jerrymahoney

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.

Smith lets indictments speak for him Updated August 3, 2023 at 4:43 p.m. EDT Legal experts said that much of the election conspiracy case is likely to center on a question of intent — essentially, whether Trump believed his false claims while pushing to have the election results overturned. And that, they said, could pose a challenge for Smith and his team. “It’s certainly not an easy case, it’s not a slam-dunk case,” (Lauren Ouziel, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan and Philadelphia who is now a law professor at Temple University) said, “because it really comes down to mental state, to intent.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/03/jack-smith-special-counsel-trump/ https://archive.is/LAVZf

True but I have been told by mods that even with a public non-copyrighted document I can only post 3 sentences plus heading.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23898465/protectiveorder.pdf

I only posted that 200K option to show the word "consecutively" with the notion that any future grandfathering change might contain the same provision.

From the 04AUG23 GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER as referenced above: The Government’s proposed order is consistent with other such orders commonly used in this District and is not overly restrictive. It allows the defendant prompt and effective use of discovery materials in connection with his defense, including by showing discovery materials to witnesses who also agree to abide by the order’s terms. All the proposed order seeks to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public.

Yes but also note the word "consecutively" (click on image)

Not saying it's always easy but not worrying about something happening until it happens.

Or at least say that they do.

No -- When I wrote "Friends of the agents?" I was referring to the "Thai officials who clandestinely aid them."

Friends of the agents?