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

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

Judge in Trump classified documents case tells prosecutors that a mid-December trial date would be too soon

 

US District Judge Aileen Cannon signaled she is likely to push back the start of a trial in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case beyond the mid-December date proposed by federal prosecutors – but appeared deeply skeptical of arguments from Donald Trump’s lawyers that he couldn’t get a fair trial while running for president.

 

During the hearing in Fort Pierce, Florida, Cannon told the prosecutors that their timeline was “compressed” and said that cases like this take more time.

 

Cannon did not decide on a trial date but said she plans to “promptly” issue an order on the matter.

 

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team and lawyers for Trump appeared Tuesday for the first time in front of Cannon, who will preside over the criminal case Smith has brought against the former president.

 

The judge also pressed the Trump legal team to commit to a timeline for at least some of the steps in the pre-trial process. The defense attorneys told Cannon that they believed they would be able to review enough discovery by November to be able to suggest a potential trial date.

 

An attorney for Trump claimed that the public viewed the special documents case as a top 2024 contender and the administration of his chief political rival “squaring off” in the courtroom – prompting aggressive push back from a lawyer for the special counsel.

 

“The government says the claim is flat out false,” said prosecutor David Harbach, who pointed to the appointment of the special counsel and how that removed the potential for “political influence.”

 

“There has been none,” Harbach said of political influence, noting that the current and former prosecutors on Smith’s team all served in career roles and that none of them were political appointees. “They are all here because a grand jury in this district returned an indictment of these defendants and they deserve a trial.”

 

Harbach was responding to comment made by Trump attorney Christopher Kise, who was arguing that the 2024 election and the publicity it would bring to the case would make it impossible to have a fair trial before the election.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

"Very odd": Legal experts criticize Judge Cannon's order for "legitimizing" Trump's delay tactics

 

Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed federal district court judge overseeing the Justice Department's documents case against the former president, denied the special counsel's motion for a protective order in the case Wednesday because the defense and the prosecution have not conferred sufficiently.

 

According to the Guardian and the Independent, Cannon told the Department of Justice that it can refile the motion for the protective order, required under section three of the Classified Information Procedures Act, once it has adequately conferred with attorneys for Trump and the personal aide charged alongside him, Walt Nauta.

 

The CIPA governs the use of classified materials during a case with section three requiring the court — at the government's request — to issue an order "to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case."

 

The DOJ reached out to the defense Friday regarding the proposed protective order but filed the motion Monday after not receiving any engagement from them that day or over the weekend, Bloomberg News reports. In the Wednesday hearing, Cannon told the DOJ that it needed to give Trump and Nauta's legal teams more time to negotiate the terms for handling the sensitive materials.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Special counsel's target letter to Trump in 2020 election probe cites three federal statutes

 

The letter that former President Donald Trump received from special counsel Jack Smith informing him that he is a target of the federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election mentions three federal statutes related to the deprivation of rights, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and tampering with a witness.

 

Those three federal statutes were included in the letter Trump said he received on Sunday night, according to two attorneys with direct knowledge of the document. The context surrounding the statutes cited in the target letter is unclear, and their inclusion in the letter doesn't necessarily mean Trump will be charged with related counts or that an indictment would be limited to only those three statutes.

 

The details of the letter were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Sounds like they're starting there, and and some point there will be superceding indictments.

[Bang]

Don't the CIA have a "Heart Attack Hair Spray" they can put in his room or something?

 

~Bang

[mistertim]

7 hours ago, China said:

"Very odd": Legal experts criticize Judge Cannon's order for "legitimizing" Trump's delay tactics

 

Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed federal district court judge overseeing the Justice Department's documents case against the former president, denied the special counsel's motion for a protective order in the case Wednesday because the defense and the prosecution have not conferred sufficiently.

 

According to the Guardian and the Independent, Cannon told the Department of Justice that it can refile the motion for the protective order, required under section three of the Classified Information Procedures Act, once it has adequately conferred with attorneys for Trump and the personal aide charged alongside him, Walt Nauta.

 

The CIPA governs the use of classified materials during a case with section three requiring the court — at the government's request — to issue an order "to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case."

 

The DOJ reached out to the defense Friday regarding the proposed protective order but filed the motion Monday after not receiving any engagement from them that day or over the weekend, Bloomberg News reports. In the Wednesday hearing, Cannon told the DOJ that it needed to give Trump and Nauta's legal teams more time to negotiate the terms for handling the sensitive materials.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Jack Smith needs to get this ****ing idiot off this case, pronto. MAGAs don't change their stripes.

 

She's absolutely going to try and help Trump, though she probably won't be overt enough about it to do something like outright grant their request to delay the trial until after the election. She'll do the "death by 1,000 cuts" technique and do what she can to styme the DoJ in any small way she can.

Edited July 20, 2023 by mistertim

[LadySkinsFan]

I definitely don't trust her to be impartial in releasing court orders. 

[Larry]

I'm quite certain that DOJ is aware that they're playing chess against the judge. 
 

They're "budgeting for it". And I'm pretty sure they have several people on the case who are better chess players than this judge is. 

[Bang]

We can hope so, but hoping people were able to stop the obvious is sort of what got us here.

 

~Bang

[TheGreatBuzz]

38 minutes ago, Bang said:

We can hope so, but hoping people were able to stop the obvious is sort of what got us here.

 

~Bang

 

Like I suggested before, buy some marshmallows and watch it all burn.  We have no effect on it.

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[tshile]

The problem with the sentencing guidelines is they allow for discretion especially in unique circumstances 

 

as such, it’s my understanding any sentencing in anything for trump is totally up in the air and could easily be decided not to be bound by the sentencing guidelines. 
 

Assuming convictions - I think no matter the charges or judge or district, barring a charge of actual treason or sedition or whatever the correct term is, you’re going to see a sentence that appeals to discretion and outrages all of you. 

[China]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

The problem with the sentencing guidelines is they allow for discretion especially in unique circumstances 

 

as such, it’s my understanding any sentencing in anything for trump is totally up in the air and could easily be decided not to be bound by the sentencing guidelines. 
 

Assuming convictions - I think no matter the charges or judge or district, barring a charge of actual treason or sedition or whatever the correct term is, you’re going to see a sentence that appeals to discretion and outrages all of you. 

 

Does that mean a sentence that is severely lenient wouldn't outrage you?  I know it wouldn't surprise you, but that's not the same.

[mistertim]

I think sentencing is where we'd likely see the most blatant favoritism by Cannon. She'll undoubtedly give him the absolute minimum possible, and will do whatever she can to keep him out of prison entirely if possible. Though my understanding is that while judges do decide sentence, they're still limited to the sentencing structures. Can a judge really just throw out sentencing guidelines when they feel like it due to "unique circumstances"?

 

If so, and the "unique circumstance" is that he's a former POTUS, then that's basically standing up and yelling "A president is above the law" from a mountaintop. Because if he can commit crimes, be found guilty by a jury of his peers, and still never be punished, then that's essentially crowning him a king.

[PleaseBlitz]

Anything beyond 10 years is a life sentence. And probably anything beyond 5. 

[mistertim]

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Anything beyond 10 years is a life sentence. And probably anything beyond 5. 

 

Would his age be a factor in the sentencing? And I still assume that even old age doesn't mean a judge can simply ignore sentencing guidelines, right?

[China]

Trump Hush Money Case Will Remain in New York State Court, Judge Rules

 

A judge on Wednesday denied former President Donald J. Trump’s request to move the Manhattan criminal case against him from state to federal court.

 

The federal judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, had signaled in a hearing last month that he was predisposed against moving the case brought by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have charged Mr. Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, stemming from a hush money payment made to a porn star in 2016.

 

Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued the case should be heard in federal court because it related to conduct he engaged in while president.

 

But in the order Judge Hellerstein issued Wednesday, he echoed his contention at the hearing that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had failed to show that the behavior at issue — reimbursements to Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for the hush money payment — was somehow related to the office of the presidency.

 

Judge Hellerstein wrote that the evidence overwhelmingly suggested that the matter involved something personal to the president: “a cover-up of an embarrassing event.”

 

“Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president’s official acts,” he concluded in the order. “It does not reflect in any way the color of the president’s official duties.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by China

[Cooked Crack]

Fulton county prosecutors prepare racketeering charges in Trump inquiry

 

Quote

The Fulton county district attorney investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state of Georgia has developed evidence to charge a sprawling racketeering indictment next month, according to two people briefed on the matter.

 

The racketeering statute in Georgia requires prosecutors to show the existence of an “enterprise” – and a pattern of racketeering activity that is predicated on at least two “qualifying” crimes. 

 

In the Trump investigation, the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, has evidence to pursue a racketeering indictment predicated on statutes related to influencing witnesses and computer trespass, the people said.

 

[tshile]

14 hours ago, China said:

 

Does that mean a sentence that is severely lenient wouldn't outrage you?  I know it wouldn't surprise you, but that's not the same.

in this case, if worse they got is he took the documents and refused to give them back, I will not be outraged because I never really expected him to go to prison for that. You say extremely lenient - my expectation is at worst he’s on some sort of probation lenient probation. And it doesn’t get anymore lenient than that. Maybe just a fine. 
 

I think the people who have wound themselves up over him getting 5, or 10+ years in prison are ridiculous, and they look cute when they start ranting about “above the law” stuff

 

the only way I’ll be outraged is if the judge essentially throws the case out, or if they can prove actual treason with foreign agents and then there’s not a serious penalty. 
 

but if he gets some light version of probation or just a fine, I think there’s lots of people that’ll blow a gasket and go on long rants about a rigged system etc. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Ball Security]

42 minutes ago, tshile said:

in this case, if worse they got is he took the documents and refused to give them back, I will not be outraged because I never really expected him to go to prison for that. You say extremely lenient - my expectation is at worst he’s on some sort of probation lenient probation. And it doesn’t get anymore lenient than that. Maybe just a fine. 
 

I think the people who have wound themselves up over him getting 5, or 10+ years in prison are ridiculous, and they look cute when they start ranting about “above the law” stuff

 

the only way I’ll be outraged is if the judge essentially throws the case out, or if they can prove actual treason with foreign agents and then there’s not a serious penalty. 
 

but if he gets some light version of probation or just a fine, I think there’s lots of people that’ll blow a gasket and go on long rants about a rigged system etc. 

I agree. I too think that anyone who is convicted of withholding documents in a Federal investigation so they could not be introduced to a grand jury and who is convicted of making false statements and representations to the FBI should get a pass.

 

Why should anyone in this country have to comply with the FBI? It’s bull****. If the FBI accuses me of wrongdoing, I would definitely be allowed conspire with others to withhold evidence and make false statements to the FBI.

 

Pro tip: if the FBI ever questions you, just lie. There are no repercussions.

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

I agree. I too think that anyone who is convicted of withholding documents in a Federal investigation so they could not be introduced to a grand jury and who is convicted of making false statements and representations to the FBI should get a pass.

 

Why should anyone in this country have to comply with the FBI? It’s bull****. If the FBI accuses me of wrongdoing, I would definitely be allowed conspire with others to withhold evidence and make false statements to the FBI.

 

Pro tip: if the FBI ever questions you, just lie. There are no repercussions.

See. This is what I’m talking about. 
 

I told you all when the indictment was unsealed and there was nothing more serious than mishandling classified documents, that this case wasn’t going to work out in a way that ends with him in prison. 
 

the one you want is the 1/6 investigation. And you need it to have a charge about seditious conspiracy. 
 

I bet if we drew a venn diagram of people that will be seriously upset if he doesn’t get prison time, and people upset at how long the investigations are taking, they’d all be in the middle. 
 

investigations, trials, and federal sentencing guidelines all have wiggle room based on context. And being former president and current leading nominee for a major party for the next election is a hell of a unique context. Investigations are going to take way longer, conviction way harder, and penalties significantly less severe. 
 

add to it trumps long history of escaping severe punishments, and it being people under him that actually get in real trouble, and we have a lot of people with (in my opinion) unrealistic expectations. 
 

All of this seems super obvious to me 🤷‍♂️ 

[Ball Security]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

See. This is what I’m talking about. 
 

I told you all when the indictment was unsealed and there was nothing more serious than mishandling classified documents, that this case wasn’t going to work out in a way that ends with him in prison. 
 

the one you want is the 1/6 investigation. And you need it to have a charge about seditious conspiracy. 
 

I bet if we drew a venn diagram of people that will be seriously upset if he doesn’t get prison time, and people upset at how long the investigations are taking, they’d all be in the middle. 
 

investigations, trials, and federal sentencing guidelines all have wiggle room based on context. And being former president and current leading nominee for a major party for the next election is a hell of a unique context. Investigations are going to take way longer, conviction way harder, and penalties significantly less severe. 
 

add to it trumps long history of escaping severe punishments, and it being people under him that actually get in real trouble, and we have a lot of people with (in my opinion) unrealistic expectations. 
 

All of this seems super obvious to me 🤷‍♂️ 

I said I agree with you. Lying to the FBI is no big whoop.

[tshile]

I guess I should add the Fulton stuff may wind up also being a case to look forward to possibly real prison time. If they can prove he was actually trying to rig the election, that one may have legs to it. 
 

unfortunately I think they said the other day it’s expanding, so it seems to me that one is going to drag out even longer than the 1/6 stuff. But maybe not. 

Just now, Ball Security said:

I said I agree with you. Lying to the FBI is no big whoop.

The passive aggressive posting works well for you 

[PleaseBlitz]

51 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Not sure why @LadySkinsFan gave this a thumbs down.  This seems like great timing from my perspective.  #1, it's not after the election, as Team Trump wanted.  #2, its after Trump is likely to have sewn up the nomination (Super Tuesday is March 5, and 12 states including states with huge populations like TX and CA are holding primaries), so the GOP primary will be effectively over and the general will have effectively begun, and Trump will be in ****ing court for stealing national security secrets.