‘Anti-national’ not defined in any statute, government tells House | India News - Rashtra News : Rashtra News #Antinational #defined #statute #government #tells #House #India #News #Times #India NEW DELHI: The home ministry on Tuesday said the term ‘anti-national’ is not defined in any statute but there exist criminal legislations and judicial pronouncements to deal
trump team denies that was what was taking place. even if that were what happened. it's not against the law. the allegation of law-break something that you didn't keep records correctly. that you mismarked. >> ainsley: charges a legal fee. >> will: even at that, that's a misdemeanor that had expired on the statute of limitations. then he turns it into an election fraud thing, which he doesn't have jurisdiction on. the fec as matt points out has passed on it and uses that to make it a felony that is still active. that's why i asked my question. it's super weird to have two lawyers sitting on a jury. you kind of look at it and go i think the gamble is those two lawyers will go you don't see what everyone watching what the four of us see. that's not appropriate use of the law. >> brian: not if one of those lawyers wants to be a contributor on msnbc. >> will: right. >> brian: i see a lot of these lawyers on these other channels actually think this case is good and strong. which makes me think really
for president. since they paid off a girl when they were 30 years old. then that was election interference. >> right because they know somehow in 30 years they were going to be president and trying to contribute to themselves and not report it. >> exactly. which whole thing is crazy. again, it shows quite troubling power line of a prosecutor to crush a political enemy if they want. >> brian: you say life-altering, what do you mean? >> this carries jail time. and so at a minimum it really inhibits the former president's ability to campaign. we know he has to be in court every day. he is -- if they convict him, he will have to go through an appeals process. each of these charges carries up to four years of prison time. it's outrageous. >> lawrence: since they have said the statute has expired but they are still going to do it anyway. i used to do political opposition research for a living, the amount of politicians pay people off do they all stand trial now? this is what they are essentially saying? and there is a ton of them. >> yes. and, you know, look, we don't
falsifying of business records, it's a misdemeanor, 1 through 3 years depending on what state you are in. the only way that bragg revived this is by bootstrapping it's a felony saying well they falsified these records to conceal underlying crime, but the question is how do they do that and who did it? did trump do it? did michael cohen do it and what was the underlying crime. bragg said in a press conference they violated state and federal election law except the problem is doj declined to bring the federal election law charge against trump. i think they are going to focus on the fact that, again, he didn't even know how these were labeled and, two, even if he did, what's the problem? >> will: let me see if i can summarize this that i understand it completely. so, to ainsley's point, making these payments under the guise of nda isn't illegal. they make it illegal by calling it bookkeeping fraudulent activity when which by the way you point out statute run on that misdemeanor. bragg says i will make them a
prosecution? how does it hurt the defense? >> just some context on that is that this does happen in the media world. can you buy writes to a story and then choose not to publish it. some people may not like it but there is nothing inherently illegal. the prosecution wants to bring this in though to say well, he and trump had some kind of agreement that he was going to help them out with the election. so he going to pay off macdougall and this speaks to the same pattern here with michael cohen and therefore, what happened with stormy daniels is in effect an illegal contribution to himself. it is still a stretch no matter how you look at it but that's this whole case. >> lawrence: kerri, i'm curious. is the argument for the defense the statute that bragg is bringing before the court is not really congruent with this case or is the argument that, yeah, he did it but it's not illegal? >> it's a couple -- there is a couple points to that first, is that the statute of limitations has run. it's long run on these
timing, not the case itself? i am not leral timing, not the case itself? i am not legal expert, _ timing, not the case itself? i am not legal expert, like _ timing, not the case itself? i am not legal expert, like i— timing, not the case itself? i am not legal expert, like i said, - timing, not the case itself? i am not legal expert, like i said, i i not legal expert, like i said, i think if there were criminal charges to be had, we wouldn't be calling it a hush money trial and the crime would be a lot more obvious. what is the crime here?— the crime here? let's talk about the im act on the crime here? let's talk about the impact on the _ the crime here? let's talk about the impact on the election, _ the crime here? let's talk about the impact on the election, you - the crime here? let's talk about the impact on the election, you said - impact on the election, you said straight out the gates that you think this is helping him. they receive wisdom is that it is certainly helping him with his base, those core people who will have voted for him anyway. will damage him possibly with people who are not his base and he needs those voters to win the presidential election, what you make of that? this to win the presidential election, what you make of that? as people show, his numbers _ what you make of that? as people show, his numbers cooperate - what you make of that? as people show, his numbers cooperate and| what you make of that? as people - show, his numbers cooperate and they do this. it is even getting people who are not going to book for him in the beginning because they see that this is just all politics, all the beginning because they see that this isjust all politics, all smoke and mirrors, a witchhunt. most of the charges they are bringing against him are well outside of the statute of limitations. they happened years ago, long before he
listen. national political director. let's listen- it's _ national political director. let's listen. it's having _ national political director. let's listen. it's having a _ national political director. let's listen. it's having a huge - national political director. let�*s listen. it's having a huge impact and having the opposite impact the democrats intended. the american people on field by this witchhunt. this is a trial which should have happened years ago. we see through his political opponents. president trump's opponents are persecuting him in a trial while he's trying to run for president. they know they can't win at the ballot box or they are trying to do everything to stop them. his numbers go up every time he does it and it is getting people who weren't going to vote for him because they see it is all politics, all smoke and mirrors, a witchhunt. most of these charges against him are well outside the statute of limitations and happened years ago, long before he was president, a civilian. it would be nice to say the other side is clean and they haven't broken any laws, but this is
with honouring the rules of the court and the trial. david, thank ou ve court and the trial. david, thank you very much _ court and the trial. david, thank you very much for _ court and the trial. david, thank you very much for that. - court and the trial. david, thank you very much for that. grateful court and the trial. david, thank . you very much for that. grateful for your time this evening. victoria, just looking at what an impact this has on the election. if you look at the latest nbc polling, it has shifted a little bit injoe biden's direction since january. so he is nowjust direction since january. so he is now just ahead direction since january. so he is nowjust ahead of donald trump. do you think the cases are starting to have an effect? because sarah smith, our us editor, does say he does look a little jaded when he appears on camera. ~ , . ., , ., camera. well, it is certainly all very exhausting _ camera. well, it is certainly all very exhausting and _ camera. well, it is certainly all very exhausting and i - camera. well, it is certainly all very exhausting and i think- camera. well, it is certainly all very exhausting and i think a i camera. well, it is certainly all. very exhausting and i think a lot camera. well, it is certainly all- very exhausting and i think a lot of the purposes of these various lawsuits — the purposes of these various lawsuits is to tie him up, to drain his energy— lawsuits is to tie him up, to drain his energy and his attention from the campaign trail. i am not a lawyer— the campaign trail. i am not a lawyer by— the campaign trail. i am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but to my understanding the statute of limitations on this has expired. and even if it hadn't, there _ has expired. and even if it hadn't, there is— has expired. and even if it hadn't, there is absolutely no evidence that there is absolutely no evidence that the stormy daniels story would have had a _ the stormy daniels story would have had a measurable impact on the 2016
out and what's interesting is michael cohen is looming in the background for the opening statement. if you are a prosecutor, you do not want to attribute too much of the case to michael cohen, you know the defense will tee off so i think the prosecution tells the story either downplaying him and saying it's not that important or a more subtle way to not contribute every piece of evidence. to say the evidence will show trump was doing x, y, and z see and not saying ♪ ♪ michael cohen will testify to those facts. >> the opening statement shows his defense team up for the challenge. >> they need to make about : there's a lot wrong with this prosecution in terms of it being creative, avoiding statute of limitations about political bias and entry but end of the day your on the merits, and trial, you need to make about : and you hope at least one or two jurors if not more say never buy a used
out and what's interesting is michael cohen is looming in the background for the opening statement. if you are a prosecutor, you do not want to attribute too much of the case to michael cohen, you know the defense will tee off so i think the prosecution tells the story either downplaying him and saying it's not that important or a more subtle way to not contribute every piece of evidence. to say the evidence will show trump was doing x, y, and z see and not saying ♪ ♪ michael cohen will testify to those facts. >> the opening statement shows his defense team up for the challenge. >> they need to make about : there's a lot wrong with this prosecution in terms of it being creative, avoiding statute of limitations about political bias and entry but end of the day your on the merits, and trial, you need to make about : and you hope at least one or two jurors if not more say never buy a used