A disturbing video is doing the rounds online in which a group of teenage girls can be seen attacking a 16-year-old and her six-month-old baby. In relation to the case, a teenage girl, who was part of the group that brutally attacked Janie McCoy and her child, was taken into custody on Tuesday, CBS-affiliated news station…
On his politics and law podcast Tuesday, former federal New York Prosecutor Preet Bharara questioned why Rudy Giuliani and his allies are begging for financial help as legal problems stack up. Giuliani's son Andrew Giuliani worked for former President Donald Trump as a special assistant, but that doesn't mean the family is close enough to score cash for their legal troubles.
In a discussion with former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance, Bharara explained that in the entirety of his life, Trump has never been known to pay for anyone else, much less himself.
"I don't know why all of the sudden, out of the blue, in his mid to late 70s, Donald Trump will start to be gracious and generous by paying people's fees. He doesn't pay his own lawyers' fees, as we have heard reported time and again," said Bharara.
Author and lawyer James Zirin penned the book Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits in which he explained that Trump doesn't pay his bills.
"People often ask me: 'how can he bring 3,500 lawsuits or be involved in 3,500 lawsuits?'" the author told CNN in 2019. "The answer is he didn't pay most of his lawyers ... He doesn't pay his lawyers. He doesn't pay his architects, doesn't pay his creditors, goes into bankruptcy."
That became a problem after the 2020 election when Trump wanted lawsuits in several states, but struggled to find lawyers who would work with him.
Hear the Bharara comments below:
Donald Trump is not the type to pay anyone’s legal fees. Why would he start with Rudy? @JoyceWhiteVance and I break… https://t.co/8piKIrHNK2— Preet Bharara (@Preet Bharara) 1620773973.0
Embattled trainer Bob Baffert cut a deal Tuesday allowing doping-hit Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit into the Preakness after admitting the horse's anti-fungal ointment had contained a banned steroid.
US flat racing's Triple Crown remained mired in scandal even as the draw for Saturday's Preakness, the second leg of the treble, was unveiled with Medina Spirit installed as the 9-5 favorite by oddsmakers.
Baffert, banned from entering horses at Churchill Downs until a Kentucky Horse Racing Commission investigation is complete, was only allowed to enter Medina Spirit and Concert Tour, the second choice at 5-2, at Pimilico after agreeing to tougher than normal drug testing and ensuring all results are made public.
Medina Spirit returned a positive race-day Derby doping test on May 1 for the steroid betamethasone, which is banned within two weeks of a race.
Should a second test from the sample also be positive, the colt would be disqualified and runner-up Mandaloun awarded the victory.
"We are well aware of the public outcry and calls for action that have been the natural outcome of a medication positive in one of the most iconic races in our sport and we share the disappointment and concern," Pimlico track owner 1/st Racing chief executive officer Craig Fravel said.
Baffert brought the horse to the Baltimore racetrack but was not assured a Preakness entry until he agreed to terms with the Maryland Jockey Club and track owner 1/st Racing.
Baffert agreed to testing and monitoring beyond that conducted by the Maryland Racing Commission "to ensure the fairness and integrity of... horses trained by Baffert," a Preakness statement said.
Baffert's Preakness entrants Medina Spirit and Concert Tour will have all test results and relevant medical records made public.
If a Baffert horse tests positive or has a higher than allowable level of a permitted theraputic substance, Baffert will withdraw the horse in question.
In Tuesday's draw, Medina Spirit with jockey John Velazquez aboard was assigned the third gate from the rail in the field of 10 while Concert Tour, was drawn into the far outside gate and given the second-best odds at 5-2.
The Triple Crown concludes with next month's Belmont Stakes in New York.
Nagged by repeated doping issues with champion horses in his Hall of Fame career, Baffert has the biggest controversy of them all after a victory which, if it stands, would give him seven career Derby wins, the most of any trainer in the event's 147-race history.
In a statement released by his lawyer, Baffert said the anti-fungal medication Otomax was used on Medina Spirit to treat dermatitis on his hind end and it had betamethasone.
Baffert said he had no idea trace amounts of the banned substance were in the ointment that was used upon the colt once daily until Derby eve, saying his veterinarian recommended using Otomax.
"This has never been a case of attempting to game the system or get an unfair advantage," Baffert said
"While we do not know definitively that this was the source of the alleged 21 picograms found in Medina Spirit's post-race blood sample, and our investigation is continuing, I have been told by equine pharmacology experts that this could explain the test results.
"I've been told that a finding of a small amount, such as 21 picograms, could be consistent with application of this type of ointment. I intend to continue to investigate and I will continue to be transparent."
- 'No effect' on outcome -
Baffert said such small amounts of betamethasone would not have offered his horse a competitive advantage.
"Medina Spirit earned his Kentucky Derby win and my pharmacologists have told me that 21 picograms of betamethasone would have had no effect on the outcome of the race," Baffert said. "Medina Spirit is a deserved champion and I will continue to fight for him."
Fravel said race officials had to respect Baffert's right to due process in the Derby case out of "fundamental fairness" and racing rules.
"While the integrity of our sport is of utmost importance it is the responsibility of those in authority to follow the rules even as we seek to enforce them," Fravel said. "We cannot make things up as we go along and we trust that the competitors, bettors and fans will understand the importance of adhering to that principle."
© 2021 AFP
'That's not legally sound': Legal analyst flattens Rudy Giuliani's claim lower felonies should result in FBI raids
Rudy Giuliani is grasping at straws as his own comments continue to make his legal situation more complicated. The latest tenuous defense from former President Donald Trump's lawyer is that if someone is accused of a lower-level felony then they shouldn't be raided by the FBI.
"I don't know why they're searching my house. I have no idea what they, what they allege I supposedly did, acted as an agent for some Ukrainian? It's just totally untrue," Giuliani said on his radio show. "I don't know what they base it on. Either their own supposition or some liar? But, I can prove that I wasn't. I've offered to come there and prove it."
A Bloomberg piece reported that the last part of that claim wasn't entirely accurate. Giuliani told investigators that he'd cooperate with their investigation, but only if they gave him the topics and questions ahead of time. Investigators refused.
He continued ranting about the raid on his home, complaining that it's the FBI who should be penalized for doing that.
"Instead, they wanted to break into my house and, worse of all, break into my law office, for which they should be really penalized," Giuliani said on his show. "I mean, the thing should be suppressed. You should not be allowed to break into a lawyer's office on a charge of one alleged failure to file as a foreign agent."
After listening to several of Giuliani's shows, MSNBC host Ari Melber said that he enjoyed that this latest take was more of a legal argument. On Monday, he and former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained that Giuliani using phrases that were reminicent of former President Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" line. He also referenced former crime boss Whitey Bulger, who turned into an informant for the FBI.
"That's not legally sound," explained former federal prosecutor Dana Perry. "The prosecutor says as long as they have probable cause for a federal offense and can get a judge to sign off on it, in this case as well to get senior DOJ officials to sign off on it, they can get a search warrant. It doesn't matter if it is for a federal offense or premeditated murder. In point of fact, though, as a practical matter, it may be the case that for a simple technical paperwork violation, they would not go to these lengths. But he's wrong as a matter of law."
She explained that Giuliani may have other legal defenses like if there was no probable cause or whether an informant testified improperly.
"Those may all be legal defenses, but, yes, some of the defenses we have seen, the line prosecutors are jealous or he's being framed or the what-aboutism with Hunter Biden, you know, neither of these -- I don't know about you, are, but he doesn't seem to be a student of history or the law because those are of course not real legal defenses," she said.
Melber agreed, saying that it may just be that Giuliani is ranting as the subject of a probe and not as a lawyer.
See the discussion below:
Rudy Giuliani's unsound legal defense www.youtube.com
Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Raw Story Investigates and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.
$95 / year — Just $7.91/month
I want to Support More
$14.99 per month