Tag: Legal Issues

United Healthcare In The News (Again)

Can you remember awhile back when the CEO of United Healthcare was shot on the streets of NYC?

Well United Healthcare is not through with being the target of investigation….

It seems that the insurance giant may have committed Medicare fraud….(was this on the list of fraud that Elmo had compiled?)

UnitedHealth Group is facing another government investigation, this one reportedly centered on possible criminal Medicare fraud. Since at least last summer, the Justice Department has been investigating the health insurance company for fraud related to its Medicare Advantage business, reports the Wall Street Journal. Medicare Advantage insurers receive extra payment for covering especially sick patients, meaning there’s an incentive to document patients’ diagnoses. Previous reporting by the Journal revealed “questionable diagnoses by UnitedHealth added billions to taxpayers’ costs,” the outlet notes.

Earlier reports described a DOJ civil fraud investigation related to UnitedHealth’s Medicare billing practices. In a statement, UnitedHealth says it wasn’t informed of the “supposed criminal investigation reported” and stands “by the integrity of our Medicare Advantage program,” per Reuters. It previously disputed the Journal‘s reporting as “inaccurate and biased,” saying Medicare Advantage “provides better health outcomes and more affordable healthcare for millions of seniors” than traditional Medicare. But the criminal probe based in New York presents another headache for a company that has seen its stock fall almost 50% in the last month.

The greedy bastards were not deterred by this investigation and continued abusing the people that depended on them for help….

UnitedHealth Group, the healthcare conglomerate facing a criminal investigation over possible Medicare fraud, secretly paid nursing homes thousands of dollars in bonuses to cut hospital transfers for ailing residents, risking patient health while it saved millions, per a Guardian investigation. The outlet identified numerous cases where nursing home residents needed immediate hospital care but failed to receive it after UnitedHealth’s intervention. In one 2019 case out of Washington state, a nursing home resident was showing textbook symptoms of a stroke, indicating immediate hospitalization was needed. But a remote UnitedHealth employee wanted a less-serious condition ruled out first and asked for an update in, not minutes, but four hours.

In a similar case that year, a remote UnitedHealth employee delayed requesting a hospital transfer for a patient with stroke symptoms, forcing facility nurses to bypass the system. It took an hour and the patient suffered permanent brain damage, per the Guardian. Other UnitedHealth nurses say they faced pressure to persuade Medicare Advantage members to adopt “do not resuscitate” orders—an effort to prevent costly hospital stays—even when the patients had expressed a desire to seek all available treatments.

“A lot of times the [facility] nurses want to send people out and we have to go in and try to stop it,” a UnitedHealth nurse tells the outlet. “And if we don’t … they take us out onto the carpet.” “The sense is: ‘Well, they’re medically frail, and no one lives for ever,'” says another nurse. “No one is truly investigating when a patient suffers harm.” Though internal emails reference “budgets” outlining how many hospital admissions a nursing home had “left,” UnitedHealth denies that its employees prevented hospital transfers or inappropriately pushed patients to change their DNR status. It says nursing homes receive bonuses for preventing unnecessary hospitalizations that are harmful to patients. The company’s shares fell almost 7% Wednesday following the report, per Reuters.

These incidents are disgusting and illustrate just how uncaring these greedy bastards truly are….

Not to worry though the consumer will be protected…..oh wait the Consumer Protection part of government has been mostly shuddered by the Trump administration and DOGE.

What to do now?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Bribery Vs Lobbying

Since it became a major thing I have been telling anyone who would listen of the evils of “K” Street, the lobbyist central.

To me lobbyists, there is about 12000 lobbyists on K Street, that is about 22 lobbyists per every member of Congress and they all have buckets of money to give away for favorable rulings, is nothing more than bribery masked as campaign donations.

But what is what?

Bribery and lobbying are often conjoined in the public mind: Critics of lobbying suggest that it’s bribery in a suit. While both seek a favorable outcome, the two remain distinct practices. Bribery is considered an effort to buy power; paying to guarantee a certain result; lobbying is considered an effort to influence power, often by offering contributions.

One key difference is that bribery is considered illegal, while lobbying is not.

Lobbyists try to shape laws, legislation, and public policy to the benefit of the group or entity that employs them. Their campaigns (which are legal) can sometimes be public ones (or fed to the media to influence the public), but they more typically target politicians, elected officials, legislators, and government agency employees; the movers and shakers on Capitol Hill and in state capitals too.

Lobbyists—the term referring to both individuals and organizations—have existed as long as governments; they traditionally have been considered “information givers,” a valuable source of facts and data, though admittedly in support of their cause or industry. Lobbyists systematically build up support for their causes, over years and decades. Often, they fund a study, survey, or research that might sway a politician’s opinion or their constituency’s opinion.

…

In contrast, a bribe usually occurs on an individual level. And it is anything but public. A bribe giver usually gives an offer of money “under the table” in order to subvert standard processes. This could be paying a tax officer to clear reports with under-reported revenue or sending goods without an invoice.

The bribe may be in the form of a donation or favor in kind. A company’s purchase manager may award an order to a supplier in return for undue favor in the form of money, against his company’s policy of awarding orders based on criteria of quality and price. Public officers are offered bribes to enable evasion of taxes and the corresponding liabilities at an individual or company level.

However it’s done, a bribe—along with its cousin, the kickback—results in an unfair advantage for the bribe giver. Bribes may seem like small amounts compared to lobbying contributions, but therein lies the problem: They often cannot be accounted for.

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/the-differences-between-bribery-and-lobbying.aspx

Sorry but they are the same thing…..only difference is one is a crime and the other has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court…..a bunch of political hacks that are just as easily swayed by cash as the Congress.

So where is the damn difference?

There is none!  Both get what the person offering wants….they have to pay to play….and the politicians get flush with cash and that is why they all want to stay for decades in Congress….the more influence they have the bigger the payouts.

Time for this to change…..all cash should go into an election fund and all politicians share in it equally.

Just my take on this conundrum.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

It’s Official He Is A Felon

We all have heard about Trump’s legal situation……and now it is official…..

Ten days before his second inauguration, Donald Trump earned an unwanted distinction on Friday—he became the first president criminally sentenced. As expected, Trump received no jail time or any punishment in his conviction over a hush money payment to a former adult film star, reports the AP. Instead, Judge Juan M. Merchan granted what’s known as an unconditional discharge, which the New York Timesdescribes as a “rare and lenient alternative.” Trump is appealing his conviction, per the Washington Post.

  • “This has been a very terrible experience,” Trump told the court before the sentence was announced, per the Times. He characterized the case as a political vendetta, said his payments to Stormy Daniels were above-board, and called witness Michael Cohen a “totally discredited person.” He added that voters vindicated him by electing him after the conviction. “I got indicted over calling a legal expense a legal expense,” he said. “I just want to say I think it’s an embarrassment to New York.”
  • “I assume I’m still under a gag order,” Trump told the judge. “But the fact is, I’m totally innocent.” He concluded: “I was treated very, very unfairly, and I thank you very much.”
  • The judge in explaining his sentence reiterated that Trump is still a citizen subject to prosecution, even if he has been elected president. “Sir, I wish you godspeed as you pursue your second term in office. Thank you,” Merchan said.
  • The sentence: Under New York state law, an unconditional discharge can be invoked when a judge is “of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release.” In this case, the conviction stands, but Trump gets no jail, probation, or fines. The president-elect did not attend the sentencing in person. Instead, he appeared by video in the Manhattan courtroom from his Mar-a-Lago residence.
  • Prosecutor: During Friday’s hearing, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass laid into Trump: “This defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm’s way,” he said.
  • Trump attorney: After Steinglass spoke, Todd Blanche countered that prosecutors brought the case only after Trump announced his run for the presidency, calling it blatant election interference.
  • Trump had asked the Supreme Court to block the sentencing, but it declined. “I’ll do my little thing tomorrow,” Trump said after the high court ruled against him on Thursday night. “They can have fun with their political opponent.”
  • The jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

No time in lock-up (go figure)…..

Just the news of the day…..

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS, The New Term

It is that time again when the political hacks we call the Supreme Court get together and do whatever it is they do…..

The Supreme Court starts a new nine-month term on Monday, and the first major case will come Tuesday, when the court hears arguments in a case involving “ghost guns”—untraceable firearms assembled from kits, often with very little effort involved, Reuters reports. In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Biden administration is appealing a lower court’s decision to strike down a rule that defined certain gun parts as firearms, meaning serial numbers and background checks would be required. Other big cases:

  • A death row inmate in Oklahoma. On Wednesday next week, the court will hear arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma, which “presents the odd question of whether the state of Oklahoma must execute a man that it very much does not want to kill,” Vox reports. The state’s attorney general believes Glossip was wrongly convicted of murder, but Oklahoma courts have refused to grant Glossip a new trial
  • Transgender rights. US v. Skrmetti will probably be the most closely watched case of the term, CBS News reports. The Justice Department and three transgender teens are challenging Tennessee’s strict ban on gender-affirming care, including hormones and puberty blockers, for people under 18 with gender dysphoria. They argue that the ban, one of dozens in GOP-led states, violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled yet.
  • Porn websites. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring people who visit porn websites to submit personal information for age verification, Time reports. Opponents of the law argue that it fails to account for privacy concerns and restricts adult access to constitutionally protected material. Seven states have similar laws.
  • Flavored vapes. FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments will look at the FDA’s policy of refusing to approve flavored vapes, on the grounds that they have a “serious, well-documented risk” of getting underage users hooked.
  • Nuclear waste. The court agreed to step into a fight over plans to store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico. The justices said they will review a ruling by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals that found that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exceeded its authority under federal law in granting a license to a private company to store spent nuclear fuel at a dump in West Texas for 40 years, the AP reports. The outcome of the case will affect plans for a similar facility in New Mexico. Political leaders in both states oppose the facilities.
  • Reverse discrimination. The court is also taking up the case of an Ohio woman who claims she suffered sex discrimination in her employment because she is straight. The justices agreed to review an appellate ruling that upheld the dismissal of the discrimination lawsuit filed by the woman, Marlean Ames, against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, the AP reports. Ames, who has worked for the department for 20 years, contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.

How will the Roberts court go?  Will it put politics aside for a change?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Google: Slip Slidin’ Away

Bam!

A Landmark anti-trust court decision has dropped the hammer on Google.

Let’s look at the decision and what it could mean….

In a seismic decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies, a judge ruled Monday that Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation. The highly anticipated decision issued by US District Judge Amit Mehta comes nearly a year after the start of a trial pitting the Justice Department against Google in the country’s biggest antitrust showdown in a quarter century, the AP reports. After reviewing reams of evidence that included testimony from top executives at Google, Microsoft, and Apple during last year’s 10-week trial, Mehta issued his potentially market-shifting decision three months after the two sides presented their closing arguments in early May.

  • Major setback for Google. The decision represents a major setback for Google and its parent, Alphabet Inc., which had steadfastly argued that its popularity stemmed from consumers’ overwhelming desire to use a search engine so good at what it does that it has become synonymous with looking things up online.
  • Appeal is almost certain. Google will almost certainly appeal the decision in a process that may ultimately land in the US Supreme Court. For now, the decision vindicates antitrust regulators at the Justice Department, which filed its lawsuit nearly four years ago while Donald Trump was still president, and has been escalating its efforts to rein in Big Tech’s power during President Biden’s administration.
  • Google depicted as bully. The case depicted Google as a technological bully that methodically has thwarted competition to protect a search engine that has become the centerpiece of a digital advertising machine that generated nearly $240 billion in revenue last year. Justice Department lawyers argued that Google’s monopoly enabled it to charge advertisers artificially high prices while also enjoying the luxury of having to invest more time and money into improving the quality of its search engine—a lax approach that hurt consumers.
  • Next steps. Mehta’s conclusion that Google has been running an illegal monopoly sets up another legal phase to determine what sorts of changes or penalties should be imposed to reverse the damage done and restore a more competitive landscape. The potential outcome could result in a wide-ranging order requiring Google to dismantle some of the pillars of its internet empire or prevent it from shelling out more than $20 billion annually to ensure its search engine automatically answers queries on the iPhone and other internet-connected devices. It’s also possible that the judge could conclude only modest changes are required to level the playing field.

Whatcha think?

Will this change anything or not?

Will Zuck be next?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Out Of Control

In the last days of June SCOTUS has made several rulings along with other for the past few years that point to it being out of contro0l and partisan when it should be the neutral referee….

Bernie has called for it to be stopped before it does even more harm to our nation…that is if it is not already too late…..

In the aftermath of the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court’s potentially deadly rampage against federal regulators, its ruling in support of the criminalization of homelessness, and its decision to grant former President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution, Sen. Bernie Sanders said late Monday that nation’s highest judicial body is “out of control” and must be reined in before it can inflict even more damage.

“Over the years, among other disastrous rulings, this right-wing court has given us Citizens United, which created a corrupt, billionaire-dominated political system,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. “It overturned Roe v. Wade, removing women’s constitutional right to control their own bodies. Last week, the court chose to criminalize poverty by banning homeless encampments in public spaces—forcing more poor people into the cycle of debt and poverty.”

“With the Chevron case,” the senator continued, “they have made it far more difficult for the government to address the enormous crises we face in terms of climate change, public health, workers’ rights, and many other areas. And, today, the court ruled in favor of broad presidential immunity, making it easier for Trump and other politicians to break the law without accountability.”

Such far-reaching and devastating decisions, Sanders argued, highlight the extent to which unelected Supreme Court justices—with the backing of right-wing billionaires and corporations bent on sweeping away all regulatory constraints—have arrogated policymaking authority to themselves with disastrous consequences for U.S. society and the world.

“If these conservative justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office,” said Sanders. “At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, billionaire control of our political system, and major threats to the foundations of American democracy, it is clear to me that we need real Supreme Court reform. A strong, enforceable code of ethics is a start, but just a start. We’ll need much more than that.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/bernie-sanders-supreme-court

SCOTUS has given corporations personhood, taken away the freedom of choice, tied regulators hands in holding corporations accountable for shoddy practices, and went on to making a king for this country….

While I agree that it, SCOTUS, must be stopped from destroying the very fabric of our nation I also recognize that an impartial referee is desperately needed….party politics should have NO bearing on who serves on the court.

So I agree with Bernie these d/bags need to be stopped in whatever way possible.

I cannot think of much more to say about SCOTUS….I have said it all.

Since tomorrow is a holiday there will not be many visitors to IST so let me wish all those people to have a safe and fun day/weekend.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Couple Of Takes On Immunity Thing

Now that it is official on the Trump immunity thing there are a couple of takes (not mine but others….given as a info service)….

The Supreme Court’s blockbuster ruling that presidents have immunity for “official” actions continues to resonate, with all kinds of analysis on what it does and doesn’t mean.

  • Carte blanche: In the view of Elie Mystal at the Nation, the ruling means that a sitting president can go on a crime spree that includes everything from rape to murder without being held accountable. Court defenders will say that’s not the case, because presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial” acts, he predicts. “But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says ‘unofficial’ acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting ‘unofficially.'” Read his full essay, headlined “The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially.”
  • In defense: Fox legal analyst Jonathan Turley defends the decision in the New York Post and accuses liberals and Democrats of “hyperventilation” in their reaction. “The Supreme Court was designed to be unpopular; to take stands that are politically unpopular but constitutionally correct,” he writes. And that’s what happened here: Scholars “have long disagreed where to draw the line on presidential immunity. The court adopted a middle approach that rejected extreme arguments on both sides.” Read his full column.
  • ‘Whims of a king’: The court’s ruling essentially says that Trump is “entitled to immunity from prosecution for crimes he has already committed, and for the ones he intends to commit in the future,” writes Adam Serwer at the Atlantic. “The entire purpose of the Constitution was to create a government that was not bound to the whims of a king,” he adds. But the court’s “self-styled ‘originalists’ … have chosen to put a crown within Trump’s reach, in the hopes that he will grasp it in November.” Read the full piece.
  • The trend: Whatever one’s view of the decision, it illustrates a clear trend in America, writes Charlie Savage in the New York Times: It”adds to the nearly relentless rise of presidential power since the mid-20th century.” His piece explores this, including the differing views on whether the ruling risks putting the president above the law as expressed by Chief Justice John Roberts (it “does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives”) and Justice Sonia Sotomayor (“in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law”). Read the full analysis.

Assassination?  Now there is one I have not heard of and believe me I have heard all the dire predictions and conspiracies that awaits us if/when Trump wins the election.

This political charged ruling is a bad idea….period!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Boeing Dodges A Bullet

Who does the government work for?

Any ideas?

After hundreds of deaths, shoddy safety measures, lousy construction and let’s not forget the whistleblowers that mysteriously dead after coming forward, Boeing was set to face a trial for their actions or are they?

Last week federal prosecutors recommended the Justice Department bring criminal charges against Boeing over its failure to keep the terms of an agreement sparing the company from legal action in 737 Max crashes that killed a combined 346 people. A lawyer for the families of those crash victims say what’s in the works is a “sweetheart plea deal.”

Reuters reports the DOJ plans to criminally charge Boeing, with sources saying the company can go to trial or take the deal, which is said to include a $487.2 million fine (Boeing would be credited for a previous settlement and only pay half) and the assignment of an independent monitor to audit the company’s safety practices for a three-year period. The DOJ is said to have briefed victims’ relatives on Sunday. More:

  • Standout lines: “The memory of 346 innocents killed by Boeing demands more justice than this,” victims’ lawyer Paul Cassell tells the BBC, saying the “families will strenuously object to this plea deal.” He adds, “The deal will not acknowledge, in any way, that Boeing’s crime killed 346 people. It also appears to rest on the idea that Boeing did not harm any victim.”
  • What the families want: Per a letter Cassell sent to the DOJ in June, the families of victims of the October 2018 Lion Air and March 2019 Ethiopian Airlines crashes wanted to see Boeing’s then-top executives prosecuted and a $24.8 billion fine levied.
  • Next steps: USA Today reports that should Boeing accept the plea offer, US District Judge Reed O’Connor of Texas will be the one to decide whether to accept the plea agreement in the public interest. Lawyers say victims’ families plan to fly in from around the world to attend any hearing and voice their opposition.
  • The timeline: CNN explains that the DOJ in June let Boeing know that the safety failures it has racked up lately put the company in breach of the 2021 agreement through which Boeing avoided criminal charges (specifically, criminal conspiracy charge to commit fraud) related to the 737 Max crashes. The DOJ said that meant Boeing is subject to criminal prosecution, but it had not announced whether it planned to prosecute the case. The DOJ has a July 7 deadline to file charges, so Boeing will have until week’s end to decide whether to accept the plea deal.
  • Side note: Reuters reports it’s atypical for the DOJ to loop in third parties (in this case, the victims’ families) about its plans prior to alerting the company it intends to charge. Reuters sees the shift as a reaction to the relatives’ outcry over the original 2021 agreement, which they learned about after it had been reached.
  • The anger: The Guardian reports that “on a conference call on Sunday, one official is said to have been asked by a family member how he sleeps at night.”

You realize this will go to the Supreme Court and we know how that will work out with the political hacks on the court, right?

Chevron gets pass, dark money gets a pass, so forth and so on….

The court has become a huge joke….those people have NO business using the Constitution and law has toilet paper.

Impeach all of them and start over without political hacks…..

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Does It Again!

It is not bad enough that these political hacks are swimming in special interest money they also crap on the Constitution whenever GOP policies are involved.

The nightmare from K Street has happened….Trump gets immunity….

The Supreme Court delivered its historic ruling on presidential immunity Monday—and it was welcomed by Donald Trump, who is now immune from prosecution for “official acts” during his presidency. “Big win for our constitution and democracy,” he wrote in an all-caps post on Truth Social. “Proud to be an American!” Other Republicans also praised the 6-3 ruling, while leading Democrats shared the dismay of the dissenting liberal justices.

  • Dissents: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. She said the ruling sends the message: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends,” NBC News reports. “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” she wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground,” creating immunity “applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government.”
  • House leaders: House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the ruling as a “victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith,” the Guardian reports. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader, released what he called a statement “in connection with the Supreme Court decision to bend the knee to the Insurrectionist-in-Chief.” He warned that the ruling “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation.”
  • A ‘dramatic expansion of presidential power’: “As Justice Sotomayor’s appalled dissent makes clear, this ruling is a dramatic expansion of presidential power—not just for Trump but for all presidents,” Charlie Savage writes at the New York Times. “She cites the notorious World War II ruling that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast.”
  • A ‘license for authoritarianism’: Sen. Richard Blumenthal was among many Democratic lawmakers to condemn the decision—and members of the court—in strong terms. In posts on X, he called the ruling a “license for authoritarianism.” Members of the court’s conservative majority, he wrote, “will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme & nakedly partisan hacks—politicians in robes,” he wrote.
  • Ruling rebukes ‘attempts to weaponize our legal system’ against Trump: Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee praised the ruling, Politico reports. Its chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, said the committee will “continue to oversee dangerous lawfare tactics in our judicial system.” Another member, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, said the ruling “rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump.”
  • ‘Absurd and dangerous’: Eric Holder, the attorney general in Barack Obama’s administration, slammed the “absurd and dangerous” ruling in a post on X. He wrote: “The Trump immunity decision says: a president CAN VIOLATE THE CRIMINAL LAW if he acts within his broadly defined “constitutional authority.”
  • Decision will be seen in context of Trump’s connections: “No case to date has put Trump’s personal interests so directly in the hands of the justices he appointed—and from whom he has expected a sympathetic hearing,” Jess Bravin writes at the Wall Street Journal, noting that two other members of the court, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, “have familial ties to Trump’s cause.” “However ironclad the legal rationales behind their votes, the justices’ actions cannot avoid being viewed in the context of such connections,” Bravin writes.

Weaponized DoJ?

If Trump wins the election then you have not seen anything yet.

This whole fiasco proves just how corrupt the political hacks are , those people we trust to stand by the Constitution….they not only do not stand by the Constitution they crap on it yearly.

I am behind AOC 100%…..

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday said she will file unspecified articles of impeachment U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to “absolute immunity” for “official acts” performed while he was in office, a decision that prompted dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor to declare her “fear for our democracy.”

Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on social media that “the Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.”

“Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture,” she added. “I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/supreme-court-justice-impeachment

This may go nowhere in a GOP controlled House but at least someone is standing up to the fat cat slugs on the Court.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Stop The Presses!

Surprise!  Surprise!

I am sure that most everyone has heard the news around the legal battle for Trump….the truth is the verdict surprised me…..

For those that have avoided the circus of this trial….there is some good news.

A Manhattan jury has found Donald Trump guilty of all 34 counts he was charged with in his hush-money trial, making him the first onetime president to become a felon. Trump sat expressionless and slack at the defense table, the New York Times reports, as he heard “guilty” read in court 34 times on Thursday afternoon. Cheering from the street below, where supporters and opponents of Trump assembled, could be heard in the hallway outside the 15th-floor courtroom. As jurors filed out, they did not look at Trump, and he did not look at them. Minutes later, the former president and current candidate told reporters, “I’m a very innocent man.”

Prosecutors accused Trump of falsifying internal business records to cover up hush-money payments tied to an alleged scheme to bury stories that might torpedo his 2016 White House bid, per the AP. At the heart of the charges were reimbursements paid to Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in exchange for not going public with her claim about a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. Prosecutors said the reimbursements were falsely logged as “legal expenses” to hide the true nature of the transactions. Trump has denied any wrongdoing. The charges he was convicted of are punishable by up to four years in prison.

The jury of 12 New Yorkers had deliberated for 9½ hours hours over two days. The verdicts the panel returned involved 11 counts related to invoices, 12 related to ledger entries, and 11 involving checks. Trump still faces charges in three other criminal cases elsewhere, per the Washington Post. He has pleaded not guilty in them and called the prosecutions politically motivated. All are embroiled in motions and delays and seem unlikely to go to trial before the November election.

“I am a very innocent man”….now there is a damn hoot!  I can think of a lot of things to say about Donald the Orange….but innocent is not one of them.

Now we go to the sentencing phase of this drama…..

The jury in Donald Trump’s hush-money trial has been dismissed, and case moves to the next phase. Because the crimes are nonviolent, experts say Trump is unlikely to be detained before sentencing. Here’s what’s ahead:

  • Sentencing: Judge Juan Merchan scheduled Trump’s sentencing for 10am July 11, CNBC reports. He told all parties to file relevant motions by June 13. Included in this step are sentencing memos from the prosecution and the defense arguing for the punishment they want to see Merchan order. The defendant usually is interviewed by a probation officer who asks about personal history and any criminal record, information that goes into the presentence report. A psychologist or social worker also could interview Trump.
  • Possible punishments: Trump was convicted of nonviolent Class E felonies, New York’s lowest level, per the New York Times. The counts are punishable by 16 months to four years in state prison. As a first-time offender, Trump is unlikely to receive prison time, legal experts said. Merchan could impose probation or home confinement.
  • Probation: The terms could require Trump to receive approval from his probation officer to travel outside his home state, Florida, per the Washington Post. He probably would have to report to his probation officer regularly.
  • Appeal: Trump’s lawyers have 30 days to file notice of an appeal. “We’ll keep fighting, we’ll fight till the end and we’ll win,” Trump said after the verdict. It’s possible that sentencing will be stayed while an appeal plays out, which could postpone any punishment past Election Day.
  • The election: Trump remains eligible for election to the presidency, and there’s nothing to keep him from serving if he wins. He may not be able to vote for himself, however, per the Times; Florida requires felons to have completed their entire sentence, including probation, before again being allowed to vote.

Few thought he would be convicted…..he has been so what’s it gonna be with the sentencing?

Probation?  Prison?

I have little faith that he will go to prison (a place he should have already been)…..my guess is probation and fines.

With this conviction how will that play in November?

Please let your thoughts be known.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”