Trump: Set to declare 2024 presidential bid tonight; will indictments follow soon?

[Peter McKillop]

[B]
....
This is the future Democrats led by Kamala Harris want for all female sports in America. ....

I don't know whether the above quote comes from your mouth or from Cullen Linebarger's, but you posted it so you own it. Prove what you said.

[Sid Belzberg]

I don't know whether the above quote comes from your mouth or from Cullen Linebarger's, but you posted it so you own it. Prove what you said.

https://apnews.com/article/trans-ath...4de15bfdd624fe

[Peter McKillop]

https://apnews.com/article/trans-ath...4de15bfdd624fe

The Biden administration pointing out that there is a Title IX issue in how some states/educational institutions are treating transgendered athletes is not proof that "this is the future Democrats led by Kamala Harris want for all female sports in America." There needs to be some satisfactory resolution to this problem - unless you're a hard right conservative, in which case the solution is to treat transgenders like pariahs.

[Sid Belzberg]

The Biden administration pointing out that there is a Title IX issue in how some states/educational institutions are treating transgendered athletes is not proof that "this is the future Democrats led by Kamala Harris want for all female sports in America." There needs to be some satisfactory resolution to this problem - unless you're a hard right conservative, in which case the solution is to treat transgenders like pariahs.

Yes, it is proof, Peter. The LGBT movement was legitimate until puppet leftist globalist politicians hijacked it. The idea that men thinly disguised as women compete in women's sports is beyond evil and has destroyed the hopes and ambitions of female athletes, including more than one female boxer who was badly beaten up at the Olympics.

a hard right conservative, in which case the solution is to treat transgenders like pariahs.

How is building an extreme house that I do not live in different from this tactic you have so eloquently criticized in other posts?

[Peter McKillop]

Yes, it is proof, Peter. The LGBT movement was legitimate until puppet leftist globalist politicians hijacked it. The idea that men thinly disguised as women compete in women's sports is beyond evil and has destroyed the hopes and ambitions of female athletes, including more than one female boxer who was badly beaten up at the Olympics.

How is building an extreme house that I do not live in different from this tactic you have so eloquently criticized in other posts?

Apparently I wasn't very eloquent in my previous post so allow me to clarify. My comment about conservatives was *not* directed at you; I was referring to hard right American conservatives. We were talking about the U.S. and Title IX, etc. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

My personal opinion on this matter is that, at minimum, a transgendered woman who has had the benefit of male hormones during puberty should *not* be allowed to compete in women's sports - period (no pun intended). In those situations (and their number is increasing) where the conversion begins prior to puberty, there may be an argument for a more nuanced approach. I'd say my opinion, with the exception of a leftist globalist hijacking, is pretty close to yours. But regardless of that, transgendered people are still human beings. One of government's purposes should be to protect citizens from harm. Therefore I see nothing nefarious about the Biden administration pointing out Title IX issues w.r.t. transgenders. And I don't see that as proof that a tidal wave of Harris-led Democrats want to see women's sports overrun by "men thinly disguised as women."

[Sid Belzberg]

Apparently I wasn't very eloquent in my previous post so allow me to clarify. My comment about conservatives was *not* directed at you; I was referring to hard right American conservatives. We were talking about the U.S. and Title IX, etc. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

My personal opinion on this matter is that, at minimum, a transgendered woman who has had the benefit of male hormones during puberty should *not* be allowed to compete in women's sports - period (no pun intended). In those situations (and their number is increasing) where the conversion begins prior to puberty, there may be an argument for a more nuanced approach. I'd say my opinion, with the exception of a leftist globalist hijacking, is pretty close to yours. But regardless of that, transgendered people are still human beings. One of government's purposes should be to protect citizens from harm. Therefore I see nothing nefarious about the Biden administration pointing out Title IX issues w.r.t. transgenders. And I don't see that as proof that a tidal wave of Harris-led Democrats want to see women's sports overrun by "men thinly disguised as women."

Interestingly, you bring up puberty blockers. an interesting interview with Musk and what happened to his son regarding puberty blockers.
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1815...204202/video/1
Confusing kids about their gender and sexuality so that the State can take away parental consent and giving them sterilizing puberty blockers is another example of the pure evil of Globalist Puppet Leftist Politicians.
The cultural revolution in China in the 1960s was all about the youth pledging their allegiance to the State and destroying the family unit. This is exactly what is happening now.

[Bob Armstrong]

Trump's Legal Problems - Criminal Case # 3 (Of 4) – Falsifying Corp. Docs # 1 (Hush Money)

Prosecutor: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, under New York Attorney General, Letitia James. Senior Counsel to the DA is Matthew Colangelo, with Ms. Susan Hoffinger.

Manhattan Criminal Court Charge: Falsifying corporate documents # 1

34 counts of falsification of New York business records in an attempt to cover up hush-money payments to Stephanie A. Gregory Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, an American pornographic film actress, director and former stripper. Stephanie claims she had an extramarital affair with Trump, which he vehemently denies.
Mr. Bragg further accuses Mr. Trump of trying to hide “damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election". Public disclosure of this could have derailed Trump's stunning victory in the 2016 presidential election.

Note: Mr. Bragg seeks a "felony" conviction for what would normally be a "misdemeanor". He argues that the intent to commit or conceal another crime (By making the illegal hush money payment), including breaking “state and federal election laws,” raises the charge to a felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, under New York law.

Interim Motions & Decisions (prior to trial): See Post # 231 (24/4/12)

Start of Trial (Mon. 24/4/15) - Trial Judge Juan Manuel Merchan

This is the first criminal prosecution and conviction of a former American president. It may be the only one of the 4 current criminal cases against Trump where the trial gets started in 2024.

Trial Opening Statement - Prosecutor

“This is a case about a criminal conspiracy,” Mr. Colangelo told the jury. “The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

Mr. Colangelo then began to unfold, step by step, how Mr. Trump and Mr. David Pecker, [National Enquirer former CEO, then good friend of Trump] using the Enquirer, conceived a scheme “to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information” about Mr. Trump with the help of his former personal lawyer [and now current nemesis], Michael Cohen. The prosecutor called him Mr. Trump’s “former fixer.”

The three men met in August 2015 at Trump Tower and cooked up a three-point plan to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, the prosecution alleged. The Enquirer would run “headline after headline that extolled the defendant’s virtues,” Mr. Colangelo argued.

Trial Summary

Here are five things we learned during the trial:

1. The head of the National Enquirer described a partnership with Trump aimed at boosting his presidential bid
2. Hope Hicks said Trump was worried about the Stormy Daniels story coming out before the 2016 election.
3.Stormy Daniels described being pressured into sex with Trump
4. A handwritten note described Michael Cohen being reimbursed $130,000
5. Michael Cohen admitted he stole from the Trump Organization.

Closing Argument of Prosecutor: Donald Trump engaged in “a conspiracy and a cover-up”.

Closing Argument of Defense: The star witness, lawyer Michael Cohen, is the “greatest liar of all time”; the jury should render an across-the-board acquittal.

Jury Verdict: Guilty – He did falsify business records as alleged.

Pre-Sentencing Report (Being prepared):

Monday, June 10: Probation Officer had a video interview with Donald Trump.
The officer is preparing a “Sentencing Report” for Trial Judge Marchan.

Expert Sentencing Opinions

- a typical defendant convicted of the charges at hand would be very unlikely to face prison
- however, none of them would speculate about what this would mean for President Trump, since it is in many ways a precedent-setting case.

Gag Order – March 2024 – before the trial started - on application by Bragg, Judge Merchan had issued an order that prohibited Trump from speaking about jurors, witnesses, prosecutors, court staff or members of their family. But It does not bar Trump from speaking about Marchan or Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Fine - During the trial, Trump was fined $10,000 and held in criminal contempt for violating the gag order 10 times. Merchan also warned that he would have to jail Trump if he continued to do so.

Trumps Appeal of Gag Order – 24/6/18 - The New York Court of Appeals - declined to hear Trump's appeal, dismissing his effort to fight the gag order "without costs" and "upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved."

Update 24/8/3

Trump's Appeal to New York Appeals Court (24/8/1) – Dismissed Trump's appeal to vacate the gag order. They ruled that some restrictions should stay in place until sentencing, which was recently delayed.

Newsweek – Trump Trial Watch Newsletter

24/8/2

End of Update

Bragg Application to Extend the Gag Order – 24/6/21 – Bragg applied to Judge Juan Merchan to extend major elements of the gag order, citing dozens of death threats that have been made to Bragg and others. Bragg and Merchan are not covered under the gag order. An affidavit provided to the court says that the New York Police Department has logged 56 “actionable threats” against the DA, his family and his staff members since the beginning of April.

Revoking of Conviction Application /Application to Delay Sentencing (24/7/11)

Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has formally asked Judge Juan Merchan to toss the charges in his criminal hush money case and vacate his conviction, saying that last week’s Supreme Court ruling means some of the evidence that prosecutors used should not be allowed.

The Manhattan DA’s office responded in writing.

Update 24/8/3

Trump's 3^rd Motion for Judge Juan Merchan to recuse himself from the case (step aside for another judge to take the case over): This time, he cites an alleged conflict of interest over Merchan’s daughter’s work for Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump, as former President, and Kamala Harris, as current VP face each other in the November 4, 2024 Presidential election. Prosecutor Alvin Bragg opposes the motion as "vexatious and frivolous".

Newsweek – Trump Trial Watch Newsletter

24/8/2

End of Update

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Trump's Legal Problems - Criminal # 1 (Of 4) – Insurrection

Charge: “Criminal Enterprise” to foment insurrection and to overturn the 2020 election result.

Court: U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia

Trial Judge: Judge Tanya Chutkan

Defence: as to illegal actions that are "official acts" while President, a President has "immunity" from being charged "in perpetuity".

Trial Judgment - Trump has no "immunity".

Appeal: the appeals court fast-tracked the appeal, rejected the motion, and also fast-tracked the appeal process to the Supreme Court.

Appeal in the Supreme Court of USA (Trial paused since Dec./23)- it decided to hear Trump's Appeal from the lower court decision that Trump has no "immunity".

SCOTUS Judgment (24/7/1): Presidents and former presidents enjoy “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for “conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” So, there is immunity for “official” acts, but not “private” acts, by a President. Case returned to Judge Chutkan for further analysis/judgment.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Clarence Thomas adding his own concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barret concurred in part, noting several lines of legal disagreement with the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who also penned a separate dissent.

The court has now set guidelines for which acts in former President Donald Trump’s federal election case can remain in the indictment. But this leaves large amounts of litigation for the district court.

Update 24/8/3

SCOTUS (24/8/2): Returned Special Counsel Jack Smith’s January 6 case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — which immediately passed it on to Trial Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Trial Continuation: Before the trial can begin, Judge Chutkan must decide which of Trump's acts while in office are “official” and which are not. This will likely involve many motions and appeals.

New York Sun
24/8/2

End of Update

Substantive Trial Issues

# 1 – Which acts of then President Trump were “official” and which acts were “private”? To which acts does immunity apply?

Central to Trump’s immunity argument is the claim that only a former president who was impeached and convicted by the Senate can be criminally prosecuted. Trump was impeached over his efforts to undo the election in the run-up to the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But he was acquitted, not convicted, by the Senate in 2021.

# 2 - The Sarbanes-Oxley Law

Different Relevant Current Case Before the USA Supreme Court: USA vs Fischer

Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, decided to charge more than 350 January 6 defendants with violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was signed into law in 2002 in the wake of the implosions of Enron and WorldCom. The law is intended to punish crooks for “corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding.”

The Nine [members of the USASC] mulled whether a law that punishes anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record” is applicable to those who rioted at the Capitol, like Joseph Fischer, a police officer by trade. He pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, but contends that the Sarbanes-Oxley charges are instances of unlawful prosecutorial overreach. As his lawyer, Frederick William Ulrich, put it, that statute is “Enron-driven.”

The high court appeared open to that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas telegraphed that the government could be acting selectively, observing that “there have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests?” To that, Solicitor General Prelogar claimed that there has never been anything like January 6.

Justice Samuel Alito allowed that “what happened on Jan. 6 was very, very serious” but told General Prelogar that “we need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.” The solicitor general called one of the words at issue, “otherwise,” a “classic catchall.” Fischer’s counsel, though, finds it to be more of a “dragnet.” "

Relevance to Trump Case

USA S.C. Argument by Jack Smith, Special Prosecutor, against Trump

"Even if the Nine dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley charges against the January 6 defendants, Mr. Smith is likely to argue that they should stick against Mr. Trump, who did not himself set foot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Instead, the special counsel argues, he engaged in the kind of obstruction contemplated by the statute. Two of the four charges Mr. Trump faces are based on Sarbanes-Oxley.

The relevant subsection mandates that someone is criminally culpable if “he alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” The special counsel argues that the certification of the results of the 2020 election were such a proceeding.

Mr. Smith’s accusation that Mr. Trump pursued a “conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified” could insulate the special counsel’s case from any Supreme Court ruling in the Fischer, or other, case, that upends the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the other defendants similarly charged."

Sentence: The 45th president could ...be sent to jail for as much as 20 years under this draconian law known as Sarbanes-Oxley.

Bob A

[Frank Dixon]

The August 16th, 2024 hearing is a huge problem for Donald Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith is sure to argue that Trump's actions, while president, pertaining to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection, were outside his normal presidential powers. I am confident the judge will rule to support this.

As well, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer has prepared a 'No Kings' bill, as a counter to the Supreme Count's ruling on presidential immunity. It may pass the Senate, but perhaps not with the current setup -- that is, not until after the November election. This was the sort of situation that the original delegates to the Constitutional Conference, held in Philadelphia in the 1780s, with delegates from most of the original 13 American states -- were most concerned about. Their armies, led by George Washington -- had fought and won a Revolutionary War to get away from British Royal diktat, and hoped, by setting up a balance of powers -- between Legislative, Executive, and Judicial authority branches -- to avoid future problems. It's worked out pretty well for 235 years -- until Donald Trump arrived on the scene.

[Pargat Perrer]

"This is Unjust!" - 'Biological Male' Boxer Viciously Beats Female Opponent and Forces Her to Quit in Tears Within Seconds at Woke Olympics (VIDEO)


This is the future Democrats led by Kamala Harris want for all female sports in America.

---

By Cullen Linebarger

3 min. read
View original

---

Credit: The Daily Mail
This is the future Democrats led by Kamala Harris want for all female sports in America.

The Paris Olympics erupted in controversy again on Thursday after a “biological man” easily “prevailed” in an Olympic boxing match after smacking around a much smaller and weaker woman for just under a minute. This follows the Olympic organizers cruelly insulting Christians during the opening ceremonies with a Last Supper reenactment involving drag queens.

As the Daily Mail reported, the boxing bout between Italian Angela Carini and her Algerian opponent Imane Khelif lasted just 46 seconds, with Carini dropping her helmet onto the floor while quitting and shouting, “This is unjust!”

The 25-year-old Carini then rightfully refused to shake hands with Khelif and fell to the floor bawling after just two vicious punches to the head from her Algerian tormentor, who had been banned from a significant boxing competition a year before the Olympics.

WATCH:

Angela Carini (blue, female) abandons fight against Imane Khelif (red, male) a few minutes into fight /1 pic.twitter.com/yOIvZkDaow

— FairPlayForWomen (@fairplaywomen) August 1, 2024

A couple of punches to the head and it’s all over. /2 pic.twitter.com/6egSrRj51s

— FairPlayForWomen (@fairplaywomen) August 1, 2024

An absolute travesty at the Olympics.

Angela Carini is forced to box against a biological male. She quits after just 45 seconds, and cries hysterically as her opponent is declared the winner.

Don’t look away. This is wokeness. pic.twitter.com/wOkVRs88t5

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 1, 2024

Carini told reporters following the bout she had never been slugged so hard in her life and was in too much pain to continue.

“I’m used to suffering. I’ve never taken a punch like that, it’s impossible to continue, Carini explained. “I’m nobody to say it’s illegal.”

“I got into the ring to fight, but I didn’t feel like it anymore after the first minute,” she added. “I started to feel a strong pain in my nose. I didn’t give up, but a punch hurt too much and so I said enough. I’m leaving with my head held high.”

Khelif then dared to thank God for his “victory” after assaulting Carini for several seconds.

“God willing, this was the first victory,” he boasted. “God is willing me to the golden one.”

Try not to cry… Angela Carini talks about competing in the Olympics for her late father.

She just quit her boxing match after being forced to compete against a man.

Allowing men in women’s competitions is evil. Democrats support it.pic.twitter.com/djpbkNhq63

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 1, 2024

As Fox News notes, Khelif previously failed a gender eligibility test back in 2023. The Algerian was disqualified during the 2023 World Championships in New Delhi, India.

Reuters revealed that Khelif tested positive for having high levels of testosterone during the competition. Despite this, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) gave Khelif the green light to “compete” in Paris against females despite the inherent dangers.

X Owner Elon Musk weighed in following the travesty:

This is wrong

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 1, 2024

Former NCAA Champion swimmer and women’s rights advocate Riley Gaines posted, “Men don’t belong in women’s sports #IStandWithAngelaCarini” with a photo of the Italian boxer and asked X users to amplify the post. So far, it has received over 35 million views.

Men don’t belong in women’s sports #IStandWithAngelaCarini

Let’s get it trending pic.twitter.com/ljlJJwE0hM

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) August 1, 2024

Aren't there also transgenders who used to be male playing in women sections in chess events? Sid seems to care only when it's actually a physical sport where blood can be drawn? No, it's just that it's much more dramatic to think of women being physically assaulted by men, and Sid is using that to maximum effect to rant against the left. A female chess player losing all her chess pieces to a "man" doesn't have nearly the same effect.

[Pargat Perrer]

Apparently I wasn't very eloquent in my previous post so allow me to clarify. My comment about conservatives was *not* directed at you; I was referring to hard right American conservatives. ...

Sid took it to be directed at him because Sid properly identifies as hard right Conservative.

I notice also both Sid and Vlad use the exact same wording ... "globalist puppet leftist" etc etc

Get with the program Peter. You WERE referring to Sid and both you and he know it. You criticize others for doing exactly what you yourself do.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Sid took it to be directed at him because Sid properly identifies as hard right Conservative.

I notice also both Sid and Vlad use the exact same wording ... "globalist puppet leftist" etc etc

Get with the program Peter. You WERE referring to Sid and both you and he know it. You criticize others for doing exactly what you yourself do.

Pargat Perrer is a sock puppet for Paul Bonham who was angry at me for being dismissive of his efforts to enlist me as an unpaid advocate for his silly chess variant which I don't care about, and would never care about. My plate was full with the CFC and the main variant of chess at various time controls. Bonham/Perrer is a troll and can't speak the truth if his life depends on it. He does not even bother to tell lies that could at least be plausible.

I have never ever used the phrase "globalist puppet leftist" anywhere, any time and certainly not on chesstalk. A search of Chesstalk shows that only Bonham and Sid have used that phrase.

P.S. Pargat Perrer aka Paul Bonham are also very bad at playing the Benko Gambit as even a horrible blunder on my part was not enough to save him.

[Peter McKillop]

Sid took it to be directed at him because Sid properly identifies as hard right Conservative.

I notice also both Sid and Vlad use the exact same wording ... "globalist puppet leftist" etc etc

Get with the program Peter. You WERE referring to Sid and both you and he know it. You criticize others for doing exactly what you yourself do.

Whatever credibility you *may* have had at Chesstalk disappeared once you made it clear that you're an antisemitic piece of trash.

[Pargat Perrer]

Pargat Perrer is a sock puppet for Paul Bonham who was angry at me for being dismissive of his efforts to enlist me as an unpaid advocate for his silly chess variant which I don't care about, and would never care about. My plate was full with the CFC and the main variant of chess at various time controls. Bonham/Perrer is a troll and can't speak the truth if his life depends on it. He does not even bother to tell lies that could at least be plausible.

I have never ever used the phrase "globalist puppet leftist" anywhere, any time and certainly not on chesstalk. A search of Chesstalk shows that only Bonham and Sid have used that phrase.

P.S. Pargat Perrer aka Paul Bonham are also very bad at playing the Benko Gambit as even a horrible blunder on my part was not enough to save him.

Vlad doesn't want to believe that any person can share viewpoints with Mr. Bonham, so he insists I am the same person. Yawn.

I never said anything about "phrase", read my post again.

In Vlad, Sid and Dilip, we have 3 hard right Conservatives, with Dilip introducing religious zealot thinking with his Natural Law nonsense. They have all used the words "leftist", "socialist", "globalist", "puppet" at various times in denigrating statements. Their hatred of the political left is palpable.

Bob A. has accommodated Dilip even though Dilip repeatedly ignores Bob's statements that almost all extreme left governments around the world up to now have not been true Marxism. Dilip continues to refer to them as Marxists, despite Bob's many explanations of the differences. The blinders are fully on for all 3 of Sid, Vlad, Dilip. And as we have all heard, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

All these political threads are proving that the middle ground is our safest bet to keep any semblance of civilization.