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

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Why does he need his location? How is that relevant  

[Fergasun]

The court filing (or what is quoted in the Tweet) never indicated they wanted to use location.  That is media speculation.  It just says they have a phone expert witness. The article says, "this is the type of information a phone expert COULD MAYBE  testify about."

 

 

[FootballZombie]

I'd imagine Trump's phone data can be used to corroborate the surrounding witness' testimony about what Trump was doing on J6.

[Renegade7]

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

The court filing (or what is quoted in the Tweet) never indicated they wanted to use location.  That is media speculation.  It just says they have a phone expert witness. The article says, "this is the type of information a phone expert COULD MAYBE  testify about."

 

 

Which article are you referring to?

[Fergasun]

40 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

Which article are you referring to?

There was a Politico article posted in the Tweet embedded on the previous page.  But, my post was wrong. The court filing

indicates DoJ will have 3 expert witnesses:

 

Expert 1: Google Location History Expert - will talk about individuals movements towards the Capitol.

 

Expert 2: Another phone location expert

 

Expert 3: Expert in data extraction from phones. 

[China]

SCOTUS responds to Jack Smith's motion to speed up Trump presidential immunity petition

 

The Supreme Court agreed to consider Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution — and wants a response from the former president in nine days, reported CBS News' Scott MacFarlane.

 

According to the court's statement, Trump is directed to respond to Smith's petition by December 20.

 

Smith went to the Supreme Court in response to Trump's apparent efforts to drag out the 2020 election interference trial with claims that he has "presidential immunity."

 

Click on the link for the full article 

[China]

Now Trump is annoyed because Smith is trying to cut short Trump’s delay tactics:

 

Trump campaign criticizes special counsel for Supreme Court move

 

“Crooked Joe Biden’s henchman, Deranged Jack Smith is so obsessed with interfering in the 2024 Presidential Election with the goal of preventing President Trump from retaking the Oval Office, as the President is poised to do, that Smith is willing to try for a Hail Mary by racing to the Supreme Court and attempting to bypass the appellate process,” a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign said in a statement Monday afternoon.

 

The spokesperson repeated Trump’s longtime assertion that the case against the former president is “completely politically motivated.”

 

Click on the link for the full article 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

One can only hope his blood pressure is skyrocketing.

[purbeast]

I just find it hilarious the Trumpers using the term "weaponizing the DOJ and FBI" type of crap for political reasons.

 

Yeah, because the DOJ and FBI are doing their job, going after criminals, it's weaponizing them for political reasons.

 

[China]

 

If the Supreme Court rules that he has absolute presidential immunity, I hope that Biden would seize the opportunity and just have Trump summarily executed, because as president Biden would have immunity from prosecution for doing so.

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Fergasun]

This is a real test of the Supreme Court.  I made the mistake of looking at "right wing Twitter" comments.  A lot of them seem happy this will backfire as the SCOTUS will see this as obvious election interference. 

 

Than I listened to Charlie Kirk yesterday.  He is saying that Trump should be talking up the expectation that he will be convicted in July by a corrupt DC jury and the Trump campaign needs to get ahead of this.  He wants to start working on the messaging campaign.  

[EmirOfShmo]

This seems like an open & shut case to me. I've read 2 opinions on how long this might take SCOTUS to decide: 

Biden decision to cancel student debt took SCOTUS 84 days to decide.

Nixon decision on turning over the tapes took 61 days (this from John Dean comments I read). Dean believes it will happen & not cause a delay to the March 4, 2024 trial.

Edited December 13, 2023 by EmirOfShmo

[Fergasun]

Its obvious it should be a 9-0 case.  I also question if Smith will jump to the SCOTUS on the documents case to push for a trial before the election.

 

"Is there a public interest in completing a Federal trial of a previous President re-running for election?"

 

But whatever.  Everyone casually I speak with thinks he won't be convicted and rich and powerful people can escape justice.

[LadySkinsFan]

32 minutes ago, EmirOfShmo said:

This seems like an open & shut case to me. I've read 2 opinions on how long this might take SCOTUS to decide: 

Biden decision to cancel student debt took SCOTUS 84 days to decide.

Nixon decision on turning over the tapes took 61 days (this from John Dean comments I read). Dean believes it will happen & not cause a delay to the March 4, 2024 trial.

 

This was an excellent presentation by Lawrence O'Donnell last night. Whoever found it needs to be congratulated.

 

It should also cool down the Republican Fascists in the House on their Biden impeachment efforts. There's nothing there warranting impeachment.

[PleaseBlitz]

 

Trump's lawyers are whining that Jack Smith is making them work around Christmas, including quoting from A Grinch Stole Christmas in a legal brief filed in a for-real court of law.  

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208579017.0.pdf

 

Quote

IV. If the Court Grants Expedited Consideration, It Should Not Adopt the
Prosecution’s Proposed Schedule.
Even if the Court grants expedited consideration—which it should not do—it
should not adopt the prosecution’s proposed schedule, which is facially
unreasonable. The prosecution “requests that the Court require the defendant’s
opening brief be due no later than ten days from the entry of a briefing order,” Mot.
5-6—which, assuming the Court rules promptly on the motion to expedite after the
close of briefing, would make President Trump’s opening brief due the day after
Christmas. This proposed schedule would require attorneys and support staff to
work round-the-clock through the holidays, inevitably disrupting family and travel
plans. It is as if the Special Counsel “growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously
drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming. … But how?’”
DR. SEUSS, HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS (Random House 1957)

 

One, who thought that was a good idea?  If, when I was in law school, a classmate suggested that course of action, I would have told them to please take the project more seriously.  

 

Two, you took on the highest-profile case imaginable.  Do your job.  Or don't do it, and simply don't opposed the Special Counsel's motion.  That's an option for you.  

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[purbeast]

Wait.

 

Why do you ask for immunity from crimes... if you didn't commit any crimes?

 

[mistertim]

17 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Trump's lawyers are whining that Jack Smith is making them work around Christmas, including quoting from A Grinch Stole Christmas in a legal brief filed in a for-real court of law.  

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208579017.0.pdf

 

 

One, who thought that was a good idea?  If, when I was in law school, a classmate suggested that course of action, I would have told them to please take the project more seriously.  

 

Two, you took on the highest-profile case imaginable.  Do your job.  Or don't do it, and simply don't opposed the Special Counsel's motion.  That's an option for you.  

 

 

Part of me wonders if Trump's lawyers just really hate him and want to figure out ways to make things as bad as possible for him by pulling idiotic stunts in a way that Trump wouldn't likely even understand. But that will hurt them just as much as it will Trump.

 

I'm not a lawyer and even I realize what a ludicrously horrid idea it was to quote a ****ing Dr. Seuss book in a court filing (though I do love how they cited "Random House 1957" as if that somehow makes it look like a less dumb thing to quote).

[EmirOfShmo]

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Part of me wonders if Trump's lawyers just really hate him and want to figure out ways to make things as bad as possible for him by pulling idiotic stunts in a way that Trump wouldn't likely even understand. But that will hurt them just as much as it will Trump.

 

I'm not a lawyer and even I realize what a ludicrously horrid idea it was to quote a ****ing Dr. Seuss book in a court filing (though I do love how they cited "Random House 1957" as if that somehow makes it look like a less dumb thing to quote).

 

Do these kind of lawyer **** ups help TFG claim improper representation after he's convicted? 

[Jabbyrwock]

17 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Trump's lawyers are whining that Jack Smith is making them work around Christmas, including quoting from A Grinch Stole Christmas in a legal brief filed in a for-real court of law.  

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208579017.0.pdf

 

 

One, who thought that was a good idea?  If, when I was in law school, a classmate suggested that course of action, I would have told them to please take the project more seriously.  

 

Two, you took on the highest-profile case imaginable.  Do your job.  Or don't do it, and simply don't opposed the Special Counsel's motion.  That's an option for you.  

 

 

I dont think she quoted from Seuss, but Kegan cited One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish in an argument that a fish was a tangible object.

 

Dont get me wrong...the way Trumps ass hats used Seuss as a characterozation of the prosecutors motives is absurd while Kegan is just pointing out that a fish is a thing.  Still tho, thought I'd mention it.

[LadySkinsFan]

Personally, I'm digging the discussion all of these legal cases, it's really contributing to my legal knowledge. I've always liked this stuff, I wanted to attend law school, didn't get a BA degree, had an associates degree and after I had my daughter I went back to school (NOVA) because I could apply some previous courses to a paralegal degree and graduated magna cum laude. I did my internship with a women's rights organization downtown (instead of law firm) and found out how government really works. After all of this time, not much has changed.

 

So I am excited to see how the supremes including Brett Kavanaugh will rule on the presidential immunity and double jeopardy appeal. Whether they will uphold the actual text of the Constitution. 

[Dan T.]

On 12/13/2023 at 9:50 AM, EmirOfShmo said:

This seems like an open & shut case to me. I've read 2 opinions on how long this might take SCOTUS to decide: 

Biden decision to cancel student debt took SCOTUS 84 days to decide.

Nixon decision on turning over the tapes took 61 days (this from John Dean comments I read). Dean believes it will happen & not cause a delay to the March 4, 2024 trial.

 

 

This is also the rationale that Mitch McConnell used to vote against the second impeachment, and others in the GOP got on board - "Trump is out of office, let the courts decide his guilt or innocence."  Spurious argument because impeachment and criminal indictment are two separate ways to hold a corrupt, criminal sociopath accountable.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Dan T.

[PleaseBlitz]

31 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

I dont think she quoted from Seuss, but Kegan cited One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish in an argument that a fish was a tangible object.

 

Dont get me wrong...the way Trumps ass hats used Seuss as a characterozation of the prosecutors motives is absurd while Kegan is just pointing out that a fish is a thing.  Still tho, thought I'd mention it.

 

Big difference between a SCOTUS justice adding some flair to their opinion (when making an already axiomatic point) which no higher authority will ever make a judgement on, and a criminal defense attorney with a client's freedom at stake in possibly the most important case in the last 50 years citing Dr. Suess when making an argument to a judge. 

[Jabbyrwock]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Big difference between a SCOTUS justice adding some flair to their opinion (when making an already axiomatic point) which no higher authority will ever make a judgement on, and a criminal defense attorney with a client's freedom at stake in possibly the most important case in the last 50 years citing Dr. Suess when making an argument to a judge. 

 

Totally agree.  I just expect "Kagan did it" to be the brainless response over the proverbial dinner table this Xmas, so wanted to arm readers with context.

 

Having said that, the dissent she wrote in which that citation appears has a few fish themed jokes buried in it.  Its actually kind of funny.  In particular when you realize that Scalia joined her in the dissent.

 

TL:DR for anyone that doesnt want to read: Fish are not "tangible objects".