by
ti-amie Grand Jury Votes to Indict Donald Trump in New York: Live Updates
Mr. Trump will be the first former president to face criminal charges. The precise charges are not yet known, but the case is focused on a hush-money payment to a porn star during his 2016 campaign.
Updated
March 30, 2023, 5:26 p.m. ET5 minutes ago
5 minutes ago
Ben Protess, Jonah E. Bromwich and William K. Rashbaum
The unprecedented case against Trump will have wide-ranging implications.
A Manhattan grand jury voted to indict Donald J. Trump on Thursday for his role in paying hush money to a porn star, according to four people with knowledge of the matter, a historic development that will shake up the 2024 presidential race and forever mark him as the nation’s first former president to face criminal charges.
The felony indictment, filed under seal by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, will likely be announced in the coming days. By then, prosecutors working for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, will have asked Mr. Trump to surrender and to face arraignment on charges that remain unknown for now.
Mr. Trump has for decades avoided criminal charges despite persistent scrutiny and repeated investigations, creating an aura of legal invincibility that the vote to indict now threatens to puncture.
His actions surrounding his 2020 electoral defeat are now the focus of a separate federal investigation, and a Georgia prosecutor is in the final stages of an investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to reverse the election results in that state.
But unlike the investigations that arose from his time in the White House, this case is built around a tawdry episode that predates Mr. Trump’s presidency. The reality star turned presidential candidate who shocked the political establishment by winning the White House now faces a reckoning for a hush money payment that buried a sex scandal in the final days of the 2016 campaign.
Mr. Trump has consistently denied all wrongdoing and attacked Mr. Bragg, a Democrat, accusing him of leading a politically motivated prosecution. He has also denied any affair with the porn star, Stormy Daniels, who had been looking to sell her story of a tryst with Mr. Trump during the campaign.
Here’s what else you need to know:
Mr. Bragg and his lawyers will likely attempt to negotiate Mr. Trump’s surrender. If he agrees, it will raise the prospect of a former president, with the Secret Service in tow, being photographed and fingerprinted in the bowels of a New York State courthouse.
The prosecution’s star witness is Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer who paid the $130,000 to keep Ms. Daniels quiet. Mr. Cohen has said that Mr. Trump directed him to buy Ms. Daniels’s silence, and that Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, helped cover the whole thing up. The company’s internal records falsely identified the reimbursements as legal expenses, which helped conceal the purpose of the payments.
Although the specific charges remain unknown, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have zeroed in on that hush money payment and the false records created by Mr. Trump’s company. A conviction is not a sure thing: An attempt to combine a charge relating to the false records with an election violation relating to the payment to Ms. Daniels would be based on a legal theory that has yet to be evaluated by judges, raising the possibility that a court could throw out or limit the charges.
The vote to indict, the product of a nearly five-year investigation, kicks off a new and volatile phase in Mr. Trump’s post-presidential life as he makes a third run for the White House. And it could throw the race for the Republican nomination — which he leads in most polls — into uncharted territory.
Mr. Bragg is the first prosecutor to lead an indictment of Mr. Trump. He is now likely to become a national figure enduring a harsh political spotlight.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/30 ... tment-news
[/quote]
by skatingfan I think you've got the title wrong. Trump himself that he been indicated, not indicted.
by
JazzNU ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 7:58 pm
For real though. They've done this several times on important things and the anxiousness to get details makes it so their hand is shown earlier than it needs to be. I get it of course. But the reporting on it has rarely been something that does anything but show their hand, if the race for early details regularly produced something more critical, then it would be different.
by ti-amie Yahoo is reporting 34 Felonies in the indictment. As of now no one else has the story.
by
Owendonovan ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:43 am
Yahoo is reporting 34 Felonies in the indictment. As of now no one else has the story.
Someone will turn that into a story to try and deflect from him, like they did with Roe v Wade, started making it about the leak.
by ponchi101 Juan Merchan, of COLOMBIAN lineage, must know a bit or two about keeping trials straight and narrow.
It is not as if Colombian judges here do not know how to handle a trial of very dangerous criminals. So, yes. Keep any visuals out of the court.
by
ti-amie ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 4:22 pm
Juan Merchan, of COLOMBIAN lineage, must know a bit or two about keeping trials straight and narrow.
It is not as if Colombian judges here do not know how to handle a trial of very dangerous criminals. So, yes. Keep any visuals out of the court.
I saw a picture of Judge Merchan last week. I don't think he plays or likes to be played with in his court room.
by ti-amie The internet remains undefeated
by ti-amie
Those dead, angry and yes evil eyes.
Edited to give photographer credit
by ti-amie The sideshow fizzled
by
ti-amie The tl;dr on the charges via the WaPo
Here are the 34 charges against Trump and what they mean
By Ann E. Marimow
Updated April 4, 2023 at 4:46 p.m. EDT|Published April 4, 2023 at 3:28 p.m. EDT
What are the charges against Trump?
Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law.
Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” a crime. In this case, prosecutors will have to prove that Trump is guilty of maintaining false business records with the intent to hide a $130,000 payment in the days before the 2016 election to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged 2006 affair.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said at a press conference after the court hearing that the alleged scheme was intended to cover up violations of New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to illegally promote a candidate. Bragg also said the $130,000 payment to Daniels exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap.
Does that mean Trump is charged with 34 different crimes?
No, the indictment lists 34 felony counts under the same New York statute. Each count represents a separate instance of alleged misconduct, but not a different type of crime.
Daniels was paid by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who was then reimbursed by Trump after the election. The indictment details false entries in the Trump organization’s general ledger and checks paid to Cohen in 2017 that prosecutors say were falsely recorded as payments for legal services.
What are the likely punishments for those charges?
If convicted on the felony bookkeeping fraud charges, Trump faces a sentence of up to four years for each count. The judge could sentence Trump concurrently, meaning he would receive a sentence to be served one after the other.
The charge does not carry a mandatory prison sentence, however. Even if convicted on all counts, Trump would not necessarily face jail time. As a first-time offender with no criminal record, legal experts say it is uncertain whether the former president and 2024 candidate would be sentenced to prison if convicted.
Do we know how Trump will respond to the charges?
Trump pleaded not guilty during the arraignment hearing Tuesday afternoon. His lawyer Joe Tacopina said Sunday that the former president will eventually move to have the charges dismissed.
This is a developing story.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ts-felony/
by
Owendonovan ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:40 pm
Nobody seems interested in holding the door for
tiny.
by ti-amie They don't hold it do they? Interesting since most of the NYPD lives on Long Island, Staten Island or Westchester/Orange counties and are very pro Tiny.
by
Owendonovan ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 7:19 pm
What happens when someone posts pics of his kids, maybe with a little AI help?
by
Owendonovan ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 7:23 pm
The sideshow fizzled
I'd like to know who paid for her and Anthony George Devolder Santos to go up there, better not be taxpayer money.
by ponchi101 This was completely expected. And WHEN this judge gets smeared by the GOP, no need to even post the TWT or the news. That will logically follow.
by Deuce It's amazing what entertains Yanks...
I'm really, really hoping that the U.S. gets its sh*t together very soon (yes, I know it's highly unlikely), because the garbage which makes 'news' in the U.S. is beyond ridiculous. That so many people are enthralled and captivated (on both sides) by this idiocy is extremely disturbing.
Of course, this is exactly what people like Trump want - attention. They honestly don't give a damn if the attention is positive or negative - as long as they're in 'the news', and the citizens are lapping it up, they're thrilled.
Worst of all, this feces is leaking into Canada. Up here, all the major TV networks - including the French ones - had live coverage of this Trump indictment garbage.
In Canada!
I've also seen it on the BBC and Al Jazeera!
The U.S. is ruining itself, and has been doing so for decades - that's certainly no secret. But the fact that it's sucking the rest of the world into its idiotic dramas is absolutely pathetic.
Of course, being sucked in is the fault of the news agencies in the other countries - but damn, it is so incredibly disappointing and so frustrating to turn on the TV and not be able to escape the growing American Bullsh*t.
by Owendonovan He might become president again, and he's awful, and so are his followers. Am I supposed to ignore that?
by Deuce Yes.
Have you not noticed that the more he is 'objected to', the more attention he gets, and the more popular he becomes? It's incredibly obvious.
Imagine what would happen to him if the media completely ignored him. He would disappear - guaranteed. Because he - and his followers - feed off of attention. It is his only fuel.
It's all a game, and all the media and citizens - on both sides - are mere pawns in the game.
The best way to deal with a bully is to ignore him. Because bullies thrive on reaction and attention. Remove the reaction and attention, and the bully goes away. This is a tried and true successful recipe for dealing with bullies. Trump and his like are exactly the same.
by Owendonovan Sorry, it's not possible for me to ignore someone that has been denigrating and sometimes legislating against me as part of the LGBTQ community. Turn you back to these kinds people at your own peril. Could the media spend less time on him? Sure, but they don't and won't, they make too much money off him. A more effective way to deal with bullies is to beat the sh*t out of them. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be an option.
by
ponchi101 Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:45 pm
Sorry, it's not possible for me to ignore someone that has been denigrating and sometimes legislating against me as part of the LGBTQ community. Turn you back to these kinds people at your own peril. Could the media spend less time on him? Sure, but they don't and won't, they make too much money off him. A more effective way to deal with bullies is to beat the sh*t out of them. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be an option.
My looney friend N (the holistic anti-vaxxer) will not discuss politics because "it does not affect him". He seems to believe that ignoring politics is something that people can do, and they can focus on other things.
Which is an incredible position to take when you have to consider that he, like a lot of other Venezuelans, had to leave his country because of the politics there. In 1998, we elected out buffoon, and we now live spread around the world. He lives here in Colombia but his two sons moved to Spain because Venezuela became untenable. He lost his job there, not because of a personal issue, but because the company disappeared. Politics affected his life completely. And this was because not only 3.6 million people voted for Chavez, many more said "don't worry, nothing is going to happen". Another friend of mine, living now in Australia, once told me something along those lines: "I am sure that there were a lot of Germans in 1930 that said that "Nothing is going to happen".
We have already seen what grave damage this buffoon has made to the USA: the structuring of the SCOTUS, the acceptance of violence as a means to reach an end, and the implanted belief that America was better BEFORE. Which we know what that means.
I side with you.
by nelslus Throughout history, ignoring evil has always worked out well.
by
Deuce Yes... all the attention you all are giving Trump and his people certainly seems to be working, huh?
Yup - he has almost completely disappeared, hasn't he?
Trump is as popular now as he's ever been.
Congratulations.
Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how hard you try.
(And by the way - the rest of the world is laughing at your country more and more...)
by
ti-amie Deuce wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 9:38 pm
Yes... all the attention you all are giving Trump and his people certainly seems to be working, huh?
Yup - he has almost completely disappeared, hasn't he?
Trump is as popular now as he's ever been.
Congratulations.
Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how hard you try.
(And by the way - the rest of the world is laughing at your country more and more...)
We all know we're a laughing stock now and some of us care. This all started years ago when the News Divisions were no longer separate entities and made part of the Entertainment Divisions of networks. Journalism followed suit.
by
Owendonovan Deuce wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 9:38 pm
Yes... all the attention you all are giving Trump and his people certainly seems to be working, huh?
Yup - he has almost completely disappeared, hasn't he?
Trump is as popular now as he's ever been.
Congratulations.
Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how hard you try.
(And by the way - the rest of the world is laughing at your country more and more...)
Like we control the media. (by the way, do you honestly think we don't know how the world views us.....) Some strong generalizations from someone who often goes off on people generalizing.
by nelslus No regular citizen in any country is responsible for what the press and leaders do or don't do. I've never voted in these monsters. Some of us DO give a s h i t. I have worked professionally (as a direct care case manager, staff supervisor and program director) and as a volunteer in the social services since high school- working for the homeless, those in poverty, seniors (well before I was a senior), those with disabilities, ex-offenders, LGBTQI+, etc. I have been on Advisory Councils and Boards. Trying to make a difference.
Anyone focusing on laughing at the USA because of the horrors and disgraces of what Trump, Bush I and Bush II and Reagan have done- I got to live through far too many loved ones dying horrendously from AIDS for many years, for example, and have therefore had my life warped irrevocably- should IMO take a good, hard look inside themselves. And, if you think the evils of racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, xenophobia, etc. reside only in the USA- you are deluded. Obviously, there is a ton of evil out there in the world. Focusing on blaming the USA only will not solve anything.
I swear, I am deeply horrified of what the USA has done throughout its history. And, I sure as h e l l will not be found anywhere shouting out "USA. USA" "patriotic" nonsense. But, I will be g-d a m n ed if I am going to be lumped into some homogenous group of "Americans" and "Yanks"- just as we should not demonize ANY group of people for any reason. (All Russians as an obvious example lately.) This much hasn't been learned yet?
I find any sense of making light, or trying to get off cheap snark over what is deeply painful to many of us is disgraceful. I would really like any anti-any-group bias to be stopped, much less in a freakin' tennis site.
by ti-amie I think what's going on in Tennessee right now, the jarring difference between the children demonstrating because they want a chance to reach adulthood while the K l a n is throwing duly elected people out of the Legislature because they are on the side of the children and their parents who want to live.
The party formerly known as the GOP has become a performative clown car and it is indeed something to both laugh and cry about.
by
Deuce Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:28 pm
Deuce wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 9:38 pm
Yes... all the attention you all are giving Trump and his people certainly seems to be working, huh?
Yup - he has almost completely disappeared, hasn't he?
Trump is as popular now as he's ever been.
Congratulations.
Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how hard you try.
(And by the way - the rest of the world is laughing at your country more and more...)
Like we control the media. (by the way, do you honestly think we don't know how the world views us.....) Some strong generalizations from someone who often goes off on people generalizing.
The only generalization I see is an accurate one - that Americans love sensationalism. This is a fair and accurate generalization based on historical fact.
Of course there will be exceptions to every generalization - obviously not every single American is the same... but that certainly doesn't make the generalization any less accurate.
And in that way, you all (Americans) DO indeed control the media. Because the media gives the people what they want. They see that the majority lap up the sensationalism, and so that's what they give everyone.
I'm rather convinced that other countries are laughing just as much at all of the attention and obsession that Americans have with people like Trump, and the power that Trump, etc. are inherently given through this process (as well as the entertainment Americans obviously derive from it all) as they are laughing at people like Trump directly. And the attention one gives these buffoons is very much within the control of each individual.
In the end, the only thing that really matters is the end result. And in the case of Trump, the end result - to this point, at least - is that he is still obviously extremely popular.
So, given that fact, if you truly believe that the approach you're taking will eventually lead to defeating his popularity, then by all means continue along that same path. Personally, I see only evidence that this approach is serving to fuel his popularity more than anything else.
But, hey - what do I know... I'm just a Canuck...
by
Owendonovan Deuce wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:30 am
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:28 pm
Deuce wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 9:38 pm
Yes... all the attention you all are giving Trump and his people certainly seems to be working, huh?
Yup - he has almost completely disappeared, hasn't he?
Trump is as popular now as he's ever been.
Congratulations.
Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how hard you try.
(And by the way - the rest of the world is laughing at your country more and more...)
Like we control the media. (by the way, do you honestly think we don't know how the world views us.....) Some strong generalizations from someone who often goes off on people generalizing.
The only generalization I see is an accurate one - that Americans love sensationalism. This is a fair and accurate generalization based on historical fact.
Of course there will be exceptions to every generalization - obviously not every single American is the same... but that certainly doesn't make the generalization any less accurate.
And in that way, you all (Americans) DO indeed control the media. Because the media gives the people what they want. They see that the majority lap up the sensationalism, and so that's what they give everyone.
I'm rather convinced that other countries are laughing just as much at all of the attention and obsession that Americans have with people like Trump, and the power that Trump, etc. are inherently given through this process (as well as the entertainment Americans obviously derive from it all) as they are laughing at people like Trump directly.
And the attention one gives these buffoons is very much within the control of each individual.
You're generalizing us Americans on this forum, and I think you're also negatively mischaracterizing us on this forum. What kind of attention do you think I or anyone here gives him? Do you think we have alerts on our phones when he's in the news or something? I don't. I know what I need to know about him and any variety of politicians that are trying to marginalize me, or help me. I read about what I need to know about what he's doing as it affects me and this country. Otherwise, I'm ignorant. Is that preferable?
by
Deuce Owendonovan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:46 am
Deuce wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:30 am
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:28 pm
Like we control the media. (by the way, do you honestly think we don't know how the world views us.....) Some strong generalizations from someone who often goes off on people generalizing.
The only generalization I see is an accurate one - that Americans love sensationalism. This is a fair and accurate generalization based on historical fact.
Of course there will be exceptions to every generalization - obviously not every single American is the same... but that certainly doesn't make the generalization any less accurate.
And in that way, you all (Americans) DO indeed control the media. Because the media gives the people what they want. They see that the majority lap up the sensationalism, and so that's what they give everyone.
I'm rather convinced that other countries are laughing just as much at all of the attention and obsession that Americans have with people like Trump, and the power that Trump, etc. are inherently given through this process (as well as the entertainment Americans obviously derive from it all) as they are laughing at people like Trump directly.
And the attention one gives these buffoons is very much within the control of each individual.
You're generalizing us Americans on this forum, and I think you're also negatively mischaracterizing us on this forum. What kind of attention do you think I or anyone here gives him? Do you think we have alerts on our phones when he's in the news or something? I don't. I know what I need to know about him and any variety of politicians that are trying to marginalize me, or help me. I read about what I need to know about what he's doing as it affects me and this country. Otherwise, I'm ignorant. Is that preferable?
Owen, my entire point is that it does not matter what kind of attention you or others give him/them; that he and his supporters will use ANY attention - positive, negative, what have you - as absolute fuel. I believe the evidence shows this without even the slightest doubt.
You were quite proud the other day of your yelling at the media people and the Trump supporters that the media people were interviewing...
If you truly believe that that does not help to fuel them, you're entitled to that belief. But my experience in life leads me to a very different belief, which includes that they were all very likely laughing at the fact that they upset you so much - because that's exactly what their goal is - to upset the opposition as much as possible.
In other words, I feel that you're giving them exactly what they want, and they use that as fuel to continue on.
If you believe differently, so be it.
(And I have spent 30 years working with the poor, the homeless, prostitutes, troubled children, etc., as well, also trying to 'make a positive difference'... I have no idea how this information is relevant to this discussion, but, as another poster mentioned his history in those types of fields, I figured I would, as well, in case he finds it somehow relevant.)
by Owendonovan Yes, I believe differently.
by
ti-amie I guess I have to take back all the crap I gave DA Bragg when he canned the first investigation.
Summary: The Supreme Court Rules in Trump v. Mazars
By Rachel Bercovitz, Todd Carney Friday, July 10, 2020, 8:21 PM
Google+
Reddit
LinkedIn
Ruling in Trump v. Mazars on July 9, the Supreme Court held that courts must take into account separation of powers concerns in resolving disputes over congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president. The court found that the split panels at the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit had failed to adequately account for “weighty” separation of powers considerations when rejecting challenges to House committee subpoenas seeking financial records relating to President Trump, his affiliated business entities and his family members. In a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments below and remanded to the district courts for further proceedings. (The court also ruled in a related but distinct case concerning Trump’s efforts to block subpoenas for his financial records from New York state law enforcement; a summary of that decision, Trump v. Vance, is available here.)
The court defined the question presented as a matter of first impression, stating it had “never addressed a congressional subpoena for the President’s information.” Such subpoenas, the court found, “unavoidably pit the political branches against one another.” This is so even when, as in these cases, subpoenas implicate the president in his personal, not official, capacity, or are issued to third parties. While the court affirmed that it is the “‘duty of all citizens to cooperate’” with congressional information requests, the majority found that courts presiding over subpoenas seeking information from the president must account for the “special” separation of powers issues these disputes raise.
Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both penned dissents.
Background
In April 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives issued four subpoenas for Trump’s financial records. The House Committee on Financial Services sent a subpoena to Deutsche Bank concerning “foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements of net worth, tax returns, and suspicious activity identified by Deutsche Bank” and also subpoenaed Capital One for similar matters. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also subpoenaed Deutsche Bank. Finally, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed Trump’s personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP, for matters related to the president and his businesses. All three committees provided individual justifications for their subpoenas, arguing that the records were needed for the House to weigh potential legislation in areas such as terrorism, money laundering and foreign interference in elections.
Trump, his children and the Trump businesses sought to block the subpoenas, contesting the Oversight Committee subpoena in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (in what became Trump v. Mazars) and the subpoenas from the Financial Services and Intelligence committees in the Southern District of New York (in what became Trump v. Deutsche Bank). The president argued that Congress lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose” and that the action was a violation of the separation of powers. In Mazars, the district court ruled for the House on the basis that the tax returns “served a valid legislative purpose” because the returns related to legislation addressing financial disclosure requirements for presidential candidates and presidents. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this ruling. In Deutsche Bank, the district court and Second Circuit also upheld the subpoenas, finding that they were sufficiently related to legislation being reviewed by the committees concerning national security, terrorism, money laundering and “the global movement of illicit funds through the real estate market.” The Supreme Court consolidated Mazars and Deutsche Bank.
The Majority Opinion
Roberts distinguishes the dispute before the Supreme Court as a “significant departure from historical practice.” From George Washington’s administration to the present, he writes, the political branches have resolved information disputes out of court, through the “‘hurly-burly, the give-and-take of the political process.’” These more than two centuries of established practice “impose on [the court] a duty of care” not to upset the conflict resolution mechanisms the two branches have developed and employed over time.
The chief justice situates his analysis within a body of case law regarding Congress’s subpoena powers. To begin, each chamber of Congress has implied constitutional authority to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas. Congress’s power to obtain information is “‘broad’” and “‘indispensable,’” Roberts writes but not without limit. The guiding test: congressional subpoenas must address a “‘valid legislative purpose.’” They must be “‘related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.’”
Roberts outlines further limits established by precedent. First, Congress may not issue subpoenas for a “law enforcement” purpose—which would involve exercising powers belonging to the executive and judicial branches. Investigations may not seek “‘exposure for the sake of exposure’” or to simply penalize those investigated. Finally, Congress’s oversight and investigative powers are limited by the Constitution, as well as common law and constitutional privileges. These include attorney-client and executive privileges.
With this in mind, the chief justice rejects both the president’s and the House’s proposals for how to evaluate congressional subpoena enforcement disputes implicating the executive branch. Either proposal, he finds, would “transfor[m]” how the two branches have historically resolved such disputes.
First, Roberts rebuffs the president’s and the solicitor general’s call for the House to show a “‘demonstrated, specific need’” for information and explain that the information sought is “demonstrably critical” to a legislative purpose. The Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit had outlined these “demanding standards” in United States v. Nixon and Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon—cases concerning the Watergate tapes, over which President Nixon had asserted executive privilege. Though information protected by executive privilege is given the “‘greatest protection,’” Roberts declines to categorically “transplant that protection root and branch” to subpoena enforcement suits that do not implicate privileged information. To do so, he writes, “would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities.”
But Roberts also rejects the House’s position that the validity of the subpoenas should follow the same legal standard guiding the Supreme Court’s evaluation of congressional subpoenas not implicating the president’s information. The House’s proposal, the chief justice finds, fails to account for profound separation of powers concerns, for it identifies no limits on Congress’s subpoena authority. According to the House proposal, the majority cautions, Congress could “walk away from the bargaining table” and enforce the disputed subpoena against the executive branch in court. This unlimited power would “transform” how the two branches have historically resolved information access disputes, altering the balance of power at the executive branch’s expense.
The majority finds these separation of powers concerns to be no less—and indeed perhaps more—prominent in the context of subpoenas seeking personal papers of the president or those served on third parties. Roberts states that the “President is the only person who alone composes a branch of government.” Because only an ambiguous line separates “the Office of the President and its occupant,” requests for personal information from the president may still trigger an interbranch dispute. Further, the sensitive nature of the requested documents and their possibly tenuous connection to a legislative purpose may heighten the risk of congressional abuse.
Finally, the chief justice states that these concerns over separation of powers are animated “no matter where the information is held—it is, after all, the President’s information.” If this were not so, he reasons, Congress could circumvent constitutional requirements and “declare open season on the President’s information” held by third parties.
Finding that neither the parties nor the courts below had adequately accounted for these separation of powers concerns, Roberts sets forth a four-factor balancing test for evaluating the validity of congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president. Courts weighing these factors are to account for the “significant legislative interests of Congress,” along with the “‘unique position’ of the President.”
While acknowledging that other factors may be relevant, Roberts sets out four in particular. First, courts should consider whether “other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it needs in light of its particular legislative objective.” Second, subpoenas may be “no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective.” Third, “Congress must adequately identif[y] its aims and explai[n] why the President’s information will advance its consideration of the possible legislation.” Finally, courts “should be careful to assess the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena.”
With this set out, Roberts vacates the judgments of the courts of appeals in Mazars and Deutsche Bank and remands the matter for further proceedings.
The Dissents
Thomas opens by arguing that Congress has no authority to subpoena personal documents—regardless of who they belong to. In his view, the only possibility of Congress obtaining these documents would be through a formal investigation of the president carried out under Congress’s impeachment powers.
The justice takes issue with the argument that Congress’s power to subpoena is an implied power under its power to legislate. He points to Marbury v. Madison, quoting: “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Moving from Marbury to McCulloch v. Maryland and Thomas’s own dissent in United States v. Comstock, he writes that there must be strong underlying evidence that the power was meant by the Founders to be implied. As a result, implied powers are “very limited.”
There is no evidence from the founding, Thomas argues, that the power of subpoenaing personal documents was implied to Congress. In his view, key precedents dealing with legislative subpoenas—Kilbourn v. Thompson and McGrain v. Daugherty—do not demonstrate any support for “private, nonofficial documents.”
Thomas rebuffs the House’s argument that Congress enjoys the same investigation powers as did the British Parliament when the United States was founded. “Parliament,” he writes, “was supreme. Congress is not.” He points out that Article I forbids “bills of attainder,” a power held by Parliament at the time of the Founding. Likewise, the “Bill of Rights” focuses on protecting the individual from the government—including Congress. He also notes the Supreme Court’s finding in Kilbourn that Congress has fewer investigative powers than Parliament.
What’s more, Thomas writes, 18th century American legislatures did not have these powers. Such legislatures sometimes sought testimony, but their requests concerned official government information, not personal information. It’s true that some legislatures in this period did conduct nonlegislative investigations—but in Mazars, the House was not claiming that authority but instead claimed an authority to investigate derived from the power to legislate. Finally, Thomas notes, the other areas investigated by colonial and state legislatures were radically different from the subjects investigated by Congress today. Those legislatures investigated issues such as libel and insults—something the current Congress would not touch.
Thomas then examines the evolution of congressional subpoenas beginning at the Founding, arguing that early investigations into generals and members of Congress did not look at personal documents. In fact, Thomas writes, the only instances in which Congress sought personal documents involved material from a federally chartered bank.
And the practice of issuing legislative subpoenas for nonofficial information was controversial throughout the 19th century. Thomas writes that when the Supreme Court first considered legislative subpoenas in Kilbourn, in 1880, it “cast … doubt on legislative subpoenas generally” and “held that the subpoena at issue was unlawful.” In McGrain, the Supreme Court later upheld Congress’s power to issue subpoenas as derived from its power to legislate—but, Thomas argues, McGrain “lacks any foundation in text or history.” Though the Supreme Court has rolled back Congress’s authority to compel testimony or documents after McGrain, Thomas would instead decline to apply McGrain altogether. For “it is readily apparent,” he writes, “that the Committees have no constitutional authority to subpoena private, nonofficial documents.”
Finally, Thomas writes that the only concrete example of Congress being able to subpoena personal documents has been through the impeachment process. If Congress seeks to obtain Trump’s financial records, he argues, “it should proceed through the impeachment power.”
Alito expresses admiration for Thomas’s argument but writes separately to argue against these particular subpoenas—assuming arguendo that they are not “categorically barred.” Where Congress is not using its impeachment power to subpoenas these documents, Alito argues, its reasoning must be held to a high standard. While Alito agrees with the majority that the cases must be remanded, he writes that the House should be required to be much more descriptive as to the legislation under consideration and how the records are relevant to that legislation. If the House is not ordered to do this, he concludes, then the subpoenas are inappropriate.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-sup ... p-v-mazars
Link to the actual Mazars ruling
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 5_febh.pdf
by ti-amie Kim Shepherd Ph.D.
@DrKimShepherd
Replying to
@MuellerSheWrote
He's clearing the decks for the other indictments too. There will be no such nonsense when the others (Georgia, J6, MAL docs) start dropping
by ti-amie Lots going on today.
by ti-amie
The indictment, as Jack Smith said, is written in plain English and reads like a spy novel. Starting on page 15 it gets really interesting.
From page 45 to 49 the documents from the Grand Jury, The DOJ, etc are shown.
by
ti-amie 
An image from the indictment shows boxes being stored in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. (Justice Department/AP)
An image from the indictment shows boxes being stored in a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago. (Justice Department/AP)
An image in the indictment shows records spilling out in a storage room at Mar-a-Lago. (Justice Department/AP)
by
ti-amie Here are the 37 charges against Trump and what they mean
By Rachel Weiner
Updated June 9, 2023 at 3:21 p.m. EDT|Published June 9, 2023 at 11:11 a.m. EDT
A court on Friday unsealed the federal indictment against Donald Trump and an aide over classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago home and the men’s alleged efforts to keep the government from finding the materials. Here’s what we know about the charges against the former president, brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
How many charges does Trump face?
Trump is accused of violating seven federal laws but faces 37 separate charges. That is because each classified document he is accused of holding on to illegally is charged in a separate count, and his alleged efforts to hide classified information from federal investigators is charged in several ways. His longtime aide Walt Nauta faces six charges, all but five of which are also lodged against Trump.
What are the charges against Trump?
Espionage Act/unauthorized retention of national defense information: Trump is charged with 31 counts of violating a part of the Espionage Act that bars willful retention of national defense information by someone not authorized to have it. Such information is defined as “any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Technically, that information does not have to be classified, but in practice the law is almost exclusively used to prosecute retention of classified material. In Trump’s case, prosecutors say that all but one of the 31 documents he is charged with illegally retaining were marked as classified at the “secret” or “top secret” level. The unmarked document concerned “military contingency planning,” according to the indictment.
A conviction does not require any evidence of a desire to disseminate the classified information; having it in an unauthorized location is enough. But the crime requires a “willful” mishandling of material “the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Charges are generally not brought without some aggravating factor making clear the retention was not accidental — such as evidence of intent to share the information, signs of disloyalty to the U.S. government, or simply the volume of documents taken.
Unlike other government employees, the president does not go through a security clearance process that includes a pledge to follow classification rules. But Trump received requests from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and subpoenas from the Justice Department indicating that the documents in question were classified and needed to be returned to the U.S. government. Prosecutors say he instead sought to hide them from federal investigators. And while the president can declassify most information, there is a process for doing so. According to the indictment, Trump twice showed classified information to others, once while saying that the document was still classified and lamenting that he no longer had the power to declassify it.
Conspiracy to obstruct justice: Trump is charged with one count of conspiring with Nauta to hide classified material from federal investigators, by lying to the FBI about what was found at Mar-a-Lago and moving boxes of documents out of a storage room before agents searched the home. Trump specifically is accused of suggesting that one of his attorneys lie to the FBI and help hide or destroy documents.
Tampering with grand jury evidence: Trump and Nauta face two counts of trying to keep evidence out of grand jurors’ hands: one count of withholding the classified documents and one of corruptly concealing them. As part of those charges, Trump is accused of trying to persuade one of his attorneys to help conceal the documents, while Nauta is accused of hiding the evidence by moving the boxes of classified documents.
Concealing evidence in a federal investigation: For the same alleged conduct of hiding the classified information at Mar-a-Lago, Trump and Nauta separately face one count of concealing evidence with the intent to obstruct an FBI investigation.
False statements: Both Trump and Nauta together face one count of scheming to making false statements for allegedly hiding from the FBI and the grand jury that the former president still had classified documents in his possession. Trump faces a separate count for causing his attorney to falsely claim in June 2022 that all classified documents in the former president’s possession had been handed over in response to a subpoena, according to the indictment. Nauta alone is accused of lying to the FBI by falsely claiming that he had nothing to do with moving any boxes.
What possible penalties does Trump face?
The maximum punishment for each count of unlawful retention of national defense information is 10 years in prison. Conspiracy to obstruct justice, tampering with grand jury evidence, and concealing evidence in a federal investigation all carry punishments of up to 20 years. Each false statement charge is punishable by up to five years in prison.
If Trump was convicted on all charges, the sentences could run consecutively, amounting to hundreds of years in prison. But federal defendants are rarely given the maximum possible punishment. He does not face any mandatory minimum sentences.
Sentences in unlawful retention cases vary widely, depending in part on how sensitive the material is, how much of it there is, how long the person held on to it and his or her cooperation with investigators. A Defense Department employee in Manila who took home a small amount of secret-level information to work on a classified thesis project served only three months behind bars. Kenneth Wayne Ford Jr., who was found guilty at trial of bringing home national defense information after leaving the National Security Agency and lying about the case, received a six-year sentence. A former NSA contractor who over two decades amassed a huge trove of highly sensitive material, including hacking tools and details of overseas operations, was sentenced to nine years in prison. A Navy sailor who took pictures of classified areas of a nuclear-powered submarine and then destroyed the evidence was sentenced to a year in prison for retention and obstruction; Trump later pardoned him.
Retired Gen. David H. Petraeus was given probation after pleading guilty to sharing classified information with his biographer. At the time, the crime of mishandling classified information — as opposed to national defense information — was a misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of a year behind bars. It became a felony during Trump’s presidency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... documents/
by ti-amie And here we go. Disgusting.
by ponchi101 I have said it before. Biden has been an excellent president so far. A proper administrator.
But also look at Merrick Garland. Silent. Quite. You hear nothing from him. And yet, the jobs get done.
by
ti-amie ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 8:42 pm
An image from the indictment shows boxes being stored in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. (Justice Department/AP)
An image from the indictment shows boxes being stored in a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago. (Justice Department/AP)
An image in the indictment shows records spilling out in a storage room at Mar-a-Lago. (Justice Department/AP)
I didn't notice that there are boxes piled up in the shower. You can see them to the right behind the shower curtain.
by ponchi101 That is exactly what one lunatic can do. It just reminds me so much of what happened back home. One lunatics gets to power, and all the others come out too.
by ashkor87 I feel for the valet...they will offer him a deal , if he takes it, he is dead..if he doesn't, he goes to jail...poor fellow
by patrick With Cannon being the judge, let the delay begin regardless of bench or jury trial
by
ti-amie ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:32 am
I feel for the valet...they will offer him a deal , if he takes it, he is dead..if he doesn't, he goes to jail...poor fellow
Alex Wagner on MSNBC last night talked about how Navy people like Nauta, who's family is from Guam, cherish the chance to serve as "body man" to POTUS. He should've talked to someone about what he was being asked to do but hindsight from someone like me is 20/20 and when you're in the situation it's hard to see what's going on. The lawyer Corcoran saw what TFG was up to immediately and knew he was being set up to take the fall for whatever criming TFG was doing and made numerous and copious notes and recordings even as he tried to get another lawyer, Christina Bobb, to be the bag woman.
If he, Nauta, accepts the plea deal he will have to go into WitSec if he wants to survive.
by ti-amie A lot of people asked why the case will be tried in Florida. The answers fall into the following categories:
1. The crimes took place in Florida. They could've brought the case in DC but there would've been weeks (months) of challenges and accusations of judge shopping for obvious reasons.
2. Smith seems to want to take the politics out of it and following norms like indicting where the crimes took place was logical.
Also don't forget no one knew about this Florida Grand Jury until this week. The people on that jury are from the state of Florida.
by
ti-amie Trump pleads not guilty to federal charges
Former president faces 37 counts, including obstruction and willful retention of classified documents
Former president Donald Trump pleaded not guilty in his first court appearance in the federal case brought against him in Miami. He was booked by authorities ahead of the hearing in connection with his alleged storage of highly sensitive documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate — and alleged lying and obstructing when federal officials tried to retrieve them. This is the first time a former president has been indicted on federal charges. Trump, who is running for president again, claims the prosecution by the Justice Department is politically motivated. Federal and local authorities ramped up security preparations ahead of Trump’s federal court appearance as his supporters demonstrated outside the courthouse.
Here’s what to know
“We most certainly enter a plea of not guilty,” Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche said in court.
Trump faces 37 charges related to his retention of and failure to return classified documents when the federal government demanded them. Read the full text of the indictment here.
Waltine “Walt” Nauta, Trump’s longtime valet, was listed as co-defendant in the indictment and appeared in court Tuesday alongside his boss. But Nauta did not enter a plea because he did not have legal representation.
Trump also has been indicted by a state-level grand jury in New York City for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to an adult-film star from 2016. He also faces legal exposure related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the 2020 election in Georgia.
KEY UPDATE
5 min ago
Here’s what happens next in Trump’s classified documents case
By Nikolas Mourtoupalas
Now that former president Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges that he broke the law by keeping and hiding top-secret documents in his Florida home, the parties will probably next discuss how soon the government will turn over evidence in the case to Trump’s defense — a process known as discovery. Also to come up will be how to handle any classified evidence in the case, and how long to pause the federal 70-day speedy-trial requirement while both sides prepare any pretrial motions.
An arraignment was scheduled for Trump’s co-defendant, Waltine “Walt” Nauta, on June 27 because he did not have a local Florida lawyer to represent him on Tuesday.
The judge who took Trump’s plea says he is ‘almost certainly’ done with the case
By Mark Berman
The official overseeing the hearing today, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, was tasked with taking Trump’s plea of not guilty and discussed ways to limit the former president’s discussions of the case with potential witnesses.
And, according to Goodman, after overseeing the most high-profile arraignment in recent U.S. history, he is probably done with the case.
Goodman is a magistrate judge, the type of official who, in the federal system, handles preliminary matters such as initial appearances in criminal cases. District court judges, by comparison, are typically tasked with overseeing trials, ruling on what evidence can be admitted and presiding over tasks such as jury selection and sentencing.
In a ruling Monday — which rejected news organizations’ requests to allow photography and filming in the courtroom or nearby hallway — Goodman noted that he was going to be through with the case after the initial appearance.
“My involvement in this case will almost certainly end tomorrow,” he wrote. “I am handling tomorrow’s first appearance and arraignment only because of my status as duty magistrate judge in the Miami Division of this Court.”
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon, whose role is coming under intense scrutiny in part because she has previously issued rulings in Trump’s favor in a case connected with the indictment he now faces.
For his part, Goodman noted in his order Monday that he was not the magistrate judge paired with Cannon, adding that it was “highly unlikely that I will be asked to remain involved” after playing a role in the historic arraignment.
There was no discussion during the 45-minute court hearing of when, or where, Trump must next appear in court.
By Jabin Botsford and Mariana Alfaro
Former president Donald Trump has boarded his plane following his court appearance. He appeared defiant as he fist-bumped the air before leaving.
Also aboard the plane is Walt Nauta, Trump’s loyal aide who was also indicted by the Justice Department. Nauta appeared to be smiling as he boarded.
Walt Nauta, an aide, boards Trump’s airplane on Tuesday. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
by ti-amie I wonder if Nauta can quit? The talking heads made the point that he was in that courtroom because of TFG. They also emphasized that TFG is doing everything to keep Nauta at his side for obvious reasons. Isn't there a line between loyalty to job position and stupidity? TFG needs him not the other way around.
by ti-amie I deleted the post allegedly showing TFG throwing Walt Nauta under the bus. He hasn't done that yet.
This is why it's so bad right now on Elmo's site. Anyone can fabricate anything and have it go viral.
by ti-amie
No they don't care but
by
ti-amie Teri Kanefield
@
Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
Trump has gone off his rocker.
He just posted that all of "his" papers (top secret documents) that were taken during the search need to be returned to him because it was an illegal search.
This is a confession and I'm pretty sure it's admissible evidence under a hearsay exception because it's a statement against interest.
Jun 15, 2023, 19:12 · ·
I'm not a lawyer but my guess is this is why they're letting him stay free. He'll never listen to a lawyer who would tell him to shut up.
by ti-amie I hope adequate security has been provided to those mentioned in the documents.
by ti-amie I'll just leave this here...
by ponchi101 He is, truly, one of the stupidest people ever. An incredible example that "luck" will get you far, far ahead in life.
by Owendonovan He always has to prove something about him is superior to everyone else in the room, always. It's pathological. I don't understand those who don't feel some sense of threat from how he operates.
by ponchi101 This will be delayed after Nov 2024.
by patrick That is what the Delay Master is aiming for along with DeSanitis wanting to delay Disney date until after Nov 2024
by ti-amie If anything comes out of Atlanta next week the thread title will be changed to Part Trois/Three
by ti-amie It was amusing in a macabre kind of way to watch MSM, based on absolutely nothing from Smith, Willis, or anyone else, work itself into a frenzy because someone, somewhere, said TFG's indictment would come down today.
CNN wasn't the only network doing this.
Needless to say it hasn't but I've noticed sometimes these things come down late at night. Still.
by
ti-amie Uh, ish happened.
Teri Kanefield
@
Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
Well goodness.
I leave for the afternoon and come back to find more counts filed in a superseding indictment against Trump and Carlos de Oliveira.
Here is the old indictment:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... 3/full.pdf
And the new one:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ments-case
To find out what was added, we need to scroll through and compare.
Put on your nerd glasses and open the documents.
Ok. Paragraph 10 is new.
We learn Oliveira, beginning in January 2022, was employed as the property manager at Mar-a-Lago.
Before that he was a valet. I wonder what brought him that promotion?
(...)
Well, that was right after Trump returned 15 boxes of documents and evidently decided not to return all of the documents.
Okay, scrolling through for something new.
Paragraph 73 changed:
Initially it read:
"Nauta and others loaded several of Trump's boxes along with other items on aircraft that flew Trump and his family north for the summer."
Now it reads
"Earlier that same day Nauta, De Oliveira, and others loaded several . . . "
Okay so we just added de Oliveira.
There are, however, others.
Memo to others: You might be in big trouble. Get yourself a good defense lawyer. You're welcome.
Ah ha. Now we come to the new stuff.
I will not be able to type it out, and I don't have a searchable cut and pasteable version, so I will have to just do screenshots for now.
If someone has the full text, great.
3/
Okay, so starting on paragraph 73, we have a new section called:
"An Attempt to Delete Security Footage."
This does not sound good.
The timeline here begins on June 3, which was when FBI agents were at Mar a Lago to collect the documents. They o observed surveillance cameras.
On June 22, the DOJ emailed a draft grand jury subpoena requiring production from the security camera where the Storage room was located.
4/
June 24: The DOJ emailed the subpoena.
That same day, Trump Attorney I spoke with Trump by phone about the security footage.
3:44 pm. Nauta received a text message from a coworker indicating that Trump wanted to see Nauta.
Less than 2 hours later, Nauta changed his travel plans and instead of traveling with Trump to Illinois, went to Palm Beach, FL.
Nauta provided inconsistent explanations to colleagues for his sudden travel plans.
Da dum da dum and the plot thickens . . .
5/
He told one person he had a family emergency. He told secret service that he was in Florida working. (Having trouble keeping track of stories).
About the time Nauta was making travel plans to go to Florida, Nauta and de Oliveira contacted Trump Employee 4 (IT director).
First they wanted to find out if he was around and working.
Nauta then asked de oliveira if he was still working. He said he just left. They talked on the phone for 2 minutes.
6/
Okay so basically Nauta arrives in Florida. De Oliveira told a valet that Nauta was coming but they wanted the visit a secret.
Love it. So they told the valet it's a secret. That should make it all safe, right? What dumb crooks.
then De Oliveira told Employee 5 that Nauta wanted De Oliveira to ask Employee 4 how long the video footage was stored.
There. Nothing like keeping what they are doing a secret.
At 5:46, Nauta and De Oliveira went to the security guard booth . . .
7/
. . . where survillance video was displayed on monitors and walked with a flashlight through the tunnel where the storage room was located.
They observed and pointed out surveillance cameras.
On Monday, De Oliveira walked to the IT office where Employee 4 was working with another IT person.
De Oliveira wanted to talk to Employee 4, so they stepped away.
They had a private exchange in an audio closet.
De Oliveira tells him this conversation needs to remain private.
HAHAHAH
8/
Then he wants to know how long the server retained footage. Employee 4 says 45 days.
Then, OMG De Oliveira tells Employee 4 that "the boss" wanted the server deleted.
Goodness.
Let's just tell everyone the secret.
You see in real life crooks are not clever like spy thrillers and murder mysteries.
Employee 4 says: I don't really know how and I don't think I have the right to do that.
I'd guess this is feeling creepy to Employee 4.
9/
There he is, in an audio closet, being told the boss wants the server deleted.
Then De Oliveira "insisted" that the boss wanted the server deleted and asked, "What are we going to do?"
We don't find out what Employee 4 said.
Some more talking some more walking . . .
Well dang. The story ends there.
I'd guess they didn't actually delete anything. De Oliveira doesn't know how. Employee 4 is too smart.
Then we find out that Trump and De Oliveira talked for 3.5 minutes.
10/
I am reading, typing, thinking, trying to spell correctly and trying to keep the story straight all at the same time.
Are you all with me?
The next new stuff is paragraph 91 where they talk like mobsters about being loyal to the boss.
You have to read it for yourselves. see screen shot.
now, for the added counts: Looks like added a count of willful retention, De Oliveira is added to the conspiracy.
11/
Conspiracy to obstruct adds this:
"Attempting to delete security camera footage from the Mar-a-Lago Club to conceal the footage form the FBI and grand jury."
And I'm stopping there.
I need a break. Will be back later.
(I'll be honest. Reading legal documents isn't usually quite this fun. I mean it's always fun of course, but this is particularly fun.)
12/
by
ti-amie Ms Kanefield continues
Apparently De Oliveira is the employee who allegedly drained the pool at Mar a Lago and flooded the room that housed computer servers with the surveillance video logs
Now I AM taking a dinner break !!!
Teri Kanefield
@
Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
Okay time for a story.
I was called to the FBI office to see some evidence against my client. Evidently my client tried to wipe his server clean. The FBI guy (obviously a computer geek) took great delight in showing me exactly how it looks when someone repeatedly tries to wipe a server clean.
He had a PhD. I sat there listening thinking, "If only people knew how smart these guys were."
My client thought he HAD wiped the disk clean.
1/
But the computer whiz FBI person was able to get it all back, I don't know how, even though he explained it.
Then he showed me all the evidence he retrieved from the not-very-well-wiped disk.
It was not a good moment.
(Deleted stuff I added to the other thread)
2/
by ponchi101 You need a professional disk cleaner to really wipe the data. Or, do a true format which will not be a QUICK format (that only marks the sectors as available, not as truly erased).
And I wonder if anybody in the Tiny organization can do that.
What idiots.
by
ti-amie Dr. Jack Brown :verified:
@
DrJackBrown@mstdn.social
BREAKING: The Donald Trump case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.
Judge Chutkan is an Obama appointee. She's the only Federal judge in D.C. who's sentenced January 6th defendants to sentences *longer* than the government had requested.
by
ti-amie She was obviously typing way too fast
Sarah
@
SarahOestreich@mstdn.social
Noteworthy #TrumpIndictment passage. After being told any fraud (if any such existed) was. It outcome-determinative and that if he still tried to stay in office there would be “riots in every major city in the United States, co-conspirator 4 responded, “that's why there's an Insurrection Act."
by
ti-amie Joshua Holland
@
JoshuaHolland@mastodon.social
These indictments are absolutely not ‘boosting #Trump in the polls,’ as every media outlet has chosen to put it. His numbers have improved among likely GOP primary voters, a small subset of the voting population, as DeSantis combusts.
Really misleading reporting and it’s just ubiquitous. #media
by Owendonovan There's a tipping point, even with him. It's neaaring and when he goes down, all his sycophant politicians will follow. I believe a collective awakening of some sort is imminent.
by ti-amie At some point the weight of reality gets through to those who want to hold onto their delusions. I agree Owen. I didn't watch any of the special coverage on MSNBC that started at 8 but I did see the end of Joy Reid where one of her guests said that she is stunned that there was absolutely no leaking from Jack Smith's people. The only ones running their mouths were TFG himself and his sycophants.
by
ponchi101 Owendonovan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2023 2:33 am
There's a tipping point, even with him. It's neaaring and when he goes down, all his sycophant politicians will follow. I believe a collective awakening of some sort is imminent.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2023 2:56 am
At some point the weight of reality gets through to those who want to hold onto their delusions. I agree Owen. I didn't watch any of the special coverage on MSNBC that started at 8 but I did see the end of Joy Reid where one of her guests said that she is stunned that there was absolutely no leaking from Jack Smith's people. The only ones running their mouths were TFG himself and his sycophants.
Oh, how I wish both of you will be right. How I wish that indeed, the sycophants and the acolytes will wake up and see this man for what he is.
But I seriously doubt it. Every Sunday, men as evil and as low as Tiny go on TV and peddle lies and verifiable BS, and not one of their followers snaps out of it.
That is what a cult is. People still believe Ayn Rand. And you have the Deepak's and Robbins cashing in, day in and day out. This is no different.
by
texasniteowl ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2023 4:42 pm
Oh, how I wish both of you will be right. How I wish that indeed, the sycophants and the acolytes will wake up and see this man for what he is.
But I seriously doubt it.
Sadly, I'm with ponchi. Hardcore members of the cult of Trump aren't going to be changing anytime soon. My only hope is that there are enough fringe Republicans peeling away (either to rebel against Trump or in protest of the stripping of women's rights) to prevent a Trump win in the general election. But seriously, if Trump wins? The thought of what they will do is horrifying.
by
ti-amie Judge Tanya Chutkan is a tough Trump critic, toughest Jan. 6 sentencer
Trump’s trial judge in D.C. is a former public defender and was one of the first U.S. judges to reject his executive privilege claims to withhold Jan. 6 White House records
By Spencer S. Hsu and Tom Jackman
August 1, 2023 at 10:41 p.m. EDT
Television news crews setup outside of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. District Court House in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, August 1, 2023. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
With U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan as the trial judge overseeing his case in Washington, Donald Trump’s legal troubles in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack come near full circle.
Trump’s federal criminal indictment on charges of attempting to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election was randomly assigned Tuesday to Chutkan, 61, who nearly two years ago became one of the first federal judges in D.C. to reject the former president’s efforts to use executive privilege to withhold White House communications from Jan. 6 investigators, in that instance from the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot.
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts/AP)
In her Trump documents opinion on Nov. 9, 2021, Chutkan ruled that Congress had a strong public interest in obtaining White House communications and other records that could shed light on the violent attack by a mob of Trump supporters who injured dozens of police, ransacked offices and forced the evacuation of lawmakers meeting to confirm the results of the 2020 election. Chutkan noted that President Biden had waived executive privilege, overcoming his predecessor’s attempt to invoke the confidentiality of presidential communications, a ruling affirmed by a federal appeals court and left undisturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“At bottom, this is a dispute between a former and incumbent President,” Chutkan wrote. “And the Supreme Court has already made clear that in such circumstances, the incumbent’s view is accorded greater weight.”
Chutkan agreed with the House that the matter was of “unsurpassed public importance because such information relates to our core democratic institutions and the public’s confidence in them” and could help lead to legislation “to prevent such events from ever occurring again.”
About 13 months later, the House committee referred Trump to the Justice Department for criminal charges. And two and a half years after the Jan. 6 attack, a grand jury indicted Trump on Tuesday, charging him with trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Trump is scheduled to make his first appearance Thursday before a magistrate judge in U.S. District Court in Washington, and after that, Chutkan will take over the case, facing enormous scrutiny over the high-profile case.
Chutkan was appointed to the U.S. bench in 2014 by President Barack Obama and was one of the first public defenders appointed to the federal trial court in Washington. A trained dancer raised in Kingston, Jamaica, Chutkan graduated from George Washington University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School before working in private practice with two Washington firms and serving 11 years with the D.C. Public Defender Service. She then joined the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm, where as partner she was a white-collar defense specialist focusing on complex antitrust class-action cases.
“For a lot of people, I seem to check a lot of boxes: immigrant, woman, Black, Asian. Your qualifications are always going to be subject to criticism and you have to develop a thick skin,” Chutkan was quoted as saying in a February 2022 profile posted by the federal judiciary.
The featured speaker at an African American History Month event hosted by the judiciary’s Defender Services Office, Chutkan cited “the dignity and the brilliance” of former federal judge and NAACP Legal Defense Fund litigator Constance Baker Motley and her predecessors as a model. “They put their lives on the line every time they did their jobs and had to put up with far more than I have,” she said.
Chutkan has been the toughest sentencing judge on the D.C. federal court for Jan. 6 defendants, according to a Washington Post database. Through mid-June, Chutkan sentenced every one of the 31 defendants to have come before her to at least some jail or prison time. She has exceeded prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations nine times and granted them 14 times, while court-wide, judges have sentenced below government recommendation about 80 percent of the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... l-counsel/
by
ti-amie @
garretthaake@bird.makeup
.@capitolpolice have evacuated all the senate office buildings amid unconfirmed reports of an active shooter. One staffer told me officers escorted him from a Russell bathroom with guns drawn.
Kyle Cheney
@
kyledcheney@bird.makeup
USCP chief Manger says 200 officers are going floor to floor clearing the Senate office buildings after initial report of active shooter, which now appears to be a false alarm.
by ponchi101 How much (and of what quality) weed do these people smoke on a regular basis?
by ti-amie There is live coverage on MSNBC, CNN. I have no idea what Faux is doing.
Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
26m
"All rise."
U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya enters the courtroom.
The caption is read: United States v. Donald Trump.
For the prosecution:
Tom Windom
Molly Gaston
Defense:
John Lauro
Todd Blanche
The judge asks Trump to state his name for the record.
Trump stands to answer, and she says that isn't necessary.
"Yes, your honor. Donald J. Trump. John."
The judge reads out the charges and the maximum penalties.
Dispelling speculation about the final charge, the maximum penalty on that one is 10 years.
Upadhyaya informs Trump of his rights, including his right to remain silent.
Trump, standing and speaking clearly, pleads not guilty.
Prosecutors agree to pre-trial release, subject to certain conditions.
Prosecutor Windom:
"The government intends to put its position in writing. But this case, like every case, will benefit from normal order, including a speedy trial."
by ti-amie Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
·
9m
First hearing before Judge Chutkan is scheduled for august 28 2023 at 10AM
Trump needn’t appear in person for Aug 28 hearing
Noting this: judge gave three options for next court appearance.
Aug 21, 22 or 28
Trump defense chose …. The latest
The 28th
by ti-amie Brandi Buchman
@Brandi_Buchman
·
3h
They have closed an entrance at the courthouse for security purposes but I can peek through the window of said entrance and see a larger group of protesters. It may be a mixed bag but I see a couple pro Trump flags next to a man in an inflatable baby Trump outfit, diaper included
I should note, the person wearing the inflatable baby Trump costume has a handmade placard around their neck that says "Loser"
There is also a large banner that is done up in the style of Trumps 2020 campaign poster but instead of Trump it also says LOSER.
Outside of the courtroom where he will be arraigned today, there is a blue privacy curtain up at the closed doorway. And there is also a little "velvet" rope divider thing off to the side. Not so much because he is fancy, but out of logistical needs to keep folks at bay, I hear.
Walking around and looking out another window that faces the street (3rd) and there is a giant red and white and black flag of Trump's face with the words "Trump or death" ---so, you know, not at all Al Qaeda-y or anything.
(...)
NOW: Donald Trump is in the courtroom. He sidled up quite slowly to the table before taking a seat next to his attorney, John Lauro.
The mic is a bit hot for a moment as his lawyer directs him, "we're going to have you stand."
It was something to watch Trump physically walk into the courtroom.
He approached the table as if he had weights in each one of his shoes, slowly assessing the space, body slightly turned to the side before he faced the table full on and sat.
Govt must submit its next brief within 7 days and include an estimate for how long it takes to make its case in chief. Within 7 days of that decision, defendant must make a response, setting forth his proposal for trial date and time needed for prep (best estimate)
Trump's attorney says they expect to "vigorously address every issue in this matter" but in order to have time to prepare and understand length of trial, what "we need from govt is the magnitude of discovery"
There's no question in our mind that Mr. Trump is entitled to a fair trial, and a speedy trial, but we know this court will give him due process rights... Please give us 2-3 days to understand scope of discovery.
Judge will let Windom respond.
Windom says the govt is prepared to turn over discovery in this case as soon as possible.
This case like any other would benefit from normal order, including a speedy trial, Windom says.
Judge U: There will be a fair process in this court...nonetheless you are ordered to file those briefs to Judge Chutkan with time you need to prepare (v. light paraphrase on this last part)
Lauro again stands up. He says, again, he knows the govt is going to turn over a huge amount of discovery.... at a minimum, we'd like to get some idea from govt voluntarily, if not thru court order, of an understanding of the magnitude of this case.
"You can file any objections you have with the district judge, but nonetheless, the order stands..." for you to file these briefs.
Mag. judge asks Trump if he has any questions. He doesn't. Trump atty is back up.... he's still concerned about Trump being able to look over docs
Trump's atty Lauro asks for judge to waive Speedy Trial Act. (Trump wants to delay)
And just like that - it's over. Trump stands and much like he walked in, he walks out, each foot sort of plodding over the other heavily.
by
ti-amie Opinion Why the Trump trial should be televised
By Neal Katyal
August 3, 2023 at 5:43 p.m. EDT
Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University, served as acting solicitor general of the United States from 2010 to 2011.
The upcoming trial of United States v. Donald J. Trump will rank with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Dred Scott v. Sandford as a defining moment for our history and our values as a people. And yet, federal law will prevent all but a handful of Americans from actually seeing what is happening in the trial. We will be relegated to perusing cold transcripts and secondhand descriptions. The law must be changed.
While many states allow cameras in courtrooms, federal courts generally do not. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states: “Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.” Whatever the virtues of this rule might have been when it was adopted in 1946, it is beyond antiquated today. We live in a digital age, where people think visually and are accustomed to seeing things with their own eyes.
A criminal trial is all about witnesses and credibility, and the demeanor of participants plays a big role. A cold transcript cannot convey the emotion on a defendant’s face when a prosecution witness is on the stand, or how he walks into the courtroom each day.
Most important, live (or near-live) broadcasting lets Americans see for themselves what is happening in the courtroom and would go a long way toward reassuring them that justice is being done. They would be less vulnerable to the distortions and misrepresentations that will inevitably be part of the highly charged, politicized discussion flooding the country as the trial plays out. Justice Louis Brandeis’s observation that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” is absolutely apt here.
There are at least two pathways toward televising the Trump trial. One is for the Judicial Conference, run by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., to vote for an amendment to Rule 53. Indeed, the conference has considered the idea of allowing cameras for more than 30 years and in 1994, it considered and rejected a proposal to televise criminal trials. But there is no need for the conference to resuscitate that proposal — it need only authorize broadcast of this unique case.
The other mechanism is for Congress to pass a law — a possibility contemplated in Rule 53. While Congress finds itself incapable of much action these days, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) notably introduced a bill this year that provides a framework for presiding federal judges to permit television coverage of their trials. That legislation could be a model for a specific bill in the Trump case. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. (Grassley’s bill was co-sponsored by four Democratic senators.) Democrats might expect the broadcast to demonstrate to skeptics the definitive clarity of the prosecution’s case against Trump; Republicans might count on the audience seeing the trial as a tedious, technicality-laden political stunt.
Allowing cameras in the courtroom squares with the purpose of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a public trial. The handful of public observers in the courtroom might technically meet the amendment’s criteria. But in our Instagram era, an event that allows only a few to actually see hardly seems “public.”
Televising the trial would also provide deep educational benefits. Law is often viewed as inaccessible, chock full of jargon and impenetrable procedures. This broadcast would provide a real-time civics lesson, especially for children, in how our legal system operates.
Some fear that televising trials will create a circus atmosphere, undermining the decorum and dignity of the court. That risk exists, but the far greater risk is that if this trial is done out of the public eye, many more people will question the legitimacy of the court and its decisions. We should do what is needed to keep that from happening. This case, after all, is not some celebrity spectacle or a morbidly fascinating murder being broadcast for ad revenue or high ratings. It is the gravest matter of public concern imaginable: A former president is alleged to have tried to launch a coup to keep himself in power, and used his powers as president to do so.
A recent high-profile case offers an example of the successful use of cameras in the courtroom: the 2021 trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd (in which I served as a special prosecutor). It took place in Minnesota, which has a flat ban televising criminal trials. The judge authorized an exception, even though the Minnesota rule mirrored the language of federal Rule 53. And television worked. Americans across the land watched the trial and observed the demeanor of Chauvin and the others involved. When the verdict was rendered, the fact that so many had seen the trial firsthand went a long way toward building public confidence in the jury’s decision.
Besides the states and other U.S. jurisdictions that allow criminal trials to be televised, the International Criminal Court also broadcasts its proceedings, using a 30 minute delay to ensure confidentiality of information. All of this reflects the need to assure the public that justice is being done.
This criminal trial is being conducted in the name of the people of the United States. It is our tax dollars at work. We have a right to see it. And we have the right to ensure that rumormongers and conspiracy theorists don’t control the narrative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... broadcast/
by ponchi101 Sorry Neal. Regardless of the fact that indeed, the rumormongers will take control of the narrative, that will happen with TV or not TV on the room.
But you cannot allow this to become entertaining.
by ashkor87 Trivia: Neal Katyal is of Indian origin..Moxila Upadhyay was born in Gujarat, my wife's home state in India. I am beginning to worry..too many Indians in high-profile roles against Trump
by ti-amie Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Rep. Adam Schiff and nearly three dozen other House Democrats are calling on top judiciary branch officials to allow the federal criminal trials of Donald Trump to be publicly broadcast — arguing that it's in the nation's best interests to do so.
by
ti-amie Meanwhile in Florida...
Trump documents case judge made multiple errors in earlier trial
By Sarah N. Lynch and Jacqueline Thomsen
August 4, 20236:11 AM EDTUpdated an hour ago
WASHINGTON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - The judge in former U.S. President Donald Trump's upcoming trial over his handling of classified documents made two key errors in a June trial, one of which violated a fundamental constitutional right of the defendant and could have invalidated the proceedings, according to legal experts and a court transcript.
Florida-based U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon closed jury selection for the trial of an Alabama man - accused by federal prosecutors of running a website with images of child sex abuse - to the defendant's family and the general public, a trial transcript obtained by Reuters showed. A defendant's right to a public trial is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment.
Cannon, a 42-year-old former federal prosecutor appointed by Trump to the bench in 2020 late in his presidency, also neglected to swear in the prospective jury pool - an obligatory procedure in which people who may serve on the panel pledge to tell the truth during the selection process. This error forced Cannon to re-start jury selection before the trial ended abruptly with defendant William Spearman pleading guilty as part of an agreement with prosecutors.
Cannon's decision to close the courtroom represents "a fundamental constitutional error," said Stephen Smith, a professor at the Santa Clara School of Law in California. "She ignored the public trial right entirely. It's as though she didn't know it existed."
In Cannon's decision to close jury selection, the judge cited space restrictions in her small courtroom at the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Legal experts said closing a courtroom to the public has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as a "structural error" - a mistake so significant that it can invalidate a criminal trial because it strikes at the heart of the entire process. A public trial also has been found to implicate First Amendment rights of freedom of assembly, speech and press.
Cannon's decision raises questions about how she will handle the intense public interest at Trump's trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 20, 2024, in the same courtroom.
The unprecedented prosecution of a former president as he campaigns seeking a return to the White House promises to bring enormous public scrutiny. The trial also will represent the first time that Cannon handles a case involving classified evidence and the arcane rules surrounding it.
Cannon's trial errors also illustrate her judicial inexperience, five former federal judges - Democratic and Republican appointees - said in interviews.
"A lack of experience can be really hard in a big case, especially when there's all this media attention and everything you do is being watched and commented on and second-guessed," said Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who leads the Berkeley Judicial Institute in California.
Fogel said Cannon made "two fairly significant mistakes" during jury selection in the June trial.
"It looms larger because of who the judge is," Fogel added.
Mark Bennett, the former Chief U.S. District Judge of the Northern District of Iowa, said, "She should have figured ahead of time a way to accommodate a small number of family members in a very small courtroom, in my opinion. It's just the right thing to do, and not run the risk of there being reversible error."
Cannon did not respond to a request for comment. Scott Berry, a federal public defender representing Spearman, declined to comment, as did a Justice Department spokesperson.
LIMITED EXPERIENCE
As a judge, Cannon so far has presided over four criminal trials that resulted in jury verdicts. She previously also worked on four criminal trials that resulted in jury verdicts when she served a federal prosecutor from 2013 to 2020, according to a questionnaire she filled out before the Senate confirmed her as a judge.
Cannon faced a rebuke from the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when it reversed her 2022 order appointing a third party to review documents seized by the FBI from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort home in Florida in the classified records investigation.
"We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so," the 11th Circuit panel of three judges - all Republican appointees - wrote in reversing Cannon's ruling and ordering the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Trump that sought to shield documents from federal investigators.
Trump's upcoming trial on 40 criminal counts of retaining classified records, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and concealment will present a new level of complexity. Trump faces separate trials on two other sets of federal and state criminal charges.
Paul Grimm, a former federal judge in Maryland who now leads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School in North Carolina, said it is not unusual for a new judge to have to deal with a high-profile matter, as case assignments are random.
"You get the case on the draw of it," Grimm said. "You can ask for help - but if you choose not to ask for help, then no one's going to make you" seek guidance.
'YOUR OBJECTION IS OVERRULED'
Cannon began jury selection on June 12 in the trial of Spearman, who was charged with conspiring to advertise and distribute images of child sexual abuse and with engaging in a child exploitation enterprise.
That day, the court transcript showed, Cannon failed to swear in the jury pool. Cannon also declined to open the courtroom to the public despite repeated requests from both prosecutors and defense attorneys, the transcript showed.
Some of the former federal judges interviewed by Reuters said their courtroom deputies sometimes would remind them of procedural steps like swearing in prospective jurors, as they may be focused on other aspects of running a trial.
Berry, the federal defender, argued in the courtroom that Cannon's refusal to let his client's mother and sister be present during jury selection was a Sixth Amendment violation.
"All right, thank you. Your objection is overruled," Cannon replied, according to the transcript.
A federal prosecutor in the case, Greg Schiller, later pressed Cannon to let in Spearman's mother. Schiller raised a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that held that judges must weigh less restrictive alternatives prior to closing a courtroom to the public, including during the jury selection process.
When Berry later pointed to two open chairs in the room, Cannon resisted his request again, saying the chairs were reserved for law enforcement.
"Mr. Spearman's mother is free to join us once the jury selection process has concluded and/or there is truly enough room in the courtroom," Cannon said, according to the transcript.
Cannon later offered to let in Spearman's family after the judge realized she also had failed to swear in the jury pool. She said there would be room in the courtroom after certain jurors who both sides in the case agreed should be dismissed had left.
The jury selection process never re-started because Spearman and the prosecutors entered into a "conditional" plea deal, an uncommon arrangement that preserves a defendant's right to appeal certain rulings by the trial judge. In most plea deals, defendants waive the bulk of their appellate rights.
The decision by Spearman, who is due to be sentenced by Cannon on Aug. 31, to enter a plea deal averted the problem with the court closure. But legal experts said it raises questions about how Cannon will handle public access for Trump's trial.
"She is going to have to make some accommodations," Santa Clara's Smith said.
Reporting by Jacqueline Thomsen and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Will Dunham and Scott Malone
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-doc ... 023-08-04/
by Owendonovan She's as good a jurist as she can be, and that's not a very good one.
by ti-amie Is this going to be part of what the Feds use to try and get her removed from the case? How does a judge forget to swear in the jury pool? Incompetent is the kindest word that can be used to describe her.
by ponchi101 Are they preparing the ground for a mistrial? Serious here.
by patrick Yes. Master of Delay is at it again
by
ti-amie And the games have begun.
Legal Twitter was in an uproar about this post by TFG late yesterday.
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
·
16h
NEW: Prosecutors quickly alerted the judge in Trump’s most recent criminal case Friday about a social media post in which Trump said “If you go after me, I’m coming after you.”
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
·
11h
UPDATE: An unsigned statement from a Trump spokesperson characterizes the Truth Social post as “the definition of political speech” and says it was aimed at “RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.”
https://politico.com/news/2023/08/04/fe ... t-00109944
by ti-amie
Roger Parloff
@rparloff
... and then take up any defense bickering about how to fine-tune its terms later. That way case isn’t needless derailed in the meantime. Smart move.
/7-end
by ti-amie
If you step away from the simplistic histrionic fantasy land that is cable news and social media for a minute, you’re reminded of what the real world is, and you realize that almost none of what you’re hearing in this fantasy land is real.
by
ti-amie James Gleick
@
JamesGleick@zirk.us
I’m beginning to think that, no matter how much he insists, Judge Chutkan is not going to call Trump “President.”
Karl Auerbach
@
karlauerbach@sfba.social
@JamesGleick The judge possibly doesn't want there to be any basis for nutjobs to claim that the order applies to President Biden rather than TFG.
by
ti-amie Jack Smith Slams Trump For Delay Tactic in New Court Filing
The Justice Department just filed a scathing opposition to Trump's request
Ben Meiselas9 minutes ago
Instead of complying with the court’s order, on Saturday morning, Trump’s legal time filed a motion requesting an extension of time to August 10 and requested an oral argument on the matter.
Jack Smith immediately filed an opposition.
In the opposition papers, Jack Smith calls out Trump’s attempt at delay by stating: “Rather than spend time complying with the Court's order, the defendant drafted a filing as to why he did not have time to review the 5-page protective order.”
Jack Smith also points out in his opposition that the protective order proposed by the government is almost identical to the one Trump’s lawyers agreed to in the Florida criminal case and Trump’s team was not getting back to him.
Jack Smith says in his motion that his team is available any day of the week, on weekends, on holidays, and at anytime of the day to meet and confer to move this case along.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/jack-s ... urt-filing
by
ti-amie Marc Elias
@
marcelias@mas.to
Trump continues to have lousy lawyers.
The tl;dr
by
ti-amie New York Times Pitchbot
@
dougjballoon@bird.makeup
Jack Smith is violating Donald Trump‘s First Amendment right to ask people to commit crimes
(parody account)
by ti-amie
Tomi T Ahonen Has Not Lost Friday As An Option
@tomiahonen
·
Aug 7
So there are Trumpomobsters who were sent to the departments, like Corey Lewandowski and Christina Bobb, who picked documents to steal. And sent them to Mark Meadows. So THAT is the 'grand conspiracy' of espionage in DC, with its own Grand Jury
Loose Cannon has NO RIGHT to that
Completely different indictment, in DC. Mark Meadows, Corey Lewandowski, Christina Bobb etc. It is the theft of 337 classified documents. Mandatory minimum prison time for Trump is 1,348 years (on top of Manhattan, on top of Florida, on top of DC, on top of Georgia)
by
ponchi101 ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 10:25 pm
Completely different indictment, in DC. Mark Meadows, Corey Lewandowski, Christina Bobb etc. It is the theft of 337 classified documents.
Mandatory minimum prison time for Trump is 1,348 years (on top of Manhattan, on top of Florida, on top of DC, on top of Georgia)
He won't spend 1,348 seconds IN THE WAITING ROOM of the court.
Some people simply are that lucky.
by
ti-amie Judge Chutkan's specifics as to what is and isn't "sensitive material"
by
ti-amie Trump Just Tried To Use Judge's Own Statement About January 6 Rioters Against Her—And He May Regret It
Donald Trump may have violated Judge Chutkan's protective order by criticizing her using her own words about January 6th rioters in a Truth Social post.
Alan Herrera
Chutkan had made comments during the sentencing of Christine Priola of Ohio in October 2022. She admonished Priola for participating in the mob that stormed the Capitol, emphasizing the mob's loyalty to one individual rather than to the Constitution or democratic principles.
Those words were:
“I see the videotapes. I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats that they were wearing, and the garb."
“And the people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty to one man, not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this county and not to the principles of democracy."
"It’s blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”
https://secondnexus.com/trump-chutkan-order-january-6
I'm posting this here because of what I said in the other thread about him trying to bait Judge Chutkan. The press is itching for him to get perp walked into Federal Detention but don't they know that both Chutkan and Smith know his playbook and are ready to move if and when they have to?
by ti-amie Joyce Alene
@JoyceWhiteVance
True bill: The grand jury voted to indict a case
No bill: The grand jury declined to return an indictment
Each indictment can have multiple charges & multiple defendants (or be limited to one of each)
Apparently, the Fulton County GJ returned 10 true bills. Now we wait for the clerk to process them.
by ti-amie Neal Katyal @neal_katyal
The Georgia Indictments say there were zero "no bills." That means that the Grand Jury decided to indict in all cases that the DA (the prosecutor) sought. This is very very bad news for Trump, and likely others in his circle.
by
ti-amie Charlie Gile
@CharlieGileNBC
The cover sheet.
by ti-amie Katie Phang @KatiePhang
UPDATE:
@FaniforDA
should do a press conference after the Clerk’s Office has processed all 10 indictments.
by
ti-amie Read the full text of the Trump Georgia indictment document
By Washington Post Staff
August 14, 2023 at 11:02 p.m. EDT
The fourth indictment against former president Donald Trump was released Monday. Trump and 18 others were criminally charged in Georgia in connection with efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in the state.
The released indictment below details the 13 counts Trump faces, include violating the
Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, conspiring to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiring to file false documents.
This is the pdf.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/document ... e_manual_5
RICO
by ashkor87 well done, Georgia! i hear he cannot be pardoned even by the Governor, and will have to serve 5 years before he can be pardoned even by the parole board! This is the big one.
by Owendonovan All these indictments have the feel of being pretty airtight. None of these people had any concept a few years ago they'd be spending their later years of life in jail. I'd like to be there for their sentencing so I could laugh loudly at them. The gop brings the worst out in me.
by
ti-amie Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 12:58 pm
All these indictments have the feel of being pretty airtight. None of these people had any concept a few years ago they'd be spending their later years of life in jail. I'd like to be there for their sentencing so I could laugh loudly at them. The gop brings the worst out in me.
ETTD
They don't think he'll do to them what he's done to others. I don't feel sorry for any of them. If they didn't learn from what he did to Michael Cohen that's on them.
by
ti-amie Newly appointed Judge Scott McAfee gets Trump criminal case in Georgia
By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
August 15, 2023 at 2:13 p.m. EDT
One of the newest judges on the Fulton County Superior Court bench, Scott McAfee, has been assigned the sprawling racketeering case that charges former president Donald Trump and 18 allies with scheming to undo Trump’s 2020 election defeat in Georgia and elsewhere.
McAfee, a lifelong Georgian who lives in Atlanta, was nominated to fill a vacancy on the bench earlier this year by Gov. Brian Kemp (R), who had previously praised McAfee as “a tough prosecutor” who could “bring those to justice who break the law.”
Though McAfee was assigned the case soon after the indictment was handed up on Monday evening, it could be transferred to a different judge later in the process.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee. (Superior Court of Fulton County)
McAfee has worked off and on in the public realm for more than a decade, including eight years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Justice Department in the Northern District of Georgia, where he prosecuted drug trafficking organizations, fraud and illegal firearms possession, according to a March 2021 news release from Kemp’s office. McAfee also worked on the state level as an assistant district attorney in Fulton County, where he handled many felony cases, from armed robbery to murder, the news release said.
Before he became a judge, McAfee served as the Georgia inspector general under Kemp, investigating claims of fraud, waste and abuse in the executive branch of state government.
As a judge, he has previously allowed video of court proceedings to air online, including on a YouTube channel that bears his name and title. He speaks to attorneys and defendants with a hint of a Southern drawl, the channel shows, and an American flag stands behind his chair on an elevated bench.
A father of two, McAfee earned his law degree from the University of Georgia. He plays the cello and majored in music as an undergraduate at Emory University in Atlanta.
McAfee is running for election to a full four-year term in 2024, according to his campaign website. Judicial elections in Georgia are nonpartisan. McAfee’s priorities include clearing a backlog of cases that piled up during the pandemic and holding violent offenders accountable.
“I look forward to continuing my service as your Fulton Superior Court Judge, delivering timely justice for all,” his website said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... rump-case/
by
ponchi101 Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 12:58 pm
All these indictments have the feel of being pretty airtight. None of these people had any concept a few years ago they'd be spending their later years of life in jail. I'd like to be there for their sentencing so I could laugh loudly at them.
The gop brings the worst out in me.
The worst? Sounds like pretty rational behavior to me
by
ti-amie Here’s what to know about prosecutor Nathan Wade
By Ben Brasch
Fulton County prosecutor Nathan J. Wade, center, stands beside Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis as she speaks during a news conference at the Fulton County Government building on Monday in Atlanta. (Joshua Lott/The Washington Post)
Fulton County prosecutor Nathan J. Wade has been a right-hand man for Fulton District Attorney Fani T. Willis and is expected to be key in prosecuting indicted former president Donald Trump and his 18 allies.
But Wade’s background does not indicate that he has an expertise with complex racketeering cases. The biography on his law firm’s website suggests that his experience includes personal injury cases, family law, contract disputes and civil litigation.
The biography describes him as “a former prosecutor and natural born trial attorney.”
The Fulton DA’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Wade’s experience trying racketeering cases. Fulton County has paid Wade’s law firm more than $475,000 since 2022, according to the county’s data portal.
Wade has been an attorney since 1999, according to Georgia Bar records.
He served for a decade as an associate municipal court judge in Marietta — the county seat of one of metro Atlanta’s most populated areas, Cobb County. Such judges usually handle city ordinance violations and misdemeanors.
Wade mounted multiple unsuccessful runs for a seat on the bench of the Cobb County Superior Court before Willis brought him on to help with the election investigation.
A cached version of his campaign website shed light on his legal viewpoint.
“Nathan asserts that the American system of justice is the best in the world when each individual branch of government is functioning properly and performing its designed duty,” the website reads. “Nathan upholds the tenet that judges are not authorized to legislate from the bench but rather enforce the current state of all applicable laws without prejudice or bias.”
When Marietta Mayor Steve “Thunder” Tumlin appointed Wade in January 2010, he made Wade the first Black male judge for the Marietta Municipal Court, reported the Marietta Daily Journal at the time.
Now, he works for the first Black woman to serve as district attorney in Fulton — the most populated county in Georgia and the heart of Atlanta — as they prosecute Trump and others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... on-county/
by
ti-amie
by ponchi101 Are mug shots available to the public?
by
ti-amie ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 3:23 am
Are mug shots available to the public?
As I understand it, yes.
by ponchi101 So. Waiting for the Memes?
by
ti-amie ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 3:33 pm
So. Waiting for the Memes?
They've already started. I'm trying my best to stay off of Xitter.
(The X is pronounced as 'sh')
by
ponchi101 ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:38 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 3:33 pm
So. Waiting for the Memes?
They've already started. I'm trying my best to stay off of Xitter.
(The X is pronounced as 'sh')
by
ti-amie Teri Kanefield
@
Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
Willis's proposed scheduling order is here:
"In light of Defendant Donald John Trump’s other criminal and civil matters pending in the courts of our sister sovereigns. . ."
Arraignment: September 5
The final pretrial conference: February 20, 2024.
The trial shall commence on March 4, 2024.
Trump's dance card is getting full. Popular guy. He's wanted in so many jurisdiction.
by ponchi101 Too slow. Too slow.
This is not a regular trial. This is important in the political spectrum. This should be fast forward so that people will know the truth before election date.
by
ti-amie These people
Geraldine
@
everywhereist@mastodon.social
Jenna Ellis, Trump's former attorney who was indicted alongside him, has started a fundraiser to cover her legal bills. The options on the website are for you to "donate," "share," or "pray."
Obviously, I was very respectful.
by
patrick ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 11:24 pm
Delay Master comments on If you come for me, I will come after you in effect.
by patrick Let see on trial dates for the Delay Master
Alvin Bragg - N/A
Letitia James - N/A
Jack Smith - 1/2/24 for DC
Jack Smith - N/A on FL
Fani Willis - 3/4/24
by
ti-amie Nonilex
@
Nonilex@masto.ai
Officials Investigate #Threats Against #Trump #GrandJurors in #Georgia
The #FultonCounty Sheriff’s Office said Thurs that it was investigating online threats against the grand #jurors who voted this week to #indict Trump & 18 others, accusing them of #conspiring to overturn Georgia’s #2020election results.
The juror’s names are listed early in the sprawling 98-page #indictment, as required in #Georgia, making the state an outlier among federal & state court systems.
Now some of those #jurors have had their faces, social media profiles & possible addresses & phone numbers shared on internet sites, in some cases w/the suggestion that they should be harassed — though it was unclear on Thurs if anyone had followed up on those suggestions.
The FCSO said in a statement that it was aware of online #threats against #GrandJurors & was working w/other agencies to track down their origin. It did not answer inquiries about whether any #jurors had reported #harassment.
…Media Matters… collected other messages posted on one online board that included threats of #violence against the jurors & called the list of their names & addresses a “hit list.”
…One reason for the #Georgia rule requiring the release of the #jurors’ names, said Michael Mears, a professor at John Marshall #Law School in Atlanta, is to give defense #lawyers a tiny window into the proceedings — letting them check, for instance, whether any of the jurors should have been excluded because they were convicted felons or resided outside the county.
(Umm, isn’t that what voir dire is for?)
#Trump #Criminal #JuryTampering #DomesticTerror #Security
by ponchi101 If his statements on early Jan 6th led to the violence of that day, who could NOT foresee that anybody that openly opposes him will suffer consequences like this?
How naive can these officials be?
by
ti-amie ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:49 pm
If his statements on early Jan 6th led to the violence of that day, who could NOT foresee that anybody that openly opposes him will suffer consequences like this?
How naive can these officials be?
Fani Willis, in her presser, said more than once that she and others are being well protected.
by
ti-amie Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
NEW: Special Counsel's office notifies DC federal judge Tanya Chutkan that Jack Smith would like to file a "reply" to Donald Trump's request for April 2026 trial date
Smith wants to file response in advance of the Monday August 28th hearing at which Chutkan will set trial date
Jack Smith files argument pushing back on Trump request for April 2026 DC trial date
"Would deny the public its right to a speedy trial"
"Defendant cites inapposite statistics"
"Overstates the amount of new & nonduplicative discovery..exaggerates the challenge of reviewing it"
Referring to the Trump defense filing pasted below...
Jack Smith argues, "The burden of reviewing discovery cannot be measured by page count alone, and comparisons to the height of the Washington Monument and the length of a Tolstoy novel are neither helpful nor insightful"
Jack Smith filing (more): "Defense points out that the Government’s proposal to start jury selection on Dec 11, 2023, conflicts w/ a motions hearing in his (Florida) criminal case. Such true conflicts are easily addressed"
Smith says to instead do jury selection later in week
Still pushing for speedy trial of Trump in DC, Smith concludes argument, "Through reasoned, discretionary scheduling orders like these, the Court can fairly administer the prompt disposition of this case"
Here's filing: gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.32.0.pdf (
http://courtlistener.com)
ALERT: Motion granted
Per court, "The government may file a reply in support of its brief proposing a trial date by August 22, 2023"
by
ti-amie Donald Trump Agrees to $200,000 Bond in Fulton County
The former president is expected to surrender for arrest in Atlanta by Friday
Published 08/21/23 03:56 PM ET|Updated 8 min ago
Aneeta Mathur-Ashton
Donald Trump's attorneys have agreed to a $200,000 bond in Fulton County stemming from District Attorney Fani Willi's criminal charges against the former president efforts to overturn the state's 2020 election results.
https://themessenger.com/politics/donal ... ton-county
by
ti-amie Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
ALERT: Judge sets Donald Trump's bond in Fulton County, Georgia at $200,000
Order: "Defendant may post bond as cash, through commercial surety, or through the Fulton County Jail 10% program"
Fulton County judge order (more):
"The Defendant shall appear in court as directed by the Court"
"Defendant shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a codefendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice"
Fulton County judge's order (more):
"Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any witness including, but not limited to, the individuals designated in the Indictment as an unindicated co-conspirators Individual 1 through Individual 30"
!! Order (more):
"Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against the community or to any property in the community; The above shall include, but are not limited to, posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media"
Here's the breakdown in the order
===>
by
ti-amie Laffy
@
GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Via Angry Staffer:
Hilarious, but ultimately unsurprising.
All media attention is good attention for Trump. There’s a reason he turns everything into a circus
Mueller, She Wrote:
BREAKING: #Trump wanted to schedule his self-surrender in #Fulton County to disrupt the GOP primary debate. Lawyers advised against it. #TrumpIndictment #legal
by
ti-amie Schrödinger's Litter Box
@Brewjew308
I'm hedging on a last-minute scramble to counter-program the debate with either his surrender in GA, or a rambling interview just off of the omelet bar.
Jim Sciutto
@jimsciutto
New: Donald Trump plans to turn himself in and be processed at the Fulton County jail on Thursday, CNN
is reporting. That date was set during negotiations with the district attorney’s office today over his consent bond and release conditions.
by ti-amie The finding out part of FAFO is always the hardest.
by
ti-amie Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
Here is what MEADOWS' attorneys wrote to Willis this morning after she rejected his effort to delay his arrest.
by
ti-amie Laffy
@
GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Recap via Anna Bower:
Here's my tally of consent bonds set thus far in the #Fulton County case:
#Trump: $200,000
Eastman: $100,000
Ellis: $100,000
Chesebro: $100,000
David Shafer: $75,000
Cathy Latham: $75,000
Mike Roman: $50,000
Ray Smith: $50,000
Scott Hall: $10,000
Shawn Still: $10,000
#Georgia #TrumpIndictment #legal
by
ti-amie Laffy
@
GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Via Kyle Cheney:
Jenna #ELLIS and Mike #ROMAN have entered bond agreements in #Georgia for $100,000 and $50,000, respectively. #legal #TrumpIndictment #FaniWillis
by
ti-amie “Dude is losing it”: Trump jokes about fleeing to Russia “with Vladimir” in Fulton Truth Social rant
"I’d fly far away, maybe to Russia, Russia, Russia, share a gold domed suite with Vladimir," he wrote
By IGOR DERYSH
Former President Donald Trump on Monday fumed over a judge setting a $200,000 bond in his Fulton County election conspiracy case. "The failed District Attorney of Fulton County (Atlanta), Fani Willis, insisted on a $200,000 Bond from me," he wrote on Truth Social after his lawyers met with prosecutors in Atlanta to discuss the terms of his bond. "I assume, therefore, that she thought I was a 'flight' risk - I'd fly far away, maybe to Russia, Russia, Russia, share a gold domed suite with Vladimir, never to be seen or heard from again. Would I be able to take my very 'understated' airplane with the gold TRUMP affixed for all to see. Probably not, I'd be much better off flying commercial - I'm sure nobody would recognize me!"
"Dude is losing it," tweeted national security attorney Bradley Moss.
"Can you believe it? I'll be going to Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday to be ARRESTED by a Radical Left District Attorney, Fani Willis," Trump wrote in another post, accusing Willis of raising money off "this WITCH HUNT" and coordinating his prosecution with President Joe Biden. "He better get this stuff out of his system now because his bond conditions are not going to allow some of this type of commentary pending trial," Moss wrote after a judge barred Trump from making "direct or indirect threats of any nature" against any defendants, witnesses, victims or "against the community," including "posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media."
https://www.salon.com/2023/08/22/dude-i ... cial-rant/
by ti-amie Reminds me of his "Russia are you listening" comment when he was ranting about her emails.
by
ti-amie Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)
@AWeissmann_
To the GA defendants trying to remove case to fed ct and get immunity: given the probable cause that the GA indictment establishes that you committed crimes NOT part of your federal work (in fact, in violation of your oaths), will you testifying in order to rebut that? Let's see.
by
ti-amie August 22, 2023 / by emptywheel
DOJ INVITES AILEEN CANNON TO AVOID ANOTHER REVERSIBLE ERROR
Nine pages into the twelve page reply regarding DOJ’s request that Judge Aileen Cannon hold a Garcia hearing to explain to Walt Nauta the potential hazards of Stan Woodward’s conflicts in the stolen document case, DOJ warns Judge Cannon that if she does what Woodward wants her to do, it will be (reversible) error.
In his response, Woodward had suggested that rather than hold a hearing to explain to Nauta the potential conflict and hazards to his defense, Judge Cannon should just exclude the testimony of Yuscil Taveras, the IT guy who testified against Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
To do that, DOJ argued, would be unprecedented, particularly given that Woodward had advance notice of this conflict.
III. It Would Be Error to Suppress Trump Employee 4’s Testimony
Nauta contends (ECF No. 126 at 4-5) that if the Court finds a conflict, it should preclude Trump Employee 4 from testifying at trial, rather than employ more routine remedies. That proposed remedy is contrary to precedent and—except for the district court ruling reversed in United States v. Messino, 181 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 1999)—would appear to be unprecedented.
Courts have rejected exclusion of evidence as a remedy to avoid a conflict of interest, concluding that evidence that is “relevant to the Government’s case” should not “be excluded to accommodate a defendant’s choice of counsel.” United States v. Urbana, 770 F. Supp. 1552, 1559 n.17 (S.D. Fla. 1991); see Messino, 181 F.3d at 830; United States v. Lech, 895 F. Supp. 586, 592- 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Exclusion of probative testimony “is an extreme sanction and would only harm the interests of justice.” Lech, 895 F. Supp. at 592. A “defendant’s choice of counsel” should not “take precedence over the Government’s discretion in deciding what charges to prosecute and how to present its case.” United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1142-43 (3d Cir. 1990).
[snip]
Nauta has not identified any case, and the Government is unaware of one, in which a court has excluded evidence to avoid a conflict on facts remotely similar to this case, where the Government put Mr. Woodward on notice long ago about potential conflicts, and he is now seeking to affirmatively use those conflicts to gain a tactical advantage at trial by excluding highly incriminating evidence to the benefit of not only his own client but also a co-defendant (Trump) whose PAC is paying his legal fees. The Court should not countenance this maneuver. [my emphasis]
Before they provided this implicit warning that if she makes such a decision, DOJ laid out how and why Taveras testified in DC, after the original indictment obtained in Florida. As I predicted, it’s because he had made false claims in an earlier appearance before the grand jury — one Woodward (who was still representing him) knew about.
In March, Taveras gave false testimony to the grand jury about this. Before that, DOJ raised Woodward’s conflict, but he said he was not aware of one. Then, after the June 8 indictment in Florida, DOJ warned Taveras, through Woodward, he was a target, and served two more subpoenas for surveillance footage. After serving the target letter, DOJ got DC Chief Judge James Boasberg involved and told Judge Cannon about it. Woodward raised no objection to a review of the conflict in DC. And that’s when Judge Boasberg assigned a public defender to advise Taveras, which led him to revise his testimony against Nauta and De Oliveira.
The target letter to Trump Employee 4 crystallized a conflict of interest arising from Mr. Woodward’s concurrent representation of Trump Employee 4 and Nauta. Advising Trump Employee 4 to correct his sworn testimony would result in testimony incriminating Mr. Woodward’s other client, Nauta; but permitting Trump Employee 4’s false testimony to stand uncorrected would leave Trump Employee 4 exposed to criminal charges for perjury. Moreover, an attorney for Trump had put Trump Employee 4 in contact with Mr. Woodward, and his fees were being paid by Trump’s political action committee (PAC). See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 453, 460 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (explaining that potential conflicts can be “further heightened by the financial dynamics of the joint representation,” where, for example, a client “did not independently select the” attorney but instead had the attorney “pre-selected for them by the attorney to the [person] who is the central focus of the grand jury proceedings”).
On June 27, 2023, consistent with its responsibility to promptly notify courts of potential conflicts, and given the prospective charges Trump Employee 4 faced in the District of Columbia, the Government filed a motion for a conflicts hearing with the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for District of Columbia (Boasberg, C.J.), who presides over grand jury matters in that district. The Government notified this Court on the same day, by sealed notice, of the filing in the District of Columbia. See ECF Nos. 45, 46. Mr. Woodward raised no objection to proceeding in the District of Columbia regarding Trump Employee 4. In fact, he responded that he “welcome[d] the Court’s inquiry into [his] representation of” Trump Employee 4, Response at 1, In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 23-GJ-46 (D.D.C. June 30, 2023), but asserted that he had no “information to support the Government’s claim that [Trump Employee 4] has provided false testimony to the grand jury,” and that “even if [Trump Employee 4] did provide conflicting information to the grand jury such that could expose him to criminal charges, he has other recourse besides reaching a plea bargain with the Government. Namely, he can go to trial with the presumption of innocence and fight the charges as against him.” Id. at 3. According to Mr. Woodward, if Trump Employee 4 “wishes to become a cooperating Government witness, he has already been advised that he may do so at any time.” Id.
Chief Judge Boasberg made available independent counsel (the First Assistant in the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the District of Columbia) to provide advice to Trump Employee 4 regarding potential conflicts. On July 5, 2023, Trump Employee 4 informed Chief Judge Boasberg that he no longer wished to be represented by Mr. Woodward and that, going forward, he wished to be represented by the First Assistant Federal Defender. Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment. [my emphasis]
Because Taveras’ false statements to the grand jury were in DC, venue would have been DC.
Not only was it appropriate to use the grand jury to investigate false statements by Trump Employee 4 and De Oliveira, it was appropriate to use the grand jury in the District of Columbia, where the statements were made and where venue for any false-statement charges would be proper. See United States v. John, 477 F. App’x 570, 572 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (concluding that venue for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is “proper only in the district or districts where the defendant made the false statement”); United States v. Paxson, 861 F.2d 730, 733-34 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (upholding conviction for perjurious grand jury testimony in the District of Columbia material to antitrust charges subsequently brought in the Northern District of Georgia). And it was necessary to bring to the attention of the Chief Judge in that district the potential conflict that arose from Mr. Woodward’s representation of Trump Employee 4 in those proceedings. As “an incident of [its] supervisory power, a court has jurisdiction” to consider potential conflicts of interest that “relate[] to a grand jury proceeding within that court’s control,” and when the Government discerns such a potential conflict of interest, it “is not only authorized but is in fact obligated to bring the problem to that court’s attention.” In re Gopman, 531 F.2d 262, 265-66 (5th Cir. 1976)
The term of that grand jury ended on August 17.
Judge Cannon has already been reversed by the 11th Circuit in humiliating fashion on this matter once.
DOJ is trying to help her avoid a second reversal.
Meanwhile, twice in this filing (bolded above), DOJ notes that Woodward is being paid by Trump’s PAC. DOJ is inching closer to raising that as a separate conflict in his representation of Nauta.
Copyright © 2023 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/22/d ... ble-error/
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/22/d ... rint=print
by
ti-amie @
GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Recent obstruction charges against #Trump, others followed cooperation from Mar-a-Lago IT worker: Sources
The IT staffer is set to be a central witness in the case against Trump.
Weissmann: "The importance of independent counsel; and Federal Defenders are excellent attorneys who do their job for their actual client." #TrumpIndictment #legal #documents 1/...
2/ "Mar-a-Lago Information Technology worker's decision to cooperate Smith & change his previous testimony paved way for prosecutors to seek new obstruction charges against Trump & 2 other aides in a superseding indictment..
IT director, whose identity was confirmed as Yuscil Taveras,set to be central witness for Smith in his allegations that Trump, Nauta, De Oliveira essentially attempted cover-up as the govt investigated Trump's handling of classified docs after leaving the White House."
by ti-amie Mark S. Zaid
@MarkSZaidEsq
·
30s
Is anyone really shocked by this? Sounds very much like organized crime families, does it not?
How many
@lawandordertv
episodes have we seen where Mafia family provides same lawyer for all defs but when that one def hires their own, testimony changes!
I predict more to follow.
by
ti-amie This answers a lot of questions about the IT guy flipping in DC. It also raises some questions about obstruction.
Roger Parloff
@rparloff
Govt’s filing yesterday in USA v Trump (MAL) is devastating. It was responding to Judge Cannon’s inquiry—acting on her own—suggesting there was something abusive about govt’s continued use of DC grand jury after M-a-L indictment was handed down. ...
/1
.. It all began when the govt asked for a hearing on whether atty Stanley Woodward had a conflict of interest because he (a) reps def Nauta; (b) previously rep’d Trump Employee 4 (Yuscil Taveras)—now a govt witness vs. Nauta et al—& (c) reps two other potential witnesses. ...
/2
... Govt tried to accompany that motion with a sealed filing discreetly explaining the potential conflicts, but J
udge Cannon—acting on her own—instantly struck it & then demanded to know why DC grand jury was still sitting ...
/3
... On Cannon’s cue, Woodward accused the special counsel of trying to “diminish [Cannon’s] authority” by abusively using DC grand jury to gather evidence for an already indicted case. ...
/4
... Woodward also asked to strike former client Yuscil Taveras’ proposed incriminating testimony against his current client Nauta to preserve integrity of proceedings & Nauta’s right to counsel of his choice. ...
/5
... Yesterday—Cannon having giving it no choice but to outline Woodward’s potential conflicts on the record— govt provided the extraordinary & damning timeline. ...
/6
.. In Mar 2023, govt called Taveras—then rep’d by Woodward—before DC grand jury. Beforehand, govt warned Woodward of a potential conflict, but Woodward said he knew of none. Taveras then perjured self, denying discussing destroying video surveillance footage with De Oliveira.
/7
... Govt notes in passing that Taveras had been referred to Woodward by a Trump lawyer and his fees were then being paid by Trump’s Save America PAC. ...
/8
On June 8 the Florida grand jury handed first USA v Trump (MAL) indictment. It did *not* yet name De Oliveira or Taveras.
On June 20 govt advised Taveras, thru Woodward, that he was the target of perjury investigation in DC—where the perjury occurred. ...
/9
... Govt says the target letter “crystallized” Woodward’s conflict, because having Taveras correct his g.j. testimony, to avoid prosecution, would implicate Nauta, Woodward’s other client.
/10
On Jun 27 govt asked for a conflicts hearing before chief judge Boasberg in DC, who supervises the DC grand jury, where the perjury occurred. Govt advised Judge Cannon same day in sealed filings. Woodward did *not* object. ...
/11
Judge Boasberg asked an independent counsel, Shelli Peterson of DC Federal Public Defenders, to advise Taveras on potential conflicts. Taveras asked Peterson to represent him and then retracted his false testimony, implicating Nauta, De O, & Trump, per govt.
/12
Govt cites numerous binding federal appellate precedents allowing grand juries to investigate “other persons” not named in an existing indictment or to explore “additional charges” against existing defs. All seem to be apply here.
/13
... Govt notes that it could find no precedent in which a district judge struck incriminating testimony against a defendant in order to protect that def’s “right to counsel of his choice”—except one case in which the judge was overturned on appeal for having done so. ...
/14
.. Pretty powerful filing, IMHO. Unnecessarily embarrassing to Woodward, Nauta, De Oliveira, Trump—and Judge Cannon. Whole filing here:
Thread Reader Aggregation including all exhibits
by
ti-amie First mug shots in Trump Georgia election case released
By Jozsef Papp
15 hours ago
X(itter)
The Fulton County Sheriff’s Office late Tuesday night released booking photos of the first two defendants to surrender after being charged with conspiring to overturn the results of Georgia’s 2020 election.
Atlanta bondsman Scott Hall and Trump campaign attorney John Eastman were booked at the Fulton County Jail earlier in the day and released on bond hours later.
Hall was granted a $10,000 bond, while Eastman was granted a $100,000 bond.
“I’m confident that when the law is faithfully applied in this proceeding, all of my codefendants and I will be fully vindicated,” Eastman told reporters outside the jail after being released.
Eastman is facing nine charges including violation of the state’s RICO Act, conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer, conspiracy to commit filing false documents, filing false documents, solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit false statements and writings.
Eastman said he had not talked to Trump and has no regrets about representing the president. When asked if he still thought the 2020 election was stolen, Eastman responded, “absolutely, no question in my mind.”
Hall is charged with violation of the state’s RICO Act, conspiracy to defraud the state, conspiracy to commit computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to commit computer trespass, conspiracy to commit computer theft and two counts of conspiracy to commit election fraud. He did not speak to reporters Tuesday.
Hall was seen on security footage at the Coffee County Board of Elections on Jan 7, 2021, where a team of pro-Trump operatives and a forensic data team copied sensitive elections hardware and software.
On Aug. 14, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis announced a sweeping 41-count indictment charging Trump and 18 others for their efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 elections. Willis gave defendants until Friday at noon to surrender.
Fulton Sheriff Patrick Labat said Trump and is co-defendants would be treated the same as other criminal defendants in he county,
“It doesn’t matter your status. We have a mug shot ready for you,” Labat said.
More surrenders are expected in the coming days. Trump is expected to be booked on Thursday.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/first-mug- ... YCY3D2OPQ/
by ti-amie Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
·
6m
Ex-Trump attorney Sidney Powell has been booked at the Fulton County Sheriff's Office. @MSNBC
by
ti-amie More mug shots.
Mueller, She Wrote @MuellerSheWrote
And David Shafer
And Kathy Latham
And Kenneth Chesebro
And Ray Smith
The contrast in attitude between Shafer and Smith is...something.
by ti-amie Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
·
1m
Just in: Federal judge denies former Trump DOJ official Jeff Clark’s request for an emergency stay to avoid having to surrender at Fulton County jail, after he filed to have his case removed to federal court
by ti-amie Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Jenna Ellis has surrendered to authorities in Fulton County, Georgia. @MSNBC
by ponchi101 No, no, no. Those could be a passport photo. A close up of them peering into the horizon.
I want the mug shots with the height marks in the background, and the front and side collage. I want the whole "portrait of a criminal" effect.
by
ti-amie For those who don't live in NYC here is a great summary of how TFG and "America's Mayor" became enmeshed in the same enterprises.
Wayne Barrett who worked mostly for the Village Voice back in the day always wrote about their shenanigans. He's not with us now but somewhere he's doing the "I told you so" dance.
Trump has always surrounded himself with criminal lawyers:
* Roy Cohn (indicted)
* Michael Cohen (indicted)
* Alan Dershowitz (accused of raping girl procured by Epstein)
* David Schoen (bragged about repping Israeli and Russian mobsters)
* And Giuliani!
"The 'America's Mayor' thing was a myth, a complete fluke caused by 9/11. Giuliani was always a brutal and controversial figure in NYC, beloved by racists, Wall St, and cops who like to beat and murder black people and get away with it." -- @gaslitnation
"By 9/11, Giuliani was a washed-up scandal magnet in best known at the time for cheating on his wife. I know this because I worked at NY Daily News then and had to spend an entire summer making 'Rudy and Judi' website packages."
"Giuliani spent his time as a prosecutor in the 1980s clearing out the Italian mafia, which made way for the Russian mafia. As mayor, he looked the other way while they laundered their money in NYC properties -- like those owned by Trump."
"Following the 1993 WTC attack, Giuliani inexplicably decided to put the command center in WTC 7 despite it being a target. This rendered it inaccessible on 9/11 even before it collapsed. As a result, there was no unified command on 9/11."
"In the months following 9/11, Giuliani, still mayor, inserted Trump into city and international affairs -- for example, borrowing his private plane to make a trip to Israel. The financier who funded that trip committed suicide in 2002."
"Giuliani inserted Trump, a private citizen, into state affairs when he was mayor. Trump returned the favor by inserting Giuliani, a private citizen, into state affairs when he was POTUS. They have had this dynamic for 30 years.
How did Trump and Giuliani forge their friendship in the late 1980s? Trump was being investigated for organized crime. He offered Giuliani's campaign two million dollars and then the case against him was dropped. From the late great Wayne Barrett: nydailynews.com/opinion/wayne-…
by Sarah Kendizor via @threadreaderapp
by
ti-amie 
ATLANTA, GEORGIA - AUGUST 24: In this handout provided by the Fulton County Sheriff's Office, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows poses for his booking photo on August 24, 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. Former President Donald Trump and 18 others facing felony charges in the indictment related to tampering with the 2020 election in Georgia have been ordered to turn themselves in by August 25. (Photo by Fulton County Sheriff's Office via Getty Images)GETTY IMAGES
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 ... 4783553b0c
by
ti-amie
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
·
3h
I'm not familiar enough with GA process, but Chesebro's request was to commence trial during the term of the current grand jury. This looks like Willis calling his bluff, or at least setting down a marker while allowing other parties to attempt to slow this down.
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
·
4h
BREAKING: In response to Ken CHESEBRO's speedy trial request, DA Willis has asked for the Trump racketeering trial to begin on *Oct. 23, 2023*
https://documentcloud.org/documents/239 ... 7-motion-1
Image
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
·
3h
I'm not familiar enough with GA process, but Chesebro's request was to commence trial during the term of the current grand jury. This looks like Willis calling his bluff, or at least setting down a marker while allowing other parties to attempt to slow this down.
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
·
3h
NEWS: Fani Willis calls for Oct. 23 trial on Trump racketeering charges after speedy trial demand by Ken CHESEBRO.
politico.com
Fulton County prosecutors ask judge to set Oct. 23 trial on Trump racketeering charges
A trial just two months from now seems implausible given the torrent of anticipated pretrial motions and complex legal issues likely to be litigated before a jury can be seated.
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
UPDATE: Donald Trump has signaled he opposes Fani Willis proposal to set trial for Oct. 23
https://documentcloud.org/documents/2392
by
ti-amie Laffy
@
GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Via Kyle Cheney:
JUST IN: Donald #Trump has been processed in the #Fulton County jail
According to this he’s 6’3 215 lb… while Meadows is 6’1” 240lb
#Georgia #TrumpIndictment
by Owendonovan He was given an identification number — P01135809 — in the Fulton County criminal justice system.
by ashkor87 I hope his debate opponents call him by that name! A bit hard to remember but worth the effort!!
by patrick Mugshot t-shirts going for 47.00 each
by
Owendonovan patrick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 8:56 am
Mugshot t-shirts going for 47.00 each
To help pay for his defense?
by
ti-amie Mark Taylor
:TheCDN4:
@
emarktaylor@thecanadian.social
#Trump #TrumpArraignment
Via Wu Tang is for the Children @WUTangKids
·
4h
Yikes
Via chris evans @notcapnamerica
·
4h
Kanye West’s publicist Trevian Yutti has been booked at the Fulton County Jail.
If you recall, she posed as an government official and threatened Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss with jail time if they did not confess on tape that they rigged the election.
by
Owendonovan ‘Ultimate nimrod’: Green Day selling Trump mugshot shirt to raise money for Maui wildfire victims
Design of limited-edition shirt mimics the band’s 1997 Nimrod album but with former president’s face on it.
Rock band Green Day are selling Donald Trump “Nimrod” mug shot t-shirts to raise cash for Maui fire charities.
The design of the limited-edition shirt mimics the band’s 1997 Nimrod album, but with Mr Trump’s face on it.
According to an Instagram post, the band will donate the proceeds to Greater Good Music, a charity providing food to those impacted by the devastating wildfires in Hawaii.
The Instagram caption references the band’s hit song Good Riddance (Time of Your Life), which appeared on the album.
“Good Riddance. The ultimate Nimrod shirt is available for 72 hours only. Limited edition shirt proceeds will be donated to…[Greater Good Music], a charity which is bringing food to those affected by the Maui wildfires,” it stated.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 00345.html
by ti-amie Pausing my focus on just tennis to post this. Looks look Waltine is at the Find Out part of FAFO.
by
Owendonovan Trump is liable in the second E. Jean Carroll defamation case, judge rules; January trial will determine damages.
—
A federal judge ruled that the jury hearing E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit will only need to decide how much money Donald Trump will have to pay her, after the judge found the former president was liable for making defamatory statements.
The finding is a significant blow to Trump, who is facing numerous criminal indictments and civil lawsuits – many of them coming to a head as he embarks on a presidential campaign.
Judge Lewis Kaplan said that a federal jury’s verdict earlier this year against Trump will carry over to the defamation case set to go to trial in January involving statements Trump made in 2019 about Carroll’s sexual assault allegations.
Carroll, a former magazine columnist, alleged Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s and then defamed her when he denied her claim.
In May after a two-week trial, a jury found Trump sexually abused Carroll and defamed her when he said in 2022 that he didn’t rape her, didn’t know her, and that she wasn’t his “type.”
In that case, the jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.
“The truth or falsity of Mr Trump’s 2019 statements therefore depends – like the truth or falsity of his 2022 statement – on whether Ms Carroll lied about Mr Trump sexually assaulting her,” the judge ruled Wednesday. “The jury’s finding that she did not therefore is binding in this case and precludes Mr Trump from contesting the falsity of his 2019 statements.”
Kaplan ruled the trial set for January 15 will be limited to damages.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/06/politics ... index.html
I'm incapable of leading a life as messy as tiny's.
by
ti-amie Nonilex
@
Nonilex@masto.ai
…#MollyMichael, told investigators that -- more than once -- she received requests or taskings from #Trump that were written on the back of notecards, & she later recognized those notecards as #sensitive #WhiteHouse materials -- w/visible #classification markings -- used to brief Trump while he was still in office about phone calls w/ #foreign leaders or other #international-related matters.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-wrote-l ... =103226113
Trump wrote to-do lists for assistant on White House documents marked classified: Sources
ABC News
The notecards w/ #classification markings were at #Trump's #MarALago estate when #FBI agents #searched the property on Aug 8, 2022 -- but the materials were NOT taken by the FBI….
When Michael, who was not present for the #search, returned to #MAL the next day to clean up her office space, she found the #documents underneath a drawer organizer & helped transfer them to the #FBI that same day sources told ABC.
The sources said Michael also told fed investigators that last yr she grew increasingly concerned w/how #Trump handled recurring requests from the #NationalArchives #NARA for the return of all govt docs being kept in boxes at MAL -- & she felt that Trump's claims about it at the time would be easy to disprove….
…after Trump heard the #FBI wanted to interview Michael last year, Trump allegedly told her, "You don't know anything about the boxes."
…Michael is believed to be the person ID’d in #SpecialCounsel #JackSmith's indictment as "Trump Employee 2," described in the #indictment as someone who handled many of #Trump's WH-era boxes at MAL & who provided…photos of those boxes…included in the #indictment.
…In 2018, Michael became Trump's exec asst in the WH, & she continued to work for him when he left office. But she resigned last year, in the wake of Trump's alleged refusal to comply w/the fed requests & the #FBI's subsequent #search.
Speaking to federal investigators, Michael recounted how, by late 2021, as many as 90 boxes of materials from #Trump's time as president were moved into a basement storage room at MAL, & how -- as pressure from #NARA mounted -- she & Trump aide Walt #Nauta would bring boxes to Trump's #residence for him to review.
Trump eventually agreed to turn over 15 boxes of materials, which Michael told investigators she viewed as a positive sign…
But then, acc/to what she told investigators, around the same time that #NARA found nearly 200 #ClassifiedDocuments in the 15 boxes & referred the matter to the #FBI, #Trump began to seem more reluctant to cooperate…, & he asked Michael to help spread a message that no more boxes existed….
That's when Michael became concerned, knowing that scores more boxes were in the storage room….
And as #Trump continued to claim that there were no more boxes, Michael even pointed out to him that many people, including maintenance workers, knew otherwise because they had all seen that there were many more than 15 boxes, sources said she told investigators.
Smith's #indictment against #Trump alleges that that Trump asked one of his attorneys at the time, "Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?"
by
ti-amie Laffy
@
GottaLaff@mastodon.social
ONE DOWN!
Via Tamar Hallerman:
BREAKING: It appears that SCOTT HALL has become the first co-defendant in the #Fulton election interference case to take a plea deal with prosecutors. Much more to come
#legal #TrumpIndictment #Georgia 1/...
2/ More from Tamar:
Scott is pleading guilty to five counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with the performance of election duties
3/ Via @emptywheel:
As I noted, he had a long call with Jeffrey Clark and coorinated on the Ruby Freeman pressure campaign. He will be a very useful witness, as soon as next month's trial of Sidney Powell.
https://t.co/ZraQBzinoB
4/ Via Anthony Michael Kreis:
First offender deal. 5 years probation. $5,000 fine. A letter of apology to the people of Georgia. 200 hours community service. A bar on election administration work.
Hall must testify honestly in all further proceedings.
by
Owendonovan ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 8:43 pm
Laffy
@
GottaLaff@mastodon.social
ONE DOWN!
Via Tamar Hallerman:
BREAKING: It appears that SCOTT HALL has become the first co-defendant in the #Fulton election interference case to take a plea deal with prosecutors. Much more to come
#legal #TrumpIndictment #Georgia 1/...
2/ More from Tamar:
Scott is pleading guilty to five counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with the performance of election duties
3/ Via @emptywheel:
As I noted, he had a long call with Jeffrey Clark and coorinated on the Ruby Freeman pressure campaign. He will be a very useful witness, as soon as next month's trial of Sidney Powell.
https://t.co/ZraQBzinoB
4/ Via Anthony Michael Kreis:
First offender deal. 5 years probation. $5,000 fine. A letter of apology to the people of Georgia. 200 hours community service. A bar on election administration work.
Hall must testify honestly in all further proceedings.
I'd bar him from ever voting again as well.
by
mmmm8 ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 8:43 pm
Laffy
@
GottaLaff@mastodon.social
ONE DOWN!
Via Tamar Hallerman:
BREAKING: It appears that SCOTT HALL has become the first co-defendant in the #Fulton election interference case to take a plea deal with prosecutors. Much more to come
#legal #TrumpIndictment #Georgia 1/...
2/ More from Tamar:
Scott is pleading guilty to five counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with the performance of election duties
3/ Via @emptywheel:
As I noted, he had a long call with Jeffrey Clark and coorinated on the Ruby Freeman pressure campaign. He will be a very useful witness, as soon as next month's trial of Sidney Powell.
https://t.co/ZraQBzinoB
4/ Via Anthony Michael Kreis:
First offender deal. 5 years probation. $5,000 fine. A letter of apology to the people of Georgia. 200 hours community service. A bar on election administration work.
Hall must testify honestly in all further proceedings.
Just a $5,000 dollar fine and 5 weeks community service? He better be very useful.
by ponchi101 A very sweet deal to make him croak.
by
ti-amie Judge Gags Trump After Ex-President Attacks His Law Clerk
Shortly before a lunch break, Trump circulated a false rumor about Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron's clerk
Published 10/03/23 03:06 PM ET|Updated 16 min ago
Steve Reilly and Adam Klasfeld
The New York judge presiding over Donald Trump's civil fraud trial on Tuesday issued a gag order after the former president attacked his clerk by name and shared her image on social media.
“Personal attacks on members on my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate, and I won't tolerate it [in my courtroom],” said New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron.
He added later to "consider this a gag order for all parties from posting about any members of my staff."
The judge rebuked the "untrue and personally identifying posts" about a staff member.
“Schumer’s girlfriend, Alison R. Greenfield, is running this case against me. How disgraceful! This case should be dismissed immediately!!” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, along with a picture of the clerk and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
The post appeared to show a photograph of Greenfield standing next to Schumer, without any more context. Fact-checkers note that false rumors about Schumer and infidelity appear to trace their origins to a now-shuttered satirical website.
Engoron didn't mention the former president by name, but the remarks clearly referred to him. The judge said he ordered the post deleted, and it was. Trump deleted his Truth Social post.
https://themessenger.com/politics/trump ... uth-social
by
ti-amie Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports
One of the reasons Trump was playing with fire going after *this* clerk:
She's an active participant in Engoron's cases, and she sometimes personally questions the parties. In fact, she grilled Trump's lawyers in critical pre-trial hearings in this case.
Michele Dalise
@MicheleDalise
She's his law secretary (clerk). In NY, that person is the Judge's right hand, and acts on the judge's behalf in almost all things. That's who handles conferences, motions and other significant matters. When you're dealing with the law secretary, you're dealing with the judge.
by
ti-amie Dr. Jack Brown :verified:
@
DrJackBrown@mstdn.social
Did you notice the vertical mark of debris below Trump's left nostril while in court yesterday? This substance is the same one that causes Trump's decades-long, intermittent, bilateral, widely dilated pupils (in this image, Trump's right pupil is dilated to ~5.5-6.0 mm and his left pupil is dilated to ~6.5-7.0 mm), (photo credit: Seth Wenig).
by
ti-amie The latest shenanigans in Florida
Roger Parloff
@rparloff
In govt’s opp to Trump’s motion to put off USA v Trump (MaL) trial till Nov 2024, govt says nothing’s changed since trial was scheduled, all unclassified discovery is complete, & disputes about 9 “special measures docs” will be resolved this week. ...
/1
... Trump's motion focused on 9 docs it can't see in FL. Govt says *all* are available to him in DC & will soon be available in SDFL. They are a "tiny subset of the total array of classified docs ... which is itself a small subset of the total discovery produced." ...
/2
... Govt says "the extreme sensitivity of the special measures documents that Trump illegally retained at Mar-a-Lago presents logistical issues unique to this case," but it expects them to be solved "this week." ...
/3
... As for Trump's claim that Chris Kise is busy handling NY civil fraud case till Dec, govt says that conflict was known at time trial was scheduled & Trump has 4 lyrs & a paralegal with final clearances right now.
/4
Govt says Trump exaggerates issue with there not yet being a SCIF in Judge Cannon's Ft. Pierce division (in addition to the one near Miami). Says courtrooms or chambers are "routinely" made suitable for classified hrgs & the district will soon have alternative venues too.
/5-end
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... trial-date
by Owendonovan Seems a couple of these loser have figured out the biggest loser does not have their back in any way, shape, or form.
by
ti-amie Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney
·
1h
JUST IN: Prosecutors have filed their lengthy response to Trump’s effort to dismiss the Washington, DC charges against him by claiming presidential immunity.
Despite his claims, they say, there are no parallels to Lincoln or Washington in his conduct. Details Tk
The government cites Aaron Burr to point out that former presidents /VPs can be prosecuted for conduct while in office.
Read the 54-page filing:
https://documentcloud.org/documents/24058763-immunity
This is major new ground for federal prosecutors.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... munity.pdf
Trump has claimed that his impeachment acquittal bars prosecution for similar conduct. Prosceutors say that would be an absurd interpretation of the constitution.
by Owendonovan The lawyers should be circling soon for non-payment for services.
by ti-amie So Kraken-woman and now smarmy Chesebro have copped pleas: Chesebro copped to a felony. They have deprived Tiny of the chance to see a preview of the case AG Willis has against him and they have to testify against the others who are still going to trial as of now.
by
ti-amie Ivanka Trump Tries to Quash Subpoena to Avoid Testifying in New York Civil Fraud Trial
The former president's daughter in a late Thursday filing argued she's no longer a defendant in the attorney general's lawsuit, or a New York resident
Published 10/20/23 10:25 AM ET|Updated 5 hr ago
Adam Klasfeld
Ivanka Trump is asking a Manhattan judge to quash a subpoena seeking to compel her testimony in her father's civil fraud trial, noting that she is no longer a defendant in the case — or a New York City resident.
Filed late on Thursday, the daughter of the former president's motion notes that an intermediate appellate court dismissed her as a co-defendant under the statute of limitations this past June. New York State Attorney General Letitia James did not depose Ivanka Trump, who is now, like her father, a full-time Florida resident.
“Trial subpoenas are not a means for parties to get discovery, which they failed to obtain during pretrial proceedings,” Ivanka Trump's attorney, Bennet Moskowitz, wrote in the 12-page filing.
“The NYAG, which never deposed Ms. Trump, is effectively trying to force her back into this case from which she was dismissed by a unanimous decision of the Appellate Division, First Department. Ms. Trump is not a party in this action. Nor is Ms. Trump a New York resident. It is black-letter law that, given those two facts, Ms. Trump is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court," Moskowitz added.
Trial testimony and evidence has explored Ivanka Trump’s penthouse in her father’s property Trump Park Avenue, formerly an historic hotel.
In 2011, Ivanka Trump signed a rental agreement with an option to buy a penthouse at the property, and she had reportedly claimed in a book that she “didn’t benefit from an insider price.” The attorney general says that’s not true. She had an option to buy the penthouse for $8.5 million, but the Trump Organization’s financial statements valued the unit at $20,820,000, more than two times the amount, the AG says.
https://themessenger.com/politics/ivank ... -testimony
by
ti-amie Judge fines Donald Trump $5,000 after post maligning court staffer is found on campaign website
BY MICHAEL R. SISAK
Updated 4:42 PM EDT, October 20, 2023
NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump was fined $5,000 on Friday after his disparaging social media post about a key court staffer in his New York civil fraud trial lingered on his campaign website for weeks after the judge ordered it deleted.
Judge Arthur Engoron avoided holding Trump in contempt for now, but reserved the right to do so — and possibly even put the 2024 Republican front-runner in jail — if he again violates a limited gag order barring case participants from personal attacks on court staff.
Engoron said in a written ruling that he is “way beyond the ‘warning’ stage,” but that he was only fining Trump a nominal amount because this was a “first time violation” and Trump’s lawyers said the website’s retention of the post had been inadvertent.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... 0001eaf7d1
“Make no mistake: future violations, whether intentional or unintentional, will subject the violator to far more severe sanctions, which may include steeper financial penalties, holding Donald Trump in contempt of court, and possibly imprisoning him,” Engoron wrote in a two-page order.
by
dave g Kenneth Chesebro, another one of Trump's former lawyers that worked on trying to overturn the election, has accepted a guilty plea deal. The chances that Trump get found guilty of sedicious conspiracy in the Georgia Ricco trail appear to have increased. However, the probability was already so close to 1.0 (absolutely certain). in my opinion, that the increase might not be noticable without a magnifying glass.
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/le ... 29561.html
by Owendonovan Bunch of suckers. He managed to find a lot of them born in that minute.
by ti-amie What I don't understand and never will is that tfg has a public record that shows he screws over anyone who thinks he's got their back. He's always done it. Why do they think how he treats them will be different? All of these people had decent reputations before they threw in with him. Now what? #ettd
by
skatingfan dave g wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 9:51 pm
Kenneth Chesebro, another one of Trump's former lawyers that worked on trying to overturn the election, has accepted a guilty plea deal. The chances that Trump get found guilty of sedicious conspiracy in the Georgia Ricco trail appear to have increased. However, the probability was already so close to 1.0 (absolutely certain). in my opinion, that the increase might not be noticable without a magnifying glass.
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/le ... 29561.html
I don't agree. They will remove the prosecutor before the case gets to trial.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi ... rcna102770
by Owendonovan The writing of who tfg is was written so largely on the wall, it was impossible to miss.
Venus.jpg
:TheCDN4:
