Police grab suicidal man from George Washington Bridge ledge, Port Authority says
May 03, 2014
George Conway ripped Republicans for defending lifelong "criminal" Donald Trump against a looming indictment in New York.
The ex-president apparently expects to be charged in the Stormy Daniels hush money payoff, and the conservative attorney told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that he richly deserves it.
"The Republicans are behaving like complete disgraces," Conway said. "They're basically saying that, by saying that Trump is being persecuted, they're essentially saying, you can't touch Trump and Trump is above the law. Whatever slack you might have wanted to cut a former president, that was gone after Jan. 6. This man is a recidivist criminal, he's committed fraud all his life, he's lied all of his life."
"This Stormy Daniels thing was something he cooked up," Conway added. "The notion that [Michael] Cohen is going to be discredited on it is ridiculous given the paper trail. We see the checks signed by Donald Trump. It's hard to say he is being picked on for paying $130,000 in hush money to a porn star and concealing that and using a straw donor, which was Cohen, to do that, and saying he's being persecuted somehow when no one has ever done that it is completely ridiculous."
RELATED: Georgia weighs slapping Trump with racketeering charges: CNN
Watch the video below or at this link.
03 20 2023 07 04 08 youtu.be
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg pushed back at conservatives who have been whining that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has a "weak case" against former President Donald Trump as part of his investigation over hush money being paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
On Friday it was reported that an indictment might be forthcoming this week from a Manhattan grand jury against the former president. That, in turn, led Trump to claim on Truth Social that he will be "arrested" on Tuesday, which was followed by outrage from Trump's defenders in Congress who took to social media and the Sunday cable shows to attack Bragg.
As part of their defense of Trump, some Republicans leveled complaints that the case against the former president is weak, well before the details of the possible indictment have been revealed.
According to former prosecutor Rosenberg, nothing about what Bragg is investigating should be dismissed as trivial.
RELATED: Trump takes a big risk by 'overplaying his hand' in call for protests: report
"People keep referring to the New York case as the weakest case. To me, as a former prosecutor, weak means a case where the evidence is thin or perhaps you don't have a reasonable probability of conviction," Rosenberg explained to the MSNBC hosts. "What I think they might mean is that it's the less serious case and how serious a case is is reflected in how it is categorized or classified."
"In this case, under New York State law, it's a misdemeanor so it's admittedly less serious and how serious a case is is also sort of explained or demonstrated by how it is sentenced," he elaborated. "Murder is a very serious case and people often go to jail for a very long time, if not for life. Falsifying business records under New York state law is a less serious case, so the penalties are less severe."
"It doesn't make it a weak case if you look at it from the perspective of a prosecutor -- you bring your case when it is ready," he continued. "So it would be a political decision to bring it too soon for some other purpose or to wait for some other purpose. If the case is ready, and as the elected prosecutor in Manhattan, you believe it is an appropriate charge, you bring it. It may be less serious than the other cases out there, but that doesn't make it weaker."
MSNBC 03 20 2023 06 28 38 youtu.be
Imagine a universe with extremely strong gravity. Stars would be able to form from very little material. They would be smaller than in our universe and live for a much shorter amount of time. But could life evolve there? It took human life billions of years to evolve on Earth under the pleasantly warm rays from the Sun after all.
Now imagine a universe with extremely weak gravity. Its matter would struggle to clump together to form stars, planets and – ultimately – living beings. It seems we are pretty lucky to have gravity that is just right for life in our universe.
This isn’t just the case for gravity. The values of many forces and particles in the universe, represented by some 30 so-called fundamental constants, all seem to line up perfectly to enable the evolution of intelligent life. But there’s no theory explaining what values the constants should have – we just have to measure them and plug their numbers into our equations to accurately describe the cosmos.
So why do the fundamental constants take the values they do? This is a question that physicists have been battling over for decades. It is also the topic of the second episode of our new podcast series, Great Mysteries of Physics – hosted by me, Miriam Frankel, science editor at The Conversation, and supported by FQxI, the Foundational Questions Institute.
“We don’t know whether some of those constants are linked deep down. If we had a deeper theory, we’d find that they’re not actually independent of each other,” explains Paul Davies, a theoretical physicists at Arizona State University. “But we don’t have that theory at the moment, we’ve just got all these numbers.”
Some physicists aren’t too bothered by the seemingly fine-tuned cosmos. Others have found comfort in the multiverse theory. If our universe is just one of many, some would, statistically speaking, end up looking just like ours. In such a universe, says Davies, “beings will pop up and marvel at the fact that they live in a universe that looks like it’s rigged in favor of their existence, but actually we’re just winners in a cosmic lottery.”
But many physicists, including Davies, are holding out for a more fundamental theory of nature which can explain exactly what values the constants should have in the first place. “I usually say two cheers for the multiverse, cause I think it’s better than just saying God did it,” he argues, adding that to get to three cheers you need a more complete theory.
That said, in the absence of a deeper theory, it is hard to estimate exactly how fine-tuned our universe is. Fred Adams, a physicist at the University of Michigan, has done a lot of research to try to find out, and he has discovered that the mass of a quark called the down quark (quarks are elementary particle which make up the atomic nucleus, for example) can only change by a factor of seven before rendering the universe, as we know it, lifeless.
But how fine tuned is that? “If you want to tune a radio, you have to know the frequency of the signal to 1% – and 1% is much more tuned than a factor of seven,” explains Adams. “So it’s much harder to tune a radio than to tune a universe”. Intriguingly, his work has also shown it is possible to get universes that are more life-friendly than ours. “You can make a more logical universe that produces more structure, potentially produces more habitable environments, and I guess by implication supports life better,” he explains.
There are experiments which could help settle the fine-tuning debate. For example, some projects are trying to find out whether the constants we see around us really are constant – perhaps they vary ever so slightly over time or space. And if that were the case, it would be a blow to those who believe the cosmos is fine-tuned.
You can also listen to Great Mysteries of Physics via any of the apps listed above, our RSS feed, or find out how else to listen here. You can also read .
Miriam Frankel, Podcast host, The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.