The dictionary definition of the suffix -ish is “an expression used after a statement to make it less definite.”
Yip Harburg was so inspired by -ish that he wrote a lovely song for the iconic musical “Finian’s Rainbow” titled “Something great.”
So the latest GOP defendant, Rep. George Santos (NY), who falsely described himself as “Jewish,” can be said to be a con artist, or should I say a con artist, an alleged con artist who hasn’t yet done been convicted
In our country, once someone has been charged, we assume that there is some basis for the accusation but presume that the accused is innocent.
This presumption of innocence is artificial, an invention of the law. It simply means that the prosecutor in a criminal case has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that burden never changes. The accused does not have to prove a blessed thing. Meanwhile, the accused is presumed innocent. Maybe he’s not innocent. Maybe he’s innocent.
According to the federal indictment, filed the other day in the Eastern District of New York, Santos lied when he had a legal obligation to tell the truth. And he lied to get money:
He used the funds raised for his 2022 congressional run to pay for designer clothes, pay off debt and donate money to associates. Like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Santos likes to live in style. Who doesn’t? And the alleged fraud gets worse. In 2020, Santos filed for unemployment benefits, even though he was working and earning an annual salary of $120,000. According to the indictment, Santos falsely claimed every week through 2021 that he was eligible for unemployment benefits and received more than $24,000 in those benefits from the state. He lied on congressional financial disclosure forms when he claimed he earned $750,000 in salary from a company he owned, received between $1 million and $5 million in dividends from that company, and had a checking account with a balance of over $100,000 and savings. account with a balance of over $1 million. None of these things were true.
The grand jury didn’t throw the book at him. He launched against himself, the 13 charges of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and false statements. Santos can be dismissed by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives. But it won’t happen. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), instead of expressing outrage, said he will not support Santos’ re-election bid but stopped short of calling for his resignation.
“Santos has a lot going on,” he said. “I think he has other things to focus on in his life than running for office.” So does Donald Trump. McCarthy surely has the votes to block any impeachment. Republicans in Congress need Santos’ vote more than even the trappings of integrity.
And, as we all know, a New York jury found that Donald Trump had sexually abused journalist E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s and then defamed her. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million. It was not a violation; he had just taken it from the privates. It was a violation.
Some Trump supporters said it was all a hoax perpetrated by George Soros — conspiracy And Trump may have made a new smear of Carroll, disparaging her to one CNN’s town hall as a “job” with a cat named “Vagina”.
Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, implied that he had won the case because the jury rejected Carroll’s claim that Trump had raped her. Trump has appealed the verdict on several grounds. His points of appeal were:
Trump could not get a fair trial in New York. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), a staunch Trump supporter, said it with “A New York jury, he had no chance.” Maybe Tuberville forgot that Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room. If she didn’t want to be held accountable in New York, she should have caught her in a dressing room at Birmingham’s Douka Fashion department store. The case was tried before an anonymous jury. Perhaps Tacopina forgot the cases in which Trump or Trump supporters had denounced or threatened the judge, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s lawyers, and that he had warned of death and destruction to New Yorkers after being accused by Alvin Bragg. Actually, Tacopina he did not object Judge Lewis Kaplan proposed by own will to impanel an anonymous jury for the trial. Trump was prejudiced by the evidence of Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who testified that Trump had sexually assaulted them. Their tests showed a pattern of behavior. Tacopina, an experienced lawyer, must have forgotten Federal Rule of Evidence 415 allow the court in a civil case involving an alleged sexual assault to admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault. The thinking is that if a woman says you assaulted her, it’s “he said, she said.” If two women say it, maybe yes, maybe not. If it’s three, maybe more likely than not. Insufficient evidence to support verdict. Trump hung himself on his impeachment train. I have taken, defended, and used many depositions in court throughout my career, but I have never seen an adverse party deposition as devastating, as full of admissions as this one. Trump gave away the store when he claimed that throughout history stars like him were fortunately able to take what they wanted from women. What jury would ever buy that? right of the Lord dated the feudal lords.
Will Trump win on appeal? I wouldn’t put my bitcoins on it. The appellate court following a jury verdict must satisfy all inferences in favor of the prevailing party. Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters fill the Internet with a rebuttal of lies.
Will the verdict dodge the bullet in the court of public opinion? At CNN’s New Hampshire town hall, his supporters laughed. But unlike the Bragg indictment and the “attack” at Mar-a-Lago, this one is unlikely to galvanize Trump supporters.
The jury’s verdict against him in a sex-defamation case is harder to overturn. Carroll took the stand and believed. His testimony was corroborated by two contemporary “screaming” witnesses to whom he confided his account of the attack, and two witnesses to similar acts that Trump violated.
And, most importantly, Trump never took the position to deny it. In a criminal case, we are not permitted to draw any inference from the fact that an accused has not spoken. But in a civil case, Trump’s silence speaks volumes.
So will House Republicans refuse to oust a swindling congressman from their midst, a national embarrassment who rose to political power surrounded by a bodyguard of lies?
And are his lies more reprehensible than those of the party’s presidential leader, an accused felon, a proven sex abuser and an insurrectionist who sees the legal process as a game, threats of violence as a political weapon, the Russians as friends? and democracy as a toy to play with and discard when it no longer serves their interest?
There is a debt limit escape clause that does not include the 14th amendment Bring back the original purpose of Mother’s Day
As Liz Cheney rightly says, “Donald Trump is a risk America can never take again.” He has proven himself unfit and unworthy of any public office, let alone the high office of the presidency.
The party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush is no longer Republican. It has been left without mooring, without principles.
James D. Zirin is a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
