Trump Indictment/Trial thread-2023

[CrimsonFox]

"Windmills, Dude."

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Here's a bit of what happened: Trump just seems to think he can name any value he wants for his properties because he was President, and the banks all wanted to do deals with him


meidastouch.com

and that someday he MIGHT builds homes and condos on it which would make it worth more.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

"Windmills, Dude."

Yes you know all that crazy talk about windmills causing cancer came directly from Scotland denying him the chance to take then down." Every business deal gone bad, every time he tried to deregulate something (asbestos) it was because it had caused his business money at sometime in the past, and that's what his presidency was about-not democracy, just fixing things so he and his businesses would make more money after his Presidency was over.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Yes you know all that crazy talk about windmills causing cancer came directly from Scotland denying him the chance to take then down." Every business deal gone bad, every time he tried to deregulate something (asbestos) it was because it had caused his business money at sometime in the past, and that's what his presidency was about-not democracy, just fixing things so he and his businesses would make more money after his Presidency was over.

I genuinely believe he thinks everyone is like this and everyone thinks this way. He believes everything Obama, Biden, and every other president has done was to enrich themselves or punish enemies. That's why he's so open about it. He doesn't realize that being a self absorbed, narcissist isn't normal.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I genuinely believe he thinks everyone is like this and everyone thinks this way. He believes everything Obama, Biden, and every other president has done was to enrich themselves or punish enemies. That's why he's so open about it. He doesn't realize that being a self absorbed, narcissist isn't normal.

Yeah I agree with that.

[Ksyrup]

That makes the most sense.

[RainMaker]

Has he complained about toilets? That's a classic.

[GrantDawg]

Ivanka taking the stand in the fraud trial is being met with such ridiculous hype that if she doesn't get up there and say "My dad personally strangled Jeffery Epstein to death" it is going to be a major disappointment.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

Nothing gets the media more excited that "famous blonde woman does something"

[GrantDawg]

"But look at her outfit while she says she doesn't remember..."

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

The real story is what they're putting her family through by making her testify during the school week.

[Edward64]

I'm sure there were good reasons for the Fed court rule to not allow broadcasting but I'd personally like to see the Trump trial live.

‘Travesty in darkness’: Trump backs drive to televise his D.C. election-subversion trial - POLITICO

The five-page submission to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan makes no mention of a federal court rule that has been in place for decades prohibiting broadcasting of criminal court proceedings.

Prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s team cited that rule last week in opposing the effort by an array of news outlets, including POLITICO, to win permission to cover the historic trial of a former — or current — president on criminal charges.

Trump's team wants it.

Last month, news organizations filed formal motions with Chutkan seeking permission to offer live video and audio coverage of the trial. The news outlets cited the unusual degree of interest in the trial and the challenges the court is likely to face in trying to accommodate spectators in the courthouse.

The MSM wants it.

Democratic lawmakers and news outlets also asked the policymaking body for the federal courts, the Judicial Conference, to grant an exception to the broadcasting ban so that the Trump D.C. trial could be televised. However, at a meeting last month, a committee of that conference said that it lacked authority to grant an exception and that changing the rule would take years.

The Dems want it.

Smith’s team also said TV coverage would present risks to the trial, potentially intimidating witnesses and jurors.

This argument seems weak to me. Have the witnesses testify behind something then or have the jurors in a separate, enclosed room. Or heck, spend some of my taxpayer money and assign 24x7 juror protection for next 5 years.

[CrimsonFox]

i haven't said this in awhile but he is a crazy prick

[Atocep]

Don Jr’s pick for press secretary is claiming I am a “disloyal harlot” and “going to hell.”

No mention though of Jr’s divorce, his girlfriend’s divorce from Gavin Newsom, or The Best Christian Ever screwing a porn star while his third wife was pregnant.

Apparently true…

— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) November 16, 2023

[Thomkal]

Nevada Grand Jury indicts six Republicans today for their role in the fake elector scheme, including the Party Chairman.

[Ghost Econ]

I, for one, am shocked Trump won't get on the stand and testify. I can't believe he's being silenced again!!!

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

I, for one, am shocked Trump won't get on the stand and testify. I can't believe he's being silenced again!!!

Yeah that makes three trials in a row now where he was going to "show us his courage" or some such nonsense.

[Thomkal]

Special Counsel Jack Smith applies directly to the Supreme Court to give a ruling on Trumo's Immunity claims right now rather than wait for the Appeals process to play out because we all know that is where its going to end up eventually.

[albionmoonlight]

I really hope they grant review.

Whatever the answer is, the sooner we know, the better.

[GrantDawg]

They asked a brief from Trump's lawyers, so they are considering looking at it.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

The irony here is that Trump is getting special treatment, just not in the way he thinks he is. A lot of my clients would love it if the appellate courts dropped everything to rule on their defense motions in an expedited manner. He's getting a huge amount of deference here (which is probably the right result considering that he is a former president).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The irony here is that Trump is getting special treatment, just not in the way he thinks he is. A lot of my clients would love it if the appellate courts dropped everything to rule on their defense motions in an expedited manner. He's getting a huge amount of deference here (which is probably the right result considering that he is a former president).

No doubt. Most of these decisions would take forever, which is what he wished. He has long played that game in the courts, counting on the long delays to draw things out. Now everything is getting expedited and I'm sure he hates it. Even as Right-leaning this court is, I don't see him winning these appeals. I don't think the Supremes are going to give a "get out of jail free" card to every former president.

[albionmoonlight]

And being very pragmatic and cynical and Machiavellian about it, I think that Roberts, Kavanaugh, and possibly Barrett all think that the prospects for the GOP and for the conservative movement writ large are better with Trump out of the picture.

They are right wingers, but they are institutionalists. They see the MAGA bomb throwing as adverse to their interests. They'd rather turn the country to the right slowly and legally and through the proper channels.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Special Counsel Jack Smith applies directly to the Supreme Court to give a ruling on Trumo's Immunity claims right now rather than wait for the Appeals process to play out because we all know that is where its going to end up eventually.

This reminds me of the breach of etiquette by going straight to the triple dog dare.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

No doubt. Most of these decisions would take forever, which is what he wished. He has long played that game in the courts, counting on the long delays to draw things out. Now everything is getting expedited and I'm sure he hates it. Even as Right-leaning this court is, I don't see him winning these appeals. I don't think the Supremes are going to give a "get out of jail free" card to every former president.

Or every future president

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This reminds me of the breach of etiquette by going straight to the triple dog dare.

Well I'm all for the Triple Dog Dare at this point.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

I, for one, am shocked Trump won't get on the stand and testify. I can't believe he's being silenced again!!!

His plan was to get on the stand and campaign by attacking the judge and everyone else. When the gag order was upheld that went out the window.

[Thomkal]

Rudy G defamation jury is in and orders $75 million in damages total to both woman

[SirFozzie]

that's 75 million PER woman. Roughly $150 million

[kingfc22]

You hate to see it

[cartman]

apparently due to Georgia law it will be very hard, if not impossible for Rudy to appeal. If you do file an appeal, you have to submit an appeal bond, which is the amount of the judgement plus some extra costs to cover the appeal if you lose.

[Ghost Econ]

He can just ask Trump for a loan.

[flere-imsaho]

I love how in all these Trump-related/adjacent trials it takes the juries a minimal amount of time to return with a verdict. The criming is so obvious, yet apparently immaterial to the half of the population who will vote for him. We are so fucked as a country.

[albionmoonlight]

I get that being sane wasn’t in his nature. But if Rudy had retired a few years after 9/11 and moved to a nice house upstate and done the occasional six-figure speech and written the best selling “America’s Mayor“ book. And then just appeared every so often in a Fourth of July parade, sitting in the back of a convertible and waving he’d still be at like 95% popularity and everyone would be talking about how he would’ve been the greatest president ever if he had decided to run.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I get that being sane wasn’t in his nature. But if Rudy had retired a few years after 9/11 and moved to a nice house upstate and done the occasional six-figure speech and written the best selling “America’s Mayor“ book. And then just appeared every so often in a Fourth of July parade, sitting in the back of a convertible and waving he’d still be at like 95% popularity and everyone would be talking about how he would’ve been the greatest president ever if he had decided to run.

Yeah that's true for me. I grew up 90 minutes from NYC, and I was considering voting for him when he ran in 2008 before the Republican Party went off the wagon. But he went all in on the crazy after that, so glad he didn't get the nomination.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

that's 75 million PER woman. Roughly $150 million

Rudy had 2 women? That sounds unlikely

[GrantDawg]

He disappointed two women, which is actually a slow day for him.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I get that being sane wasn’t in his nature. But if Rudy had retired a few years after 9/11 and moved to a nice house upstate and done the occasional six-figure speech and written the best selling “America’s Mayor“ book. And then just appeared every so often in a Fourth of July parade, sitting in the back of a convertible and waving he’d still be at like 95% popularity and everyone would be talking about how he would’ve been the greatest president ever if he had decided to run.

If you go back and watch him speak back then and compare it to now it's night and day. Either that angry, simplistic way of speaking is just something that comes with being from the lead paint era or he's gone all in on Trumpism. I'm honestly not sure which it is.

But yeah, he's a useless tool to the right at this point and he's completely destroyed his legacy. Instead of coasting with millions in his bank account and fondly remembered he'll likely die broke and alone.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If you go back and watch him speak back then and compare it to now it's night and day. Either that angry, simplistic way of speaking is just something that comes with being from the lead paint era or he's gone all in on Trumpism. I'm honestly not sure which it is.

But yeah, he's a useless tool to the right at this point and he's completely destroyed his legacy. Instead of coasting with millions in his bank account and fondly remembered he'll likely die broke and alone.

Especially because he's going to have even less money as the two GA women sued him again for defamation after his comments during the first trial.

[RainMaker]

Rudy is and always has been a raging alcoholic. I just think it's tougher for him to hide it and work with that kind of consumption as he ages.

[JPhillips]

CO Supreme Court says that Trump is banned from the ballot due to the 14th Amendment.

[RainMaker]

And now we get those states' rights Supreme Court justices in DC to tell us that states' rights don't matter in this particular case for this particular candidate.

[Edward64]

Go Colorado!

It’ll be fascinating how it plays out

[JPhillips]

It forces SCOTUS to say something and I'm sure Roberts wants nothing to do with this case.

[GrantDawg]

I put it at about 5% chance the SCOTUS doesn't overturn this. It is just the "how" that is the question. My guess is they will find the most narrow way possible to overturn, though Gorsuch will write a concurring opinion stating White Republican candidates can't be charged with insurrection since they are the only true Patriots.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

The argument they'll make is that the constitution doesn't explicitly say President. It says "officers of the United States".


It's still hypocritical since they let states do whatever they want when it's something they support under the guise of "states' rights". But that's the loophole they'll use.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It forces SCOTUS to say something and I'm sure Roberts wants nothing to do with this case.

Roberts wishes the GOP would have found their spine back and got rid of the last election loser who went away like people normally did in the last 60 years.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The argument they'll make is that the constitution doesn't explicitly say President. It says "officers of the United States".


It's still hypocritical since they let states do whatever they want when it's something they support under the guise of "states' rights". But that's the loophole they'll use.

Not that it will stop Alito, Gorsuch, or Thomas but the court specifically outlined why this applies to the Office of the President. The ruling is well researched and it should be difficult to use that particular argument to overturn.

It's going to come down to Kavanaugh he's a tough read on this. He's been all for executive power, but it also seems like he'd side with the Colorado Supreme Court based on some of his previous writings and rulings. He's shown he has no problem ruling against Trump as well.

I'd say 75% chance this goes 5-4 striking it down just because they start with 3 votes in the bag on a stacked court though.

[GrantDawg]

They did outline why it applied to the office of the President and I think their argument is sound, but even the lower court disagreed which is why they overturned their ruling. It wouldn't be surprising if SCOTUS agrees with the lower court. There is at least some legitimate point of contention there.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[MJ4H]

I think the real issue is timing. I don't think the SC will rule in time, and if there is no ruling, then the order is not in effect (this is explicitly stated in the decision), ie he will remain on the ballot.