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

[LadySkinsFan]

18 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

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.

 

Well, if court cases are delayed past the election, it goes to show the electorate the lengths that Trump will go to manipulate the court system. A real time demonstration of what We the People can look forward to if by some remote happenstance Trump actually, legally wins in 2024. It may also backfire on him in distancing the majority of the electorate in refusing to bow down to fascism.

[PleaseBlitz]

2 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

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.

 

Oh yes, the judgement shown by Fani and Friends is abysmal given the attention being paid to this case (involving a ****ing POTUS).  She could have set herself up for stardom, and threw it away for some dick. 

[China]

Nathan Wade quit the Georgia investigation of Donald Trump after a judge’s ruling about his relationship with Fani Willis.

 

Nathan J. Wade has resigned from his role leading the investigation of Donald J. Trump, and Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, has accepted it, according to letters from the two prosecutors just released by the D.A.'s office.

 

In a letter accepting Nathan Wade’s resignation from the Trump prosecution, Fani Willis writes: “I compliment you for the professionalism and dignity you have shown over the last 865 days, as you have endured threats against you and your family, as well as unjustified attacks in the media and in court on your reputation as a lawyer.”

 

Wade’s resignation paves the way for Willis to keep pursuing the case against Donald J. Trump and his allies after today's ruling from Judge Scott McAfee.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

A little analysis of the ruling:

 

 

[Destino]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Oh yes, the judgement shown by Fani and Friends is abysmal given the attention being paid to this case (involving a ****ing POTUS).  She could have set herself up for stardom, and threw it away for some dick. 

Forget her fame, she’s working a case that will be in the history books. Anything that ****s this up has far reaching consequences beyond Fani personally. I bet a lot of democrats were hoping that she’d step aside and put someone competent in her place. Though I doubt many would trust her judgement enough to do even that at this stage. 
 

if she loses this case, she’s going to find out who her real friends are. 

[China]

Judge Delays Trump’s Manhattan Trial Until at Least Mid-April

 

A New York judge on Friday delayed Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan until at least mid-April, postponing the only one of Mr. Trump’s four criminal cases that appeared set to begin.

 

The delay — lasting 30 days from the judge’s Friday decision — stems from the recent disclosure of more than 100,000 pages of records that may have some bearing on the case. Citing the records, Mr. Trump’s lawyers sought a 90-day delay of the trial, while the Manhattan prosecutors that brought the case proposed a postponement of up to 30 days.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[TheGreatBuzz]

 

 

 

[China]

They're going to have a hearing on March 25 to go over this production of documents by the SDNY.  The trial date will be set after the hearing when they go over what's going on with this new info and how long it will take the defense to review it.  So at a minimum the trial is pushed back to April 15th, but could be pushed back farther depending on what the outcome of the hearing is.

[China]

6 hours ago, Destino said:

Forget her fame, she’s working a case that will be in the history books. Anything that ****s this up has far reaching consequences beyond Fani personally. I bet a lot of democrats were hoping that she’d step aside and put someone competent in her place. Though I doubt many would trust her judgement enough to do even that at this stage. 
 

if she loses this case, she’s going to find out who her real friends are. 

 

Your assumption is that there is someone more competent than Fani that can step in.  Her staff that defended her during the hearing didn't do such a hot job.  I'm not convinced that there is someone better that can just step in.  You have to realize that the pool they would be pulling from is local (she is a county AG, not even a state AG), they don't have a pool of top notch DOJ lawyers they can pull from to take over.  

[China]

The Stormy Daniels Story Is Darker This Time

 

There’s a scene in the new documentary about Stormy Daniels from April 2023, when Daniels, buried in her plush hotel duvet in a room overlooking Tower Bridge in London, learns her 11-year-old daughter had just ended her school year with straight A’s. Daniels had been flown to the U.K. to appear on Piers Morgan’s talk show, as well as on Good Morning Britain. But instead of looking energized by her star treatment, she appears quite simply exhausted. When she explains the text from her daughter to the documentary filmmakers crowding her room, she fights back tears.

 

“Instead of being there with her, I’m here talking about an ex-president’s penis,” she says.

 

In the documentary, Stormy—which comes out Monday on Pea****—there are many moments when Daniels seems to confront, bleakly, the absurdity of her situation. There is no playbook for an adult film actress who finds herself at the center of a political scandal involving the president of the United States, and Daniels, the documentary makes clear, hasn’t been reveling in her explosive fame and new jet-setting lifestyle since she became a public figure in 2018. Daniels, you’ll recall, first entered the public eye in January 2018 when the Wall Street Journal reported on a $130,000 hush money payment from Trump over a sexual encounter with her from 2006.

 

In that story’s wake, Daniels projected a defiant, provocative, retort-ready persona to the public, all too aware of how that public would gleefully consume the entry of an adult film actress onto the political scene. But the Daniels of the documentary feels no such empowerment. She feels like she was along for the ride, just like everyone else. And she is miserable.

 

At that moment in the film, the toll of the overwhelming attention, and with it the common belief that she was seeking fame and financial gain, is becoming apparent. In the early weeks of Daniels’ celebrity, she was swamped by media attention. Her family life fell apart. She fled her home and left her daughter with her husband out of concern for their safety. Even as she had moments of fun, declaring her day on SNL the best of her life, she fretted about her safety and her future.

 

In nearly every scene from 2018, Daniels expresses intense paranoia. She recalls a friend telling her that the Republican Party likes “to make their problems go away.” She tells the journalist Denver Nicks, who shot much of the footage used in the early parts of the documentary (later used by Stormy’s director Sarah Gibson) that she had, in part, agreed to the hush money payment because she wanted a “money trail” linking her to Trump “so he could not have me killed.” She records a last will and testament. In one scene, as her daughter plays in a shopping mall, she tells Nicks that they need something in writing to ensure he retains the footage “in case something happens.”

 

For many in the audience, Daniels’ belief in a looming assassination might seem melodramatic. And it’s true that the tweets directed at her that appear on the screen during this earlier period smack more of virulent misogyny than violent tendencies. But between 2018 and 2023, there’s been an insurrection, Donald Trump lost political power, and a faction of his fans has grown angrier. In one particularly disturbing scene, on her way back from her appearance on Good Morning Britain, she reads out tweets responding to the news of Trump’s indictments. Over protests of a filmmaker, she reads off a list of ominous threats.

 

“Back in 2018, it was stuff like ‘liar,’ ‘slut,’ ‘gold digger,’ ” she says. “This time around it’s very different. It is direct threats, it’s, ‘I’m going to come to your house and slit your throat.’ ‘Your daughter should be euthanized.’ They’re not even using bot accounts; they’re using real accounts.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Riggo-toni]

I don't have any sympathy for Daniels at all.  She did this entirely to herself.  She wanted the publicity to further her career.  Yes, Trump is a scumbag, but she is not a victim.

[LadySkinsFan]

We didn't know about her involvement until Cohen testified about the payment and how it was handled in the Trump Org books, fraudulently as legal services. 

 

I'm guessing that she was approached about a payoff on the orders of Trump because he didn't want his buying of sex to come out on the campaign trail, like the Access Hollywood video. We really don't know what came first: the video or the payoffs to two women. BTW, the other woman who got paid we don't hear much from her. So we don't know if she received the wrath of the MAGAts. 

 

I believe her that she wanted a payment trail to Trump. And in 2018 when it became public, the misogynist turds started with the "merely" misogynistic communications and continue even to today with the truly violent communication to her and her loved ones. 

 

Anything she can do to protect herself is okay with me including her telling her story. The NY trial about the payment will bring her more publicity because she's a witness who must testify. She can't get out of it. The violent communication and perhaps actions are going to increase exponentially. It's as if she's the one on trial except the vile, creepy, soon to be criminally convicted, fascist ex president. 

 

 

Edited March 16 by LadySkinsFan

[China]

Glenn Kirschner raised a frightening possibility:

 

 

[Fergasun]

To summarize the videos, because they take a bit of time to get to.

 

She dismissed Trump's motion without predjudice and without citing any case law.  The concern is that Trump could raise it again at trial, and she could dismiss the case after jury is seated and it's done.  In fact, it sounds like she encouraged this.   I have heard this argument before and it seems crazy.  No judge has ever found the Espionage Act too vague. But, she is gonna keep punting and delaying the case.  

 

Joyce Vance has an article on this and how insane what the Judge is ruling.

 

 

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/snarkier-takes-tonight

[Simmsy]

23 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

To summarize the videos, because they take a bit of time to get to.

 

She dismissed Trump's motion without predjudice and without citing any case law.  The concern is that Trump could raise it again at trial, and she could dismiss the case after jury is seated and it's done.  In fact, it sounds like she encouraged this.   I have heard this argument before and it seems crazy.  No judge has ever found the Espionage Act too vague. But, she is gonna keep punting and delaying the case.  

 

Joyce Vance has an article on this and how insane what the Judge is ruling.

 

 

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/snarkier-takes-tonight

 

I keep hearing "Jack Smith is going get her removed", "Jack Smith is going to do this and that". Jack Smith is starting to be as effective as Comey, Mueller and everyone else.

Edited March 16 by Simmsy

[Fergasun]

18 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

 

I keep hearing "Jack Smith is going get her removed", "Jack Smith is going to do this and that". Jack Smith is starting to be as effective as Comey, Mueller and everyone else.

No one smart is saying that.  I have heard, "It's impossible to remove a judge."  Certainly legal community is acting like Smith can't appeal a winning judgement.  I think he could and argue that "this issue is not one that can be brought up after a jury is seated -- and BTW, this is the third time that she has so blatently favored Trump that she should be off the case."  But guess what?  That goes to the 11th Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court.  And that adds more months to the case. So he has to balance, "roll the dice that she won't rule 29 him" or find some other new way to screw him over like she is signalling here.  I mean, we should already expect her to screw the prosecution anyway. 

 

I really am not convinced that a President can just drop all criminal cases against himself. That would mean they can be treated like a "king".  And given that the voters know he has these cases scheduled, its wholly different than indicting a sitting President. 

[Fergasun]

Ok.  I deeped dive this "Rule 29" shtuff to see if I buy that Judge Cannon can just acquit Trump without a jury verdict (or after the government's case.)   While, yes, she notionally can... she still has to follow the law.  She can still get reviewed by the 11th circuit.   So, I don't get why all the liberal legal experts are saying she will acquit Trump and it won't get appealed.   I think someone has been spreading and repeating bullhockey.  Which makes sense.  I think these people want to see her get kicked off the case.

 

This is from 11th Circuit cases.  

 

Here is the legal standard from a Rule 29 ruling.  Second is an appeal of  a Rule 29 ruling.  

 

 

834 F.3d 1206 (2016)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Carmen GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Quote

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, and drawing all reasonable credibility choices in favor of the jury's guilty verdict, as we are required to do, see United States v. Boffil-Rivera, 607 F.3d 736, 740 (11th Cir. 2010), the essential facts presented at trial are these..

Citation ---

 390 F.3d 1319 (2004)  UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Brenda J. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellee

Quote

On appeal, the Government argues that the district court erred in granting a post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal, contending that it improperly viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the Defendant and incorrectly credited the portions of her testimony that conflicted with the Government's evidence. We agree.

So how do these appeals exist if Rule 29 is absolute.  

[LadySkinsFan]

If double jeopardy attaches after the jury is sworn in, that's it. The government can't appeal that ruling by her to set aside the case.

 

That's why the ex government lawyers are up in arms about her rulings because they know how these rulings of hers are used different judges. 

 

Personally, because she's so unskilled and uneducated about federal laws, someone from team Trump must be telling her what to do. I expect that Team Smith is looking into this on the downlow. 

[Simmsy]

4 hours ago, Fergasun said:

No one smart is saying that.  I have heard, "It's impossible to remove a judge."  Certainly legal community is acting like Smith can't appeal a winning judgement.  I think he could and argue that "this issue is not one that can be brought up after a jury is seated -- and BTW, this is the third time that she has so blatently favored Trump that she should be off the case."  But guess what?  That goes to the 11th Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court.  And that adds more months to the case. So he has to balance, "roll the dice that she won't rule 29 him" or find some other new way to screw him over like she is signalling here.  I mean, we should already expect her to screw the prosecution anyway. 

 

I really am not convinced that a President can just drop all criminal cases against himself. That would mean they can be treated like a "king".  And given that the voters know he has these cases scheduled, its wholly different than indicting a sitting President. 

 

I've heard that all over for a very long time. Apparently, since Cannon has a precedent of weird behavior with Trump, she was put on alert. The 11th circuit is ready to jump and protect the court's integrity. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, so i don't know. However, I heard this a lot, I'm still hearing this said today.

 

The DOJ screwed the pooch on this anyways, Garland was not the person we needed in a time of war.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

12 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

I don't have any sympathy for Daniels at all.  She did this entirely to herself.  She wanted the publicity to further her career.  Yes, Trump is a scumbag, but she is not a victim.

 

 

She did what to herself?

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

 

[China]

Judge declines Trump’s request to block Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels testimony

 

Former President Trump’s hush money judge will allow Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels to testify at the trial over Trump’s objections. 

 

In two separate decisions issued Monday, Judge Juan Merchan ruled on more than a dozen requests between the two sides to exclude various evidence.  

 

Merchan’s ruling allows Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) office to tell the jury a broad story about three people who say they were paid hush money by Cohen, Trump’s former fixer, to stay quiet about their salacious accusations against Trump. 

 

Prosecutors have looked to portray the payment as part of a broader “catch-and-kill” scheme to quash negative gossip about Trump leading up to the 2016 presidential election. 

 

Merchan’s ruling enables prosecutors at trial to not only call Daniels and Cohen as witnesses but also former Playboy model Karen McDougal and former Trump World Tower doorman Dino Sajudin. Both claim they also were paid off to withhold salacious accusations about Trump. 

 

Trump sought to block the jury from hearing from Cohen and the three who were allegedly paid off. Merchan rejected those demands, but he did agree to place some limitations on what Sajudin and McDougal can testify about. 

 

Merchan further ruled that any testimony regarding Cohen’s past guilty plea would not “open the door” for Trump’s counsel to introduce evidence regarding past Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaints dismissed against him or the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision not to charge him with campaign finance violations.  

 

The judge’s pair of rulings Monday also resolved a handful of other evidentiary disputes between the two sides. 

 

Last week, Trump in court filings suggested that he intended to present a watered-down, informal advice of counsel defense, wherein the former president would elicit evidence concerning “the presence, involvement and advice of lawyers in relevant events giving rise to the charges in the Indictment.” That evidence, his lawyers said, would be elicited in large part from Cohen. 

 

Merchan ruled Monday that Trump “may not offer, or even suggest,” a so-called presence-of-counsel defense, noting that such a defense would shield Trump from any of the tactic’s downsides, like giving up the right to claim privilege. 

 

“To allow said defense in this matter would effectively permit the defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, without the concomitant obligations that come with it,” Merchan wrote. “The result would undoubtedly be to confuse and mislead the jury. This Court can not endorse such a tactic.” 

 

As he ruled on some of the other matters, the judge chastised Trump’s attorneys for raising arguments the judge said he already rejected. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

[Fergasun]

Newsweek: Cannon's "Insane" Donald Trump Filing Thrashed by Legal Expert

Quote

In the first scenario Cannon required, both parties would outline for a jury's consideration whether a record retained by a former president at the end of their time in office is their personal property and whether the government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that "it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth" in the Presidential Records Act.

...

Quote

The second scenario required by Cannon would lay out the arguments in which a president "has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential" during their presidency.

...

Quote

Bradley P. Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security, described the second scenario as "legally insane." "If that were the case, then just grant Trump's motion to dismiss on PRA grounds so DOJ [can] bring it to the 11th circuit for a quick reversal," Moss wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

And there it is.  Smith will probably respond with another "Judge, you are wrong.  You can't do this or I will appeal."  Or he will straight appeal it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

I remember reading the article that 'splained how Habba ended up in Trump's legal orbit and somehow representing him, and it claimed that her actions in the case below was a huge reason.

 

Now she's being hung out to dry by Trump's camp for her actions in that case lol...

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

She a lawyer who gives a bad name to lawyers. She's a creep just like her client.