Skip to main content

COVID: "The Murder Trial of Andrew Cuomo"

Attorney and World Net Daily (WND) contributor Scott Lively presents the evidence for the "charge of murder" against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo:

 https://www.wnd.com/2020/05/murder-trial-andrew-cuomo/

In the matter of The People v. Andrew Cuomo, on the charge of murder, I am attorney Scott Lively, representing The People. You have been empaneled as the jury in this matter, and it will be your job to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this case, Mr. Andrew Cuomo, governor of the state of New York, on the charge of murder in the deaths of thousands of elderly Americans who lost their lives in nursing homes as a consequence of infection with COVID-19 disease caused by exposure to infected individuals intentionally discharged from hospitals and placed in these homes. These initial facts are uncontested, and news reports have informed the entire world of the great human tragedy suffered by these victims and their families. But the question before you today is the degree of responsibility for those deaths that should be borne by the defendant. This is a question of fact that only you, the jury, can decide.

What the evidence will show is that in the first five months of 2020, as the COVID-19 Pandemic raged through the state of New York, more than 5,000 of New York's citizens most vulnerable to the ravages of this terrible disease were killed by this virus in nursing homes. We will show that these nursing home deaths represented 25% – literally a quarter – of all COVID-19 deaths in the state of New York, a vastly disproportionate number of victims compared to the size of the general population of infected persons.

The People will call witnesses from the State Health Department to explain a March 25 policy directive requiring nursing homes to take coronavirus patients. These witnesses will testify that this legally binding directive barred nursing homes from requiring incoming patients "to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission." They will also affirm that this policy was not just holdover bureaucratic red tape that forced nursing homes to accept infected patients, but was a premeditated policy change, specifically implemented at the height of the pandemic, in response to it!

We will show that the March 25 order states, "Residents are deemed appropriate for return to a [nursing home] upon a determination by the hospital physician or designee that the resident is medically stable for return." And we will call witnesses to verify that while the notification gave no specific definition of "medically stable," health experts insist that those patients should have been assumed to be contagious.

We will further show that even when the disease began rampaging through these care facilities like a hurricane, the state would not reverse the policy. We will call the head of Brooklyn's Cobble Hill Health Center and introduce as evidence his frantic email exchange with state health officials on April 9 begging for permission to send suspected COVID cases to the Javitz Center or the medical ships in New York Harbor. He will testify that he was denied permission and that more than 50 residents at his home died. Other nursing home officials from around the state will tell similar stories.

The Defense will argue that Gov. Cuomo should not be held responsible for the actions of his state health officials, and that in the month of May he eventually did intervene to rescind the March 25 directive, but we will show that Cuomo's policy recission occurred only after calls for an independent investigation had begun circulating in the media, and we will call a Cuomo aide who will state that the May policy change was not a reversal in recognition of error, but simply a new policy based on increased hospital capacity and testing. We will also show that Gov. Cuomo wielded de facto dictatorial power during this period.

The People will call witnesses who will testify that the Cuomo administration intentionally withheld the data on nursing home deaths from the public, and it will be up to you, the jury, to decide whether this evidence proves knowledge of guilt, and whether precious lives could have been saved by an earlier public outcry.

The Defense will argue that Gov. Cuomo should not be held responsible for the actions of his state health officials, and that in the month of May he eventually did intervene to rescind the March 25 directive, but we will show that Cuomo's policy recission occurred only after calls for an independent investigation had begun circulating in the media, and we will call a Cuomo aide who will state that the May policy change was not a reversal in recognition of error, but simply a new policy based on increased hospital capacity and testing. We will also show that Gov. Cuomo wielded de facto dictatorial power during this period.

The People will call witnesses who will testify that the Cuomo administration intentionally withheld the data on nursing home deaths from the public, and it will be up to you, the jury, to decide whether this evidence proves knowledge of guilt, and whether precious lives could have been saved by an earlier public outcry. [https://www.wnd.com/2020/05/murder-trial-andrew-cuomo/]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  

 

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...