Cohen’s former attorney is back in the news because he has the goods to prove that Cohen is lying about Trump. Everyone reporting acts like it’s something new. It’s not. It’s been known for about three years and all came out back in the grand jury days. I’m sure I commented on it at the time and now Levin and others are calling on Bragg to be indicted for suborning perjury and violating the Brady rule requiring exculpatory evidence be given to the defendant and the grand jury. They specifically hid a great deal of evidence from the grand jury which would likely have resulted in no indictments but also let Cohen testify to things they know were false. Don’t expect anything to happen in New York but if Trump wins, I would love his DOJ to investigate Bragg et al for election interference.

In case you don’t know who this idiot is, and I’m pretty sure I’ve commented before, he’s either a freshman or sophomore congressman from New York who will say anything to support Magoo’s incompetence and agenda. The most recent was on Friday and still being lazy I didn’t get around to it until today. He said that the fact that Trump had been under investigation for a long time proves that there is no two tiered system of justice or election interring lawfare. While many commented on his stupidity, I haven’t seen anyone comment on the thing that struck me immediately. Namely that his very statement proves election interring lawfare is happening. You don’t wait to get indictments and try matters that have been known for a long time in the middle of an election unless you’re trying to interfere in that election. You could have brought the cases many years ago but didn’t. Hell the Stormy Daniels stuff was known before the 2016 election and I’m sure I commented on it back then. So why wait till now? To interfere in the upcoming election!

This was posted in a lot of places today but just in case you missed it, it totally encapsulates the difference between Magoo and Trump on the economy.

I haven’t commented on the Trump trial because you can see everything I could say on any Fox or Newsmax program. However, over the past couple of days the term “motion for a directed verdict “ has been thrown around frequently but I haven’t seen anyone explain what it is so I will explain it so you understand what’s being advocated.

In most jurisdictions, at the end of the prosecution’s case the defense must file a motion for a directed verdict in order to preserve their right to appeal a guilty verdict. No motion, no appeal.

So what is a motion for a directed verdict? It is a motion that essentially says if you take the evidence presented by the prosecution and consider it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it still doesn’t prove that the crime charged was committed and therefore the judge must direct a verdict of not guilty. And in this case, it should be granted because the prosecution hasn’t even specified what crime was supposed to have been committed.

( Tomorrow I will be putting up the Cliff’s Notes version of the rant I have been working on. I realized that to do it the way I wanted it would be essentially be a 30 or 40 page Law Review article and I have had several published but I doubt that any of you would want to spend the time to read it.)

Just wanted to let you know I haven’t quit ranting. While it’s true that the actual rant will be stream of consciousness, it’s taking a bit of time to process all the thoughts I want to incorporate in it. It will try to explain how the hell we got here with respect to all the chaos and antisemitism going on our campuses.

Yeah it’s not word. I made it up but get used to it and use it.

I have commented many times on how reproductive rights is actually an oxymoron used by the left and we lost on that one and won on death tax. So what has changed that generated this rant? I didn’t know that apparently the democrats are going to run primarily on abortion but since they are we need to destroy their obfuscation.

Pray tell O wise curmudgeon, how do we do that? It’s actually quite simple! Every time a republican candidate or pundit is confronted by a woman (hopefully not a seriously confused man) claiming her reproductive rights are being violated, look her straight in the eyes and ask her who is stopping her from reproducing? She’s got to say no one or some totally bogus bullshit.

Then follow up by pointing out that she hasn’t been prevented from reproducing but now wants to deproduce by killing what she has produced. And make no mistake, she wants to kill a living thing. You can argue about when it becomes a human being, but once conception has occurred it is a living organism, albeit a parasite. So why do you think you have the right to kill what you produced?

Now I know that some of you might be in the camp of never, but I’m going to be more pragmatic. Approximately 70% plus of voters favor a 15 week cut off and if you want to win elections, you can’t alienate the vast majority of voters.

The important thing is to destroy reproductive rights with deproductive rights!