compassionateExotic
Well-Known Member
Sign the Petition
The public deserves to watch U.S. v Trump Jan. 6 trial first-hand, let cameras in!
www.change.org
TRUMP CONVICTED
- Thread starter jimihendrix1
- Start date
www.change.org
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
done!Sign the Petition
The public deserves to watch U.S. v Trump Jan. 6 trial first-hand, let cameras in!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Election officials reject calls to unilaterally block Trump from ballot using 14th Amendment but will defer to courts | CNN Politics
Election officials in key states have recently rejected calls to unilaterally remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot and are saying courts should decide whether he’s disqualified by the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that this would “reinforce the grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt.”
So, Mr. Raffensperger — we’re supposed to give white-kid glove treatment to people too hardbitten stupid to recognize they’ve been led down the garden path by rabble-rousers?
compassionateExotic
Well-Known Member
compassionateExotic
Well-Known Member
topcat
Well-Known Member
Cover Your Ass and pass the hard decisions.Election officials reject calls to unilaterally block Trump from ballot using 14th Amendment but will defer to courts | CNN Politics
Election officials in key states have recently rejected calls to unilaterally remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot and are saying courts should decide whether he’s disqualified by the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”amp.cnn.com
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that this would “reinforce the grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt.”
So, Mr. Raffensperger — we’re supposed to give white-kid glove treatment to people too hardbitten stupid to recognize they’ve been led down the garden path by rabble-rousers?
View attachment 5326669
printer
Well-Known Member
Special counsel argues judge should not disqualify herself from Trump Jan. 6 case
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team urged the judge in its election interference case to reject a motion from President Trump’s attorneys asking her to recuse herself.
“There is no valid basis, under the relevant law and facts, for the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, to disqualify herself in this proceeding,” prosecutors wrote.
“Because the defendant’s motion fails to establish any bias by the Court, much less the deep-seated antagonism required for recusal, the Court has a duty to continue to oversee this proceeding.”
Trump’s team on Monday filed a motion asking Chutkan to recuse herself, a longshot bid that will be weighed by Chutkan herself.
The filing points to comments Chutkan has made while weighing the sentences of other Jan. 6 defendants.
“Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned,” Trump’s attorneys wrote on Monday.
“Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying,” they continued. “Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial — and may believe that she can do so — her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome.”
But the special counsels’ team accused Trump of cherry-picking statements, noting that they all came in the cases of defendants who “invoked the defendant, and the mob on January 6, in their bids for sentencing reductions — arguing that the culpability of others, including the defendant, should reduce their own.”
“The Court responded to these arguments, as required by law, and rejected them. Now, the defendant’s motion seeks the Court’s recusal for its statements made while discharging this core judicial responsibility,” prosecutors wrote.
“An objective look at them reveals that the defendant’s motion takes the Court’s words out of context in order to manufacture allegations of bias.”
thehill.com
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team urged the judge in its election interference case to reject a motion from President Trump’s attorneys asking her to recuse herself.
“There is no valid basis, under the relevant law and facts, for the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, to disqualify herself in this proceeding,” prosecutors wrote.
“Because the defendant’s motion fails to establish any bias by the Court, much less the deep-seated antagonism required for recusal, the Court has a duty to continue to oversee this proceeding.”
Trump’s team on Monday filed a motion asking Chutkan to recuse herself, a longshot bid that will be weighed by Chutkan herself.
The filing points to comments Chutkan has made while weighing the sentences of other Jan. 6 defendants.
“Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned,” Trump’s attorneys wrote on Monday.
“Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying,” they continued. “Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial — and may believe that she can do so — her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome.”
But the special counsels’ team accused Trump of cherry-picking statements, noting that they all came in the cases of defendants who “invoked the defendant, and the mob on January 6, in their bids for sentencing reductions — arguing that the culpability of others, including the defendant, should reduce their own.”
“The Court responded to these arguments, as required by law, and rejected them. Now, the defendant’s motion seeks the Court’s recusal for its statements made while discharging this core judicial responsibility,” prosecutors wrote.
“An objective look at them reveals that the defendant’s motion takes the Court’s words out of context in order to manufacture allegations of bias.”
Special counsel argues judge should not disqualify herself from Trump Jan. 6 case
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team urged the judge in its election interference case to reject a motion from former President Trump’s attorneys asking her to recuse herself. “There is no valid basis…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Trump says he’ll testify allegation he asked staffer to delete security camera footage is ‘false’
Former President Trump in a new interview said he would be willing to testify that an allegation by prosecutors that he acted with an alleged co-conspirator to delete security footage is false.
The Justice Department in July filed a superseding indictment in the case over Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving office that accused Trump of working with the property manager to delete surveillance footage at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Asked about the charge by Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump called the allegation “false.”
“Would you testify to that under oath?” Welker asked.
“Sure, I’m going to — I’ll testify,” Trump said.
Trump also called it a “fake charge” brought by a “deranged lunatic prosecutor,” referring to special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the documents investigation and the federal case against Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and remain in power.
The former president went on to claim that there was “noting done” to the security tapes in question.
“And, they were my tapes. I could have fought them,” Trump continued. “I didn’t even have to give them the tapes, I don’t think. I think I would have won in court. When they asked for the tapes, I said, ‘Sure.’ They’re my tapes. I could have fought them. I didn’t even have to give them. Just so you understand, though, we didn’t delete anything. Nothing was deleted.”
The superseding indictment filed in July brought the total number of counts in the case against the former president to 40. The original indictment alleged he violated both the Espionage Act and obstructed justice in taking classified records from his presidency and refusing to return them.
The additional charges brought by prosecutors accused Trump of acting with Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager of Mar-a-Lago, and Trump’s other co-defendant, Walt Nauta, with trying to delete the security footage.
The indictment notes efforts from De Oliveira, 56, to determine how long security footage was stored on the Mar-a-Lago system. It says he later told another Mar-a-Lago employee that “‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted.”
The indictment also described De Oliveira and Nauta organizing their plans secretly, apparently walking among the bushes around the IT office where the security footage was managed.
Trump has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is set to go to trial in Florida next May.
Trump in an interview earlier this month with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt similarly suggested he would be willing to testify at his own trial, though his lawyers may ultimately object, given the former president’s reputation for making false or misleading statements.
thehill.com
Former President Trump in a new interview said he would be willing to testify that an allegation by prosecutors that he acted with an alleged co-conspirator to delete security footage is false.
The Justice Department in July filed a superseding indictment in the case over Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving office that accused Trump of working with the property manager to delete surveillance footage at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Asked about the charge by Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump called the allegation “false.”
“Would you testify to that under oath?” Welker asked.
“Sure, I’m going to — I’ll testify,” Trump said.
Trump also called it a “fake charge” brought by a “deranged lunatic prosecutor,” referring to special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the documents investigation and the federal case against Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and remain in power.
The former president went on to claim that there was “noting done” to the security tapes in question.
“And, they were my tapes. I could have fought them,” Trump continued. “I didn’t even have to give them the tapes, I don’t think. I think I would have won in court. When they asked for the tapes, I said, ‘Sure.’ They’re my tapes. I could have fought them. I didn’t even have to give them. Just so you understand, though, we didn’t delete anything. Nothing was deleted.”
The superseding indictment filed in July brought the total number of counts in the case against the former president to 40. The original indictment alleged he violated both the Espionage Act and obstructed justice in taking classified records from his presidency and refusing to return them.
The additional charges brought by prosecutors accused Trump of acting with Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager of Mar-a-Lago, and Trump’s other co-defendant, Walt Nauta, with trying to delete the security footage.
The indictment notes efforts from De Oliveira, 56, to determine how long security footage was stored on the Mar-a-Lago system. It says he later told another Mar-a-Lago employee that “‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted.”
The indictment also described De Oliveira and Nauta organizing their plans secretly, apparently walking among the bushes around the IT office where the security footage was managed.
Trump has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is set to go to trial in Florida next May.
Trump in an interview earlier this month with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt similarly suggested he would be willing to testify at his own trial, though his lawyers may ultimately object, given the former president’s reputation for making false or misleading statements.
Trump says he’ll testify allegation he asked staffer to delete security camera footage is ‘false’
Former President Trump in a new interview said he would be willing to testify that an allegation by prosecutors that he acted with an alleged co-conspirator to delete security footage is false. The…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
topcat
Well-Known Member
Everyone presumed he knew more about subpoenas than anyone. "I don't know the timing"? That's what you come up with? He failed lying at the Horton Skool.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
yeah they're having a field day with this interview.....
www.huffpost.com
Legal Experts Have A Field Day With Trump's Megyn Kelly Interview
The former president thought he was speaking his truth, but some thought it sounded more like a confession.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The reason the cases against him are so strong is because he is so fucking stupid!yeah they're having a field day with this interview.....
Legal Experts Have A Field Day With Trump's Megyn Kelly Interview
The former president thought he was speaking his truth, but some thought it sounded more like a confession.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I must say America's fascists in their desperation picked a dandy leader of it! I think Donald will help to nip them in the bud as they go down in a titanic final battle in 24 writing a disqualified Trump in on the ballot! 
Once the democrats get them in the grave, they will bury them in legislation to keep them there and bye bye foxnews, change or die. It needs to be done for the security of the constitution and nation, fascism isn't politics, its criminal behavior.
Once the democrats get them in the grave, they will bury them in legislation to keep them there and bye bye foxnews, change or die. It needs to be done for the security of the constitution and nation, fascism isn't politics, its criminal behavior.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Nobody under indictment gives interviews or runs for office and for good reason, only a desperate idiot would do such a thing.
No wonder Jack let's him run around loose, hanging himself regularly. One lawyer quipped that interviewers should issue a Maranda warning to Donald before the interview!
Trump is still confessing': Lawrence, Weissmann, Katyal, & Moss on new Trump defenses
No wonder Jack let's him run around loose, hanging himself regularly. One lawyer quipped that interviewers should issue a Maranda warning to Donald before the interview!
Trump is still confessing': Lawrence, Weissmann, Katyal, & Moss on new Trump defenses
Last edited:
printer
Well-Known Member
Special counsel warned Trump could ‘precipitate violence’ if told of Twitter search warrant
Newly unsealed court records indicate special counsel Jack Smith’s team warned that former President Trump could “precipitate violence” unless the court shielded its efforts to obtain information on his Twitter account.
The records show Smith’s office obtained a total of 32 direct messages from Trump’s Twitter account as part of its investigation.
And the 71-page filing, submitted to the court in April but unsealed Friday, offers new details about why Smith’s team feared alerting Trump to the matter.
The secret battle to obtain the records was revealed in an opinion unsealed in August, showing that Twitter, now known as X, was fined $350,000 for not complying with a court order to turn over the records.
Earlier unsealed court records showed the special counsel was concerned that if Trump knew about the warrant to access his account he could disclose it to the public, something they said “could precipitate violence as occurred following the public disclosure of the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago.”
The arguments were made as X appealed a lower court order to turn over the information to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
While prosecutors reiterate prior arguments that Trump could jeopardize the case if the warrant was disclosed, it cites Trump’s past behavior as the need to do so.
“These are not hypothetical considerations in this case. Following his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, the former President propagated false claims of fraud (including swearing to false allegations in a federal court filing), pressured state and federal officials to violate their legal duties, and retaliated against those who did not comply with his demands, culminating in violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6,” prosecutors wrote.
“More recently, the former President has taken several steps to undermine or otherwise influence the investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information following the end of his presidency, including publicizing the existence of the Mar-a-Lago Warrant.”
The filing goes on to detail Trump’s offer to pay the legal fees of those who might otherwise be witnesses against him.
“This pattern of obstructive conduct amply supports the district court’s conclusion that the former President presents a significant risk of tampering with evidence, seeking to influence or intimidate potential witnesses, and “otherwise seriously jeopardizing” the Government’s ongoing investigations,” they wrote.
The filing leaves unclear the content of the 32 direct messages Trump exchanged on the platform, with the detail only used to combat arguments from X’s attorneys that such messages might be covered under executive privilege
“Twitter offers no reason to conclude that the former President, with the full array of communication technologies available to the head of the Executive Branch, would have used Twitter’s direct message function to carry out confidential communications with Executive Branch advisors,” prosecutors wrote.
X fought the warrant on numerous grounds, including making a First Amendment argument and also claiming that disclosure to Trump would not be harmful, as he knew he was being investigated and some details about the probe had become public.
The appeals court ultimately sided with prosecutors and the lower court, calling DOJ’s concerns “unquestionably compelling.”
“The district court found that there were ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ that disclosing the warrant to former President Trump ‘would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation’ by giving him ‘an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates,’” the appeals court noted in its ruling.
thehill.com
Newly unsealed court records indicate special counsel Jack Smith’s team warned that former President Trump could “precipitate violence” unless the court shielded its efforts to obtain information on his Twitter account.
The records show Smith’s office obtained a total of 32 direct messages from Trump’s Twitter account as part of its investigation.
And the 71-page filing, submitted to the court in April but unsealed Friday, offers new details about why Smith’s team feared alerting Trump to the matter.
The secret battle to obtain the records was revealed in an opinion unsealed in August, showing that Twitter, now known as X, was fined $350,000 for not complying with a court order to turn over the records.
Earlier unsealed court records showed the special counsel was concerned that if Trump knew about the warrant to access his account he could disclose it to the public, something they said “could precipitate violence as occurred following the public disclosure of the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago.”
The arguments were made as X appealed a lower court order to turn over the information to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
While prosecutors reiterate prior arguments that Trump could jeopardize the case if the warrant was disclosed, it cites Trump’s past behavior as the need to do so.
“These are not hypothetical considerations in this case. Following his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, the former President propagated false claims of fraud (including swearing to false allegations in a federal court filing), pressured state and federal officials to violate their legal duties, and retaliated against those who did not comply with his demands, culminating in violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6,” prosecutors wrote.
“More recently, the former President has taken several steps to undermine or otherwise influence the investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information following the end of his presidency, including publicizing the existence of the Mar-a-Lago Warrant.”
The filing goes on to detail Trump’s offer to pay the legal fees of those who might otherwise be witnesses against him.
“This pattern of obstructive conduct amply supports the district court’s conclusion that the former President presents a significant risk of tampering with evidence, seeking to influence or intimidate potential witnesses, and “otherwise seriously jeopardizing” the Government’s ongoing investigations,” they wrote.
The filing leaves unclear the content of the 32 direct messages Trump exchanged on the platform, with the detail only used to combat arguments from X’s attorneys that such messages might be covered under executive privilege
“Twitter offers no reason to conclude that the former President, with the full array of communication technologies available to the head of the Executive Branch, would have used Twitter’s direct message function to carry out confidential communications with Executive Branch advisors,” prosecutors wrote.
X fought the warrant on numerous grounds, including making a First Amendment argument and also claiming that disclosure to Trump would not be harmful, as he knew he was being investigated and some details about the probe had become public.
The appeals court ultimately sided with prosecutors and the lower court, calling DOJ’s concerns “unquestionably compelling.”
“The district court found that there were ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ that disclosing the warrant to former President Trump ‘would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation’ by giving him ‘an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates,’” the appeals court noted in its ruling.
Special counsel warned Trump could ‘precipitate violence’ if told of Twitter search warrant
Newly unsealed court records indicate special counsel Jack Smith’s team warned that former President Trump could “precipitate violence” unless the court shielded its efforts to obtain i…
thehill.com
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
Some of the stuff I've been seeing is a few experts think he's in early stages of dementia. Watch the f'er get off for mental incompetence.
That I could believe.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
topcat
Well-Known Member
Projection and confession. He thinks this is a reality show and craves ratings. He can't resist the chance to get in front of a camera.Some of the stuff I've been seeing is a few experts think he's in early stages of dementia. Watch the f'er get off for mental incompetence.
That I could believe.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
She might put him in jail over this, if it happened after he was indicted, witness tampering and obstruction of justice will do that. His lawyers have been suborning the perjury of witnesses and are trying to keep them from flipping for their own good. I see more lawyers going down in the future.
