The Verdict against the Trump Organization

The conviction today of the Trump Organization in a tax-fraud scheme certainly represents a remarkable moment in the epic legal campaign against the former president. Mr. Trump himself was not convicted, or even charged, in the case, but the prosecution argued at trial that he was “explicitly sanctioning tax fraud,” the AP reported, and accused the company of having a “culture of fraud and deception.”

The conviction, brought in by a jury in state Supreme Court at Manhattan, was of the corporate entity, which could end up being hit with as much as $1.6 million in penalties. That may not be much for a company as large as the Trump Organization, but it underlines the seriousness of the criminal activities and could whet the appetite of investigators to wheel on the former president himself. It’s not our intention to make light of any of it.

At the same time, the pursuit of the Trump organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, leaves us with an uneasy sense. It is that none of this would be in criminal court in the ordinary course of criminal justice had Democratic prosecutors not been out for the former president himself. That speaks to the danger of politicized prosecution laid out by FDR’s attorney general, and, later, a Supreme Court justice, Robert Jackson.

“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes,” Jackson said in remarks to prosecutors, “a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.” This raises the danger of a prosecutor with an ulterior motive “picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.”

That, Jackson warned, is where “the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies,” when “law enforcement becomes personal.” The insight resonates following today’s conviction. The outcome of the case is likely to fuel the pursuit of Mr. Trump by others, including Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who just hired an ex-Justice department prosecutor to “ramp up” his office’s “investigation into the former president,” the Times says.

The fact that the new hire, Matthew Colangelo, was an Obama administration official and had also worked on the New York Attorney General’s civil investigation of Mr. Trump made it likely to “set off protest from the former president,” the Times reported, especially since the former president has already characterized the civil and criminal investigations against him as “a unified ‘witch hunt.’”

Mr. Bragg had expressed doubts about the merits of the fraud case against Mr. Trump, prompting two senior prosecutors in his office to step down. One of them was so enraged by Mr. Bragg’s decision to hold off on the case until his team of prosecutors could nail down the charges that he leaked his retirement letter to the Times. “I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations,” Mark Pomerantz wrote.

Conceding the case may have had flaws — among them the finding that the purported “victims” of Mr. Trump’s alleged fraud had profited by their dealings with him — Mr. Pomerantz said: “No case is perfect,” and averred that “a failure to prosecute” would endanger “public confidence in the fair administration of justice.” Such prosecutorial overzealousness is precisely what Jackson sought, some seven decades ago, to warn against.

Which brings us back to the case against the Trump organization and the general sense that these charges wouldn’t have been brought against a mere citizen. We’ve just seen federal fraud and bribery charges against a former Democratic lieutenant governor, Brian Benjamin, get thrown out by a district judge. It’s a reminder that prosecutorial overreach against public officials is a problem that crosses party lines.

https://www.nysun.com/article/the-trump-organization-verdict ?

*********************************************************

Hungary takes on the EU again

Tit for tat

A rift between the European Union and member state Hungary deepened Tuesday when Budapest vetoed an 18-billion euro ($18.93 billion) financial aid package to Kyiv, exacerbating a dispute over the rule of law in the country and Prime Minister Viktor Orban's outlook over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

EU finance ministers also postponed any decision to punish Hungary by withholding billions of euros for failing to implement solid rule-of-law reforms.

Instead of ensuring unanimous support for aid to Ukraine, Hungary's veto made sure that the EU's other 26 member states would need work out a more complicated technical plan to make sure aid can keep flowing to Kyiv in the new year.

"In the end agreement was found on formulations that allow a flexible and quick way to deploy funds to Ukraine without fundamentally changing the way the EU manages its funds. I say agreement, but in the reality that agreement was minus one,” said Tuomas Saarenheimo, the chairman of the EU Council Economic and Financial Committee.

Many nations see Orban's evasive tactics as a thinly veiled attempt to blackmail the EU into releasing billions in regular funding and pandemic recovery cash that has been held up.

The EU’s 27 nations have until Dec. 19 to make a decision, and EU leaders meet for a two-day summit next week, increasing chances that the issues would still need to be grappled with at a later date.

EU nations have been mulling for years now whether to punish Orban for what he calls his brand of “illiberal democracy” but what is seen by many others as unfit for the EU's traditional sense of Western democratic liberalism.

On top of that, Orban has also angered the bloc’s officials with his repeated criticism of EU sanctions targeting Russia for its war in Ukraine.

The EU’s executive branch proposed that the bloc suspend around 7.5 billion euros ($7.5 billion) in regular funding to Hungary over concerns about democratic backsliding and the possible mismanagement of EU money. The Commission also wants to put conditions on Hungary’s pandemic recovery plan worth 5.8 billion euros and insists Budapest implement 27 “super milestones” on democratic reforms to unlock the funding.

Hungary already agreed on 17 anti-corruption measures, including the creation of an anti-corruption task force and changes to its public procurement rules, but the Commission wants to see more action. The money can be frozen under a recently introduced conditionality mechanism that allows the EU to take measures to protect its budget.

Any action to suspend the funds must be approved by the EU member countries, and this requires a “qualified majority" — at least 15 countries representing at least 65% of the total EU population.

https://www.inkl.com/newsletters/morning-edition/news/hungary-vetoes-eu-ukraine-aid-deepening-rift-with-brussels?utm_campaign=2022-12-07&utm_content=body&utm_medium=morning-edition&utm_source=inkl

*****************************************************

Sorry, Zelensky, Americans see a STALEMATE

Americans by wide margins support continued arms and economic aid for Ukraine, but increasingly see the war as a stalemate and want Washington to push Kyiv to cut a peace deal with Russia soonest, a poll shows.

A survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs think tank found that, despite recent military gains by Ukrainian forces against their Russian foes, US support for Kyiv appears to be waning — especially among Republican voters.

This is worrisome for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's government, which has depended on multi-billion dollar US support and military equipment to counter Russia's invasion, which began on February 24.

Crucially, Americans do not appear to see Ukraine's recent military wins in Kherson and elsewhere in the east as a military game-changer, with polling suggesting the war is ultimately viewed as a stalemate.

'As the fighting drags into winter, the overall US public is now divided on whether the US should support Ukraine as long as it takes or if it should urge Kyiv to settle for peace as soon as possible,' researchers said.

Nearly half of respondents said neither country had an advantage in the conflict, while an equal percentage held the view that Russia (26 percent) and Ukraine (26 percent) had an upper hand in the fight.

The survey of 1,030 adults last month nevertheless found solid support for continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons (65 percent) and economic aid (66 percent), accepting Ukrainian refugees (73 percent), and sanctioning Russia (75 percent).

But public opinion is qualified — only 40 percent of respondents say US support should be indefinite, and 29 percent say Washington should gradually reduce the amount of weapons and cash Kyiv receives.

Likewise, 47 percent of respondents say the US should push Ukraine to cut a peace deal with Russia, even if that involves Kyiv ceding territory, so that US householders don't shoulder higher gas and food prices — up from 38 percent in July.

Another 48 percent of Americans say Washington should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes,' down from 58 percent in July

Support for Ukraine's fight has fallen sharply among Republican supporters.

Only 55 percent of GOP voters support US giving military aid to Ukraine currently, down from 80 percent in March, even as support among Democrats and independents has held high.

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy warned before the midterm elections that Republicans will not write a 'blank check' for Ukraine, reflecting his party's growing skepticism about financial support for Kyiv as it prepares to take control of the chamber next year.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and other House Republicans critical of US assistance to Ukraine took steps last month to audit the funds allocated to the nation by Congress.

President Joe Biden's administration announced its latest tranche of military aid to Ukraine in November — a $400 million package of gear, including the ammunition for air defenses and long-range artillery needed to repel Russian forces.

The US is also giving Ukraine more than $53 million to help repair electrical infrastructure damaged by Russian attacks in recent weeks as Kyiv seeks to restore power to homes as winter sets in.

Ukraine launched a major counteroffensive this autumn, recapturing the northeastern Kharkiv region and forcing Russia to pull out from the southern city of Kherson.

Kyiv has vowed to press on and recapture all territory seized by Russia — including eastern Ukraine and Crimea, which Russia captured in 2014 — and return those lands to Ukrainian control.

NATO allies are currently in talks to supply advanced air defenses, including Patriot missiles, to Kyiv in order to protect its power plants and water pumping stations after they were hit by Russia in a bid to freeze people out of their homes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11508101/Sorry-Zelensky-Americans-STALEMATE-Russia-Ukraine-war-unwinnable-side.html

***********************************************

‘War on Christian Culture’: UK Prosecutor Called Bible Passage ‘No Longer Appropriate in Modern Society’

A Christian street preacher faced charges of violating the Public Order Act by engaging in “threatening,” “abusive,” and “insulting” speech in telling a lesbian couple that homosexuals will not “inherit the kingdom of heaven,” citing the Bible. In defending the case against him, a prosecutor wrote that “there are references in the bible [sic] which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be offensive if stated in public”

The court dismissed the case against the preacher, John Dunn, because the lesbian couple declined to testify, but a prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service, the office of England’s government prosecutors, claimed before the trial that some Bible passages are “no longer appropriate in modern society.”

When reached by The Daily Signal, a CPS spokesperson declined to address the claim.

“On the day of the trial the complainants could not be located to provide vital evidence for the prosecution, which resulted in us offering no evidence,” a CPS spokesperson told The Daily Signal. “It is not the function of the CPS to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments of the evidence to put our case before the court.”

The spokesperson did not respond to multiple questions about whether England’s official government prosecution office endorses the claim that some Bible passages are “no longer appropriate in modern society.” Prosecutors made the claim in a document sent to the defense, not stated in court, but the office did not disavow the claim, nor apologize for making it.

“The non-response from the CPS speaks volumes,” Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which represented Dunn in the case, told The Daily Signal. “The CPS should be offering a full explanation and apology, not ducking the seriousness of what they have wanted to argue against the Christian faith in court.”

“This would not happen to another sacred text, such as the Quran,” Williams added. “This is a war on Christian culture, with the aim of removing it from the public square. If the CPS had won, this would have set a precedent that put Christians on the wrong side of the U.K. law.”

The United Kingdom does not have a First Amendment to protect free speech, although the Christian Legal Centre cited the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights in defending Dunn’s free speech and religious freedom. The prosecution argued that Dunn impinged on “the similarly protected rights of the aggrieved parties.”

According to Christian Concern, an organization connected to the Christian Legal Centre, the case traces back to Nov. 1, 2020, when two women walked past Dunn, holding hands. Dunn told them, “I hope you are sisters,” at which point they replied that they were in a same-sex marriage.

According to Dunn, he replied out of “genuine concern for the women” that “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God” (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). He insisted that he intended to declare God’s truth out of love and compassion for the couple.

The women reported Dunn to the police, describing his comments as “biblical speak.” They alleged that Dunn had shouted at them, “You are going to burn in hell,” referring to one of them as “devil woman.” Dunn categorically denied making either comment. Christian Concern noted that Dunn “lost his voice box following throat cancer,” so he would not have been able to shout at the women.

“Defendant denies saying to the women that ‘they will burn in hell’ or to one of them ‘you are a devil woman’ – presumably because this would be ‘crossing a line’ into unacceptable behaviour,” Hoyle wrote. “It is precisely these phrases which form the crux of the prosecution case.”

“The Crown does contend that ‘you will burn in hell’ is intrinsically threatening, as well as abusive and intimidating,” Hoyle added. “Targeting comments through a megaphone at specific members of the public is similarly behaviour which the court can legitimately conclude is disorderly. The complainants are clear that the behaviour was ‘offensive’ and ‘upsetting’ – clearly consistent with an interpretation of ‘Harassed, alarmed or distressed.'”

“Whether a statement of Christian belief or not, the Court is being asked to consider whether the language has the potential to cause harassment, alarm or distress,” Hoyle added. “This document is not the forum for religious debate, but the bible contains other material recognising slavery (Exodus 21:7), the death sentence (Exodus 35:2 and Leviticus 24:16) and cannibalism (Deuteronomy 28:27). There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public.”

Hoyle did not explain why passages “recognising” various practices are supposedly inappropriate in modern society. While passages in the Bible allowed slavery, the Bible also set down principles that encouraged the abolition of slavery.

Hoyle’s Bible passages suggest a level of biblical illiteracy. His slavery passage—Exodus 21:7—stipulates that a Jewish man may sell his daughter as a servant, but the passage adds that he cannot sell her to foreigners (differentiating the practice from modern views of slavery). One of his passages on capital punishment involves Moses saying that anyone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death, something Christians consider to have been superseded by Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels.

Deuteronomy 28:27 does not mention cannibalism, but rather God punishing the Israelites with tumors if they disobey His commandments. The passage goes on to mention cannibalism (Deut. 28:53-57), but not as an endorsement of the practice. Rather, the passage prophesies that if the Jews disobey God, a foreign army will besiege them and they will resort to cannibalism “because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you.”

Hoyle did not explain why any passages noting the existence of now-defunct slavery laws or death sentences, or predicting the horrors of cannibalism are “no longer appropriate in modern society.” He did not put forth a standard for endorsing or condemning Bible passages, but his decision to include this statement suggests that he considers 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 to be inappropriate in English society.

CPS did not respond to The Daily Signal’s question about the prospect that other street preachers may face similar prosecution if they cite certain Bible passages that CPS considers inappropriate for modern society.

Williams, the Christian Legal Centre CEO, argued that “The view from the CPS was that the Bible is offensive and contains illegal speech which should not be shared in public.”

England’s government prosecution office had the opportunity to disavow the statement and clarify that it does not consider the Bible offensive and illegal, but it declined to do so.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/11/30/war-christian-culture-uk-prosecutors-wont-say-they-stand-attack-bible/ ?

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************