jerrymahoney

... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

That may very well be, but it seems they want to frame it as a Sixth Amendment constitutional issue as the basis for a possible appeal.

Trump asks to push Jan. 6 trial beyond 2024 election — to April 2026 U.S. proposes a January 2024 trial, starting before primary voting begins, but Donald Trump’s lawyers ask for a major delay citing ‘overwhelming’ amount of evidence Lawyers for Donald Trump said Thursday that it will take them years to prepare to defend the former president against allegations that he criminally conspired to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, asking a judge to hold his trial in April 2026, long after he finishes running in next year’s presidential election. In a 16-page filing, attorney Gregory Singer argued for the defense team that putting Trump on trial as requested by prosecutors on Jan. 2, 2024, on charges of plotting to undermine the federal government, obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election and disenfranchise voters would mark a “rush to trial” that would violate his constitutional rights and be “flatly impossible” given the enormity of the government’s evidence. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/17/trial-date-trump-jan-6-proposal/ https://archive.is/2djnJ

I agree. But if you want some comedy, just remember this one from 2015 (just the first few seconds):

"Be a man" were your words. And I get real tired of this "donnie boy" belittling stuff. This is a dangerous person and has been long before he ever got to President .. and one of the things that helps him most is to be underestimated and counted out before he comes back.

11. Be a man, go to trial, and be found not guilty of all criminal charges. (and if you think that is impossible, think again.)

I think the guy in that article, of which I can only quote 3+ sentences, has an answer for that. It is a matter of how the statutes are structured and what a prosecution has to prove to the jury that the defendant(s) has indeed violated those criminal statutes.

Also from that linked article: In other words, this indictment is ambitious. But it also answers two related questions: Why bring yet another case against Trump in yet another jurisdiction? Isn’t he going to face a federal trial in Washington, D.C., for the same acts outlined in the Georgia indictment? The answers lie in the distinctions between state and federal law. Georgia law is in many ways both more broad and more focused than the federal statutes at issue in Smith’s case against Trump. The breadth is evident from the racketeering charges. ...

If that's the case, at least as expressed in the linked article, it is because the structure of the state statutes present more problems for Mr. Trump than the more restrictive federal statutes.

ADDENDUM: OPINION Trump’s Georgia Indictment Is His Most Dangerous Yet it’s the focus of Georgia law that’s truly dangerous to Trump. The beating heart of the case is the 22 counts focused on false statements, false documents and forgery, with a particular emphasis on a key statute: Georgia Code Section 16-10-20, which prohibits false statements and writings on matters “within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions.” The statute is a state analogue to a federal law, 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, which also prohibits false statements to federal officials on matters within their jurisdiction, but the Georgia statute is even broader. Simply put, while you might be able to lie to the public in Georgia — or even lie to public officials on matters outside the scope of their duties — when you lie to state officials about important or meaningful facts in matters they directly oversee, you’re going to risk prosecution. That’s exactly what the indictment claims Trump and his confederates did, time and time again, throughout the election challenge. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/opinion/georgia-donald-trump-indictment-case.html https://archive.is/rkPdF#selection-339.0-339.48

This is a headline from NY Times a few days back: China's Stalling Economy Puts the World on Notice So if the PRC domestic market is cratering, they have to unload the goods somewhere.

Atlanta Rhythm Section (ARS)

This issue has been discussed before as Watergate contention in 1973 by Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr.: “I think a President is entitled to have kept secret confidential communications had between him and an aide or had among his aides, which were had for the purpose of assisting the President to perform in lawful manner one of his constitutional or legal duties,” Senator Ervin told former Attorney General John N. Mitchell at the committee hearing Thursday. “And I think also that is the full scope and effect of executive privilege. Since there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the President to run for re‐election, I don't think that executive privilege covers any political activities whatsoever. They are not official and have no relation to his office. “I also take the position that executive privilege does not entitle a President to have kept secret information concerning criminal activities of his aides or anybody else, because there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes or makes it the official duty of a President to have anything to do with criminal activity.’ https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/15/archives/nixon-and-ervin-will-quote-each-other-as-precedents-on.html (from 1973 not archived)

Plausible deniability.

As mentioned in my previous post, I consider the whole set-up a bribe if the IMM guy receives more than 1900 baht for an extension. 'Plausible deniability' makes no difference. I can't help how other people choose to look at it and I am on no crusade to make things any different.

So as in the OP, the agent receives 35000 baht and his take is less the 1900 baht the Immigration officer receives for exercising his discretion as on page 38 of the Immigration Act: (3) Application for extension of temporary stay in the Kingdom under Section 35, per person, each time 2,000 baht http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Immigration_Act_B.E._2522.pdf

I will admit to being a bit of that. Around 2012 or so after about 5 years on extension via retirement, I told folks at my neighbors that I had just come back from Bangkok and getting an income letter at the US Embassy and then going to Suan Phlu for an extension. Several of them looked at me like I was the dumbest thing that ever walked and one haughtily said " Oh -- I just use an agent".

The extension of stay received through the agent without the 800k in the bank and stamped by an authorized IMM official is legit for immigrration and any other purpose -- until it isn't.

Is it possible she turns in her sleep at night and ends up -- one at a time -- sleeping on her hands?

... or in other words, it is legit until it isn't.

This was my plan if I were to be still single in advanced age: This is Khon Kaen Ram hospital. The tall building at the right is the hospital. The two lower buildings to the left are nurses and staff dormitories. You can see one tall condominium building in the background and there is one just across the street from the hospital. I would plan to get a rental condo in one of those buildings and contract with off-duty nurses for whatever assistance I would need. ... but now I am not still single.

Fani is not nimble and Fani is not quick. But in my opinion, she has a criminal case with far less wiggle room than any of the other 3.

Some long-time friends of mine were in the salad dressing business and one time they considered doing mayonnaise. They said all the machines that make the fluffy-type mayonnaise like Hellman's/Best are propietqry.

I once asked my no-English Thai girlfriend who would say fa-ma-LEE what the word family meant and she said: No

Posted July 24 (JM) However maybe the more incriminating part of the coversation just precedes the 11,780 vote request: And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. ... You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state. https://aseannow.com/topic/1300947-georgia-supreme-court-denies-trump-bid-to-quash-fulton-county-investigation/?do=findComment&comment=18223776