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

[Simmsy]

8 hours ago, Fergasun said:

It really is insane.  It's not even like he is being tried for the same thing.   A non-psychopath would be dead from the stress of 4 Federal cases (but a non-psychopath doesn't act like this).  A typical criminal would likely plead out.  

 

I am still not sold that a President can stop all his criminal cases once he gets elected.  I will repeat myself that Jack Smith will ask for a ruling on that if Biden loses.... just the thought of that.

 

Oh and we just skipped over a Trump employee saying he moved documents to a plane headed to New Jersey?  I don't think New Jersey was raided, but there is speculation documents ended up there. 

 

Pretty sad that the DOJ has to be pressured to do it's job, Merrick Garland sucks. I couldn't imagine this cowardly fence straggler on the SCOTUS.

[China]

Cannon 'quickly' grants Trump lawyers extension to 'reply to their own motions to dismiss': report

 

Donald Trump lawyers on Monday asked Judge Aileen Cannon — who's over the ex-president's Florida classified documents case — for a deadline extension on replies to their motions to dismiss the case altogether. Cannon has already agreed to move the deadline from Thursday, March 14 to March 24 — one day before Trump's New York hush money trial.

 

The Trump lawyers' letter to the judge comes three days before the hearing Cannon scheduled for their arguments to dismiss the case.

 

According to Newsweek, the MAGA hopeful's lawyers wrote, "President Trump and counsel are currently preparing for a trial in New York, New York that is scheduled to begin on March 25, 2024, and the need to simultaneously devote attention to that case and this matter has been necessitated in part by the discovery violations and strategic scheduling demands of the Special Counsel's Office that have prejudiced President Trump in multiple respects."

 

Click on the link for the full article

[PokerPacker]

13 hours ago, Simmsy said:

 

Pretty sad that the DOJ has to be pressured to do it's job, Merrick Garland sucks. I couldn't imagine this cowardly fence straggler on the SCOTUS.

I dunno, seems he'd fit right in with the current SCOTUS full of the corrupt and cowardly.

Edited March 12 by PokerPacker

[China]

On 3/11/2024 at 4:07 PM, China said:

Trump asks to delay New York hush money trial until the Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity several months from now

 

Attorneys for Donald Trump want to delay the start of his upcoming New York criminal trial until the US Supreme Court weighs in on presidential immunity, according to a new motion – a ruling that may not come until late June.

 

The criminal trial related to hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels is scheduled to begin with jury selection on March 25.

 

But Trump wants to wait until after the Supreme Court rules on immunity. The justices are not scheduled to hear that case until April 25, and a ruling may not come until the end of the court’s term in late June or early July.

 

“President Trump respectfully submits that an adjournment of the trial is appropriate to await further guidance from the Supreme Court, which should facilitate the appropriate application of the presidential immunity doctrine in this case to the evidence the People intend to offer at trial,” the motion made to New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan states.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

What a bunch of nonsense.  His criminal acts were committed before he was president.  He's just trying to get a delay any way he can.  

 

Donald Trump's Actions Slapped Down by Judge

 

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's hush money trial has hit out at the former president's attempts to delay proceedings.

 

In court flings, Judge Juan Merchan criticized the timing of the request from Trump's legal team to push back the New York trial set for March 25, where Trump will face 34 charges, while the Supreme Court decides on whether the former president can claim absolute immunity.

 

Trump's legal team has not argued that the falsifying business records trial should be dismissed due to the immunity claim, but that some evidence should not be presented in court if the Supreme Court rules in his favor.

 

Lawyers for the former president argued that prosecutors plan to introduce evidence which relates to Trump's time in office, including statements about Cohen which Trump posted in Twitter, now called X, in 2018.

 

In response, Merchan hit out at the request to delay the falsifying business records trial shortly before the proceedings are due to take place.

 

The judge also ordered that the former president seek permission before making future motions before the trial starts on March 25.

 

"Defendant does not explain the reason for the late filing, a mere two and a half weeks before jury selection is set to begin," Merchan wrote.

 

"Effective immediately, the parties are hereby directed to obtain leave of the Court before filing any additional motions prior to March 25. 2024."

 

Merchan added that, in future, parties will need to file a one-page letter to the courts, where they must explain the basis for the motion and the relief that is being sought. The opposing party will then be given one day to respond, should it choose to.

 

Lisa Rubin, lawyer and legal analyst for MSNBC, wrote on X: "We now know that the Manhattan DA's office has until 3/13 to respond to Trump's delayed motion to adjourn the NY trial on immunity grounds—and that Judge Merchan is mighty miffed.

 

"From here forward, both sides must get his permission before filing any other motions before the trial's 3/25 start. Yikes."

 

Merchan still needs to rule on whether to delay the March 25 trial over Trump's immunity claim, though it is unlikely he will do so.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Califan007 The Constipated]

29 minutes ago, China said:

 

The judge also ordered that the former president seek permission before making future motions before the trial starts on March 25.

 

"Effective immediately, the parties are hereby directed to obtain leave of the Court before filing any additional motions prior to March 25. 2024."

 

 

 

[China]

Judge Quashes Six Charges in Georgia Election Case Against Trump

 

In a surprise move on Wednesday, a judge in Atlanta quashed six of the charges against former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in the sprawling Georgia election interference case, including one related to a call that Mr. Trump made to pressure Georgia’s secretary of state in early January 2021.

 

The judge, Scott McAfee of Fulton Superior Court, left intact the rest of the racketeering indictment, which initially included 41 counts.

 

The ruling was not related to a defense effort to disqualify Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga., who is leading the case. A ruling on that matter, which has made headlines for weeks after it was revealed that Ms. Willis had engaged in a romantic relationship with another prosecutor, is expected by the end of the week.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

I don't have to update the title since Trump still has the record for most indictments by a former president 

[skinsmarydu]

Talking heads are saying he won't toss Fani if he's already dropped charges. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[JCB]

The famous socks case, holy hell. But Brandon is loopy, sure.

[China]

Manhattan Prosecutors Propose a 30-Day Delay of Trump Trial

 

Less than two weeks before Donald J. Trump is set to go on trial on criminal charges in Manhattan, the prosecutors who brought the case proposed a delay of up to 30 days, a startling development in the first prosecution of a former American president.

 

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which accused Mr. Trump of covering up a sex scandal during and after the 2016 presidential campaign, said the delay would give Mr. Trump’s lawyers time to review a new batch of records. The office only recently obtained the records from federal prosecutors, who years ago investigated the same hush-money payments at the center of the case.

 

The potential postponement of the trial, which is scheduled to start with jury selection on March 25, would represent the latest delay on Mr. Trump’s sprawling legal docket, which includes four criminal cases and several civil lawsuits.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Judge says dismissing Trump documents indictment is 'difficult to see'

 

Former President Donald Trump was in a Florida courtroom Thursday, where his attorneys argued for the dismissal of his federal classified documents case.

 

Special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges against Trump, was also in attendance.

 

Without making any rulings from the bench, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon expressed skepticism regarding the motions to dismiss the indictment throughout the hearing, suggesting that dismissing it based on the Presidential Records Act would be "difficult to see."

 

She began the hearing without making any mention of the case's trial date and instead directed the defense lawyers to begin arguing their motion to dismiss based on unconditional vagueness.

 

"These charges must be struck and dismissed," defense lawyer Emil Bove argued.

 

Bove suggested that Trump is a victim of a double standard compared to other presidents who allegedly retained sensitive information, directly mentioning the conduct of Presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Joe Biden.

 

Cannon responded to the defense argument with skepticism -- at one point suggesting the defense motion was "premature" -- and peppered Bove with questions about definitions and hypotheticals of Trump's conduct.

 

"When does it become unauthorized?" Cannon asked.

 

"President Trump designated the records as personal when he took them out of the White House," Bove said.

 

"What is your definition of unauthorized?" Cannon later asked.

 

"Judge -- I don't have one, and that is why the statute is unconstitutionally vague applied to President Trump," Bove said.

 

Cannon also said she was skeptical of dismissing Trump's classified documents case based on unconstitutional vagueness, describing the request as "quite an extraordinary step."

"It's warranted here," Bove said.

 

At one point, Cannon asked special counsel prosecutor Jay Bratt if any "high ranking official" including a president or vice president has been charged with mishandling classified documents.

 

"There was never a situation remotely similar to this one," Bratt said.

 

Cannon also asked Bratt if he was familiar with cases where individuals who "no longer had clearances" were prosecuted.

 

"I have had a Q clearance for 15 years, I can view classified documents in a SCIF, I can't take, I can't take them home and leave them in my basement," Bratt said.

 

In his argument, Bratt argued the documents in question "were not created by Trump" and instead are documents that were provided to the former president in classified briefings.

 

Defense attorney Todd Blanche argued that Trump had the authority to designate his records as personal – rather than presidential -- before he removed documents from the White House. According to Blanche, Trump's actions aligned with longstanding approach taken by past presidents.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Oh well, I was sort of hoping that Cannon was inclined to throw out the case so that it could then be appealed and she could be removed as the judge for the case.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[China]

Jack Smith rips Trump ally's far-fetched claim in classified documents case

 

Donald Trump is still pushing the peculiar argument that the Presidential Records Act somehow bars his criminal prosecution in the classified documents case. Ahead of a Thursday hearing on the subject, Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s America First Legal Foundation weighed in with a brief supporting Trump’s claim.

 

But special counsel Jack Smith dismantled the group’s position in a response ahead of the hearing, deeming it “without merit.”

 

By way of background, Trump claims that he had designated sensitive government documents he’s charged with unlawfully retaining as “personal records” under the PRA. From that dubious premise, he says his retention of those records couldn’t have been “unauthorized” under a criminal statute he’s charged with violating. As part of his far-fetched argument, he says it was wrong for the National Archives and Records Administration, which handles presidential records, to even refer the matter to the Justice Department in what ultimately led to Trump’s indictment. 

 

The "America First" legal group picks up on the referral point. The amicus brief questioned a federal agency’s ability to make criminal referrals without specific authorization to do so. It argued that NARA lacked such authorization and so the indictment must be dismissed. But all of those contentions, Smith wrote, “are wrong.”

 

The special counsel explained that no such authorization is required for criminal referrals and that under the Miller group’s theory, NARA couldn’t, for example, report if someone illegally brought a firearm into a NARA facility. Smith added that even if such authorization were required, NARA had it, and that its officials “had reason to believe that classified information may have been lost, possibly compromised, or disclosed to an unauthorized person, and further had reason to believe that a criminal violation may have occurred.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

[Die Hard]

1 minute ago, China said:

That’s pretty freaking dark. And awful.

[China]

Judge Denies One of Trump’s Efforts to Derail Documents Case

 

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s prosecution on charges of mishandling classified documents on Thursday rejected one of his motions seeking to have the case dismissed, the first time she has denied a legal attack on the indictment.

 

In a two-page order, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, rebuffed arguments by Mr. Trump’s lawyers that the central statute in the indictment, the Espionage Act, was impermissibly vague and should be struck down entirely.

 

The decision by Judge Cannon followed a nearly daylong hearing in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., where she entertained arguments from Mr. Trump’s legal team and from prosecutors in the office of the special counsel Jack Smith about the Espionage Act. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Califan007 The Constipated]

20 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

 

I like how the idiotic interviewer nods in agreement as Trump makes the claim that BleachBit is an acid that can destroy everything within 10 miles lol 😂...

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

Sorry, but that's a BS ruling.  He ruled based on looks rather than the law.  There was no evidence presented that there was any wrongdoing.

[Ball Security]

I didn’t dive into the details, but I never understood the remove Davis angle. If it was a relationship with a court clerk or judge, then yeah, definitely. But a co-worker? I don’t see how that puts a defendant at a disadvantage. 

[PleaseBlitz]

19 minutes ago, China said:

Sorry, but that's a BS ruling.  He ruled based on looks rather than the law.  There was no evidence presented that there was any wrongdoing.

 

It doesn't even matter.  The prosecution has the burden of proving Trump's guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.  Whether or not a workplace relationship exists has no bearing on whether the evidence exists to prove Trump's guilt. I've always seen this as simply an effort to poison the well of public approval, but not legally significant. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Pro-tip for attorneys and Ms. Willis when they broach this subject with their non-attorney friends…

 

Sometimes, out here in the real world, a big work project comes along and you have to move “drilling your coworkers” down the priority list for a few weeks…maybe even longer!

 

Crazy right??  But that’s how it is out here in the killing fields.

[Jumbo]

19 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

  

Gee, I thought spearfeather would be on patrol and call this out. Must be napping. 😛😁👹

 

[Fergasun]

No issues with the ruling. 

 

There were 3 items - (1) direct conflict of interest due to the financial intermingling with Wade, (1b) appearance of improriety due to relationship, (2) forensic prejudice as a result of public statements. 

 

The judge smacked down the direct conflict of interest, saying Fani was not trying to extend the case -- in fact they wanted a quick trial.  Appearance of impropriety, Fani lost this one.  It's pretty straightforward appearance of conflict.  Forensic prejudice, also didn't go Fani's way.... judge gave her a warning. 

 

Unfortunately, this sideshow has delayed the case past the election.