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

skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Larry said:


I saw something (here?), said Trump was furious the Judge didn't call him "President". 

How it really happened:

 

Trump atty:  President Trump is present, your Honor.

 

Judge:  Good afternoon, Mr. Trump. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

He can huff & puff all he wants.  Doesn't make him President anymore, again, or anything else.

I think it's been made clear that he'll be the idiot he always has been. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FootballZombie

FootballZombie

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well. He’s right, isn’t he?

 

That not the point.

Dude is on trial and he is complaining that people are making fun of him... in court... rather than mounting an actual defense.

 

Might as well add in all the posts on twitter as co-conspirators lol.

Bunch of posts here too.

I throw myself on the mercy of the court

 

vr7mfa1qpw3a1.gif.be5ff35fa17a8ace20058473bab288a4.gif

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

How it really happened:

 

Trump atty:  President Trump is present, your Honor.

 

Judge:  Good afternoon, Mr. Trump. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

He can huff & puff all he wants.  Doesn't make him President anymore, again, or anything else.

I think it's been made clear that he'll be the idiot he always has been. 

 

Technically the title is for life, I do believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tshile said:

I’m enjoying how when it was posted, everyone laughed cause it was funny cause we all understood what was being communicated

 

and now it’s like it didn’t happen 😂 


I'm enjoying how when it was posted, everyone laughed cause it was funny cause we all understood what was being communicated

 

and then Team Trump claimed it was something else

 

and now somebody's working overtime to try to claim that "everybody" laughed because it was a threat. 
 

Guess I must be different. Because no, I didn't laugh because I saw it as a threat. I laughed, because it wasn't.

  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted (edited)

Trump and his new lawyer are not on the same page about judge’s recusal

 

Donald Trump blared Sunday morning that his legal team would be “immediately asking for recusal” of U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan from his latest criminal case, proclaiming (but not revealing) “very powerful grounds” for the demand.

 

Hours later, his attorney John Lauro would publicly walk back that plan, saying Trump was speaking with a “layman’s political sense” and reacting primarily because Chutkan was nominated to the bench by a Democrat. (She was confirmed 95-0 by the Senate in 2014 after Barack Obama nominated her).

 

“We haven’t made a final decision on that issue at all,” Lauro said on a podcast hosted by Florida defense attorney David Markus. “I think as lawyers we have to be very careful of those issues and handle them with the utmost delicacy.”

 

On Monday morning, Trump was again hammering on the recusal issue, calling Chutkan “the Judge of [special counsel Jack Smith’s] ‘dreams’ (WHO MUST BE RECUSED!).”

 

The back-and-forth on public airwaves and social media underscores the familiar tension between Trump and his legal team, which has been rocked by infighting, departures and conflicting advice in recent months. All of it, however, is secondary to Trump’s own whims and instincts, which have served him politically but are grating against the rules and norms of behavior for those charged with serious federal crimes.

 

Lauro, the newest member of Trump’s team, is working with attorney Todd Blanche on the latest criminal case: charges that Trump conspired to derail the transfer of power to Joe Biden after the 2020 election. But already, Trump has tested Lauro’s public advice in a few ways — primarily by talking about the case at all, and often in incendiary ways.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Edited by China
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Trump argues against more restrictive rules over evidence in 2020 election interference case

 

Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has proposed narrower rules than those sought by prosecutors over what he can do with evidence he is provided in the criminal election interference case.

 

In a new court filing on Monday, Trump’s lawyers leaned heavily into claims that special counsel prosecutors are on a politically motivated campaign to restrict his First Amendment rights.

 

“In a trial about First Amendment rights, the government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights,” the attorneys said in the court filing. “Worse, it does so against its administration’s primary political opponent, during an election season in which the administration, prominent party members, and media allies have campaigned on the indictment and proliferated its false allegations.”

 

Prosecutors have proposed a more restrictive protective order over evidence in the case, pointing to Trump’s public statements that they say could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

 

The latest filing shows that prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers are in disagreement over the most granular details of the so-called protective order, a type of order that can usually be issued in a case without much drama.

 

The Justice Department previously hasn’t asked for any special protections over records Trump’s team already has that may relate to the case, or information that’s already publicly available.

 

Smith’s and Trump’s teams have also fought bitterly in court filings over the schedule for resolving the dispute over the rules.

 

Trump’s new submission to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan – who rejected his weekend bid to push back the deadline for his response to the prosecutors’ proposal – pointed to comments from President Joe Biden and even a meme posted on his Twitter account that Trump’s lawyers claim show how Biden has “capitalized on the indictment.”

 

Trump’s lawyers acknowledged in the filing that there was a need to keep private certain classes of evidence handed over to him in the case, suggesting that – despite the tone of their submission – their position was not actually that far apart from what prosecutors recommended.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Wow, Trump’s Legal Fees Are Enormous. They’re Only Going to Get Worse.

 

Donald Trump’s political action committee has spent more than $40 million on legal fees related to his and his associates’ legal troubles during the first half of 2023, according to the Washington Post. That’s a staggering amount, and worth pausing for a second to consider.

 

Let’s say, for example, that Trump paid his lawyers an average of $1,200 an hour—the kind of fee one might pay for a partner at a major New York firm. Forty million dollars could pay for 33,300 hours of such work. That’s 833 40-hour work weeks—or 16 years of work. And that’s assuming only top-dollar attorneys. For perspective, in 2021 and 2022 combined, the Trump PAC spent just $16 million on legal matters.

 

It makes sense that Trump’s legal fees would have gotten a little out of hand. At this point, the cases against him are sprawling and complex, stemming from three separate federal criminal indictments, as well as charges at the state level. And a host of his associates need their own legal support for their roles in the scandals. The amount of raw material—interviews, video and audio recordings, and other documents from countless interactions involving countless potential witnesses all over the country—that his legal teams will need to gather and review is itself overwhelming. And that’s all before even putting together a legal defense, or considering the myriad other legal needs of a presidential campaign. According to NBC News, Trump’s PAC has paid more than 40 law firms for legal work in 2023.

 

So while $40 million is a lot, that number will only continue to grow. Trump’s lawyers have to respond to a total of 78 criminal charges. They’ll need to look over not just evidence involving mishandled classified documents and falsified business records, but also a plot to overturn an entire presidential election. They’re huge charges.

 

And Trump’s campaign is already showing the toll of such complex legal battles. Trump’s PAC, Save America, started last year with $105 million and now has less than $4 million, according to the New York Times. Not all of that comes from legal fees, but a significant portion does—according to NBC News, legal matters ate up two-thirds of the PAC’s spending in the first six months of 2023. Save America found itself so unexpectedly cash-strapped that it requested the refund of a $60 million donation it sent to the MAGA Inc. super PAC, which supports Trump’s campaign but is not directed by Trump himself. (Save America had sent the money to MAGA Inc. in the first place as a workaround: Save America is not itself allowed to spend money on campaign ads.) MAGA Inc. has already returned some $12 million to Save America, which, according to the Times, accounts for about half a year’s fundraising for the super PAC. This refund request, the Times reported, is extremely unusual.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Thumb up 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tshile said:

I’m enjoying how when it was posted, everyone laughed cause it was funny cause we all understood what was being communicated

 

and now it’s like it didn’t happen 😂 

 

Fwiw I don't even know what you are arguing. The Dark Brandon merch was always funny to me because the Democrats turned what the MAGA GOP thought was a wink wink bad word phrase they came up with against Biden into a possible money maker for reelection. 

 

Stuff like that is hilarious (and proves who the real snowflakes are).  

 

 

 

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Thanks 1
  • Thumb up 5
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Fwiw I don't even know what you are arguing. The Dark Brandon merch was always funny to me because the Democrats turned what the MAGA GOP thought was a wink wink bad word phrase they came up with against Biden into a possible money maker for reelection. 

 

Stuff like that is hilarious. 

 

 

 

Totally agree. 

Fool walked up to my counter, leaned over & said it to me.  I responded with a blank stare & "Would you like to place an order?" that was followed by my ULTIMATE eyeroll. 

 

Edited by skinsmarydu
possession of said eyeroll
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Larry said:


I'm enjoying how when it was posted, everyone laughed cause it was funny cause we all understood what was being communicated

 

and then Team Trump claimed it was something else

 

and now somebody's working overtime to try to claim that "everybody" laughed because it was a threat. 
 

Guess I must be different. Because no, I didn't laugh because I saw it as a threat. I laughed, because it wasn't.

Who said threat?

 

the complaint that was posted said he “capitalized” on it with a “thinly veiled reference” to the situation. 
 

which is what every single person understood it to be. And honestly it’s the type of aggressiveness people had been begging for, and applauded the Biden admin for finally starting to do a little of. 
 

trumps lawyers complaining to the court as if it has anything to do with anything, is hilarious. It means nothing about the politicization of the DOJ and it means nothing about trump threatening witnesses or people in general for going after him. 
 

but to pretend that was posted that day for any other reason, and that people somehow didn’t “get it” when it was over the top obvious, that the campaign didn’t know how it would be received, is also hilarious. 

Fwiw I thought it was hilarious they posted it. 
 

im kind of looking forward to how they handle “they other guys in jail” as a campaign strategy. 😂 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jabbyrwock

Jabbyrwock

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, tshile said:

 

the complaint that was posted said he “capitalized” on it with a “thinly veiled reference” to the situation. 
 

which is what every single person understood it to be.

 

I understood it to be a guy selling coffee mugs.

  • Haha 1
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...