Yup, another indictment.

Lack of response noted. Being obtuse all you got?

Which votes were Trump and his advisors talking about in the call. Here fill in the blank "_______
votes"

The ones Trump and his advisers were addressing in the call. Which ones it's not complicated.

And more obtuse questions.

What I told you is perfectly clear.

Well since it is you and not me attempting to.....

That the best you got?

 

And yet they're experts on the content of the indictment and the law. "bbbbut they didn't charge him for seditious conspiracy! That's because he's innocent!"

Uh, no. It's a tactical decision, my uninformed chums.

 

The cases were over and matter ended on Jan 20..

 

Here is the "best I've got"

Trump has been indicted in DC and Florida (and NY, but that indictment I consider the weakest, so I'll just set that aside)
Trump will be indicted in GA

ALL of these indictments REQUIRE that the DA (or in the case of Jack Smith, Special Counsel) present the Grand Jury with evidence. The Grand Jury must find that evidence compelling enough to issue the indictment.

That's it. That's really all that needs to be said. Trump has been indicted.

We can add to that, that in Federal Cases the rate of conviction after indictment is well over 90%. i can guarantee you that in the case of indicting an ex President AND a leading candidate for the nomination of one of the major parties for the next election is going to have far stronger evidence than that of a regular schmoe.

Anyone who thinks these are a "witch hunt" or that there is "no evidence" is either a schill for Trump or just does not understand how any of this works.

There is no conspiracy against Trump. Trump did EXACTLY what is spelled out in the indictments. No one is going to risk their career, the license to practice law or their very freedom submitting false information to obtain an indictment.

It really is this simple. Evidence has been submitted, Grand Juries have issued indictments based on that evidence. Belief that anything else is happening is wishful thinking.

 

In the words of Bill Barr, Trump is "toast". All self-inflicted.

 

What "cases"?

 

You apparently don’t understand that in order to be understood clearly, it is necessary to write clearly. Otherwise you’re expecting people to make assumptions about your exact meaning and errors will then be made which you show you will blame on the other person.

To you.

 

Oh and at that point the Republicans’ hands were tied. The time limit was up and no case could be brought to court. What a pathetic excuse for a “Party”.

The truth is that there was NO “THERE” THERE. The Republicans had nothing. They had no cases. So they’ve been reduced to whining and stealing and cheating.

 

"Might have to give those millions back": Legal experts say Jack Smith could "seize" Trump PAC cash'

'Special counsel Jack Smith appears to be far from wrapping up his investigation into former President Donald Trump's post-2020 election scheme and his team has held at least one interview this week related to the finances of the ex-president's political action committee, according to Politico.

Smith's team on Monday interviewed Bernie Keris, a former New York City police commissioner and longtime associate of former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, according to the report. Prosecutors questioned Kerik in a "closed-door" interview about how the Save America PAC raked in huge amounts of cash between Election Day and the deadly Capitol insurrection. Kerik's lawyer, Tim Parlatore, told Politico that prosecutors were shining a "laser focus from Election Day to Jan. 6."

Parlatore also shared that prosecutors asked several questions about Boris Epshteyn, an attorney who currently works on Trump's campaign and as his in-house counsel, as well as Justin Clark, who was the deputy campaign manager of Trump's re-election.

Though Trump's election subversion indictment did not include any financial crimes, Politico reported that the interview with Kerik demonstrates, at the very least, "the clearest indication of Smith's focus" since the special counsel handed down the indictment against Trump.'

cont:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/might-those-millions-back-legal-144827339.html

 

Not according to Trump.

He's still claiming the election was stolen. Why hasn't he brought his evidence of that before a court?

 

George Soros?

 

Not even close.

What Trump did was illegal, it doesn't matter what he thought (or what he claims he thought)

I can believe that all the money in a bank belongs to me. I can say it as much as I want.

The second I start planning to rob the bank to get "my" money I have broken the law.

Trump can believe he won the election all he wants. He can say it as much as he wants.

The second he started planning to steal the election he broke the law.

If he believed he had truly won the election there are legal avenues to challenge that election. Trump exhausted all of them. That doesn't give him the right to move on to illegal methods.

 

Thanks for reminding them the smokescreen they employ to accuse Smith, Garland, and Biden of being "out to get Trump" quickly vanishes once the reality of the case being presented to a grand jury is introduced in to the equation. Of course, there is no limit to the conspiratorial nature with which they are capable of dismissing average citizens examining the evidence and voting to indict. Maybe they had their brain waves altered by Italian satellites.

 

Once again, any statement referenced in the indictment we can assume was actually said.
Jack Smith is not about to risk his reputation, his law degree and possibly even his freedom just "to get Trump" and make no mistake that is EXACTLY what he would be risking by including false statements of fact in his indictment.

One of those statements is all anyone needs to look at.

While Trump was trying to pressure his acting AG and the DOJ into helping overturn the election Trump is quoted saying, "Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen."

Not PROVE the election was corrupt.
Not PRESENT EVIDENCE the election was corrupt
Not even FIND EVIDENCE the election was corrupt

Nope, Trump was directing the acting AG (Rosen) and the DOJ to just SAY the election was corrupt and he would do the rest.

This is not the statement of a man who has proof or evidence of corruption.
This is not the statement of a man who believes there was corruption.
This is not the statement who even cares if there was corruption.

This is the statement of a corrupt man.

 

Oh no!
Trump's not the exception to the rule.
Whatcha gonna do about it ya sniveling bully, besides losing an appeal?

'Trump’s free speech must be limited to protect trial, witnesses, judge says'

"The U.S. judge overseeing Donald Trump’s prosecution for allegedly criminally conspiring to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory said while the former president has First Amendment rights to free speech, those rights are not absolute and must be weighed against protecting the integrity of the court process, regardless of his status as a political candidate'.

In her first hearing over Trump’s federal case in D.C., U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan said that the “existence of a political campaign” will not have a bearing on her decisions and that Trump is running for president should not interfere with the “orderly administration of justice.”

“If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, then that’s how it’s going to be,” Chutkan said Friday in a hearing where she sought to resolve an early battle over limiting what the former president and his defense can potentially reveal about government evidence in the case.'




https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...in-trump-election-subversion-case/ar-AA1f8s8k

 

Go read the indictment it ALL hinges on what he though.

What is it you believe he is being charged with exactly?

Please stop with the inane analogies and deal with the facts and WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

What do you think is the crime here?

Planning legal challenges to an election is not breaking the law.


If he believed he had truly won the election there are legal avenues to challenge that election. Trump exhausted all of them. That doesn't give him the right to move on to illegal methods.[/QUOTE]

 

He had no legal challenges to plan. He had exhausted all his legal challenges.

 

This is laughable yet I guess it's all Judge Chutkan can demand.
When has Trump ever listened to anyone who he disagrees plus he's got a crew of Trump-humping lawyers.

One good thing is though, it's impossible for Trump to keep his big mouth shut.


Kyle Griffin (msnbc) @kylegriffin1:

'Judge Chutkan rules Trump will be forbidden from having a phone, copy machine, or anything else that could create a copy of the sensitive materials while he's reviewing them. Defense counsel will have to review Trump's notes to make sure he's not copying witness' personal info.'

10:55 AM · Aug 11, 2023

 

Judge warns Trump about intimidating witnesses and disclosing secrets in 2020 election case

Chutkan ruled Friday that the protective order will only apply to "sensitive" materials, not all discovery, as the government had requested and she issued a stern warning to Trump and his defense team to avoid public statements that could intimidate witnesses, prejudice potential jurors or otherwise create a “carnival atmosphere” around the case.

“Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech. But that right is not absolute,” she said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-smiths-prosecutors-discovery-rules-rcna99070

Don forgets he is not a king.

 

The ****ing moron's "perfect call" with Raffensperger just got an extreme make-over. lol


'Trump now adds ‘my opinion’ and ‘what I think’ to stolen-election claims'

'During a Newsmax interview Wednesday night, Trump added such a qualifier no fewer than six times in the space of 30 seconds.

“I’m telling them that, in my opinion, the election was rigged,” Trump said of the Jan. 2, 2021, call in which he urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) to “find” just enough votes to overturn Trump’s deficit.

“I believe I won that election by many, many votes, many, many hundreds of thousands of votes,” Trump said. “That’s what I think.”

“That’s my opinion, and it’s a strong opinion,” he added. “And I think it’s borne out by the facts, and we’ll see that.”

To recap: “In my opinion.” “I believe.” “That’s what I think.” “That’s my opinion.” “It’s a strong opinion.” “I think.”

cont:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...i-think-to-stolen-election-claims/ar-AA1f6oE0

 

Trump should heed what his other favorite judge, Lewis Kaplan did today.

'Judge sends FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried to jail, says crypto mogul tampered with witnesses'

Source: AP

NEW YORK (AP) — FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried left a federal courtroom in handcuffs Friday when a judge revoked his bail after concluding that the fallen cryptocurrency wiz had repeatedly tried to influence witnesses against him.

Bankman-Fried drooped his head as Judge Lewis A. Kaplan explained at length why he believed the California man had repeatedly pushed the boundaries of his $250 million bail package to a point that Kaplan could no longer ensure the protection of the community, including prosecutors’ witnesses, unless the 31-year-old was behind bars.

After the hearing ended, Bankman-Fried took off his suit jacket and tie and turned his watch and other personal belongings over to his lawyers. The clanging of handcuffs could be heard as his hands were cuffed in front of him. He was then led out of the courtroom by U.S. marshals.

It was a spectacular fall for a man who prosecutors say portrayed himself as “a savior of the cryptocurrency industry” as he testified before Congress and hired celebrities including Larry David, Tom Brady and Stephen Curry to promote his businesses.'

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-court-hearing-5d85e43225c4da2b1abdf65b153bb760

 

@Nwolfe35

"Jack Smith is not about to risk his reputation, his law degree and possibly even his freedom just "to get Trump" and make no mistake that is EXACTLY what he would be risking by including false statements of fact in his indictment."
Humor me....... And exactly who would hold Jack Smith accountable? The DOJ will never prosecute the DOJ... never.

 

The Judge in the case.

Do you think Judges just take being lied to?

Also Smith is NOT part of the DOJ. That's the whole point of being a special counselor.

 

'Trump attorney Lauro having a few epiphanies today about his client'

...first Lauro balked at the judge granting his client the access to the unprotected information HE had argued for in the protective order, complaining the judge was setting a 'contempt trap' for the Defendant.

Judge Chutkan's order requires that the Defendant's lawyer would need to be present when he viewed protected documents and evidence and to review any notes he makes about sensitive materials he reviews.

Jordan Fischer @JordanOnRecord
JUDGE CHUTKAN is going through the proposed protective order line-by-line. Currently on paragraph 10, which under the DOJ's version would require Trump's lawyers to be in the room with him when he reviews witness transcripts or other materials. Defense wants solo review.



Jordan Fischer @JordanOnRecord 1h
(DOJ lawyer Thomas) WINDOM says requiring a lawyer to be in the room with Trump would reduce the risk of him photocopying or taking a picture of sensitive materials.

WINDOM: “He has shown a tendency to desire to hold on to material which he should not.”

...Lauro balks:

Jordan Fischer @JordanOnRecord 1h
LAURO: “In 40 years of practice I’ve never seen in a white collar case where counsel has to sit next to a client and literally babysit to make sure they don’t violate a protective order.


more interesting reporting from Jordan:

Jordan Fischer @JordanOnRecord
JUDGE CHUTKAN ends by saying she won't address Trump's recent public comments directly since there are no motions about them, but warns she will take "whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings."

JUDGE CHUTKAN also says the more public statements are made that threaten to taint a potential jury, the "greater the urgency will be that we should proceed to trial quickly."


Jordan's article here: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...-case/65-12278eb5-4fed-4cf0-aafc-7b4e257b435c