You may be in the wrong column. Ahem.

Then so are you, and it must be a conspiracy because we're not alone. :)

Right, you can't consider more than one topic at a time.

Wrong. I just did and declared the second one irrelevant to the first one. The second topic is also irrelevant because it's only April. :)

the two issues are only related if the purpose for the case is to determine who wins this November, not whether or not some guy in New York broke the law.

Well, what we know for a fact (so far) is that the case is definitely related to whether or not some guy in New York broke the law by falsifying business records in order to conceal other crimes that took place in relation to the 2016 election. Which crimes? Take your pick... federal crimes already confessed by Pecker and Cohen for which Pecker received a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for his cooperation with SDNY and Cohen pleaded guilty and went to prison because the New York law says nothing about the crime being covered up having to be a state crime. Also crimes in violation of NY election law wherein Trump, Pecker, and Cohen conspired to prevent his opponents from winning and to promote the candidacy of Trump. Also crimes committed in violation of New York campaign finance law. You choose. ;)

Yes, I did say that this particular case is a waste of everyone's time and I explained why.

But your explanation that the "federal prosecutors first looking at it also surmised" it was a "waste of everyone's time" is patently and provably false. Those prosecutors gave David Pecker a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for his testimony, and Michael Cohen plead guilty to multiple crimes and was sentenced to prison.

In most of the latest polls, Trump leads Biden or is tied.

Which is completely irrelevant to the case.

Still, Trump only needs 1 juror to get a hung jury; there's no way on Earth he'll actually get an acquittal from 12 jurors looking at the indisputable facts of the case.

Thanks but, no, I was just being, oh what's the right word(s) ... a bit of a wise ass?

I wouldn't characterize your comment as "wise," but as for the remainder of your self-assessment, I won't disagree.

My bottom line point being that this case is a waste of everyone's time, as the federal prosecutors first looking at it also surmised.

That is patently and provably false. The federal prosecutors of Trump's own administration first looking at it got information from David Pecker in return for a non-prosecution agreement and then obviously convicted Michael Cohen of multiple crimes and continued the investigation until all those other things I already explained in [26].

Still, Trump only needs 1 juror to get a mistrial; there's no way on Earth he'll actually get an acquittal from 12 jurors looking at the indisputable facts of the case.

So, how is interference in a federal presidential election not a federal matter. I'm asking seriously, I'm not trying to be facetious here.

It's obviously a federal matter, but the crimes were undeniably committed in New York and are also definitely state matters; under no circumstances are the two things mutually exclusive. Trump has committed crimes in both jurisdictions.

Before we get into the meat of this trial, ahem, could someone please explain to me why this is a state prosecution and not a federal one? :-)

I detect a bit of snark in there and a definite chunk of vacuousness so I am willing to help you out.

Remember that it was Trump's own Department of Justice that prosecuted the case wherein Trump was described as "Individual-1." Michael Cohen pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced in December 2018 before Trump's own AG appointee Bill Barr was sworn in. Bill Barr then intervened/interfered in the case and ordered Southern District of New York (SDNY) prosecutors to end their investigation. Not only that, Barr suggested to U.S. attorney for SDNY, Geoffrey Berman, that Michael Cohen's conviction should be reversed. Berman was not cooperating with ending his investigation so Barr said Berman was resigning. Berman said he was not resigning. Trump then fired Berman.

Berman explains that and a lot more in his book Holding the Line: Inside the Nation's Preeminent US Attorney's Office and Its Battle with the Trump Justice Department:

While Cohen had pleaded guilty, our office continued to pursue investigations related to other possible campaign finance violations [including by Trump]. When Barr took over in February 2019, he not only tried to kill the ongoing investigations but—incredibly—suggested that Cohen’s conviction on campaign finance charges be reversed. Barr summoned Rob Khuzami in late February to challenge the basis of Cohen’s plea as well as the reasoning behind pursuing similar campaign finance charges against other individuals [including Trump].

Remember that Bill Barr also interfered in Michael Flynn's guilty plea and Roger Stone's sentencing.

So why didn't Biden's AG Merrick Garland pursue it? He's been accused of being timid and/or slow, but my guess is that Garland probably decided he didn't want it to appear politically motivated so left it up to local prosecutors... and, of course, the Biden administration is still accused by the former president/Defendant of being behind the New York prosecution because Trump is nothing if not a lying liar. :)

In most of the latest polls, Trump leads Biden or is tied.

You absolutely did say the case was "a waste of everyone's time". And that it's the first case being brought to court is because it's the smallest and simplest of the cases being brought against him, and so has offered Trump the fewest opportunities to delay it.

The Federal case revolving around the insurrection on January 6th would already be a month in if not for a ridiculous assertion that Presidents are completely above Federal law, and the baffling way the Supreme Court has handled the appeal process of that ruling. Since the current case is a state level case, not a federal one, such arguments haven't been possible.

The RICO case in Georgia might also be at trial or nearly so if not for accusations against the AG involving her relationship with one of the prosecutors of the case, which delayed things for weeks. As things stand, it may still go to trial this summer.

The main reason the classified documents case hasn't gone to trial yet is that the Judge there has been delaying the trial with extremely legally questionable rulings. She has already been found to have abused her position to issue legally faulty rulings that favored Trump rulings in a previous case, so judicial bias is strongly in play there. Likely the main reason a motion of recusal hasn't been made yet by the prosecution is that it would only serve to delay things even more, so they're holding that as a last resort.

I'm sure we'd all prefer to see one of the bigger cases go to trial first, but the bigger trials are going to necessarily be more complex and offer more opportunities for delay. It's an often unfortunate problem with the American legal system that people who have more money can afford to tie things up in courts for far longer than people with less money, and Trump has a lot of money, or at least the capacity to take on lots of debt, which functions similarly.

How is it a waste of people's time to hold a trial for someone accused of crimes which amount to felonies?

Did I say that? No, of course, I did not.

But, it does border on the laughable that this is the case, of all the cases against Trump, that will be tried before the presidential election or at all. And, we wonder why he remains so high in the polls ...

How is it a waste of people's time to hold a trial for someone accused of crimes which amount to felonies? Should we just ignore alleged felonious acts? Whether the ultimate result is a conviction or acquittal, it's still important for the process to be carried out.

Thanks but, no, I was just being, oh what's the right word(s) ... a bit of a wise ass?

My bottom line point being that this case is a waste of everyone's time, as the federal prosecutors first looking at it also surmised.

So the state of New York has laws which amount to a felony charge when they are combined; a financial records law and a voting interference law. (I think there may be a 3rd involved as well.) Georgia has its own set of voting laws and RICO laws which amount to felony charges, as another example.

There are, I suppose, pluses and minuses to this, but in any case that's the way it is.

Is this what you wanted to know?

Of course, I have never blamed Biden nor Ukraine for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. You really must stop misinterpreting my comments. It's tedious.

...disparaged Ukrainian for (common in ex-Warsaw Pact countries) corruption.

Well, Ukraine continues to have a real corruption problem which it will have to deal with successfully if it wishes to integrate into the EU and become a solid bulwark against Russia.

You left out that foolishness so yes, we agree.

And, good luck with all of that. Heh.

Re. My [6]

I'm afraid you missed my point, again.

AND, you have failed to address my addressing of your endless point. Do you intend to do that anytime soon?

I trust you had a fun, enjoyable and palindromic April 20, 2024!

4-20-24

:-)

Elizabeth you have heard that Jack Smith/Federal indicted Trump in Washington for J6 and in Florida for espionage aka “the documents case,” right?

Trump violated NY state law as well as Georgia state laws. Michigan, Arizona and Nevada are also in the investigative mix.

The Democrats in Idaho deserve a MIDOW award for showing Democrats in other 'red states' how it SHOULD BE done.

'“You can’t win if you don’t run,” Peery said, adding that Scott’s focus on irrelevant issues like cannibalism shows she isn’t a serious lawmaker. “It forces the Republicans to work, it forces [Scott] to get out there and talk to people so they can see what she’s about. It forces Republicans to spend more resources on the races.”
...
Under new leadership, the Idaho Democratic Party has deployed a grassroots recruitment strategy to put a record number of candidates on the ballot. In fact, there’s a Democrat running in every district for the first time in at least 30 years.'
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/17/idaho-democrats-comeback-00152346

FWIW, I'm partial to The Nodfather.