printer
Well-Known Member
Or Hungary.
TRUMP CONVICTED
- Thread starter jimihendrix1
- Start date
printer
Well-Known Member
Special counsel planning to use Trump White House cellphone data in election interference case
Special counsel Jack Smith plans to call witnesses who have analyzed data extracted from former President Trump’s cellphone, including one who can weigh in on his Twitter habits and another who has analyzed the movement of the Jan. 6, 2021, crowd following Trump’s speech that day.
The Monday filing is the first indication of how Smith plans to use a massive tranche of information gathered from Trump’s account on Twitter, the social media network now known as X, following a secret court battle to secure access to the account.
Prosecutors in the election interference case also extracted data from Trump’s White House cell phone, and that of an aide, described in the filing only as “Individual 1.” The expert, who is unnamed in the court filing, reviewed how Trump and the aide used their phone throughout the post-election period, and has “specifically identified the periods of time during which the defendant’s phone was unlocked and the Twitter application was open on Jan. 6.”
It’s unclear the extent of the information prosecutors have from Trump’s phone, though the filing says the expert analyzed “images found on the phones and websites visited.”
But it’s possible the expert could provide greater insight into Trump’s posting of a tweet attacking then-Vice President Mike Pence.
Another expert prosecutors plan to bring in for testimony will analyze how a crowd of Trump’s supporters moved in response to his call to march toward the Capitol. The expert “plotted the location history data for Google accounts and devices associated with individuals who moved, on January 6, 2021, from an area at or near the Ellipse to an area encompassing the United States Capitol building.”
Their review “will aid the jury in understanding the movements of individuals toward the Capitol area during and after the defendant’s speech at the Ellipse.”
Trump is set to face trial March 4 on four counts related to his efforts to subvert the transfer of power.
thehill.com
Special counsel Jack Smith plans to call witnesses who have analyzed data extracted from former President Trump’s cellphone, including one who can weigh in on his Twitter habits and another who has analyzed the movement of the Jan. 6, 2021, crowd following Trump’s speech that day.
The Monday filing is the first indication of how Smith plans to use a massive tranche of information gathered from Trump’s account on Twitter, the social media network now known as X, following a secret court battle to secure access to the account.
Prosecutors in the election interference case also extracted data from Trump’s White House cell phone, and that of an aide, described in the filing only as “Individual 1.” The expert, who is unnamed in the court filing, reviewed how Trump and the aide used their phone throughout the post-election period, and has “specifically identified the periods of time during which the defendant’s phone was unlocked and the Twitter application was open on Jan. 6.”
It’s unclear the extent of the information prosecutors have from Trump’s phone, though the filing says the expert analyzed “images found on the phones and websites visited.”
But it’s possible the expert could provide greater insight into Trump’s posting of a tweet attacking then-Vice President Mike Pence.
Another expert prosecutors plan to bring in for testimony will analyze how a crowd of Trump’s supporters moved in response to his call to march toward the Capitol. The expert “plotted the location history data for Google accounts and devices associated with individuals who moved, on January 6, 2021, from an area at or near the Ellipse to an area encompassing the United States Capitol building.”
Their review “will aid the jury in understanding the movements of individuals toward the Capitol area during and after the defendant’s speech at the Ellipse.”
Trump is set to face trial March 4 on four counts related to his efforts to subvert the transfer of power.
Special counsel planning to use Trump White House cellphone data in election interference case
Special counsel Jack Smith plans to call witnesses who have analyzed data extracted from former President Trump’s cellphone, including one who can weigh in on his Twitter habits and another who has…
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I hear Pyongyang is lovely this time of year.
printer
Well-Known Member
Especially on the coast.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
and the winning keep coming......
NEW YORK — Donald Trump cannot use presidential immunity to avoid a defamation lawsuit from the writer E. Jean Carroll, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday after finding that Trump waited too long to invoke the defense.
It’s the third time in recent weeks that federal courts have rejected immunity arguments from Trump as he battles multiple legal fronts in criminal and civil cases.
The ruling paves the way for Carroll’s lawsuit to proceed to trial in January. The case concerns comments Trump made about Carroll in 2019, shortly after Carroll came forward and accused Trump of raping her decades earlier. Trump said Carroll was peddling a false accusation and was motivated by money.
Three years after Carroll sued Trump for defamation over those comments, Trump attempted to assert presidential immunity, a broad doctrine that shields presidents from lawsuits arising from their official acts.
But on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found that Trump had waived his right to use the immunity defense because he waited too long to invoke it.
“We hold that presidential immunity is waivable and that Defendant waived this defense,” a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wrote.
All three judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic presidents.
Trump has attempted to evade many of his legal troubles by mounting aggressive immunity defenses, claiming that virtually anything he did while president cannot subject him to civil liability or criminal consequences. But courts have largely rejected those arguments so far.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump is not immune from prosecution for his attempt to subvert the 2020 election.
Trump appealed that decision, prompting special counsel Jack Smith to take the issue directly to the Supreme Court in hopes of obtaining a swift and definitive ruling on the question.
Chutkan’s ruling came just hours after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s claims of immunity from a series of civil lawsuits that seek to hold him accountable for stoking the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
In the Carroll decision on Wednesday, the 2nd Circuit panel also said it did not have jurisdiction to review a trial judge’s ruling that Trump did, in fact, defame Carroll with his 2019 comments. With that ruling in place, a jury will decide at the January trial how much money in damages Trump should pay to Carroll.
The January trial will be the second trial Trump will face tied to Carroll’s rape allegations. Earlier this year, a jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll in the 1990s and that he defamed her in 2022 when he called her account a “hoax.” The jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million.
www.politico.com
round 2 coming.....then it will be 10 million....
NEW YORK — Donald Trump cannot use presidential immunity to avoid a defamation lawsuit from the writer E. Jean Carroll, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday after finding that Trump waited too long to invoke the defense.
It’s the third time in recent weeks that federal courts have rejected immunity arguments from Trump as he battles multiple legal fronts in criminal and civil cases.
The ruling paves the way for Carroll’s lawsuit to proceed to trial in January. The case concerns comments Trump made about Carroll in 2019, shortly after Carroll came forward and accused Trump of raping her decades earlier. Trump said Carroll was peddling a false accusation and was motivated by money.
Three years after Carroll sued Trump for defamation over those comments, Trump attempted to assert presidential immunity, a broad doctrine that shields presidents from lawsuits arising from their official acts.
But on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found that Trump had waived his right to use the immunity defense because he waited too long to invoke it.
“We hold that presidential immunity is waivable and that Defendant waived this defense,” a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wrote.
All three judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic presidents.
Trump has attempted to evade many of his legal troubles by mounting aggressive immunity defenses, claiming that virtually anything he did while president cannot subject him to civil liability or criminal consequences. But courts have largely rejected those arguments so far.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump is not immune from prosecution for his attempt to subvert the 2020 election.
Trump appealed that decision, prompting special counsel Jack Smith to take the issue directly to the Supreme Court in hopes of obtaining a swift and definitive ruling on the question.
Chutkan’s ruling came just hours after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s claims of immunity from a series of civil lawsuits that seek to hold him accountable for stoking the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
In the Carroll decision on Wednesday, the 2nd Circuit panel also said it did not have jurisdiction to review a trial judge’s ruling that Trump did, in fact, defame Carroll with his 2019 comments. With that ruling in place, a jury will decide at the January trial how much money in damages Trump should pay to Carroll.
The January trial will be the second trial Trump will face tied to Carroll’s rape allegations. Earlier this year, a jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll in the 1990s and that he defamed her in 2022 when he called her account a “hoax.” The jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million.
Another court rejects Trump’s bid to assert ‘presidential immunity’ from his many legal troubles
Trump waited too long to invoke the immunity defense in E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit, a federal appeals court ruled.
www.politico.com
round 2 coming.....then it will be 10 million....
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The origin story of Alina Habba, Trump's personal mouthpiece and butt of many lawyer's jokes is laid out here:
A woman who was pursuing a sexual harassment lawsuit against a manager at Trump's NY golf course claims that Habba, who told her she was acting as a neutral party, purportedly fraudulently convinced her to fire her own lawyer and sign a document that Habba wrote -- and on Habba's advice sign it without first having a lawyer read it and advise her. The document did not contain the necessary language or terms that make it legally enforceable but did contain harsh terms should the former employee speak publicly about the agreement. Not long after, Habba was given the job previously held a well known lawyer with a strong resume who had been heading up the E Jean Carrol case, Marc Kasowitz. At the same time, Habba dropped all connections with the woman she convinced to let Bedminster golf course off the hook for a paltry sum. Habba's credentials? Habba was running a four person law office in a suburb that specialized in family law. Not much lawyerly history of note before then.
They say Trump makes attorneys get attorneys but in this case, Habba did it all on her own. We only know what has been said by the woman Habba purportedly "helpe". Except maybe she didn't. We'll find out because it's likely that Habba's correspondences regarding this case are not protected under attorney-client privilege. Her new lawyer is Nancy Erica-Smith who has done major damage in other court cases regarding sexual harassment, so, maybe Alina Habba should find a better lawyer than herself, given how well the E Jean Carrol case went for E Jean Carrol.
A woman who was pursuing a sexual harassment lawsuit against a manager at Trump's NY golf course claims that Habba, who told her she was acting as a neutral party, purportedly fraudulently convinced her to fire her own lawyer and sign a document that Habba wrote -- and on Habba's advice sign it without first having a lawyer read it and advise her. The document did not contain the necessary language or terms that make it legally enforceable but did contain harsh terms should the former employee speak publicly about the agreement. Not long after, Habba was given the job previously held a well known lawyer with a strong resume who had been heading up the E Jean Carrol case, Marc Kasowitz. At the same time, Habba dropped all connections with the woman she convinced to let Bedminster golf course off the hook for a paltry sum. Habba's credentials? Habba was running a four person law office in a suburb that specialized in family law. Not much lawyerly history of note before then.
They say Trump makes attorneys get attorneys but in this case, Habba did it all on her own. We only know what has been said by the woman Habba purportedly "helpe". Except maybe she didn't. We'll find out because it's likely that Habba's correspondences regarding this case are not protected under attorney-client privilege. Her new lawyer is Nancy Erica-Smith who has done major damage in other court cases regarding sexual harassment, so, maybe Alina Habba should find a better lawyer than herself, given how well the E Jean Carrol case went for E Jean Carrol.
Last edited:
printer
Well-Known Member
Judge pauses Trump’s Jan. 6 case amid appeal to toss it
A federal judge agreed Wednesday to pause proceedings in former President Trump’s election interference case while he appeals a decision rejecting his efforts to toss the case.
The decision from Judge Tanya Chutkan “automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant.”
Trump last week appealed an order from Chutkan that rejected his motion to dismiss the Jan. 6 case, likewise asking that she halt activity in the case while his appeal proceeds.
The move comes as Trump has argued the courts should dismiss the case both on the concept of presidential immunity, as well as on constitutional grounds, including the First Amendment.
The maneuver by Trump threatens to upend a March 4 trial date in the case and comes after prosecutors have argued the former president is simply using every avenue possible to disrupt the case in the hopes of punting the matter beyond the 2024 election.
Special counsel Jack Smith followed Trump’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with his own petition to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in on Trump’s immunity defense.
Smith likewise asked the court to expedite the matter, which it agreed to, setting Trump’s deadline to respond by Dec. 20.
Chutkan’s ruling does not stay a gag order in the case or Trump’s conditions of release, which bar contacting witnesses or seeking to intimidate them.
Still, the matter could mean significant delays in a case where the government has fought any effort to bump back deadlines.
Though the election is nearly a year away, it’s unclear how long the appeals process could take, and Chutkan noted that while her deadlines are “held in abeyance,” she may need to ultimately delay the trial.
“If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will — consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties — consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024,” she wrote.
Chutkan last Friday rejected arguments from Trump that, as a former president, he still carries presidential immunity.
“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass, Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” she wrote.
Beyond arguments that Trump, as a former president, still carries presidential immunity, in a 31-page brief filed in October, he likewise argued the prosecution represents a case of “double jeopardy” as he already faced an impeachment trial in the Senate following Jan. 6.
Trump’s motion had also argued his prosecution “criminalize core political speech” as he had a right to raise questions about the election.
“The fact that the indictment alleges that the speech at issue was supposedly, according to the prosecution, ‘false’ makes no difference,” his attorneys wrote. “Under the First Amendment, each individual American participating in a free marketplace of ideas — not the federal Government — decides for him or herself what is true and false on great disputed social and political questions.”
thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4358747-judge-pause-trump-jan-6/
A federal judge agreed Wednesday to pause proceedings in former President Trump’s election interference case while he appeals a decision rejecting his efforts to toss the case.
The decision from Judge Tanya Chutkan “automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant.”
Trump last week appealed an order from Chutkan that rejected his motion to dismiss the Jan. 6 case, likewise asking that she halt activity in the case while his appeal proceeds.
The move comes as Trump has argued the courts should dismiss the case both on the concept of presidential immunity, as well as on constitutional grounds, including the First Amendment.
The maneuver by Trump threatens to upend a March 4 trial date in the case and comes after prosecutors have argued the former president is simply using every avenue possible to disrupt the case in the hopes of punting the matter beyond the 2024 election.
Special counsel Jack Smith followed Trump’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with his own petition to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in on Trump’s immunity defense.
Smith likewise asked the court to expedite the matter, which it agreed to, setting Trump’s deadline to respond by Dec. 20.
Chutkan’s ruling does not stay a gag order in the case or Trump’s conditions of release, which bar contacting witnesses or seeking to intimidate them.
Still, the matter could mean significant delays in a case where the government has fought any effort to bump back deadlines.
Though the election is nearly a year away, it’s unclear how long the appeals process could take, and Chutkan noted that while her deadlines are “held in abeyance,” she may need to ultimately delay the trial.
“If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will — consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties — consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024,” she wrote.
Chutkan last Friday rejected arguments from Trump that, as a former president, he still carries presidential immunity.
“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass, Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” she wrote.
Beyond arguments that Trump, as a former president, still carries presidential immunity, in a 31-page brief filed in October, he likewise argued the prosecution represents a case of “double jeopardy” as he already faced an impeachment trial in the Senate following Jan. 6.
Trump’s motion had also argued his prosecution “criminalize core political speech” as he had a right to raise questions about the election.
“The fact that the indictment alleges that the speech at issue was supposedly, according to the prosecution, ‘false’ makes no difference,” his attorneys wrote. “Under the First Amendment, each individual American participating in a free marketplace of ideas — not the federal Government — decides for him or herself what is true and false on great disputed social and political questions.”
thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4358747-judge-pause-trump-jan-6/
topcat
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that all of the judges (except Cannon) involved in the trials of the Defendant are being overly cautious, so as to not be overturned on appeal.
printer
Well-Known Member
On his Farewell-Suckers-I-Really-Was-A-Republican-Looking-To-Cash-In-Tour.
Manchin taking 2-month tour to test appetite for national ‘movement’
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he has not decided on his political future but will launch a two-month winter tour to determine whether there is a national “movement” for a third-party ticket.
“I start in January, I’ll be two months on the road. And all we’re trying to do is just mobilize people like myself who feel like they’re homeless, politically homeless,” Manchin said Tuesday at The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit.
“I don’t recognize the Democratic Party, and I have a D by my name. I have a lot of Republicans that don’t recognize Republican Party that have Rs by their name,” he added. “I don’t know if there’s a movement; I really don’t.”
Manchin, who last month announced he would not mount a Senate reelection bid in West Virginia, said he would only join a presidential ticket if he was sure he could win.
Pressed on a potential third-party run, Manchin declined to speculate on his political future.
“And the reason I won’t make a prediction, what I can tell you is: There might be a movement, there might not. That depends. I really don’t know,” he said. “I would not be a spoiler. I’ve never been a spoiler in anything. I get into something, I get into win.”
Manchin dismissed a question about low polling numbers when respondents were asked about a theoretical Manchin presidential bid, joking it was “probably a bad poll.”
“I haven’t even, I haven’t said a word. I haven’t been on the road, I haven’t done anything,” he added.
Manchin has regularly appeared at events hosted by the No Labels political group. The possibility of the outgoing senator joining the race has fueled anxiety among Democrats that he may pull votes from President Biden and help former President Trump’s reelection.
Manchin lamented the current state of politics where opponents are seen as enemies, and he warned Trump would “break” the system if reelected to the White House. But he also warned Biden had moved too far to the left during his presidency.
“I believe that Joe Biden — if it comes down to those two — if he moves back to the center, which is what people thought they were getting, I think he would be in good shape,” Manchin said.
thehill.com
Oops, thought I was in the GOP topic. Oh well, not like I won't do this again anytime soon.
Manchin taking 2-month tour to test appetite for national ‘movement’
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he has not decided on his political future but will launch a two-month winter tour to determine whether there is a national “movement” for a third-party ticket.
“I start in January, I’ll be two months on the road. And all we’re trying to do is just mobilize people like myself who feel like they’re homeless, politically homeless,” Manchin said Tuesday at The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit.
“I don’t recognize the Democratic Party, and I have a D by my name. I have a lot of Republicans that don’t recognize Republican Party that have Rs by their name,” he added. “I don’t know if there’s a movement; I really don’t.”
Manchin, who last month announced he would not mount a Senate reelection bid in West Virginia, said he would only join a presidential ticket if he was sure he could win.
Pressed on a potential third-party run, Manchin declined to speculate on his political future.
“And the reason I won’t make a prediction, what I can tell you is: There might be a movement, there might not. That depends. I really don’t know,” he said. “I would not be a spoiler. I’ve never been a spoiler in anything. I get into something, I get into win.”
Manchin dismissed a question about low polling numbers when respondents were asked about a theoretical Manchin presidential bid, joking it was “probably a bad poll.”
“I haven’t even, I haven’t said a word. I haven’t been on the road, I haven’t done anything,” he added.
Manchin has regularly appeared at events hosted by the No Labels political group. The possibility of the outgoing senator joining the race has fueled anxiety among Democrats that he may pull votes from President Biden and help former President Trump’s reelection.
Manchin lamented the current state of politics where opponents are seen as enemies, and he warned Trump would “break” the system if reelected to the White House. But he also warned Biden had moved too far to the left during his presidency.
“I believe that Joe Biden — if it comes down to those two — if he moves back to the center, which is what people thought they were getting, I think he would be in good shape,” Manchin said.
Manchin taking 2-month tour to test appetite for national ‘movement’
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he has not decided on his political future but will launch a two-month winter tour to determine whether there is a national “movement” for a…
thehill.com
Oops, thought I was in the GOP topic. Oh well, not like I won't do this again anytime soon.
Last edited:
topcat
Well-Known Member
Ha! Another grift. He must be eyeballing a yacht he wants to buy. The Green Party is desperate for a candidate other than Jill Stein. How about that, Manchin?On his Farewell-Suckers-I-Really-Was-A-Republican-Looking-To-Cash-In-Tour.
Manchin taking 2-month tour to test appetite for national ‘movement’
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he has not decided on his political future but will launch a two-month winter tour to determine whether there is a national “movement” for a third-party ticket.
“I start in January, I’ll be two months on the road. And all we’re trying to do is just mobilize people like myself who feel like they’re homeless, politically homeless,” Manchin said Tuesday at The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit.
“I don’t recognize the Democratic Party, and I have a D by my name. I have a lot of Republicans that don’t recognize Republican Party that have Rs by their name,” he added. “I don’t know if there’s a movement; I really don’t.”
Manchin, who last month announced he would not mount a Senate reelection bid in West Virginia, said he would only join a presidential ticket if he was sure he could win.
Pressed on a potential third-party run, Manchin declined to speculate on his political future.
“And the reason I won’t make a prediction, what I can tell you is: There might be a movement, there might not. That depends. I really don’t know,” he said. “I would not be a spoiler. I’ve never been a spoiler in anything. I get into something, I get into win.”
Manchin dismissed a question about low polling numbers when respondents were asked about a theoretical Manchin presidential bid, joking it was “probably a bad poll.”
“I haven’t even, I haven’t said a word. I haven’t been on the road, I haven’t done anything,” he added.
Manchin has regularly appeared at events hosted by the No Labels political group. The possibility of the outgoing senator joining the race has fueled anxiety among Democrats that he may pull votes from President Biden and help former President Trump’s reelection.
Manchin lamented the current state of politics where opponents are seen as enemies, and he warned Trump would “break” the system if reelected to the White House. But he also warned Biden had moved too far to the left during his presidency.
“I believe that Joe Biden — if it comes down to those two — if he moves back to the center, which is what people thought they were getting, I think he would be in good shape,” Manchin said.
Manchin taking 2-month tour to test appetite for national ‘movement’
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he has not decided on his political future but will launch a two-month winter tour to determine whether there is a national “movement” for a…
printer
Well-Known Member
Trump campaign touts Jan. 6 case pause as ‘big win’
The Trump campaign on Wednesday took a victory lap over a judge’s ruling to pause proceedings in the former president’s federal election interference case, claiming it “derails” the government’s efforts to try the case before the 2024 election.
Campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung welcomed the decision by Judge Tanya Chutkan to pause proceedings while Trump appeals a decision rejecting his efforts to toss the case.
“This is a big win for President Trump and our rule of law, as it derails Deranged Jack Smith’s rush to judgment strategy of interfering in the 2024 Presidential Election in support of Joe Biden’s campaign,” Cheung said, referring to special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges against Trump.
“They waited almost three years to bring this hoax ‘case’ and are now desperately trying, and failing, to rush it because they know President Trump is dominating the election,” Cheung added. “The constitution should not be suspended in a baseless prosecution against the leading candidate for President.”
“The American people, not the courts, should decide who becomes president, and they are supporting President Trump in historic numbers,” he added.
Trump last week appealed an order from Chutkan that rejected his motion to dismiss the Jan. 6 case, likewise asking that she halt activity in the case while his appeal proceeds.
The move comes as Trump has argued the courts should dismiss the case both on the concept of presidential immunity, as well as on constitutional grounds, including the First Amendment.
The maneuver by Trump threatens to upend a March 4 trial date in the case and comes after prosecutors have argued the former president is simply using every avenue possible to disrupt the case in the hopes of punting the matter beyond the 2024 election.
Trump was indicted in August in Washington, D.C., on four charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. In that indictment, prosecutors allege that he “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.”
thehill.com
The Trump campaign on Wednesday took a victory lap over a judge’s ruling to pause proceedings in the former president’s federal election interference case, claiming it “derails” the government’s efforts to try the case before the 2024 election.
Campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung welcomed the decision by Judge Tanya Chutkan to pause proceedings while Trump appeals a decision rejecting his efforts to toss the case.
“This is a big win for President Trump and our rule of law, as it derails Deranged Jack Smith’s rush to judgment strategy of interfering in the 2024 Presidential Election in support of Joe Biden’s campaign,” Cheung said, referring to special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges against Trump.
“They waited almost three years to bring this hoax ‘case’ and are now desperately trying, and failing, to rush it because they know President Trump is dominating the election,” Cheung added. “The constitution should not be suspended in a baseless prosecution against the leading candidate for President.”
“The American people, not the courts, should decide who becomes president, and they are supporting President Trump in historic numbers,” he added.
Trump last week appealed an order from Chutkan that rejected his motion to dismiss the Jan. 6 case, likewise asking that she halt activity in the case while his appeal proceeds.
The move comes as Trump has argued the courts should dismiss the case both on the concept of presidential immunity, as well as on constitutional grounds, including the First Amendment.
The maneuver by Trump threatens to upend a March 4 trial date in the case and comes after prosecutors have argued the former president is simply using every avenue possible to disrupt the case in the hopes of punting the matter beyond the 2024 election.
Trump was indicted in August in Washington, D.C., on four charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. In that indictment, prosecutors allege that he “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.”
Trump campaign touts Jan. 6 case pause as ‘big win’
The Trump campaign on Wednesday took a victory lap over a judge’s ruling to pause proceedings in the former president’s federal election interference case, claiming it “derails” the government’s ef…
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
topcat
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
printer
Well-Known Member
Will Trump appeal it to the Supreme Court? Will they just ignore him?
Court upholds Trump gag order in financial fraud case
A New York appeals court declined to strike down a gag order, imposed on former President Trump for the duration of his financial fraud case, that bars him from attacking court staff.
The gag order, put in place in October, bars Trump and his attorneys from making remarks about Judge Arthur Engoron’s court staff following the former president chastising one of his clerks by falsely calling her the “girlfriend” of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
The New York Supreme Court, a trial court that is not the state’s highest court, upheld Engoron’s gag order, finding it did not unlawfully restrict Trump’s speech.
“Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court’s staff,” the court wrote in its opinion.
Engoron said his staff has been “inundated” with threats following Trump’s comments. He later expanded the order to include Trump’s attorneys, after they questioned his passing of notes to communicate with his staff.
“My law clerks are public servants who are performing their job in the manner in which I request,” he wrote in the order. “This includes providing legal authority and opinions, as well as responding to questions I pose to them. Plainly, defenders are not entitled to the confidential communications among me and my court staff.”
thehill.com
Court upholds Trump gag order in financial fraud case
A New York appeals court declined to strike down a gag order, imposed on former President Trump for the duration of his financial fraud case, that bars him from attacking court staff.
The gag order, put in place in October, bars Trump and his attorneys from making remarks about Judge Arthur Engoron’s court staff following the former president chastising one of his clerks by falsely calling her the “girlfriend” of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
The New York Supreme Court, a trial court that is not the state’s highest court, upheld Engoron’s gag order, finding it did not unlawfully restrict Trump’s speech.
“Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court’s staff,” the court wrote in its opinion.
Engoron said his staff has been “inundated” with threats following Trump’s comments. He later expanded the order to include Trump’s attorneys, after they questioned his passing of notes to communicate with his staff.
“My law clerks are public servants who are performing their job in the manner in which I request,” he wrote in the order. “This includes providing legal authority and opinions, as well as responding to questions I pose to them. Plainly, defenders are not entitled to the confidential communications among me and my court staff.”
Court upholds Trump gag order in financial fraud case
A New York appeals court declined to strike down a gag order imposed on former President Trump that bars him from attacking court staff for the duration of his financial fraud case. The gag order, …
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
“I am appealing the gag order because it restricts my program of poisoning the trial process.”Will Trump appeal it to the Supreme Court? Will they just ignore him?
Court upholds Trump gag order in financial fraud case
A New York appeals court declined to strike down a gag order, imposed on former President Trump for the duration of his financial fraud case, that bars him from attacking court staff.
The gag order, put in place in October, bars Trump and his attorneys from making remarks about Judge Arthur Engoron’s court staff following the former president chastising one of his clerks by falsely calling her the “girlfriend” of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
The New York Supreme Court, a trial court that is not the state’s highest court, upheld Engoron’s gag order, finding it did not unlawfully restrict Trump’s speech.
“Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court’s staff,” the court wrote in its opinion.
Engoron said his staff has been “inundated” with threats following Trump’s comments. He later expanded the order to include Trump’s attorneys, after they questioned his passing of notes to communicate with his staff.
“My law clerks are public servants who are performing their job in the manner in which I request,” he wrote in the order. “This includes providing legal authority and opinions, as well as responding to questions I pose to them. Plainly, defenders are not entitled to the confidential communications among me and my court staff.”
Court upholds Trump gag order in financial fraud case
A New York appeals court declined to strike down a gag order imposed on former President Trump that bars him from attacking court staff for the duration of his financial fraud case. The gag order, …
topcat
Well-Known Member
I'm anxiously waiting for the shoe to drop on Peter Navarro.