Trump's Present and Future possible indictments

It turns out it wasn’t just a bad day for Trump, as I captioned my column Thursday night. It was a bad week. A really bad week.

After Sidney Powell’s guilty plea, there was Kenneth Chesebro’s plea. His was to a felony charge of filing false information, but like Powell, he spends no time in prison and will be eligible under Georgia’s first-time offender provision to have his record expunged after he completes his probationary sentence successfully.

Some folks have expressed concerns about these “light” sentences. Keep your eyes on the prize here. The goal is to hold folks accountable and to keep flipping lower level defendants against ones who are higher up the food chain, more culpable. Powell and Chesebro, both lawyers, have just admitted in open court that they committed crimes in connection with the Georgia election. Both have given prosecutors taped statements. We don’t know what’s in them, but prosecutors found sufficient value in the evidence each defendant had to offer to extend very favorable plea deals. Both Powell and Chesebro are obligated to testify truthfully at trial—if they don’t, they lose their deals, which is a pretty good guarantee they won’t back pedal.

Donald Trump isn’t the only highly culpable defendant in the Fulton County case, even if he’s the most important target of the prosecution. Chesebro, a Harvard educated lawyer, was the architect behind the fake electors scheme. In one memo he authored, Chesebro acknowledged that he was promoting a “controversial strategy” that even the Supreme Court, with its conservative supermajority, would “likely” reject. He suggested that there were political, as opposed to legal, reasons to move forward with it. The plan was discussed in conversations that took place among the lawyers. There is likely more to it than what is publicly known, and interestingly, Chesebro’s plea obligates him to turn over documents to the government as well as to testify. We don’t know what might be in his emails and text messages or who he might he be able to offer additional evidence against. The possibilities include at least Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, and Jenna Ellis (who, with her publicly expressed grievance over paying her own legal fees, looks like she could be poised for a guilty plea of her own as the case moves forward). They’re all candidates for Chesebro to cooperate against. In other words, it’s not just about obtaining additional testimony against Trump, it’s also about obtaining testimony to encourage defendants who are closer to Trump to plead guilty as well.

Chesebro wrote an entire series of memos in 2020 that acted as road maps for the fake slates of Trump electors in each state. He did that in Georgia, of course, but that wasn’t the only state where the Trump campaign ran the fake electors ploy. Chesebro acknowledged in court that he “created and distributed false Electoral College documents” to Trump operatives in Georgia and other states, and that he worked “in coordination with” the Trump campaign (emphasis added). So, it’s easy to see how his testimony could help not just Fani Willis, but Jack Smith too. “The defendant provided detailed instructions to co-conspirators in Georgia and other states,” a prosecutor told the Judge on Friday when detailing Chesebro’s conduct. Chesebro had to acknowledge that the prosecution’s statement was correct as part of his colloquy with the Judge. Before accepting a guilty plea, the judge must ensure that a defendant understands what he’s pleading guilty to and is doing so voluntarily. That means Chesebro can’t walk back the “other states” part of what he knows about.

There’s an additional advantage to obtaining guilty pleas from both Powell and Chesebro, and it’s more bad news for Trump. There will be no early trial, no opportunity for other defendants to get a preview of Fani Willis’ case. Willis is down from 19 defendants to 16 defendants, and she hasn’t even struck a jury yet. Her consistent position has been that she wants to try all defendants together—Powell and Chesebro were only going apart from the others because they’d made speedy trial demands. Willis has a strong argument that the remaining defendants should be tried together, and lo and behold, both the Judge and Donald Trump have some empty time on their hands in the next few months before Jack Smith’s case against Trump goes to trial in Washington, D.C., in March.

The three guilty pleas Willis has obtained—Scott Hall, who was part of the Coffee County voting machines scheme pled earlier; in fact, his plea likely played a role in Powell’s plea, since she was involved in it too—put pressure on downstream defendants. More of the defendants charged in the Coffee County portion of the RICO conspiracy are likely to seek deals. Other defendants who have anything to offer are almost certainly thinking about it. As we discussed on Thursday, no one wants to be left standing when the music stops. Does Mark Meadows want to be sitting at the table with Donald Trump when the jury hears the evidence or would he prefer to be on the witness stand during the government’s case? I suppose that depends on how much of the rest of his life the 64-year-old Meadows, who gave up a safe seat in Congress to serve as Trump’s fourth chief of staff, wants to spend in Georgia.

Steve Sadow, Trump’s new lead trial lawyer in Georgia, had this to say after Sidney Powell’s plea: “Assuming truthful testimony in the Fulton County case, it will be favorable to my overall defense strategy.” Of course, what else can Trump’s lawyer say? But this case will end up in the predictable place with Trump pointing his finger at the lawyers (at least some of whom he hasn’t paid) and claiming they took advantage of him. Trump is always the victim when it suits him. Fani Willis will be ready.

As if the Fulton County case wasn’t enough bad news for Trump, Friday, the Judge hearing the civil fraud case in New York, Judge Arthur Engoron, was boiling when he learned that despite his gag order, Trump failed to remove from his website a social media post directed at the Judge’s clerk. The Judge threatened Trump with sanctions including prison. Trump’s lawyers said that the failure to remove the item was an accident.

The Judge ended up fining Trump $5,000.00, based largely on the representation that what happened was an inadvertent error. Trump had removed the post from Truth Social, but failed to take it off of his website. Far from being a slap on the wrist, as some complained, the misstep gave the Judge a chance to issue a final warning to Trump. In his order, he wrote, “Donald Trump has received ample warning from this Court as to the possible repercussions of violating the gag order. He specifically acknowledged that he understood and would abide by it. Accordingly, issuing yet another warning is no longer appropriate; this Court is way beyond the “warning” stage…Make no mistake: future violations, whether intentional or unintentional, will subject the violator to far more severe sanctions, which may include, but are not limited to, steeper financial penalties, holding Donald Trump in contempt of court, and possibly, imprisoning him.” Trump is on notice.

The Judge is making a record. If Trump steps out of line again and the judge sanctions him, possibly imprisons him, prosecutors will be able to argue on appeal that the court did everything it possibly could before taking more serious steps. This sort of “progressive discipline” adds an additional warning to Trump on the record, and makes it easier to uphold more significant steps the Judge made choose to take if there’s a future transgression.

It’s impossible to close out the week without talking about House Republican’s failure to elect a Speaker. Increasingly it seems clear we are no longer a two-party country. We are a three- or four-party country: Democrats on one side and the two or three different parties housed under the Republican umbrella. The MAGA party is a pro-chaos party, straight out of Steve Bannon’s playbook. Whatever their name implies they’re about, they have as little to do with making America great again as Trump’s “stop the steal” slogan had to do with protecting election integrity. Although the Liz Cheneys and Adam Kinzingers—the never Trumpers—are long gone, perhaps the remaining few Republicans who believe in country over party just enough to want to avoid a government shutdown (current funding runs out on November 17) with volatile situations in both Eastern Europe and the Middle East, will consider a temporary alliance with Democrats to ensure we make it through the current international and national crisis. New York Congressman Dan Goldman had this to say Saturday morning.

https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2a2f677a-48a8-4365-ade2-0136ab705936_1082x724.png

The blame for the situation we’re in is squarely on the Trump-Republicans and anyone who enables them. Trump’s allies are endangering national security. That’s an important point to focus on now, as we begin to discuss the upcoming elections. Who makes you feel safer? It’s not the folks who can’t even pick a leader in a moment of crisis.


 


against the United States because, in attempting to overturn the presidential election that he knew he had lost, he violated the Executive Vesting Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

To our knowledge, this is the first brief ever to make this constitutional argument against absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for a president.

That the former president violated the Executive Vesting Clause is perhaps the single best argument for his disqualification from future office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 
All this work OP has done is going to evaporate to nothing. One heck of a sand castle he's

built, but the tide is coming in.
 
Part 1


The Trump administration brought out the best and the worst in lawyers. Early on, as a shell-shocked nation watched civil rights abuses take shape, it was the lawyers who flocked to airports to try and intervene in Trump’s Muslim ban. Civil rights lawyers who tried to help migrants who were being denied the right to seek asylum and separated from their children. When Trump fired FBI Director Jim Comey, DOJ lawyers joined Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Lawyers were the guardrails, including the acting attorney general, acting deputy attorney general, and lawyers in the White House who thwarted Trump’s efforts to steal the election outright. And judges, many of them Trump appointees, refused to aid and abet the Big Lie as Trump filed lawsuit after lawsuit. Lawyers were the heroes.

But Trump’s lawyers were a different story. In Jenna Ellis’ teary justification in court today as she pled guilty, she didn’t do her “due diligence.” Far too many Trump lawyers, just about everyone on his private legal team starting with Michael Cohen and ending with pleas in the last week from Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Ellis tell the story of the bad lawyers. And there will be more. Lawyers who abandoned the Constitution in favor of their own personal dreams of fame and power.

Share

Jenna Ellis is today’s winner in the “tweets that didn’t age well” category.


Her guilty plea today, which includes a full cooperation agreement, may prove to be the most important one yet. Ellis is now obligated to meet with prosecutors for interviews, provide further statements as necessary, and to testify at hearings and trials. Her testimony is certainly bad news for Rudy Giuliani, who called her his number two. She had frequent access to others, including Trump. And there has been some suggestion that she was responsible for bringing John Eastman on board. Plenty of reason for her remaining co-defendants to be very nervous.

But it’s the substance of Ellis’ plea that’s most interesting. It’s highly specific, identifying false statements Ellis helped Rudy Giuliani and Ray Smith, another of her co-defendants, make to Georgia state senators. Those statements, which she is now admitting were false, form the core of the Big Lie, the idea that Trump would have won the election but for rampant voter fraud that changed the count. Of course, we all know that to be untrue. But now, for the first time in court, one of Trump’s key allies, one of the bad lawyers, is saying it’s not true, as well.

Ellis’ plea agreement is a confession that she was involved in telling seven lies to Georgia senators, presumably in an effort to convince them to participate in the fake electors scheme:

  • there were 96,000 fraudulent mail-in ballots that got counted
  • 2,506 felons voted illegally
  • 66,248 underage people illegally registered to vote
  • 2,423 unregistered people voted
  • 1,043 people, who had illegally registered because they used a post office box instead of a physical street address, voted
  • At least 10,315 dead people cast ballots
  • Fulton County election workers at the State Farm Arena expelled poll watchers and the media while votes were being counted and continued their work with no oversight
All lies. The basis for her plea is that all of Trump’s claims of election fraud in Georgia were a lie—and that his lawyers, at least, knew it

Interestingly, these same types of lies formed the backbone of all of Trump’s claims of fraud: illegal registrations, illegal votes, and improper practices in vote counting. Jenna Ellis will now testify that none of it was true, although we still don’t know whether she can testify that Trump, as well, knew it was one falsehood after another.

What seems certain is that Jenna Ellis is now on track to be Trump’s newest covfefe boy. Just like Sidney Powell was never his lawyer. But it’s going to be interesting to try to watch him distance himself from her.


The four plea agreements Willis now has under her belt add up to more than the sum of their parts. That’s because each defendant has pled guilty to a different part of the RICO scheme and can provide testimony about others and their involvement in a synergistic way. It’s not just that Ellis can testify about the seven lies. She can, presumably, testify to each member of the conspiracy and what her interactions were with them, perhaps comments they made or activity she observed about other parts of the plan as well. And there’s likely to be just that much more pressure on defendants who have yet to plead guilty—it’s to the point where no one who has an option wants to be left behind to face prison with Trump. Powell and Chesebro’s pleas put pressure on Ellis. Her decision has the same affect, especially on the remaining lawyers.

Ellis, in the statement she read to the court, said, “I failed to do my due diligence. I believe in and I value election integrity. If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post election challenges. I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse.” Not a shining moment for a lawyer or for the legal profession.

Ellis is a cooperating co-defendant. Having been charged with crimes, she entered into a plea agreement with the DA and is receiving (extremely) favorable treatment in exchange for her full cooperation. Although there was an initial burst of excitement when ABC ran a story earlier today about Mark Meadows, his situation is a different one. There is no news about Meadows’ situation in Georgia, where he is under indictment. ABC reported that he had testified before a grand jury in Washington, D.C. in the special counsel’s election interference case there.





 
Part 2

Meadows does not appear to be cooperating with prosecutors. Instead, the reporting suggests that he testified under a grant of immunity. This suggests Meadows isn’t on board to cooperate with prosecutors and tell them the truth about everything he knows. He is not indicted in the Washington, D.C. case and did not receive any sort of deal connected to potential charges against him, that we know of. Instead, he was compelled to testify by the government’s grant of immunity, which removes any sort of Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination concerns because prosecutors give up, at least in a limited way, their ability to prosecute.

There are two different types of immunity the government can give here. It’s not clear from the reporting which one is in play. “Transactional immunity” protects a witness from prosecution for any offenses they testify about. “Use immunity” means the government cannot use the witness’s testimony to make the case against them (except in a subsequent perjury/false statements case), although they can still prosecute.

Longtime readers of Civil Discourse will recall that back in May we openly speculated about what was going on with Meadows, who had all but disappeared from public life.

Image
I noted that the sort of low profile he was keeping is something I normally associate with someone who has decided to plead/cooperate/testify, but that in Trumpworld, people didn’t really cooperate. And Mark Meadows didn’t seem like the kind of bold, courageous guy who would be willing to go first.

Then on June 6, the New York Times ran a story confirming Meadows had testified before the special counsel's grand jury, although it was unclear whether it was about the Mar-a-Lago case, the D.C. case, or both. I speculated that perhaps he was immunized to testify—it was hard to imagine him doing it otherwise, because it could have well led to an indictment if he was truthful or a perjury charge if he was not. Now, ABC has confirmed Meadows testimony took place under a grant of immunity, although we’re still a little shy on details.

ABC’s reporting is that Meadows told prosecutors he agreed the 2020 election was the most secure in American history and that he had repeatedly told Trump that the allegations of voter fraud lacked any merit. But Meadows’ attorney was quick to deny the story. He told NBC’s Kristen Welker that the ABC story was “largely inaccurate.” That seems to confirm that Meadows hasn’t “flipped” in the traditional sense like Ellis has and that he isn’t cooperating with prosecutors.

Meadows status in Jack Smith’s case has always been something of a curiosity. He was not indicted, nor does he appear to be among the unnamed, unindicted co-conspirators in that case. He could be important. He was one of just a few aides at Trump’s side as the insurrection unfolded. He was in on Trump’s phone call to Brad Raffensperger, where Trump begged Georgia's Secretary of State to “find” him enough votes for the win. Meadows’ texts were a treasure trove for the January 6 committee. If Meadows ever decides to cooperate it would be a big deal. But that’s not what this appears to be.

But Meadows, whatever deal he may have in the District of Columbia, is still a defendant in Georgia. Perhaps he convinced federal prosecutors that he had no criminal culpability but still required immunity to ensure he would not be charged before he would agree to testify before the grand jury. Perhaps he intends to fight it out in Georgia because Fani Willis wouldn’t give him that same deal. Or perhaps Meadows will join the chorus of those seeking deals in Georgia. But if Meadows is convicted or has to plead to a felony to get a deal in Fulton County, Jack Smith will be left with egg on his face if Meadows walks away uncharged in the larger federal case.

So far, Meadows’ lawyers have been able to keep him walking on a tightrope between abandoning Trump and accompanying him to prison when it comes to Jack Smith. But not so much in Georgia, where Meadows is among the defendants. Although his Eleventh Circuit appeal, his effort to remove his case from state court to federal court, won’t be heard until next month, and perhaps he’s still holding out some hope the court of appeals will rescue him, Meadows is rapidly reaching the point where he’s going to have to pick a side. That’s something he’s managed to avoid doing up until now.



 



Dave
How would detaining him until trial impact whether or not he goes to prison?


Jack E Smith
He will immediately appeal detention, claiming violation of his 1A rights.When he loses the appeal in the appellate courts, he will take it to SCOTUS, the Constitutional authority in the land.He will demand a stay of all trial proceedings while it is being deliberated. His only goal is to push the trial out several months during this melee. The judges know this, which is why they’ve been careful in layering his restrictions and stepping him through multiple warnings.I said at some point we might have no choice.We’re getting there.
 

Part 1


The Trump administration brought out the best and the worst in lawyers. Early on, as a shell-shocked nation watched civil rights abuses take shape, it was the lawyers who flocked to airports to try and intervene in Trump’s Muslim ban. Civil rights lawyers who tried to help migrants who were being denied the right to seek asylum and separated from their children. When Trump fired FBI Director Jim Comey, DOJ lawyers joined Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Lawyers were the guardrails, including the acting attorney general, acting deputy attorney general, and lawyers in the White House who thwarted Trump’s efforts to steal the election outright. And judges, many of them Trump appointees, refused to aid and abet the Big Lie as Trump filed lawsuit after lawsuit. Lawyers were the heroes.

But Trump’s lawyers were a different story. In Jenna Ellis’ teary justification in court today as she pled guilty, she didn’t do her “due diligence.” Far too many Trump lawyers, just about everyone on his private legal team starting with Michael Cohen and ending with pleas in the last week from Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Ellis tell the story of the bad lawyers. And there will be more. Lawyers who abandoned the Constitution in favor of their own personal dreams of fame and power.

Share

Jenna Ellis is today’s winner in the “tweets that didn’t age well” category.


Her guilty plea today, which includes a full cooperation agreement, may prove to be the most important one yet. Ellis is now obligated to meet with prosecutors for interviews, provide further statements as necessary, and to testify at hearings and trials. Her testimony is certainly bad news for Rudy Giuliani, who called her his number two. She had frequent access to others, including Trump. And there has been some suggestion that she was responsible for bringing John Eastman on board. Plenty of reason for her remaining co-defendants to be very nervous.

But it’s the substance of Ellis’ plea that’s most interesting. It’s highly specific, identifying false statements Ellis helped Rudy Giuliani and Ray Smith, another of her co-defendants, make to Georgia state senators. Those statements, which she is now admitting were false, form the core of the Big Lie, the idea that Trump would have won the election but for rampant voter fraud that changed the count. Of course, we all know that to be untrue. But now, for the first time in court, one of Trump’s key allies, one of the bad lawyers, is saying it’s not true, as well.

Ellis’ plea agreement is a confession that she was involved in telling seven lies to Georgia senators, presumably in an effort to convince them to participate in the fake electors scheme:

  • there were 96,000 fraudulent mail-in ballots that got counted
  • 2,506 felons voted illegally
  • 66,248 underage people illegally registered to vote
  • 2,423 unregistered people voted
  • 1,043 people, who had illegally registered because they used a post office box instead of a physical street address, voted
  • At least 10,315 dead people cast ballots
  • Fulton County election workers at the State Farm Arena expelled poll watchers and the media while votes were being counted and continued their work with no oversight
All lies. The basis for her plea is that all of Trump’s claims of election fraud in Georgia were a lie—and that his lawyers, at least, knew it

Interestingly, these same types of lies formed the backbone of all of Trump’s claims of fraud: illegal registrations, illegal votes, and improper practices in vote counting. Jenna Ellis will now testify that none of it was true, although we still don’t know whether she can testify that Trump, as well, knew it was one falsehood after another.

What seems certain is that Jenna Ellis is now on track to be Trump’s newest covfefe boy. Just like Sidney Powell was never his lawyer. But it’s going to be interesting to try to watch him distance himself from her.


The four plea agreements Willis now has under her belt add up to more than the sum of their parts. That’s because each defendant has pled guilty to a different part of the RICO scheme and can provide testimony about others and their involvement in a synergistic way. It’s not just that Ellis can testify about the seven lies. She can, presumably, testify to each member of the conspiracy and what her interactions were with them, perhaps comments they made or activity she observed about other parts of the plan as well. And there’s likely to be just that much more pressure on defendants who have yet to plead guilty—it’s to the point where no one who has an option wants to be left behind to face prison with Trump. Powell and Chesebro’s pleas put pressure on Ellis. Her decision has the same affect, especially on the remaining lawyers.

Ellis, in the statement she read to the court, said, “I failed to do my due diligence. I believe in and I value election integrity. If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post election challenges. I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse.” Not a shining moment for a lawyer or for the legal profession.

Ellis is a cooperating co-defendant. Having been charged with crimes, she entered into a plea agreement with the DA and is receiving (extremely) favorable treatment in exchange for her full cooperation. Although there was an initial burst of excitement when ABC ran a story earlier today about Mark Meadows, his situation is a different one. There is no news about Meadows’ situation in Georgia, where he is under indictment. ABC reported that he had testified before a grand jury in Washington, D.C. in the special counsel’s election interference case there.






Part 2

Meadows does not appear to be cooperating with prosecutors. Instead, the reporting suggests that he testified under a grant of immunity. This suggests Meadows isn’t on board to cooperate with prosecutors and tell them the truth about everything he knows. He is not indicted in the Washington, D.C. case and did not receive any sort of deal connected to potential charges against him, that we know of. Instead, he was compelled to testify by the government’s grant of immunity, which removes any sort of Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination concerns because prosecutors give up, at least in a limited way, their ability to prosecute.

There are two different types of immunity the government can give here. It’s not clear from the reporting which one is in play. “Transactional immunity” protects a witness from prosecution for any offenses they testify about. “Use immunity” means the government cannot use the witness’s testimony to make the case against them (except in a subsequent perjury/false statements case), although they can still prosecute.

Longtime readers of Civil Discourse will recall that back in May we openly speculated about what was going on with Meadows, who had all but disappeared from public life.

Image
I noted that the sort of low profile he was keeping is something I normally associate with someone who has decided to plead/cooperate/testify, but that in Trumpworld, people didn’t really cooperate. And Mark Meadows didn’t seem like the kind of bold, courageous guy who would be willing to go first.

Then on June 6, the New York Times ran a story confirming Meadows had testified before the special counsel's grand jury, although it was unclear whether it was about the Mar-a-Lago case, the D.C. case, or both. I speculated that perhaps he was immunized to testify—it was hard to imagine him doing it otherwise, because it could have well led to an indictment if he was truthful or a perjury charge if he was not. Now, ABC has confirmed Meadows testimony took place under a grant of immunity, although we’re still a little shy on details.

ABC’s reporting is that Meadows told prosecutors he agreed the 2020 election was the most secure in American history and that he had repeatedly told Trump that the allegations of voter fraud lacked any merit. But Meadows’ attorney was quick to deny the story. He told NBC’s Kristen Welker that the ABC story was “largely inaccurate.” That seems to confirm that Meadows hasn’t “flipped” in the traditional sense like Ellis has and that he isn’t cooperating with prosecutors.

Meadows status in Jack Smith’s case has always been something of a curiosity. He was not indicted, nor does he appear to be among the unnamed, unindicted co-conspirators in that case. He could be important. He was one of just a few aides at Trump’s side as the insurrection unfolded. He was in on Trump’s phone call to Brad Raffensperger, where Trump begged Georgia's Secretary of State to “find” him enough votes for the win. Meadows’ texts were a treasure trove for the January 6 committee. If Meadows ever decides to cooperate it would be a big deal. But that’s not what this appears to be.

But Meadows, whatever deal he may have in the District of Columbia, is still a defendant in Georgia. Perhaps he convinced federal prosecutors that he had no criminal culpability but still required immunity to ensure he would not be charged before he would agree to testify before the grand jury. Perhaps he intends to fight it out in Georgia because Fani Willis wouldn’t give him that same deal. Or perhaps Meadows will join the chorus of those seeking deals in Georgia. But if Meadows is convicted or has to plead to a felony to get a deal in Fulton County, Jack Smith will be left with egg on his face if Meadows walks away uncharged in the larger federal case.

So far, Meadows’ lawyers have been able to keep him walking on a tightrope between abandoning Trump and accompanying him to prison when it comes to Jack Smith. But not so much in Georgia, where Meadows is among the defendants. Although his Eleventh Circuit appeal, his effort to remove his case from state court to federal court, won’t be heard until next month, and perhaps he’s still holding out some hope the court of appeals will rescue him, Meadows is rapidly reaching the point where he’s going to have to pick a side. That’s something he’s managed to avoid doing up until now.











Dave
How would detaining him until trial impact whether or not he goes to prison?


Jack E Smith
He will immediately appeal detention, claiming violation of his 1A rights.When he loses the appeal in the appellate courts, he will take it to SCOTUS, the Constitutional authority in the land.He will demand a stay of all trial proceedings while it is being deliberated. His only goal is to push the trial out several months during this melee. The judges know this, which is why they’ve been careful in layering his restrictions and stepping him through multiple warnings.I said at some point we might have no choice.We’re getting there.









Obviously OP is a Trump-obsessed retard.

Probably has a Trump shrine in a hidden room at his trailer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top