House Republicans subpoena Hunter and James Biden as their impeachment inquiry ramps back up

[The Barbarian]

But Cohen is a convicted perjurer. The FEC already declined this one. And Bragg has zero authority to try federal cases.

That's what John Gotti's lawyers said about the guys testifying against him. It's why Bragg has corroborating evidence to make the testimony believable. And the law is a state law, so even if Trump get re-elected, he can't pardon himself. Which he probably can't do for federal convictions, either.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But Cohen is a convicted perjurer. The FEC already declined this one. And Bragg has zero authority to try federal cases.

Bragg isn't trying a federal case, he is trying a case under NY law. (And criminal trials include co-conspirators and other criminals as witnesses against the defendant all the time. There is nothing unusual about this.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Comer: Criminal referrals in Biden probe could come ‘within weeks’​

[Might as well schedule them for late October, because we all know there's so little there there, that it will evaporate in days.]

“What is the crime you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going? Why? What is the crime? Tell America right now. What is the crime?”

Comer responded, “You’re about to find out.”

View attachment 346120

Still waiting!

Fox News’ abrupt silence on the Biden impeachment crusade speaks volumes​

Now that Republicans have failed to prove Biden is corrupt, they want you to forget they tried.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., no doubt hoped that House Republicans’ efforts to impeach President Joe Biden would end in a glorious victory. As chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Comer has poured everything into his crusade to take Biden down, with no witness too sketchy to rely on, no theory too preposterous to consider, and no allegation too absurd to shout.

Things have not worked out the way Comer and his colleagues wished. The only ones humiliated were the bush-league Javerts of the GOP. CNN has reported that “Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” And Republicans — and their media allies — are hoping you forget all about it.

You might recall that Trump was first impeached for pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a sham investigation of Biden in order to discredit him ahead of the 2020 election. Comer and House Republicans delivered what Zelenskyy refused to.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Bragg isn't trying a federal case, he is trying a case under NY law. (And criminal trials include co-conspirators and other criminals as witnesses against the defendant all the time. There is nothing unusual about this.)

Ok. Hold on until the appeal, if a conviction comes.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Nobody needs to try Cohen for a crime he's already confessed to.

This trial is about whether the business documents were falsified "to aid or conceal the commission" of that crime.

It's not about Cohen's crime. It's about his credibility which is pretty much zero. The Prosecutor is demanding the jury find Trump guilty of following his attorney's advice.

 

[The Barbarian]

Fox News’ abrupt silence on the Biden impeachment crusade speaks volumes​

Now that Republicans have failed to prove Biden is corrupt, they want you to forget they tried.

Judging by Jamie Raskin's poking at Comer for his failure to provide any evidence for his accusations, I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok. Hold on until the appeal, if a conviction comes.

There will, of course, be an appeal. Trump's usual play is to try to run out the clock. It might delay his imprisonment, but it won't make it go away.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

There will, of course, be an appeal. Trump's usual play is to try to run out the clock. It might delay his imprisonment, but it won't make it go away.

We shall see. I don't see that they have an actual crime.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't see that they have an actual crime.

Juries of American citizens thought so. That's how he got those indictments. Of course, they got to see all the evidence, so they have a bit of an advantage.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok. Hold on until the appeal, if a conviction comes.

No appeal is going to change the Bragg case from state to federal law. Your "wait until appeal" is useless. Do try to learn what is going on.

 

[essentialsaltes]

QFT

We seem to have wandered off the topic.

This thread is about the Biden impeachment inquiry (and how Comer and his allies would rather talk about anything else).

Other trials and crimes can be discussed in the many threads about them.

 

[The Barbarian]

This thread is about the Biden impeachment inquiry (and how Comer and his allies would rather talk about anything else).

Yep...

“What is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going? Why? What is the crime? Tell America right now,” Raskin demanded at one point.

Speaking over Raskin, Comer said, “You’re about to find out very soon,” despite having witnesses repeatedly contradict and debunk Republican claims.

Jamie Raskin Went Up Against James Comer. Guess Who Came Out Ahead?

A House hearing was derailed when Raskin and Comer couldn’t stop sniping at each other.

www.yahoo.com

Comer's getting a little tired of being mocked for making accusations he can't back up with evidence. And Raskin keeps poking him where it hurts the most.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Juries of American citizens thought so. That's how he got those indictments. Of course, they got to see all the evidence, so they have a bit of an advantage.

No, no... There wasn't even a federal crime specified. Bragg just told New York jury that Trump "committed 34 counts" of a crime, and being 90%+ Democrat, they believed him.

They have to prove Trump INTENDED to defraud when his attorney did what he did at the attorney's advice. They have to prove he did not use his own money.

The 16-page indictment only "discussed an intent to defraud, and an intent to commit another crime". It does NOT specify that other crime. That alone is likely going to reverse this case, if necessary. The indictment never says which specific election laws were violated. A separate statement of fact - an anomaly, as it should be in the Complaint- alleges that a "catch and kill scheme (paying to buy stories so they won't be printed) was used to "influence" the 2016 election. Again, not a crime.

The" intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime" is the only thing that increases this misdemeanor to a felony.'

All that stupid talk about "influencing the election" is nonsense. It is not illegal to influence an election; every candidate does so by as many ways as he can. It IS illegal to interfere in an election. Those who don't know the law are conflating the two.

I think it will fail - or possibly be reversed. We shall see.

​

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think it will fail - or possibly be reversed. We shall see.

This seems to be based on wishful thinking. You could check the actual procedural history. I'm sure Trump moved to dismiss the charges (nearly all defendants do if they are not pleading out). Was there an appeal of the non-dismissal? If there was it failed already. Now it is up to the jury and Trump's best hope for reversal would be some sort of reversible error.

 

[essentialsaltes]

House Republicans subpoena Hunter and James Biden as their impeachment inquiry ramps back up​

So how's that impeachment ramping up?

Maybe here's a rap that can stick.

The clip of Biden slowly eating his salad went viral among Republicans over the weekend

 

[The Barbarian]

No, no... There wasn't even a federal crime specified.

But there was a state crime. Which is what Bragg has to address. Thought you knew this.

Bragg just told New York jury that Trump "committed 34 counts" of a crime, and being 90%+ Democrat, they believed him.

If you truly think that's all the jury heard, you're a lot more gullible than I think you are.

They have to prove Trump INTENDED to defraud when his attorney did what he did at the attorney's advice. They have to prove he did not use his own money.

That's what juries are for.

The newest and most important piece of evidence to emerge from today’s openings came from prosecutor Colangelo in his description of election night 2016. As news outlets came closer to announcing Donald Trump as the winner, Keith Davidson, the lawyer who cut the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal “catch and kill” deals, texted to the National Enquirer’s editor in chief: “What have we done?”

This statement, by an insider with no ax to grind, unmistakably connects the charged payoffs with the election, a crucial nexus to making the conduct a felony. We can expect that testimony will be a powerful cudgel in the prosecutor’s summation.

The Most Revealing New Piece of Evidence Offered Up at Today’s Trump Trial

The lawyer who helped broker the Stormy Daniels payment understood something important.

slate.com

Were these hush money payments illegal?​

Yes. While a hush money payment is not necessarily illegal, Cohen and AMI have both admitted they broke laws by making these payments in an effort to hide unflattering information before the 2016 election.

Cohen pleaded guilty to two campaign finance charges in August 2018: causing an unlawful campaign contribution for his involvement orchestrating the payment from AMI to McDougal, and making an excessive campaign contribution for the payment to Daniels.
AMI, now known as a360media, was not criminally charged by federal authorities but did admit to making the payment to McDougal. The company paid a $187,500 fine to the Federal Election Commission for making an unlawful campaign contribution.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/13/politics/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-explained/index.html