Trump Trial
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
So has Trump started appealing his NY conviction, or can that not happen until he's sentenced (whenever that may be)? All anyone talks about is his sentencing.
'A Direct Assault on Democracy!' Trump Responds to Jack Smith's Indictment
In referring to the indictment out as "ridiculous," he called for it to be "dismissed IMMEDIATELY," especially as it "has all the problems of the old indictment."
Trump also called to mind how Smith's case against Trump for his handling of classified documents has been dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon, which the former president referred to as the "Florida Document Hoax Case." Cannon tossed out the case last month, but Smith on Monday filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse that move.
The post also called to mind the upcoming 2024 election. "This is merely an attempt to INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION, and distract the American People from the catastrophes Kamala Harris has inflicted on our Nation, like the Border Invasion, Migrant Crime, Rampant Inflation, the threat of World War III, and more[,]" Trump warned.
ABC News ran a surprisingly helpful story yesterday headlined, “Trump charged in superseding indictment in election interference case following SCOTUS ruling.” Special Counsel Jack Smith was feeling cranky about current events, so he held a whole new grand jury to charge President Trump with new crimes.
Except, the story is both bigger and smaller than it looks. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith (still battling South Florida Judge Aileen Cannon over whether he was legally appointed in the first place), re-charged President Trump yesterday in the “election interference” case pending in D.C.
But the new indictment wasn’t really new. It just reworded Smith’s original claims. If anything, a few of the original claims were removed.
Smith is merely adjusting his case, to improve its chances of surviving the new Supreme Court immunity standard. I know, I know. That spicy old paragon of reliable information Joe Biden told you that the new standard made presidents into “kings” who can never be held accountable, not even for assassinating people willy nilly, just blam! blam! blam! goose-stepping through the halls of Congress while laughing maniacally and continuously shrieking, “I’m the king! I’m the king!”
But I digress.
After tweaking it to better fit the contours of the new Supreme Court standard, Smith’s indictment even shrank a little, deflating from its original, obese 45 pages down to a chubby 36. So we can now quantify what “presidential immunity” is worth: about nine pages.
The revision re-characterized the President’s conduct as being motivated by personal benefit rather than presidential aims. Trump’s lawyers will certainly challenge Smith’s characterizations. It’s a brand-new standard, so we shall see how everything shakes out. But the new indictment made one thing perfectly clear: presidential prosecution is still on the table even after the immunity decision.
Here’s a minority report. I believe this superseding indictment is a positive development, since it proves that the Supreme Court did not, in fact, immunize presidents, but rather deleted their de facto common-law immunity and created a legal rubric for their fair prosecution.
In other words, Smith’s new indictment proved presidential prosecution is not just possible, but presidential prosecution now follows a prescription.
Finally, consider two implications. First, the lying media, currently gushing over Prosecutor Smith’s new superseding indictment, isn’t apologizing (but should) for the tsunami of demented stories it breathlessly ran about how awful the Supreme Court decision was, just two months ago. E.g.:
Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to apologize for their moronic misinterpretation of the immunity standard. Corporate media is worse than useless.
But second, and maybe even more importantly, consider that, if Trump wins, other presidential prosecutions will be on the menu. Jack Smith just drafted the roadmap.
Keep it coming, Jack!
☕️ KEEPING IT WEIRD ☙ Wednesday, August 28, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
New special prosecutor Trump charges may be helping; what's with the weird new slur?; DNC's surprisingly ironic surprise guest; Harris's policy body-snatching; Tucker/Kennedy interview; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
PJay
Well-Known Member
ELECTION INTERFERENCE: DOJ Chief Caught Admitting in Undercover Footage That Trump Indictments Are Politically Motivated — Exposes Plot to Make Trump a 'Convicted Felon' and 'Affect His Candidacy' | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
The real threat to America’s future isn’t coming from Moscow—it’s coming from Washington, D.C.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
The key issue before the court was the order and timing of the pleadings and determinations that will need to be made before the case can actually proceed to trial. Chutkan acknowledged that the case will not be ready for trial for months.
In addition to sorting out the immunity issue, Trump's legal team raised the matter of Smith's appointment, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas addressed in his concurrence in the immunity ruling and Judge Aileen Cannon determined was grounds for dismissal of the Florida classified documents case brought by Smith against Trump.
Chutkan initially expressed reservation that a motion on that basis would be timely at this point, given there was an October deadline for such. Ultimately, Chutkan agreed to let Trump's attorneys raise the issue, but they will have to persuade her that binding DC Circuit precedent rejecting their position does not foreclose it. (Based on her apparent inclination, this looks to be a tall order.)
As to the immunity issue, Trump's team sought to delay the briefing until after the election, asserting that the prosecution's brief is likely to place damaging details into the public record just ahead of the election. Chutkan appeared unimpressed at the notion that this was a particularly sensitive time, noting that the court will not be taking the election into account.
She did, however, note that setting a trial date would be "an exercise in futility" given all of the issues remaining to be resolved.
In addition to sorting out the immunity issue, Trump's legal team raised the matter of Smith's appointment, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas addressed in his concurrence in the immunity ruling and Judge Aileen Cannon determined was grounds for dismissal of the Florida classified documents case brought by Smith against Trump.
Chutkan initially expressed reservation that a motion on that basis would be timely at this point, given there was an October deadline for such. Ultimately, Chutkan agreed to let Trump's attorneys raise the issue, but they will have to persuade her that binding DC Circuit precedent rejecting their position does not foreclose it. (Based on her apparent inclination, this looks to be a tall order.)
As to the immunity issue, Trump's team sought to delay the briefing until after the election, asserting that the prosecution's brief is likely to place damaging details into the public record just ahead of the election. Chutkan appeared unimpressed at the notion that this was a particularly sensitive time, noting that the court will not be taking the election into account.
She did, however, note that setting a trial date would be "an exercise in futility" given all of the issues remaining to be resolved.
Top Manhattan US Attorney’s Office spox blasts DA Bragg over Trump prosecution in secret recording: ‘The case is nonsense’
A top Department of Justice spokesman in New York was caught on a hidden camera ripping Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for his recent prosecution of former President Donald Trump — accusing Bragg of conducting “lawfare” just to further his own political ambitions.
Nicholas Biase, chief spokesman for the Manhattan US Attorney’s Office, was secretly recorded tearing into the progressive prosecutor during a recent conversation with a so-called undercover operative from conservative podcaster Steven Crowder’s “Mug Club.”
“Honestly, I think the case is nonsense,” Biase was filmed saying to an unidentified woman on July 31 at what appears to be a bar.
Corrupt Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan Comes Out Swinging Against SCOTUS Presidential Immunity Ruling During January 6 Hearing
President Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith presented opposing arguments for how the January 6 case will proceed in a joint status report filed last Friday night ahead of Thursday’s status conference.
Last Tuesday, Jack Smith indicted President Trump AGAIN in Washington DC, following the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
The grand jury indicted Trump on the same four charges that were unveiled last August: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
Judge Chutkan was unprepared, smug and condescending during Thursday’s hearing, according to Julie Kelly who attended the status conference.
Corporate media was madder than enraged hornets yesterday about what you will probably consider good news. Politico ran a highly annoyed column with the argumentative headline, “There Was No Good Legal Reason to Delay Trump’s Sentencing.” When you also consider Hunter’s sentencing schedule, it adds up to another bizarre, 2024-style confluence of events.
At a practical level, Manhattan Judge Merchan had little choice. The DA’s office had filed a motion indicating it did not oppose Trump’s request to delay sentencing till after the election. In his order granting the delay, Judge Merchan said the DA’s lack of opposition could “fairly be construed as a joinder of the motion.”
In other words, DA Alvin Bragg had agreed to push the sentencing hearing. Presumably he has his reasons. So the judge was faced with nobody arguing for sentencing the President —an unprecedented sequence of words— next week as planned.
Politico’s columnist was offended by the delay. He clearly suggested Judge Merchan should have moved forward anyway. The news mag blamed MAGA attacks on the judge, suggesting Judge Merchan had been cowed by a barrage of conservative inquiries and harsh criticisms.
In other words, it’s Trump’s fault. It’s gotten political.
But — what did they expect? There’s a good reason why Presidents have never been prosecuted before, and that reason is because Presidents are polarizing political figures. Even if the case had merit, which it doesn’t, it was always inevitable the case would become inextricably mired in politics right from the filing of the initial indictment.
This case is the Stormy Daniels “hush money” case, where Trump was convicted of ‘falsifying business records’ because his accountant wrote “legal expenses” on several payments to Trump’s lawyer. Since Trump is a first-time offender, the crime is a victimless white-collar crime, and since it was such a creative prosecutorial stretch, Trump should get probation. Meaning, no jail time.
If Judge Merchan sentences Trump to prison anyway, it would provoke an unprecedented Constitutional crisis over the separation of powers. The easiest way to avoid that unpleasant outcome would be to order Trump’s sentence to start after he left office. Assuming Merchan did not take that easy out, the case would likely return back to the Supreme Court.
At that point, the simplest way for the Supreme Court to solve the Constitutional conundrum would be to stay Trump’s sentence until after his term, on the theory that imprisonment is inconsistent with Trump’s ability to fulfill his Constitutional duties as President. That way, the Supremes could avoid wading into deeper legal waters by creating controversial new immunities or presidential doctrines.
It is worth marveling about the miraculous fact that, despite the dizzying and historic barrage of state and federal lawfare, Trump remains free as a Twitter bluebird and politically undamaged. If anything, all the lawfare helped the former President. For just one example, Trump’s constant legal battles have kept the former President in the media’s klieg lights, and have guaranteed his constant publicity, which inarguably fueled his campaign fundraising.
Trump is a marketing genius, and his enemies handed him troves of public relations ammunition.
It’s also striking how the political prosecutions amount to legal attempts to assassinate President Trump, which have all failed just like the actual assassination attempt did.
I predict probation, but I’m not ruling anything out. This is 2024, after all, and anything could happen.
☕️ LAUGHING INFECTIONS ☙ Saturday, September 7, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Boeing spaceship is back; mosquito lockdowns surprisingly questioned; Hunter pleads guilty; Trump sentencing schedule change; Georgia shooting update; DOJ declares war on influencers; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
NY Appellate Judges Skeptical of Letitia James’ Civil Fraud Case Against Trump, Blast Her Deputy Solicitor General During Opening Statement
Trump’s attorneys sent a letter to the Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court and asserted Letitia James’ actions are “unconstitutional.”
“It would be completely illogical — and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking — to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a ‘fire sale,’ in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal,” Trump’s attorney Cliff Robert wrote.
Two of the appellate judges interrupted Letitia James’s deputy solicitor general Judy Vale during her opening statement to ask her if there are any other examples of the state suing private business transactions where there was no victim.
“Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace,” Justice David Friedman told Vale, according to Reuters.
“We don’t have anything like that here,” Friedman added, saying that nobody “lost any money.”
Reuters reported:
New York Appeals Court appears receptive to reversing or reducing $454M Trump civil fraud judgment
A five-judge panel on a New York appeals court in Manhattan heard oral arguments on the appeal on Thursday.
The former president did not attend the oral arguments but was instead represented by his legal team.
Trump attorney D. John Sauer argued that James’ lawsuit stretched New York consumer protection laws and said there were "no victims" and "no complaints" of Trump’s business from lenders and insurers.
Sauer said the cause "involves a clear-cut violation of the statute of limitations," pointing to transactions used in the non-jury civil fraud trial that dated back more than a decade.
Sauer said that if the verdict is not overturned, "people can’t do business in real estate" without fear.
The Appellate Division typically rules about a month after arguments are complete, meaning a final decision could come before Election Day on Nov. 5.
Judge Peter H. Moulton questioned if James’ lawsuit turned into "something it was not meant to do."
Moulton said the "immense penalty in this case is troubling."
But the state argued that there is evidence to support the verdict.
Trump's $454M judgment bond slashed by more than half in appeals court ruling
An appeals court slashed former President Trump's bond payment on Monday, saying Trump must pay $175 million within the next 10 days.
Trump had previously faced a Monday deadline to pay a $454 million bond payment that came as a result of civil fraud allegations from New York Attorney General Letitia James.
A New York Appeals Court, hours before the deadline to post the $454 million, lowered that bond considerably. The court ordered that Trump post $175 million within 10 days.
Trump said he will "abide" by the appeals decision and post the $175 million bond.
If Trump does post the $175 million by the new deadline, it would effectively block James from attempts to seize Trump's assets as he continues to appeal the judgment by New York Judge Arthur Engoron.
"Judge Engoron has refused to obey the decision of the Appellate Division relative to the Statute of Limitations. This is a confrontation between a Judge and those that rule above him - A very bad situation in which to place New York State and the Rule of Law! Engoron has disrespected the Appellate Division and its very clear and precise ruling," Trump posted on his Truth Social Monday. "He should be made to do so, and at the same time, release the GAG ORDER."
Trump said the appeals ruling Monday is "the 5th time in this case that he has been overturned, a record."
Trump blasted Judge Arthur Engoron, saying "his credibility, and that of Letitia James, has been shattered."
"We will abide by the decision of the Appellate Division, and post either a bond, equivalent securities, or cash," Trump said. "This also shows how ridiculous and outrageous Engoron’s original decision was at $450 Million."
Trump added, in all capital letters: "I DID NOTHING WRONG, AND NEW YORK SHOULD NEVER BE PUT IN A POSITION LIKE THIS AGAIN. BUSINESSES ARE FLEEING, VIOLENT CRIME IS FLOURISHING, AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THIS BE RESOLVED IN ITS TOTALITY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU!"
In the best story of the week, the New York Times ran an article headlined, “Trump’s Huge Civil Fraud Penalty Draws Skepticism From Appeals Court.”
The headline referred to Trump’s Inflated Real Estate case, where New York Judge Arthur Engoran soaked Trump for a $500 million dollar fine, for “overestimating” the value of his priceless real estate holdings. You’ll recall that wispy-haired Judge Engoran, who probably couldn’t estimate the value of a double-wide mobile home, substituted his own judgment of what Trump’s totally unique properties like Mar-A-Lago were worth.
Was it Trump Derangement Syndrome that caused Judge Engoran to value Trump’s irreplaceable real estate holdings at pennies on the dollar? Who knows. Whichever, Judge Engoran found Trump liable for civil fraud despite there being no fraud victims, despite that all Trump’s loans were paid back in full, and despite that the involved banks all testified they didn’t rely on Trump’s financials anyway.
According to the story, during the oral arguments the five-member panel of appellate judges asked lawyers questions seeming highly skeptical about Judge Engoran’s judicial misadventures. Justice Moulton, who seemed generally unsympathetic to Trump’s lawyers, still observed at one point that “the immense penalty in this case is troubling.”
Justice Friedman asked the attorney general’s lawyer to name any other case where the attorney general had ever sued “to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners.” Even before the lawyer could answer, Justice Renwick queried, “And with little to no impact on the public marketplace?”
At a different point, Justice Higgitt interjected,
“Sorry, but what’s being described sounds an awful lot like a potential commercial dispute by private actors.”
Toward the end of the hearing, Justice Moulton asked how the attorney general’s office could “tether the amount that was assessed” by Judge Engoron “to the harm that was caused here, where parties left these transactions happy about how things went down?”
It wouldn’t take all five justices to vacate the judgment. Engoran’s excessive award could be reversed with a decision by only three of the five justices. Questions appellate judges ask at oral argument aren’t always reliable signals but in many cases, they are decent barometers of the way things might be trending.
I predict they will send the case back for a drastically reduced award. While there is a chance they could reverse the judgment altogether —which is what should happen— given the politics involved, a full reversal seems unlikely.
☕️ SURGING ☙ Saturday, September 28, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Many hurricanes in the news this week.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Yesterday, in giddy excitement, corporate media dropped its bath towel and raced out into the national dining room naked, forgetting all about stranded Hurricane Helene victims and the gathering vultures of nuclear war. They even forgot to put on their special prosthetic genitals. They are distracted by a much more intoxicating story, and so this morning the New York Times headlined the first of its multi-part series, “Judge Unseals New Evidence in Federal Election Case Against Trump.”
Of course, the Times completely missed the actual, history-making part of this story and turned it into a boring pre-election hit piece stitched out of ancient, confused January 6th claims.
I’m going to save you a lot of time. In President Trump’s “J6 Insurrection” case in Washington DC, Judge Tanya Chutkan (above right) unsealed prosecutor “Don’t Know Jack” Smith’s latest legal brief. As if coordinated, nearly every platform is running long, hyperbolic stories claiming the now-unsealed brief includes new facts! revelations! things that make Trump’s head go boom! And that sort of thing.
But if you read far enough down the story, the Times eventually coughed up the truth like a moist furball: nothing in Jack Smith’s brief changes anything. Mixed metaphor alert:
So … the new details add texture. Okay, fine. What kind of texture? Smooth, like the parts of the New York Times’ brain that should be covered in bumpy parts? Anyway, the incoherent Times reporter started out with a sports metaphor (“game-changing”) but switched in mid-sentence to “texture,” evoking the visual arts, like how a certain brush stroke can add fine detail to a portrait. Ugh. But, I digress.
If you fed the Democrats’ grotesque “January 6th Commission Report” to ChatGPT, requesting a legal motion arguing that Trump shouldn’t get any presidential immunity under the new Supreme Court standard, you’d get something that looks remarkably like Jack Smith’s brief.
Unsurprisingly, even though the Times wrote six related stories about Judge Chutkan’s politically-convenient unsealing (30 days before the election), it somehow completely missed the real story.
Remember when Joe Biden complained that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision turned Presidents into “kings,” and I told you the exact opposite was true? Jack Smith’s brief proved me right. Even a political hack like Smith could make a case against a President under the new immunity standards.
The days of de facto complete Presidential immunity are now, mercifully, over. We now exist in an exciting new era of personal Presidential liability, and if the Times hadn’t received six boosters, it would have noticed that critical fact. Future and other past Presidents should take careful note.
The corporate media is badly overestimating how helpful January 6th will be for Democrats as an October Surprise. On MSNBC (of all places), anchor Ari Melber asked an anti-Trump impeachment witness, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, to talk about how awful Trump was and so on. But the segment went off the rails when Gordon said he changed his mind. He’s planning voting for Trump now even after trying to help impeach the President. A shocked Melber gets visibly upset:
CLIP: Trump impeachment witness changes mind, says voting for Trump now (1:04).
In a word, Melber was gobsmacked. He demanded Gordon say again whether, after testifying against Trump in the impeachment trial, he really planned to vote Trump. Gordon was resolute, insisting, “It is an absolute yes for me. That is how badly the Biden-Harris team has prosecuted their job.”
An obviously rattled Melber tried again. He read back Gordon’s own words from an old MSNBC interview, reminding the Ambassador that he’d said before that the issue of January 6th and saving democracy was bigger than any other consideration. Gordon admitted he’d said that, and while it was true at the time, now “I am seeing so many attacks on Democracy that eclipse January 6.”
Gordon offered to provide examples, but wisely, Melber ended it there.
☕️ F-MINUS ☙ Thursday, October 3, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Cajun Navy sails for Hurricane Helene land; media's J6 October Surprise lands with a thud; anti-Trumper teaches MSNBC painful lesson; media admits Vance debate win; Musk exposé misses point; & more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com