Update on Trump Legal Cases

[wbtravis007]

Finally a judge in a Trump Lawfare case that has a bit of character and ethics. Judge Cannon denies Jack Smith's request to take away President Trump's First Amendment rights.
Too bad she doesn't have enough to throw out the entire case, which is what should happen.

Well, at least there’s one person in the world who still actually respects her.

And, I guess she’s helped you calm down a little, given the no-all-caps post and what not.

Y’all should probably get a room or something.

[flockofseagulls104]

Looks like trollboy has taken a vacation and the understudy has been promoted.

[wbtravis007]

Looks like trollboy has taken a vacation and the understudy has been promoted.

Now there’s a real knee-slapper from a self-professed wit!!

[silverscreenselect]

Finally a judge in a Trump Lawfare case that has a bit of character and ethics. Judge Cannon denies Jack Smith's request to take away President Trump's First Amendment rights.
Too bad she doesn't have enough to throw out the entire case, which is what should happen.

The judge denied the order without prejudice on the grounds that the special prosecutor did not confer with Trump's attorneys before filing the motion as required. Presumably, Smith will refile after he has his meeting with Trump's lawyers. This motion for the gag order may be part of Smith's overall strategy in the case. If Cannon denies the motion again, he can appeal that to the 11th circuit and he's got good grounds to do so. The 11th circuit operates on a "three strikes, you're out" principle. They've already reversed Cannon twice in this case and if they reverse her a third time, they can remove her from the case entirely and reassign it to another judge.

[flockofseagulls104]

Finally a judge in a Trump Lawfare case that has a bit of character and ethics. Judge Cannon denies Jack Smith's request to take away President Trump's First Amendment rights.
Too bad she doesn't have enough to throw out the entire case, which is what should happen.

The judge denied the order without prejudice on the grounds that the special prosecutor did not confer with Trump's attorneys before filing the motion as required. Presumably, Smith will refile after he has his meeting with Trump's lawyers. This motion for the gag order may be part of Smith's overall strategy in the case. If Cannon denies the motion again, he can appeal that to the 11th circuit and he's got good grounds to do so. The 11th circuit operates on a "three strikes, you're out" principle. They've already reversed Cannon twice in this case and if they reverse her a third time, they can remove her from the case entirely and reassign it to another judge.

What a smart guy!

[tlynn78]

Interesting take on jury instructions

[silverscreenselect]

He's in the jailhouse now; he's in the jailhouse now.

Guilty on all 34 counts. Justice prevails.

[tlynn78]

He's in the jailhouse now; he's in the jailhouse now.

Guilty on all 34 counts. Justice prevails.

LOL! Lawfare prevails - everyone involved in this knows full well it won't stand on appeal, but it's not about justice, it's about being able to say he was convicted. We'll see what that gets them.

[Weyoun]

He's in the jailhouse now; he's in the jailhouse now.

Guilty on all 34 counts. Justice prevails.

LOL! Lawfare prevails - everyone involved in this knows full well it won't stand on appeal, but it's not about justice, it's about being able to say he was convicted. We'll see what that gets them.

I was just thinking how BiT was in favor of a black man being summarily executed on a sidewalk for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. According to him, Trump is getting off easy.

[tlynn78]

Guilty on all 34 counts. Justice prevails.

LOL! Lawfare prevails - everyone involved in this knows full well it won't stand on appeal, but it's not about justice, it's about being able to say he was convicted. We'll see what that gets them.

I was just thinking how BiT was in favor of a black man being summarily executed on a sidewalk for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. According to him, Trump is getting off easy.

Of course you were, boo. I imagine fantasy takes up a lot of real estate in your head.

[BackInTex]

Guilty on all 34 counts. Justice prevails.

LOL! Lawfare prevails - everyone involved in this knows full well it won't stand on appeal, but it's not about justice, it's about being able to say he was convicted. We'll see what that gets them.

I was just thinking how BiT was in favor of a black man being summarily executed on a sidewalk for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. According to him, Trump is getting off easy.

Find a quote by me where I in any way said or implied that.

[flockofseagulls104]

Guilty on all 34 counts. Justice prevails.

LOL! Lawfare prevails - everyone involved in this knows full well it won't stand on appeal, but it's not about justice, it's about being able to say he was convicted. We'll see what that gets them.

I was just thinking how BiT was in favor of a black man being summarily executed on a sidewalk for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. According to him, Trump is getting off easy.

On behalf of BiT, I present you with another FYA THY RIO.

[Pastor Fireball]

He's in the jailhouse now; he's in the jailhouse now.

Guilty on all 34 counts. Justice prevails.

I feel bad for all of the ketchup at Mar-a-Lardo right now.

[Weyoun]

LOL! Lawfare prevails - everyone involved in this knows full well it won't stand on appeal, but it's not about justice, it's about being able to say he was convicted. We'll see what that gets them.

I was just thinking how BiT was in favor of a black man being summarily executed on a sidewalk for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. According to him, Trump is getting off easy.

Find a quote by me where I in any way said or implied that.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61898&p=599086&hilit=floyd#p599086

In fairness, you only directly said Floyd deserved to die because of criminal activity (that was less serious than the felonies with which Trump just got hit). I've extrapolated that you would think that way because Floyd was black.

In either case, here or with Floyd, your problem is that juries make judgments based on evidence, not your politics.

[BackInTex]

I was just thinking how BiT was in favor of a black man being summarily executed on a sidewalk for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. According to him, Trump is getting off easy.

Find a quote by me where I in any way said or implied that.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61898&p=599086&hilit=floyd#p599086

In fairness, you only directly said Floyd deserved to die because of criminal activity (that was less serious than the felonies with which Trump just got hit). I've extrapolated that you would think that way because Floyd was black.

In either case, here or with Floyd, your problem is that juries make judgments based on evidence, not your politics.

You're still striking out. I never said he deserved to die. I did say he was a victim of his own actions. You extrapolate a lot, wrongly.

Let's go to another topic. You drop my name is many of your posts, unsolicited, even when I haven't been around for a while or participated in a thread with you for weeks. You're resononing was because somewhere you think I called you a bad doctor. I don't think I ever sais that. I know I've questione how you could be a doctor based on your constant inability to properly align facts to support an argument (wondering how you could evaluate a patient's needs based on what they say due to your own biases towards some other diagnosis). But even if I did directely say I think your a bad doctor (which I didn't) the only reason that would seem to stick in your craw enough to continually include me in your posts is either self doubt or perpaps someone who actually knows your work has said something siminar. Anyway, you're free to continue your 5th grade name calling. Free forum and all. I think its rather humorous, and a bit sad, the way you behave with the maturity of a 10 year old.

[Weyoun]

Find a quote by me where I in any way said or implied that.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61898&p=599086&hilit=floyd#p599086

In fairness, you only directly said Floyd deserved to die because of criminal activity (that was less serious than the felonies with which Trump just got hit). I've extrapolated that you would think that way because Floyd was black.

In either case, here or with Floyd, your problem is that juries make judgments based on evidence, not your politics.

You're still striking out. I never said he deserved to die. I did say he was a victim of his own actions. You extrapolate a lot, wrongly.

Let's go to another topic. You drop my name is many of your posts, unsolicited, even when I haven't been around for a while or participated in a thread with you for weeks. You're resononing was because somewhere you think I called you a bad doctor. I don't think I ever sais that. I know I've questione how you could be a doctor based on your constant inability to properly align facts to support an argument (wondering how you could evaluate a patient's needs based on what they say due to your own biases towards some other diagnosis). But even if I did directely say I think your a bad doctor (which I didn't) the only reason that would seem to stick in your craw enough to continually include me in your posts is either self doubt or perpaps someone who actually knows your work has said something siminar. Anyway, you're free to continue your 5th grade name calling. Free forum and all. I think its rather humorous, and a bit sad, the way you behave with the maturity of a 10 year old.

I like how in that thread Bob says, "Because it really sounds like you're trying to justify Floyd's summary execution..."

And you respond, "It is my position."

That was after you said, "He was a victim of his own depravity."

Now, I am a doctor - granted, apparently a bad one according to you - but I have NEVER seen someone high on fentanyl act violent, because it is a respiratory depressive. So doing fentanyl shouldn't make him a threat to others.

Your statement that he did drugs, and thus deserved to have someone sit on him and choke him to death, sounds more like someone saying that someone deserved to die because they broke the law, and not because they were actually a danger to anyone - which Floyd does not seem to have been.

When Bob even uses the phrase "summary execution" you don't push back - you say "it is my position."

So call me a 5th grader, or bad at my profession, or whatever - but again, a guy got MURDERED in broad daylight, and you still talk your way around it. So why should I care about your personal insults?

And if it seems like I am interjecting this into the convo - it's because you've gone out of your way to mention Floyd previously, including on the regular board.

And I will keep doing that, because racists need to be constantly kicked around, and reminded that they hold garbage views.

[silverscreenselect]

Finally a judge in a Trump Lawfare case that has a bit of character and ethics. Judge Cannon denies Jack Smith's request to take away President Trump's First Amendment rights.
Too bad she doesn't have enough to throw out the entire case, which is what should happen.

The judge denied the order without prejudice on the grounds that the special prosecutor did not confer with Trump's attorneys before filing the motion as required. Presumably, Smith will refile after he has his meeting with Trump's lawyers. This motion for the gag order may be part of Smith's overall strategy in the case. If Cannon denies the motion again, he can appeal that to the 11th circuit and he's got good grounds to do so. The 11th circuit operates on a "three strikes, you're out" principle. They've already reversed Cannon twice in this case and if they reverse her a third time, they can remove her from the case entirely and reassign it to another judge.

As expected the special counsel Jack Smith refiled his motion for a gag order today. Smith met with Trump's attorneys to try to reach some agreement limiting what Trump could say (as the judge required) but that effort went nowhere. Technically, it's not a gag order since it's not in connection with the trial itself. Instead, it's a request to modify the terms under which Trump remains free pending trial. Smith wants to prohibit Trump from making additional comments that the FBI was ordered to assassinate him when they searched Mar a Lago for the classified documents. If this was any other defendant and judge, the order would be granted. Can you imagine a mob boss saying in public that the police who investigated him were trying to assassinate him? But with Trump and Cannon, you never know.

[silverscreenselect]

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which earlier gave Judge Merchan the go-ahead in the Trump criminal trial, has dismissed a complaint filed by Congresswoman Elise Stefanik against Arthur Engoron, the judge in Trump's civil fraud case that resulted in the $450+ million judgment against him. Apparently, according to Trump and Stefanike, all it takes for a judge to be rigged and biased is to make a single ruling against Trump in any case. The State Commission saw otherwise.

Also according to published reports, purported addresses of some of the jury members in Trump's criminal trial as well as those of DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan, have been posted online, along with various death threats against these individuals.

[silverscreenselect]

Former Trump attorney Ken Chesebro, who has already pled guilty in the Georgia Trump case, has just been charged with forgery in Wisconsin in connection with a fake elector scheme there. Another Trump attorney, Jim Troupis, and a former Trump aide, Michael Roman (who is also a Georgia defendant), have also been charged in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin charges were brought by the state attorney general, who is a Democrat.

In Georgia, the appeal by Trump, Roman, and several others over the failure to disqualify Fani Willis has been set for argument in October by the Court of Appeals. This would make a trial before election day highly unlikely, no matter what the result.

[flockofseagulls104]

Even with 34 convictions for a make-believe crime, and the reality that the extreme lawfare campaign is not working, and in fact backfiring, the swamp is continuing it. They have no other recourse, unless their scheme to use illegal aliens to cast votes succeeds. But that will be very apparent. They will have to add millions of votes from nowhere. It will be extremely apparent. biden has no positive record to run on, has no popularity except among the Stage 4 TDS victims, and is losing support daily.
So keep us informed, trollboy, of every additional desperate lawfare attempt to create crimes for pre-selected targets.

[flockofseagulls104]

Merrick Garland is a threat to our democracy.

The civil and honest people of America are behind the eight ball, because we have to react, after the fact, to all the evil and nefarious schemes thought up and executed by the deep state, swamp, or whatever you want to call it. They have declared war on us. And they have an unlimited purse (Soros, thousands of NGOs, et al) and endless supply of greedy and unethical lawyers that will carry out their schemes.

This kind of subverting of the law, using the law and contorting it to get a result was used in the past in some cases, but not in the overall coordinated campaign it is being used today.

[silverscreenselect]

Merrick Garland is a threat to our democracy.

For your information, 28 CFR 600.1 states:

600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

The reason the office of the special counsel exists is to avoid the perception of political prosecutions if the attorney general's office itself pursued the matter. Merrick Garland's office has plenty of prosecutors capable of prosecuting Trump in DC or Florida. And if they had indicted Trump, you and Congressman Massie would still have shouting rigged justice system at the top of your lungs.

And I didn't hear you complaining when John Durham spent four years and millions of dollars resulting in two trials that ended in rapid acquittals. He was a special counsel appointed under the same authority as Jack Smith was. And Hunter Biden is on trial right now and being prosecuted by a special counsel. That same special counsel will take him to trial in California in a tax case in a couple of months. Are those special counsels also threats to democracy or is it just Jack Smith?

[silverscreenselect]

Judge Aileen Cannon has scheduled a hearing the week of June 21 to consider the issue of whether Jack Smith's appointment was valid. In a very unusual move, she will allow three amicus curiae (friend of the court) groups to participate in the oral arguments (two saying the appointment was invalid and one saying it was valid). Usually these groups only file briefs in a case to which they aren't parties. The courts that have considered this same issue (including the court trying Hunter Biden right now) have all rejected claims that the special counsel appointments are invalid. Cannon will also hold oral arguments that week on Smith's latest request for a gag order against Trump (technically modifying the terms of his pre-trial release).

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments on Trump and other defendant's motion to disqualify Fani Willis. The Court of Appeals has stayed all trial court proceedings in the case until it issues a ruling. For what it's worth, in most cases, the Court of Appeals is the final arbiter of Georgia law, because the state Supreme Court has very limited appellate jurisdiction, none of which seems to apply here. (One exception is that they can decide to hear a case of "great public importance.")

[flockofseagulls104]

In a very unusual move

Have to chuckle at what YOU consider a usual and unusual move....

[flockofseagulls104]

OK, Rep Massie was referring to the Independent Counsel requirements, not 'Special' Counsel requirements. At least as far as I can tell. Maybe I stand corrected. It still is politically motivated by a guy (actually his handlers) who can do the same thing, actually worse, but get off because he is mentally unfit to be prosecuted. And someone who did worse than all three got off scot-free because of who she is.