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

tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, China said:

 

Well after they raised their hands?  Stop the video at 39 seconds.  His hand is up while everybody else's is up.

 

 

image.thumb.png.fe475e0e90f75ae82e775851e7082b66.png

 

Right. They raise their hands. 
 

he then does this finger wagging thing

 

they specifically ask him if he’s raising his hand

 

He laughingly says no, and then goes on to blast trump. He shortly thereafter gets booed for what he has to say about trump and his actions…

 

its a video. It’s beyond me how we’re seeing two totally different things but I don’t really know what else I’m supposed to say. It’s a video, I can’t really add something additional that isn’t already there. 🤷‍♂️ 

Edited by tshile
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Apparently Meadows testifying is surpising a bunch of people:

 

Meadows Testifies in Bid to Move Georgia Trump Case to Federal Court

 

A battle over whether to move the Georgia racketeering case against Donald J. Trump and his allies to federal court began in earnest on Monday, when Mark Meadows, a former White House chief of staff, testified in favor of such a move before a federal judge in Atlanta.

 

Under questioning by his own lawyers and by prosecutors, Mr. Meadows stated emphatically on the witness stand that he believed that his actions detailed in the indictment fell within the scope of his duties as chief of staff. But he also appeared unsure of himself at times, saying often that he could not recall details of events in late 2020 and early 2021. “My wife will tell you sometimes that I forget to take out the trash,” he told Judge Steve C. Jones of United States District Court.

 

At another point, he asked whether he was properly complying with the judge’s instructions, saying, “I’m in enough trouble as it is.”

 

The effort to shift the case to federal court is the first major legal fight since the indictment of Mr. Trump, Mr. Meadows and 17 others was filed by Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga. The indictment charges Mr. Trump and his allies with interfering in the 2020 presidential election in the state. Mr. Meadows is one of several defendants in the case who are trying to move it to federal court; any decision on the issue by a judge could apply to all 19 defendants.

 

In the hearing, Mr. Meadows said that Mr. Trump directed him to set up the now-famous phone call on Jan. 2, 2021, between Mr. Trump and Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State. 

 

Mr. Meadows was cross-examined by Anna Cross, a veteran prosecutor who has worked for district attorneys in three Atlanta area counties. She continually pressed him on what kind of federal policy or interest he was advancing in carrying out what prosecutors have described in court documents as political acts in service of the Trump campaign — and thus not grounds for removal to federal court.

 

Again and again, Mr. Meadows said essentially that his job had been simply to help the president. When Mr. Trump had concerns about elections, he said, the chief of staff’s participation in looking into those concerns was warranted because doing so may have eventually resulted in policy changes concerning election integrity.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

Not sure if committing a Hatch Act violation is within the scope of his federal duties, but we'll see.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is so frustrating to me because to me it’s so easy to separate:

 

doing something that’s supposed to be in performance of your governmental office 

 

using your office to try to do something that has nothing to do with your governmental office. 
 


 

it’s obvious the office of the presidency has nothing to do with elections. Nothing. Not one thing I’m aware of that they official do with elections. 
 

So anything he was doing was on behalf of trump. 
 

the fact he used his governmental power to try to make it happen makes it MORE egregious and does NOT justify removal to federal court because his government job has NOTHING to do with elections. He abused power to try to get what he wanted, but it was not on behalf of his official duties. 

Edited by tshile
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted

Christie’s in a tough position since the RNC made the loyalty pledge a condition of getting on the stage. I’ve heard some longer-format interviews with him and he is very clearly anti-Trump and has the balls to take for-real shots whenever he can. The rest of them are all cowards. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

I know since this is a civilian thing people may think in terms of gray area.  I doubt Trump consulted with OLC regarding the legality of what they were doing. You know, the arm of the WH that protects your legal interests.  I mean, where is the Counsel to the President?  

 

Oh, it was Pat Cippollone.  Oh... according to Wikipedia, Jared Kushner took his legal advice as "whining".  That seems not so smart.  Cippolone is not under indictment? 

 

So if the President orders his Army to shoot civilians, its clearly not legal.  Black and white. If the President orders his staff to commit election fraud, it might appear to be a grey area.   But if his White House lawyer says, "Hey guys, we might be doing something criminal... I am not going to participate."  Than that adds a bit more distinction from gray.  

 

And now (but perhaps much later) we are probably going to hear during the Jan 6 trial that Trump ignored his White House lawyers who told him the fraud claims were bull****. Now that I think about it, this seems so damning! "I am the President, I don't need no lawyers... I can just fire and hand pick my lawyers.  Rudy's a good guy... he's a good lawyer." 

 

I can't imagine the most MAGA person being like, "his lawyer told him he was committing a crime" and not thinking "guilty as hell."  

7 minutes ago, @DCGoldPants said:

"The Pledge" to get on stage. Christie knows he's not going anywhere. Break that pledge on stage next time and lay into everyone else there. 

 

He wants to be paid for Sunday morning news hits forever, anyway. 

The pledge means nothing.  Trump clearly wouldn't follow it.  It's so dumb the GOP Party itself is not defending it's norms... 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted

There are things I think are ok with Christie over the years, but only from the perspective of just how bad the really bad politicians are in comparison.

 

At least he's not flat out evil, or a complete grifter (only occasionally corrupt 😐), nor an ignorant racist, homophobe, moron, or constant liar.

 

But like many others on the GOP side who fit that redeemable description, he still did a fair share of enabling trump during his presidency at times, and put party and self over country and democracy at times when it really mattered.

 

I've long made passing, generalized, references to the fact that my views include multiple, significant issues I have with some  aspects, policies, and tendencies of dems as a governing party. 

 

Relatedly, I routinely, if only briefly these days, mention the reality that there are still tens of millions (how many "tens" is debatable of course) of people who identify as republican but aren't racist, morons, etc etc etc and are "basically decent people."

 

 

But for me, some years ago, I arrived at the stance that if someone claimed to be such a republican they should be devoting 90% of their political activity to calling out trump and all things maga, constantly criticizing the support of the majority of their base for supporting garbage, and only a minor effort in going after whatever garbage the Dems are arguably guilty of in governing.

 

This because of what, imv, should be rational, decent, patriotic priorities.

 

This behavior is perhaps best exemplified by members of the Lincoln project or the republican accountability group as examples.

 

But as time goes on and I see what I'm still seeing, I'm ever closer to a more extreme position: that such republicans should now stop identifying as such and maybe go with "independent."

 

Still make the case that Dems are too fundamentally flawed from your pov to join that party but decide that the brand "republican" is now so tarnished as it needs to be shunned by ALL decent people until maga world is reduced in potency by orders of magnitude.

 

All hands on deck imo.

 

And I know it's an extreme take and asking a lot from the people it applies to.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The Scottsboro defendants' trial started within 2 weeks of indictment. Talk about a speedy (foregone conclusion) trial. So it was overturned. Seven months out isn't too speedy.

Especially when the knucklehead on trial knew this was coming.  For years.

He and his attorneys are the biggest idiots of my lifetime, other than Dan Snyder, of course. 

Edited by skinsmarydu
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted

Could go in the Rudy thread but could have bigger implications. 

 

Quote

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office has repeatedly grilled witnesses about Rudy Giuliani’s drinking on and after election day, investigating whether Donald Trump was knowingly relying on an inebriated attorney while trying to overturn a presidential election.

 

In their questioning of multiple witnesses, Smith’s team of federal investigators have asked questions about how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power, according to a source who’s been in the room with Smith’s team, one witness’s attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter. 

 

The special counsel’s team has also asked these witnesses if Trump had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani’s drinking habits, and if Trump had ever claimed Giuliani’s drinking impacted his decision making or judgment. Federal investigators have inquired about whether the then-president was warned, including after Election Night 2020, about Giuliani’s allegedly excessive drinking. They have also asked certain witnesses if Trump was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated. 

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/rudy-giuliani-jack-smith-donald-trump-jan6-1234814129/

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Dan T. said:

 

 

A really interesting point she made at the end.

 

How will Trump react during the trial to not only a woman, but a Black woman, giving him orders and telling him when he can and can't speak? I have a feeling it will absolutely drive him up the wall.

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

skinsmarydu

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Could go in the Rudy thread but could have bigger implications. 

 

 

If Trump was such a genius (and a tee-totaller), he should've recognized complete incompetence. 

 

Guilty of being stupid and hiring a stupid attorney. 

 

NEXT! 

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

China

Posted
Posted

Mark Meadows gave Fani Willis what she needs to convict: ex-conservative columnist

 

Former President Donald Trump's one-time White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows fought hard on Monday in court to try to convince a federal judge his trial in the Georgia election racketeering case should be moved from state court to federal court — but in doing so, he actually weakened any possible defense he may have had for his actions, arguedWashington Post columnist Lisa Rubin.

 

"He is so desperate, he waived his Fifth Amendment rights, testified at length in federal court at Monday’s hearing on removal of his case and seemed to leave himself wide open to prosecution for his involvement in the phony-elector scheme," wrote Rubin, a former conservative columnist turned against the GOP by Trump. "The first question is why he so fears state court" — since even if he succeeds, he still gets tried under state charges, and still can't be pardoned if convicted.

 

The best theory, Rubin said, is one hinted at by other legal experts: he hopes he'll draw a more conservative judge who will find in favor of his argument that he is immune from prosecution because he was acting in an official capacity when he pushed to overturn elections based on conspiracy theories.

 

The problem for Meadows, Rubin continued, is that he is actually admitting to much of what the prosecution alleges in his testimony to try to get the case removed.

 

"In testifying for several hours and submitting himself to cross-examination, Meadows let on how closely he was involved in Trump’s shenanigans, revealed that he had no reason to doubt then-Attorney General William P. Barr’s assessment that there was no fraud, and made clear that a good deal of what he did was political," wrote Rubin. This means that "whether he winds up in federal or state court, he has admitted to facts that might well seal his prosecution if the immunity defense fails." Meadows also blundered, she added, by claiming campaign activities are part of his official federal duties — which is explicitly illegal under the Hatch Act. And he admitted to several conversations about the plot to overturn the election.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Haha 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 4
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...