend to agree.
But for the sake of argument, let's look at what his critics contend. That he's old. That he's incompetent, that he's ill and/or that he's corrupt. Only one is true. He is old. But he's in great shape and sharp, but I don't want to digress. So, to my point.
The United States has advanced and sometimes prospered, even when we had a President that was incapacitated (Wilson, Harding) or inflicted (Lincoln suffered from Depression. Kennedy Addison's and, of course, FDR had polio and was confined to a wheelchair). We've had President's that were old (Reagan suffered from inflictions of old age in his last two years). Even corruption (Grant had a corrupt administration, even though no corruption could be laid at his door; Harding had Teapot Dome and Nixon's Watergate). We've had Presidents who were incompetent (here, the list is long, especially just before the Civil War and the Great Depression). Each time, America came out OK. We have survived all kinds of different Presidential problems.
What we haven't yet tried, and history has taught us is the most difficult for a nation to survive, is a Dictator.
I hope we never have to find out.
The Trump Trial Narrative is Ass End Backwards
This "innocent until proven guilty" mantra only applies to court convictions and incarcerations. It is not the criteria a voter should use in entrusting important government office to a candidate. The criteria should be "credible accusation." And I contend any indictment is a "credible accusation."
Rather than delaying cases, in the real world, Trump, or any accused candidate would want an immediate trial to clear his name. And clearing a name is an acquittal, not a hung jury..
That guy Texiera from Massachusetts who was arrested for espionage didn't go back to work the next day. Nobody said, "Hey pal, we have overwhelming evidence of your guilt of betraying the country but, after all, everyone's innocent until proven guilty, so we'll see you at work in the morning and see how the trial turns out".
Pick any indicted person. A bank executive, a police officer, a schoolteacher or even a sports figure. If there is an arrest, or especially an indictment for a serious felony, that person cannot and should not remain employed until his name is cleared. That's ridiculous.
Does anyone think, for instance, that if a jury is hung at 11 to 1or 10 to 2 for guilty that we should be confident that Trump should be President? Of course not.
America is looking at this thing through the wrong end of a telescope.
Judge Tells Trump He Has "Absolute Right to Testify"
As I predicted this morning, Judge Merchan informed defendant Donald Trump that he has an "Absolute right to testify".
NEW YORK, May 3 (Reuters) - The judge overseeing Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial said on Friday that a gag order preventing him from commenting about witnesses and jurors does not bar him from testifying in court on his own behalf.
“I want to stress to Mr. Trump: you have an absolute right to testify at trial,” Justice Juan Merchan said to start the 11th day in Trump's hush money trial.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-trial-hears-michael-cohen-was-despondent-he-was-denied-government-post-2024-05-03/
Astonishing Observation on Trump's Statement
I've been giving some thought about Trump saying that he is prohibited from testifying because of the judge's limited gag order.
Think about that. Anybody with even the slightest knowledge of the Constitution or the law knows that no defendant can be compelled to testify against himself or be prohibited from truthfully testifying in his own behalf. Donald Trump was President for 4 years. He headed up the Justice Department. He appointed Attorneys General and some of their subordinates. Dozens, if not hundreds of judges, including 3 Supreme Court Justices. And on and on. you mean to tell me that Trump does not know this basic principle of law? Come on. If he's lying, what a fucking lousy lie that's so easy to disprove. But what's worse is, if he wasn't lying. If he really thought that's the law. Are you fucking kidding me? We should be all over this
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Dec 20, 2022, 10:03 AMNumber of posts: 1,227
