Convicted felon Donald Trump on Trial (Found guilty on 34 felony counts. 54 criminal count still in the air). Supreme Court rules in Trump's favor sends immunity case back to the lower court. Aileen Cannon (R-Florida) dismisses classified docs case

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

48 minutes ago, tshile said:

So out of the 4 cases the only one the courts were willing to tackle (you would think deciding whether a legitimate presidential candidate is a criminal or not would be considered important…) the only one any of them were willing to tackle was paying off a porn star. 
 

America is cooked. 

And the problem is it's given a roadmap for other sociopathic billionaires to game the system too...our laws clearly weren't designed to deal with rich chaos artists.

 

If only Congress has done the right thing and held him to account after J6 instead of punting on the issue...if only.

Edited July 17 by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

[Larry]

7 hours ago, tshile said:

So out of the 4 cases the only one the courts were willing to tackle (you would think deciding whether a legitimate presidential candidate is a criminal or not would be considered important…) the only one any of them were willing to tackle was paying off a porn star. 
 

America is cooked. 

 

Hey. For some time I've been admiring that the only people punished for lying about the election, were punished for saying bad things about a corporation. 

[China]

Special counsel files notice of appeal in Cannon’s dismissal of Trump case

 

Special Counsel Jack Smith formally filed notice on Wednesday that he will appeal a Florida judge’s decision to dismiss the 40-count mishandling of classified documents and obstruction case against former president Donald Trump.

 

The appeal, laying out Smith’s argument for why the case should not be dismissed, is expected to land in coming weeks in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — an appeals court in Atlanta whose jurisdiction covers Florida.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

New York prosecutor files opposition to reversing Trump’s conviction

 

Donald Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records should not be reversed because of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity for reasons including a wealth of incriminating evidence, prosecutors said in a court filing made public Thursday.

 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office wrote that the Supreme Court’s decision assigning presidents broad immunity for actions involving formal duties does not have any bearing on the May jury verdict that found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts for illegally trying to conceal the nature of a hush money payment to an adult-film actress shortly before the 2016 election.

 

Trump’s lawyers have argued that jurors were improperly exposed to witness testimony and records that were generated in 2017, his first year in office, that were extensions of the former president’s official duties. Prosecutors said the nation’s highest court did not hand down any finding that should disturb the verdict or result in a dismissal of the case.

 

“The Supreme Court’s recent ruling thus has nothing to say about defendant’s conviction," lawyers for Bragg’s office wrote. “But even if that decision required the exclusion of all of the evidence that defendant cites here, there would still need be no basis for disturbing the verdict because of the other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt."

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Some analysis of the above:

 

 

[Passepartout]

Really IMHO the word humility and Trump do not go hand in hand. Really not fond over in the candidates running. Will be one heck of a mean spirited race as 2020 was just a cakewalk.

[Fergasun]

I read the New York filing.  Pretty much on point with what I expected.  Of course the Tweets and OGE form are public record (Supreme Court pointed this out) and there's no threat to the Office of the President to allow private conversations as evidence.  

 

They also hit Trump on some procedural objections that his lawyers didn't make. 

 

And then they said, "even without all that stuff, there is so much other evidence."

[Fergasun]

The January 6 case goes back to Judge Chutkan either tomorrow or Monday.  

[China]

Trump, for 3rd time, asks judge in hush money case to recuse himself

 

A change in the nation's political landscape means the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money case should be recused, defense attorneys argued in a court filing made public Thursday.

 

Trump is reviving a longshot effort to have Judge Juan Merchan recused from the case because of an alleged conflict between the judge's daughter and Vice President Kamala Harris, who is now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

 

"Your Honor's daughter has a long-standing relationship with Harris, including work for political campaigns. She has obtained -- and stands to obtain in the future -- extensive financial, professional, and personal benefits from her relationship with Harris," defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote.

 

Describing the vice president as Trump's "presumptive opponent," defense lawyers argued that Merchan's daughter has had an "extremely beneficial working relationship" with Harris because her company was a top vendor to Harris' 2020 presidential campaign.

 

This is the third time Trump's lawyers have attempted to have Judge Merchan removed from the case. Last year, New York's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics determined that Merchan's impartiality "cannot reasonably be questioned" based on his daughter's professional work as a political consultant.

 

When Trump renewed his motion earlier this year, Merchan determined that defense lawyers failed to prove a conflict, describing their motion as a "series of inferences, innuendos and unsupported speculation."

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Bob Menendez made the tactical error of not being president. What a dummy

[Jumbo]

Bill Barr is such a pile of vile tissue.

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

Judge sets Aug. 16 hearing in Trump’s federal election interference case

 

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's federal election interference case has set a hearing for Aug. 16 at 10 a.m. Trump is not required to attend.

 

This will be the first time in seven months the parties will appear in Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom. Chutkan also denied Trump's motion to dismiss the case on statutory grounds. She says they may refile the motion once issues of presidential immunity are resolved.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[China]

17 minutes ago, EmirOfShmo said:

 

 

He's done that with various of his cases and nobody has the balls to jail him as they should.

 

[LadySkinsFan]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by the state of Missouri to halt Donald Trump's upcoming sentencing for his conviction in New York on felony charges involving hush money paid to a porn star and left a related gag order until after the Nov. 5 presidential election.

 

The decision by the justices came in response to Missouri's lawsuit claiming that the case against Trump infringed on the right of voters under the U.S. Constitution to hear from the Republican presidential nominee as he seeks to regain the White House.

 

The Supreme Court's order was unsigned. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would have taken up Missouri's case but added that they "would not grant other relief."

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-declines-halt-184804444.html

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Fergasun]

The Bulwark:  Could a Re-Elected Trump Really Dismiss the Cases Against Him?

Quote

 

LEGAL EXPERTS EVERYWHERE AGREE: If Donald Trump becomes president in 2025, he can simply order the federal criminal cases against him to be dismissed forever.

There is good reason to believe that legal experts everywhere are wrong about this. Once a case is filed, the final decision on dismissal is made by the courts, not the prosecutor.

 

...

Quote

Under relevant Supreme Court precedent, Rule 48’s “leave of court” requirement gives the judge some role in evaluating a request to dismiss a pending indictment. Notably, the drafters of the rule were worried about a public perception that prosecutors too often sought dismissal of cases against politically well-connected defendants. In an article about the history of Rule 48 in the Stanford Law Review, Professor Thomas Ward Frampton explains that:

Quote

the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. . . . Its purpose was to empower a district judge to halt a dismissal where the court suspects some impropriety has prompted prosecutors’ attempt to abandon a case.

Quote

Rule 48's leave of courtt requirement became a topic of national discussion in 2020, when President Trump’s Department of Justice sought to dismiss charges against Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to charges of making false statements to federal agents. After Trump spoke directly with Flynn’s lawyer about the case, and publicly grumbled about Flynn’s treatment, Attorney General Bill Barr claimed to have developed doubts about the strength of the case. Barr ordered the Department of Justice to ask U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the charges.  But Judge Sullivan had doubts about the propriety of the government’s request, and appointed a retired judge as an amicus to argue against dismissal. After Flynn unsuccessfully sought to have the appellate courts order Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case, President Trump pardoned Flynn.

...

Quote

It is the longstanding view of the Department of Justice and the Office of Legal Counsel that DOJ may not prosecute a sitting president. If Judge Chutkan denied the government’s motion to dismiss, DOJ would not immediately resume the prosecution. Rather, Judge Chutkan would order proceedings in the case to be stayed until Trump is no longer president. At that time, the Department of Justice could decide whether to resume the prosecution.  In short, the January 6th case will not move forward while Trump is president, whether it is dismissed or not.

Very nicely written article!

[China]

Judge grants 3-week delay in Trump election subversion case in D.C.

 

A federal judge on Friday granted a government request for a three-week delay in former president Donald Trump’s 2020 election obstruction case, after prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith said the Justice Department needed more time to analyze the Supreme Court’s ruling last month that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution after leaving office.

 

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan had set a Friday deadline for both sides to propose how they wanted to proceed and set a hearing for Aug. 16 in the federal case in D.C. after the Supreme Court returned the case to her control last week. The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines last month that Trump and other presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution when carrying out their core constitutional powers but can face trial for private conduct or for official acts under narrow exceptions to be hammered out by lower courts.

 

But one day ahead of that initial deadline, Smith’s team asked to have until Aug. 30 to brief the court on a proposed schedule for further proceedings and for a hearing to be set sometime in September. Chutkan granted the delay and set a new hearing date for Sept. 5. Lawyers for Trump — who by then will be in the final post-Labor Day sprint to the November election as the Republican nominee for president faces Vice President Kamala Harris (D) — did not object to the delay.

 

In a two-page joint report to Chutkan, prosecutor Molly Gaston wrote on behalf of Smith’s office late Thursday that “the government continues to assess the new precedent” set by the high court, including through internal Justice Department consultations, but that it “has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision.”

 

Click on the link for the full article 

[China]

Trump plans to sue Justice Department over Mar-a-Lago search and prosecution

 

An attorney for former President Donald Trump has filed a legal notice announcing that his client plans to sue the Justice Department and the FBI for $115 million for alleged "malicious political prosecution" and "abuse of process."

 

The notice, a copy of which NBC News obtained Monday, baselessly accuses DOJ leadership and special counsel Jack Smith of having perpetrated a "malicious political prosecution aimed at affecting an electoral outcome to prevent President Trump from being re-elected" — a frequent accusation that Trump makes online and during campaign events.

 

"This malicious prosecution led President Trump to spend tens of millions of dollars defending the case and his reputation," Trump attorney Daniel Z. Epstein wrote in a notice of claim against the department. Epstein is a former Trump White House lawyer who is now vice-president of America First Legal, the legal group founded by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller.

 

The filing complains that the FBI's court-approved search for classified documents at Trump's Florida estate in August of 2022 was improper, as was Trump's subsequent indictment for the scores of sensitive classified documents that agents turned up during the search. Trump had pleaded not guilty.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Jack Smith faces a crossroads in Trump prosecution

 

Special counsel Jack Smith finds himself at more than one prosecutorial crossroads as he weighs how to move forward on former President Trump’s Jan. 6 case in the wake of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.

 

Smith last week asked to extend deadlines in the case to late August, a shift for a prosecutor who previously pushed for a schedule that would bring the case to trial before the election.

 

The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling earlier this summer dealt a tough hand for Smith by determining that former presidents like Trump retain broad protection from criminal prosecution for actions they take while in office.

 

It’s left Smith at a juncture where he may choose to narrow his case, push for a hearing that would walk through much of the evidence against Trump, or even expand the indictment by charging the former president’s co-conspirators.

 

Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney, said prosecutors often “choose the path of least resistance” in the interest of moving a case along. 

 

But with Trump’s team aggressively fighting the charges and thwarting Smith’s plans for a preelection trial, he may be reconsidering that approach, including eyeing the six co-conspirators who went unindicted alongside Trump.

 

“Initially, Jack Smith did not name them, I am guessing, because he was hoping to streamline the case against Trump and get it done quickly, because it was Trump who’s the threat to democracy,” McQuade said, noting the group includes campaign and legal advisers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jeff Clark, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Boris Epshteyn.

 

“But in light of the fact that there will be no trial [before the election], maybe he’s decided, ‘You know what, the time’s come, I’m just going to charge the other defendants.’”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Edited August 13 by China

[China]

17 hours ago, China said:

Trump plans to sue Justice Department over Mar-a-Lago search and prosecution

 

An attorney for former President Donald Trump has filed a legal notice announcing that his client plans to sue the Justice Department and the FBI for $115 million for alleged "malicious political prosecution" and "abuse of process."

 

The notice, a copy of which NBC News obtained Monday, baselessly accuses DOJ leadership and special counsel Jack Smith of having perpetrated a "malicious political prosecution aimed at affecting an electoral outcome to prevent President Trump from being re-elected" — a frequent accusation that Trump makes online and during campaign events.

 

"This malicious prosecution led President Trump to spend tens of millions of dollars defending the case and his reputation," Trump attorney Daniel Z. Epstein wrote in a notice of claim against the department. Epstein is a former Trump White House lawyer who is now vice-president of America First Legal, the legal group founded by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller.

 

The filing complains that the FBI's court-approved search for classified documents at Trump's Florida estate in August of 2022 was improper, as was Trump's subsequent indictment for the scores of sensitive classified documents that agents turned up during the search. Trump had pleaded not guilty.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

"Frivolous": Experts say Trump's bid to sue DOJ over Mar-a-Lago raid will be "laughed out of court"

 

Columbia Law School professor Jeffrey Fagan called the claim "the epitome of a frivolous" legal filing.

 

Fagan said it's "unusual" that Trump filed the notice of claim under Florida law, which he said can differ from the federal standard. 

 

He said if Trump ends up filing a lawsuit, it should wind up dismissed.

 

But he added: Judge Cannon "clearly has some animus toward the government."

 

Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, said it has proved hard to predict how Cannon will rule.

 

"She has made enough ridiculous rulings in this case that nobody should be surprised if she makes another clinker," he told Salon. "But the claim is so woefully weak that Cannon will almost certainly rule against Trump."

 

Vanderbilt University professor Christopher Slobogin said that assuming the warrant was valid, the FBI did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. 

 

"There is no abuse of process or malicious prosecution if the warrant was valid, because that would mean a judge found there was probable cause to be believed classified documents would be on the premises," Slobogin told Salon.

 

UC Davis School of Law professor Gabriel Chin said Trump's notice of claim is "terribly weak."

 

National security attorney Bradley Moss called the notice of claim a "total joke."

 

Click on the link for more

[China]

Judge Denies Trump’s Recusal Bid, Rebuking Him for Claiming Harris Ties

 

The judge who oversaw Donald J. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial declined for a third time to step aside from the case, rebuking the former president’s lawyers for claiming that the judge had a distant yet problematic connection to Vice President Kamala Harris.

 

In a three-page decision dated Tuesday, the judge, Justice Juan M. Merchan, slammed Mr. Trump’s filing seeking his recusal as “rife with inaccuracies” and repetitive, and dismissed the idea that he had any conflict of interest.

 

Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued that the judge’s daughter “has a longstanding relationship with Harris” — a claim her colleagues have disputed — and cited her “work for political campaigns” as a Democratic consultant. But prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which secured Mr. Trump’s conviction in May on felony charges of falsifying business records, called his request “a vexatious and frivolous attempt to relitigate” an issue that Justice Merchan had already twice dismissed.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Trump seeks to delay sentencing in "hush money" case until after election

 

Attorneys for former President Donald Trump asked the judge overseeing his criminal case in New York to delay his sentencing until after the presidential election in November, arguing that a delay is necessary to resolve ongoing legal challenges to his conviction.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Sentencing has already been delayed, no need to delay it further.

[Fergasun]

Got lost.  Opps.  

 

 

Edited August 15 by Fergasun
Wrong thread