Trump 63: Fani Makes It Four (Indictments)

[Ozlsn]

2 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Wouldn’t Trump jumping bail and leaving the country be the best of all possible outcomes?

Hm. Not really from my end - I think the best outcome would be for him to be held accountable, and better still would be that and a hard look into who was financing him and then also holding them accountable. And by "accountable" I mean imprisoned, for all of them, along with pretty hefty financial penalties. 

Why? Because this will happen again as long as the backers can find a candidate to push their preferred model with limited to no regulation and little to no protection for the people they are extracting wealth from and affecting the living area of. I am concerned that the US will still end up going down an authoritarian path, and that climate change will accelerate this - and that has implications for all of us on this tiny spaceship. If we move from a Russia/US Cold War to a tripartite authoritarian balance with oligarchs in control then I feel like the vast majority of us are screwed, even as the EU hopefully acts as a counterbalance to some extent.

Democracy is fragile and messy and vulnerable - and my ideal outcome would be Trump incarcerated and Democratic processes strengthened in the US.

8 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I imagine Prisoner P01135809 made sure his bondsman was a supporter likely to just suck it up if he screws things up.

Depends on how on the hook they would be I suspect... everyone's on the train until they realise the wreck is seriously going to affect them.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Ozlsn

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh, I hope she does move the trial date earlier!

 

[onekidanddone]

43 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh, I hope she does move the trial date earlier!

 

She knows full well he won’t stop and frankly I’m wondering if she is serious about following through. I mean shouldn’t she have pounced the first time he violated the terms?

Edited August 26, 2023 by onekidanddone

[GreyhoundFan]

[CTRLZero]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Only WE can grift..

Can mugshots be copyrighted?  Just curious.  I pretty much have Trump’s booking number memorized by now.  😄  

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, Ozlsn said:

Hm. Not really from my end - I think the best outcome would be for him to be held accountable, and better still would be that and a hard look into who was financing him and then also holding them accountable. And by "accountable" I mean imprisoned, for all of them, along with pretty hefty financial penalties. 

Why? Because this will happen again as long as the backers can find a candidate to push their preferred model with limited to no regulation and little to no protection for the people they are extracting wealth from and affecting the living area of. I am concerned that the US will still end up going down an authoritarian path, and that climate change will accelerate this - and that has implications for all of us on this tiny spaceship. If we move from a Russia/US Cold War to a tripartite authoritarian balance with oligarchs in control then I feel like the vast majority of us are screwed, even as the EU hopefully acts as a counterbalance to some extent.

Democracy is fragile and messy and vulnerable - and my ideal outcome would be Trump incarcerated and Democratic processes strengthened in the US.

Depends on how on the hook they would be I suspect... everyone's on the train until they realise the wreck is seriously going to affect them.

So, yes. This is the mature outcome that is best for the world.

 I am in a very cynical moment. I think the fact that he is indicted yet still the front runner in the Republican Party is a sign that our democracy is in deep deep trouble already. 

Many of our prisons are privately run and operated by this same loose group of cronies. Even regular jails and prisons are disproportionately staffed by correctional officers that are more likely to be pro Trump versus anti.

Financial repercussions are a similar weird and tangled mess.

I honestly think the most justice we can hope for is if he does leave.

This is an opinion I dearly hope to be proved wrong. Maybe American democracy can pull it off.

 

 

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I’m guessing his babysitters aren’t getting much rest these days:

[GreyhoundFan]

Good grief.

[Ozlsn]

So a MAGA person I know thinks the mugshot has "backfired on the left" (??) and is "showing Trump as a strong leader".

Not seeing it myself. Also:

[GreyhoundFan]

She is who you get when you neither listen to, nor pay, your lawyers:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I like this clip of Joy talking about TFG's horrible history.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Good grief.

 

He must have gotten some pushback on his score:

[CTRLZero]

7 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

He must have gotten some pushback on his score:

Well, I’m convinced now that I see his paid employee will vouch for him.  😉 

[thoughtful]

No, Donald the "hanky/lanky" was the weight you claimed when arrested - you claim to be a lot lankier than you are.

The phrase you were looking for when discussing your golf score was "hanky panky," you deluded shithead.

[Ozlsn]

Incredible shrinking man shrinks!

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

"athlete"

 

mmm...k.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s Georgia case could get real — quickly"

Quote

Former president Donald Trump’s Georgia indictment occupies an unusual space among his four criminal cases.

For a start, it might be the most compelling case, by virtue of how many associates — 18 — were also charged in the alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. There’s also the possibility that the proceedings could be televised. Finally, there is substantially more reason to believe that Trump won’t stand trial before the 2024 election in this case than there is in the three other cases.

Nonetheless, we are about to learn some significant things — and soon.

Already three key defendants have forced the issue in ways that could draw back the curtain on the strength of the case against Trump.

Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’s request to move his case to federal court will be the subject of an evidentiary hearing Monday. It’s possible that Meadows might need to testify for his request to succeed, and we learned Thursday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis has subpoenaed two central witnesses to participate: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and his chief investigator, Frances Watson. (Politico’s Kyle Cheney said this makes Monday’s hearing something of a “mini trial.”)

Also Thursday, a judge set an Oct. 23 trial date for one defendant, Kenneth Chesebro. Chesebro has requested a speedy trial, which he is entitled to under Georgia law. Former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell has also requested a speedy trial, though her trial date hasn’t been set. While their prosecutions might be separated from the defendants who prefer to delay their proceedings (including Trump), an early trial for one or more defendants could get at central facets of the alleged conspiracy.

As for how significant Monday could be?

The big development would be Meadows taking the stand, which some legal experts doubt he’ll do. (Because of the risks involved, including cross-examination, defendants are often advised against testifying.) Regardless, the hearing could provide our first view of how some other key witnesses testify. And it could set the tone when it comes to whether other defendants have their cases “removed” from Fulton County.

“If Meadows actually went to trial, he probably wouldn’t testify,” said Clark Cunningham, a law professor at Georgia State University. “So the decision on removal is going to be important for how things go. It might be almost more of a trial than we get on Oct. 23.”

As for that Oct. 23 trial date, things could still change. But if Chesebro and Powell continue to insist on a speedy trial — Georgia law allows defendants to demand a case be tried within two terms of the court, a period which would conclude around the end of October — the trial could begin in a matter of weeks.

Some Georgia legal experts say the stakes in a Chesebro trial would be high, by virtue of Chesebro’s centrality to both the Georgia case and special counsel Jack Smith’s federal indictment of Trump. (Chesebro isn’t charged in Smith’s case, but he is one of six unindicted co-conspirators.)

Chesebro is cast in both indictments as an architect of the effort to use alternate, or “fake,” Trump electors to help overturn the election on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith cites a Dec. 6, 2020, Chesebro memo as a “sharp departure” from the idea that fake electors were being used for more innocent purposes. Smith indicates it’s at this point that the fake electors went from being a contingency plan in case states overturned their election results, as the Trump campaign claimed publicly, to being a fraudulent effort to create “a fake controversy that would derail the proper certification of Biden as president-elect” on Jan. 6, 2021.

Chesebro also features in some key episodes and interactions in both indictments:

• The federal indictment cites an Arizona lawyer saying on Dec. 8, 2020 that Chesebro had told him the plan was to use Trump electors “that aren’t legal under federal law” … “so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6.”
• It accuses Chesebro of telling the Arizona lawyer to produce a court filing to create the illusion of uncertainty over the Arizona outcome ahead of the Dec. 14, 2020 elector deadline.
• It describes Chesebro as sending draft elector certificates to fake electors in New Mexico “at a [Trump] Campaign staffer’s request.”
• The Georgia indictment describes Chesebro coordinating with Trump associates like Rudy Giuliani and key officials in other states in which fake electors were ultimately submitted. It says Chesebro emailed Giuliani on Dec. 13, 2020 with, in the indictment’s words, “multiple strategies for disrupting and delaying the joint session of Congress on January 6.” It quotes Chesebro saying his ideas were “preferable to allowing the Electoral Count Act to operate by its terms.”
• It cites Chesebro sending similar emails to Trump attorney John Eastman on Jan. 1, 2021, and Jan. 4, 2021.

(Both Giuliani and Eastman were also charged in Georgia, but were unindicted co-conspirators in the federal case.)

We don’t yet know if Powell will be tried at the same time, but she briefly served on Trump’s legal team after the 2020 election and was instrumental in pushing some of the most bizarre claims about voter fraud. She also filed dubious lawsuits used to sow doubt about the election results.

While an Oct. 23 trial could involve only Chesebro and possibly Powell, they are charged alongside 17 others (including Trump) with a racketeering conspiracy. The experts say that means the case would require delving into the much-broader alleged conspiracy, which features 161 alleged overt acts — 21 of which involve Chesebro and 13 of which involve Powell.

“My guess is, at a minimum, that we’re going to hear about the fake electors case in all seven states,” Cunningham said of a Chesebro trial. “And because he is charged with a RICO conspiracy, all of the overt acts are fair game.”

Anthony Michael Kreis, another law professor at Georgia State, noted that most of Chesebro’s alleged actions don’t involve Georgia specifically. He said that means Chesebro’s “main function” is to “tie Trump to the scheme at-large and possibly shed light on that.”

“That could unearth a lot of damaging evidence against Trump, potentially either through the trial process or if Chesebro cuts a deal,” Kreis said.

Early trials could also send signals to other defendants, potentially having an impact on their legal strategies and negotiations over potential deals.

Getting a plea deal or a guilty verdict before others go to trial would be momentous, said former federal prosecutor Harry Litman.

“We will learn a lot because it’s a RICO charge; it’s the main charge, and everybody shares it,” Litman says. “So to prove it against Chesebro means quite a bit.”

Chesebro’s lawyer has also implied that Chesebro might call into question a central Trump defense, which is that Trump was merely relying on advice of counsel.

“Whether the campaign relied upon that advice as Mr. Chesebro intended,” attorney Scott Grubman told Rolling Stone before the Georgia indictment came down, “will have to remain a question to be resolved in court.”

The experts we consulted say Chesebro’s and Powell’s cases will almost definitely go to trial this year unless they back away from their requests. But there are difficult issues involved, including whether other defendants can get their cases separated — “severed,” in legal parlance. Willis has proposed that everyone go to trial on Oct. 23. But Trump’s lawyers, who have pushed to delay other proceedings, have objected. And trying everyone that quickly could prove complicated.

But there are also related ways in which holding an early trial could benefit Trump and others, the experts said. They said it means Willis will need to have her ducks in a row quickly. And she could be essentially providing a preview of her case for the rest of the defendants, allowing them to tailor their defenses accordingly.

“It’s kind of bad for Willis,” Litman said, “though obviously if she gets a tub-thumping quick conviction, that strikes fear in the hearts of the others.”

 

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

Incredible shrinking man shrinks!

Now show his hands.

😉

[SuffolkNGoodePlayers]

Randy Rainbow is great, but we've got the canon version of this. Yay!!!! 
The Suffolk & Goode Players - P01135809 (Donnie) 

Video for P01135809 (Donnie) 

SaGPlayers.bandcamp.com
MyFriendLyssa.libsyn.com

 

[GreyhoundFan]

He posts the dumbest stuff:

[GreyhoundFan]

From the Washington Post, Judge Chutkin denied TFG's proposed 2026 court date.

[fraurosena]

Apparently, Mark Meadows testified on his own behalf today in his hearing to have his case moved from state to federal court.

Quote

 

Neal Katyal had a theory that I rather liked about why he (and Trump et al) is so desperate to get the trial moved to federal court: there are cameras allowed in Georgia, and none of them want the public to find out what actually happened. After all, there is no plausible deniability left when everyone can see the irrefutable evidence for themselves-- in real time.

56 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

From the Washington Post, Judge Chutkin denied TFG's proposed 2026 court date.

Fantastic news! Apparently Jack Smith was there in person. I wonder what her arguments for this trial date were and if she mentioned Trump's flouting of his pre-trial release demands.

A date for Trump's arraignment in Georgia has also been set.

 

[fraurosena]

More info on Judge Chutkan's trial date decision.

Trump’s federal trial for subverting election is scheduled for next March

Quote

Donald Trump will go to trial in Washington, D.C., on March 4, 2024, on charges that he conspired to subvert the 2020 election and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan set the date, contending that the six-month lead-up to trial would be adequate for Trump’s well-resourced attorneys to prepare for trial while acknowledging the public interest in resolving the case expediently.

That schedule met an immediate protest from Trump’s attorney John Lauro, who said he doesn’t believe he can effectively defend Trump on a six-month timeline. He and co-counsel Todd Blanche had pushed for an April 2026 trial, a date Chutkan called “far beyond what is necessary.”

The trial date raises the likelihood that Trump will spend nearly all of the presidential primary season in a criminal courtroom. In addition to the trial in Washington, he’s slated to face jurors in New York on March 25 on charges stemming from hush money payments to a porn star, and he’s scheduled to stand trial in Florida on May 20 on charges that he hoarded classified information at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

A trial date in Trump’s fourth criminal case — racketeering charges in Georgia for his efforts to subvert the election — has not yet been scheduled. The lead prosecutor in that case, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, previously signaled she wanted to take the case to trial on March 4 — the same day chosen by Chutkan for the federal election trial.

March 4 is one day before Super Tuesday, when more than a dozen states will hold their primaries in the GOP presidential campaign.

The bulk of Monday’s hearing in Chutkan’s courtroom focused on the sheer volume of evidence prosecutors have handed over to Trump’s defense team to prepare for the trial: 12.8 million pages or files, drawn from grand jury interviews, the National Archives, the House Jan. 6 select committee’s evidence and Trump’s campaign and PACs.

Prosecutors on the team of special counsel Jack Smith indicated that their efforts to provide this information to Trump was “substantially complete” and came in five batches over the last several weeks. They said they had taken extraordinary steps to organize, digitize and annotate the evidence to help facilitate Trump’s ability to prepare for trial.

But Lauro, who at times grew heated in his response, said there was no way he could be ready for trial without years to prepare. He noted that there are more than 250 government witnesses he has to research, as well as additional witnesses he may decide to call. He said he’s also in the process of drafting a long series of motions seeking to shrink the case against Trump or get it dismissed altogether.

“This is an enormous, overwhelming task,” he said.

Lauro underscored the degree to which Trump’s team intends to inject national politics into the case, noting that he plans to file a motion arguing that the Justice Department is selectively prosecuting Trump because he is a political opponent of President Joe Biden. The motion, Lauro indicated, will invoke the president and his son, Hunter Biden.

He also said he expects to file a motion contending that Trump has “executive immunity” for the actions he took to overturn the 2020 election under constitutional principles related to faithfully executing federal law. And he said he separately intends to file motions to dismiss each of the charges Trump faces — including for three alleged conspiracies aimed at disrupting the transfer of power.

Chutkan repeatedly sympathized with Lauro’s burden to prepare for trial but noted that she had never seen the government take such extraordinary lengths to assemble and curate the evidence as she has in this case. Typically, she said, delays in trial dates are for defendants who can’t get competent attorneys or who are involved in multidefendant cases with superseding indictments.

She twice told Lauro to “take the temperature down” after he raised his voice to complain about the “outrage to justice” represented by prosecutors’ own expedited trial proposal of Jan. 2, 2024. Chutkan agreed that the special counsel’s timeline was too rapid but still proposed a date far closer to Smith’s preference than Trump’s.

Senior assistant special counsel Molly Gaston argued during her own remarks that Trump has had nearly a year to begin preparing to face charges in this case, noting that he’s been aware of the grand jury investigation since last September. And she noted that his attorneys have been involved in sealed grand jury proceedings beginning even earlier — in August 2022 — about the testimony of 14 witnesses. Many of those sealed proceedings have been the subject of news reports, featuring efforts by Trump to block or limit testimony from figures like former Vice President Mike Pence, chief of staff Mark Meadows and Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

Chutkan emphasized that she would treat Trump, in her courtroom, like any other defendant, and would not give him any “more or less deference.” And she said his political schedule as he campaigns to regain the White House would not factor into her decisions. She compared him to a professional athlete facing criminal charges, saying it would be “inappropriate” to schedule a trial around that athlete’s schedule.

“Setting a trial date does not depend and should not depend on the defendant’s personal and professional obligations,” Chutkan said. “Mr. Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule.”

Couple more details not mentioned in the article.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"All the times Trump’s trials conflict with the 2024 election campaign"

Quote

As the 2024 presidential race kicks into high gear, former president Donald Trump’s travels to key states will be interrupted by visits to destinations far less common for White House hopefuls: courtrooms.

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on Tuesday scheduled Trump’s election obstruction trial to begin March 4, 2024 — three months later than prosecutors had requested, but far earlier than the proposal by Trump’s legal team.

Quote

Trump’s team had requested that the trial begin in April 2026, long after the 2024 presidential election. Prosecutors had proposed that it begin in January 2024.

Federal trial timelines are notorious for sliding, but Chutkan’s date suggests that the trial could be on a timeline to finish before the 2024 election. Trump is the early front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

The GOP nominating calendar has yet to be firmed up, but the first contest is expected to take place Jan. 15 in Iowa. After the caucuses there, primaries are expected in the following weeks in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

If Chutkan’s March 4 date sticks, the trial would begin in the middle of the Republican primary season, a day before Super Tuesday — when voting is expected to occur in roughly a dozen states, with more contests to follow in the weeks after that.

Scheduling this trial is particularly complicated since Trump is a defendant in three other criminal cases. In New York — where Trump faces state charges related to repayment of hush money given to an adult-film star during the 2016 presidential campaign — a judge also set the trial date for March 2024.

Trump’s federal trial in Florida is set to begin in May 2024. That case is centered on allegations that the former president mishandled classified materials and then thwarted government efforts to retrieve them. Trump’s lawyers had suggested to the federal judge in Florida presiding over that case that Trump could not get a fair trial until after the 2024 election.

“Clearly this and other cases — and other potential cases — means Trump will be on his plane traveling between rallies and courtrooms,” Republican strategist Doug Heye said. “We will see days when he is doing both on the same day.”

In 2016, the last time there was a contested Republican primary season, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), the last of Trump’s remaining rivals, dropped out of the race on May 3, effectively ceding the nomination to Trump. Cruz’s fate had become clear weeks before then.

A civil trial is expected to begin on Oct. 2 in a New York State Court. The $250 million case is being brought by New York’s attorney general against Trump, the Trump Organization and people who served as executives at the company. The case is focused on business practices in which the defendants allegedly manipulated the value of Trump’s assets to obtain favorable loan rates and reduce insurance costs.

On Jan. 15 — the same day as caucusing is expected to take place in Iowa — Trump faces another civil trial in U.S. District Court in Manhattan from writer E. Jean Carroll. This one will center on comments Trump made while in office in reaction to her allegation of rape years ago. It will also focus on derogatory comments Trump made in a CNN town hall in May, immediately after Carroll’s $5 million verdict in a separate lawsuit covering additional claims of defamation and sexual abuse.

Trump also could appear on the debate stage later this summer and into the fall, as his cases unfold. Though he skipped the first Republican debate Aug. 23 in Milwaukee, another is planned for Sept. 27.

In 2016, GOP debates continued into March as voters went to the polls in key states.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Boy, she really is a dollar store attorney.