San Souci
Diamond Member
- Feb 4, 2020
- 6,003
- 4,689
- 1,940
Can you prove Trump did anything wrong? Ya goddam Commie.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump's Present and Future possible indictments
- Thread starter Sixties Fan
- Start date
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #742
Biden and Pence and others did it by accident.Biden left 'em in his Garage.
They all returned the documents when requested to do so.
Trump took and kept boxes and boxes on purpose and did not want to return them. Now live with that.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #743
Rest. And go vote on November 5, 2024.Can you prove Trump did anything wrong? Ya goddam Commie.
San Souci
Diamond Member
- Feb 4, 2020
- 6,003
- 4,689
- 1,940
Biden did NOT return anything. They were found in his Garage. Not in a safe protected by the Secret Service.Biden and Pence and others did it by accident.
They all returned the documents when requested to do so.
Trump took and kept boxes and boxes on purpose and did not want to return them. Now live with that.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #745
Neither did Pence or any others.Biden did NOT return anything. They were found in his Garage. Not in a safe protected by the Secret Service.
The difference is that they called the right organization that they had been found or returned them when asked to do so.
Trump refused to return many even with a supena and said "They are not their, they are mine" meaning that they belonged to him and did not have to return them.
Trump resisted requests to return stash of documents at Mar-a-Lago, saying 'it's not theirs, it's mine,' NYT reports
Trump insisted that records sought by the National Archives were his personal property when aides tried to get them back from Mar-a-Lago, per the NYT.
www.businessinsider.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #746
Part 1
This afternoon, the Supreme Court declined Jack Smith’s request to hear Trump’s appeal on presidential immunity, bypassing the court of appeals. Trump’s immunity motion is important because if he wins, it’s game over. The entire indictment would get dismissed if he were immune from prosecution. And while my assessment is in line with Judge Chutkan’s—she denied Trump’s motion—we don’t know for certain what the Supreme Court will do.
Logically, Trump’s motion lacks merit.
First, Trump claims the Supreme Court has “unanimously rejected Deranged Jack Smith’s desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution.” Leaving the persistent errors in capitalization to the side, Smith isn’t trying to “short circuit” the Constitution—he asked for an established writ that has been used in other cases of similar magnitude to send an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Nor has the Court unanimously rejected the underlying issue, Judge Chutkan’s denial of Trump presidential immunity motion. That substantive issue is still to be decided.
Trump then claims, “Crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring this sham case.” How can such a short sentence be wrong in so many ways? There is nothing—no evidence, and four years where Trump controlled the Justice Department and presumably would have found any if it existed, to support the assertion Joe Biden is “crooked.” Nor does DOJ function as “henchmen” for President Biden. Perhaps that is what Trump would like his relationship with the Department to look like, but Jack Smith is independent and doesn’t take orders from Merrick Garland, let alone the President. And as for “waiting” three years to indict, to the contrary, from what we know, while there may have been some initial reluctance to investigate, by at least 2022, investigation was underway and the case, a very complicated one with lots of moving parts, was indicted on August 1, 2023. In other words, less than three years out from January 6, 2021.
joycevance.substack.com
This afternoon, the Supreme Court declined Jack Smith’s request to hear Trump’s appeal on presidential immunity, bypassing the court of appeals. Trump’s immunity motion is important because if he wins, it’s game over. The entire indictment would get dismissed if he were immune from prosecution. And while my assessment is in line with Judge Chutkan’s—she denied Trump’s motion—we don’t know for certain what the Supreme Court will do.
Logically, Trump’s motion lacks merit.
- To grant it, the Court would have to hold that presidents are above the law. All presidents, not just Trump. Anything they do while they’re president is protected. We’ve seen that same argument rejected repeatedly in a civil context: E. Jean Carroll’s case and the civil suit over January 6 in Washington, D.C., for instance. There’s no analytical reason to believe criminal conduct is any more deserving of protection than civil violations are, once a president is out of office.
- Trump claims that even absent total immunity for presidential conduct, the conduct he’s been charged with falls within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s duties, so he’s entitled to immunity. To credit that, the courts would have to believe that the steps Trump took to interfere with multiple states’ votes, elections a president has no role in, are somehow a part of his job. Elections are run by secretaries of state and county officials. The president has no say in the final vote count and no duties, core or outer perimeter, to interfere in those counts or the final report of the Electoral College.
- If the Supreme Court granted Trump’s motion, what would prevent Joe Biden or any future president from doing precisely what Trump did in 2020, but with more skill—and succeeding? Nothing. The Supreme Court would have ruled they could do no wrong. And that’s why the Supreme Court has to deny Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges, unless it wants to end democracy by giving a license to the next president to do whatever it takes to stay in power.
First, Trump claims the Supreme Court has “unanimously rejected Deranged Jack Smith’s desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution.” Leaving the persistent errors in capitalization to the side, Smith isn’t trying to “short circuit” the Constitution—he asked for an established writ that has been used in other cases of similar magnitude to send an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Nor has the Court unanimously rejected the underlying issue, Judge Chutkan’s denial of Trump presidential immunity motion. That substantive issue is still to be decided.
Trump then claims, “Crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring this sham case.” How can such a short sentence be wrong in so many ways? There is nothing—no evidence, and four years where Trump controlled the Justice Department and presumably would have found any if it existed, to support the assertion Joe Biden is “crooked.” Nor does DOJ function as “henchmen” for President Biden. Perhaps that is what Trump would like his relationship with the Department to look like, but Jack Smith is independent and doesn’t take orders from Merrick Garland, let alone the President. And as for “waiting” three years to indict, to the contrary, from what we know, while there may have been some initial reluctance to investigate, by at least 2022, investigation was underway and the case, a very complicated one with lots of moving parts, was indicted on August 1, 2023. In other words, less than three years out from January 6, 2021.
Let's Debunk This
Tonight, I had planned to tell you the story of Pumpkin the chicken, winding some string around her foot, which led me to bring her inside for some attention, which turned into a bath, and then a little photo session that got photobombed by Tofu. But, of course, legal news happened, so all you...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #747
Part 2
It continues. Trump claims, “I was President, it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential election.” As we noted above, elections are run by states. They certify their results on the basis of the results in each county. So, Trump had no right to get involved in the vote count in Wayne County, Michigan, but we now know that he tried to cajole Republican vote canvassers there into refusing to certify the lawful vote. Just like he called Georgia’s Secretary of State and threatened he was committing a crime if he didn’t “find” Trump more votes. That’s not the president’s job. He had no more right than anyone else to interfere with state and county election officials’ tallies of their votes. If Trump suspected fraud he could report that to DOJ, which he of course did, and they told him in no uncertain terms they couldn’t find any evidence of it. So no, the election wasn’t rigged or stolen. And Trump had neither right nor duty to investigate. It’s just more red meat he throws at his base, hoping they won’t notice that it’s spoiled.
But at end, there’s something we can agree on. Trump says he’s “looking forward to the very important arguments on Presidential Immunity in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.” So am I. But I expect him to lose, and then how long will it be before we hear from him about the corrupt Democrat judges on that court who are part of the witch hunt against him?
When we got its decision today, the Supreme Court did not explain why it denied Smith’s request to hear the appeal now. All we got was one sentence.
So, what does this do to Judge Chutkan’s scheduled March trial date? It probably blows it up. Although there’s a fantasy scenario that I’d like to cling to that could keep the case almost on track, it’s more likely that this spells delay, maybe significant delay. There are too many variables here for a reliable prediction about how long of one, but given that all proceedings before Judge Chutkan are stayed at least for now, delay seems inevitable.
First off, there is the timeline set by the rules of court to consider. As the Special Counsel noted in his reply brief, even if he were to win with a quick decision before the court of appeals, the default rules give Trump 45 days to seek en banc review before the full D.C. Circuit and 90 days to file for certiorari with the Supreme Court. That’s a good sized chunk of time. Although that schedule can be altered (either direction) by the courts, there’s the prospect for considerable delay.
The fantasy scenario where trial doesn’t get pushed back more than a month would have to look something like this:
One possible bright spot: There were no dissents from denial of certiorari in advance of judgment. If this decision had signaled some sort of move by a majority of the Court to prevent any of the Trump cases from going to trial before the election, we could have expected to see one or more of the liberal Justices dissent from the denial. The fact that none of them did may suggest that there isn’t dissatisfaction about the path forward and its likely speed. Or so we can hope.
More questions tonight than answers.
joycevance.substack.com
It continues. Trump claims, “I was President, it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential election.” As we noted above, elections are run by states. They certify their results on the basis of the results in each county. So, Trump had no right to get involved in the vote count in Wayne County, Michigan, but we now know that he tried to cajole Republican vote canvassers there into refusing to certify the lawful vote. Just like he called Georgia’s Secretary of State and threatened he was committing a crime if he didn’t “find” Trump more votes. That’s not the president’s job. He had no more right than anyone else to interfere with state and county election officials’ tallies of their votes. If Trump suspected fraud he could report that to DOJ, which he of course did, and they told him in no uncertain terms they couldn’t find any evidence of it. So no, the election wasn’t rigged or stolen. And Trump had neither right nor duty to investigate. It’s just more red meat he throws at his base, hoping they won’t notice that it’s spoiled.
But at end, there’s something we can agree on. Trump says he’s “looking forward to the very important arguments on Presidential Immunity in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.” So am I. But I expect him to lose, and then how long will it be before we hear from him about the corrupt Democrat judges on that court who are part of the witch hunt against him?
When we got its decision today, the Supreme Court did not explain why it denied Smith’s request to hear the appeal now. All we got was one sentence.
So, what does this do to Judge Chutkan’s scheduled March trial date? It probably blows it up. Although there’s a fantasy scenario that I’d like to cling to that could keep the case almost on track, it’s more likely that this spells delay, maybe significant delay. There are too many variables here for a reliable prediction about how long of one, but given that all proceedings before Judge Chutkan are stayed at least for now, delay seems inevitable.
First off, there is the timeline set by the rules of court to consider. As the Special Counsel noted in his reply brief, even if he were to win with a quick decision before the court of appeals, the default rules give Trump 45 days to seek en banc review before the full D.C. Circuit and 90 days to file for certiorari with the Supreme Court. That’s a good sized chunk of time. Although that schedule can be altered (either direction) by the courts, there’s the prospect for considerable delay.
The fantasy scenario where trial doesn’t get pushed back more than a month would have to look something like this:
- The court of appeals moves quickly, deciding the appeal within a few days of oral argument.
- The Supreme Court steps in immediately to hear the case—Jack Smith asked them to do this, but didn’t get a ruling in the one-liner above. It’s perhaps possible for the Court to decide to do this at a later date.
- The Supreme Court moves quickly, with an expedited briefing schedule and a fast decision.
- Voila, we only lose something like 60 days off the clock and trial starts in early May.
One possible bright spot: There were no dissents from denial of certiorari in advance of judgment. If this decision had signaled some sort of move by a majority of the Court to prevent any of the Trump cases from going to trial before the election, we could have expected to see one or more of the liberal Justices dissent from the denial. The fact that none of them did may suggest that there isn’t dissatisfaction about the path forward and its likely speed. Or so we can hope.
More questions tonight than answers.
Let's Debunk This
Tonight, I had planned to tell you the story of Pumpkin the chicken, winding some string around her foot, which led me to bring her inside for some attention, which turned into a bath, and then a little photo session that got photobombed by Tofu. But, of course, legal news happened, so all you...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #748
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #749
Jack Smith filed a motion in limine Wednesday morning. As we’ve discussed previously, this is a type of motion used to obtain a pre-trial ruling from the judge regarding the admissibility of certain types of evidence at trial.
Decisions about the admissibility of evidence are within the trial judge’s discretion. They are only reversible error (the kind that can invalidate a conviction) if the court of appeals believes the judge abused their discretion when they admitted a piece of evidence. This means prosecutors must be careful. On the one hand, they must ensure they can put in all of the evidence that is essential to prove their case. But they must also take care that they don’t push the envelope too far when it comes to either admitting their evidence or efforts to exclude evidence a defendant wants to offer.
Given that context, prosecutors, and courts too, are usually fairly permissive when it comes to evidence a defendant wants to offer. But there’s a clear line. Defendants can’t offer evidence that is designed to suggest to the jury, “even if you think I’m guilty, you should vote to acquit me anyway.” This is called jury nullification, and it’s an effort by a defendant to convince jurors to ignore the law and refuse to convict.
That seems to be a key part of Donald Trump’s strategy, and Jack Smith calls it out in his motion, asking the court to prevent Trump from offering evidence that isn’t relevant to the charges against him, but that is designed to sway the jury to acquit for impermissible reasons.
We’ll walk through the motion, but just a flag here: the D.C. prosecution is currently stayed by order of the court. Smith takes the position, which he did in an earlier filing after the stay, that it’s permissible for him to file additional material consistent with previously set court deadlines during the stay.
(full article online)
joycevance.substack.com
Decisions about the admissibility of evidence are within the trial judge’s discretion. They are only reversible error (the kind that can invalidate a conviction) if the court of appeals believes the judge abused their discretion when they admitted a piece of evidence. This means prosecutors must be careful. On the one hand, they must ensure they can put in all of the evidence that is essential to prove their case. But they must also take care that they don’t push the envelope too far when it comes to either admitting their evidence or efforts to exclude evidence a defendant wants to offer.
Given that context, prosecutors, and courts too, are usually fairly permissive when it comes to evidence a defendant wants to offer. But there’s a clear line. Defendants can’t offer evidence that is designed to suggest to the jury, “even if you think I’m guilty, you should vote to acquit me anyway.” This is called jury nullification, and it’s an effort by a defendant to convince jurors to ignore the law and refuse to convict.
That seems to be a key part of Donald Trump’s strategy, and Jack Smith calls it out in his motion, asking the court to prevent Trump from offering evidence that isn’t relevant to the charges against him, but that is designed to sway the jury to acquit for impermissible reasons.
We’ll walk through the motion, but just a flag here: the D.C. prosecution is currently stayed by order of the court. Smith takes the position, which he did in an earlier filing after the stay, that it’s permissible for him to file additional material consistent with previously set court deadlines during the stay.
(full article online)
Jack Smith Lays Out His Strategy
Jack Smith filed a motion in limine Wednesday morning. As we’ve discussed previously, this is a type of motion used to obtain a pre-trial ruling from the judge regarding the admissibility of certain types of evidence at trial. Decisions about the admissibility of evidence are within the trial...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #750
What does the new reporting about Kenneth Chesebro mean?
A little mea culpa in advance of tonight’s newsletter. My proofreader is out sick. And my backup proofreader is out sick. Get your Covid and Flu vaccines folks! It’s a jungle out there. My apologies in advance for any typos or inartful phrasing that have escaped my attention at the end of a...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #751
[ A very scared Trump]
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #752
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #753
The Legal Breakdown episode 173: @GlennKirschner2 discusses NY AG Letitia James seeking $370 million in the NY lawsuit.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #754
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #755
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #756
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #757
Trump attorney says president can’t be prosecuted for ordering murders
Mr Trump’s lawyer made the chilling argument before a three-judge panel of the US Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday
www.independent.co.uk
Ringo
Gold Member
215 unmarked graves discovered behind Mississippi state jail, families left in the dark
An alarming situation has unfolded in Jackson, Mississippi, where 215 bodies were discovered buried in unmarked graves behind a state jail.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #759
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 55,334
- 10,574
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #760
Similar threads
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 157
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 145
- Replies
- 337
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 594
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 435
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 197
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 151
- Views
- 668
- Replies
- 87
- Views
- 517
- Poll
- Replies
- 47
- Views
- 237
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8171
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-