Down The Rabbit Hole With The Trump Trial

On Friday, Byron York posted article at The Washington Examiner about some of the insanity surrounding the New York trial of President Trump. A number of laws have been ignored in order to proceed with this trial, and Byron York lists a number of them.

The article reports:

Yes, we know that Trump is charged with falsifying business records of payments made to the porn actress Stormy Daniels in 2016 and 2017. But falsifying business records is a misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations, meaning prosecutors would be prohibited from charging Trump with that crime after 2019, which was five years ago. They obviously missed that deadline by a mile.

We also know that New York law allows falsifying business records to be upgraded to a felony if the alleged falsification was done with “intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” In that case, the statute of limitations extends to five years, which would have allowed prosecutors to charge Trump as late as 2022. Prosecutors missed that deadline, too.

Trump was indicted in 2023. How did that happen? Because of COVID-19, when New York extended its statute of limitations by a year. That allowed prosecutors to slip the charges in right before the new, one-time-only, six-year extended statute of limitations expired.

But here’s the thing. What was the “intent to commit another crime or aid and conceal the commission thereof” that prosecutors used to raise falsification of business records from a misdemeanor to a felony? In nearly every case of alleged falsification of records that has been charged as a felony in New York, the defendant was charged with another crime — that is, prosecutors made it clear what the other crime was. In Trump’s case, the indictment did not specify any other crime. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said the law did not require him to specify the other crime.

So Trump faced felony charges without knowing what he was accused of doing. And the really amazing thing is that the trial is now underway and Bragg has still not specified what the other crime is. It is a key element of the case. Without it, the charges against Trump could never have been brought because they were misdemeanors long past the statute of limitations. It is the other crime that makes this whole prosecution possible. But the prosecutor has not specified what it is.

One of my lawyer friends tells me that a trial must deal with whatever the defendant is charged with in the indictment. The Fifth Amendment “requires a felony charge to be spelled out in an indictment whose criminal elements have been established by probable cause to the satisfaction of a grand jury.” In this case, the prosecutor has not even specified the crime that made the prosecution possible. Is there anyone in the New York State legal system who has actually read the U.S. Constitution?

What Is The Penalty For A U.S. Citizen?

An American who is arrested for Driving Under the Influence faces jail time, losing his license, and heavy fines. What should the penalty be for a person who is here illegally who is arrested for Driving Under the Influence?

On Thursday, The Conservative Review reported that 150 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted against a measure to state that aliens who drive “while intoxicated or impaired” are inadmissible and, if convicted of such an offense, deportable. How in the world would voting against the measure keep Americans safe?

The article reports:

In a bipartisan 274-150 vote, the House of Representatives passed a measure on Thursday that would declare that aliens who drive “while intoxicated or impaired” are inadmissible and, if convicted of such an offense, deportable.

The 150 lawmakers who voted against the measure were all Democrats. But 59 other Democrats joined 215 Republicans in voting to approve the measure.

“Any alien who has been convicted of an offense for driving while intoxicated or impaired, as those terms are defined under the law of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred (including a conviction for driving while under the influence of or impaired by alcohol or drugs), without regard to whether the conviction is classified as a misdemeanor or felony under Federal, State, tribal, or local law, is deportable,” the measure reads.

There is currently on the books a law making an illegal deportable if he is guilty of moral turpitude. This law simply clarifies the current law. At any rate, isn’t entering a country illegally breaking the law? Shouldn’t that be subject to deportation?

The Second Amendment Goes To The Supreme Court (Again)

There have been a number of Second Amendment cases that have made their way to the Supreme Court in recent years. That alone should make all of us carefully examine the nominees for the court. Some of the decisions in the past have been five-four, meaning that placing one of two liberal justices on the Court could easily end the Second Amendment. There is no higher court than the Supreme Court–if the Court begins to undo the Second Amendment, there will be no place to appeal.

On Monday, The Epoch Times posted an article about another Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court recently heard and ruled on.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court decision on Oct. 3 that upheld one of Massachusetts’ tough gun laws, months after the high court expanded Second Amendment rights.

The Massachusetts law in question, the constitutionality of which is now in doubt, imposed a lifetime ban on purchasing handguns—but not possessing them—on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor that involved the possession or use of guns.

The high court remanded the case, Morin v. Lyver (court file 21-1160), to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit “for further consideration in light of” the Supreme Court’s landmark June 23 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Massachusetts was previously added to Morin v. Lyver as an intervenor to defend the constitutionality of the state law.

The order was unsigned and no justices indicated they were dissenting from it. The justices didn’t explain why they granted the order.

In Bruen, a 6–3 ruling, the high court recognized a constitutional right to bear firearms in public for self-defense and struck down New York’s law that required an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court also found that gun restrictions must be deeply rooted in American history if they are to survive constitutional scrutiny.

The person in the Massachusetts case was Alfred Morin, a resident of Massachusetts. Mr. Morin, who has a concealed carry permit in Massachusetts, traveled to Washington, D.C., and was visiting the American Museum of Modern History, when he saw a sign saying that guns were not permitted. He approached a guard to ask where he could check his gun. Mr. Morin possessed a valid Massachusetts License to Carry Firearms but was unaware that District of Columbia laws prohibited him from carrying his gun, despite having the Massachusetts license.

The article continues the story:

Police arrested Morin and charged him with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

On Nov. 8, 2004, Morin pleaded guilty to attempting to carry a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm, both misdemeanors.

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia sentenced Morin to 60 days imprisonment on each count, three months of supervised probation, and 20 hours of community service. The court suspended the imprisonment portion of the sentence.

Morin later applied to police in his home state for a Firearms Identification Card and a permit to buy a firearm in February 2018. Respondent William Lyver, chief of the Northborough, Massachusetts, police department, denied Morin’s application for a permit to purchase on April 4, 2018.

The Supreme Court summarily disposed of the pending case, simultaneously granting the petitioner’s request seeking review while skipping over the oral argument phase at which the merits of the case would have been considered. Some lawyers call this process GVR, which stands for grant, vacate, and remand.

Mr. Morin should have checked the laws of Washington, D.C., before bringing his gun there. However, he did the right thing in approaching the guard in the museum. There was absolutely no reason to arrest him–they should have simply told him to leave Washington, D.C., and come back without his gun. This entire case was totally unnecessary.

What Rights?

On Wednesday, BizPacReview posted an article about Cowboys for Trump co-founder Couy Griffin. A New Mexico judge has barred Couy Griffin from holding public office for life following his conviction for trespassing on Jan. 6 at the US Capitol. Note that he was convicted of trespassing.

The article reports:

State District Court Judge Francis Mathew issued the ruling on Tuesday asserting that Griffin had engaged in insurrection and violated the 14th Amendment, according to the Daily Mail. The determination prohibits Griffin from holding or seeking local or federal office and is the first ruling of its kind. The constitutionality of such a ruling will almost certainly be challenged.

“This decision marks the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3, and the first time that any court has ruled the events of January 6, 2021, an insurrection,” Citizens for Ethics noted concerning the ruling.

The elected county commissioner was convicted in federal court of a misdemeanor for entering Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, without going inside the building. He engaged in no violence that day but just because he was there, he was sentenced to 14 days and given credit for time served.

The judge’s ruling under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment removes Griffin from his position as a commissioner in Otero County in southern New Mexico. He is also barred from serving as a presidential elector.

Griffin was convicted of a misdemeanor. Note that his participation in the protest on January 6th was also an excuse for removing him from his position as a commissioner in addition to preventing him from running for office again. There is no way that is reasonable. This is a shot across the bow for anyone who takes a stand against any policy or person in the Biden administration. Protesters who are conservatives will no longer have the civil rights accorded to them in the U.S. Constitution. The January 6th prisoners are proof of that. This is also part of the move to block President Trump from running for office or holding office if he is elected.