The Law Perverted (1 Viewer)

[Steve R.]

An excellent analysis of how the Democrats are perverting the law to take-out one man, Trump. For Democrats the "law" is an amorphous political tool to be used to take-out opponents. The Biden administration has implemented the Stalinist (Lavrentiy Beria) "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime." The Biden administration has refused to honor numerous long-standing historical legal constructs such as Executive Privilege, Attorney Client Privilege, and is now working to eliminate Trump's legal immunity for his actions while serving in office. Democrats are the threat to both the law and democracy.

Mark Levin: The law is being used to destroy the law | Fox News Video

Fox News host Mark Levin sounds off on the Democratic Party's 'use of the law' against former President Donald Trump on 'Life, Liberty & Levin.'

www.foxnews.com

 

[MarkK]

Lock him up.

 

[moke123]

An excellent analysis

No it's not, besides it being a 9 month old video.

 

[Steve R.]

That simply demonstrates how prescient Levin has been at perceiving how unethical and corrupt the Democratic party is.

 

[moke123]

Nah, it's fox. They've already admitted they lie to their audience. He probably doesn't even believe the nonsense he spouts.

 

[Steve R.]

Nah, it's fox. They've already admitted they lie to their audience. He probably doesn't even believe the nonsense he spouts.

Apparently you have overlooked reading the likes of Dershowitz and Turley plus numerous others who have labeled the made-up legal actions of Democrats as a threat to the US legal system. Has nothing to do with Fox News. Even the NY Times called this a mistake. Don't forget the disastrously failed attempt to get Trump off the ballot by using the 14th Amendment which went down in flames.

Alvin Bragg's evidence against Donald Trump is "truly insane"—Legal analyst

Jonathan Turley wrote on Saturday that the district attorney "decided to start with a witness to discuss an affair that is not part of the indictment."

www.newsweek.com

 

[AccessBlaster]

When I see Alvin, I think Weinstein.

 

[Steve R.]

When I see Alvin, I think Weinstein.

Levin pointed out that Bragg is using the same witness strategy that just got the Weinstein conviction overturned. Bragg may not care if the case eventually gets overturned on appeal as the November presidential election will have passed by then. Weinstein was convicted in 2020. So it has taken essentially 4 years to get the conviction overturned. Any conviction, if one is obtained, will have tainted the election against Trump, which is probably Bragg's real purpose. Election interference.

Bragg is throwing a bunch of irrelevant witnesses to establish that Trump is a "bad" person in the hopes that the jury would somehow overlook the fact that Bragg should actually cite a valid crime. With Democrats, simply using rumors to say that a person is "bad" is sufficient to convict. Facts and the law are irrelevant.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Bragg should actually cite a valid crime.

Probably wouldn't matter to an OJ type jury, facts will only confuse them

 

[Pat Hartman]

Bragg should actually cite a valid crime

Why would you need to specify an actual crime if the accused is the evil orange man? He is obviously guilty of something. Off with his head!!!

The only criminal jury I ever served on was a complete farce. By the third hour of testimony, I would have convicted the DA, the prosecutor, and the "victim" but the accused despite being a bad man guilty of other crimes, was not guilty of the crime I was judging.

How could I determine the defendant's innocence so soon? The defendant was on crutches and in a full leg cast. His lawyer, in his opening remarks mentioned the date of his injury which was a week prior to the incident. The "victim" as he described the crime, told us how the defendant had jumped over several fences in order to escape the scene as the police arrived. On crutches with a full leg cast? I don't think so.

 

[moke123]

The defendant was on crutches and in a full leg cast.

oldest trick in the book.

 

[Pat Hartman]

oldest trick in the book.

You are great with the one-liners. I suppose if he put the cast on himself. Too bad the prosecutor didn't believe the defendant when he told him when the accident happened and told him what hospital put on the cast. Eventually, the defendant's lawyer got the "victim" to admit the defendant was in the cast at the time of the incident. The crime turned out to be a drug deal gone bad and the prosecutor wasted MY tax money and three days of my life as well as three days of my salary which was paid by my employer, not to mention the other 11 jurors. That was the crime. The amount "stolen" was a whopping $35. The drug buy was marijuana. The whole trial was a crime. The judge kept sending the jury out of the room and trying to get the victim to back down and recant but he never did. Don't know what ever happened to him but he should have ended up in jail for making the whole story up and wasting all that time and money. It was really nice of the Judge to give us the scoop after we delivered our unanimous not-guilty verdict.

 

[moke123]

Your preaching to the choir, Pat.

I testified in a case last week and the jury came back in under 6 minutes with not guilty all counts.
Even the police chief and his patrol officer who investigated it when it happened said it didn't happen. Believe it or not, they are the entire town police force. Population 800. The young cop's claim to fame was he once pulled over Rachel Maddow.

Like it or not, both victims and defendants have a right to their day in court, as ridiculous as the case may be.

 

[Steve R.]

Skip the first two minutes. Next six minutes Dershowitz highlights Biden's hypocrisy and the spread of antisemitism. At the 8:30 mark he begins to analyze Trump's legal woes.

‎The Dershow: Trump trial: no crime; no first amendment; no justice. on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The Dershow, Ep Trump trial: no crime; no first amendment; no justice. - Apr 23, 2024

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

I testified in a case last week and the jury came back in under 6 minutes with not guilty all counts.

We let the state pay for our lunch. We came back after we ate since no one wanted to go to work for the afternoon

 

[Isaac]

One of my favorite commentators is Jonathon Turley. I respect him a lot. He doesn't necessarily always toe the fox line - but he ends up agreeing with much of it on the basis of his excellence in jurisprudence and experience. If I really want to know what the truth of an issue is, he is usually on my list of things to read, if he has anything to say about it.

 

[Isaac]

ike it or not, both victims and defendants have a right to their day in court

Not so sure about that statement. Victim's rights are mostly a made-up thing. Our only motivation for prosecuting people should be a convincing 'body of evidence' that suggests they may be guilty. What the victims want, or despite if they find someone they'd "like to prosecute", should make zero difference.