@averagejoe1 said
With my every post, I have this underlying '"How can these people stand behind Joe Biden for 4 more years, where they fully know that the WH is run 90% by people in their 20s, with big plans to socialize the United States of America."" That would be all of our left posters; They fallow the mantra of Kamala Harris. ".....just as long as, at the end of the day, we all end up in the same place'.

Should not one strive to have their own place?

Why don't you make your "own place" in a thread where such drivel is actually on-topic?

@moonbus said
@no1marauder

Thanks. I await with baited breath further updates in the case.

Opening statements Monday. Jury selection went pretty smoothly considering the notoriety of the case.

@averagejoe1 said
I, AvJoe, deleted something I mistyped. Let me now file my own Issues of the NY Trial. Then all of us are free to choose. You libs have not yet taken our freedom yet, I hope. Read this, and then read Maruder's Link-style post again.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-hush-money-trial-frankenstein-case-zapped-life-turley

From your link:

"And to this day, there's some confusion as to Bragg's actual theory as to what was the exact crime that Trump was hiding from all of this."

Only if you have failed to read Judge Merchan's decision of February 15, 2015 that I have already cited. One would think that even a Fox News, Trump mouthpiece like Jonathan Turley would have at least done that.

@averagejoe1 removed their quoted post

I'm going to ignore posts from people who can't grasp what I just wrote and the excerpts from the Court's ruling.

Nothing remotely in my post says Trump isn't charged with a felony in NY. In fact, he is charged with 34 counts of one: NY Penal Law § 175.10.

Right wingers here are repeating the same nonsense they did a year ago that I debunked in this thread: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/bonus-question%E2%80%A6.196665

I also made some predictions, like a motion to dismiss on Statute of Limitations grounds, would be denied by the trial judge. It was here: https://casetext.com/case/people-v-trump-20

But as a reminder:

Despite what Average Joe keeps repeating, DA Bragg did not charge Donald Trump with a Federal crime. He charged him with 34 counts of this one:

NY Penal Law "§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony."

As to the object crimes, Bragg is basing the "intent to commit another crime" which elevates the charge from a misdemeanor 2nd Degree to a felony First Degree Falsifying business records, Bragg uses three theories any one of which the Judge found adequate to sustain the charges at this point (a fourth was rejected):

"(1) The People allege that Defendant "violated federal election laws because the payoffs to both McDougal and Daniels violated FECA's restrictions on corporate and individual contributions." People's (Apposition pg. 24 The People presented evidence to the Grand Jury that Cohen pled guilty in the Southern District of New York to violating FECA for engaging in the very acts which are at issue here, i.e. making unlawful campaign contributions and that he did so at the direction of, and in coordination with, "a candidate for federal office," later identified as Donald J. Trump - the Defendant herein.
(2) Under the second theory, the People allege that Defendant intended to violate N.Y. Election Law § 17 152 by conspiring to "promote the election of any person to a public office...by entering a scheme specifically for purposes of influencing the 2016 presidential election; and that they did so by 'unlawfull means,' including by violating FECA through the unlaw individual and corporate contributions by Cohen. Pecker, and AMI; and...by falsifying the records of other New York enterprises and mischaracterizing the. nature of the repayment for tax purposes." People's Opposition at pg. 25.
(3) Under die third theory, the People allege that the Defendant intended to violate New York fax Law §§ 1801(a)(3) and 1802. this theory is premised on evidence introduced to the Grand Jury that when Cohen was reimbursed for the $1.30,000 payment he made to Daniels, the amount he received was "grossed up" to compensate him for taxes he would have to pay on the reimbursement."

"The Court has considered the respective arguments of the parties and finds that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury for the first three theories was legally sufficient to support the intent to commit the "other crime" element of falsifying Business Records in the first Degree."

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-trump-20 pp. 13-14

Finally, the Statute of Limitations defense was rejected as I predicted though on grounds I hadn't thought of:

"Although conduct described in the Indictment occurred more than five years prior to the filing of the Indictment, the Governor's Orders tolled "any specific time limit for the commencement" of any felony through May 6, 2021. Thus, the deadline for the prosecution of the alleged conduct was extended by one year and 47 days. In other words, this felony prosecution had to be commenced within 6 years and 47 days from when the crimes were allegedly committed. The earliest conduct described in the Indictment allegedly occurred on February 14, 2017. The tolled period or extension for commencing the action thus brought the conduct described in the Indictment within the prescribed five-year time limit.

Since the Court finds the Indictment was timely brought as a result of the tolling occasioned by the Governor's Executive Orders, it declines to address the People's other theory pursuant to CPI- § 30.10(4)(a)(1), that the filing deadline was also extended because Defendant was continuously out of New York."

p. 24

Hope that helps.

@wildgrass said
Not misquoting. You seem to prefer alternate conclusions than what authors provide, and I admit i take their word for it when they write that learning mode was not an important variable determining community transmission rates.

Schools remained closed after those conditions you mentioned were met. It made no difference in transmission rates, as I think we agree. The bene ...[text shortened]... o do with schools.

This was very bad public policy. We have not even started discussing the cost.

No, I obviously don't agree that reopening schools for in-person learning in areas with existing high levels of COVID19 in the general population would have had no effect on transmission rates. It's quite obviously counterintuitive and the evidence (limited as it is as most local leaders weren't willing to adopt such a murderous, insane policy) is to the contrary. Even the studies you referenced don't make such an outlandish claim.

@wildgrass said

No one said that schools being open for in-school learning was a primary factor in the overall COVID incidence rate in the at-large population, so you're goalpost moving.

I used no such terminology. Just quoting the science.

Misquoting actually.

Saying you can do Policy A without Adverse Consequence B IF Condition C (among others) is met, implies you shouldn't do Policy A IF Condition C is not met or you will get Adverse Consequence B. Here:

Policy A is reopening schools for in-person learning

Adverse Consequence B is an increased amount of a deadly, contagious cisease in the general population.

Condition C is a pre-existing low incidence of that disease in the local population.

Virtually every study you have cited has said Policy A can avoid a significant Adverse Consequence B IF Condition C is met. You keep ignoring that caveat.

@wildgrass said
I am really glad to see we are making progress in this conversation. Your point 1 was not met in some places. Why? It wasn't because of schools. Your point 2 was not met in some areas either. Why? It wasn't schools.

School closures were unnecessary if other mitigation efforts were in place. Unfortunately our society prioritized things other than education.

No one said that schools being open for in-school learning was a primary factor in the overall COVID incidence rate in the at-large population, so you're goalpost moving. What has been said is that, contrary to your assertions, doing so in areas with anything but a low COVID incidence rate in the at-large population would have worsened that rate. That seems to be the conclusion in even the studies you have presented, though it's more in the data than in the stated conclusions.

What mitigation measures were adopted in the schools was obviously a factor in transmission as the recommendations in the studies makes clear. Unfortunately, the areas that decided to resume in-school learning early in the pandemic often did so for political reasons and shared a general stance of COVID minimizers often with mask skepticism and other unfounded hostility to such measures. That is surely a factor in the data you presented esp. in the South.

Our society, at least the competent local decision makers did, prioritized the health and safety of the residents in their areas. Given the low negative effect on test scores presented in the article cited in the OP versus the likely result of thousands of additional deaths, tens of thousands of more hospitalizations and God knows how much more sickness, their policy choice appears to have been a wise one.

@wildgrass said
Right, but in the other studies when you control for whether or not those schools and communities used other efforts to mitigate spread, the question of whether or not the school was in person or remote is no longer relevant.

Data is observational, of course, but suggests the schools could have been open the whole time without any change to transmission rates.

The data suggests no such thing as a general rule; it says, at most, that transmission wouldn't significantly increase only if two conditions were met: 1) COVID incidence in the population at large is low; AND 2) Aggressive mandatory mitigation measures like required masking are in effect.

1 was certainly not met in the majority of schools that did not resume in-school learning in Fall 2020 and whether 2 was in effect is unclear in the parts of the country referenced in the study you keep citing, which found a greater than doubling of cases in the South after a policy was done which you claim would not result in "any change to transmission rates."

Here's a study of 1.4 million individuals regarding children spreading the disease:

" Our findings suggest that children play an important role in within-household viral transmissions. Consistent with demonstrated patterns among other viral illnesses, pediatric-driven transmission was higher when school was in session. During the COVID-19 pandemic, inferred household transmissions increased from the fourth pandemic period (March 7 to July 14, 2021) to the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 wave. More than 70% of household transmissions in households with adults and children were from a pediatric index case, but this percentage fluctuated weekly. Once US schools reopened in fall 2020,23-25 children contributed more to inferred within-household transmission when they were in school, and less during summer and winter breaks, a pattern consistent for 2 consecutive school years."

" However, these transmissions decreased during summer and winter school breaks, which is consistent with prior studies showing school attendance associated with increased respiratory viral spread, and school holidays with decreased spread.26-28"

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2805468

@wildgrass said
What part of " did not increase community transmission" do you not understand?

Jesus H Christ.

Your stubbornness is noted, but all your studies indicate is, at best, in places with low COVID incidence to begin with that reopening schools for in-person learning did not substantially increase transmission.

That says absolutely nothing about what would have happened IF the same thing had been done in places with high rates of COVID incidence, the policy you are retroactively endorsing.

Read this quote one more time: " "School reopenings, in areas of low transmission and with appropriate mitigation measures, were generally not accompanied by increasing community transmission."

EDIT: I'll offer to agree with this statement again:

""well, moving back to in-person learning in school districts with low population density and other protective measures like mandatory masking in areas with below average incidence of COVID prevalence in the community might not have caused significant increases in disease transmission"