TRUMP CONVICTED

printer

Well-Known Member
Trump urges Supreme Court to delay Jan. 6 case amid immunity appeal
Former President Trump on Monday urged the Supreme Court to keep his federal election subversion criminal trial on hold as he appeals a ruling that he doesn’t have immunity from the charges. Trump’s appeal sets up a potentially landmark case at the high court over the bounds of presidential immunity, and it also places the justices in a position to dictate when Trump can head to trial. The former president has long looked to delay his criminal cases, and he has found initial success in postponing his D.C. trial date — originally scheduled for March 4 — by first appealing his immunity claims.

Now, as the historic dispute reaches the Supreme Court, the justices’ decision is poised to have an outsized influence on whether Trump can push the trial beyond the presidential election. Such a feat would enable Trump to potentially first return to the White House and subsequently pardon himself or direct his Justice Department to drop the prosecution. One of four criminal cases Trump faces, Special Counsel Jack Smith charged the former president with four federal felonies that accuse him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals roundly rejected Trump’s claim that a former president enjoys near-total immunity from criminal prosecution unless they have first been impeached and convicted.

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its 57-page decision. “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment.”

The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel reflected the skepticism the judges expressed during the hearing, where Trump’s attorneys agreed that presidential immunity would cover things like ordering an assassination of a political rival. They also warned the Trump stance that presidents must first be impeached would shield presidents from prosecution for crimes committed while leaving office or those that are discovered later on. The judges also took aim at a refrain that has been just as present in Trump’s campaign stump speeches as it has in court documents – that he is being unfairly targeted.

“As former President Trump acknowledges that this is the first time since the Founding that a former President has been federally indicted,” the judges wrote. “Weighing these factors, we conclude that the risk that former Presidents will be unduly harassed by meritless federal criminal prosecutions appears slight.”

Two of the judges who wrote the ruling were nominated by President Biden while the third was appointed by President George H. W. Bush. In court papers filed at the Supreme Court on Monday, Trump said he would soon file his appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. In the meantime, he asked the high court to issue an emergency order keeping the trial proceedings on hold until they resolve the case. Only four justices must vote to take up Trump’s eventual appeal. But the former president’s emergency request to pause his trial proceedings, known as a stay, will require five votes.

Chief Justice John Roberts will automatically receive the stay motion, and, in theory, he could act on the request alone. But given the seismic stakes, he is likely to refer the matter to the full court for a vote. That emergency ruling, which could come within days, will serve as a major indication for when this Trump case may reach trial. The justices have the option to simultaneously announce they will hear Trump’s appeal without waiting for him to run out the clock before formally filing one. In that scenario, the court would also set a schedule for the written briefing schedule and oral arguments.

The court has begun taking up cases for its next term, but they could expedite the schedule to still announce a decision on Trump’s immunity in the coming months. It would follow the Supreme Court’s decision to expedite Trump’s appeal of a ruling disqualifying him from Colorado’s ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban. Some spectators however, have posited that the high court may decline to take up the immunity case.

Although the conservative-majority court includes three of Trump’s own appointees, the justices have at times sided against the former president in his various legal entanglements or refused to get involved. The court previously declined a petition from special counsel Jack Smith to leapfrog the appeals court and immediately take up the case, instead opting to first let the case be heard by the lower court. But it could again decline to take up the case, with some arguing the strength of the lower court opinions prompt the court to leave the case be.

“I do not think the Supreme Court will hear Trump’s appeal. Of course, anything can happen and it takes 4 of the 9 Justices to vote to hear a case. But Trump’s argument is so weak and the Court of Appeals decision so thorough and well done, I can see SCOTUS voting not to hear it,” Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under the Obama administration, wrote on X.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig agreed, noting that at every turn the courts have ruled against Trump and those who aided in his effort to stay in power, determining their government role offered no legal cover for their actions.

“Everyone who’s made this argument that ‘what we did in connection with what led up to January 6th was somehow within our jobs’ is 0 for however many now. And I do think this unanimity makes it more likely that the Supreme Court may say, ‘No, we don’t need to interfere,’” he said last week.

While it is widely expected the Supreme Court would uphold the lower court’s decision, taking up the case would mean more delay for Trump’s ultimate trial date, which U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has said she will bump back in accordance with the time spent weighing the appeal. Proceedings before the lower court took roughly two months between the briefings leading up to the hearing and their consideration of the issue afterwards. A grant by the Supreme Court would similarly suck up additional time, with Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, warning a delay could punt the trial too close to election season for the Justice Department to contribute with the case.

“The Supreme Court would be taking the appeal of the DC Circuit immunity decision to affirm it, not to reverse it; but by taking it they would risk in effect giving Trump immunity by pushing the trial past the election, and thereby denying the public’s right to a speedy trial,” he previously wrote on X.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Georgia judge says Willis’s relationship ‘could result’ in disqualification from Trump case
The judge overseeing former President Trump’s Georgia criminal case set the stage Monday for a high-stakes battle later this week over whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) should be disqualified for her relationship with a top prosecutor in the case.

At a Monday proceeding, Judge Scott McAfee vowed to move ahead with an evidentiary hearing on Thursday, where he will weigh accusations by Trump and some of his co-defendants that the relationship constitutes a conflict of interest.

“I think it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification,” the judge said. “I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

With the prospect of testimony from Willis and other prosecutors — and even Willis’s father — the hearing is set to be a blockbuster moment in the case. McAfee will sort out weeks of barbs between the parties, with each side asserting the other is still making false representations about Willis’s relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

The judge insisted he would keep the hearing “focused,” suggesting he would not hesitate to step in if defense counsel sought “harassment or undue embarrassment” for the prosecutors.

“I think the issues at point here are whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed and whether it continues,” McAfee said. “And that’s only relevant because it’s in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of that relationship.”

The effort to seek Willis’s disqualification began after Mike Roman, a Trump 2020 campaign operative who is charged alongside Trump, first brought the relationship to light last month. Trump and other co-defendants later joined the efforts.

On Monday, McAfee said he would defer decisions on whether Roman can subpoena Willis, Wade and other district attorney staff to testify until the Thursday hearing.

The district attorney’s office is hoping to avoid testifying. Willis and Wade have acknowledged a “personal relationship” but insist the relationship poses no professional conflict and that they were only friends when Wade was first hired to investigate Trump.

At Monday’s proceeding, Roman attorney Ashleigh Merchant continued to contest those claims. Merchant told the judge Monday that Wade’s former law partner, Terrence Bradley, would testify that Willis and Wade’s personal relationship began prior to his hiring as a special prosecutor in the Trump case.

Merchant also claimed that Wade previously said in divorce filings, under oath, that he had no outside relationship during his marriage — a direct contradiction to the affidavit he filed earlier this month acknowledging his relationship with Willis.

“We’ve got two declarations in two different courts, both sworn, both filed with the court, that say something completely different,” Merchant said, claiming that Wade later altered the affidavit in his divorce case to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Fulton County prosecutors hit back, accusing the defense of making unfounded claims meant to draw negative media attention, asserting that Merchant’s claims that Willis and Wade cohabitated were false. Not one prosecutor with the district attorney’s office appeared in person for the Monday hearing — a notable contrast to their usual procedure.

“The defense was not bringing new facts. The defense was not bringing you law. The defense was bringing you gossip,” special prosecutor Anna Cross told the judge.

“And the state cannot, and the court should not, condone that practice.”

McAfee did, however, on Monday quash a subpoena for Wade’s bank accounts and warned that his experience as a prosecutor would not be relevant to Thursday’s hearing.

Trump and some of his co-defendants have criticized Wade for having a lack of experience in handling complex criminal cases involving racketeering charges, also noting how he received hundreds of thousands of dollars for his work.

“In my mind, as long as a lawyer has a heartbeat and a bar card,” McAfee said, then that lawyer’s appointment is a matter “within the district attorney’s discretion.”
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
Trump urges Supreme Court to delay Jan. 6 case amid immunity appeal
Former President Trump on Monday urged the Supreme Court to keep his federal election subversion criminal trial on hold as he appeals a ruling that he doesn’t have immunity from the charges. Trump’s appeal sets up a potentially landmark case at the high court over the bounds of presidential immunity, and it also places the justices in a position to dictate when Trump can head to trial. The former president has long looked to delay his criminal cases, and he has found initial success in postponing his D.C. trial date — originally scheduled for March 4 — by first appealing his immunity claims.

Now, as the historic dispute reaches the Supreme Court, the justices’ decision is poised to have an outsized influence on whether Trump can push the trial beyond the presidential election. Such a feat would enable Trump to potentially first return to the White House and subsequently pardon himself or direct his Justice Department to drop the prosecution. One of four criminal cases Trump faces, Special Counsel Jack Smith charged the former president with four federal felonies that accuse him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals roundly rejected Trump’s claim that a former president enjoys near-total immunity from criminal prosecution unless they have first been impeached and convicted.

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its 57-page decision. “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment.”

The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel reflected the skepticism the judges expressed during the hearing, where Trump’s attorneys agreed that presidential immunity would cover things like ordering an assassination of a political rival. They also warned the Trump stance that presidents must first be impeached would shield presidents from prosecution for crimes committed while leaving office or those that are discovered later on. The judges also took aim at a refrain that has been just as present in Trump’s campaign stump speeches as it has in court documents – that he is being unfairly targeted.

“As former President Trump acknowledges that this is the first time since the Founding that a former President has been federally indicted,” the judges wrote. “Weighing these factors, we conclude that the risk that former Presidents will be unduly harassed by meritless federal criminal prosecutions appears slight.”

Two of the judges who wrote the ruling were nominated by President Biden while the third was appointed by President George H. W. Bush. In court papers filed at the Supreme Court on Monday, Trump said he would soon file his appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. In the meantime, he asked the high court to issue an emergency order keeping the trial proceedings on hold until they resolve the case. Only four justices must vote to take up Trump’s eventual appeal. But the former president’s emergency request to pause his trial proceedings, known as a stay, will require five votes.

Chief Justice John Roberts will automatically receive the stay motion, and, in theory, he could act on the request alone. But given the seismic stakes, he is likely to refer the matter to the full court for a vote. That emergency ruling, which could come within days, will serve as a major indication for when this Trump case may reach trial. The justices have the option to simultaneously announce they will hear Trump’s appeal without waiting for him to run out the clock before formally filing one. In that scenario, the court would also set a schedule for the written briefing schedule and oral arguments.

The court has begun taking up cases for its next term, but they could expedite the schedule to still announce a decision on Trump’s immunity in the coming months. It would follow the Supreme Court’s decision to expedite Trump’s appeal of a ruling disqualifying him from Colorado’s ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban. Some spectators however, have posited that the high court may decline to take up the immunity case.

Although the conservative-majority court includes three of Trump’s own appointees, the justices have at times sided against the former president in his various legal entanglements or refused to get involved. The court previously declined a petition from special counsel Jack Smith to leapfrog the appeals court and immediately take up the case, instead opting to first let the case be heard by the lower court. But it could again decline to take up the case, with some arguing the strength of the lower court opinions prompt the court to leave the case be.

“I do not think the Supreme Court will hear Trump’s appeal. Of course, anything can happen and it takes 4 of the 9 Justices to vote to hear a case. But Trump’s argument is so weak and the Court of Appeals decision so thorough and well done, I can see SCOTUS voting not to hear it,” Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under the Obama administration, wrote on X.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig agreed, noting that at every turn the courts have ruled against Trump and those who aided in his effort to stay in power, determining their government role offered no legal cover for their actions.

“Everyone who’s made this argument that ‘what we did in connection with what led up to January 6th was somehow within our jobs’ is 0 for however many now. And I do think this unanimity makes it more likely that the Supreme Court may say, ‘No, we don’t need to interfere,’” he said last week.

While it is widely expected the Supreme Court would uphold the lower court’s decision, taking up the case would mean more delay for Trump’s ultimate trial date, which U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has said she will bump back in accordance with the time spent weighing the appeal. Proceedings before the lower court took roughly two months between the briefings leading up to the hearing and their consideration of the issue afterwards. A grant by the Supreme Court would similarly suck up additional time, with Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, warning a delay could punt the trial too close to election season for the Justice Department to contribute with the case.

“The Supreme Court would be taking the appeal of the DC Circuit immunity decision to affirm it, not to reverse it; but by taking it they would risk in effect giving Trump immunity by pushing the trial past the election, and thereby denying the public’s right to a speedy trial,” he previously wrote on X.
Yeah i don't see SCOTUS getting that immunity case.....he has to file by today anyways
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Georgia judge says Willis’s relationship ‘could result’ in disqualification from Trump case
The judge overseeing former President Trump’s Georgia criminal case set the stage Monday for a high-stakes battle later this week over whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) should be disqualified for her relationship with a top prosecutor in the case.

At a Monday proceeding, Judge Scott McAfee vowed to move ahead with an evidentiary hearing on Thursday, where he will weigh accusations by Trump and some of his co-defendants that the relationship constitutes a conflict of interest.

“I think it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification,” the judge said. “I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

With the prospect of testimony from Willis and other prosecutors — and even Willis’s father — the hearing is set to be a blockbuster moment in the case. McAfee will sort out weeks of barbs between the parties, with each side asserting the other is still making false representations about Willis’s relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

The judge insisted he would keep the hearing “focused,” suggesting he would not hesitate to step in if defense counsel sought “harassment or undue embarrassment” for the prosecutors.

“I think the issues at point here are whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed and whether it continues,” McAfee said. “And that’s only relevant because it’s in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of that relationship.”

The effort to seek Willis’s disqualification began after Mike Roman, a Trump 2020 campaign operative who is charged alongside Trump, first brought the relationship to light last month. Trump and other co-defendants later joined the efforts.

On Monday, McAfee said he would defer decisions on whether Roman can subpoena Willis, Wade and other district attorney staff to testify until the Thursday hearing.

The district attorney’s office is hoping to avoid testifying. Willis and Wade have acknowledged a “personal relationship” but insist the relationship poses no professional conflict and that they were only friends when Wade was first hired to investigate Trump.

At Monday’s proceeding, Roman attorney Ashleigh Merchant continued to contest those claims. Merchant told the judge Monday that Wade’s former law partner, Terrence Bradley, would testify that Willis and Wade’s personal relationship began prior to his hiring as a special prosecutor in the Trump case.

Merchant also claimed that Wade previously said in divorce filings, under oath, that he had no outside relationship during his marriage — a direct contradiction to the affidavit he filed earlier this month acknowledging his relationship with Willis.

“We’ve got two declarations in two different courts, both sworn, both filed with the court, that say something completely different,” Merchant said, claiming that Wade later altered the affidavit in his divorce case to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Fulton County prosecutors hit back, accusing the defense of making unfounded claims meant to draw negative media attention, asserting that Merchant’s claims that Willis and Wade cohabitated were false. Not one prosecutor with the district attorney’s office appeared in person for the Monday hearing — a notable contrast to their usual procedure.

“The defense was not bringing new facts. The defense was not bringing you law. The defense was bringing you gossip,” special prosecutor Anna Cross told the judge.

“And the state cannot, and the court should not, condone that practice.”

McAfee did, however, on Monday quash a subpoena for Wade’s bank accounts and warned that his experience as a prosecutor would not be relevant to Thursday’s hearing.

Trump and some of his co-defendants have criticized Wade for having a lack of experience in handling complex criminal cases involving racketeering charges, also noting how he received hundreds of thousands of dollars for his work.

“In my mind, as long as a lawyer has a heartbeat and a bar card,” McAfee said, then that lawyer’s appointment is a matter “within the district attorney’s discretion.”
Judge said he's going to hold the hearing so he might as well pretend to listen to their stupid argument before declaring it so.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Because it is all about ME. Can anyone spot the lies he tells her?
Trump sends Valentine’s Day message to Melania centered on his criminal cases
Former President Trump wished former first lady Melania Trump a Happy Valentine’s Day on Wednesday by thanking her for her support throughout his various criminal cases.

In a campaign email sent Wednesday morning, Trump offered a “letter” with the subject line, “I love you, Melania!”

“Dear Melania, I LOVE YOU. Even after every single INDICTMENT, ARREST, and WITCH HUNT, you never left my side,” he wrote in the message. “You’ve always supported me through everything. I wouldn’t be the man I am today without your guidance, kindness, and warmth.

“You will always mean the world to me, Melania! From your husband with love, Donald J. Trump,” the former president concluded.

Readers were then directed to a website where they could leave their own Valentine’s Day message or donate to his reelection campaign.

The former president faces 91 felony counts across four federal and state indictments, all of which he has called a political “witch hunt” to prevent him from being reelected in November.

Trump’s main GOP challenger, Nikki Haley, offered her own Valentine’s Day message to the former president.

“Roses are red, violets are blue, I love dictators, and they love me too! Happy Valentine’s Day from Donald Trump to dictators around the world!” Haley’s presidential campaign wrote in an emailed statement, mocking the former president.

“Over the years, Trump has professed his love for the world’s most brutal dictators and praised their strength and leadership skills,” the statement reads.

The campaign went on to list a series of remarks from Trump expressing friendliness or even love to some foreign dictators.

One of the examples the campaign pointed to was Trump’s story in 2019 in which he claimed he received about a half-dozen letters from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters,” Trump said at a 2019 rally in West Virginia. “We fell in love.”

Haley has repeatedly called out Trump for his apparent friendliness to foreign leaders on the campaign trail, including Kim and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

National polling indexes from The Hill/Decision Desk HQ show Trump with a 61.4-point lead nationally over Haley and a 32.7-point lead in Haley’s home state of South Carolina.
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
Because it is all about ME. Can anyone spot the lies he tells her?
Trump sends Valentine’s Day message to Melania centered on his criminal cases
Former President Trump wished former first lady Melania Trump a Happy Valentine’s Day on Wednesday by thanking her for her support throughout his various criminal cases.

In a campaign email sent Wednesday morning, Trump offered a “letter” with the subject line, “I love you, Melania!”

“Dear Melania, I LOVE YOU. Even after every single INDICTMENT, ARREST, and WITCH HUNT, you never left my side,” he wrote in the message. “You’ve always supported me through everything. I wouldn’t be the man I am today without your guidance, kindness, and warmth.

“You will always mean the world to me, Melania! From your husband with love, Donald J. Trump,” the former president concluded.

Readers were then directed to a website where they could leave their own Valentine’s Day message or donate to his reelection campaign.

The former president faces 91 felony counts across four federal and state indictments, all of which he has called a political “witch hunt” to prevent him from being reelected in November.

Trump’s main GOP challenger, Nikki Haley, offered her own Valentine’s Day message to the former president.

“Roses are red, violets are blue, I love dictators, and they love me too! Happy Valentine’s Day from Donald Trump to dictators around the world!” Haley’s presidential campaign wrote in an emailed statement, mocking the former president.

“Over the years, Trump has professed his love for the world’s most brutal dictators and praised their strength and leadership skills,” the statement reads.

The campaign went on to list a series of remarks from Trump expressing friendliness or even love to some foreign dictators.

One of the examples the campaign pointed to was Trump’s story in 2019 in which he claimed he received about a half-dozen letters from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters,” Trump said at a 2019 rally in West Virginia. “We fell in love.”

Haley has repeatedly called out Trump for his apparent friendliness to foreign leaders on the campaign trail, including Kim and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

National polling indexes from The Hill/Decision Desk HQ show Trump with a 61.4-point lead nationally over Haley and a 32.7-point lead in Haley’s home state of South Carolina.
That SOB is still grifting....haha

"Readers were then directed to a website where they could leave their own Valentine’s Day message or donate to his reelection campaign. "

wonder if she sent a msg back saying "ef off" like she did during her mothers funeral as she got into the suburban ........
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
awwww head grifter in charge is running out of money......awwwww

wait till the NY Fraud judge hits him, he's already on the hook for 90mil already, about to be almost 500mil after that.....that's gonna be a 600mil+ debt to him


GEywwfKWQAAKLUx.jpg
 

topcat

Well-Known Member
Because it is all about ME. Can anyone spot the lies he tells her?
Trump sends Valentine’s Day message to Melania centered on his criminal cases
Former President Trump wished former first lady Melania Trump a Happy Valentine’s Day on Wednesday by thanking her for her support throughout his various criminal cases.

In a campaign email sent Wednesday morning, Trump offered a “letter” with the subject line, “I love you, Melania!”

“Dear Melania, I LOVE YOU. Even after every single INDICTMENT, ARREST, and WITCH HUNT, you never left my side,” he wrote in the message. “You’ve always supported me through everything. I wouldn’t be the man I am today without your guidance, kindness, and warmth.

“You will always mean the world to me, Melania! From your husband with love, Donald J. Trump,” the former president concluded.

Readers were then directed to a website where they could leave their own Valentine’s Day message or donate to his reelection campaign.

The former president faces 91 felony counts across four federal and state indictments, all of which he has called a political “witch hunt” to prevent him from being reelected in November.

Trump’s main GOP challenger, Nikki Haley, offered her own Valentine’s Day message to the former president.

“Roses are red, violets are blue, I love dictators, and they love me too! Happy Valentine’s Day from Donald Trump to dictators around the world!” Haley’s presidential campaign wrote in an emailed statement, mocking the former president.

“Over the years, Trump has professed his love for the world’s most brutal dictators and praised their strength and leadership skills,” the statement reads.

The campaign went on to list a series of remarks from Trump expressing friendliness or even love to some foreign dictators.

One of the examples the campaign pointed to was Trump’s story in 2019 in which he claimed he received about a half-dozen letters from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters,” Trump said at a 2019 rally in West Virginia. “We fell in love.”

Haley has repeatedly called out Trump for his apparent friendliness to foreign leaders on the campaign trail, including Kim and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

National polling indexes from The Hill/Decision Desk HQ show Trump with a 61.4-point lead nationally over Haley and a 32.7-point lead in Haley’s home state of South Carolina.
Nothing says closeness like identifying yourself "From your husband with love, Donald J. Trump." (you can call me "Sir"):roll:
 

DirtyDogs446

Well-Known Member
It aint gonna invigorate Independents though. Ds pray they will nominate tRump, so he can get creamed again.

Its also said hes facing at least 30 charges on this first round of indictments.

The latest Poll ( March 20-23 ) also says the investigations into tRump are fair, and not a witch hunt. And mainly among young people, who are becoming the biggest voting demographic, and vote Democrat in high numbers.

60% of the American People dont want tRump to be president aagain.

Don't call them 'witch hunts.' Most Americans say investigations into Trump are fair
The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that a majority of Americans do not want former President Donald Trump to hold that office again, as his campaign for 2024 is in full swing.

DOMENICO MONTANARO | POSTED ONMARCH 27, 2023, 5:00 AM
A majority of Americans say the multiple criminal investigations into former President Donald Trump's conduct are fair, despite Trump's continued efforts claiming they are conspiracies against him, the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds.
The survey of more than 1,300 adults also found that despite the love for him among Republicans, Trump remains highly disliked, continues to struggle mightily with independents — and 6 in 10 Americans don't want him to be president again.
The results come as Trump has raised the specter of his potential arrest, due to a hush money investigation out of New York. Trump faces at least three other criminal investigations — two federal, stemming from classified documents found at his Florida home and one examining his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, as well as one from Georgia, looking at his pressure campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he lost.
They also come as Trump held his first presidential campaign rally Saturday in Waco, Texas, where he baselessly described the investigations as the result of "prosecutorial misconduct."
"Prosecutorial misconduct is their new tool," Trump said, "and they're willing to use it at levels never seen before in our country. We've had it, but we've never had it like this. We must stop them and we must not allow them to go through another election where they have yet another tool in their tool kit."
But most Americans don't agree with him. By a 56%-to-41% margin respondents said the investigations are fair and not a "witch hunt."
As expected, there's a huge partisan divide — 9 in 10 Democrats say they are fair, while 8 in 10 Republicans call them a witch hunt. A slim majority of independents call them fair, but they are closely split, 51% to 47%.
Those most likely to say the investigations are fair are those in the Gen Z and millennial generations, people who live in big cities and suburbs, and white college graduates, especially college-educated white women.
The latter is a demographic that's been one of the most reliable Democratic voting — and anti-Trump — groups.
Those most likely to say the investigations are a witch hunt were core Trump supporting groups: white men without degrees, white evangelical Christians and those who live in small towns.
Three-quarters say Trump has either done something illegal (46%) or unethical (29%). Only a quarter (23%) think he's done nothing wrong.
In a mirror of public perception about the ongoing investigations, those most likely to think Trump did something illegal are white college grads, especially white, college-educated women, women who live in small cities and suburbs and people who live in the Northeast.
But just 10% of Republicans think Trump did something illegal. They are more split when it comes to whether Trump did something unethical or nothing wrong — 45% say nothing wrong, 43% say he's done something unethical but not illegal.
That reflects the split in the GOP primary. About half of rank-and-file Republican voters appear to be open to someone else, but Trump clearly still has a lock on a significant portion of the GOP.
Republicans also like Trump a lot — 8 in 10 have a favorable opinion of him. But, more broadly, Trump remains highly unpopular.
Just 39% overall have a favorable opinion of Trump, 51% have a negative view. That includes just 37% of independents who have a positive view of him.
Even though Trump's 2024 campaign is well underway, 61% of respondents don't want Trump to be president, including almost two-thirds of independents.
For Republicans, it's a different story — three-quarters do want Trump to be president again.
So Trump remains very popular with the base, but politically toxic with everyone else. That represents a real conundrum for the GOP because with numbers like those, it's hard to see how Trump wins a general election, but also hard to see how he loses the Republican nomination — without a sustained effort from others in the party to go after his glaring vulnerabilities that have cost the GOP in recent elections.
The survey of 1,327 adults, including 1,226 registered voters, was conducted from Monday, March 20 through Thursday, March 23. It was done by telephone with live callers to cellphones and landlines, as well as by text message and online and in English and Spanish. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points.
Well this did not age to well
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
well all most forgot about this case.....the hush money case....which is a criminal trial on 34 counts.....yeah you read that right 34, this is along side of the fraud case which NY judge in the fraud case is supposed to rule tomorrow......


lawyers tried to get it dismissed......NOPE got denied.....and Don Don is actually out on bond, so if he does anything that bond could be revoked and he'll sit in jail....we'll see....
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
This Georgia Evidence trial is a big nothing burger, i mean zilch.......let Fanni's RICO trail get going...sheesh
 
Top