Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Convicted felon Donald Trump on Trial (Found guilty on 34 felony counts. 54 criminal count still in the air)

Cooked Crack

By Cooked Crack
in The Tailgate

 Share

Will Trump be convicted in any of his cases?  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Trump be convicted in any of his cases?

    • Yes. He's going 4 for 4. (including Georgia)
      6
    • He's going to lose 3
      5
    • Two for sure
      8
    • He's only going to get convicted in one
      1
    • No. He's going to skate
      11

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted

I was just reading about his testimony. Sounds like the judge basically wussed out. He tried to stop Trump from rambling and refusing to answer questions then just gave up.

 

Why not warn him that he'll be found in contempt and then enforce it if/when he continues? Throw his ass in jail for a few days.

 

Drives me nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chachie

Chachie

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, mistertim said:

I was just reading about his testimony. Sounds like the judge basically wussed out. He tried to stop Trump from rambling and refusing to answer questions then just gave up.

 

Why not warn him that he'll be found in contempt and then enforce it if/when he continues? Throw his ass in jail for a few days.

 

Drives me nuts.

 

 

Judge: I've had about enough of your antics, Mr. Trump. The next time you defy a gag order or have a meltdown in my courtroom, I'll massage your back and dismiss your case!!

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I was just reading about his testimony. Sounds like the judge basically wussed out. He tried to stop Trump from rambling and refusing to answer questions then just gave up.

 

Why not warn him that he'll be found in contempt and then enforce it if/when he continues? Throw his ass in jail for a few days.

 

Drives me nuts.

Doesn’t want to help him when he goes to appeal I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Right, appellate court will see that the judge gave him every opportunity to control himself, and he didn't. I think ultimately it was a smart move by the judge. The case goes off to the judge to make his decision. 

 

TFG is going to appeal anyway, why shouldn't the judge be the sane one?

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted (edited)

Working on their "the judge was mean to me" defense. 

 

Note:  It's kind of like their reaction to the 2020 election. Even before the election, their plan was to lose, and then try to overturn it. 

Edited by Larry
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I was just reading about his testimony. Sounds like the judge basically wussed out. He tried to stop Trump from rambling and refusing to answer questions then just gave up.

 

Why not warn him that he'll be found in contempt and then enforce it if/when he continues? Throw his ass in jail for a few days.

 

Drives me nuts.

 

That was Trump and his lawyer's strategy.  They were trying to provoke the judge into an oversized reaction to either get grounds for a mistrial or to provide ammunition for their appeal (because they know they've already lost).  

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Trump Must Formally Declare if He Will Use Advice-of-Counsel Defense in DC Case, Judge Rules

 

Former President Donald Trump must formally declare whether he intends to argue he was acting on the advice of his lawyers as a defense strategy in the Washington, D.C. election-subversion case, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

 

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan partially granted a motion by Special Counsel Jack Smith's office requesting the declaration in her three-page order Wednesday requiring Trump to file the formal notice by Jan. 15, 2024.

 

An advice-of-counsel defense is a legal defense in which a defendant argues that he relied in good faith on the advice of his lawyers that his course of conduct was legal, and that he made full disclosure of material facts to his lawyers before receiving that advice.

 

In his Oct. 10 motion, Smith's office cited several examples of Trump's current defense attorneys arguing in media interviews that the former president was acting at the advice of his lawyers in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

 

"When a defendant invokes such a defense in court," Smith's office wrote, "he waives attorney-client privilege for all communications concerning that defense, and the government is entitled to additional discovery and may conduct further investigation, both of which may require further litigation and briefing."

 

In her order Wednesday, Chutkan noted that local and federal criminal rules "do not expressly require advance notice of the advice-of-counsel defense."

 

"But because waiting until trial to invoke the defense—and comply with the disclosure obligations it triggers—could cause disruption and delay, some district courts have concluded that they nonetheless have inherent authority to order defendants to provide advance notice if they intend to do assert the defense," Chutkan wrote.

 

While Smith's office requested notice by Dec. 18, 2023, Chutkan gave Trump's legal team until mid-January to provide the notice.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

"Well, Mr. Trump.  If you want to claim that your attorneys told you that overthrowing an election was legal, then you'd be all right with us putting your attorneys on the stand and asking them if they told you that?  And with handing over all the communications you had with them, discussing how legal this all was?"  

 

  • Thumb up 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Exclusive: What the woodworker saw: Trump documents trial may put resort workers on witness stand, sources say

 

A plumber, a maid, a chauffeur and a woodworker are among Mar-a-Lago staffers and contract workers who federal prosecutors may call to testify against former President Donald Trump and his two co-defendants at their upcoming criminal trial in Florida, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation.

 

CNN has assembled a comprehensive picture of how prosecutors are structuring their case against Trump over his mishandling of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

 

While some of the witnesses who may be called to testify hail from Trump’s inner circle, including his career in business, as a political candidate and from his time in the White House, other potential witnesses are the types of workers rarely noticed by Mar-a-Lago’s wealthy guests, according to the sources.

 

Other likely witnesses also include Trump Secret Service agents, former intelligence officials, as well as people who were in the room with Trump when he was captured on multiple audio recordings referencing a military document about potential plans to bomb Iran, according to the sources.

 

But the low-level workers who were the eyes and ears of Mar-a-Lago, if called to testify, could offer the public a new level of insight into the exclusive club and Trump’s approach to sensitive national security information since he left office. Some of them are still employed at Mar-a-Lago.

 

After this story published Trump responded on social media, acknowledging that various people saw papers and boxes at Mar-a-Lago.

 

“Of course they did! They may have been the boxes etc. that were openly and plainly brought from the White House, as is my right under the Presidential Records Act.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

CNN left out some of the unhinged parts of Trump's rant:

 

Quote

Fake News CNN just did a story, leaked by Deranged Prosecutor Jack Smith and his massive team of Radical Left Lunatics, that various people saw papers and boxes at Mar-a-Lago.

 

 I even supplied, upon request, Security Tapes to these Election Interfering Thugs. Is this really “Breaking News?” No, it’s “Breaking Fake News.” But what about all of the papers, boxes, and documents found at NUMEROUS Crooked Joe Biden places, like his garage floor by his cherished Corvette, or CHINATOWN where it was just learned that boxes moved freely in and out. 

 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

‘Without regard to numbers, wealth or rank’: Special counsel rails against Trump ‘scattershot’ First Amendment claims as demand for ‘special exception’

 

As an appellate fight swiftly approaches in Washington, D.C., weighing whether a narrow gag order imposed on Donald Trump in his election subversion case should remain in place, special counsel Jack Smith lobbed his opening volley Tuesday, urging the court to squarely reject the former president’s “scattershot” invocations of the First Amendment and enforce a gag order that will protect proceedings much like the lower courts have done in other high profile cases, including the indictment of Trump ally Roger Stone.

 

“There has never been a criminal case in which a court has granted a defendant an unfettered right to try his case in the media, malign the prosecutors and his family and after threatening witnesses, ‘IF YOU COME AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU,’ target specific witnesses with attacks on their character and credibility, calling one ‘weakling’ and ‘coward’ and suggesting that another’s actions warrant the ‘punishment’ of ‘DEATH!'” Smith wrote Tuesday in a 67-page brief for the appellate court in Washington, D.C., quoting just a sampling of Trump’s remarks on social media or in the press since his indictment for conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election was first announced in August.

 

The gag order prosecutors want reimposed was temporarily stayed by the appeals court on Nov. 3. It was set by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Oct. 16 after special counsel convinced her it was necessary given Trump’s habitual public lashing out.

 

Chutkan herself, prosecutors reminded the appeals court Tuesday, had received an extremely troublesome death threat from Trump supporter Abigail Jo Shry of Texas after Trump had railed against the judge and charges.

 

Shry called the Black judge a “n—– slave” who would be killed if Trump wasn’t reelected in 2024.

 

“That episode was part of a pattern, stretching back years, in which people publicly targeted by the defendant are, as a result of the targeting, subject to harassment, threats, and intimidation,” Smith wrote.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted
On 11/13/2023 at 9:29 PM, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Bunch of MAGAs in that thread basically saying "But he did leave, so what's the big deal?" I don't think they quite grasp the concept that trying to do illegal **** but failing at it is still a crime.

 

"I mean sure, the guy went in and try to rob a bank, but he didn't actually make it out of there with any money. So no harm, no foul, right??"

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...