Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Biden agrees with you, and all the others here. You gotta get off your
self-proclaimed white knight pedestal, it's never been appropriate here.
Joe Biden said the economic recovery is ‘K-shaped.’ Here’s what that means
By Alexis Benveniste, CNN Business
Updated 9:37 AM EDT, Thu October 1, 2020
VIDEOs
New York CNN Business — The American economy is recovering. That’s not up for debate.
But the manner in which the economy is bouncing back is very much disputed by economists and politicians.
Joe Biden says it’s a “K-shaped” recovery. Donald Trump said the bounce-back is “V-shaped.” Here’s what that means:
K-shaped recovery
In a K-shaped recovery, the economic bounce-back is bifurcated like a “K”: The wealthiest Americans are quickly rebounding, even thriving, while the middle- and lower-income set are not.
US stocks have soared to record highs following a huge selloff in March, thanks in large part to the Federal Reserve pumping cash into the market.
But most Americans aren’t feeling that boost. As of the first quarter of 2020, the wealthiest 10% of American households owned 87% of all stocks and mutual funds, according to the Federal Reserve.
Just over half of American families have some level of investment in the market, mostly through 401(k)s and other retirement accounts, according to the Pew Research Center. Only 14% of households are directly invested in the market.
Simply put: the stock market is not the economy, so Wall Street’s fortunes don’t reflect the realities on Main Street. The US economy is still down 11.5 million jobs during the pandemic, which means the economy has a long way to go to make up that ground. Many Americans’ jobs are never coming back.
“Millionaires and billionaires like [Trump], in the middle of the Covid crisis, have done very well,” Biden said during the debate. “The people who have lost their jobs are the people who have been on the front lines,” Biden added. “He’s going to be the first president of the United States to leave office having fewer jobs in his administration than when he became president.”
V-shaped recovery
A V-shaped recovery means pretty much what the letter “V” looks like: A sharp decline followed by equally sharp growth.
The President’s contention that we’re in a V-shaped recovery is supported by the fact that the economy is roaring back better than many economists expected. When the pandemic hit the United States this spring, 22 million jobs vanished, and already 10.6 have been added back.
But that doesn’t paint a full picture.
Small businesses were absolutely slammed by the pandemic. Many of them will never reopen.
The sugar high from Congress’s initial stimulus has worn off. Many Americans were able to get by because of direct payments and expanded unemployment benefits under the unprecedented $2.2 trillion CARES Act passed in March. Those benefits expired at the end of July, which means millions of Americans could be in for a rough winter without further intervention.
“The risk going forward is that people are spending [now] because they have money in the bank even though they’re unemployed,” Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve Chair, said. He added, “It’s likely that additional fiscal support will be needed.”
With links - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/30/economy/k-shaped-economic-recovery-trnd/index.html
You gotta give Biden some credit for this too
Workers’ Paychecks Are Growing More Quickly Than Prices
Most workers’ wages are growing more quickly than prices, and the economic recovery
following the COVID-19 recession has featured historically strong real wage growth.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/workers-paychecks-are-growing-more-quickly-than-prices/
And, as blackhawks mentioned earlier today, you gotta give Biden's administration some
credit for avoiding a recession. In Australia too it looks more like a soft landing than not.
Don't ever be concerned about your cred here. We know where your heart and your head is, and none
of the bs of conix and others rubs off on the rest of us. It's a beautiful old hotel. Good works. Well done.
There is likely some truth in your white elite building owners ideas too.
conix, Yet another stupid comment by you. sortagreen provides much more
knowledgeable and scholarly content to this board than you ever have.
Your glasses have the wrong tint. Every politician has to play politics to some degree.
You don't live in an ideal world, yet you blame all others for not giving you one.
Fact check: Debunking eight Trump false claims about the Biden-era economy
At least 6 million jobs wasn't rebound. And Biden's job creation record outshines Trump's
By Daniel Dale, CNN
Published 5:15 PM EDT, Thu September 14, 2023
Washington CNN — In a campaign speech at a rally in South Dakota on Friday, former President Donald Trump delivered lengthy and detailed criticism of the US economy under President Joe Biden – accusing Biden of deceiving the public on the subject of “Bidenomics.”
But many of the economic claims Trump himself made in the speech were not true. We counted eight false claims on the subject – ranging from relatively small exaggerations to sophisticated but inaccurate statistical spin to complete fabrications. Twice, Trump made two different false claims in rapid succession while talking about a single subject.
Here’s a fact check of the eight false claims.
The unemployment rate
Trump rejected the legitimacy of the unemployment rate under Biden – as he regularly did before he was elected in 2016 but stopped doing upon entering the White House.
Trump claimed on Friday that, while he was president, “Everybody had jobs, everybody was happy. Now you’re given phony numbers, because far fewer people are looking for jobs. So they throw around – although it just went up – but they throw around ‘3.5, 3.6, 3.7%’ – but it’s a different group of people. They’re looking for jobs, but many of ‘em aren’t looking for jobs, so it’s a fake number.”
Facts First: Trump made two false claims here. First, his assertion that “everybody had jobs” when he was president is, clearly, inaccurate hyperbole; the unemployment rate was 6.3% when he left office in January 2021 and 3.5% even before the Covid-19 pandemic hit in 2020. And it’s entirely baseless to say that the current unemployment rate, 3.8% for August, is “fake.” While the unemployment rate always has limitations in explaining the state of the labor market – which is why the federal government collects and releases numerous other employment-related figures – the unemployment rate is no less legitimate now than it was when Trump was in office and repeatedly touting the unemployment rate with no caveats.
Trump’s comments about fewer people looking for work these days were muddled, but we’ll try to address them. It is true that, this August, the percentage of the population that was participating in the labor force (working or looking for a job), 62.8%, was slightly lower than the labor force participation rate throughout 2019 and in the pre-pandemic months of early 2020. It’s the same story for the August percentage of the population that was employed, 60.4%.
But both of these two rates were higher than the rates for not only most of pandemic-era 2020 but also various previous Trump-era months in 2017 and 2018. Trump did not declare the unemployment rate “fake” in any of those months, so there’s no basis for doing so today.
In March 2017, less than two months into Trump’s presidency, then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump no longer considered federal jobs data phony at that point. Spicer said, “I talked to the president prior to this and he said to quote him very clearly: ‘They may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.’”
Jobs reports under Biden
Trump claimed, “Monthly job reports have been revised downward every single month of 2023. Every single month they’ve gone down.”
Facts First: Though five of this year’s monthly jobs reports have been revised downward, Trump was wrong in claiming that there has been a downward revision “every single month of 2023.” There were downward revisions for January, February, May, June and July, but there were upward revisions for March and April. (The August estimate has not yet been revised either way.)
It is standard for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to revise the initial estimates from its monthly jobs reports, which the bureau always emphasizes are preliminary and imprecise; additional information on how businesses have hired and fired becomes available over time. There were various downward revisions (as well as upward revisions) during the Trump presidency, too.
It’s worth noting the 2023 months whose initial estimates were revised downward all still posted substantial job gains even after the revisions.
Inflation under Biden
Trump claimed, “We are a nation that has the highest inflation in 50 years.”
Facts First: This claim is wrong in two ways. First, even when the inflation rate hit its Biden-era peak in June 2022, that 9.1% rate was the highest since 1981 – between 40 and 41 years prior, not “50 years” or “over 50 years” as Trump has claimed. (He has a longstanding habit of exaggerating even figures that would be helpful for him if he cited them correctly.) Second, Trump’s present-tense “has” is no longer accurate. Inflation has declined sharply since the June 2022 peak, and the most recent available rate at the time he spoke, for July 2023, was 3.2% – a rate that, the Biden presidency aside, was exceeded as recently as 2011, far less than 50 years ago. (The August 2023 rate, released after Trump spoke, was 3.7%, which was also exceeded as recently as 2011.)
It is debatable how much Biden was responsible for June’s four-decade high, just as it is debatable how much he was responsible for the subsequent decline. The inflation of the Biden era has been an international phenomenon, affected by factors ranging from pandemic-related supply chain issues to Russia’s war on Ukraine.
The value of the dollar under Biden
Trump claimed, “The dollar has lost more than 20% of its value in just three years’ time; it’s not even possible. It never happened before. These are records we’re talking about, all records.”
Facts First: Trump made two false claims here, too.
Trump did not specify if he was talking about the “value” of the dollar in terms of its domestic purchasing power or its strength against other currencies, and his campaign did not reply to a request for comment. In neither case, though, has the dollar “lost more than 20% of its value” over the last three years or since Biden took office 31-plus months ago. Trump’s claim is “somewhat wrong” at best, if it’s about domestic purchasing power, and “wildly inaccurate” at worst, if it’s about the currency, said Michael Klein, executive editor of the website EconoFact and professor of international economic affairs at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
If Trump was referring to domestic purchasing power, he was exaggerating its decline. The purchasing power of a consumer dollar declined by about 15% between August 2020 and August 2023, according to federal data for urban consumers. It’s a very slightly larger 15% decline if you start the clock in Biden’s first partial month in office, January 2021.
Fifteen percent is substantial, but it’s not “more than 20%” as Trump claimed. Second, it’s also not true that such a decline has “never happened before” and is a “record.” There have been larger declines over three-year periods at various previous points in US history, including in the early- and mid- 1970s.
And Trump left open the possibility to listeners that he was referring to a sharp decline in the value of the US dollar against other currencies. In that case, Trump’s claims would be “so wrong I don’t even know where to start,” Klein said in an email. Compared to a “basket” of other currencies, the dollar has actually strengthened significantly over the last three years and since Biden entered the White House.
One of the best-known measures of the strength of the dollar is the US Dollar Index, which compares the dollar to a “basket” of six other currencies. By that measure, the dollar had strengthened about 12% in the three years leading up to Trump’s speech and about 16% since Biden took office. A different index from the Federal Reserve, which incorporates a larger number of currencies and takes into account the extent of US trade with different countries, shows an increase of about 5% in the dollar’s value over the three years prior to the Friday rally and an increase about 10% since Biden took office.
Even if the dollar had dropped more than 20% against other currencies over three years, that wouldn’t be a “record” and it wouldn’t be true that this “never happened before.” Going by the US Dollar Index, the dollar lost about half its value between 1985 and 1988.
Real incomes under Trump and Biden
Trump claimed, “Under Biden, real incomes have gone down by $7,400 per family, think of that. Under President Trump, yearly income went up by more than $6,000. That’s a record. More than $6,000. Think of that.”
Facts First: Both parts of Trump’s claim are false. It’s not true that yearly income went up “more than $6,000” under Trump, as PolitiFact pointed out in an August fact check; Trump was at least very slightly inflating the increase in family income during his presidency – more than slightly if you go by the federal figures that were available at the time he spoke. And Trump was simultaneously exaggerating the decline under Biden.
Trump’s campaign has previously said that, when he claims that real incomes went up by “more than $6,000” during his tenure, he is referring to official federal data on real (inflation-adjusted) median household income. When he made the claim last month, his campaign justified it by noting that the federal data showed that real median household income had increased by $6,151 between 2016 and 2019, when it hit $72,808.
But a claim about the 2016-to-2019 period doesn’t actually prove his claim about what happened “under President Trump,” since 2019 was not the last year of his term; without explaining that he is doing so, he keeps stopping the “under President Trump” calculation clock before the Covid-19 pandemic hit. If you include pandemic-era 2020, when real median household income fell to $71,186 under the federal figures that were available at the time of the Friday rally, real median household income actually rose by $4,529 – a substantial gain, but not “more than $6,000.”
This week, after the rally, the federal government made a technical change to the way it determines real median household income, and it published revised annual figures for the Trump and Biden eras as well as previous years. The new figures show that real median household income rose $5,820 under Trump. That’s much closer to $6,000, but still not “more than” $6,000 as Trump said in the Friday speech, so his claim remains off.
Given how close the revised Trump-era gain is to $6,000, we might have skipped the fact check if Trump had only made his claim at the Friday rally about the gain during his own presidency. But his rally claim about the Biden-era losses is even more flawed.
Biden-era data for real median household income is only available through 2022; the 2022 figure, $74,580, was down $2,080 from 2020. So where did Trump get the assertion that real incomes have “gone down by $7,400” under Biden? As PolitiFact noted, Trump’s campaign has said he is referring to a January estimate from a right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation.
But that Heritage estimate is far out of date, especially because the inflation rate has declined sharply since then. And it is not a fair comparison to the federal figures Trump was citing for his own era, which are calculated in a much different way.
Job growth under Biden and Trump
Trump claimed, “During Biden’s first 30 months in office, just 2.1 million new jobs have been created nationwide.” After a digression into other criticism of Biden, he continued, “By contrast, during the first 30 months of President Trump, we created 4.9 million new jobs, shattering all predictions and projections.”
Facts First: Trump’s claim that just 2.1 million new jobs were created in Biden’s first 30 months in office is false. Without mentioning that he was doing so, Trump was using a self-serving definition of “new jobs” that sharply reduced Biden’s total – and the “2.1 million” figure is much too low even going by Trump’s own definition.
Through July, the 30th full month of Biden’s presidency, the US economy had added more than 13.4 million total nonfarm jobs under Biden, going from just under 143 million to more than 156 million. So where did Trump get the claim that just 2.1 million new jobs were created during that period? PolitiFact reported in August that Trump’s campaign explained that they were not crediting Biden for the first roughly 11 million jobs added during the Biden presidency. The campaign claimed that those jobs were not newly created, merely returned from the pandemic, and only brought the country back to pre-pandemic Trump levels.
But even if you accept the argument that Biden deserves zero credit for millions of jobs being added under his watch – and a variety of economists who spoke to PolitiFact rejected the argument – Trump subtracted far too many jobs from Biden’s column.
When Biden took office in January 2021, the economy was about 9.4 million jobs below the pre-pandemic peak set in February 2020. By adding more than 13.4 million jobs over Biden’s first 30 full months, therefore, the country went roughly 4 million jobs above the pre-pandemic peak. In other words, Trump’s claim that just 2.1 million new jobs were created in Biden’s first 30 months is wrong even by his own definition of “new jobs.”
And Trump was deceptive by omission in failing to explain that he was excluding most Biden-era job gains by using that unconventional definition. People can come to their own conclusions about whether the definition is fair, but when Trump doesn’t even explain that he is using it, he leaves open the impression that far more jobs were created in his own first 30 months than in Biden’s. The reality is the opposite.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/14/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-about-biden-economy/index.html
Deregulation led to the 2007-8 crash, that started with Reagan.
Biden has done much more good than Trump ever contemplated.
You have been given it all before. Obviously you don't care.
conix, Yours there is as i described it. And Biden will be ranked above Trump in every respected rank of presidents. And inflation has been created by multiple forces as blackhawks and i have put it to you, yet again. And you have, over years, been given much evidence the economy is better under a Democrat watch.
B402, Bottom line is Democrats do a better job with the economy.
How much evidence do you need before you accept that one fact.
Yeah, i forgot larger retailers price gouging ..
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174427479 .. thanks for the reminder.
Sweeeeeeeeeet!
You support a criminal for president. Lawfare is a respected legal opinion site.
If Victor comes good then good luck to him, just please Victor not this week.
conix, Every credible economist says Obama's stimulus, Trump's stimulus, Biden's stimulus, the pandemic which Trump exacerbated and Putin's war all contributed to the worldwide inflationary situation. You have been given much info covering all of that, yet what do you offer but a piss weak partisan
"Who is responsible for the inflationary policies? The current Administration? Or the one that left in Jan., 2021.
Please teach me, blackhawks. Please. I want to know!!!"
You don't belong in a room of responsible adults.
conix, No paywall, and no live link from you either. As figured it was your ?
In the first decade of the 21st century, the United States was attacked by jihadists who drew the country into a yearslong, multifront war. At the start of the third decade, we were attacked in a far different fashion, from within. Left-wing radicals embarked on a violent campaign to upend the cultural and political order of the nation.
https://www.commentary.org/articles/abe-greenwald/woke-jihad/
Imagine drawing any equivalence at all between a mixture of Israel haters, far-right provocateurs and those genuinely
horrified at Israel's overreaction to the Hamas attack with the September 11 attackers. Course it's Greenwald.
Is it really asking too much of you to check your post after you post it.
conix, No doubt Biden will be ranked above Trump. There is a very good reason
why you could never be a presidential historian. Not a respected one, anyway.
"Policy over personality. Hate his personality--but I hate Biden's BS even more."
Trump’s hush-money case has proved he’s a low-life. Can it prove he’s a criminal?
"Do you believe Michael Cohen?" At least we know Kirschner believes Bragg has a very strong case.
It is incredible, in many other places teargas would be out ..
Georgia protests .. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-69007465
A top couple. Sad, yet yes, inevitable.
Some idea here - Bad government caused Detroit’s decline. Don’t blame the riot. (Slideshow)
"It's really sad, it's such a beautiful city, but so abandoned.
I couldn't believe streets that wide were empty.'
September 1, 2017
John E. Mogk
Guest Commentary
Bad government caused Detroit’s decline. Don’t blame the riot. (Slideshow)
Conventional wisdom says the 1967 riots were the primary cause of Detroit's decline. Deeper study shows this to be untrue. Flawed government policies were.
Long-term grievances of the city’s poor African-American community -- police abuse, slum housing, unemployment and poor schools -- were disregarded, until residents rebelled at these intolerable conditions and shocked the conscience of Detroit and the nation. The riot caused tragic loss of life and property in the some neighborhoods, but most of the city was untouched.
It is widely agreed that Detroit's decline resulted from the exodus of jobs and the white middle class. As the city peaked in population in the mid-1950's, older manufacturing plants reached the end of their usefulness, and the city made no plans to accommodate modern replacements. Auto manufacturers looked to the suburbs. Water and sewerage services there were inadequate, but in 1956 Detroit officials made a business decision to extend thousands of miles of water and sewer lines beyond 8 Mile Road, eventually building a 1,000-square-mile metropolitan system, helping to drain Detroit's jobs and tax base for decades to come.
Then, the federal government acted. The interstate highway program tore through Detroit and, in the process, destroyed the vibrant commercial and cultural center of the city's African-American community along Hastings Street, while the federal urban renewal program wiped out the adjacent Black Bottom neighborhood.
After the riot, more federal destruction occurred. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched a subprime lending program for low-income tenants in riot-torn areas to buy homes in better neighborhoods. Mortgages were issued with no down payment required. Housing sales spiked and when supply fell short, realtors used heavy-handed, illegal blockbusting to generate sales by promoting fear that new African-American neighbors would destroy the neighborhood.
Disaster soon struck, with widespread foreclosure and abandonment similar to the results of the subprime lending crisis of the past decade. Foreclosures soared, but banks were fully reimbursed, happily kept substantial closing fees and made more subprime loans. Foreclosed homes in Detroit reached 20 percent of HUD's national inventory, blighting neighborhoods and depressing housing values.
The Detroit public school system played its part as well. In an effort to racially balance its schools, which were one-third white, the board adopted a plan that moved 12,000 students to different buildings. In 1969, state Sen. Coleman Young, who became Detroit's first African-American mayor in 1974, fought the plan from Lansing, as he felt that African-American children were not required to attend schools with white students to be well-educated. In defiance and without board approval, the DPS superintendent and legal counsel met with the NAACP to invite the Milliken v. Bradley busing lawsuit.
The goal of the suit was to establish a regional busing plan. However, no suburbs were included as defendants by the NAACP or DPS. After finding that DPS itself had engaged in discrimination, lower federal courts concluded that a Detroit-only desegregation plan would totally segregate the system within a few years. Accordingly, a regional desegregation busing plan was ordered. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, reversed the order because no discrimination was proved against the suburbs. Detroit-only busing was then implemented and was further exacerbated by a six-week teacher strike, resulting in a major exodus of many remaining white middle-class families from the city. All the while, industry and jobs continued to exit the city.
Detroit's decline resulted from the loss of its job base and predominantly white middle class. The riot was one factor among many, including structural racism, that contributed. In-depth research on what actually motivated individual business owners and residents to leave is lacking, but there is little doubt that flawed government policies overshadowed the riot as the major contributing factor.
https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/bad-government-caused-detroits-decline-dont-blame-riot-slideshow
hap0206, You support a crim for the presidency. Why not just accept
that fact, save yourself the trouble of failing to decide his innocence.
Your Detroit reminded me of some posts, luckily guessed the year for a few ..
Susan Tompor: Women business owners see reasons to add to payrolls
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=90170526
and before and after, for interest.
Some detail here, i think you guys have the equity track right.
"So maybe his bank knew he'd be good for it.
Yeah, I guess that makes sense."
Think i read or heard somewhere earlier Cohen lied to the bank as to
the reason he wanted to set the new LLC up. Not sure if that's in here:
Edit -- ok, this from the link below relates/confirms what i understood earlier:
Essential Consultant’s KYC form, which is dated Oct. 26, 2016 (and according to the time stamps apparently took First Republic 12 minutes to complete), said Cohen opened the company for “real estate consulting” and “to collect fees for investment consultanting [sic] work he does for real estate deals.” A question on the form asked whether the entity was “associated with Political Fundraising/Political Action Committee (PAC).” The answer was “no.”
Trump Hush-Money Payment Revealed in Bank Records
Evidence at the center of Trump’s criminal trial was just released by the FBI in response to an ongoing FOIA lawsuit.
By Jason Leopold
May 11, 2024 at 12:30 AM GMT+10
The FBI just sent me a juicy set of documents that’s directly related to former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial currently taking place in a Manhattan courtroom. They're business records from First Republic Bank, where Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen opened an account to pay off adult film star Stormy Daniels.
The details around the bank activity have been widely reported, but many of the underlying financial documents haven’t surfaced. And since cameras aren’t allowed in the courtroom, the public largely hasn’t seen the evidence at the center of the trial — until now.
How I got these documents is kind of a long story. Five years ago, I filed a FOIA lawsuit against the FBI. It was for all the interview summaries – or ‘302s’ as they’re known – from key witnesses questioned during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference and attempts by Trump to obstruct the probe. I also sought the supporting material FBI agents collected from witnesses, such as emails, handwritten notes and bank records.
There are thousands of pages of responsive records, which the FBI continues to trickle out each month as part of its legal requirement to satisfy my request. Since Cohen was a witness, I’m now in possession of 25-pages of his supplemental interview material.
The contents are newsworthy, to say the least. Last week, as part of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump, Cohen’s First Republic Bank records were front and center during witness testimony.
Prosecutors showed them to jurors as they described how Cohen set up a bank account just weeks before the 2016 presidential election, under a shell company named Essential Consultants LLC. He did so after Trump directed him to pay Daniels $130,000 in exchange for her silence about their alleged affair, which Trump has denied. Gary Farro, then a managing director at First Republic Bank and Cohen’s banker, testified for two days about setting up Essential Consultants for Cohen and the paper trail associated with it, which I’m sharing here.
The hush-money bank records: An annotation
The first document identifies the various accounts where Cohen was listed as the primary account holder: checking accounts, a home equity line of credit, or HELOC, and a couple of homes. The HELOC is noteworthy because that’s what Cohen has said he used to fund Essential Consultants.
Trump “directed me to use my own personal funds from a home equity line of credit,” Cohen testified before Congress in 2019, “to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact his campaign.”
Continued - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-05-10/trump-trial-bank-records-show-130k-hush-money-payment-to-stormy-daniels
conix, That first of yours is as misrepresentative a note as we've ever had here.
"I already consider you an incoherent Leftist indoctrinated in a hatred for individual freedom and responsibility and an adherence to an ideology that has made society slowly break down reflected in more crime and less public safety for citizens. "
And coming from you makes it even more of a joke.
LOL Or as a Yankee fan like a homer .. thanks. Now watch Hovland shoot back to form.
Thanks .. and the change for yours .. homa in for hovland .. then i'll let you go ..
LOL. It was a dart between Homa and Day. The dart flashed a feather saying Homa. Hovland will likely come good now.
Eli, Homa in Hovland out, please. Sorry for change, but m comes before v.
i think i'm in??
LOL
McIlroy, Morikawa, Hovland, An, Aberg, 274 .. thanks GL
livefree_ordie, As you would be told by a lawyer or any judge in any courtroom,
it doesn't matter what your opinion is it's the law. Or in our case the rules.
"Not sure any link will convince anyone here of real news and on top of that it is
all common knowledge among those who read all the news not just parts you like."
The fact that you have so much trouble supplying links while others don't could be a sign of your maturity,
of your assholery or just because you get some sort of kick out of being a jerk. You know best about that.
Of course the easiest way for you to get around your problem is to stop making assertions that
all but you here see as untrue, misleading, most unjust, or just plain way out of sight crazy.
Oh, your latest frantic grasp. The crime has to have a specific name. Screw you. You see the situation, in your own source.
No one other than the sleaziest of Trump sycophants ducks and weaves and grabs for and clasps as frantically as you do.
Yep, and our view would be applicable to any defendant, not only to an asshole we know Trump is.
They say it is hard to prove intent, but i'm leaning they they will be successful in this case.
And that's not because we know he is guilty. Trump of course other than his
eye closing has done plenty more to put the jury offside.
"Yes. There're only two possible reactions. Either you, as a juror, would think he doesn't care about the proceedings,
and is trying to distance himself from them, or you'd think he had some kind of health problem.
Or, if you didn't like him, you might think he was overmedicated, to keep him from being disruptive. Any way you cut it, it's problematic."
Trump is doing his best to delegitimize the entire jury system.
Thing is too, either way it has to be a unanimous decision. It only takes one to be hung.
Trump’s jury doesn’t have to like him to be fair to him
Trump insists that his jurors can’t be impartial. Don’t believe him.
By Abdallah Fayyadabdallah.fayyad@vox.com Apr 19, 2024, 5:00pm EDT
Former President Donald Trump appears in Manhattan criminal court on April 19 for jury selection in his hush-money trial. Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Curtis Means/Getty Images
Abdallah Fayyad is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and
economic policies. He previously served on the Boston Globe editorial board.
With many links
As the Manhattan district attorney’s case against Donald Trump got underway this week — with the former president accused of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments — one question has so far haunted the proceedings: Can the court actually select an impartial jury for one of the most polarizing figures in American history?
Over the past week, the judge, prosecution, and defense have been interrogating prospective jurors, asking them things like where they get their news, and sifting through their social media accounts to see whether they’ve ever publicly expressed their views on Trump. Potential jurors have been asked to read out or explain posts or memes they’ve shared, and at least one was dismissed for sharing a post that included the words “lock him up,” in reference to Trump.
But by Friday, 12 jurors, and several alternate jurors — who sit through the trial in case a regular juror needs to be replaced at some point — were picked.
As the trial goes on, questions about these jurors’ impartiality will surely linger, because Trump and his allies have continued to attack the cases against him as a kind of political persecution — trials with predetermined outcomes. And juries have become his frequent target.
Trump, for example, quoted the Fox News host Jesse Waters in a social media post, claiming, “They are catching undercover Liberal Activists lying to the Judge in order to get on the Trump Jury.” That’s despite the fact that there’s a gag order that prohibits Trump from publicly talking about the jurors.
It’s just one window into how Trump plans to delegitimize the cases brought against him. In fact, since he was indicted, Trump has been preemptively undermining the legitimacy of his potential jury, arguing that it will be impossible to get a fair trial in jurisdictions where residents vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. In a recent Truth Social post, he called Manhattan — where he received 12 percent of the vote in 2020 — “the 2nd Worst Venue in the Country.”
“Don’t worry, we have the First Worst also, as the Witch Hunt continues!” Trump continued. “ELECTION INTERFERENCE!” (The First Worst venue, naturally, is Washington, DC, a favorite Trump target where only 5 percent of voters cast their ballots for him in the last presidential election.)
Regardless of what the former president says, the demographics of New York or Washington, DC, won’t determine whether or not he will receive a fair trial. That will depend on how the prosecution makes its case, and whether the jurors will take their jobs seriously and evaluate the case on its merits rather than on their views of the defendant — something that juries are more than capable of doing.
That’s why Trump’s disingenuous attacks on the jury are dangerous: not because he’s questioning their potential fairness (juries can indeed be unfair, and defendants have the right to point that out), but because he’s broadly deeming some Americans — that is, anyone who doesn’t support him — as inherently illegitimate jurors.
Who are the jurors who will determine Trump’s fate?
Just before the close of business on Thursday, the judge in the case announced that a jury had been chosen. Twelve jurors had been officially sworn in, and the judge signaled that both the prosecution and defense should have their opening remarks ready to go by Monday morning.
In a normal criminal trial, potential jurors who might have read about the case or know key actors could be viewed as a liability, because media reports could influence how they think about the charges. But this isn’t a normal case, and a jury pool that hasn’t heard of Donald Trump is not likely to be found anywhere.
Even if it somehow was, that would present its own problems: After all, would someone who doesn’t know much about the polarizing former president, or someone who’s entirely avoided the major news events of the past eight years, make for a good juror? Probably not.
As Joshua Steinglass, one of the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecutors, put it during the selection process, “No one is suggesting that you can’t be a fair juror because you’ve heard of Mr. Trump. We don’t expect you to have been living under a rock for the last eight years.”
Ultimately, just like any other case, the jury will have to focus on one thing: not their politics, but the laws in question.
The 12 jurors on the trial come from a range of backgrounds. They include financiers, litigators, retirees, tech workers, and a physical therapist. Some are married; some aren’t. Some have kids; some don’t. Some expressed having strong feelings about Trump; others said the opposite. One juror, who said she’s not a political person, said that she likes that Trump “speaks his mind, and I’d rather that than someone who’s in office who you don’t know what they’re thinking.” Yet all 12 said they can still be fair and impartial, and pledged to be as much.
It’s certainly reasonable to be concerned that people’s political preferences and biases might influence how they view this trial. Two jurors, for example, have already been removed after they had been seated. One of them said that her friends and family had guessed she was one of the jurors based on media reports on her background, and said, “I don’t believe at this point that I can be fair and unbiased and let the outside influences not affect my decision-making in the courtroom.”
The jurors’ ability to be fair and impartial will largely depend on how the judge manages the trial. Ensuring their anonymity, as the judge has, will go a long way in allowing jurors to ignore any outside influence. As Julie Blackman, a social psychologist who has worked as a jury consultant, put in an essay in the New York Times, “In my experience, well-instructed juries have shown time and again that they can put aside what they have learned outside the courtroom and focus on the evidence presented inside the courtroom.” The Supreme Court has also ruled that trials can indeed be fair, even if the case or defendant has received widespread publicity.
It might seem like Trump is pushing that boundary given his unique status as the only former US president to go on trial, but he is no different than any other defendant — he is accused of breaking the law and he can’t bypass a trial simply because he’s too famous.
That’s why the judge has to ensure that the jury is as fair and impartial as possible: Trump shouldn’t get any special treatment, no matter how much he rails against the judge, prosecutors, or jurors.
Why Trump’s attacks on jury impartiality are dangerous
Trump and some of his Republican colleagues have insisted that the juries in New York or Washington, DC — where his Jan. 6 case will be tried — are far too biased against him, and that a fair trial is impossible.
In doing so, Trump is essentially saying that the public should ultimately dismiss whatever verdict is delivered, just as he expected the public to dismiss the results of the 2020 election in jurisdictions he didn’t like, such as Atlanta, Philadelphia, or Detroit. Even if he is found guilty, he wants people to believe there is no way the trial will be fair (even though his lawyers played a role in selecting the jury).
Trump’s accusation doesn’t just undermine his own trial’s legitimacy. It undermines a bedrock element of America’s justice system — that when someone is accused of breaking the law, they will be judged by a jury of their peers. By saying that certain jurisdictions, let alone his hometown, can’t be fair, the former president suggests that only some Americans can be legitimate jurors.
That idea that some jurors are ill-suited for the task based on their background or where they live has racist roots that have long plagued the justice system and produced discriminatory outcomes. When Louisiana was barred from excluding Black people from its juries, it created a law in 1898 that intentionally undermined the legitimacy of Black jurors, specifically allowing nine white jurors to deliver a guilty verdict even if three Black jurors voted to acquit the defendant. It wasn’t until 2022 that the Supreme Court in Oregon, which had a similar law, ruled that any of the state’s prisoners who had received a non-unanimous verdict had invalid convictions. In Louisiana’s case, however, despite voters abolishing non-unanimous juries in 2018, the state’s supreme court maintained that all previous convictions would remain valid.
While Trump hasn’t said that he won’t receive a fair trial because of the racial makeup of the jury, the jurisdictions he complains about are much more racially diverse than places his lawyers have suggested that he could receive a fair trial (like West Virginia, for example).
Even if Trump’s attacks on the juries are strictly based on partisan lines, the criminal legal system does not rely on a defendant’s or jurors’ personal politics to mete out justice, despite what Trump says.
Ultimately, it all boils down to one simple fact. “This case,” Steinglass said, “is about whether this man broke the law.” And that’s now for the jury to decide.
https://www.vox.com/24135181/trump-hush-money-jury-impartial-fair-trial
hap0206, Gawd! Anything to press a point. Valid or not, truth or not, doesn't matter.
Not only do you cherry pick from our posts, you cherry pick from your own sources.
"Well, there is your problem -- no crime, the record classification problem is a misdemeanor (and the statute of limitations has run on that)
====
Simply, if you delete, alter or make a false entry in the business records of an enterprise and you do so with the intent to defraud, you have run afoul of the misdemeanor crime. If when you do so, you also have the intent to further or conceal another criminal offense, then you have committed the felony crime."
From yours -- "...Because of your potential exposure to a felony or misdemeanor conviction based on what may be fairly insignificant conduct, it is critical to challenge not merely the basis and probable cause of your arrest, legal foundation of a search by the police, and statement you may have made, but every element of these crimes. At bottom, you cannot leave any proverbial stone unturned.
Falsifying Business Records: Penalties and Punishment
Like every other statute found in the Penal Law, the criminal consequences and penalties of a conviction for either PL 175.05 or PL 175.10 is significant ranging from probation and community service to fines and incarceration. A conviction for the misdemeanor crime is punishable by as long as one year in jail while the class "E" felony offense has a potential penalty of up to four years in prison.
Falsifying Business Records: Examples
Maybe you entered information incorrectly into a database at work. You deleted or changed some old documents related to accounts receivable. Even if it seemed somewhat insignificant in the scheme of your employment, you changed some numbers around on bills or receipts. Yes, you knew, or should have known, it was wrong, but you were going to rectify it as soon as you were able. Simply, you fell on hard times or had a momentary lapse of judgement. Before you could fix those errors, however, you found yourself in your employer's office in Midtown Manhattan not merely facing termination, but the threat of an arrest by the NYPD and prosecution by the District Attorney's Office. Whether you are arrested as soon as you are accused or you are the target of an open investigation by law enforcement, you should expect that if your employer, the police, a District Attorney or the Attorney General believe and can establish you had the intent to defraud, then an arrest may be only moments away.
Your link -- https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html#:~:text=Simply%2C%20if%20you%20delete%2C%20alter,have%20committed%20the%20felony%20crime
There is your problem.
Sorry, rooster. The Dems were very careful not to bring a charge until they were
confidentt it was justified. Not at all similar to the attempts to impeach Biden.
Yeah, am guess he's listening more time than sleeping. Agree totally, if i were on the jury i'd think "fuck you, you don't
care, i don't care about you." Then would try to put that aside and do my job properly, still the thought would affect me.
Yep. With "woke" it's everything Democrats do that Republicans dislike. Labeling it "woke" cancels it in millions of
conservative minds. It's easy, it's "woke" so toss it in the waste. And with Rufo and CRT it's exactly as you say.
"But no one involved is a supporter of free expression or an opponent of cancel
culture. Rather, they are the cultural force aggressively pursuing cancellation.
Bingo.
I've actually heard Rufo say it out loud. He wants to label everything that mentions
race as "critical race theory". In the end, it's history itself he wants to cancel."
100% - Always do -- "It's not just the landlords.... Think about all the little bars, lunch counters,
coffee shops, grocery stores and bodegas that depended on those office workers. "
As long as the leases are paid for it's many of the landlords who don't care about all the small businesses dependent upon the workers.