Tag Archives: Verdict

Rep. Adam Schiff conditions the mindset for whatever happens it’s Trump’s fault

Adam-Schiff-on-Trump-verdict

Important Takeaways:

  • Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that New York Judge Juan Merchan should consider former President Donald Trump’s comments about being jailed while sentencing.
  • Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends Weekend,” Trump said, “I think it would be tough for the public to take, you know at a certain point, there’s a breaking point.”
  • Guest host Kasie Hunt said, “Considering that the sentencing is likely to occur, just days before the start of the convention and months before he’s to be the Republican nominee in November do you think it would be dangerous for the country if Donald Trump were sentenced to jail?”
  • Schiff said, “No, I don’t think it will be dangerous for the country and we have seen Trump urge mass protests outside the courthouse that never materialized. But nevertheless this is I think what Donald Trump is aiming for. This is essentially his threat that if he gets jailed time that he’s going to encourage his supporters to rise up. And we saw the very deadly results of that on January 6. So I don’t think the public is going to respond to that call. I hope we learn something from the awful experience of January 6.”
  • He added, “It’s very clear what Donald trump has suggesting here. This is something I think that the judge needs to take into consideration also not to be intimidated by that threat but as a further evidence, this defendant not only doesn’t accept responsibility but is willing to endanger people, just as Trump’s willing to violate the gag order and potentially endanger witnesses or jurors or the judge himself or family members, that’s something that judge ought to be considering.”

Read the original article by clicking here.

Trump found guilty on all counts Thursday in New York hush money trial; Here’s where we’re at

Trump-at-Court

“When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Important Takeaways:

  • Former President Trump became the first-ever former U.S. president to become a convicted felon on Thursday.
  • Trump, the presumed 2024 GOP nominee, is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11, just one week before the Republican National Convention.
  • His attorney Todd Blanche told CNN Trump’s legal team would “vigorously fight” with motions in the coming weeks and if unsuccessful with these, they would appeal following his sentencing.
  • The appeals process is unlikely to conclude before the November election.
  • Would Trump go to jail?
    • Judge Juan Merchan will determine whether Trump’s punishment will include a prison sentence.
    • The 34 charges are all Class E felonies — the least severe level in New York. They each carry the possibility of up to four years in prison.
    • But the judge can also decide to sentence Trump to probation without prison time. That would require the former president to regularly report to a probation officer. If he commits any more crimes, Trump could then be jailed.
  • Can Trump run for president as a convicted felon?
    • While Trump can still run for president, it’s not yet clear if he’ll be able to vote for himself since some states have laws that limit the voting rights of a person with a felony conviction.
    • Trump moved his residency to Florida after leaving the White House in 2021. According to Florida law, the ability of people with a felony conviction to vote depends on the laws in the state where they were convicted.
    • “New York only disenfranchises people while serving a prison sentence, so assuming Trump is not sentenced to prison time, his rights would be restored by New York law and therefore also in Florida,” Blair Bowie, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center said.
    • “The only way he wouldn’t be able to vote is if he is in prison on Election Day,” Bowie said.

Read the original article by clicking here.

Judge Jeanine Pirro reacts to the Trump verdict

Important Takeaways:

  • America has gone ‘over a cliff’ with Trump’s conviction, Judge Jeanine says: ‘All smoke and mirrors’
    • Fox News host Jeanine Pirro said Thursday that America has “gone over a cliff” after former President Trump was found guilty on all counts, making him the first former President of the United States to be convicted of a crime.
    • “I want to believe that Americans believe in justice, and I think that in their gut, they realized that there is something that is very wrong here. We have gone over a cliff in America,” Pirro said on-air, moments after the jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records on all counts, concluding his historic and unprecedented criminal trial. Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts.
    • “This verdict is a verdict of someone who was forced to fight a 1,000-pound gorilla with both hands tied behind his back. This was a defendant for whom crimes were created, against whom a judge…was handpicked for this defendant, who denied him the ability to fight the way he needed to fight, who brought in crimes that we have never heard of in New York before, where they had dead misdemeanors that they resurrected into felonies based upon non-unanimous verdicts of crimes that are federal over which no state court or no state judge or prosecutor has jurisdiction,” Pirro said.
    • “And in the end, with all this smoke and mirrors, at 34 counts, and a hooker, and a guy, [who] according to a federal judge is a serial perjurer, we have convicted a former President of the United States of America,” she continued.
    • Democrats have set a dangerous precedent by doing this. They may not like life under the new rules they have created.

Read the original article by clicking here.

Hezbollah has ‘taken hostage’ the Lebanese people’s future: Israeli statement on Hariri verdict

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel’s foreign ministry reacted to the verdict in the case of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri’s assassination by saying Hezbollah had “taken hostage” the future of the Lebanese people.

“The ruling of the tribunal that investigated the murder of Prime Minister Hariri and which was made public today is unequivocal. The Hezbollah terrorist group and its personnel were involved in the murder and in obstructing the investigation,” an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in a statement.

“Hezbollah has taken hostage the future of the Lebanese in the service of foreign interests. The countries of the world must take action against this terrorist group in order to assist Lebanon in liberating itself from this menace.

“Hezbollah’s military build-up, its efforts to set up a precision-guided missile arsenal, and its actions endanger the entire region.”

(Reporting by Dan Williams and Stephen Farrell)

On eve of Hariri verdict, Lebanese grapple with new ordeal

By Tom Perry and Ghaida Ghantous

BEIRUT (Reuters) – More than 15 years since Lebanon’s Rafik al-Hariri was killed by a massive bomb blast in Beirut, the verdict of a U.N.-backed tribunal into his assassination is due on Tuesday as the country reels from the aftermath of an even bigger explosion.

The Aug. 4 port blast, which killed 178 people, has overshadowed the long-awaited verdict. It was the biggest explosion in Lebanon’s history and more powerful than the bomb that killed Hariri and 21 others on Beirut’s seafront corniche in 2005.

Hariri, a Sunni billionaire seen as a threat to Iranian and Syrian influence in Lebanon, had close ties with the United States, Western and Sunni Gulf Arab allies opposed to Iran’s expanding role in Lebanon and the region.

Four members of the Iran-backed Shi’ite group Hezbollah have been on trial in absentia over the killing of Saudi-backed Hariri, Lebanon’s main Sunni Muslim leader. Hezbollah denies any role in the killing, which set the stage for years of confrontation, culminating in a brief civil war in 2008.

The verdict comes as new divisions emerge over demands for an international inquiry and political accountability for the port blast, caused by a huge amount of unsafely stored chemicals.

It may further complicate an already tumultuous situation following the explosion and the resignation of the government backed by Hezbollah and its allies.

“We’re scared. The country is unsettled,” said Ebtisam Salam, a woman in her 60’s, from Beirut’s Tariq al-Jadida neighbourhood, a political stronghold of the Hariri’s Future Movement which has been led by his son Saad son his death.

She plans to watch the verdict on TV. “Hopefully the truth will come out,” she said.

The U.N.-backed tribunal was a first for Lebanon. For its supporters, it held out hope that – for once – the truth could be uncovered in one of Lebanon’s many assassinations.

Hezbollah has always dismissed it as a tool in the hands of its adversaries. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, its leader, said on Friday, the group was not concerned with the verdict and insisted on the innocence of its members.

Hariri’s supporters, including his son Saad who like his father served as prime minister, say they are not seeking revenge or confrontation, but that the court verdict must be respected.

“A lot of people are waiting for this decision for closure. This tribunal has cost not only money but blood,” Basem Shaab, Saad al-Hariri’s diplomatic adviser, told Reuters.

“It will have consequences, I do not expect turmoil in the streets. I think Prime Minister Hariri was wise enough to make sure this does not turn into a sectarian issue,” he said.

“THEY ASSASSINATED A CITY”

But Mohanad Hage Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center said there was the possibility of increased tensions.

“While the Future Movement and Hezbollah seem to be on alert and trying to avoid any repercussions, some other actors might jump in and react given the current level of tensions,” he said.

The Aug. 4 blast has fueled anger at ruling politicians who were already facing criticism over a financial meltdown that has sunk the currency and demolished the value of savings.

Many Lebanese doubt the authorities can carry out a proper investigation into the blast. Some want foreign intervention. Others, notably Hezbollah, do not.

Agents with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived over the weekend to help at the authorities’ request but have yet to visit the port, Lebanese sources said.

Hezbollah, which is listed as a terrorist group by the United States, opposes the FBI’s involvement and any international inquiry, saying this would aim to cover up any involvement by Israel – if it was involved.

Israel has denied any role.

President Michel Aoun, a Hezbollah ally, has said a probe will look into whether the blast was caused by negligence, an accident or “external interference”.

Many worry the sectarian elite will escape accountability.

Ziad Sahyouni, 55, questioned the importance of the verdict set against the port blast. “They assassinated a capital, a city. Let’s hope they do something about it.”

(Writing by Tom Perry, Editing by William Maclean)

U.S. top court will not revive verdict against Palestinian Authority, PLO

FILE PHOTO: Police officers stand in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC, U.S., January 19, 2018. REUTERS/Eric Thayer/File Photo

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization gained a legal victory at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday as the justices refused to consider reinstating a $655.5 million jury award won against them by 11 American families over militant attacks in Israel.

The court declined to hear the families’ appeal of a lower court’s 2016 ruling throwing out the jury award secured in a lawsuit brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law that lets American victims of international terrorism seek damages in U.S. courts.

The families had looked to hold the Palestinian Authority and PLO liable for six shootings and bombings between 2002 and 2004 in the Jerusalem area that killed 33 people, including several Americans, and wounded more than 450.

“It’s outrageous that the murderous Palestinian Authority is allowed to kill innocent civilians and not have to pay any cost. This is a horrible travesty of justice for the families and we will not let it stand,” said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, president of the Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center, which represents the American families.

Gassan Baloul, a lawyer for the Palestinian defendants, said he was “gratified” that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court that the high court left in place “respects the constitutional limits on the jurisdiction of U.S. courts,” Baloul added.

President Donald Trump’s administration had sided with the Palestinian Authority and PLO in the dispute, urging the justices not to take up the case because the specific claims could not be brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

“The United States condemns acts of terror in the strongest terms and the Department of Justice is committed to prosecuting those who commit terrorist attacks against innocent human beings to the fullest extent that the law allows,” U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said.

“We will continue to support wherever possible all lawful actions to fight terrorism and provide redress to the victims of terrorist attacks and their families,” Kupec added.

The attacks at the center of the lawsuit have been attributed to the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas. Lead plaintiff Mark Sokolow, his wife and their two daughters were injured in a 2002 suicide bombing in Jerusalem.

JURISDICTION QUESTION

The 2nd Circuit ordered that the civil lawsuit, which began in January 2004, be dismissed. The appeals court said the attacks occurred “entirely outside” U.S. territory, and found no evidence that Americans were targeted. As a result, American courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the claims, it said.

The families said late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, who died in 2004, and his agents routinely arranged for payments to attackers and to families of militants who died. The Palestinian Authority and PLO have said they condemned the attacks and blamed them on rogue individuals within the organizations acting on their own.

In 2015, after a six-week trial, a federal jury in Manhattan awarded the families $218.5 million, which was tripled automatically to $655.5 million under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the appeals court decision “eviscerates the Anti-Terrorism Act” by severely limiting what cases can be heard in U.S. courts. They argued that Congress wrote the law specifically to apply to attacks that took place outside the United States in which U.S. citizens were injured or killed, whether or not Americans were specifically targeted.

In a separate case on a similar theme, the Supreme Court in February blocked a group of Americans injured in a 1997 suicide bombing in Jerusalem from seizing ancient Persian artifacts from a Chicago museum to satisfy a $71.5 million court judgment against Iran, which they had accused of complicity in the attack.

The Supreme Court in another case is weighing whether Jordan-based Arab Bank Plc can be sued over legal claims that it helped finance militant attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories. A ruling is due by the end of June.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Maayan Lubell in Jerusalem; Editing by Will Dunham)

Verdict due in trial of Baltimore policeman over Freddie Gray death

A man participates in a protest in Union Square after Baltimore Police Officer Caesar Goodson Jr. was acquitted of all charges for his involvement in the death of Freddie Gray in the Manhattan borough of New York

Reuters) – A Maryland judge is scheduled to hand down a verdict on Monday in the manslaughter trial of the highest-ranking Baltimore police officer charged in the death of black detainee Freddie Gray.

Lieutenant Brian Rice, 42, is the fourth of six officers to be tried for Gray’s death in April 2015 from a broken neck suffered in a police van. Prosecutors have yet to secure a conviction in the high-profile case.

Gray’s death triggered protests and rioting in the mainly black city and stoked a national debate about how police treat minorities. That debate flared anew this month with the deaths of African-American men at the hands of police in Minnesota and Louisiana.

Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Barry Williams has said he will announce his verdict at 10 a.m. EDT. He is hearing the case in a bench trial after Rice waived his right to a jury trial.

Rice, who is white, ordered two bicycle officers to chase Gray, 25, when he fled unprovoked in a high-crime area. The officer helped put Gray, who was shackled and handcuffed, into the police wagon face down on its floor.

Prosecutors said Rice was negligent in shackling Gray’s legs and not securing him in a seat belt, as required by department protocol.

But defense lawyers have said Rice was allowed leeway on whether to get inside a van to secure a prisoner. The officer made a correct decision in a few seconds while Gray was being combative and a hostile crowd was looking on, they said.

Rice is charged with involuntary manslaughter, misconduct in office and reckless endangerment. He could face at least 15 years in prison if convicted on all charges.

Williams has acquitted Officers Edward Nero and Caesar Goodson Jr., the van’s driver. A third officer, William Porter, faces a retrial after a jury deadlocked.

(Writing by Ian Simpson in Washington; Editing by Alistair Bell and Lisa Von Ahn)