Mediaboss Marketing

Ladies and Gentlemen! Tonight, for the main event in the center ring!

The indictment of former President Donald Trump, on 34 felony charges stemming from hush money payments to an adult film actor, more than anything else, has a numbing effect. We simply cannot expel this egomaniac from the center of our national debate, so we sigh, shake our heads, and try to move along through the noise.

The media circus surrounding the indictment hasnt been this frenzied over celebrity crime since O.J. Simpson got into his Ford Bronco nearly 30 years ago. It doesnt help that Trump has been eating up the coverage, raising money off of his persecution complex, and getting a polling boost for his run to be reelected in 2024. At least, until the photographers printed those unflattering pictures of him sulking through his arraignment hearing.

The charges themselves, brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, are rather mundane. Each charge points to a single falsified business record, in relation to payments Trump made through shell companies; his lawyer, Michael Cohen; and the National Enquirer to two unnamed women, presumably the adult film actor Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, and to an unnamed doorman who tried to shop a story about an illegitimate child. (The Enquirer eventually concluded that story wasnt true, but paid to keep it quiet until after the election anyway.)

The national media loves to talk about Trumps tawdry actions at the root of the charges, but thats missing the mark. This case will sink or swim based on those very narrow charges under New York states business laws, but thats nowhere near as sexy as the hush money to a porn star angle. And when the media finds the circus isnt interesting enough, theyll put on clown makeup and get in the ring themselves.

Everyone has an opinion of Trumps indictment, usually formed before reading any of the charges. Should he be indicted at all? Was it smart to have the Manhattan D.A. file charges first? Isnt this setting us up for more disappointment/violence/Trumps reelection in 2024? And why is Bragg bringing these charges when he walked away from a more compelling tax fraud case?

At the end of the day, most of those questions are moot. A person commits a crime, a prosecutor or grand jury determines there is probable cause to bring charges, an indictment or arrest follows, and then comes a trial. Thats the procedure. The fact that the suspect in question is the former president of the United States, or that hes simultaneously being investigated for serious crimes in multiple jurisdictions, is beside the point. A charge is a charge is a charge, and thats the way the justice system is supposed to operate: focused only on the facts at hand, independent of any outside factors.

Trump has escaped personal accountability for his behavior his entire life.

The reality is that our justice system often falls quite short of that ideal, as any fair-minded observer would note. Just look to our nations history of state-sanctioned violence against Black and Indigenous people from the 1500s to the present, labor unions and organizers, communists and suspected sympathizers of left-wing causes, anti-war demonstrators, women in general (including victims of rape and domestic violence, sex workers (of all genders), and women seeking abortions), LGTBQ+ people (whether while incarcerated, demanding rights in the public square, or just trying to have a drink in a private bar with their friends), and more. The difference with Trump is a matter of degree: In just seven years, his administration and followers have targeted all of the above, plus the media that reported on that violence.

We shouldnt kid ourselves that Trump will ever spend a day in prisonthe sheer logistical challenge of securing the personal safety of a former president, even in a Club Fed-style light-security facility, makes that nearly impossible. The best possible outcome would be to have him banned from public office for life, but the Republican Party already decided to give him a pass on that one. He might have his assets seized, his businesses closed, his family shunned forever. He might get an ankle monitor and detention in his gilded Florida prison, but hell never be looking at the rest of the world through bars. Hundreds of thousands of people have suffered worse for lesser crimes, or for none at all.

But we can expect Trump to use his time-proven tactics of filing countless frivolous pretrial motions to delay the case in an effort to run out the clock until he wins the 2024 presidential election. After which, hell pardon himself and then fight to delay any reckoning on that violation of all that is good and lawful until long after hes dead.

And if the worst of all possible outcomes occurs, and Trump does find himself ensconced in the Oval Office on Jan. 21, 2025, its easy to imagine that the first thing hed do is order his interim attorney general to arrest Joe Biden, legal reasoning be damned, plus anyone else who he believes wronged him during his spectacular failure of his first term: Robert Mueller, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton a hundred times over, Barack Obama. There is no depth to which Trump will not sink to satisfy his bottomless, foundational hunger for revenge.

But even as we dread that possibility (and wed be foolish to think it couldnt happen), the flaws of our justice system do not begin and end with Trumps unique ability to manipulate them. Trump didnt do anything new (aside from launching an attempted coup to remain in power after he lost reelection), he just pushed to new heights every unconscionable behavior wed seen in previous presidents, from paying to cover up affairs to betraying Americans to hostile foreign powers to stealing an election from the winner of the vote. Our presidents, congresspeople, governors, police, CEOs, and other powers in our society have always pushed the boundaries of legality and often gotten away with it.

Trump has escaped personal accountability for his behavior his entire life (his company, however, not so much), so theres no reason why the most un-self-reflective politician in U.S. history should believe the outcome of his current morass would be any different.

Granted, no U.S. president has evertried to overthrow our democracy before. And theres good evidence that charges related to the Jan. 6 insurrection are forthcoming from Special Counsel Jack Smith. As are potential charges around Trumps retention (i.e., theft) of classified documents, and from Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis around his caught-on-tape attempt to commit election fraud.

And if Manhattan D.A. Braggs indictment over hush payments to Stormy Daniels and others seems somewhat deaf to the political reality were facing, again, thats by design. Prosecutors from separate jurisdictions filing separate criminal cases arent supposed to collaborate to achieve the most ideal political outcome.

If Trump has to burn jet fuel flying between court dates in New York, Washington, and Atlanta, well, thats on him. But its also on us to deal with the fallout from the justice system in the political sphere.

And if Trump gets a ratings or funding boost as his unhinged minions triple-down on their persecution complex, well, they were going to do that anyway. As a nation that is allegedly rooted in certain principles of fairness and equality (no matter how imperfectly applied), we cant refrain from applying our standards of justice equally because were worried about what other people might do in response.

Another way of looking at the current situation is this: The Prohibition-era mobster Al Capone has been plausibly linked to anywhere from a few dozen to hundreds of murders, plus all the other crimes a racketeer of the age would be privy to. Yet Capone was put away for income tax evasion, which had the same effect as putting him away for murder would have donehe lost control of his gang and businesses, and by the time he was released, he was too sick (with neurosyphilis, contracted in the days before penicillin) to be a threat anymore.

The Capone case also helped create the judicial precedent that illegal income is still taxable income under federal law, which is something we can appreciate more as Trumps empire continues to unravel. And, like Trump, Capone was also prone to bragging about those crimes, believing he was above the law.

History will account for the true toll of Trumps perfidy (turning COVID-19 into a political issue probably led to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths from the disease, for example). But by the mere act of filing criminal charges against him, the nation is saying he is not, after all, above the law. A majority of Americans would agree.

In the case of laffaire Stormie, it is possible prosecutors have finally caught up to Trumps pre-presidential crimes and are soon moving on to those committed while in office. From the perspective of the media circus, the main act is about to begin.

Sign up to receive email updates from YES!

Read more:
Opinion | Turns Out, Trump Isn't Above the Law - YES! Magazine

Biden will be welcomed on the tarmac by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who is looking to break deadlock in the UK province, where political dysfunction and security concerns threaten to overshadow the historic milestone.

Underlining the threat, masked youths pelted police vehicles with petrol bombs on Monday during an illegal dissident republican march in Londonderry.

Biden is to "mark the tremendous progress" made since the signing of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters ahead of his visit.

The visit will "underscore the readiness of the United States to support Northern Ireland's vast economic potential to the benefit of all communities", she added.

Sunak will use Biden's visit "to celebrate Northern Ireland's successes and encourage further long-term investment", according to his Downing Street office.

Biden, who has Irish ancestry, will then travel south on Wednesday to Ireland for a three-day visit, in part tracing his family history.

He will deliver an address to Ireland's parliament and "celebrate the deep, historic ties" the country shares with the United States, according to the White House.

The speech will be closely scrutinised for any signs of pressure on Sunak to end the current logjam, caused by the Conservative Party's loyalist allies.

The territory has been significantly reshaped since pro-UK unionist and pro-Irish nationalist leaders struck an unlikely peace deal on April 10, 1998 -- Good Friday, two days before Easter -- following marathon negotiations.

Brokered by Washington and ratified by London and Dublin, the Good Friday Agreement largely ended three decades of devastating sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland and intermittent attacks on mainland Britain.

The so-called "Troubles" killed more than 3,500 people. They pitted the province's then-majority Protestant unionists, wanting continued British rule, against Catholic republicans demanding equal rights and reunification with the Republic of Ireland.

But a quarter-century on, post-Brexit trade arrangements and demographic shifts are prompting political instability and violence by dissident republicans.

"While it is time to reflect on the solid progress we have made together, we must also recommit to redoubling our efforts on the promise made in 1998 and the agreements that followed," Sunak said in a statement marking Monday's anniversary.

Given his Irish heritage, the issue is close to Biden's heart.

He will meet Irish President Michael Higgins and Prime Minister Leo Varadkar on Thursday, when he will also take part in peace ceremonies, address the Irish parliament and attend a banquet dinner at Dublin Castle.

During a trip to County Mayo in northwest Ireland on Friday, Biden will visit his ancestral hometown of Ballina and meet distant cousins.

The US president is due to address thousands in the place that his family left in the mid-19th century -- when the country was ravaged by famine -- before eventually settling in blue-collar Scranton, Pennsylvania.

While a visit of personal significance, it also holds political importance with the 2024 White House race looming and Biden keen to appeal to voters vying for the American dream of immigrant success.

He will head home on Saturday, with Northern Ireland continuing its peace accord commemorations the following week, including a three-day conference starting April 17 hosted by former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, played a pivotal role in securing the 1998 deal as US president from 1993 to 2001.

In the years after 1998, Northern Irish paramilitaries were disarmed, its militarised border was dismantled, and British troops departed.

The peace process, however, is perhaps more precarious now than it has been at any point since then.

Power-sharing institutions created by the accords have been paralysed for more than a year over bitter disagreements on post-Brexit trade.

Despite Britain and the European Union agreeing in February to overhaul the arrangements, that new deal -- the Windsor Framework -- is yet to win the support of the pro-UK Democratic Unionist Party.

>> Read more: Sunaks seismic deal resolves N. Ireland border problem but DUP support remains elusive

It has boycotted Northern Ireland's devolved government for 14 months over the issue, crippling the assembly, and is showing no sign of returning to power-sharing.

The security situation has also deteriorated, with Britain's security services last month raising the province's terror threat level to "severe".

(AFP)

Read the original:
Biden visits Belfast to commemorate Northern Ireland's peace deal - FRANCE 24 English

Kosovo

Once feted by Tony Blair and Madeleine Albright, Hashim Thai stands accused in The Hague of complicity in torture and murder

A quarter of a century ago, in the midst of the war in Kosovo and in its aftermath, senior international figures beat a path to the door of Hashim Thai, the Kosovo Liberation Army commander who would later become the countrys most prominent politician.

Thai hosted the former UK prime minister Tony Blair, one of the KLAs most prominent international supporters. He met the late Liberal Democrat leader Sir Paddy Ashdown for a beer. Madeleine Albright, then US secretary of state, was a vocal admirer, and Hillary Clinton met Thai later when she occupied the same position.

Last week, however, Thai who served as both prime minister and president of Kosovo appeared in the dock of a Hague court alongside three prominent colleagues, all accused of war crimes committed during the conflict, including complicity in the murder of 102 people.

As prosecutors presented their case against Thaci and fellow defendants Rexhep Selemi, Kadri Veseli and Jakup Krasniqi all senior figures in the KLAs leadership during the war against Serb forces from 1998 to 1999 they described an alleged campaign of murder, torture and repression against opponents and members of ethnic minorities directed by the four men.

It is alleged that the victims included ethnic Albanian supporters of the rival LDK political party, Serb civilians and Roma, who were held without due process in inhuman conditions at KLA headquarters, subjected to torture and, on a number of occasions, executed.

The trial, which opened two years after the men surrendered to the courts jurisdiction and is expected to run for up to six years, already seems certain to rewrite the history of the conflict.

The proceedings, deeply unpopular in Kosovo and neighbouring Albania, recall the period of brutal conflict between 1998 and 1999 where both Serbian and Kosovan armed organisations committed war crimes in the context of the KLAs armed uprising and Belgrades military response.

In a war fought at first in and around the villages and small towns in the KLAs Drenica mountain stronghold, Thai, known by the nom de guerre of Snake, was a political representative on the KLAs general staff.

Then in his late 20s, he stood out among his fellow commanders for his intelligence and confidence, later representing the KLA at the failed peace negotiations in Rambouillet, France, in early 1999 that preceded Natos intervention in the conflict.

It was in these same villages, however, with their houses and small farms scattered among mountain pastures, the indictment alleges, that the KLA and its commanders held its prisoners in often grim conditions, subjecting them to beatings and other indignities, and sometimes killing them.

Among the catalogue of alleged crimes unveiled last week, one in particular stands out: the events that took place around 26 July 1998 in the midst of a Serb offensive.

Then, the charging document claims, KLA members took approximately 30 detainees from Llapushnik/Lapunik into the nearby Berish/Beria mountains and divided them into two groups. One group was untied and released; the detainees in the other group were shot and killed.

If the trial in The Hague is striking, it is because Natos intervention in Kosovo was defined as a response to serious war crimes, not least the Raak massacre by Serbian forces in January 1999, which redefined the scope of military intervention on humanitarian grounds.

Even then, however, it was clear that both sides were targeting civilians, even if there was a difference of scale, not least the large-scale military action launched by Belgrade after the start of the Nato bombing that sent hundreds of thousands of civilians fleeing from Kosovo into neighbouring countries.

For some, including western diplomats, who encountered Thai and other KLA commanders during the conflict, as they recall it, western support amounted to a choice aligning the interest in London and Washington with the KLA against Slobodan Miloevi in Belgrade, who had already plunged Bosnia into horror.

It was all about getting rid of Miloevi and a realignment after the screw-up over the lack of support for Bosnia, recalls one official who met with Thai during the conflict.

Thai, the former official recalls, had an aura of authority, yet failed to fully reinvent himself as an independent politician, as urged by some of his western political admirers. Instead, he remained in hock to his old colleagues in the KLAs general command, choices that would ultimately leave him vulnerable to prosecution as lurid questions emerged in the decade after the war about the KLAs own record.

In 2010, that would see the publication of a report by Dick Marty for the Council of Europe, detailing claims of serious human rights abuses, including organ trafficking by the KLA claims that would lead, five years later, to the establishment of a special court to try named KLA members including Thai.

But as the case has proceeded to trial at an almost glacial pace, with Kosovo pressured by its former western backers to surrender Thai and his fellow defendants, the most striking claims from the Marty report that victims were killed and their organs harvested have disappeared from proceedings.

Instead, the focus of the case against Thai and his three colleagues is now that, through superior responsibility in the KLAs chain of command, they agreed plans and policies that led directly to the crimes, participating in, facilitating, condoning [and] encouraging them, and failing to prevent the crimes from happening.

If the shape of the prosecution is now clear, so too is the defence outlined by Thais lawyer, Gregory Kehoe, last week, in which he said that while Thai does not deny some crimes were committed by ethnic Albanians [in revenge] [he] rejects they were committed as a matter of [KLA] policy or that they were widespread.

Kehoe also outlined what is likely to be a key contested issue between the prosecution and defence: how centralised and hierarchical the KLAs command structure was.

For while the prosecution insists that documents and statements at the time showed a high concentration of power and direction from the groups general staff, Thais lawyer will argue that the KLA was more nebulous, with Thai enjoying less influence than claimed in the indictment, in a grassroots group whose loyalties, he said, were to local commanders.

If that is likely to be a difficult issue to untangle as the trial proceeds, it is because even those who had the opportunity to observe Thai and the KLA at close quarters remain, 25 years later, uncertain how much authority Thai had at different times during the conflict, and how centrally the KLA was organised.

He was an opportunist, one recalled. He was part of the command structure, but there were a lot of rivalries at local level. The question is, what control did he have and to what extent did he use it?

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Excerpt from:
War crimes tribunal centres on how much former Kosovan president knew - The Guardian

Nigerias political environment has assumed a new but disappointing and frightening mob culture over an election that has been won and lost. In a previous article, I pleaded for peace and asked that we should stand together as we await the outcome of the petitions at the election tribunal. I am sure I was not asking for too much.

Understandably, there are frayed nerves and bitter emotions exerted in the form of intimidation, cyber-bullying and hate speeches, but we do not have to burn down the country because of one election. Have we forgotten that Nigeria belongs to all of us or should we create two green-white-green countries as Donald Trump did when he created two Americas? That would not be a good idea.

Since 1999, we have been taking learnings from every election cycle and there is always room for improvement. This year, we conducted our 7th general election, however flawed these elections might have been. Isnt that a good thing and something to cheer?

The reactions that have trailed the presidential election since February 25 give the impression that some people own Nigeria more than the rest of us simply because Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), lost an election.

I have friends, classmates and colleagues who are Obidients and supporters of Peter Obi. That is the beauty of democracy; it allows for freedom of choice. There are family members who belong to different political parties but they still eat and drink together. In the last presidential election, I know a couple that voted for different parties. They are still living together. Why should our political differences separate us?

I have a brother who is an Obidient. He was very hopeful that Peter Obi would be declared the winner. I have long-standing associates at work (both in Nigeria and the diaspora) who are also Obidients but we understand that our political affiliations and worldviews will not affect our work and relationship.

Our agreement is that superior arguments based on facts and not emotions and sentiments should always prevail. Personal attacks are also forbidden, although in many chat rooms, that is the order of the day. Many participants spew garbage in their attempt to take Nigeria back for Peter Obi.

Even when there are heated arguments as I have witnessed on different occasions, the debaters should have the presence of mind to calm down afterwards. But Obidients believe it must be their own way or no other way. This is an exaggerated sense of entitlement and it shows that they are incapable of tolerating other peoples views. Previously, I refused to accept this characterisation of Obidients but not anymore.

The time has come for a reality check because we can disagree without being disagreeable.

What has become evident is that Obidients mismanaged their expectations because of the rising profile of Peter Obi. Popularity of candidates and opinion polls dont win elections. If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have defeated Donald Trump in the US presidential election in 2016.

Talking about Donald Trump, no one expected him to win that election but he gained the advantage at the Electoral College and became the 45th US President. Heavens did not fall despite Hillary winning the popular vote.

The same Trump and his supporters refused to concede defeat to Joe Biden four years later, even going as far as instigating an insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 where lives were lost and property destroyed. It is the same scenario that is playing out with the duplicitous behaviour of Obidients who insist that Peter Obi won the presidential election.

No one promised Obi a coronation party in Abuja and winning the presidential election is not a stroll in the park. You need a winning strategy to gain competitive advantage. The presidential election was keenly contested and it showed in the results.

There was no way Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) would have gone down without a fight. These are formidable politicians with rich experience, influence and political capital that they amassed over a long period.

Once you hold a different view from Obidients, they will attack you? Why should it be so? Why cant we have a healthy debate and exchange of ideas, even if we disagree? On social media, they resort to cyber-bullying just like Trump supporters who believe erroneously, like Trump, that the election was stolen from them.

Obidients must note that they cannot bully the rest of us into submission and accept their propaganda as the truth. Not one Obidient has shown me the pathway to Obis victory but they expected the crown to be handed over to Obi on a platter of gold. When you want to build a house, you start from the foundation before pillars and beams are introduced.

Two data scientists based in London, UK and Atlanta, USA carried out independent forensic examinations on their own on the presidential election using data they obtained from multiple sources. They found out that Obi was popular and represented a new political force; he could be trusted by his supporters who wanted change from the old order (meaning they were tired of APC and PDP) but he clearly did not achieve the national spread required to win the election.

Obidients were the biggest threat to Obis aspirations. In addition, since about 47% of registered voters were below 50 years old, Obi needed this demographic, based on previous projections assuming they were correct, to win only if they came out to vote. Go and verify the ratio of voters on February 25 as a percentage of the 95 million registered voters as per the various demographics and see whether Obi had the numbers and spread to win.

This brings me to an important management tool known as SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis. If Obidients truly want to be honest and conduct a comprehensive SWOT analysis, it will reveal that Obi could never have defeated Tinubu or Atiku.

Obis strengths were his popularity, frugal nature, and so on. But did they review his weaknesses? Did they also verify his antecedents? What of the opportunities (e.g. coalitions across regions and tribes and religion) and threats (e.g. Obidients)? Obi only ticked one out of the four quadrants and it is not enough to win.

The recent music released by Falz, Nigerian musician and son of legal luminary, Femi Falana, is part of a groundswell of coordinated attacks aimed at de-legitimising the victory of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. But how far can his adversaries go?

Even before the presidential election, several attempts were made from different quarters to discredit Tinubu (there were 18 presidential candidates) and damage his chances. There was nothing that was not thrown at him every bad adjective was used for full effect on Tinubu before and after he became the president-elect.

Obidients believe that Obi won the presidential election and we are having a situation whereby friends are becoming sworn enemies just because they disagree on the matter concerning Obi. I do not think it makes sense for politicians to divide us. By the way, we must also note that ethnicity and religion have become two combustible and dangerous elements that politicians use to weaponise us.

Obi was popular and he was therefore expected to win the election. Thats the story repeated by Obidients, believing that it will become the truth. It does not work that way, a fact Obidients have refused to accept.

Obidients deploy hateful and hurtful drivel to push their narratives and gag the civic space a dangerous and counter-productive idea. It explains why they have continued to thrash the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), accusing the electoral body of rigging the election in favour of Asiwaju Tinubu.

There were other candidates in the election but the attention was always on Asiwaju Tinubu. Obidients will not agree but Tinubu had a better resourced-campaign and his ground game grassroots mobilisation was better. He also built a formidable northern coalition over the years.

Asiwaju is not called the last man standing for nothing.

Overall, Tinubu had a better campaign strategy. No one expected the 2023 elections to be perfect but it is also wrong to assume that there were large-scale electoral malpractices sufficient to invalidate the whole process.

In how many polling units out of 176,606 PUs nationwide were there irregularities? Let us even assume without conceding that the elections were flawed, is that enough reason to say the president-elect should not be sworn into office on May 29? Obi himself knows that he did not win the election but he does not have the courage to admit it because of Obidients. He cannot control them.

But for the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), it would have been business as usual for the leading political parties in their respective strongholds. Let us celebrate the little wins that we achieved and thank President Muhammadu Buhari for giving us the Electoral Act 2022.

The same election described as flawed produced winners from Labour Party in the National Assembly. Those winners were happy to receive their certificates of return but they refuse to acknowledge that the statistical distribution of winners from APC, PDP and Labour Party in terms of ratios is consistent with the outcome of the presidential election.

By the way, Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of PDP and a veteran of the game, was second to Asiwaju Tinubu while Obi came third, an achievement the Obidients should ideally celebrate as a victory for our democracy. Tinubu won in 12 states; Atiku also won in 12 states while Obi won in 11 states and the FCT, yet Obidients believe Obi won the presidential elections. They should go and read Section 134 of the Constitution.

Atiku also filed a petition just like Obi did challenging the outcome of the presidential election but he does not have a mob behind him. The Waziri Adamawa has displayed maturity like a true statesman.

Maybe Obi and Obidients are forgetting that PDP was weakened as the main opposition party having been splintered into four units: Atiku, Obi, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso (of the New Nigeria Peoples Party) and Nyesom Wikes G5. They made victory easier for Tinubu and APC. The two Data Scientists also cited this disadvantage/threat in their reports.

The former Anambra State governor left PDP and joined the Labour Party at the last minute. He became the partys flagbearer. Apparently, the likes of Prof Pat Utomi had to step down for Obi because he was hailed as the messiah that would redeem Nigeria.

Im still of the view that Obi should not have left the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), the party that gave him a wide berth to be Anambra State governor for eight years. Prof Charles Soludo, the incumbent governor, made this point in his famous article (Part One) on Obi.

By now, APGA would have been a force from the South East comparable to what ACN (Action Congress of Nigeria) was in the South West and CPC (Congress for Progressive Change) in northern Nigeria.

It takes time for political alliances to mature but Obi, it would appear, was in a hurry. In a multi-ethnic society like ours where Christians and Muslims live side by side, you need a pan-Nigeria mandate anchored on broad and strategic coalitions and partnerships supported by efficient foot soldiers to win the presidential election.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against Peter Obi but he should be magnanimous in defeat just like Hillary Clinton. The reports by the international observers are encouraging but the impression created by biased media reports and social media activists as well as commentators was that they rejected the process and results of our elections. This is patently false.

What we call electoral malpractices include isolated cases of violence, ballot box snatching, voter suppression, late voting and the incompetence of some security agencies and INEC officials. These problems will not go away overnight but we must constantly seek to improve by working together.

The elections have come and gone and the next task before us is healing and reconciliation. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, a staunch supporter of Obi, believes we need to stand together at this time and he has asked the incoming administration to list and promote healing process as a top priority.

Braimah is a public relations strategist and publisher/editor-in-chief of Naija Times (https://ntm.ng)

Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheCable.

See the original post here:
Obidients, give us a break - TheCable

While Donald Trump launches verbal attacks against the prosecutor and judge overseeing his criminal charges in connection with hush money payments to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, an attorney for the former US president has said his main focus is on legal maneuvers aiming to get the case dismissed long before a trial jury is ever seated.

Jim Trusty appeared on Sunday on ABCs This Week and argued that theres a lot to play with when examining whether New York state prosecutors waited too long to secure an indictment against Trump and if the ex-president intended to commit any crimes with the payments at the center of the case.

The payments were made at the height of the 2016 White House race which Trump won, and Trusty also reiterated questions that his side has previously asked about whether the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, should be able to apply federal election law into a New York case.

The motions to dismiss have to be a priority because they amputate this miscarriage of justice early on, Trusty said to show host Jonathan Karl. And I think youll see some very robust motions.

In his remarks to Karl, Trusty also doubled down on questions already floated by his side about whether Trump could get a fair trial in Manhattan. The New York City borough voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrat who defeated Trustys client in the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden, after all.

However, though Trusty said Manhattan is a real stronghold of liberalism, of activism, and that infects the whole process, he suggested pre-trial dismissal motions citing statutes of limitation and an alleged lack of criminal intent are almost certain to come before one that might seek a change of trial venue.

A state grand jury in Manhattan on 30 March handed up 34 felony charges of falsifying business records to cover up $130,000 in payments meant to keep Daniels quiet about claims of an extramarital sexual encounter in what Braggs office maintains was a conspiracy to influence the race Trump won over Hillary Clinton. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges on Tuesday.

The Daniels payments have already led to one conviction, in federal court: that of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. Cohen, in that case, said he paid Daniels at the behest of Trump and was reimbursed by the then president during his time in the Oval Office. Prosecutors alleged that those payments were falsely classified as legal expenses as part of a conspiracy for Trump to get around state and federal election laws or to deceive tax authorities.

Cohen pleaded guilty to federal crimes stemming from the hush money payments, resulting in a three-year prison sentence as well as the loss of his law license.

Trusty on Sunday called Cohen a convicted perjurer with an ax to grind but said it would be ineffective to attack his credibility in a motion at this stage. He also suggested that Trumps political rhetoric about Bragg being a failed district attorney and a criminal and about the judge to whom the case was allotted, Juan Merchan, being a Trump-hating judge with a Trump-hating wife was unlikely to be reflected in some of his sides upcoming legalese.

It was pointing [out] that they have a bias, that they have a political interest that is contrary to President Trump, Trusty said about comments that prompted Merchan to issue a warning against any statements that were likely to incite violence or civil unrest.

Trusty added: Theres kind of a political lane and a legal lane. Im in the legal lane. Im not going to worry too much or be able to control the politics of the moment.

Sign up to The Guardian Headlines US

For US readers, we offer a regional edition of our daily email, delivering the most important headlines every morning

after newsletter promotion

While Trusty didnt elaborate on his statute of limitation mention, New York law gives prosecutors five years to charge felony falsification of business records. The last alleged false record in the indictment is from December 2017, more than five years before Bragg obtained the charges against Trump.

Its unclear how Braggs office might try to defend against such a line of attack. But in other settings, lawyers confronted with a motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitation often argue that steps taken to conceal the alleged wrongdoing should result in prolonging if not entirely suspending any relevant charging or filing deadlines.

Meanwhile, Trustys comment about applying federal election law into a New York case seemed to refer to Braggs decision to indict the former president over payments during a federal election although the US justice department prosecutors who secured Cohens conviction passed on charging Trump. The justice departments decision against charging Trump does not amount to a finding of innocence for the former president, though it remains to be seen whether Braggs office has enough evidence to eventually secure a conviction.

Trumps next court date in the case that made him the first former US president to be criminally charged is 4 December. But Trusty said the public should not be surprised if some of the possible motions that he discussed were filed well ahead of that date.

If Trump were to eventually be found guilty as accused, it is possible that he would face up to four years in prison, the director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvanias Annenberg Public Policy Center recently told the resource website factcheck.org. Yet it is also possible that Trump would not be at risk for anything more than probation, fines and community service because he was charged as a first-time offender, Columbia University law school professor John C Coffee Jr said to factcheck.org.

Despite the case in Merchans courtroom, Trump is widely considered to be the frontrunner to land the Republican presidential nomination for the 2024 election.

See the rest here:
Trump lawyer says he aims to get hush money case dismissed ... - The Guardian US