The Tiny Scandals and Trials

[ti-amie]

Txs for all that, Ti. Almost impossible to digest all that info quickly.
Let's hope this is the guy that puts him in prison (ha, ha, ha, I know)

It's a lot but at least people are trying to lay out what the argument is for this to go forward. The special counsel is showing that none of this had to do with his duties as POTUS and everything to do with his being a candidate. By laying things out like this the SCOTUS decision looks worse and worse. The way Smith laid this out is very similar to what was done in NYC that got TFG convicted for 34 felonies.

[mmmm8]

Thanks for posting, Ti!

[ti-amie]

She's getting 9 years after criming in service of a lie.

[ti-amie]

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
A few thoughts about Special Counsel Jack Smith’s unsealed immunity filing:

After he filed a superseding indictment on 8/27/24, Smith filed a “Motion for Immunity Determinations.” Smith filed this Motion with proposed redactions and asked Judge Chutkan to decide whether the redactions were appropriate. Once she made that decision (after considering Trump’s objections), Chutkan then unsealed the redacted Motion and ordered the Clerk of the Courts to publicly file it.

What’s interesting (and great from a transparency standpoint) about this Motion is that it really reads more like a SPEAKING INDICTMENT. A speaking indictment is one which provides more detail than is legally required in order to allege the elements of the crime.

A speaking indictment “tells a story” and provides deeper context and details that help (and often times, influence) the reader.

In this instance, Smith has gone beyond the borders of the superseding indictment and has more fully presented the extent of Trump’s criminality. He has shown the level of what I am calling “premeditation” on the part of Trump and his co-conspirators to knowingly lie about election fraud even before the election itself in November of 2020. The Motion makes clear that Trump’s conniving and planning began months before the election. One example in the Motion dates as far back as July of 2020.

Again, this context provided by Smith’s factually detailed Motion allows for Americans to understand that Trump, acting in his capacity as a private citizen and private candidate for office, always intended to lie about the outcome of the 2020 election in order to remain in power.

Judge Chutkan must be praised for the speed and efficiency by which she has handled this case once it was returned to her from the Supreme Court.

The briefing by the parties on the proposed redactions to Smith’s Motion was completed on October 1st. The very next day, October 2nd, Chutkan ruled that the redacted Motion could be publicly filed.

Although this case won’t proceed to trial before Election Day 2024, Chutkan is ensuring that the judicial process continues apace and is consistent with how she handles her docket of cases.

This is in marked contrast to what we experienced with Judge Aileen Cannon in the classified documents case…

Also, Smith clearly put as much as he could out there for public consumption, but more importantly, because he knows that once Trump’s challenges and objections are overruled by Chutkan, Trump will appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and then on to SCOTUS.

Smith wrote this Motion with the intent of ensuring that all of the *judges* who read it will be on full-notice of the extent of the evidence against Trump.

I always say: “know your audience.” Well, Jack Smith certainly knows who his ultimate audience will be.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

P1/2

[ti-amie]

P2/2

[Owendonovan]

I hope he loses this one hard.

‘Central Park Five’ members sue Trump for defamation after his debate comments on 1989 case.

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.
“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”
“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.
Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung called the lawsuit “just another frivolous, Election Interference lawsuit” that he claimed was brought to “distract the American people from Kamala Harris’s dangerously liberal agenda and failing campaign.”
The men are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The suit also claims that Trump’s comments placed them in a false light and caused them to “suffer severe emotional distress.”
The group was pressured into giving false confessions in the case. They were exonerated in 2002 when DNA evidence linked another person to the crime. The teenagers sued the city, and the case was settled in 2014.
Trump has long been outspoken on the case, which rocked New York in the late 1980s during a time when he was a leading figure in the city’s real estate and celebrity scenes. At the time, Trump took out full-page ads that ran in several New York City newspapers that read in all-caps, “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!”
His comments last month came in response to Harris bringing up the ad during a portion of the debate dedicated to race and politics in the US.
“Let’s remember, this is the same individual who took out a full-page ad in The New York Times calling for the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent, the Central Park Five,” Harris said. “Took out a full-page ad calling for their execution.”
One of the ads Trump purchased was included as an exhibit in the lawsuit.
The former president has sought to project a tough-on-crime persona during his three White House bids, and the debate comments underscored his willingness to invoke racially and politically charged criminal cases in US history in that pursuit.
Trump has continued to be critical of the case as he’s moved into politics in recent years. In October 2016, then-candidate Trump stood by his actions during the time of the case, telling CNN, “They admitted they were guilty.”
And in 2014, Trump wrote in an op-ed in the New York Daily News that New York City’s $41 million settlement with the five men was “a disgrace.”

https://apple.news/A0LZnPI5HTFme3__UwEaccg

[skatingfan]

And in 2014, someone wrote Trump's name on what they wrote in an op-ed in the New York Daily News that New York City’s $41 million settlement with the five men was “a disgrace.”

As if Trump could write an op-ed.

[ponchi101]

Serious here.
Has ANY of these lawsuits ever prospered? Has he ever paid for anything? Will he pay for this? To my untrained legal eye, this seems like a 1-foot putt, an overheard smash one yard from the net, a 20 yard field goal. He flatly lied, during a public appearance, about the actions by these men.
Again, I am serious. Has he paid a penny to Mrs. Carroll? To any of the other multiple lawsuits he has lost?
Yes, he claims the system is rigged. But it seems to me it is rigged in his favor.

[mmmm8]

Serious here.
Has ANY of these lawsuits ever prospered? Has he ever paid for anything? Will he pay for this? To my untrained legal eye, this seems like a 1-foot putt, an overheard smash one yard from the net, a 20 yard field goal. He flatly lied, during a public appearance, about the actions by these men.
Again, I am serious. Has he paid a penny to Mrs. Carroll? To any of the other multiple lawsuits he has lost?
Yes, he claims the system is rigged. But it seems to me it is rigged in his favor.

But that's just the nature of the US judicial system. Appeal upon appeal upon appeal.

[ti-amie]

Meanwhile his boy is now homeless and without furniture. #ETTD

via @innercitypress

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered former Donald Trump attorney and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to turn over all his valuable possessions and his Manhattan penthouse apartment to the control of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the Georgia election workers he defamed and to whom he now owes $150 million.

Judge Lewis Liman of the federal court in Manhattan said Giuliani must turn over his interest in the property to the women in seven days, to a receivership they will control. The judge’s turnover order of the luxury items is swift and simple, but the penthouse apartment will have its control transferred so Freeman and Moss can sell it, potentially for millions of dollars.

The women, who counted Georgia ballots after the 2020 election, will also be entitled to about $2 million in legal fees Giuliani has said the Trump campaign still owes him, the judge ruled.

In addition to the Trump campaign fees and the New York apartment, Giuliani must also turn over a collection of several watches, including ones given to him by European presidents after the September 11, 2001, attacks; a signed Joe DiMaggio jersey and other sports memorabilia; and a 1980 Mercedes once owned by the Hollywood star Lauren Bacall. Additionally, the judge ordered that Giuliani turn over his television, items of furniture and jewelry.

Liman hasn’t yet decided if Giuliani will be able to keep a Palm Beach, Florida, condominium he also owns, or the four New York Yankees World Series rings he has, which Giuliani’s son contends his father gave him.

“The road to justice for Ruby and Shaye has been long, but they have never wavered,” Aaron Nathan, a lawyer for Freeman and Moss, said in a statement Tuesday. “This outcome should send a powerful message that there is a price to pay for those who choose to intentionally spread disinformation.”

Giuliani’s spokesman did not immediately responded to a request for comment.

The judge said he was using a receivership to facilitate the transfer of Giuliani’s New York property to the women because of the unique nature of the asset. He noted that one of the advantages of using the legal mechanism is that “it is well-suited to working with auction houses and brokers like Sotheby’s and Christie’s to ensure that the maximum sale value (of a property) is realized.”

The defamation case against Giuliani – and the latest steps to enforce the judgement – are an example of how the lawyers who assisted in Trump’s election subversion schemes have faced consequences for those actions, even as the criminal prosecutions against Trump and his allies have been slow to gain traction.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/politics ... ile=cnnbrk

My first thoughts were that I'd sell everything but the car but it's a 1980's model. I'd sell it to a collector along with everything else and get a newer model, or two. I would be tempted to keep the apartment depending on whether or not I could get income from it or not.

[ponchi101]

I would sell it all. I would not want to even come close to anything Giullani ever owned.

[ti-amie]

I would sell it all. I would not want to even come close to anything Giullani ever owned.

Good point

Still the apartment could bring in some revenue. After the exorcism of course...