jerrymahoney

The NY Times thought his opinion was worth publishing. Nobody says you have to agree with it.

Absolutely. But then it makes it impossible to assess the viability of your statements as to what info you received.

Some think this is a slam-dunk case. Some don't. Either way, what is main concern to me is that Trump is not re-elected in 2024. All the rest to me including the extent and possible criminal cases is side show.

The link is posted above and to which you replied.

That's right. Opinion. As is just about everything else posted on here. And this is the opinion of a conservative Hoover Institution senior staffer. And in his opinion, given his credentials, the operative point here is that: The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power.

The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences Aug. 8, 2023 (Opinion) It may be satisfying now to see the special counsel Jack Smith indict Donald Trump for his reprehensible and possibly criminal actions in connection with the 2020 presidential election. But the prosecution, which might be justified, reflects a tragic choice that will compound the harms to the nation from Mr. Trump’s many transgressions. Mr. Smith’s indictment outlines a factually compelling but far from legally airtight case against Mr. Trump. The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power. If the prosecution fails (especially if the trial concludes after a general election that Mr. Trump loses), it will be a historic disaster. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/opinion/trump-indictment-cost-danger.html https://archive.is/nMJ04

The continued mystery of 'what home country?'

Sure but you can never tell when those in Immigration might check into a website like this to see what they should do if they had any brains.

Your conclusions are dead wrong. I voted against Trump twice. I would vote against him agian but my ability to register again for 2024 is in doubt. I lived in New York City in the mid-1970's when Trump first started to become famous for being famous. I will quote the very liberal Columnist for the NY Times: June 12, 2023 How seriously should we take Donald Trump’s candidacy? Frank Bruni: We should take it with maximal, bone-chilling, psyche-ravaging, hope-slaying seriousness. Even under federal indictment, he’s the likeliest Republican nominee. And the Republican nominee ipso facto has a decent shot at the presidency. Which means a second term of Trump, heaven help us, is entirely possible. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/opinion/donald-trump-2024.html To me, all these criminal trials are a side show in magnitude compared to the prospect, of whatever possibility, that Trump is again elected President.

You were the one who alluded to my 'hopes'.

My hopes are that he isn't the Republican nominee and, if he is, he loses. And just because I am not part of the tar-and-feather squad on here, I don't know why you would think otherwise.

Oh. Thanks for that. But most Americans is who will elect the next President in 2024 and -- at least to me -- that is more importrant than the outcome of any of these Trump criminal trials extent or possible.

AND -- August 7, 2023 at 11:46 a.m. EDT A majority of Americans think the Trump probes are about 2024 New polling from CBS News, conducted by YouGov, shows that arguments like the one made by Lauro have real traction. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans think that the investigations into Trump are an effort to keep him from winning the White House next year. Trump argues that he’s being indicted because his opponents want to punish his supporters; half of Republicans think that the probes are “an attack on people like me.” In other words, most Republicans — and perhaps most Americans — think that Biden is engaged in what Trump is accused of doing: manipulating the system to retain power. Subtle arguments about the role of a special counsel probably won’t do much to reverse that idea. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/07/trump-federal-election-charges/ https://archive.is/wrhPK

Who on earth told you that?? I guess it was someone on earth but, at least so far, he ain't telling.

Sure but as populists going back to Louisiana's Huey Long in the 1930's realized: Successful people have one vote and "losers" have one vote and there may be more of the latter than the former.

I guess I am not well informed about the O and O-A visa requirements. I never had an O. I had 2 one year multiple-entry 'B' visas which became the basis of my first retirement exension in 2007 and then every year since.

OK. Travel day for me. Redux -- I really don't care how all these criminal trials pan out AS LONG as he is not again elected President in 2024.

As best I recall, the reason for the O-A health insurance requirement is that -- unlike the O based extensions -- the O-A requires no money in a Thai bank account.

The burden of proof for grand juries is "probable cause". "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the burden of proof at trial. The possible defendant submits no claims or evidence at a grand jury hearing.

A grand jury is a group of people selected to sit on a jury that decide whether the prosecutor's evidence provides probable cause to issue an indictment. (my italics) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/grand_jury (my words) So a grand jury can say it is likely that A robbed B but does not have to say it is a fact that A robbed B.

I ran this report when as a test when all the extension rules were in flux. FDLE is Florida Department of Law Enforcement: Tran ID: nnnnnnnn Name: xxxxx Maiden Name/Alias: Maiden Name/Alias 2: SSN: XXX-XX-nnnn DOB: nn/nn/nnnn Race: W Sex: M Search conducted: 10/26/2018 05:49:34 AM BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, THE CUSTOMER DETERMINED THAT NONE OF THE SEARCH RESULTS APPEAR TO BE THE INDIVIDUAL SOUGHT BY THE INQUIRY; THEREFORE NO RELEVANT CRIMINAL RECORDS WERE SELECTED. Note: They gave 5 records of names similar to mine who did have criminal records.

Even lies are protected speech: New Trump indictment bulldozes the First Amendment BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 05/AUG/23 The latest federal indictment of former President Donald Trump was handed down this week with all of the authority of papal infallibility. Pundits lined up to proclaim that case as the greatest prosecution in history. (skip) In order to secure convictions for this, Special Counsel Jack Smith would need to bulldoze through not just the First Amendment but also existing case law holding that even false statements are protected. https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4137650-even-lies-are-protected-speech-new-trump-indictment-bulldozes-the-first-amendment/

Thank you. As someone who lived in mid-town Manhattan (west 57th street) in the 1970's, that realization is coming about 50 years too late for some.

I am not saying Trump will get off or should get off for any of the current or possible criminal cases. Just that these cases are complex, have detailed Federal jury instructions, and Supreme Court precedent rulings that may affect what would seem to be an otherwise 'obvious' outcome.

Fine. How many federal cases have you prosecuted? Ms. Ouziel said this is not a slam-dunk case. You sure wouldn't get that notion from reading the posts on here.