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

[LadySkinsFan]

The supremes need to refuse to take the case because it applies to all cases. If not, Trump will pull this immunity crap for any case in any other jurisdiction. 

 

Or maybe Jack Smith can pull the case from Florida and put it in DC because Trump took the classified documents from DC. They were just found (some of them) in Florida.

 

 

Edited February 8 by LadySkinsFan

[China]

Only the best:

 

Jack Smith filing reveals Trump-funded lawyer claimed he didn't own a computer: reporter

 

A new document from special counsel Jack Smith's legal team shows one of former President Donald Trump's lawyers once claimed he didn't own a computer, Politico reporter Betsy Woodruff Swan said.

 

Swan appeared on MSNBC Monday to discuss the Friday filing in Smith's confidential documents case filed against Trump in Florida's federal court.

 

While Trump's team has claimed the Justice Department hid information from them, the filing paints a different picture, Swan said.

 

"Jack Smith's response to that is in this document, and he says, actually, we bent over backward to provide this footage to people," she explained. "We've even given hardware to lawyers so they can look at it."

 

Swan notes a line in the text where she says "jumped out" at her.

 

"Smith's prosecutors write that during a phone call, a lawyer for one of Trump's co-defendants explained that he did not own or have access to a laptop or desktop computer and was instead attempting to review the entirety of the government's discovery on a hand-held tablet," Swan said.

 

Swan explained that Smith's team is responding, "Hey, these people are complaining they can't watch the videos. We're trying to send them, but at the same time, they're trying, or at least this one particular important lawyer is trying to review the entirety of the discovery that the federal government is making via a hand-held tablet, which sounds like an iPad."

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

“Awful and unethical”: Legal experts say Judge Cannon could face removal for “disturbing” order

 

Legal experts sounded the alarm after the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents case rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s bid to keep government witnesses secret.

Smith’s team opposed making information public that could reveal the identity or any personal identifying information of any potential witnesses in the case or any transcripts or other documents they may have provided, citing concerns about witness intimidation.

 

Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in Trump’s favor on the matter, writing: “Following an independent review of the Motion and the full record, the Court determines, with limited exceptions as detailed below, that the Special Counsel has not set forth a sufficient factual or legal basis warranting deviation from the strong presumption in favor of public access to the records at issue.”

 

Cannon questioned Smith’s concern for witnesses, writing that “the Special Counsel’s sparse and undifferentiated Response fails to provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to justify sealing.”

 

The Press Coalition, which is comprised of major media companies, also asked the court to unseal Trump’s redacted motion in unclassified form, citing public interest.

 

Jeremy Foley, a Berkeley College law professor who specializes in judicial ethics, told Newsweek it is "unusual for a judge to make classified documents public."

 

"Before doing so, Judge Cannon was required to weigh the factors favoring disclosure: potential aid to the defense and the public interest argument asserted by the media groups against those identified by the government: release of the documents could harm national security, impair an ongoing investigation, or compromise potential witnesses in the case," he said.

"If the government is concerned that the judge's order will cause harm, it can seek emergency relief from the 11th Circuit, which could stay the order pending review. We should know very soon if that happens," Foley added.

 

The order raised concerns among legal experts who have long worried that Cannon may be tilting the case in favor of Trump.

 

“Judge Aileen Cannon continues to make rulings that are disturbing,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack. “Perhaps we’d view any one of them, on their own, as a judicial aberration. But the pattern of ruling upon ruling that is out of the legal mainstream and results in delay well past the point where this case should have been ready for trial is something that shouldn’t be ignored. Judges should not put their fingers on the scales of justice either for or against a defendant or any other party. Here, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that the scales are being tipped.”

 

Smith’s “best option” may be to ask Cannon to reconsider, but the judge’s “dismissive tone towards the government suggests that there is little they can do to persuade her,” Vance wrote.

 

A big test will come next week when Cannon holds a hearing under Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), where she will make rulings on what classified material in discovery can be used at trial. Trump is expected to seek additional delays in the case, asking Cannon to postpone the deadline for some pre-trial motions and revisiting his presidential immunity and Presidential Records Act claims that “border on being frivolous at this point, and using them to further delay this case would be a travesty,” Vance wrote.

 

“The time for Smith to decide whether to actively seek Cannon’s recusal, or at least hint to the Circuit that it’s merited, will be after the Section 4 hearing rulings are issued,” Vance noted. “Forced recusals are rare. But at this late date, even if the 11th Circuit were to move quickly, as it has in the past, and force Cannon to step aside, it would take a new judge some time to get up to speed. There are no quick fixes for the damage Judge Cannon has done,” she added.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[88Comrade2000]

Fanni Willis’s hiring her affair lover could be fatal.  If this gets to trial, there will be at least one juror will buy the argument this is just a political persecution. I don’t see see Trump ever getting on this.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

10 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Fanni Willis’s hiring her affair lover could be fatal.  If this gets to trial, there will be at least one juror will buy the argument this is just a political persecution. I don’t see see Trump ever getting on this.

 

In no way is the affair fatal. Husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, have worked together on the same side of the same case numerous times. And I fail to see how the two of them starting to date somehow equals the case being political, unless the argument is successfully made that Fani Willis dated every single member of the grand jury as well lol.

 

It was little more than a weak attempt to muddy the waters, and will be forgotten by the time a jury deliberates the case. And attorneys are trained to weed out individuals from the jury pool who would be the type to hang onto that tiny morsel of controversy and let it dictate their vote 5 months later...as well as I think there's a mechanism in place where a jury foreman/forewoman can report to the judge if they suspect one of the jurors is operating in bad faith (but I could be wrong there).

Edited February 9 by Califan007 The Constipated

[LadySkinsFan]

And cured by another prosecutor seated as first chair in trial while Fani Willis manages the cases behind the scenes, as appears to be the case so far in the plea deals disposition. 

 

Small potatoes.

[China]

 

 

[EmirOfShmo]

 

 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

 

 

 

[China]

Here's Trump's application to the Supreme Court for a stay.

 

I'm curious how long the Supreme Court will take to decide whether or not to continue the stay or not.

[LadySkinsFan]

Come on, supremes, let's get this show on the road! No cert, no stay.

[Fergasun]

Per the DC Circuit, Trump is arguing everything he does is an "official act".  DC Circuit pointed out that even judges and legislators don't have "official act immunity."  

 

If Trump has immunity, under his legal doctrine, so does Senator Bob Menendez -- he could just argue he was performing "official acts."   Legislators can be bribed.  Judges can be bribed.  

 

What he is proposing is insanity, putting officials of the government above the law.  At all branches. 

 

Shameless and shameful!

[JCB]

But this Bama is also elsewhere arguing, in order to dodge insurrection charges, that the president is not an officer of the US gov’t. Loathesome, loathesome party.

[China]

Chief justice gives Jack Smith one week to respond to Trump’s bid to stave off trial

 

Chief Justice John Roberts is giving prosecutors a week to respond to former President Donald Trump’s request to keep his federal criminal election-subversion trial on hold while he tries to persuade the Supreme Court to scuttle it entirely on the grounds of presidential immunity.

 

A brief docket entry from the court Tuesday morning said special counsel Jack Smith has until next Tuesday at 5 p.m. to address the emergency application Trump’s lawyers filed at the high court Monday.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Bang]

The above post was an hour before this one, and I am hoping the reply has already been sent.

 

In the immortal words of General McCauliffe at Bastogne in December 1944:
" **** off, you fat Nazi **** ".

 

~Nuts

Edited February 13 by Bang

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, Bang said:

The above post was an hour before this one, and I am hoping the reply has already been sent.

 

In the immortal words of General McCauliffe at Bastogne in December 1944:
" **** off, you fat Nazi **** ".

 

~Nuts

 

[China]

Trump expected to attend hearing Thursday in Manhattan DA's hush money case

 

Former President Donald Trump is expected to attend a hearing in New York Thursday in the hush money case brought by the Manhattan district attorney, sources told ABC News.

 

Judge Juan Merchan has scheduled the hearing to resolve the outstanding motions in the case and finalize the trial date, which is currently scheduled for March 25.

 

"President Trump will be attending court in New York on Thursday," Trump's attorney in Georgia, Steve Sadow, said in a statement.

 

Trump last April pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election.

 

VIDEO

 

Click on the links for the full article and video

[PokerPacker]

I forgot that case was still going.

[LadySkinsFan]

That case's motions are going to be resolved and the March 25th trial date confirmed. It's my brother's birthday and he hated Trump and wanted to vote for Hillary before he died that August. For his sake and memory I'm hoping this date sticks and Trump is convicted in a state court. 

 

 

Edited February 14 by LadySkinsFan

[Larry]

Waiting for SCOTUS to decide that the supremacy clause means Presidential immunity applies to state crimes. 

[China]

Jack Smith isn't wasting any time:

 

 

No waiting until next week's deadline.

Edited February 15 by China

[LadySkinsFan]

Per my post above! Yay!

 

Manhattan Court Judge already ruled this morning that the hush money and fake business records felony case can proceed as scheduled on March 25th. Yay! The first criminal trial and it's a state one, one that Trump can't jettison if he's re-elected (not happening). So first conviction before the summer? That's my prediction!

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-dealt-blow-timing-150502506.html

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

[Fergasun]

I don't get the distinction between civil judgements and criminal convictions in the minds of voters.  I don't need any convictions to tell me this guy is a POS.  He's already been convicted civilly a number of times. 

 

Seems like we shouldn't wrap up politics in court verdicts (civil or criminal).

[Larry]

43 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Seems like we shouldn't wrap up politics in court verdicts (civil or criminal).

 

A lot of Trump supporters seem to agree.  

 

They don't care what he's convicted of.  Won't change their vote.