by ti-amie This happened today


by ti-amie

WSJ paywall

by ti-amie

by ti-amie I'm trying this out as an alternative to the Politics and Hades thread. I think the title is meh. Let me know what you think guys.

by ti-amie

Eric Garland
@ericgarland
"Right now, let's consider the ethics of these two craven, seditious rectal boils...especially since we don't know everything they may have done..." #ominous #foreshadowing

Image

On its face, it sure seems like at the very least Cruz and Hawley could be part of 18 U.S. Code § 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Add physical *force* and you're closer to 18 U.S. Code § 2384, seditious conspiracy.
Image

Given the physical threats already incited by Trump against *Republican* officials, it's not like Cruz and Hawley didn't know what Trump was up to.
In fact, they decided to join Trump after this escalation toward insurrection.
Image
It seems pretty evident that Cruz and Hawley are part of Trump's criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States of America.
But when the rhetoric turns toward the word FIGHT, we're getting closer to sedition, because of the potential addition of physical force.
Image

Split because of URL limits. P1

by ti-amie P2

Now prosecutors would know for sure, but at some point does a conspiracy get so big that this might be RICO Seditious Conspiracy? With, like, a kingpin.
Just a French major here; attorneys please leave your theories.
Image

Wow, this conspiracy has coordinated action with so many people! Far beyond this Senate's ability to investigate the ethical implications! Gonna need some FBI! Since members of the conspiracy were planning on what sounds like insurrection.
Image

Hawley, of course, saluted the terrorists, some of whom intended to kill public servants, and some who succeeded within a couple hours.
Image

Hawley and Cruz kept up the same rhetoric even after several people died right near where they were voting only hours before.
Image


by ti-amie

by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:57 pm I'm trying this out as an alternative to the Politics and Hades thread. I think the title is meh. Let me know what you think guys.
You know my option. The only issue with this title is that the two people that call him TINY on a regular basis are you and I.
Go to the first post of this topic. Edit it. You can start a poll, even if this thing has been on for weeks now. And propose some names. :)

by ti-amie I'm crappy with names.

Dry calls him Tiny too.

by ti-amie Senate ends standoff, agrees to start Trump’s impeachment trial Feb. 9

By
Mike DeBonis
Jan. 22, 2021 at 12:36 p.m. EST

The impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump will begin Feb. 9 under a deal reached Friday by top Senate leaders — delaying by two weeks the high-stakes proceedings over whether Trump incited the violent Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The agreement was made by Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) following a standoff over the timing of the trial, which could permanently bar Trump from holding public office.

The House on Jan. 13 passed a sole impeachment article, alleging “incitement of insurrection.” House leaders could have forced the Senate to begin the trial immediately by transmitting the papers across the Capitol. But a delay serves the former and current presidents: Trump has struggled to assemble a legal team and muster a defense, and Biden needs the Senate to confirm most of his Cabinet appointees.

McConnell pushed Thursday for a three-week delay, but Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday morning announced their intention to deliver the impeachment papers Monday — setting up a trial as soon as Tuesday. Later in the day, Biden publicly called for a delay, saying, “the more time we have to get up and running to meet these crises, the better.”

Announcing the two-week timetable Friday, Schumer said the wait would allow the Senate to make further progress on Biden’s nominations and his $2 trillion pandemic relief proposal — the centerpiece of his early legislative agenda — before shifting to Trump.

“We all want to put this awful chapter in our nation’s history behind us, but healing and unity will only come if there is truth and accountability, and that is what this trial will provide,” he said.

Doug Andres, a spokesman for McConnell, called the agreement “a win for due process and fairness.”

“Republicans set out to ensure the Senate’s next steps will respect former president Trump’s rights and due process, the institution of the Senate, and the office of the presidency,” he said. “That goal has been achieved.”

Had no accord been reached, the trial would have started Tuesday and run uninterrupted by other Senate business until the Senate rendered its verdict. The agreement does not resolve another brewing conflict between Schumer and McConnell: over how the Senate will handle a 50-50 partisan split, with Vice President Harris breaking ties in Democrats’ favor.

The trial agreement came as some rank-and-file Democrats expressed alarm at the prospect of putting the new president’s priorities on hold to focus the nation’s attention on Trump.

“I want to focus as much attention right now on the Biden agenda as possible and minimize the attention on anything other than the Biden agenda,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

Kaine is part of a small group of Democrats pushing the idea of passing a resolution stating that Trump violated the 14th Amendment — which forbids federal officials from ever holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government — and in that manner ban him from running again for president.

The debate over the trial’s timing played out through the day Friday. Announcing the plan to transmit the single article to the Senate on Monday, Pelosi said in a morning statement that Trump “will have had the same amount of time to prepare for trial as our managers.”

Around the same time on the Senate floor, Schumer said he and McConnell continued to discuss the “timing and duration” of the trial.

“But make no mistake, a trial will be held in the United States Senate, and there will be a vote on whether to convict the president,” he said, adding: “It will be a full trial; it will be a fair trial.”

McConnell and other Republican senators, meanwhile, publicly warned that rushing into the trial after the rapid House impeachment vote — which took place one week after the Capitol riot, with no evidentiary hearings or opportunity for Trump to mount a defense — would taint the process.

“Senate Republicans strongly believe we need a full and fair process where the former president can mount a defense and the Senate can properly consider the factual, legal and constitutional questions at stake,” McConnell said Friday.

Democrats could not ignore the warning, since McConnell is among a small group of Senate Republicans who have signaled deep unease with Trump’s conduct surrounding the Jan. 6 riot. Many Democrats doubt McConnell will ultimately vote to convict Trump, despite his remarks this week that the mob was “provoked by the president and other powerful people,” but they understand that they must have his support if the Senate is ultimately going to bar Trump from future office.

Another potential Republican vote for conviction, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), also expressed reservations Friday about a rushed trial. “The process has to be fair,” she said.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a key Trump ally, told reporters it would be “ridiculous” for Democrats not to agree to at least some delay, noting that Trump retained the first member of his defense team — South Carolina lawyer Butch Bowers — only on Thursday.

“If the trial starts right away, that would be an affront to everything every American claims to hold near and dear,” Graham said. “You get a chance to defend yourself.”

In the nine days since the House impeached Trump, Democrats — including Biden — had floated the possibility that the Senate could come to an agreement to both conduct Trump’s trial and proceed with regular business simultaneously, but Republicans made clear they were not interested in a split schedule.

“Once we take the trial up, we have to do the trial,” Graham said. “If you want to impeach the president, we’re going to do it like we’ve always done it. We’re not going to split the day. . . . That’s the business of the Senate once we go into it.”

Though senators of both parties have suggested this trial could be shorter than Trump’s first trial, which wrapped up in February after 21 days, there are no guarantees of such brevity. The House managers or Trump’s lawyers, for instance, could seek to call witnesses and present evidence, extending the proceedings indefinitely.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 GOP leader, said that once the trial begins, “the opportunity for President Biden to get a Cabinet in place is done until impeachment is done.”

“This basically stops President Biden in his tracks at a time when a number of Republicans believe that President Biden ought to be able to put a Cabinet in place,” he said.

The Senate confirmed Avril Haines as director of national intelligence on Wednesday and confirmed Lloyd Austin as defense secretary on Friday.

As Senate leaders sparred over the timing and structure of the trial, more Senate Republicans signaled Friday that they are uncomfortable with holding a trial for an ex-president.

Under the Constitution, Trump could suffer “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States,” and the House impeachment article seeks to do that.

Graham and others have urged colleagues to reject the notion that a president can be tried after leaving office, leaving moot the implications of his conduct — which includes spreading baseless claims that Biden lost the November election, urging his vice president to reject duly cast electoral college votes, summoning his supporters to rally in Washington as Congress finalized Biden’s win and ordering them that day to march to the Capitol.

Schumer sought to rebut that argument Friday on the Senate floor. “It makes no sense whatsoever that a president or any official could commit a heinous crime against our country, and then be permitted to resign, so as to avoid accountability and a vote to disbar them from future office,” he said.

Other GOP senators in recent days have aired misgivings about the process, signaling that they are disinclined to support a conviction — which will require 17 Republicans to join all 50 Democrats and independents who caucus with Democrats.

“We kind of have an inkling of what the outcome is going to be,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). “I mean, Democrats this time didn’t even bother to go through the motions of getting sworn testimony and having hearings in the House. This is not a serious effort. It is a serious issue, but it’s not a serious effort to comply with the requirements of due process of the Constitution when it comes to impeachment.”

Paul Kane contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

by ti-amie Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General
Trying to find another avenue to push his baseless election claims, Donald Trump considered installing a loyalist, and had the men make their cases to him.

Image
Jeffrey Clark, who led the Justice Department’s civil division, had been working with President Donald J. Trump to devise ways to cast doubt on the election results.Credit...Susan Walsh/Associated Press


By Katie Benner
Jan. 22, 2021, 7:44 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s top leaders listened in stunned silence this month: One of their peers, they were told, had devised a plan with President Donald J. Trump to oust Jeffrey A. Rosen as acting attorney general and wield the department’s power to force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn its presidential election results.

The unassuming lawyer who worked on the plan, Jeffrey Clark, had been devising ways to cast doubt on the election results and to bolster Mr. Trump’s continuing legal battles and the pressure on Georgia politicians. Because Mr. Rosen had refused the president’s entreaties to carry out those plans, Mr. Trump was about to decide whether to fire Mr. Rosen and replace him with Mr. Clark.

The department officials, convened on a conference call, then asked each other: What will you do if Mr. Rosen is dismissed?

The answer was unanimous. They would resign.

Their informal pact ultimately helped persuade Mr. Trump to keep Mr. Rosen in place, calculating that a furor over mass resignations at the top of the Justice Department would eclipse any attention on his baseless accusations of voter fraud. Mr. Trump’s decision came only after Mr. Rosen and Mr. Clark made their competing cases to him in a bizarre White House meeting that two officials compared with an episode of Mr. Trump’s reality show “The Apprentice,” albeit one that could prompt a constitutional crisis.


The previously unknown chapter was the culmination of the president’s long-running effort to batter the Justice Department into advancing his personal agenda. He also pressed Mr. Rosen to appoint special counsels, including one who would look into Dominion Voting Systems, a maker of election equipment that Mr. Trump’s allies had falsely said was working with Venezuela to flip votes from Mr. Trump to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

This account of the department’s final days under Mr. Trump’s leadership is based on interviews with four former Trump administration officials who asked not to be named because of fear of retaliation.

Mr. Clark said that this account contained inaccuracies but did not specify, adding that he could not discuss any conversations with Mr. Trump or Justice Department lawyers. “Senior Justice Department lawyers, not uncommonly, provide legal advice to the White House as part of our duties,” he said. “All my official communications were consistent with law.”

Mr. Clark also noted that he was the lead signatory on a Justice Department request last month asking a federal judge to reject a lawsuit that sought to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results of the election.

Mr. Trump declined to comment. An adviser said that Mr. Trump has consistently argued that the justice system should investigate “rampant election fraud that has plagued our system for years.”

The adviser added that “any assertion to the contrary is false and being driven by those who wish to keep the system broken.”

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, as did Mr. Rosen.

When Mr. Trump said on Dec. 14 that Attorney General William P. Barr was leaving the department, some officials thought that he might allow Mr. Rosen a short reprieve before pressing him about voter fraud. After all, Mr. Barr would be around for another week.

Instead, Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Rosen to the Oval Office the next day. He wanted the Justice Department to file legal briefs supporting his allies’ lawsuits seeking to overturn his election loss. And he urged Mr. Rosen to appoint special counsels to investigate not only unfounded accusations of widespread voter fraud, but also Dominion, the voting machines firm.

Mr. Rosen refused. He maintained that he would make decisions based on the facts and the law, and he reiterated what Mr. Barr had privately told Mr. Trump: The department had investigated voting irregularities and found no evidence of widespread fraud.

But Mr. Trump continued to press Mr. Rosen after the meeting — in phone calls and in person. He repeatedly said that he did not understand why the Justice Department had not found evidence that supported conspiracy theories about the election that some of his personal lawyers had espoused. He declared that the department was not fighting hard enough for him.

As Mr. Rosen and the deputy attorney general, Richard P. Donoghue, pushed back, they were unaware that Mr. Clark had been introduced to Mr. Trump by a Pennsylvania politician and had told the president that he agreed that fraud had affected the election results.

Mr. Trump quickly embraced Mr. Clark, who had been appointed the acting head of the civil division in September and was also the head of the department’s environmental and natural resources division.

As December wore on, Mr. Clark mentioned to Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue that he spent a lot of time reading on the internet — a comment that alarmed them because they inferred that he believed the unfounded conspiracy theory that Mr. Trump had won the election. Mr. Clark also told them that he wanted the department to hold a news conference announcing that it was investigating serious accusations of election fraud. Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue rejected the proposal.

As Mr. Trump focused increasingly on Georgia, a state he lost narrowly to Mr. Biden, he complained to Justice Department leaders that the U.S. attorney in Atlanta, Byung J. Pak, was not trying to find evidence for false election claims pushed by Mr. Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and others. Mr. Donoghue warned Mr. Pak that the president was now fixated on his office, and that it might not be tenable for him to continue to lead it, according to two people familiar with the conversation.


That conversation and Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to “find” him votes compelled Mr. Pak to abruptly resign this month.

Mr. Clark was also focused on Georgia. He drafted a letter that he wanted Mr. Rosen to send to Georgia state legislators that wrongly said that the Justice Department was investigating accusations of voter fraud in their state, and that they should move to void Mr. Biden’s win there.

Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue again rejected Mr. Clark’s proposal.

On New Year’s Eve, the trio met to discuss Mr. Clark’s refusal to hew to the department’s conclusion that the election results were valid. Mr. Donoghue flatly told Mr. Clark that what he was doing was wrong. The next day, Mr. Clark told Mr. Rosen — who had mentored him while they worked together at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis — that he was going to discuss his strategy to the president early the next week, just before Congress was set to certify Mr. Biden’s electoral victory.

Unbeknown to the acting attorney general, Mr. Clark’s timeline moved up. He met with Mr. Trump over the weekend, then informed Mr. Rosen midday on Sunday that the president intended to replace him with Mr. Clark, who could then try to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College results. He said that Mr. Rosen could stay on as his deputy attorney general, leaving Mr. Rosen speechless.


Unwilling to step down without a fight, Mr. Rosen said that he needed to hear straight from Mr. Trump and worked with the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, to convene a meeting for early that evening.

Even as Mr. Clark’s pronouncement was sinking in, stunning news broke out of Georgia: State officials had recorded an hourlong call, published by The Washington Post, during which Mr. Trump pressured them to manufacture enough votes to declare him the victor. As the fallout from the recording ricocheted through Washington, the president’s desperate bid to change the outcome in Georgia came into sharp focus.

Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue pressed ahead, informing Steven Engel, the head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, about Mr. Clark’s latest maneuver. Mr. Donoghue convened a late-afternoon call with the department’s remaining senior leaders, laying out Mr. Clark’s efforts to replace Mr. Rosen.

Mr. Rosen planned to soon head to the White House to discuss his fate, Mr. Donoghue told the group. Should Mr. Rosen be fired, they all agreed to resign en masse. For some, the plan brought to mind the so-called Saturday Night Massacre of the Nixon era, where Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and his deputy resigned rather than carry out the president’s order to fire the special prosecutor investigating him.

The Clark plan, the officials concluded, would seriously harm the department, the government and the rule of law. For hours, they anxiously messaged and called one another as they awaited Mr. Rosen’s fate.


Around 6 p.m., Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue and Mr. Clark met at the White House with Mr. Trump, Mr. Cipollone, his deputy Patrick Philbin and other lawyers. Mr. Trump had Mr. Rosen and Mr. Clark present their arguments to him.

Mr. Cipollone advised the president not to fire Mr. Rosen and he reiterated, as he had for days, that he did not recommend sending the letter to Georgia lawmakers. Mr. Engel advised Mr. Trump that he and the department’s remaining top officials would resign if he fired Mr. Rosen, leaving Mr. Clark alone at the department.

Mr. Trump seemed somewhat swayed by the idea that firing Mr. Rosen would trigger not only chaos at the Justice Department, but also congressional investigations and possibly recriminations from other Republicans and distract attention from his efforts to overturn the election results.

After nearly three hours, Mr. Trump ultimately decided that Mr. Clark’s plan would fail, and he allowed Mr. Rosen to stay.

Mr. Rosen and his deputies concluded they had weathered the turmoil. Once Congress certified Mr. Biden’s victory, there would be little for them to do until they left along with Mr. Trump in two weeks.

They began to exhale days later as the Electoral College certification at the Capitol got underway. And then they received word: The building had been breached.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York.

Katie Benner covers the Justice Department. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for public service for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. @ktbenner

A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 23, 2021 of the New York edition with the headline: Mutiny Halted Trump Scheme In Justice Dept

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/p ... 2afbcd939d

by ponchi101 Delaying the trial for two weeks allows both parties to prepare their cases better.
And at the rate that every single person being arrested by the FBI is singing that they did it because "the president told us", it might be good for the prosecution.

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 So the GOP'ers that vote to impeach do not have to face the consequences? Maybe that way some of the cowards can switch over...

by ti-amie I disagree with Kurt on this one. If you have no problem with what happened on January 6 then your vote showing your opinion should be public. There is no way they should be allowed to hide.

This is why I could never be a politician.

by ponchi101 You are right in the reason why you would never be a politician. It takes a special kind of partiality towards slime that you lack.
But if that allows every republican to vote to get Tiny out of public life forever, let it be. Then let the tally leak to the public.

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:00 am You are right in the reason why you would never be a politician. It takes a special kind of partiality towards slime that you lack.
But if that allows every republican to vote to get Tiny out of public life forever, let it be. Then let the tally leak to the public.
You, my friend, are a politician at heart. :D

by patrick Yes, their impeachment vote needs to be public record like any other Senate and House votes. Graham wanted Schumer to dismiss the trial because, IMO, he do not want his vote to be known. Also, Graham called Biden weak if the trial starts on 2-8.

by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:37 am ..

You, my friend, are a politician at heart. :D
Insults?! :shock: At this stage of our friendship?!!!! :D :D :D

by ti-amie Inspector general will investigate whether any Justice Dept. officials improperly sought to help Trump overturn the election

By
Matt Zapotosky
Jan. 25, 2021 at 1:08 p.m. EST

The Justice Department’s inspector general announced Monday that its office is opening an investigation into whether any current or former department official tried to improperly “alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election” — a broad review that comes on the heels of a revelation that then-President Donald Trump considered replacing his acting attorney general with an official more amenable to his unfounded claims of voter fraud.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced the review in a two paragraph news release, though he noted his jurisdiction would be limited to “allegations concerning the conduct of former and current DOJ employees,” and he could not examine other government officials. The news release said the inspector general would follow its normal process in releasing the results of its work publicly.

Horowitz’s announcement comes just days after reporting that Trump entertained a plan to replace the acting attorney general for his final weeks in office, Jeffrey Rosen, with a different department lawyer, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, who was more amenable to wielding the department’s power to help keep Trump in office. According to people familiar with the matter, Trump only aborted the plan after Justice Department officials threatened a mass resignation.


The plan sparked outrage among lawmakers and former Justice Department officials, who saw in it another attempt by Trump to inappropriately wield the powers of federal law enforcement to benefit his own political interests. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) had publicly called for the inspector general to investigate, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the department to preserve records because they, too, would be looking into the matter.

Horowitz said he announced the investigation “to reassure the public that an appropriate agency is investigating the allegations,” but he declined to comment further. While Horowitz will likely have broad access to Justice Department files and emails, he cannot compel the cooperation of former officials — which could limit his probe. The investigation will likely reveal conversations officials had with Trump, but Horowitz’s office does not have the jurisdiction to specifically explore the president or other White House officials.

Trump and his political allies had long sought to press the Justice Department to help boost his unfounded claims of election fraud. The department inquired into allegations across the country but ultimately found the evidence lacking, and then-Attorney General William P. Barr said as much publicly in early December.

Barr’s relationship with Trump already had grown fraught because Barr would not take other steps that Trump saw as helpful to him politically in the months leading up to the election, and his publicly breaking with the president on fraud was something of a last straw. Barr contemplated whether he might have to resign or be fired, according to people familiar with the matter. While tensions later eased somewhat, Barr later submitted his resignation, indicating he planned to step down Dec. 23.

That left in charge Rosen, who had been Barr’s top deputy and who shared his views on the lack of evidence to support Trump’s claims of fraud, according to people familiar with the matter. But, the people said, Trump soon came to meet a different Justice Department official who seemed to share his worldview: Clark, whom Trump had appointed to lead the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and who later would come to lead the Civil Division.

Clark, according to people familiar with the matter, pushed to have the department hold a news conference to announce investigators were examining serious fraud allegations, and to take particular steps in Georgia, such as sending a letter asserting Biden’s win could be voided there. Trump, the people said, then contemplated putting Clark in charge of the department, and Rosen was soon informed of the plan. The acting attorney general pushed for a meeting with Trump himself.

All of those involved have since left the Justice Department, as they were Trump appointees. Even if the plan had been carried out, it seems unlikely it would have impacted the election results — which already had been certified by the states — though it would have significantly eroded the Justice Department’s credibility.

Clark, in a written statement, has denied that he “devised a plan … to oust Jeff Rosen,” and he has also denied that he made recommendations “based on factual inaccuracies gleaned from the Internet.” He seemed to quote language from the New York Times, which first reported the event.

“My practice is to rely on sworn testimony to assess disputed factual claims,” Clark said. “There were no ‘maneuver.’ There was a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the President. It is unfortunate that those who were part of a privileged legal conversation would comment in public about such internal deliberations, while also distorting any discussions … Observing legal privileges, which I will adhere to even if others will not, prevent me from divulging specifics regarding the conversation.”

Rosen has declined to comment.

Horowitz already had been examining another incident of possible Justice Department malfeasance over the election: the abrupt departure of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta after Trump complained officials in Georgia were not doing enough to find election fraud.

Byung J. “BJay” Pak unexpectedly announced Jan. 4 that he was stepping down that day as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and Trump then bypassed his top deputy in selecting a temporary replacement. According to people familiar with the matter, Pak had received a call from a senior Justice Department official in Washington that led him to believe he should resign shortly before he did so.

Pak’s resignation came just a day after The Washington Post reported on a call in which Trump urged Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his election defeat in that state.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

by ti-amie
Cordelia Lynch
@CordeliaSkyNews
US Justice Dept says Riley Williams, the woman accused of stealing computer from Nancy Pelosi's office, is suspected of using internet in recent days and encouraging people to destroy evidence in the Capitol siege case. Why they want to limit internet access.
They released her into her mother's custody a few days ago.

I don't see what her alleged abusive personal relationship has to do with stealing a laptop from the Capitol.

by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports

Prosecutors want to take away her computer and connection to the internet, enforced by the ability to search her home, car and work place.

The govt claims she may have tried to destroy evidence and encourage others to do that too.

Judge Zia Faruqui notes that Riley's accused of "extremely troubling" conduct, wondering why they aren't asking for detention.

Defense needs to reschedule, before prosecutors explain more about their allegations.

Prosecutors: "We were aware that she was deleting her own online accounts and possibly, switching devices. That was both in the original complaint and the amended complaint statement of facts."

Now, feds have indications that she was "instructing" others to do the same.

Because of the defense scheduling conference, this discussion has been tabled until Tuesday.

--------------------

If she was anyone else her bail would've been revoked.

by ti-amie

by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:48 pm
I can picture her with a knife in her hand. At night. Nowhere near a kitchen... :ax

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by patrick Graham wants to dismiss the trial. He does not want his vote to be on public record.

by ponchi101 I think it has nothing to do with his vote going public. He just won re-election and is not due for 6 more years. He is home free for that period.
He simply is still being the same sycophant. The fictional P tapes Putin has on Tiny must be PG compared to what Tiny has on Lindsey.

by ti-amie

So this was treated as a take your kid to work day huh?

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Technically this is Tiny but really?! I mean WTF???


by patrick Ouch

by ponchi101 Because, of course, black women and Latinas are so much more lenient of sex crimes than those tough white women that did not mind the president bragging about grabbing women by the P.
Makes a ton of (expletive) sense.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie



by ti-amie Someone blew his cover. I'm guessing they got him out by arresting him so quickly.

Proud Boys leader once cooperated with FBI, informed on other suspects in 2012 fraud case

Image
Proud Boys leader Henry “Enrique” Tarrio was arrested in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 4. (Allison Dinner/AP)

By
Devlin Barrett and
Matt Zapotosky
Jan. 27, 2021 at 7:26 p.m. EST

Proud Boys leader Henry “Enrique” Tarrio was once a prolific cooperator with FBI and local law enforcement in South Florida, according to court records from a 2012 fraud case in which he pleaded guilty to helping sell stolen goods.

Tarrio is under intense law enforcement scrutiny since the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, in which members of the Proud Boys have been charged with some of the most destructive and aggressive acts around the building, according to people familiar with the FBI’s ongoing investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the case.

The Proud Boys is a male chauvinist group with ties to white nationalism. Last year, President Donald Trump famously told the group to “stand back and stand by” when asked during a debate to condemn white supremacists and the Proud Boys in particular. The moment emboldened the group and others like it that viewed Trump’s comment as indicating that they had presidential support.

The Proud Boys have led numerous pro-Trump demonstrations, but since Jan. 6, Tarrio has called for a halt on participating in marches. Even before the riot, he was the subject of a law enforcement investigation and was arrested in early January for allegedly burning a Black Lives Matter banner torn down from a historic church during a previous rally in Washington. Tarrio has pleaded not guilty.

Tarrio, who has denied that the Proud Boys organized any violence at the Capitol, did not respond to a text message and phone call seeking comment about his past cooperation with law enforcement, which was first reported Wednesday by Reuters. He told the news service that he had no recollection of assisting law enforcement despite being identified in the court documents.

In a screed posted online later in the day, Tarrio criticized the government and the media for disclosing his past activities and argued that his cooperation was done with the full knowledge and participation of his co-defendants. Tarrio said in the post that by reporting the contents of a public court hearing, “they have proven that if you cooperate with the US government they will hang you out to dry... So my question is... is it worth it? That I leave up to y’all to decide.”

It is unclear how his record as a cooperator will be received by the members of his group, which proclaims to be pro-law enforcement, although its members have clashed openly with police officers in recent rallies, including at the Capitol.


At a 2014 hearing in his case, then-prosecutor Vanessa Johannes described Tarrio as “probably the most cooperative from day one. From day one, he was the one who wanted to talk to law enforcement, wanted to clear his name, wanted to straighten this out so that he could move on with his life.”

The prosecutor told the court that Tarrio’s cooperation helped federal agents prosecute 13 others and aided local police with a number of undercover drug investigations.

Jeffrey Feiler, Tarrio’s defense attorney at the time, said Tarrio’s broad cooperation allowed law enforcement to successfully raid multiple marijuana grow houses and seize 100 pounds of the drug. He said Tarrio also “worked in an undercover capacity in a case involving information pertaining to an illegal immigrant smuggling ring and, again at his own risk, in an undercover role met and negotiated to pay $11,000 to members of that ring to bring in fictitious family members of his from another country.”

The prosecutor, though, said nothing came of that case.

Feiler said that in addition to the cooperation Tarrio provided that produced indictments or other tangible results, Tarrio also made 10 attempts that did not ultimately work, sometimes because the local police department involved just did not have the manpower. Those cases involved steroids, cocaine, ecstasy and credit card theft, Feiler said.

At the 2014 hearing, Feiler argued that Tarrio’s cooperation had earned him a reduction of his prison sentence by 18 months, while the prosecutor argued for a 10-month cut. The judge ultimately reduced his sentence nearly in half, from 30 months to 16 months.

Feiler said in an interview with The Washington Post on Wednesday that he had limited memory of the case and was unsure whether Tarrio’s work with law enforcement extended further in any sort of paid or other capacity.

“Typically what will happen is a defendant or cooperator will run the gamut of everything they hope to accomplish, and then there will come a point where they’ve done all they can do,” Feiler said.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

by ti-amie

by Suliso ‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy

The KGB ‘played the game as if they were immensely impressed by his personality’, Yuri Shvets, a key source for a new book, tells the Guardian

Donald Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset over 40 years and proved so willing to parrot anti-western propaganda that there were celebrations in Moscow, a former KGB spy has told the Guardian.

Yuri Shvets, posted to Washington by the Soviet Union in the 1980s, compares the former US president to “the Cambridge five”, the British spy ring that passed secrets to Moscow during the second world war and early cold war.

Now 67, Shvets is a key source for American Kompromat, a new book by journalist Craig Unger, whose previous works include House of Trump, House of Putin. The book also explores the former president’s relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

“This is an example where people were recruited when they were just students and then they rose to important positions; something like that was happening with Trump,” Shvets said by phone on Monday from his home in Virginia.

Shvets, a KGB major, had a cover job as a correspondent in Washington for the Russian news agency Tass during the 1980s. He moved to the US permanently in 1993 and gained American citizenship. He works as a corporate security investigator and was a partner of Alexander Litvinenko, who was assassinated in London in 2006.

Unger describes how Trump first appeared on the Russians’ radar in 1977 when he married his first wife, Ivana Zelnickova, a Czech model. Trump became the target of a spying operation overseen by Czechoslovakia’s intelligence service in cooperation with the KGB.

Three years later Trump opened his first big property development, the Grand Hyatt New York hotel near Grand Central station. Trump bought 200 television sets for the hotel from Semyon Kislin, a Soviet émigré who co-owned Joy-Lud electronics on Fifth Avenue.

According to Shvets, Joy-Lud was controlled by the KGB and Kislin worked as a so-called “spotter agent” who identified Trump, a young businessman on the rise, as a potential asset. Kislin denies that he had a relationship with the KGB.

Then, in 1987, Trump and Ivana visited Moscow and St Petersburg for the first time. Shvets said he was fed by KGB talking points and flattered by KGB operatives who floated the idea that he should go into the politics.

The ex-major recalled: “For the KGB, it was a charm offensive. They had collected a lot of information on his personality so they knew who he was personally. The feeling was that he was extremely vulnerable intellectually, and psychologically, and he was prone to flattery.

“This is what they exploited. They played the game as if they were immensely impressed by his personality and believed this is the guy who should be the president of the United States one day: it is people like him who could change the world. They fed him these so-called active measures soundbites and it happened. So it was a big achievement for the KGB active measures at the time.”

Soon after he returned to the US, Trump began exploring a run for the Republican nomination for president and even held a campaign rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. On 1 September, he took out a full-page advert in the New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe headlined: “There’s nothing wrong with America’s Foreign Defense Policy that a little backbone can’t cure.”

The ad offered some highly unorthodox opinions in Ronald Reagan’s cold war America, accusing ally Japan of exploiting the US and expressing scepticism about US participation in Nato. It took the form of an open letter to the American people “on why America should stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves”.


The bizarre intervention was cause for astonishment and jubilation in Russia. A few days later Shvets, who had returned home by now, was at the headquarters of the KGB’s first chief directorate in Yasenevo when he received a cable celebrating the ad as a successful “active measure” executed by a new KGB asset.

“It was unprecedented. I am pretty well familiar with KGB active measures starting in the early 70s and 80s, and then afterwards with Russia active measures, and I haven’t heard anything like that or anything similar – until Trump became the president of this country – because it was just silly. It was hard to believe that somebody would publish it under his name and that it will impress real serious people in the west but it did and, finally, this guy became the president.”

Trump’s election win in 2016 was again welcomed by Moscow. Special counsel Robert Mueller did not establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. But the Moscow Project, an initiative of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, found the Trump campaign and transition team had at least 272 known contacts and at least 38 known meetings with Russia-linked operatives.

Shvets, who has carried out his own investigation, said: “For me, the Mueller report was a big disappointment because people expected that it will be a thorough investigation of all ties between Trump and Moscow, when in fact what we got was an investigation of just crime-related issues. There were no counterintelligence aspects of the relationship between Trump and Moscow.”

He added: “This is what basically we decided to correct. So I did my investigation and then got together with Craig. So we believe that his book will pick up where Mueller left off.”

Unger, the author of seven books and a former contributing editor for Vanity Fair magazine, said of Trump: “He was an asset. It was not this grand, ingenious plan that we’re going to develop this guy and 40 years later he’ll be president. At the time it started, which was around 1980, the Russians were trying to recruit like crazy and going after dozens and dozens of people.”

“Trump was the perfect target in a lot of ways: his vanity, narcissism made him a natural target to recruit. He was cultivated over a 40-year period, right up through his election.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... y-new-book

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by the Moz Basket of deplorables :thumbsup:

by ponchi101 Serious question. If these people wrote stuff like that and posted it, and then DID go to congress, and DID break in, what kind of charges can be brought on them? Attempted magnicide?

by ti-amie The woman above sent the clip to her kids per reporting by Chris Hayes. Then she tried to delete it.

by ti-amie Trump Defense Secretary Disarmed D.C. National Guard Before Capitol Riot
Mark Sumner

Reprinted with permission from DailyKos

In testimony before the House this week, Capitol Police and D.C. National Guard officials acknowledged that by Jan. 4 they understood that "… the January 6th event would not be like any of the previous protests held in 2020. We knew that militia groups and white supremacist organizations would be attending. We also knew that some of these participants were intending to bring firearms and other weapons to the event. We knew that there was a strong potential for violence and that Congress was the target."

On that same day, former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller issued a memo to the secretary of the Army placing some extremely unusual limits on National Guard forces for that event. It's not a to-do list. It's a list of thou shalt nots. A long list. A list that says guard forces can't arrest any of the pro-Trump protesters, or search them, or even touch them. And that's just for starters.

The full memo shows that the D.C. Guard did receive a request from D.C. government for guard presence during the Jan. 6 event. Miller responds promptly to go ahead, so long as the soldiers are given no weapons, no body armor, and no helmets. They can bring agents like pepper spray or flashbangs. They can't share any gear with Capitol Police or Metro D.C. Police. They can't … really do much of anything.

When initial reports indicate that the handful of National Guard forces that were deployed to D.C. on that day were dedicated to directing traffic several blocks away from the area of the Trump rally, it may simply be because that's the only thing they could find for them to do considering the restrictions that were given. It's clear that these restrictions would have absolutely prevented any guard forces from trying to protect any location.

Image

Letter from form acting secretary of defense giving Jan.6 limits on National Guard

In addition to this memo, another grim document of the Jan. 6 insurgency emerged on Thursday. As The New York Times reports, body cam footage (deliberately not inserted here) from officers on the Capitol steps was used in court when bringing charges against Michael Foy, a Michigan man who attacked the police with a hockey stick. In addition to Foy's attack, the minute of video captures a grisly scene—the moment when 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland is trampled to death on the Capitol steps by fellow insurgents rushing forward to join the attack on police.

At least one person in the crowd notices what is happening and shouts "Save her!" But the wave of insurgents battering at police with flagpoles and lengths of pipe never pauses. Only seconds later, Boyland's friend Justin Winchell shouts "She's gonna die! She's dead!" He attempts to get help from those around him, but what he gets is a face full of chemical agent that rioters behind him are aiming at the police. Boyland's death is far from the only moment of shocking violence in the video, as insurgents scream that they will kill the police, and officers are toppled and dragged down the stairs. By the end of the brief video, the police are down, as the Trump supporters kick them and beat them over and over. The wonder isn't that someone died. It's that it wasn't more.

Considering the limits that Miller set on National Guard forces—including no helmet and no body armor—it's a good thing that none of them were present at the Capitol. They would not have survived.

https://www.nationalmemo.com/miller-dis ... onal-guard

by ti-amie Trump changes defense team just over a week before impeachment trial is set to begin

By
Tom Hamburger and Josh Dawsey
Jan. 30, 2021 at 11:20 p.m. EST

Former president Donald Trump is changing his legal defense team about a week before his second impeachment trial is scheduled to open in the Senate.

A Trump spokesman, Jason Miller, confirmed Saturday evening that the previously designated lead attorney for Trump, Karl S. “Butch” Bowers, a well-regarded South Carolina ethics lawyer, will no longer be part of the team representing the former president when the Senate trial begins Feb. 9.

One of the deputies Bowers had tapped, Deborah Barbier, a former South Carolina prosecutor, will also no longer be part of the team, Miller said.

The House impeachment article charges Trump with “incitement of insurrection” in the invasion of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 by a pro-Trump mob. Since the House voted to impeach Trump, he has struggled to put together a team to mount his defense, in part because prominent lawyers seemed unwilling to associate themselves with Trump’s continued false claims that he won the election. That claim inspired his supporters to attack the Capitol.

The fate of two additional team members from South Carolina, Greg Harris and Johnny Gasser, was not immediately clear. They had not officially been named as part of the team, Miller said.

A person familiar with the change described it as a “mutual decision” for the lead South Carolina lawyers to leave the team. The shift comes amid tight deadlines to prepare for the trial. The House impeachment managers must file their briefs in the case on Tuesday. Trump’s defense team lawyers must file their briefs on Feb. 8.

New defense team members could be announced shortly, Miller said in a text message late Saturday. The collapse of Trump’s legal team was first reported Saturday night by CNN.

“The Democrats’ efforts to impeach a president who has already left office is totally unconstitutional,” Miller said in a statement sent to reporters Saturday night. “We have done much work, but have not made a final decision on our legal team, which will be made shortly.”

Neither Bowers nor the other South Carolina lawyers responded to requests for comment Saturday. It was not clear why the previously announced South Carolina lawyers were departing.

Late last week, people familiar with Trump’s developing defense strategy said that four South Carolina lawyers would be the nucleus of the Trump team.

Their selection marked a dramatic shift from Trump’s previous impeachment. During that Senate trial last year, Trump was defended by lawyers experienced on the national stage. They included Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor whose work led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment; Jay Sekulow, who had defended Trump previously; and Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor known for his work in high-profile, controversial cases.

The departure of the South Carolina lawyers from the team will probably disappoint Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who had recommended Bowers.

Neither Bowers nor the other South Carolina lawyers responded to requests for comment Saturday. It was not clear why the previously announced South Carolina lawyers were departing.

Late last week, people familiar with Trump’s developing defense strategy said that four South Carolina lawyers would be the nucleus of the Trump team.

Their selection marked a dramatic shift from Trump’s previous impeachment. During that Senate trial last year, Trump was defended by lawyers experienced on the national stage. They included Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor whose work led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment; Jay Sekulow, who had defended Trump previously; and Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor known for his work in high-profile, controversial cases.

The departure of the South Carolina lawyers from the team will probably disappoint Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who had recommended Bowers.


The state Supreme Court decision does not name Harris, but he was the assistant solicitor in the 5th Judicial District solicitor’s office at the time. And his opposing counsel in the case, Philip J. Mace, said he had vivid recollections of Harris’s role prosecuting his client, a Black woman, and seeking to strike Black jurors.

Harris did not respond to repeated requests for comment. His role in the case was first reported by HuffPost on Friday.

In an interview Thursday, Mace said the case became known in South Carolina legal circles as the “shuck and jive” case, and sent a signal from the state’s high court that it was on alert for a “Batson challenge,” referring to a 1986 Supreme Court ruling making it unconstitutional to exclude jurors on the basis of race or sex.

In addition to the “shuck and jive” reference, the court noted that the prosecutor successfully sought to dismiss a 43-year-old Black female juror because she appeared “extremely sluggish,” and he doubted whether she would be able to withstand the trial and be aware of what was going on, the court decision said.

Mace moved for a mistrial but the lower-court judge denied his request, saying that no pattern of racial discrimination was established and that the prosecutor’s justifications “were racially neutral.”

The state Supreme Court disagreed. It found that racial discrimination had occurred and it reversed the trial court’s conviction, citing the prosecutor’s comments — particularly his “shucked and jived” remark.

The judges wrote that the prosecutor’s “use of this racial stereotype is evidence of the prosecutor’s intent to discriminate and clearly violates the mandates” of the Batson challenge rules.

Mace said he thought Harris’s comment was “a good old boy South Carolina way of talking and not being very racially sensitive.” He added, though, that Harris had a strong reputation as a defense lawyer.

“If I was in trouble, he might be one of the lawyers I’d consider hiring,” Mace said.

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

by ti-amie CNN's reporting said that Tiny wouldn't pay them or sign a binding letter of some kind.

by ponchi101 It has got to be that. Otherwise, who would not take this case? You know you can't lose, so why not take an easy $100K (for example) and let it be?

by ti-amie Trump names two new lawyers for impeachment trial a day after his defense team collapsed
By Jim Acosta, Kaitlan Collins and Pamela Brown, CNN

Updated 7:49 PM ET, Sun January 31, 202

(CNN)Former President Donald Trump's office announced that David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor, Jr. will now head the legal team for his second impeachment trial, a day after CNN first reported that five members of his defense left and his team effectively collapsed.

One point of friction with his previous team was Trump wanted the attorneys to focus on his election fraud claims rather than the constitutionality of convicting a former president.

Trump has struggled to find lawyers willing to take his case as he refuses to budge from his false claims. Trump's advisers have been talking to him about his legal strategy and he keeps bringing up election fraud for his defense, while they have repeatedly tried to steer him away from that, according to a source familiar with those discussions.

It's unclear if Schoen and Castor will go along with what Trump wants.

"Schoen has already been working with the 45th President and other advisors to prepare for the upcoming trial, and both Schoen and Castor agree that this impeachment is unconstitutional - a fact 45 Senators voted in agreement with last week," the release said.

"It is an honor to represent the 45th President, Donald J. Trump, and the United States Constitution," Schoen said in a statement.

Castor added, "I consider it a privilege to represent the 45th President. The strength of our Constitution is about to be tested like never before in our history. It is strong and resilient. A document written for the ages, and it will triumph over partisanship yet again, and always."

Schoen "focuses primarily on the litigation of complex civil and criminal cases before trial and appellate courts," according to his website. He serves as chair of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the Civil Rights Litigation Committee.

Castor, meanwhile, is a well-known attorney in Pennsylvania who previously served as Montgomery County district attorney.

In order to convict Trump, at least 17 Republicans will need to vote with all Democrats when the trial begins.

CNN previously reported that Senate Republicans who criticized Trump without doing anything about his actions are hoping to put distance between themselves and the former President without casting any votes that could cause a backlash from Trump and his fervent supporters.

Many say something should be done about what Trump did -- but just not by them.

The rhetoric showcases the split between House and Senate Republicans as the party struggles to find its voice after the tumultuous Trump era. Many House Republicans remain staunch Trump defenders, saying he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be blamed for the violence that occurred at the Capitol on January 6.

This story has been updated with additional information.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/31/politics ... index.html

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie US press isn't focused on this guy. They're focused on the same lawyer's connections to the late Jeffrey Epstein.

by ti-amie

The Ayanna Pressley incident hasn't been given a lot of air and it should. Who would've had access to her offices to do such a thing? The implications are frightening.

by ti-amie

That he's still on the court and she hasn't been brought in for questioning are both scandals in their own right.

From the WaPo article:
“I owe you all an apology. I have likely imposed on you my lifetime passions,” Thomas, who goes by Ginni, recently wrote to a private Thomas Clerk World email list of her husband’s staff over his three decades on the bench.

“My passions and beliefs are likely shared with the bulk of you, but certainly not all. And sometimes the smallest matters can divide loved ones for too long. Let’s pledge to not let politics divide THIS family, and learn to speak more gently and knowingly across the divide.”

A sampling of posts made to the group were shared with The Washington Post by a member upset with some of the pro-Trump messages written by Ginni Thomas and others in the lead-up and aftermath of the election. Thomas did not respond to requests for comment. Several former clerks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the listserv is private, verified the dispute in what is normally an affable setting meant to celebrate achievements of the clerk “family.”

Besides the friction there, Thomas has drawn outrage among liberals for public political commentary on her “Ginni Thomas” Facebook page. Her comments there celebrated Trump’s supporters who assembled in D.C. on Jan. 6, hundreds of whom stormed the Capitol, resulting in the deaths of five people.

In the early morning post, Thomas encouraged her Facebook followers to watch the day’s events unfold on conservative news media, writing, “LOVE MAGA people!!!!”

She added in another: “GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING.”

Thomas later appended an apparent disclaimer that said, “[Note: written before violence in US Capitol],” according to Mark Joseph Stern of Slate.com, who first wrote about the posts. The Facebook account is no longer visible.

Additionally, there have been unfounded charges on social media that Ginni Thomas played a role in helping to pay for bus transportation for some of those attending the rally. Reporters at The Washington Post, the New York Times and elsewhere, including Stern, found those claims were false.

(...)

Thomas has made clear her opposition to the Affordable Care Act, for instance, and other initiatives of the Obama administration. This summer, she tried to get the small Virginia town of Clifton to take down a Black Lives Matter banner. “Let’s not be tricked into joining cause with radical extremists seeking to foment a cultural revolution because they hate America,” she wrote to town leaders.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Meanwhile I think Lindsey is cracking under the pressure...


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Maddow Blogb@MaddowBlog

"The 346-page Government Accountability Office document, much longer than most, outlines broad Trump administration failures so alarming that the normally circumspect auditors pronounced themselves “deeply troubled.”

GAO report slams Trump administration response to the coronavirus pandemic
By
Joe Davidson
Columnist
Feb. 3, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. EST

A government watchdog study from a generally staid audit agency amounts to a wide-reaching condemnation of President Donald Trump’s botched response to the covid-19 pandemic.

The 346-page Government Accountability Office document, much longer than most, outlines broad Trump administration failures so alarming that the normally circumspect auditors pronounced themselves “deeply troubled.” That constitutes an anguished cry from an office that prides itself on just-the-facts, albeit dull, reports.

Almost 90 percent — 27 of 31 — of the GAO’s recommendations from June, September and November “remained unimplemented” as of Jan. 15, less than a week before Trump left office. The document was released last week.

“GAO remains deeply troubled that agencies have not acted on recommendations to more fully address critical gaps in the medical supply chain,” it said.

The medical supply chain covers a large range of actions and materials related to the pandemic, including coronavirus testing, vaccines, therapeutics and personal protective equipment. Even dollars have supply chain issues.

The report focused largely on the Department of Health and Human Services, which leads the government’s response. But the GAO’s comprehensive review included covid program integrity issues involving overpayments worth $1.1 billion in the Department of Labor’s Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program and 3,000 Small Business Administration loans to potentially ineligible companies.

The supply chain of money also has knots. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act provided $300 million to the Commerce Department in March for assistance to the fishery industry, which has taken a financial hit because the pandemic closed restaurants. As of Dec. 4, only $53.9 million, about 18 percent, according to the GAO, “had been disbursed, which is inconsistent with Office of Management and Budget guidance on the importance of agencies distributing CARES Act funds in an expedient manner.”


After the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed success in promoting rapid development of coronavirus vaccines — the one bright spot in its covid response — it failed to fully follow the GAO’s implementation recommendations. Now we suffer a rocky inoculation rollout, with its jammed websites, clogged phone lines and canceled appointments.

“In September 2020, GAO stressed the importance of having a plan that focused on coordination and communication and recommended that HHS, with the support of the Department of Defense, establish a time frame for documenting and sharing a national plan for distributing and administering COVID-19 vaccine, and among other things, outline an approach for how efforts would be coordinated across federal agencies and nonfederal entities,” the GAO said. “To date, this recommendation has not been fully implemented. GAO reiterates the importance of doing so.”

Trump’s HHS did not agree or disagree with the GAO’s recommendation.

The report details a bungled Trump administration response to a virus that has killed over 445,000 Americans, far more than in any other nation. Former HHS Secretary Alex Azar and a spokesperson for Trump did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did current HHS officials.

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) did. The House Oversight and Reform Committee, where he chairs the government operations subcommittee, was one of the congressional panels that received the GAO report. “This independent report is a stunning indictment of the Trump administration’s total failure to respond to the coronavirus pandemic,” Connolly said. “Their inaction resulted in lives lost.”

When asked about the GAO report, the White House pointed to the national covid-19 strategy that President Biden released on his second day in office. Among other things, it outlines plans for national testing, supply chain strengthening and vaccine distribution and inoculation.

Regarding troubles with the government’s response to covid under Trump, the GAO said:

●HHS “has not issued a comprehensive and publicly available national testing strategy.”

●HHS has not developed a supply chain strategy with states and the private sector for providing supplies during a pandemic.

●The federal government cannot “systematically define and ensure the collection of standardized data across the relevant federal agencies . . . to help respond to COVID-19, communicate the status of the pandemic with citizens, or prepare for future pandemics. As a result, COVID-19 information that is collected and reported by states and other entities to the federal government is often incomplete and inconsistent.”

HHS did agree to take steps toward a national coronavirus testing strategy, the GAO reported, but department officials “expressed concern that producing such a strategy . . . could be overly burdensome” on federal, state and local officials “and that a plan would be outdated by the time it was finalized.” The GAO rejected those excuses.

The GAO’s conclusions are not faultfinding after the fact. In February 2020, before things got bad, “we emphasized the need for federal agencies to coordinate, establish, and define roles and responsibilities among those responding to the crisis, and provide clear, consistent communication,” the report said.

The bottom line of the report is, “urgent action is needed and required” to fight covid-19, A. Nicole Clowers, the GAO’s managing director for health care, said by phone. “We’ve been examining these issues for almost nine months now, and we’ve seen the lack of progress that’s been made.”

She acknowledged the report contains “strong language for GAO,” adding: “We’re trying to spur that action that we believe is needed.”

That’s up to Biden, whose serious approach to covid-19 is a sharp contrast to Trump’s.

“The Biden administration is now forced to simultaneously clean up Trump’s mess it inherited,” Connolly said, “while also responding to the greatest public health pandemic in a hundred years.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

by ti-amie

by ti-amie My daughter thinks he's going to go because he needs the attention.

Live updates: House impeachment manager asks Trump to testify at his Senate trial, a request he may decline

1:28 p.m.
Impeachment managers call Trump to testify for his trial
By Karoun Demirjian

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) officially requested that former president Donald Trump testify under oath about his involvement in the events that led to the Capitol riot Jan. 6.

The letter, which Raskin sent to Trump’s lawyers Thursday, comes two days after the president’s legal team filed papers with the Senate disputing many of the factual allegations in the House managers’ case. It invites Trump to testify either before or during his actual impeachment trial, which is set to begin in the Senate on Tuesday — with the recommendation he do so between Monday and Thursday, Feb. 11.

"If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021,” Raskin warned in his letter, asking for a response by Friday at 5 p.m.

The House managers do not have independent authority to subpoena Trump if he denies the request.

In the letter, Raskin pointed out that Presidents Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton had both testified to Congress while in office, “so there is no doubt that you can testify in these proceedings.” Raskin also pointed out that since Trump is no longer in office, and since the Supreme Court has already ruled that the president is not immune to legal proceedings for decisions he made during his tenure in office, he has no excuse to decline.

“We therefore anticipate your availability to testify,” Raskin wrote.

Representatives for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... e-updates/

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Tiny is stupid enough to believe he is smart enough to out-smart all the lawyers in congress.
He should testify. Of course, the testimony will be unintelligible, but that would be what is expected.

by ti-amie Of course she left out the death threats to the Speaker and confrontations with other House members but this sounds good, which is of course the intent of the statement. We know that if Ilhan OImar, Rashida Tlaib or, AOC had made the threats and engaged in the behavior this woman has McCarthy would've had them thrown off of committees already.


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Like all New Yorker articles the one referenced is long. It is worth a read though.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie
ti-amie wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:22 am






Andy Sheehan @AndySheehankdka
Government wants her detained but attorney for Rachel Powell tells @KDKA he'll ask or her release pending trial.
“She’s certainly not going anywhere, and as a person who has never been in trouble with the law before, she’s certainly not a danger to her community. “

“Ms. Powell is certainly not a risk of flight given her strong family ties to the community, the fact that she has young children which she home schools. She is not an individual of means that would even allow her to flee,” her attorney, Michael Engle, tells @KDKA
We did it! We did it Joe! @RTrump36 Replying to @AndySheehankdka and @KDKA
I assume her having been on the run for a month will negate her request for pretrial release. She's obviously a flight risk.

by ti-amie

It might be better to click on the Tweet to read the images.

by ponchi101 Aaaaah.... it was better NOT to read that.
These people are giving the legal profession a real bad name.

by ti-amie

This has NOT been made clear by MSM.

by ti-amie Rep. Demmings also put the folks clamoring for the Pledge to open every committee meeting in their place.


by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:10 pm

This has NOT been made clear by MSM.

"You don't really want any of this either." 🤣🤣

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie I...so what?


by ti-amie

by JazzNU First, Lindsey is desperate and being put out there for a dog and pony show to do whatever he can to push a counter narrative. Does he make sense? No. He threatened to call the FBI to testify a few weeks ago if they didn't knock this silly impeachment stuff off, and everyone was like, fantastic, when? He's got nothing, but that blackmail is real so he'll keep going on Fox News and throwing stuff against the wall, hoping at least one thing sticks.

Two, there's a very conservative lawyer, Charles Cooper, who happily represents the GOP in all repugnant conservative lawsuits, and he shot down the idea of this being unconstitutional in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that is rattling the grand ole party big time on the eve of the trial.

by ponchi101 The idea cannot withstand two seconds of thought. You are no longer liable for any crimes you committed because you don't work there anymore?
"Your honor, it must be pointed out that Auschwitz is no longer running so, can we let all these men go?"
Ridiculous.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by JazzNU Have I mentioned that Bruce Castor is my county's former DA? That he is one of my county's former county commissioners? That he was 100% a moderate Republican or he would've never been elected repeatedly in the county and was highly respected and capable in all his roles? And that I've personally met him before? Yup.

Also, fairly certain he went to my high school. So proud.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie I haven't watched any of the footage.I posted some but I haven't and won't watch. Too stressful.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by JazzNU I think this is going very well. Who knows if some of these GOP senators will locate their missing spines and there will be an impeachment, but I liken this to OJ Simpson. Can OJ go anywhere without everyone thinking he's a murderer even though he was never convicted? He cannot. That is how this needs to attach to the Insurrectionist-In-Chief for the rest of his time. Impeachment is the ideal, along with barring him from future office. But if we don't get there, stain him with a stench so strong it can never shake from him.

And of course, we still have cases pending in NY state as this unfortunately was never going to deal with his freedom.

by MJ2004 And possibly a case to come from Georgia. Although not too likely.

by ponchi101 The GOP is actually right when they say that it is solely a political trial. FROM THEIR SIDE. Any reasonable jury would pass a guilty verdict, but they will not because of the politics.
The case sounds very solid. And the only thing I would sort of disagree with jazzNu is that O.J. was a well liked figure prior to the murder. Tiny has always been a polarizing person that, as we can see now, is either loathed or worshipped. Few people from the GOP (percentage wise) will recoil in disgust when seeing him.

by JazzNU That's not true though. For reasons unknown, he was pretty well liked pre-political career. It's why he's been seen in the most random places for the last 30 years.

Have you read the SAG letter? As hilarious as that was, it is true that he did appear in all those projects. He has been shunned by the celebrity class in the last 5 years, one of the groups that has held steady in their dislike and disdain, and the narcissist in him cares about that way more about that than he cares about so much more. Sad, but true.

by JazzNU
MJ2004 wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:28 pm And possibly a case to come from Georgia. Although not too likely.

Georgia prosecutors launch criminal inquiry into Trump's efforts to overturn election


By Rebecca Shabad and Julia Jester

WASHINGTON — Georgia prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the state's election results, NBC News confirmed Wednesday.

The investigation by Fulton County prosecutors will look into a damning phone call in which Trump begged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" the votes to reverse President Joe Biden's victory.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis sent a letter Wednesday to state government officials, including Raffensperger, requesting that their offices preserve documents related to the call, a state official with knowledge of the letter said.

NBC News verified the contents of the letter, which explicitly states that the request is part of a criminal investigation into several possible charges, from false statements to "any involvement in violence or threats related to the election's administration."

A spokesperson for Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr's office confirmed that it received the letter and that officials "are in the process of reviewing and synthesizing" it. Gov. Brian Kemp's office also confirmed having received the letter.

Georgia is the second state, after New York, where Trump faces criminal investigations.

Raffensperger's office has also opened a separate investigation into the phone call, NBC News reported this week. His office confirmed that it had opened the inquiry after it received a complaint about Trump's conduct.

During the Jan. 2 phone call, Trump told Raffensperger: "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state."

Georgia reaffirmed Biden's victory several times after the November election.

Willis suggested an investigation in a statement last month in which she described the phone call as "disturbing."

"Anyone who commits a felony violation of Georgia law in my jurisdiction will be held accountable. Once the investigation is complete, this matter, like all matters, will be handled by our office based on the facts and the law," Willis said at the time.

Willis and Raffensperger did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The criminal inquiry, first reported Wednesday by The New York Times, comes as the Senate holds its impeachment trial against Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. House Democratic managers who are prosecuting the case will deliver their opening arguments Wednesday, which will include "never-seen-before" video of the deadly riot.

Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance has been investigating "possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization," Trump's family business, which could involve falsifying business records, tax fraud and insurance fraud. New York Attorney General Letitia James is also investigating four Trump Organization real estate projects and Trump's failed attempt to buy the NFL's Buffalo Bills.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... n-n1257272

by JazzNU ^^ It is significant that it is a Fulton County investigation, not a Georgia state one. More likely to go somewhere in that context. Although, even a state investigation or the state trying to disrupt this investigation isn't as likely as it would've been before. Because Republicans holding statewide office in Georgia are very much on notice that they may be replaced in an upcoming election especially if they don't act right.

by ti-amie


by ponchi101 5 years? Permanent record?
(Serious question)

by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:14 pm 5 years? Permanent record?
(Serious question)
2 years, deferred sentencing.

by ponchi101 Damn, you people are soft. I was expecting something involving oyster shells and salt.

by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:14 pm 5 years? Permanent record?
(Serious question)
Not sure what you are asking. Are you inquiring about how long a sentence would be for the above charges against the Proud Boys? And what do you mean by permanent record?

by ponchi101
JazzNU wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:36 pm
ponchi101 wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:14 pm 5 years? Permanent record?
(Serious question)
Not sure what you are asking. Are you inquiring about how long a sentence would be for the above charges against the Proud Boys? And what do you mean by permanent record?
I was asking about indeed how long their sentence could be, and whether this would go on their permanent record. Something like having to register as a sex offender once you finish you sentence.

by the Moz So the Donald is twice impeached and headed to twice acquitted. How close to 17 are the Dems likely to get? At least 10 I hope.

by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:38 pm
I was asking about indeed how long their sentence could be, and whether this would go on their permanent record. Something like having to register as a sex offender once you finish you sentence.
Gotcha. Register like a sex offender? No. Lists like that don't exist for any other set of crimes. So you can know if there's a 22-year-old convicted peeping tom on your block, but won't know if there's a guy who committed murder. It's odd, but the way it is. But will it be permanently on their criminal record? Yes.

Time will depend on the final charges brought. What's in these initial documents isn't necessarily what will be brought eventually, more significant charges are expected for some of those the FBI has already arrested and charged, they are most concerned right now with getting them off the street. The more serious, like this group, are in line for upgraded charges most likely. But so far, this is up to around 24 years in prison.

by Togtdyalttai
the Moz wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:44 pm So the Donald is twice impeached and headed to twice acquitted. How close to 17 are the Dems likely to get? At least 10 I hope.
They'll be lucky to get 7. Tuesday's vote on the trial's constitutionality is probably the best indicator we have, and that was 56-44, with Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, and Toomey joining the Democrats.

by ti-amie

by mmmm8
JazzNU wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:40 pm That's not true though. For reasons unknown, he was pretty well liked pre-political career. It's why he's been seen in the most random places for the last 30 years.

Have you read the SAG letter? As hilarious as that was, it is true that he did appear in all those projects. He has been shunned by the celebrity class in the last 5 years, one of the groups that has held steady in their dislike and disdain, and the narcissist in him cares about that way more about that than he cares about so much more. Sad, but true.
I'd say he was found to be amusing and entertaining and boisterous. I'm not sure "well-liked" is what it really was. This might be my NYC bias though.

by ponchi101
mmmm8 wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:26 am
I'd say he was found to be amusing and entertaining and boisterous. I'm not sure "well-liked" is what it really was. This might be my NYC bias though.
Must be that I have disliked him so much always. I loved everything Doonesbury put on him. But I would side with M8. Well liked seems so hard to accept :vomit:

by JazzNU
mmmm8 wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:26 am
I'd say he was found to be amusing and entertaining and boisterous. I'm not sure "well-liked" is what it really was. This might be my NYC bias though.
I'd agree with that in general. I put it as pretty well liked and not merely amused because it had been going on since the 80s. Cameos in movies and TV shows for years and years with even more appearances at just celebrity parties and events. He always seemed to have an invitation or be able to get himself on the list to get in. I remember seeing him in photos at many an Oscar party for instance. And though Celerity Apprentice may have been stock full of D-list celebrities, many weren't exactly unknown with no followings. George Takei being on there basically captures what I'm talking about. There's barely been a celebrity in the last 5 years more critical of his presidency, and yet just a few years earlier, he was on that damn show.

by ti-amie

by skatingfan Imagine how much that would have sold for on the black market.

by ponchi101 At least 10 million Rubles or 50 million Yuan.

by Suliso It will be six.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie I'm not watching any of this but some of the information in these tweets is hilarious.


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

Image

by JazzNU

by JazzNU More context. They are the D team and acting like it.



by ti-amie New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters
By Jamie Gangel, Kevin Liptak, Michael Warren and Marshall Cohen, CNN

Washington (CNN)In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.

Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.

The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President's state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol. The existence of the call and some of its details have been previously reported and discussed publicly by McCarthy.

The Republican members of Congress said the exchange showed Trump had no intention of calling off the rioters even as lawmakers were pleading with him to intervene. Several said it amounted to a dereliction of his presidential duty.

"He is not a blameless observer, he was rooting for them," a Republican member of Congress said. "On January 13, Kevin McCarthy said on the floor of the House that the President bears responsibility and he does."

Speaking to the President from inside the besieged Capitol, McCarthy pressed Trump to call off his supporters and engaged in a heated disagreement about who comprised the crowd. Trump's comment about the would-be insurrectionists caring more about the election results than McCarthy did was first mentioned by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, in a town hall earlier this week, and was confirmed to CNN by Herrera Beutler and other Republicans briefed on the conversation.

"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."

"We should never stand for that, for any reason, under any party flag," she added, voicing her extreme frustration: "I'm trying really hard not to say the F-word."
"I think it speaks to the former President's mindset," said Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, an Ohio Republican who also voted to impeach Trump last month. "He was not sorry to see his unyieldingly loyal vice president or the Congress under attack by the mob he inspired. In fact, it seems he was happy about it or at the least enjoyed the scenes that were horrifying to most Americans across the country."


As senators prepare to determine Trump's fate, multiple Republicans thought the details of the call were important to the proceedings because they believe it paints a damning portrait of Trump's lack of action during the attack. At least one of the sources who spoke to CNN took detailed notes of McCarthy's recounting of the call.
Trump and McCarthy did not respond to requests for comment.

It took Trump several hours after the attack began to eventually encourage his supporters to "go home in peace" -- a tweet that came at the urging of his top aides.
At Trump's impeachment trial Friday, his lawyers argued that Trump did in fact try to calm the rioters with a series of tweets while the attack unfolded. But his lawyers cherry-picked his tweets, focusing on his request for supporters to "remain peaceful" without mentioning that he also attacked then-Vice President Mike Pence and waited hours to explicitly urge rioters to leave the Capitol.

It's unclear to what extent these new details were known by the House Democratic impeachment managers or whether the team considered calling McCarthy as a witness. The managers have preserved the option to call witnesses in the ongoing impeachment trial, although that option remains unlikely as the trial winds down.

The House Republican leader had been forthcoming with his conference about details of his conversations with Trump on and after January 6.
Trump himself has not taken any responsibility in public.

This story has been updated to note that Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler voted to impeach then-President Donald Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics ... index.html

by ti-amie Dan Rather
@DanRather
With breaking news, I don’t know how you don’t call witnesses.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by MJ2004 I can't even...

After voting to acquit, McConnell accuses Trump of 'disgraceful dereliction of duty'
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who voted to acquit Donald Trump of incitement of insurrection, is now delivering a blistering speech about the former president.

The Republican leader said Trump committed a “disgraceful dereliction of duty” by refusing to intervene as his supporters carried out a violent insurrection at the Capitol.

“There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically, and morally, responsible for provoking the events of the day,” McConnell said.

McConnell emphasized that the insurrectionists turned violent because Trump had told them a series of lies about the presidential election.

“They did this because they’d been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth because he was angry he lost an election,” McConnell said. “This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories.”

The Republican leader then pivoted to making a jurisdictional argument against conviction, saying the Senate is not meant to act as a “moral tribunal”.

by ponchi101 Now. Watch Tiny get together with a few GOP'ers, tell them they either side with him or he founds his own party, basically destroying them.
And all of them kneeling.
The most dangerous man in the world. And he will now run again for president in 2024. Bet your life on it. Which will be more dangerous because he wil be older and not only insane, but certainly senile.

by Suliso Seven GOP defectors is a lot, especially compared to first time. Probably about the best Democrats could have hoped for.

by Togtdyalttai I'm somewhat surprised that Rob Portman didn't vote to convict given that he's not all that Trumpy, he's retiring, and Cassidy and Burr did vote to convict. Other than that, I don't think the Democrats could realistically have hoped for more votes either.

by ti-amie I'm glad they didn't waste time too. Now they can turn their findings over to the DOJ and others.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie And the fallout begins.


by ti-amie

by Ribbons Sadly, I don't have the time or the budget to sponsor 43 cockroaches (you have to purchase them one by one) to feed to the San Antonio critters. But I did name three after my two senators (Marsha Blackburn and Bill Haggerty) and Governor HVAC:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/31/us/name- ... index.html

by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:05 am
Serious. What charges or under what circumstances can Tiny be sued in a civil or criminal court for the actions of Jan 6th? Mitch is SO brave...

This is what the USA Congress and Senate have become. All the subpoenas delivered during the investigations? Ha. And now this acquittal? Ha. The entire body is a joke.

by ti-amie

Nancy did all she could. I wish Schumer had her cojones.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by Togtdyalttai
ti-amie wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:09 am
She'll be fine. Alaska's system makes it so that she's almost a shoo-in.

The system is basically a jungle primary like California (and some other states), but the top 4 advance instead of the top 2. Then the general election is ranked choice voting. So say there's a hardcore Trump supporter, a Democrat, and a Libertarian running against her in the general election. You can be sure most of the Democrats will have her as their second choice, but the Trump supporters likely would have her second as well.

by dryrunguy I am at loss as to why anyone thought there might be a different result.

by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:05 am

"Could the Democrat led DOJ pretty pretty please do what we GOP Senators didn't have the balls to do" - Mitch the Spineless Turtle

by ponchi101
dryrunguy wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:18 am I am at loss as to why anyone thought there might be a different result.
I don't think anybody thought it might have been different. But that still does not mean that a lot of people are surprised. This was not a smoking gun case. This was the corpse on the floor, the gun smoking, in the hand of the perpetrator, filmed by CCTV.
The spinelessness of the GOP, you have to admit, is something to behold. And it is not even because it is a cult; Mitch shows a different kind of cowardice that perhaps may be even more repulsive: that of the political manipulator. He comes first, the party comes second, country maybe third.

by ti-amie From Legal Twitter:

Daniel Goldman:

Short thread on impeachment witnesses:

First, let’s remember that this case had unusual and powerful evidence in the public record. If you are prosecuting a bank robbery and you have the surveillance camera footage, you don’t need witnesses to tell you what happened.
1/

Second, the only areas where witnesses could help was confirming what the circumstantial evidence already showed about Trump’s knowledge and intent, both before and after the riot. Mgrs did great job of using his own tweets to show his knowledge but witnesses could confirm.
2/

The case was really strong as is but new witness testimony would very likely become the sole focus of the media and the public. For that reason, it is especially important to avoid taking risks with witnesses a) who are adverse to you and b) whose testimony is unknown.
3/

Since the only witnesses that would be helpful are ones close to Trump, executive privilege would invariably be an issue. If a witness is not cooperative, s/he would likely fall back on EP to avoid testifying. Hashing that out would take months.
4/

The reality is that Trump has created a dynamic through the Ukraine whistleblower and Ukraine witnesses where his domestic terrorist supporters threaten violence against witnesses against him. This fear is real and it is a huge problem. This should be everyone’s focus.
5/

Managers tried to find witnesses who a) could provide direct evidence about Trump’s state of mind, b) who were willing to testify and were cooperative so no surprises and no litigation, and c) who would do no harm to the already strong case.
6/

Beutler’s public statement was very helpful because it confirmed Trump’s sociopathic disregard for the line of succession in the Capitol. That was very helpful. Beutler endured open witness intimidation from colleagues and probably others — that should be the story.
7/

Finally, @RepRaskin is right that if their powerful case did not convince 67 to convict, nothing would. Why dilute their case, delay the trial, potentially put people in harm’s way or endure lengthy litigation, only to get marginally more info about facts that everyone knows?
8/

Trump’s requests to call Pelosi or 100 witnesses were empty threats — they didn’t have a single witness who could have helped them. That should not have been a factor. But if they were smart, they could have made the witnesses look lopsided and unfair if they didn’t get any.
9/

It was the right call to proceed as they did. They got important evidence at no cost that bolstered an already strong case. Witnesses were not necessary to the case and witnesses purely for witnesses sake is bad strategy. The outrage should be at the witness intimidation.

END

by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:47 pm
dryrunguy wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:18 am I am at loss as to why anyone thought there might be a different result.
I don't think anybody thought it might have been different. But that still does not mean that a lot of people are surprised. This was not a smoking gun case. This was the corpse on the floor, the gun smoking, in the hand of the perpetrator, filmed by CCTV.
The spinelessness of the GOP, you have to admit, is something to behold. And it is not even because it is a cult; Mitch shows a different kind of cowardice that perhaps may be even more repulsive: that of the political manipulator. He comes first, the party comes second, country maybe third.
It permanently cements the reality that nothing will ever stick to this man. At least in the political arena. I put the chances of anything sticking to him in the criminal justice arena about about 100/1.

Meanwhile, are we taking early bets on who wins the Republican nomination in 2024? Don Jr, Ivanka, Eric, or Jared?

by Suliso I'm fairly convinced Trump will fade. Let's resume this discussion in a year or two...

by ponchi101 Hope you are right. But this man craves the spotlight too much. He will not fade because he simply could not accept that.

by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:26 am Hope you are right. But this man craves the spotlight too much. He will not fade because he simply could not accept that.
He has faded a lot already. No Twitter and very little in the news compared to a month ago.

by dave g I am agreeing with DRY on this one. With about 40% of the population in his cult, the odds of getting a 12 person jury where none of that 40% lied about being able to be impartial so that they can get on the jury and vote "not guilty" is indistinguishable from 0%. So, I don't think that we are going to be able to successfully prosecute him for criminal activities.

As to who wins the Republican nomination in 2024, it will be the only person Don Sr. will allow: Don Sr. Don Sr. is too egotistical to let anyone else be the nominee.

by dryrunguy Trump could conceivably die in the next 4 years. Trumpism, the cult, will not fade away anytime soon. These people were not only empowered to crawl out from under the rocks where they were hiding for so long; they were encouraged to be visible, to be mainstream. Any white person with a dog whistle who knows how to use it will get, and keep, their attention and admiration.

by ti-amie
dryrunguy wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:57 am Trump could conceivably die in the next 4 years. Trumpism, the cult, will not fade away anytime soon. These people were not only empowered to crawl out from under the rocks where they were hiding for so long; they were encouraged to be visible, to be mainstream. Any white person with a dog whistle who knows how to use it will get, and keep, their attention and admiration.
Exactly what Hawley is trying to do.

by dryrunguy
ti-amie wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:03 am
dryrunguy wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:57 am Trump could conceivably die in the next 4 years. Trumpism, the cult, will not fade away anytime soon. These people were not only empowered to crawl out from under the rocks where they were hiding for so long; they were encouraged to be visible, to be mainstream. Any white person with a dog whistle who knows how to use it will get, and keep, their attention and admiration.
Exactly what Hawley is trying to do.
And so many others. He's not alone. And now they have a politically viable platform.

by ti-amie The GOP had no platform for 2020. The only platform was Tiny.

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by the Moz The chances of the Donald becoming the nominee in 2024 is rather slim, firstly because he already was a nominee & elected President. And secondly, when you factor in job performance, legacy and the dubious ending to his administration and I just don't see him returning in 2024 as a candidate for elected office.

by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:45 am

It does not determine that behavior. It does expose who you are though.

Not talking directly about this woman, but these GOP who are suddenly out of sorts that they might have MAGA on the attack against them and who experienced like one week of terror from the supporters of insurrectionists, while not giving a damn that their colleagues in the House and the Senate have had FBI protection on and off for the exact same threats over the last 4 years means is really rich. So I don't give a damn about why you have no spine. You are selling this country up the river because your ass is scared (expletive). I'm not telling you not to be scared, but you need to resign your damn position if you're not up for the job in the face of that fear. Spare me with the "they've threatened me and my family." They've been threatening your colleagues and their families for 4 years and what have you done? Only YOUR family matters, no one else''s? Dr. Fauci's children's addresses and workplaces were found and they needed FBI protection from this mob in addition to all the death threats he got. Did he suddenly stop his research and change his messaging because of that?

Some people are up for this, and some aren't. If you aren't, you need to resign.

by ti-amie

by Suliso
dryrunguy wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:57 am Trump could conceivably die in the next 4 years. Trumpism, the cult, will not fade away anytime soon. These people were not only empowered to crawl out from under the rocks where they were hiding for so long; they were encouraged to be visible, to be mainstream. Any white person with a dog whistle who knows how to use it will get, and keep, their attention and admiration.
I'd just like to clarify that Trump the politician will in my opinion fade, not the racism and xenophobia behind much of the movement. Perhaps a good analogy is the Tea party movement of the previous political cycle.

by ti-amie Here's another charmer.




by ti-amie

by ti-amie




by ti-amie Matt Fuller
@MEPFuller
·
10m
So Capitol Police called me today to come in for an interview.

They were pretty cryptic on what it was about, but it turns out they have two ongoing investigations that I was witness to: one, the potential assault of an officer by a Member of Congress, the other, Andy Harris.


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by Suliso Bloodthirsty killers would have done a heck of a better job at actually killing someone.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Lawrence Hurley @lawrencehurley

Trump's statement on the Supreme Court's refusal to shield his tax returns from scrutiny includes reference to what he calls "the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country"
Image

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by dryrunguy I haven't seen this mentioned here yet. Think on this the next time you memorialize George H. W. Bush...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... vania.html

by ponchi101 The SCOTUS should be one organism of the US GOV which should be filled with people of unquestionable brilliance.
Scalia, Thomas, Kavanaugh.
So: The APPEARANCE of corruption serves to justify voter suppression. And how would voter suppression achieve erasing that appearance, which would then not be APPEARANCE but actual corruption because you did not let many people vote?
Then again, he once went years without asking a single question in a SCOTS hearing.
---0---
I know you were being facetious but, who MEMORALIZES G.H.W. Bush? What kind of people are you running into? :shock:

by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:44 pm I know you were being facetious but, who MEMORALIZES G.H.W. Bush? What kind of people are you running into? :shock:
I wasn't being facetious. I'm serious. After all of the trauma caused by Trump, many people look back on George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush with a not-so-subtle hint of longing--even among my fellow filthy liberals. Nominating Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court may very well be the most harmful and destructive legacy of the first George's administration.

by ti-amie

Absolutely the worst people.

Image

by JazzNU I'm offended every time I have to read about this fake asshole. The cultural appropriation is highly offensive and the media isn't helping.

by ponchi101 I am offended too, but mostly by the stupidity.

by ti-amie Opinion: How Republicans will sabotage a full accounting of Trump’s insurrection
Opinion by
Greg Sargent
Columnist
Feb. 24, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. EST

Let’s state this at the outset. If you think the chief obstacle to a full accounting of the mob assault on the Capitol is generalized partisanship, rather than the ongoing radicalization of the Republican Party, then you’re utterly clueless about the reality of this political moment.

Democrats and Republicans are battling over the makeup of a commission that is supposed to examine the Jan. 6 attack. Congressional leaders — led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — are now haggling over what the legislation creating it will look like.

This has caused some hand-wringing about whether a “bipartisan” accounting into the attack is possible, one similar to that produced by the 9/11 Commission, the model for this one.

But it’s hard to see how a bipartisan accounting on the insurrection is possible, especially if it is going to include a full reckoning with Donald Trump’s role in it.

I’ve got new detail on what’s at issue in the argument over the commission, and it appears to involve the scope of what will be examined.

Republicans object to the commission

According to a senior Democratic aide, Republicans are objecting to a key demand by Democrats: that the commission have a very broad purpose.

Democrats sent Republicans some draft language that would define the commission’s purpose very broadly, to include an examination of everything that led to the attack and to the effort to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power, the aide says.

“It should be very broad, looking at all factors leading to what happened,” the aide told me.

But in response, McCarthy sent Pelosi a letter suggesting the language defining the purpose must have “no inclusion of findings or other predetermined conclusions,” the aide says.


This is frustrating Democrats, because their language did not suggest anything about predetermined conclusions, only that it should look at all factors leading to the attack, the aide tells me.

Democrats asked GOP leaders to provide their own suggested language defining the commission’s purpose, and have not received anything thus far, the aide continues. “You have to have a clear purpose,” the aide tells me. “Otherwise there’s no point to having the commission.”

A spokesperson for McCarthy noted that some of the Democrats’ proposed language in the commission legislation quotes findings recently reached by the FBI director and an intelligence threat assessment.

Those findings, among other things, are that domestic violence extremism is partly motivated by racism and that more future attacks may be partly inspired by “false narratives,” i.e., the lie that the election’s outcome was illegitimate. I was unable to determine why Republicans object to this. But all this points to where the real sticking point will likely lie.


Republicans can’t allow a full accounting

It’s hard to see Republicans permitting a full accounting that includes a look at the role that Trump’s weeks of incitement played in the attack, or at the role that the lies about the election’s illegitimacy played. After all, Republicans themselves spent weeks feeding those lies themselves.

This may be coloring another aspect of the dispute — over who will sit on the commission. Democrats have proposed an arrangement in which the four congressional leaders appoint two members each, with the White House choosing three more. That would mean seven Democrats and four Republicans.

But Republicans are insisting on equal representation. And this aspect of the dispute is drawing disapproval from the leaders of the 9/11 Commission, who say that an imbalance inevitably will taint the findings.

As one told Kyle Cheney, the only hope is to keep partisanship out of the new commission, which will be challenging, due to the “depth of the division and the poisonous toxicity that exists today.”

But “division” is not the problem. Republican radicalization is.

Take the demand for equal representation on the commission. That seems reasonable on the surface, but in this environment, after what just happened, the notion that we can have a commission of bipartisan wise men, all equally committed to a full reckoning for the public good, is just crazy.

The 9/11 Commission’s wise men say the new commission should reach outside Washington to find governors and others to serve. But who will Republicans pick? Can they choose anyone who wants a full accounting into Trump’s role — or into the role of the lie about the election — both of which have been cited as their inspiration by numerous people who stormed the Capitol?

Won’t picking people who want such an accounting be an immediate nonstarter among GOP leaders, most House Republicans and many conservative media figures?


Republicans are just too tied up in what happened themselves. They sustained Trump’s falsehoods about the election’s outcome for weeks, backing the Texas lawsuit to invalidate millions of votes in four other states and then voting to overturn President Biden’s electors in Congress.

On Monday, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin declared that the rioters included “agents provocateurs” and “fake Trump protesters.” He was until recently the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, yet he’s offering utter nonsense in a serious congressional hearing about the attack.

Meanwhile, numerous state-level Republicans are censuring those diehard Republicans who dared to hold Trump to account for trying to incite the violent overthrow of U.S. democracy.

There may not be a good answer to how to proceed at this point. But no one should pretend the magical level of “bipartisanship” will get Republicans to ever willingly participate in a real accounting. The fact that Republicans are objecting to a broad definition of the commission’s purpose only underscores the point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... -sabotage/

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie I debated whether to put this here or in the "National News" thread. The Chief's comments came during a hearing about 1/6 to I opted to put it here.


by ponchi101 If this is what patriots do, I guess traitors start their plans with thermonuclear devices in mind.

by ti-amie Trump's tax returns given to Manhattan prosecutors
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Trump's attempts to shield his taxes.

ByAaron Katersky
25 February 2021, 11:05

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has taken possession of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns, a spokesman for the office told ABC News.

The documents were turned over Monday by the former president’s accountants at Mazars USA. The Trump tax documents run into the millions of pages, a source told ABC News.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected Trump’s request to shield his taxes from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

The ruling cleared the way for DA Cyrus Vance to enforce a grand jury subpoena for the records.

Mazars, the former president's accounting firm, told ABC News in a statement, "As we have maintained throughout this process, Mazars will comply with all of its legal and professional obligations."

At issue is whether the Trump Corporation artificially inflated the value of Trump's properties to get the best possible loans. Investigators also want to know whether the company presented different values to tax authorities.

There are also questions about hush payments to women who alleged affairs with Trump, which he has long denied.

After the Supreme Court threw out Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" last year, Trump brought a fresh challenge to the subpoena by arguing that it was overbroad and issued in bad faith. Two lower federal courts dismissed those new claims and ordered compliance.

Trump then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court in October ... and now, four months later, the justices have voted to deny his request to stay the lower court decisions.

Trump said in a statement on Monday following the ruling, "So now, for more than two years, New York City has been looking at almost every transaction I’ve ever done, including seeking tax returns which were done by among the biggest and most prestigious law and accounting firms in the U.S."

"The Supreme Court never should have let this “fishing expedition” happen, but they did," the statement said.

With regard to enforcement of the subpoena, the DA’s office cited a prior filing: "As we have consistently made clear, we do not believe your client’s claims have merit, and we anticipate that the Supreme Court, after briefing, will deny your request for interim relief, at which point our office will be free to enforce the Mazars Subpoena, regardless of whether your client decides to continue to seek certiorari."

"The work continues," the DA's office told ABC News on Monday.

The office also recently brought on a former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, to scrutinize the material and present to a grand jury.

After Monday's Supreme Court ruling, Mazars told ABC News in a statement, "We are aware of the Supreme Court’s order. As we have maintained throughout this process, Mazars remains committed to fulfilling all of our professional and legal obligations. Due to our industry’s professional obligations Mazars cannot discuss any clients, or the nature of our services we provide for any client, in a public forum without client consent or as required by law."

ABC News' Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-tax-re ... itter_abcn

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Somebody has to make some sociological study to find out why the sole solution these people see to any and all political differences is murder the other party.

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:59 pm Somebody has to make some sociological study to find out why the sole solution these people see to any and all political differences is murder the other party.
I guess start with toxic masculinity and move on to rage at having to compete on the same level with others they deem inferior and move on from there?

by ti-amie






by dryrunguy Trump won a straw poll at CPAC for 2024 Republican nominee for President. There's a shocker.

by ponchi101 He won't even have to campaign. Just show up at the convention in the Summer, and get the acolytes to vow.
I saw it, so many times, with Chavez.

by dryrunguy That man is like a rash that just won't go away.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 I have read that post at least five times. I can't think of an intelligent response.
What needs to be done? What CAN be done?

by ti-amie

by ti-amie The hearings into 1/6 continue. They've gotten around to the role of Flynn's brother and this is as good a summary as any.


by ti-amie

This is why Hawley had his panties in a bunch during questioning the other day and brought up collection of metadata.

by ti-amie Judge Accuses Jacob ‘QAnon Shaman’ Chansley’s Lawyer of Possible ‘Subterfuge’ After TV Debut on ’60 Minutes’ Backfires
ADAM KLASFELDMar 5th, 2021, 4:27 pm

Image
Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman, is seen in a Feb. 4, 2021 mugshot released by the Alexandria, Va. Detention Center.

The day after granting his first post-arrest television interview, Jacob “QAnon Shaman” Chansley found his words turned against him by federal prosecutors at a bail hearing on Friday afternoon, as a federal judge appeared taken aback that the appearance took place without his authorization.

“Can you tell me how that came about?” Senior Judge Royce Lamberth asked, pressing Chansley’s lawyer Albert Watkins on whether his law firm used “subterfuge” to skirt jailhouse restrictions.

Watkins denied any intend to end-run the court or the detention facility’s restrictions.

“It didn’t occur to me that I wouldn’t be able to capture the video image of my client in my office,” he said.

As for the claim of “subterfuge,” Watkins said: “It’s just not my style.”

The exchange happened during a Friday afternoon hearing where the same judge was considering whether Chansley should be granted pre-trial release while awaiting trial in connection with the U.S. Capitol insurrection.

Those proceedings ended without a ruling.

Since his arrest three days after the Jan. 6th siege, Chansley leaned into his image as an icon of the insurrection, wearing a coyote-fur and horned headdress, holding a pole, and standing shirtless and tattooed behind the dais where former Vice President Mike Pence was whisked out of the Senate chamber. Court papers show the note that Chansley left for Pence, a man he had called a “traitor”: “It’s only a matter of time. Justice is coming.”

Prosecutors described the pole Chansley carried as a spear that could have been used as a deadly weapon.

Watkins tried to turn that deadly image on its head by depicting his client as a man inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, a believer in the principle of nonviolence toward all living beings called ahimsa, and a supposed shaman who allegedly would not crush a bug but painted a picture of a Cheshire cat and self-published a work of fiction.

“I’m not going to tell you that it’s a great book,” Watkins said, a line that caused the judge to chuckle.

Trying to undermine prosecutors’ allegations that Chansley led a dangerous conspiratorial movement, Watkins has depicted his client as an unwitting dupe of former President Donald Trump and a disillusioned follower of ideas that he now realizes are wrong. That position took a hit as soon as Chansley declared his continuing loyalty to Trump in a 60 Minutes+ interview where he repeated his stolen-election fantasy, in a segment first aired on Thursday.

That development did not go unnoticed by prosecutors on Friday morning.

“We know how the defendant feels to this day about some of these issue because he has spoken to the press,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly Louise Paschall said during a telephone conference.

Those issues include Chansley’s belief in post-election conspiracy theories and the view that President Joe Biden’s government is illegitimate.

“We know the defendant still believes that because he told 60 Minutes as much,” Paschall added.

It was not the first time that Chansley’s major-network interview backfired in his criminal case. The government quoted his remarks to NBC News in the immediate wake of the Jan. 6th siege, enthusiastically celebrating the terror the rioters caused to Congress members.

“The fact that we had a bunch of our traitors in office hunker down, put on their gas masks and retreat into their underground bunker, I consider that a win,” Chansley told the network on Jan. 7.

Prosecutors have long characterized Chansley as the leader of QAnon, a conspiracy theory positing the existence of a sinister cabal of child-eating Democratic Satanists opposing Trump.

“Other members of this dangerous anti-government conspiracy view him as a leader also, contributing to his ability to travel off-the-grid and fund-raise rapidly through unconventional means,” a government memo states.


Chansley has cited his professed belief in shamanism in his legal defense, including a successful “emergency petition” for organic food behind bars. In early February, Judge Lamberth granted Chansley’s meal requests, even though experts of shamanism find the rioter’s claims to the faith questionable.

“Jacob Chansley’s shamanism bears scant resemblance to the real thing, although he gets high sartorial marks for headgear and ink,” Professor Michael F. Brown, the president of the Santa Fe-based School for Advanced Research and author of The Channeling Zone: American Spirituality in an Anxious Age, told Law&Crime. “Traditional shamans consume organic foods largely because that’s all they have access to. Some take hallucinogens as part of their practice, while others don’t. But traditional shamanism is closely connected to specific communities and their cultural understandings, which hardly seems to be the case for him.”

The Department of Corrections told the judge that there was little support for the proposition that shamanism would require a diet of wild caught tuna, vegetables, and soup, and a federal magistrate judge in Arizona appeared reluctant to grant an order absent more information. But Judge Lamberth overruled that decision, finding that religiously appropriate meals were constitutionally required where a defendant expresses a sincere belief.

The ruling led to Chansley’s subsequent transfer to a federal detention center in Alexandria, Va., which previously housed the likes of Trump’s ex-campaign chair Paul Manafort and Soviet spy Aldrich Ames.

Listen to an extended interview with Chansley’s attorney Al Watkins in the podcast below: (at the link)

https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-sie ... backfires/

by ponchi101 At the very best, he should not get prison but an asylum. At worst, yes, some time at a medium security. Let's see how long his shamanistic a*****e can take it.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by JazzNU

by JazzNU I don't think this means what he thinks it means or sounds as good as he thinks it sounds. Or he does understand, and doesn't care even a little bit any more.



by ti-amie I wonder what they have on Lindsey.

by ti-amie


by the Moz
ti-amie wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:40 am I wonder what they have on Lindsey.
Closet-case :?: :?:

by ponchi101 Devil's advocate. We have spoken again and again about what they have on Lindsey, as if he were some sort of hostage to a video of him in an Auschwitz-based orgy, playing an SS officer to several young men in prisoners' garbs. What if there is no such thing? What if he simply, really wants to stand next to Tiny because it is politically convenient? Yes, he said everything he said and that is a fact, but that was before Tiny took over the entire GOP. Could we be playing the same game as with Melania, thinking she is a prisoner in an unhappy marriage, when she has given every indication she is totally involved in the game?
What if Lindsey simply made the equation and realizes that he won re-election because he stood with Tiny, and therefore, will remain there?

by Suliso Graham is almost certainly a gay, but would that still kill him politically in South Carolina? I can't judge...

by JazzNU Definitely, he's in the Bible Belt and the country is sadly, not that far along. By all accounts, the GOP has gone backwards, there were more GOP votes several years ago in support of gay rights, than there were for the most recent vote. Those of us who don't like him are largely the ones who don't care if he's gay. His supporters with their sacred Christian beliefs, are the ones who will clutch their pearls at this.

And they have more on him than just that revelation that makes it more sordid. If what's rumored came out, he'd likely resign in shame (even though it's truly not that shameful, embarrassing sure, but not shameful). When he was starting to waver a bit ago in his support, the leaks were everywhere on social media so we learned the gist of it. He was brought to heel by those leaks as intended, and rumors of it finally leaking disappeared and if you missed it in real time, you may have missed it all together only to have seen vague references to it since.

by ponchi101 If he were to come out as gay, the only way he wins re-election is if he runs against an open atheist. That demographic is still the most despised group in America, despite being the fastest growing religious-related denomination.

by the Moz Wouldn't coming out - pardon the word - cancel everything he's worked for as a public figure and elected official?

by JazzNU Sorry guys, I'm realizing I should've posted this in the Dante thread and just forgot about that option when I was posting those.

by mmmm8
Suliso wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 3:25 pm Graham is almost certainly a gay, but would that still kill him politically in South Carolina? I can't judge...
Just a point of English usage semantics - you don't want to say "a gay" as a noun in this example, it sounds slightly discriminatory (towards gay people, not Graham). Preferable to write "gay" (without the a article) or "a gay person/man"

by Suliso Oh, I didn't know an article could change a meaning so much. :)

by ti-amie The way the person walks has always made me think this is a woman. The video is at the link.

FBI releases new video of RNC, DNC pipe-bomb suspect

By
Matt Zapotosky
March 9, 2021 at 6:21 p.m. EST

The FBI on Tuesday released new video footage of a person suspected of placing pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic national committees the night before the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, asking for the public’s help in identifying the elusive figure.

The new footage depicts the suspect, wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt and a mask, in four separate clips. The FBI said it was offering a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the suspect’s location, arrest and conviction.

“These pipe bombs were viable devices that could have been detonated, resulting in serious injury or death,” Steven M. D’Antuono, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office, said in a statement. “We need the public’s help to identify the individual responsible for placing these pipe bombs to ensure they will not harm themselves or anyone else.”

The FBI had in late January released pictures and information about the person placing the pipe bombs, including of fairly distinctive black and light gray Nike Air Max Speed Turf shoes with a yellow logo that investigators believe the person wore. Their releasing more video suggests agents might be particularly vexed to identify the person responsible.

While the person’s face is not visible in any of the new clips, the bureau asked those who watch it to take note of the suspect’s “gait, body language, or mannerisms.” They said the person is believed to have placed the pipe bombs between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. Jan. 5. They were not discovered until the next day, when a mob supportive of then-President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol. The bureau said the devices were composed of “1x8-inch threaded galvanized pipes, a kitchen timer, and homemade black powder.”

A little after 7:40 p.m., according to the new footage, the person can be seen meandering on South Capitol Street, holding a backpack, as someone walking a dog passes by. At 7:52 p.m., the person can be seen at the corner of Canal Street SE and South Capitol Street SE, near the DNC, sitting on a park bench and appearing to reach into a backpack before getting up to walk away. At 8:14 p.m., the person can be seen walking in an alley between the RNC and the Capitol Hill Club holding a backpack. Then the person can be seen walking in front of the club and appearing to stretch.

“We are asking the public to come forward with any information that could assist us, including any odd or out-of-character behavior you noticed in a family member, friend, or co-worker, leading up to or after January 5th,” the bureau said in a statement. “On the evening of January 5th, we are asking for information about an individual who you may have observed matching this description in the vicinity of North Carolina Avenue SE, and Folger Park between 6:30 p.m. and 9 p.m.”

The bureau also said the person “may have entered a vehicle or taken an item from a vehicle and placed it into the backpack.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ium=social

by ti-amie

by mmmm8
ti-amie wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 6:49 pm The way the person walks has always made me think this is a woman. The video is at the link.

It looks that way to me too

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie Two arrested in assault on police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died after Jan. 6 Capitol riot

Image
A sign just outside the Rotunda memorializes U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, 42. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

By
Spencer S. Hsu and Peter Hermann
March 15, 2021 at 12:14 p.m. EDT

Federal authorities have arrested and charged two men with assaulting U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick with an unknown chemical spray during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot but have not determined whether the exposure caused his death.

Julian Elie Khater, 32, of Pennsylvania and George Pierre Tanios, 39 of Morgantown, W.Va., were arrested Sunday and were expected to appear in federal court Monday.

“Give me that bear sh--,” Khater allegedly said to Tanios on video recorded at 2:14 p.m. at the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol, where Sicknick and other officers were standing guard behind metal bicycle racks, arrest papers say.

About nine minutes later, after Khater said he had been sprayed with something, Khater is seen on video discharging a canister of a toxic substance into the face of Sicknick and two other officers, arrest papers allege.

Khater and Tanios are charged with nine counts, including assaulting three officers with a deadly weapon — Sicknick, another U.S. Capitol Police officer identified as C. Edwards and a D.C. police officer identified as B. Chapman. They are also charged with civil disorder and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The charges are punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Prosecutors filed charges after tipsters contacted the FBI allegedly identifying Khater and Tanios from wanted images released by the bureau from surveillance video and officer-worn body-camera footage, the complaint said. It said that the men grew up together in New Jersey, that Khater had worked in State College, Pa., and that Tanios owns a business in Morgantown.

Tanios’s sister, Maria Boutros, a real estate agent in New Jersey, said when reached by phone Monday that her brother “was arrested for something he didn’t do. He didn’t do it. He would never do that.”

Khater was arrested Sunday in Newark, according to an unsealed arrest warrant signed by U.S. Magistrate Zia Faruqui on March 6. Family for Khater could not be immediately reached.

They are among more than 300 who have been charged in what the government has called the “Capitol Attack.” With at least 100 more expected to be charged in the event, prosecutors have said it will probably be one of the largest investigations and prosecutions in American history.

Questions remain about whether anyone will be held criminally responsible in Sicknick’s death. Autopsy results for Sicknick were still pending as of Monday, according to a spokeswoman for the deputy mayor of public safety in D.C. Without a cause of death, his case has not been established as a homicide, although charging papers allege that evidence of an assault on Sicknick is clear on video.

An FBI agent alleged in charging papers that publicly available video showed that after Khater asked for the bear spray, Tanios replied: “Hold on, hold on, not yet, not yet . . . it’s still early.” The agent said the exchange showed that the two allegedly were “working in concert and had a plan to use the toxic spray against law enforcement.”

The agent asserted that the men “appeared to time the deployment of chemical substances to coincide with other rioters’ efforts to forcibly remove the bike rack barriers that were preventing the rioters from moving closer to the Capitol building,” using their hands, ropes and straps.

All three officers were temporarily blinded and incapacitated for more than 20 minutes “as a result of being sprayed in the face with an unknown substance by Khater,” and Edwards sustained scarring beneath her eyes for several weeks, charging papers said.

Charging papers include a photograph that the FBI agent said allegedly shows Khater “holding a white can with a black top that appears to be a can of chemical spray.” It adds that the officers reported the substance to be “as strong as, if not stronger than, any version of pepper spray they had been exposed to” in their police training.

Sicknick died at a hospital about 9:30 p.m. Jan. 7, one day after the Capitol riot. Authorities have said that 139 police officers were assaulted by Trump supporters wielding sledgehammers, baseball bats, hockey sticks, crutches and flagpoles. At least 800 people entered the Capitol after a smaller number forced entry, police have testified, seeking to block Congress from confirming the November presidential election victory of Joe Biden.

In early February, Sicknick, 42, who grew up in South River, N.J., became the third officer in history to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, where fellow officers, lawmakers and President Biden and first lady Jill Biden came to pay respects to the 13-year Capitol Police veteran and former New Jersey Air National Guard member.

Authorities have included Sicknick among five people who died as a result of the riot. The four others were civilians — Ashli Babbitt, 35, who was shot by an officer, and three others who died in the chaos.

Referring to Sicknick, a House-passed article of impeachment charged Trump with inciting insurrection, alleging that members of a crowd he addressed “injured and killed law enforcement personnel.” Trump was acquitted after 57 senators voted to convict him for inciting the attack, 10 short of the two-thirds majority needed.

Then-acting U.S. attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen said in a statement shortly afterward that Sicknick died of “the injuries he suffered defending the U.S. Capitol,” echoing a statement by Capitol Police.

The Capitol Police said that Sicknick “was injured while physically engaging with protesters” and collapsed after he returned to his office following the riot.

It remains unclear what role if any the charged assault played in Sicknick’s death. Investigators determined that he did not die of blunt force trauma, people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. After more than two months, no toxicology results have been made public.

The case remains a top priority for investigators — including the FBI, Capitol Police and D.C. police, which handles all deaths in the District — with Rosen saying authorities would “spare no resources in investigating and holding accountable those responsible.”

The day after Sicknick died, his family issued a statement noting “many details regarding Wednesday’s events and the direct causes of Brian’s injuries remain unknown and our family asks the public and the press to respect our wishes in not making Brian’s passing a political issue.”

That statement was in part an attempt to quell rumors circulating on social media that purported to show videos of attacks on Sicknick, and possible suspects.

The family added, “Brian is a hero and that is what we would like people to remember.”

Sicknick’s family has not spoken publicly, and their spokeswoman said in February they decided against conducting interviews.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) paid tribute to Sicknick on the Senate floor, saying the officer understood “that wearing that uniform, wearing that badge, that you had a sacred duty to protect this sacred space.”

The senator described Sicknick’s death as a “crime” that “demands the full attention of federal law enforcement.” He said that “when white supremacists attacked our nation’s capital, they took the life of one of our officers. They spilled his blood, they took a son away from his parents. They took a sibling away from their brothers.”

Sicknick joined the New Jersey Air National Guard in 1997 and had been assigned to the 108th Air Refueling Wing out of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. The Guard said he deployed to Saudi Arabia in 1999 and to Kyrgyzstan in 2003.

Though Sicknick supported Trump, those who encountered him said his political views did not align neatly with one political party. Messages he sent to his congressman, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), were “polite and measured,” according to the lawmaker’s spokesman. He opposed impeachment and favored gun control. He was concerned about animal cruelty and the national debt.

During the ceremony honoring Sicknick at the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) described him as a “peacekeeper, not only in duty but in spirit.”

Julie Tate, Alice Crites and Emily Davies contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

by ti-amie

by the Moz
ti-amie wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:48 am
This whole exchange needs to be spun a la Seinfeld 'yada yada yada' :lol:

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie The prosecutions are continuing re 1/6. Here's a brief summary of some of them.











by ti-amie

by ti-amie Alan Feuer @alanfeuer

Just noticing that in a new detention memo filed today, prosecutors say that former Special Forces operator Jeffrey McKellop, who's been charged w/multiple assaults against cops at the Capitol, deployed as recently as 2018 as a contractor for CIA.

Image

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by JazzNU As a counterpoint, understand that plenty of these insurrectionists who are out walking the streets awaiting their trials are getting special treatment that many others do not get in even non-violent cases



by ti-amie

by ti-amie




by ti-amie These people...


by dryrunguy They're not people. They're parasites.

by ponchi101 I hope that the judge slaps them with contempt of court. Proposing that is insulting.

by ti-amie







Evan Hill @evanchill
Washington’s medical examiner hasn’t released Sicknick’s autopsy or cause of death. Michael R. Sherwin, former acting U.S. attorney, told @60Minutes on Sunday that if evidence connected the chemicals sprayed at Sicknick with his death, “that's a murder case.”

by ti-amie It was never about the wall. It was always about the grift.


by ti-amie Half a million people have died in this country. This belongs here.

Feuds, fibs and finger-pointing: Trump officials say coronavirus response was worse than known
'That’s what bothers me every day’: Birx and others admit failures that hampered the White House response

By
Dan Diamond
March 29, 2021 at 8:09 a.m. EDT

Add to list
Several top doctors in the Trump administration offered their most pointed and direct criticism of the government response to the coronavirus last year, with one of them arguing that hundreds of thousands of covid-19 deaths could have been prevented.

They also admitted their own missteps as part of a CNN special that aired Sunday night, saying that some Trump administration statements the White House fiercely defended last year were misleading or outright falsehoods.

“When we said there were millions of tests available, there weren’t, right?” said Brett Giroir, who served as the nation’s coronavirus testing czar, referencing the administration’s repeated claims in March 2020 that anyone who sought a coronavirus test could get one. “There were components of the test available, but not the full meal deal.”

“People really believed in the White House that testing was driving cases, rather than testing was a way for us to stop cases,” said Deborah Birx, who served as White House coronavirus coordinator. Birx also said that most of the virus-related deaths in the United States after the first 100,000 in the spring surge could have been prevented with a more robust response. “That’s what bothers me every day,” she said.

CNN’s special with Giroir, Birx and four other senior physicians was pitched as a tell-all with former Trump officials, who are increasingly speaking out about what went wrong after more than 400,000 people in the United States died with the virus during the Trump administration. An additional 130,000-plus have died of covid-19 since President Biden’s inauguration, according to data compiled by The Washington Post

But the finger-pointing and portrayals of some episodes prompted critics to say that former Trump administration officials who managed the pandemic response have turned to a new project: managing their legacies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... -response/

There's a lot more but I remember Birx saying this.


by ponchi101 Anybody talking about Tiny's "great capacity" to analyze data is delusional or flat out lying. This woman, and this entire group of people, acted cowardly, thinking more about keeping a job than helping the USA. Nobody stood up and said "The president is lying and knows nothing about what is going on".
Which, had they said so, would have meant enough financial windfall for them to not have to think "Oh, I am going to lose my job".
Coward sycophants.

by dryrunguy I hereby request the elimination of the word "falsehoods" from the media's collective vocabulary. They are lies. Just call them lies. Another plus--"lies" is 6 fewer characters for your character-limited Twitter posts. It's a win/win the whole way around.

by ti-amie


by ponchi101 Amazing how white, privileged people's health deteriorates in prison.
Minorities? Nah, they come out stronger. Keep them there.
(Hope I a am making myself clear).

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie
Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.

It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help.

What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud.

“It felt,” Russell said, “like it was a scam.”

But what the Blatts believed was duplicity was actually an intentional scheme to boost revenues by the Trump campaign and the for-profit company that processed its online donations, WinRed. Facing a cash crunch and getting badly outspent by the Democrats, the campaign had begun last September to set up recurring donations by default for online donors, for every week until the election.

Contributors had to wade through a fine-print disclaimer and manually uncheck a box to opt out.

As the election neared, the Trump team made that disclaimer increasingly opaque, an investigation by The New York Times showed. It introduced a second prechecked box, known internally as a “money bomb,” that doubled a person’s contribution. Eventually its solicitations featured lines of text in bold and capital letters that overwhelmed the opt-out language.

The tactic ensnared scores of unsuspecting Trump loyalists — retirees, military veterans, nurses and even experienced political operatives. Soon, banks and credit card companies were inundated with fraud complaints from the president’s own supporters about donations they had not intended to make, sometimes for thousands of dollars.

by ti-amie More from the NYT article.The grit never ends.
The sheer magnitude of the money involved is staggering for politics. In the final two and a half months of 2020, the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and their shared accounts issued more than 530,000 refunds worth $64.3 million to online donors. All campaigns make refunds for various reasons, including to people who give more than the legal limit. But the sum the Trump operation refunded dwarfed that of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign and his equivalent Democratic committees, which made 37,000 online refunds totaling $5.6 million in that time.

The recurring donations swelled Mr. Trump’s treasury in September and October, just as his finances were deteriorating. He was then able to use tens of millions of dollars he raised after the election, under the guise of fighting his unfounded fraud claims, to help cover the refunds he owed.

In effect, the money that Mr. Trump eventually had to refund amounted to an interest-free loan from unwitting supporters at the most important juncture of the 2020 race.

(...)

Political strategists, digital operatives and campaign finance experts said they could not recall ever seeing refunds at such a scale. Mr. Trump, the R.N.C. and their shared accounts refunded far more money to online donors in the last election cycle than every federal Democratic candidate and committee in the country combined.

Over all, the Trump operation refunded 10.7 percent of the money it raised on WinRed in 2020; the Biden operation’s refund rate on ActBlue, the parallel Democratic online donation-processing platform, was 2.2 percent, federal records show.

by ti-amie Oh, and when they weren't stealing people's money they were doing this:

How the Trump Campaign’s Mobile App Is Collecting Huge Amounts of Voter Data

By Sue Halpern

https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign ... voter-data

by ti-amie

She's a wedding planner. Who knows what she thought the Hatch Act was?

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie




by ponchi101 For the 1000th time: you donated to Tiny and he fleeced you? Man, am I NOT sorry for you.
What was it that somebody posted in TAT1.0 about the person that had his face eaten while supporting the face-eating tigers movement? Or something like that.

by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:52 pm

None! And these supporters that they get this way are not the wealthier donors. They're not destitue, but this is a Walmart trying to save crowd, not a Whole Foods/Whole Paycheck one. Just shameful how they prey on them. Yes, they are fools for falling for it, but still, it's just a stunning level of DGAF about their loyal followers.

by mmmm8 The other issue is that this is the CONGRESSIONAL committee, they are raising for Congressional races, really nothing to do with Trump. So, there is another level of scamming here.

by ti-amie

by JazzNU That doesn't look like nothing. I remember many saying she was a lot of hot noise and what could an ex-daughter-in-law have on him?

by ponchi101 Yet, here we are. Quite a few months into Biden's administration and nobody has slapped handcuffs on Tiny.
How protected can this guy be? And how lucky?

by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:39 am Yet, here we are. Quite a few months into Biden's administration and nobody has slapped handcuffs on Tiny.
How protected can this guy be? And how lucky?
Remember what Michael Cohen said about instructions being clear, but never clearly stated - he may be an idiot but he has years of experience with mob tactics & he convinces people to do things without having to lay out the specifics - it insulates him - plus he's rich, white, old, and idolized by a portion of the population - he'll never be arrested.

by ti-amie

by JazzNU
skatingfan wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:22 am
Remember what Michael Cohen said about instructions being clear, but never clearly stated - he may be an idiot but he has years of experience with mob tactics & he convinces people to do things without having to lay out the specifics - it insulates him - plus he's rich, white, old, and idolized by a portion of the population - he'll never be arrested.

He'll likely be arrested, and he might go to prison. Plenty of rich people do, they just typically get lighter sentences than they deserve. No one should've had the expectation that he'd be in a jail cell by now. That's completely unrealistic. He does run things like he's in the mob, though considerably dumber than most of the heads of the biggest mafia families in the country. And the way mafia heads have been caught here more often than not when it's not directly involving a violent crime, is by two laws - RICO and taxes. Both are powerful tools in bringing down mafia crime bosses because not getting your hands dirty isn't all that helpful in your defense. He's got trouble with both laws and he knows it, which is why he finally hired a real criminal defense attorney.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Indicted Gaetz Associate Is Said to Be Cooperating With Justice Dept.
Joel Greenberg, a former elected official in Florida, has been talking to federal investigators since last year about the conduct of Representative Matt Gaetz and others.

By Michael S. Schmidt and Katie Benner
April 13, 2021
Updated 7:13 p.m. ET

A former local official in Florida indicted in the Justice Department investigation that is also focused on Representative Matt Gaetz has been providing investigators with information since last year about an array of topics, including Mr. Gaetz’s activities, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Joel Greenberg, a onetime county tax collector, disclosed to investigators that he and Mr. Gaetz had encounters with women who were given cash or gifts in exchange for sex, the people said. The Justice Department is investigating the involvement of the men with multiple women who were recruited online for sex and received cash payments and whether the men had sex with a 17-year-old in violation of sex trafficking statutes, people familiar with the inquiry have said.

Mr. Greenberg, who is said to have met the women through websites that connect people who go on dates in exchange for gifts, fine dining, travel and allowances and introduced them to Mr. Gaetz, could provide investigators with firsthand accounts of their activities.

Mr. Greenberg began speaking with investigators once he realized that the government had overwhelming evidence against him and that his only path to leniency lay in cooperation, the people said. He has met several times with investigators to try to establish his trustworthiness, though the range of criminal charges against him — including fraud — could undermine his credibility as a witness.

Mr. Greenberg faces dozens of other counts including sex trafficking of a minor, stalking a political rival and corruption. He was first indicted in June. The Justice Department inquiry drew national attention in recent weeks when investigators’ focus on Mr. Gaetz, a high-profile supporter of President Donald J. Trump who knew Mr. Greenberg through Republican political circles in Florida, came to light.

Speculation about Mr. Greenberg’s cooperation began mounting last week, after his lawyer and a federal prosecutor both said in court that he was likely to plead guilty in the coming weeks. “I’m sure Matt Gaetz is not feeling very comfortable today,” Fritz Scheller, Mr. Greenberg’s lawyer, told reporters afterward.

The United States attorney’s office for the Middle District of Florida is leading the investigation, which is examining not only whether Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Gaetz and others broke sex trafficking laws but also whether Mr. Gaetz paid for women over the age of 18 to travel with him to places like the Bahamas.

A Justice Department spokesman and a lawyer for Mr. Greenberg declined to comment.

A spokesman for Mr. Gaetz said he had done nothing wrong. “Congressman Gaetz has never paid for sex,” said the spokesman, Harlan Hill, who suggested that Mr. Greenberg was “trying to ensnare innocent people in his troubles.”

Prosecutors often seek out cooperators in complex investigations where an insider’s account can help make their cases. Typically, the authorities meet with potential cooperators many times before formally agreeing to a plea deal to determine what information they have and whether they could serve as a witness against others.

Cooperators are expected to be fully forthcoming about their own and others’ criminality. If prosecutors conclude that they have lied, cooperating witnesses are likely to receive no deal and could even increase their own culpability. Those who cooperate earlier in investigations typically receive the best deals from the government because their help is seen as more critical to developing leverage against other defendants.

Mr. Greenberg faces a mandatory minimum of at least 12 years in prison: 10 years on the sex trafficking count and two on a charge of identity theft.

He is the only person who has been publicly charged in the investigation. F.B.I. agents are said to have questioned several women who had encounters with the men.

Prosecutors have portrayed Mr. Greenberg in court papers as undertaking a variety of criminal schemes, including some after he was initially charged in June. A judge sent him to jail in March for violating the terms of his bail. Those issues could undermine his credibility as a witness.

At the same time, Mr. Greenberg potentially has a deep level of knowledge that could significantly help the government.

The investigation of Mr. Gaetz could be particularly challenging for the government because he has signaled that he is determined to fight any charges, some jurors could be sympathetic to him because of his relationship with Mr. Trump, and he has hired two high-profile lawyers to defend him.

Defense lawyers, academics and some prosecutors have criticized plea agreements where defendants — particularly those like Mr. Greenberg, who faces a lengthy mandatory minimum sentence — try to prove their worth to the government in the hopes that prosecutors will ask a judge to give them a reduced sentence.

Mr. Greenberg’s own lawyer highlighted these problems in a 2010 article in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law.

“For the criminal defendant confronting the minimum mandatory sentence, cooperation (snitching against others) is his only means of avoiding the harsh penalty,” Mr. Scheller wrote.

Defense lawyers, he continued, have a duty to speak up or quit representing clients who falsely implicate others to try to help themselves.

“The system that so handsomely rewards the snitch,” Mr. Scheller wrote, “encourages the advocate to become one himself.”

Correction: April 13, 2021
An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a spokesman for Representative Matt Gaetz. He is Harlan Hill, not Geoffrey R. Johnson.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/p ... gaetz.html

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by JazzNU

by JazzNU Twitter's got jokes too






And yes, this is from the actual company account:



by Togtdyalttai Everything's polititited these days.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie U.S. prosecutors release video of rioters spraying Officer Brian Sicknick in Jan. 6 Capitol attack
By Spencer S. Hsu, Aaron C. Davis, Dalton Bennett, Joyce Sohyun Lee and Sarah Cahlan
April 29, 2021

Video footage released Wednesday of the January attack on the Capitol shows the moments when rioters appeared to spray an unknown substance at Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick, forcing him to retreat behind police lines.

Sicknick, 42, was among the vastly outnumbered officers attempting to hold back a violent crowd on the west side of the Capitol at around 2:30 p.m. Jan. 6. He died the next day of natural causes, officials said, and has been hailed as a hero.

The video has been played in federal court at hearings for men charged with assaulting Sicknick by spraying a chemical irritant. Julian Elie Khater, 32, of Pennsylvania, and George Pierre Tanios, 39, of W.Va. are charged with assault on a federal officer with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to impede or injure an officer and other related counts. Neither man is charged in Sicknick’s death, which the D.C. medical examiner’s office concluded was the result of strokes.

The videos show the moments when Sicknick was sprayed and capture him trying to wash his eyes after being hit.

Federal prosecutors released the footage after a consortium of news organizations including The Washington Post petitioned a federal judge to release the records.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... table-main

by ti-amie



Great eyebrows though.

by ti-amie

by JazzNU You know these a-holes getting picked up now have been acting mighty confident in recent months assuming they were in the clear.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

To be clear, the new charges refer to those leveled in her most recent superseding indictment from late March.

by ponchi101 Has she already showed up at court in the mandatory wheelchair, the oxygen bottle dangling from the side?
I am not totally joking. All these people always do the "I can't go to prison due to my poor health" stint sooner or later, so I wonder if she has already claimed some variation of that theme. Because it looks like she either better have some beans to spill on some very high-positioned people or her OITNB decade is near.

by ti-amie She already punched herself in the face so...

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie Lots of people pretending lots of things. What does he have on all of these people?




by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 12:31 am Lots of people pretending lots of things. What does he have on all of these people?

...
Exactly. One thing is for politicians to make the calculation that standing with him implies certain number of votes. But to go to this extreme position, in which you are saying complete idiocies, is truly puzzling.
Could it be that there are many, many peepee tapes from all these people? That he has something on Graham is by now almost an inevitable conclusion, but the rest?

by ti-amie There are conspiracy theorists of the left and the right. I read something the other day about the motive behind Gaetz walking the floor of the House showing pornographic pics to members. The person implied that what he was doing was asking "hey, wanna play?" There's a name for that but I forget.
Anyway depending on your reaction you were ensnared.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie





by ti-amie We used to have a separate thread for Mueller - related topics but I like keeping things compact the way Ponchi has set this board up.




by ponchi101 In a no-win scenario, go for the moral decision.
Be transparent. The other case makes you lose twice.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie




by ti-amie


by ti-amie This Arizona "audit"

Jeremy Duda
@jeremyduda
·
22h

.@jacksellers opens BOS meeting with sharp words for @FannKfann and her audit, which he called “a grift disguised as an audit”
Sellers: “This board is done explaining anything to these people.”

Sellers says the “the ninjas” can’t find the allegedly deleted filed “because they don’t know what they’re doing.”

Count recorder @stephen_richer says county doesn’t have Dominion passwords because they’re not needed to run elections, just like you can run Windows on your PC without the source code

Richer: Dominion gave passwords to auditors hired by county, only gives passwords to accredited companies, which isn’t Cyber Ninjas
Richer: “No files from the 2020 election have been deleted.”

Richer says he asked @FannKfann about @ArizonaAudit tweet accusing county of deleting files, and she said she has no control over the account. “This is not how a principal-agent relationship works,” Richer says.

Richer says Cyber Ninjas CEO Doug Logan doesn’t know what he’s doing or understand elections, and “has indulged even the craziest election conspiracy theories.”

.@billgatesaz: it would’ve been easy for the GOP-controlled board to turn over machines, ballots, but they had legal concerns so they went to court. Wasn’t enough for Senate. “There were multiple members of the Senate who wanted to see us behind bars.”

Gates says supervisors won’t go to Senate tomorrow to take part in “political theater broadcast by @OANN.”

“The Arizona Senate is better than that. ... We’re not going to be a part of that.”

.@Steve_Gallardo: “Unfortunately Karen Fann has allowed this to happen,” says Fann comments on audit Twitter account show “failed leadership”
Gallardo says he hopes other members of the Senate ask Fann to put an end to the audit

Gallardo says “outside forces” have taken control of Senate and “President Fann does not have the political courage, the wisdom to stop it.”
.@Steve_Chucri: “There was doubt cast (on the election), so I supported the audit. What I didn’t support was a mockery, and that’s what this has become.”

In their response letter to Fann, all five supervisors plus @stephen_richer and @Penzone4sheriff call for an end to the audit. “You certainly must recognize that things are not going well at the Coliseum.”

They also say the contractors don’t know what they’re doing, don’t understand the laws, procedures and best practices for elections. “It is inevitable that they will arrive at questionable conclusions.”

Clint Hickman says audit shouldn’t Be making allegations by tweet. Do a proper investigation and send us a report, he says, “and we will answer in court.”

Sellers ends meeting by saying he’s done responding to Senate questions about this “sham audit,” says they need to finish their report and prepare to defend it in court

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1394 ... 20000.html

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

Just your average tourist...

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Again and again, the position of the GOP is always the same: "if it doesn't, or didn't, affect me, it means it is/was menial".
They are truly incredible in that aspect. The level of psychopathy is always extreme.

by ti-amie

Interesting take from Joan Walsh


by ti-amie House passes bill to create commission to investigate Jan. 6 attack on Capitol, but its chances in the Senate are dim
By
Mike DeBonis, Jacqueline Alemany and Colby Itkowitz

May 19, 2021 at 2:05 p.m. EDT

Republican leaders are trying to sink legislation establishing an independent commission on the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that would likely scrutinize former president Donald Trump’s role in the riot and his conversations with Republican lawmakers that day.

The bill passed the House on a 252 to 175 vote Wednesday with 35 Republicans supporting the measure, but it’s chances of clearing the Senate greatly dimmed after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) came out against the bill earlier in the day.

He said he opposes the legislation because it is a “slanted and unbalanced proposal” a day after he said his members were open to voting for the plan but needed a chance to read the “fine print.”

In between those comments, Trump released a statement Tuesday evening slamming the bill and decrying it as a “Democrat trap” while urging McConnell and other GOP leaders to start “listening.”

(...)

The attempts to undermine support for the commission by McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are the latest evidence of the party’s continued loyalty to Trump and the fear among its leaders that crossing him will imperil their positions and the GOP’s efforts to win back both houses of Congress next year.

(...)

The legislation is modeled on the commission created to examine the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and it’s two leaders, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, came out in support of the bill on Wednesday.

“The January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was one of the darkest days in the history of our country. Americans deserve an objective and an accurate account of what happened,” they said in a statement.

The proposal also received support from the family of U.S. Capitol Police officer Howard Liebengood, who died by suicide days after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol.

In recent weeks, some House Republicans have downplayed the events of Jan. 6, with one lawmaker suggesting images from inside the Capitol resembled a normal tourist visit and another questioning how anyone could be sure the rioters were Trump supporters.

But videos from that day show an angry mob, many clad in Trump’s signature Make America Great Again gear, waving Trump flags, violently beating and dragging police officers as they breached security barriers, climbed through broken windows and entered the Capitol.

They marched through the halls chanting, “Hang, Mike Pence” and “Where’s Nancy?” as they pounded on the door of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), terrorizing her staffers.

The assault on the Capitol resulted in the deaths of five people and 140 police officers were injured, many severely, including one who lost an eye.

The House vote exposed tension among House Republicans over how to respond to Jan. 6.

Last Friday, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the panel’s top Republican, Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.), announced they had a deal on commission legislation.

McCarthy quickly distanced himself from that agreement, raising questions about why he empowered Katko, who voted to impeach Trump, to strike a deal if he wasn’t going to support it in the end.

“Thanks for not throwing me under the bus, Kevin,” Katko said sarcastically during a private GOP meeting Tuesday, according to a Republican aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private discussion.

“There may have been a miscommunication,” Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who opposed the bill, said about the situation between Katko and McCarthy. “Clearly something went awry.”

Katko defended the legislation during the floor debate Wednesday and urged colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support the proposal, which he noted is similar to a bill introduced earlier this year by Republicans.


“I encourage all members, Republicans and Democrats alike, to put down their swords for once, just for once, and support this bill,” he said.

Despite the overwhelming opposition to the bill among House Republicans, only four spoke against it during the debate.

(...)

Democrats and some Republicans have noted that McCarthy, who did not speak during floor debate on the bill, is urging a no vote on legislation that would create a commission that would likely call him to testify because he spoke to Trump that day, pleading with him to publicly call on the mob to leave the Capitol.

“He absolutely should,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said during a recent interview with ABC News. “And I wouldn’t be surprised if he were subpoenaed. I think that he very clearly … said publicly that he’s got information about the president’s state of mind that day.”


(...)

The House bill envisions that the commission would not only look at the security of the Capitol but also “the influencing factors that fomented such attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process” and make recommendations for action. It could, for instance, seek to find out what role Trump played in encouraging the attack, as well as his response once it was taking place — something that co

Meagan Flynn and Marianna Sotomayor contributed to this story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

by ponchi101 How long before the GOP starts wearing some sort of special clothing or uniforms to denote their position as a cult? Long robes, or brown shirts, or some other item to make it clear they are no longer a political party?
Some comedian must have said it already: they will block the creation of this committee, like innocent people always do.

by dryrunguy Please forgive me if that was already posted elsewhere. If so, I missed it. But yeah, this happened. Contains profanity and offensive terminology.

::

“They’re All F***ing Short-Bus People”: Capitol Riot Attorney Manages to Insult At Least Three Different Groups While Defending 1/6 Actions

Generally speaking, when a person is charged with a crime, they hire an attorney who they hope will strenuously defend them, probably not stopping to even entertain the idea that said attorney have a chat with a reporter and manage to insult millions of people in the process. And while it’s not clear if that’s the approach Jacob Chansley—a.k.a. the “QAnon Shaman,“ a.k.a. the shirtless guy who stormed the Capitol on January 6 wearing face paint and a furry hat with horns—took when assembling his legal team, in the future, he should probably plan to ask any potential lawyers, “You’re not going to use the phrase ‘(expletive) retarded’ while discussing my case, are you?”

Yes, that’s right. In an interview with Talking Points Memo, Chansley‘s lawyer, Albert Watkins, suggested that his client’s mental state, combined with the impact of Donald Trump’s “propaganda” efforts to convince people the election was stolen and that they should storm the Capitol, will play a part in his defense. All of which sounds reasonable! Then Watkins said this: “A lot of these defendants—and I’m going to use this colloquial term, perhaps disrespectfully—but they’re all (expletive) short-bus people. These are people with brain damage, they’re (expletive) retarded, they’re on the goddamn spectrum.”

There’s a lot to unpack here, but first, let’s pause to appreciate that Watkins thinks it might be offensive to use the phrase “short bus,” but he really can‘t be sure. The Missouri–based lawyer then goes on to conflate intellectual disabilities, brain damage, and Autism, which of course are three separate things. To say nothing of the fact that there’s no evidence that any of them cause people to act violently, or try to overturn presidential elections. After offending who knows how many people, Watkins—who, incidentally, defended the St. Louis couple who pointed guns at Black Lives Matter activists—charitably added: “But they’re our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors, our coworkers—they’re part of our country. These aren’t bad people, they don’t have prior criminal history. (expletive), they were subjected to four-plus years of goddamn propaganda the likes of which the world has not seen since (expletive) Hitler.”

Obviously, it’s entirely true that Trump and his allies spent months insisting that the election had been stolen, before inviting supporters to the “Stop the Steal” rally, and all but walking them to the Capitol. But that argument is unlikely to sway a judge. “It doesn’t matter if they were answering [Trump’s] call in terms of their own guilt or innocence,” Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general, told TPM reporter Matt Shuham. “The law doesn’t recognize it as an excuse. Whatever brought them there, whatever they were spurred on to do, social media postings or whatever, they’re equally guilty under the federal statutes.” In fact, it didn’t even work to get the QAnon Shaman released from jail before his trial, despite Watkins’s efforts, TPM noted. “Even taking defendant’s claim at face value, it does not persuade the Court that defendant would not pose a danger to others if released,” Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in March. “If defendant truly believes that the only reason he participated in an assault on the U.S. Capitol was to comply with President Trump’s orders, this shows defendant’s inability (or refusal) to exercise his independent judgment and conform his behavior to the law.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05 ... Y5-XsViNus

by ponchi101 Does this idiot understand that the "THEY MADE ME DO IT" defense no longer works? And it never did?

by ti-amie These people are disgusting. Hillary was being kind when she called them deplorable.

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ponchi101 When they nail him, that will be worth some :champagne:

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie




by ponchi101 Serious question.
Are grand juries given information about WHO the potential people to go on trial are? By that I mean, why would the NY AG tell the Grand Jury that this case involves Trump, as opposed to present the case as a blank case so that people are unbiased of whom the possible charges are against? So they can focus on the evidence and the case, not who the case is against?
I hope I made myself clear.

by ti-amie

by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 1:58 pm Serious question.
Are grand juries given information about WHO the potential people to go on trial are? By that I mean, why would the NY AG tell the Grand Jury that this case involves Trump, as opposed to present the case as a blank case so that people are unbiased of whom the possible charges are against? So they can focus on the evidence and the case, not who the case is against?
I hope I made myself clear.
Once the Grand Jury was impanelled they would be told about the case(s) they were going to be hearing evidence for, otherwise it would be difficult to present evidence without identifying the accused.

by ponchi101 Can they say "Individual #1, #2, etc"? My point being that Tiny is so polarizing that some people will simply shut down logic, one way or another, simply because he is involved.

by ti-amie OMG I've been trying to remember how it works for non Federal Grand Juries since this morning. I've served on two Grand Jury panels. I don't think you're given names for non Federal Grand Juries. You're given descriptions based on clothing, etc. If the accused chooses to testify before the Grand Jury I don't think names are given either.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Is Sinema the sole DINO in the Senate, as opposed to the RINO's?

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 7:54 pm Is Sinema the sole DINO in the Senate, as opposed to the RINO's?
Manchin is giving her a run for her money. Then again he is a Democrat from West Virginia I've always thought that he has to do what he does.

by ti-amie




by ti-amie

by Jeff from TX
ti-amie wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 9:19 pm
ponchi101 wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 7:54 pm Is Sinema the sole DINO in the Senate, as opposed to the RINO's?
Manchin is giving her a run for her money. Then again he is a Democrat from West Virginia I've always thought that he has to do what he does.
Arizona is no liberal hotbed. It is trending purple, but it ain't blue yet. She is trying to walk a fine line. I do think she could be more progressive in her voting, but she has supported the President in the votes that come to the floor.

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie Independent Watchdog Launches Inquiry into Trump-Era Seizure of Lawmakers’ Data
Last Updated
June 11, 2021, 5:08 p.m. ET54 minutes ago

The announcement from the Justice Department’s independent inspector general followed one by Senate Democrats, who announced that they would open their own investigation into the Trump Justice Department’s decision to go after records associated with Congress.

The Justice Department’s independent inspector general opened an inquiry on Friday into the Trump administration’s secret seizure of data from House Democrats and reporters as prosecutors sought to hunt down the sources of leaks of classified information.

In a statement, Michael E. Horowitz, the inspector general, announced he would review the department’s use of subpoenas and other legal maneuvers to secretly access communications records of Democratic lawmakers, aides, and at least one family member, which was first reported on Thursday by The New York Times.

Mr. Horowitz also said he will look at other recently disclosed actions to secretly seize data about reporters. The Biden Justice Department in recent weeks has disclosed that prosecutors during the Trump administration also sought and obtained phone records for journalists at The Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times and then sought to stop the information from becoming public.

“The review will examine the department’s compliance with applicable D.O.J. policies and procedures, and whether any such uses, or the investigations, were based upon improper considerations,” Mr. Horowitz said.

Hours earlier, top Senate Democrats had also announced that they would open their own investigation into the Trump Justice Department’s decision to go after records associated with Congress. They demanded public testimony from former Attorney General William P. Barr and other Justice Department officials.

“This issue should not be partisan; under the Constitution, Congress is a coequal branch of government and must be protected from an overreaching executive, and we expect that our Republican colleagues will join us in getting to the bottom of this serious matter,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, and Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

They called on Republicans to join them in demanding answers, but so far none have.

Mr. Horowitz’s announcement followed a referral by the deputy attorney general, Lisa O. Monaco, according to a senior Justice Department official; Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed Ms. Monaco to take that step, the official said. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also called for an inspector general investigation.

The two investigations came as Democrats and privacy advocates decried the seizures and aggressive investigative tactics as a gross abuse of power to target another branch of government. They said the pursuit of information on some of President Donald J. Trump’s most visible political adversaries in Congress smacked of dangerous politicization.

The Times reported that as it hunted for the source of leaks about Trump associates and Russia, the Justice Department had used grand jury subpoenas to compel Apple and one other service provider to hand over data tied to at least a dozen people associated with the House Intelligence Committee beginning in 2017 and 2018. The department then secured a gag order to keep it secret.

Though leak investigations are routine, current and former officials at the Justice Department and in Congress said seizing data on lawmakers is nearly unheard-of outside of corruption investigations. The Times also reported that after an initial round of scrutiny did not turn up evidence tying the intelligence committee to the leaks, Mr. Barr objected to closing out the inquiry and helped revive it.

Investigators gained access to the records of Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the committee and now its chairman; Representative Eric Swalwell of California; committee staff aides; and family members of lawmakers and aides, including one who was a minor.

“I hope every prosecutor who was involved in this is thrown out of the department,” Mr. Swalwell said in an interview on Friday. “It crosses the line of what we do in this country.”

— Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/11 ... itics-news

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie This story is still blowing up.



Will the announcements from Google and Facebook be coming soon.

by ti-amie

I read one more post after this and just as an FYI the warning is justified.

by ti-amie

Brad Heath
@bradheath

Very FBI to go out of its way to dunk on people who thought they could evade the FBI.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Another tourist to the Capitol on 1/6


by JazzNU "Wants" is an inaccurate way to phrase this by the reporter though, this isn't a request as you can see, it's an order.



by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Court Suspends Giuliani’s Law License, Citing Trump Election Lies
The former mayor of New York, once the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, is now temporarily barred from practicing law in the state and faces disbarment.

By Nicole Hong and Ben Protess
June 24, 2021
Updated 2:05 p.m. ET

Rudolph W. Giuliani, a former top federal prosecutor, New York City mayor and lawyer to a president, faces the possibility of disbarment after a New York court ruled on Thursday that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while fighting the results of the 2020 election on behalf of Donald J. Trump.

The New York State appellate court temporarily suspended Mr. Giuliani’s law license on the recommendation of a disciplinary committee after finding he had sought to mislead judges, lawmakers and the public as he helped shepherd Mr. Trump’s legal challenge to the election results. For months, Mr. Giuliani, who served as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, had argued without merit that the vote had been rife with fraud and that voting machines had been rigged.

In its decision, the court said that Mr. Giuliani’s actions represented an “immediate threat” to the public and that he had “directly inflamed” the tensions that led to the Capitol riot in January.

“The seriousness of respondent’s uncontroverted misconduct cannot be overstated. This country is being torn apart by continued attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election and of our current president, Joseph R. Biden,” the decision read.


Mr. Giuliani now faces disciplinary proceedings and can fight the suspension. But the court said in its decision that he would be likely to face “permanent sanctions” after the proceedings conclude. A final outcome could be months away but could include disbarment.

Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers, John Leventhal and Barry Kamins, said in a statement that they were disappointed that the panel had acted before holding a hearing on the allegations.

“This is unprecedented as we believe that our client does not pose a present danger to the public interest,” they said. “We believe that once the issues are fully explored at a hearing, Mr. Giuliani will be reinstated as a valued member of the legal profession that he has served so well in his many capacities for so many years.”

Mr. Giuliani is also licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C., and the decision in New York could set off disciplinary proceedings there, although that is not automatic.

(...)

But while Mr. Giuliani repeatedly claimed he could prove widespread fraud in the election, including proving that dead people had cast ballots, he offered no evidence supporting that contention in court. He traveled the country to press his claims with lawmakers in several battleground states.

On Jan. 6, Mr. Giuliani addressed a rally by Trump supporters near the White House ahead of the certification of the Electoral College vote in Congress. Mr. Giuliani told the crowd he sought a “trial by combat.”

A short time later, hundreds of Trump supporters left the rally and swarmed the Capitol, breaking into the building and threatening lawmakers.

In Thursday’s decision, the New York court said that false statements like the ones made by Mr. Giuliani tarnished the reputation of the entire legal profession. Mr. Giuliani’s misconduct “directly inflamed” the tensions that led to the Capitol riot, the court said.

“One only has to look at the ongoing present public discord over the 2020 election, which erupted into violence, insurrection and death on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol, to understand the extent of the damage that can be done when the public is misled by false information about the elections,” the court wrote.

The court noted, for instance, that Mr. Giuliani repeatedly claimed tens of thousands of underage teenagers had voted illegally in Georgia. An audit by the Georgia Office of the Secretary of State found that no one under the age of 18 voted in the 2020 election.

Still, Mr. Giuliani continued to repeat the false claim as recently as April 27 on his radio show, the court said, after a disciplinary committee had already petitioned the court to suspend his law license.

Mr. Giuliani is also facing a defamation lawsuit. Dominion Voting Systems, an election technology company, sued Mr. Giuliani in January and accused him of spreading “a viral disinformation campaign” about the company’s machines manipulating vote tallies.

Dominion is seeking more than $1.3 billion in damages. Mr. Giuliani has called the lawsuit an “act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing.”

William K. Rashbaum, Maggie Haberman and Benjamin Weiser contributed reporting

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/nyre ... e=Homepage

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Posting what is not behind the WSJ paywall. (I'll believe it when I see it)

Trump Organization and CFO Allen Weisselberg Expected to Be Charged Thursday

By Corinne Ramey
Updated June 30, 2021 12:50 pm ET

The Manhattan district attorney’s first charges in three-year probe will focus on alleged tax-related crimes at former president’s company

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is expected to charge the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer with tax-related crimes on Thursday, people familiar with the matter said, which would mark the first criminal charges against the former president’s company since prosecutors began investigating it three years ago.

Any charges against the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg, the company’s longtime chief financial officer, would be a blow to former President Donald Trump, who has fended off multiple criminal and civil probes during and after his presidency. But the initial charges won’t implicate Mr. Trump himself, his lawyer said, falling short of an expectation built during a high-profile probe that included a battle over the former president’s tax returns that went twice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The defendants are expected to appear in court on Thursday afternoon, the people said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-orga ... 1625060765

The Trump Organization and Mr. Weisselberg are expected to face charges related to allegedly evading taxes on fringe benefits, the people said. For months, the Manhattan district attorney’s office and New York state attorney general’s office have been investigating whether Mr. Weisselberg and other employees illegally avoided paying taxes on perks—such as cars, apartments and private-school tuition—that they received from the Trump Organization.

A sole focus on fringe benefits would be unusual, former prosecutors said. It is rare to charge an individual or company for failure to pay taxes on employee benefits alone, although such charges are used as part of larger cases.

by ti-amie

by dryrunguy So yet another subordinate will, at best, take the sword for Trump, because that's what they do. But Trump himself remains unscathed. And for 35-40% of the U.S. population, this is just another witch hunt...

by JazzNU By all accounts, it's not a small number, it's in the millions. That daughter-in-law who people were questioning what in the world she could know, had the records for the $500k in tuition paid for with Trump Org checks for her kids. And that's just one instance.

These charges are meant as a squeeze play. If charges against him don't get him to cooperate, the assumption has been charges will be brought against his son. Are both he and his son willing to go to jail for the Chief Insurrectionist? We'll see. Many who personally know him have said he'll roll at that point.

by ti-amie
JazzNU wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 8:14 pm By all accounts, it's not a small number, it's in the millions. That daughter-in-law who people were questioning what in the world she could know, had the records for the $500k in tuition paid for with Trump Org checks for her kids. And that's just one instance.

These charges are meant as a squeeze play. If charges against him don't get him to cooperate, the assumption has been charges will be brought against his son. Are both he and his son willing to go to jail for the Chief Insurrectionist? We'll see. Many who personally know him have said he'll roll at that point.
Him being Weisselberg right?

by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 8:20 pm
Him being Weisselberg right?
Sorry, yes. Weiseelberg is the one they are trying to squeeze, the one whose daughter-in-law provided info on, and the one whose son is next in the firing squad line if he doesn't flip and provide evidence on Drumpf.

by dryrunguy I never know where to put these things. But here is a new NY Times video that chronicles the events of January 6. It is 40 minutes long but worth the watch.

It is beyond alarming. We've seen bits and pieces before, but this is... no words.


by JazzNU Thanks for posting @dry.

by ti-amie N.Y. grand jury said to return criminal indictments against Trump’s company and its CFO, the first from prosecutors probing the former president’s business dealings

By
Shayna Jacobs, Josh Dawsey, David A. Fahrenthold and Jonathan O'Connell

June 30, 2021 at 7:59 p.m. EDT

NEW YORK — A grand jury in Manhattan filed criminal indictments Wednesday against former president Donald Trump's company and its longtime chief financial officer, according to two people familiar with the indictments.

The indictments against the Trump Organization and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg, will remain sealed until Thursday afternoon, leaving the specific charges against them unclear. Earlier Wednesday, people familiar with the case said the charges were related to allegations of unpaid taxes on benefits for Trump Organization executives.

Weisselberg is expected to surrender Thursday morning at the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. (D), two people familiar with the plan said. He is expected to be arraigned later in the day in front of a state court judge. The Trump Organization will also be arraigned, represented in court by one of its attorneys.


The criminal charges against the Trump Organization and Weisselberg are the first to result from the investigations by Vance and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) and represent a dramatic turn in the long-running probes.

Attorneys for both the Trump Organization and Weisselberg declined to comment Wednesday.

Spokespeople for Vance and James — who teamed up to investigate Trump’s business dealings this year after years of working on separate tracks — also declined to comment.

Vance did not respond to a question from a reporter as he left his office Wednesday afternoon. The people familiar with the indictments spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose private actions.

Trump himself is not expected to be charged this week, the people said, and no others in his orbit are expected to face imminent charges. But the indictments could mark a significant escalation in his legal problems — both by exposing his company to potential fines and by raising the pressure on Weisselberg. Prosecutors hope Weisselberg will offer testimony against Trump in exchange for lessening his own risk, according to another person familiar with the case.

Weisselberg, who has worked for Trump since the 1980s, is considered the most important figure in the Trump Organization who is not related to Trump. He has been involved in even minor financial transactions, including coordinating Trump’s personal gifts to charity.

The Washington Post has previously reported that Weisselberg was a key figure in the investigations by Vance and James. Both are trying to determine whether Trump broke the law by misleading lenders or taxing authorities, or by evading taxes on forgiven debts or fringe benefits for employees, according to court papers and people familiar with the cases.

In recent months, both sets of investigators have spoken to Jennifer Weisselberg, the CFO’s former daughter-in-law, who said that Weisselberg’s son Barry had been given a free apartment and a hefty salary while he worked at the Trump Organization’s Central Park ice rink.

The twin, and now merged, investigations of Trump’s company appear to be the longest-lasting and widest-ranging probes ever undertaken into the Trump Organization.

Both investigations appear to have been set in motion by an unlikely figure: Michael Cohen, who spent years as Trump’s attorney and aggressive defender. But Cohen turned on Trump in 2018 after pleading guilty to making hush-money payments during the 2016 presidential campaign to women who said they’d had affairs with Trump years before.

Vance’s office opened an investigation in 2018, responding to Cohen’s charges that Trump had directed the illegal payoffs. But Vance’s probe broadened beyond those allegations to encompass years of business transactions. Vance examined tax breaks Trump got on an estate in suburban New York, loans Trump took out on his Chicago tower, and statements Trump made to New York tax authorities about the value of his Manhattan towers, according to previous court filings.

The investigation became bogged down for much of Trump’s term, however, because of a long legal fight over his tax returns. Vance had sought them from Trump’s accountants in 2019, but Trump sued to stop him, saying that — as president — he was immune from investigation by any state-level prosecutor.

The case went to the Supreme Court twice; Trump lost both times. But Vance did not obtain Trump’s returns and other financial records — a cache including millions of pages of documents — until February 2021, after Trump had left office.

Now, the indictment sets up an unprecedented legal showdown between prosecutors in Manhattan and a powerful former president with an enduring grip on the Republican Party. Vance has said he will not seek reelection this year. That means the bulk of the case against Trump’s company could be handled by Vance’s successor.

Trump and his organization have never faced criminal charges, but he has been the target of civil lawsuits from the office of the New York attorney general. In one case, he was sued for allegedly defrauding students at Trump University. That case and others against Trump University ended with Trump paying a $25 million settlement in 2016. And in 2018, Trump was sued for misusing money in a charity he controlled, a case that resulted in a judge ordering Trump to pay $2 million in damages.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie AND there was a perp walk.


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Just a side note:


by ti-amie


Image

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Kurt Eichenwald
@kurteichenwald

As someone who has written for decades about corporate crime, I was reading the Trump O/Weisselberg indictment going, "Yah, ok..hmm..yah..ok..Wait..HOLY (expletive)!" The Trump Org is in deep, deep trouble. And not because of the criminal charges. Because of its bank loan covenants.../1

...in fact, if even the smallest bit of this case is true, I think the Trump Org could be dead. It's complicated, but it primarily pertains to the 12th count of the indictment.

Taking this a step at a time: Like most real estate companies, the Trump Org is horribly illiquid...2

...this means it cannot readily convert its assets into cash as needed. Worse, because of the incredible incompetence and business idiocy of Trump, cash on hand (and access rapid loans through what is known as the commercial paper market) is small. So, the company survives.../3

...on loans against assets. Trump originally depended on bank loans, then jumped into high-yield (junk) bond market, which is why so many of his businesses went bankrupt: Junk bonds gave him lots of cash to spend, but he was too stupid to apply an analysis beyond "I'm great".../4

...to figure out how he was going to generate enough cash to pay interest on bonds. He couldn't. With his dad, he tried laundering money through Trump Castle to get past a requirement with his bank loans brought on by his junk debt, but got caught. Everything crashed down.../5

...so, the bottom line: Trump knows how to borrow money, he doesn't know how to manage it. Then came The Apprentice, which gave him lots of cash. Of course, he spent it all, then used assets he purchased as security to borrow from banks on apparent assumption that "I'm great"...6

...would fix any cash flow problems. He now has huge amounts of debt against assets that are plummeting in value because of January 6 and his toxic brand name. He *needed* the presidency to survive financially. I have always believed, that is why he is so desperate to keep it...7

....because if he was president, he could hit up the Russians, Saudis, etc to bail him out. Now, with him toxic and a threat to the country, those nations know that any secret payments they make to him run a huge risk of being discovered.

Which brings us to today's charges...8

...all bank loans with a business come with "lending covenants." These are basically a series of requirements, some of which include "you'll behave" in minor character. But *the most important part* of any loan covenant is the "books and records" portion. It is included in.../9

...every covenant for a bank loan to a business. The terms are simple: You maintain truthful books and records, you attest to us that they are truthful, and we are allowed to review them at any time. There is no "You can lie *just a little bit* on your books and records".../10

...it's all or nothing, like pregnancy: You either are or you arent. The books and records either are truthful or they aren't. Which brings us to count 12, which I think you can now understand the significance of:

Image

...Forget Weisselberg. That is every every corporate defendant, every entity that could have a loan covenant in its name. Every Trump Org bank lender in the world, right now, is looking at this indictment, looking at their covenants, and calling the Trump Org demanding.../12

...they turn over every relevant book and record pertaining to these issues. If they refuse...BOOM. Loans pulled. If they do and the banks don't like what they see...BOOM. Loans pulled. If the loans come due (which 100s of millions do next year) no way they get refinanced..../13

...there may be something I am missing here, but I do not see how the Trump Org survives this without some sort of corrupt deal overseas. But even that seems far-fetched. Instead, it may be the biggest real estate corp bankruptcy in history..../14

......and given that those of us who covered his business for decades - back when he was a democrat/reform party/whoever would have him - and always knew he was a crook, all I can say is, what the hell took so long?
• • •

by ti-amie Trump Organization and CFO Allen Weisselberg arraigned on multiple criminal charges as prosecutors alleged a 15-year tax fraud scheme

By
Shayna Jacobs, David A. Fahrenthold, Josh Dawsey and Jonathan O'Connell

July 1, 2021|Updated today at 4:13 p.m. EDT

NEW YORK — Prosecutors charged the Trump Organization with a 15-year "scheme to defraud" the government and its chief financial officer with grand larceny and tax fraud in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday, describing what they said was a wide-ranging effort to hide income from tax authorities. .

In charging papers, prosecutors alleged that Allen Weisselberg, former president Donald Trump's longtime CFO, had avoided more than $900,000 in taxes by concealing the value of benefits he got from Trump's company — including a free apartment, free Mercedes-Benz cars, new furniture and tuition payments for his relatives.

In internal records, the Trump Organization treated these benefits as part of Weisselberg's compensation, prosecutors said. But it did not report them to taxing authorities, allowing Weisselberg and the company to avoid taxes, the documents said.

The indictment said that other, unnamed Trump Organization executives were given similar benefits. It also said that Weisselberg had orchestrated the scheme along with "others" at the company but did not name any of the others. Weisselberg was the only executive charged on Thursday.

Weisselberg, who has worked for the Trump Organization since the 1970s, pleaded not guilty during a brief arraignment hearing that began about 2:20 p.m. He walked into the courtroom in a dark suit, surrounded by detectives and court officers. He did not respond to questions from reporters in the hallway outside.

Weisselberg, 73, had surrendered at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office early Thursday, the morning after a grand jury filed indictments against him and the Trump Organization. He was released after the hearing, but he was required to surrender his passport after prosecutors said he was a "flight risk."

An attorney for the Trump Organization also pleaded not guilty on the company's behalf. Prosecutors also charged a subsidiary called Trump Payroll Corp., which handles the company's benefits and payments to employees.

In all, 15 criminal charges were filed against Weisselberg, according to a copy of the indictment obtained by The Washington Post. They included counts of conspiracy, criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records. In many of the counts, the two Trump entities were charged along with Weisselberg.

Carey Dunne, a prosecutor with the District Attorney's Office, said in the hearing that the charges were related to an "off-the-books tax fraud scheme" that lasted for 15 years. He said that the scheme allowed Trump Organization executives to get "secret pay raises" while not paying proper taxes.

"To put it bluntly, this was a sweeping and audacious illegal payment scheme," Dunne said. He rejected an allegation from the Trump Organization that the charges were part of a politically motivated effort to hurt Trump: "It's not about politics," Dunne said.

Trump Organization attorney Alan Futerfas, in comments outside the courthouse, said cases such as Thursday's are always resolved "in a civil context" — not a criminal one.

"We're all aware, all of you and all of us, are aware of the very significant financial crimes that have occurred by large financial institutions where this office did not take them on, did not prosecute, going back to the 2008 financial collapse of the United States," he said.

An attorney for Weisselberg, Mary E. Mulligan, said only that her side disputes the facts of the case. Earlier, in a statement on Weisselberg's behalf, she said he would "fight these charges."

These are the first charges to result from an investigation of Trump's company by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. (D) and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D). Both Vance and James were present in the courtroom for the arraignment, sitting one seat apart to observe social-distancing rules.

(...)

Weisselberg, who has worked for Trump since the 1980s, is considered the most important figure in the Trump Organization apart from Trump family members. The Washington Post has previously reported that Weisselberg was a key figure in the investigations by Vance and James. Both have scrutinized whether Trump misled lenders or tax authorities, or evaded taxes on forgiven debts or fringe benefits for employees, according to court papers and people familiar with the cases.

In recent months, both sets of investigators have spoken to Jennifer Weisselberg, the chief financial officer’s former daughter-in-law, who said that Weisselberg’s son Barry had been given a free apartment and a hefty salary while he worked at the Trump Organization’s Central Park ice rink. Prosecutors were looking into whether taxes were paid on the benefits, people close to the investigation said.

The now-merged investigations of Trump’s company appear to be the longest-lasting and most extensive prosecutorial examination ever undertaken of the Trump Organization.

Vance’s office opened an investigation in 2018, responding to former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s charges that Trump had directed improper payoffs during the 2016 presidential campaign to women who said they had affairs with Trump.

But Vance’s probe then broadened, encompassing years of business transactions. Vance examined tax breaks that Trump got on an estate in suburban New York, loans Trump took out on his Chicago tower, and statements Trump made to New York tax authorities about the value of his Manhattan towers, according to previous court filings.

Vance did not seek reelection this year; that means the bulk of the case against Trump’s company could be handled by Vance’s successor.

Trump and his organization have never faced criminal charges, but Trump has been the target of lawsuits from the office of the New York attorney general.

(...)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Read: Criminal indictments against the Trump Organization and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg
Updated Jul 1, 2021 at 2:41 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/ ... _manual_14

by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 6:21 pm

Image

by JazzNU

by JazzNU

by JazzNU Rent-free on Riverdale Blvd for 15 years. Like Riverdale in the Bronx? If so, that's gotta be a million tax-free right there, especially since I doubt we're talking about a studio apartment.

The two sets of books are straight out of the Mafia playbook.

by ponchi101 And yet, they don't flip. That is one thing I will grant Tiny. He has like this super power to mesmerize people to the point that they will throw themselves in front of a TGV for him.
How long is this ***hole looking at? 10 years?

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 2:41 pm And yet, they don't flip. That is one thing I will grant Tiny. He has like this super power to mesmerize people to the point that they will throw themselves in front of a TGV for him.
How long is this ***hole looking at? 10 years?
They don't want their families to come down with a case of Window Flu...

by ti-amie


by JazzNU Don Jr. posted a 13 minute video on Facebook defending his dad and Trump Org and he says stuff like, 'yeah, my dad paid for his grandkids tuition, he's a nice guy who takes care of his employees." Seriously, where are these fools' lawyers telling them to shut the hell up? I'm glad they are so dumb, just providing more and more incriminating evidence, but Hollywood can't even make this kind of stupidity up, no one would believe it.


https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/stat ... 4346425345

by ti-amie
JazzNU wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:10 pm Don Jr. posted a 13 minute video on Facebook defending his dad and Trump Org and he says stuff like, 'yeah, my dad paid for his grandkids tuition, he's a nice guy who takes care of his employees." Seriously, where are these fools' lawyers telling them to shut the hell up? I'm glad they are so dumb, just providing more and more incriminating evidence, but Hollywood can't even make this kind of stupidity up, no one would believe it.


https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/stat ... 4346425345
Legal Twitter folks were asking if his lawyers knew he was on TV. SMH

by mmmm8
JazzNU wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 2:20 pm Rent-free on Riverdale Blvd for 15 years. Like Riverdale in the Bronx? If so, that's gotta be a million tax-free right there, especially since I doubt we're talking about a studio apartment.

The two sets of books are straight out of the Mafia playbook.
It says Riverside Blvd (not Riverdale). That's a small stretch of a street in Manhattan that then becomes Riverside Dr, which is more well-known. It's a few blocks from Lincoln Center.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by JazzNU One of the first times in the last say 9 months that I've seen when someone on Political Twitter has said from (add superlative here) high level firm and it's actually accurate. We'll see if the big spend pays off, that judge wasn't playing around.

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Why 8 months? A round, solid one year would have sound so much better.
(Half joke. That sounds enough. But Jamiroquai man has to get some more, with a diet of canned beans).

by ti-amie ^^

Apparently this clown just walked around waving a flag for tfg? If thats all he did and he got 8 months what are the others going to get?

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Thomas Barrack, Trump ally who chaired inaugural committee, indicted in foreign lobbying case

By
Shayna Jacobs
,
Josh Dawsey
and
Devlin Barrett

Today at 2:53 p.m. EDT

Thomas J. Barrack, a longtime friend to former president Donald Trump and a billionaire businessman, was arrested on Tuesday for violating foreign lobbying laws, officials said Tuesday.

Barrack, whose primary residence is in Los Angeles, was taken into custody in California and indicted on foreign lobbying charges related to his dealings with the United Arab Emirates, according to an indictment filed in Brooklyn federal court.

He and two other defendants are accused of acting and conspiring to act as agents of the UAE between April 2016 and April 2018. Officials also alleged that Barrack lied to FBI agents in 2019 during an interview about his dealings with the UAE. He did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday.

A real estate titan who became wealthy buying out-of-favor assets, Barrack was one of Trump's closest associates during the campaign and in office, regularly speaking to the former president, visiting him and channeling him to others, including business officials and leaders in foreign countries.

He chaired Trump’s inaugural committee, which also faced federal investigation for its spending and activities, and at one point was considered as a candidate to become ambassador to Mexico.

Barrack joins a long list of friends, campaign associates and other Trump advisers who have faced criminal charges, including his former campaign chairman; the chief financial officer at his company; the former Trump Organization lawyer; Trump’s former White House strategist; and his former national security adviser.

Trump later pardoned some of those figures.

Barrack helped rescue Trump's business empire decades ago and was a top fundraiser for his campaign, though he declined to enter the administration. He was also a regular adviser on the Middle East, jetting through the region and talking with royalty and leaders, and sought to make Trump more interested in the topic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie This, from 2019, is the TL;dr on the Barrack stuation:
USAToday - July 29, 2019:

The Trump administration’s move to sell sensitive nuclear technology
to Saudi Arabia took shape even before the president took office and
was championed by Donald Trump’s longtime personal friend and
fundraiser, Thomas J. Barrack Jr., according to a new report released Monday by congressional Democrats.
The report details how Barrack used his personal connections to the
president and other Trump administration officials to win support for
the controversial Saudi nuclear deal – at the same time he was seeking
funding from the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates for a bid to
purchase Westinghouse Electric Company, the only U.S. manufacturer of
large-scale nuclear reactors.
Thanks to @forestfromtrees in the WaPo comments

by ti-amie

by ti-amie








by ponchi101 They have to enter a collective "insanity" plea. It could actually work, as they are truly looney.

by ti-amie Indicted Trump ally Thomas Barrack to be released on $250 million bond, must appear in New York next week

By
Shayna Jacobs
Today at 6:26 p.m. EDT

NEW YORK — A California judge on Friday set bail at $250 million for the billionaire investor and longtime friend of former president Donald Trump indicted on a charge of breaking foreign lobbying laws, ordering him to appear in federal court in New York next week.

Thomas J. Barrack, 74, who waived his court appearance for discussion of the prearranged release agreement, was expected to be freed from a jail in Los Angeles later Friday. His ex-wife Rachelle and son Thomas Barrack III were suretors on the bond.

Jonathan Grunzweig, an executive at Colony Capital, the investment firm Barrack founded, was the third person to endorse the major bond. Grunzweig is now chief investment officer for other equity and debt at DigitalBridge, which absorbed Colony Capital in 2015.

Barrack’s co-defendant, Matthew Grimes, 27, was set to be freed on a $5 million bond. Both men must wear GPS monitoring devices and were ordered to travel to New York for an afternoon proceeding on Monday in federal court in Brooklyn.

How Barrack’s alleged illegal lobbying shaped Trump’s policies in the Gulf

They were indicted on charges related to failing to register as lobbyists for the United Arab Emirates, whose government they worked for for over two years beginning when Trump campaigned for office in 2016. The pair allegedly sought to influence Trump’s campaign — and later his administration — to advance policies that were favorable to the wealthy Gulf state.

Barrack, who served as chairman of Trump’s inaugural committee, is also charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to FBI agents in 2019.

Both men were arrested Tuesday. A third defendant,
43-year-old Rashid al-Malik, had been living in California but fled the country days after the FBI interviewed him in 2018. He is a citizen of the UAE.

At the court proceeding in Los Angeles on Friday, Matthew Herrington, an attorney for Barrack, asked permission for his client to spend the night at a hotel before he returns to his Santa Monica home and prepares to leave for New York. Barrack’s legal team also asked the court to ensure his monitoring device would be issued to him on Friday — so as not to delay his release.

“We have moved great mountains to ensure that Mr. Barrack is able to get out before the weekend so he can get to New York and appear for his arraignment Monday,” Herrington said.

An attorney for Grimes did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie Excerpts from the 1/6 Hearings today(1)


by ti-amie Excerpt #2






by ti-amie Excerpt #3



The "n" slur is used below.



More


by ti-amie Excerpt #4




by ti-amie

by ponchi101 "Put your gun down and we will show you..." (I'll stop there).
Isn't that a direct threat that this police officer would have been lynched?
70 million people will vote for him in 2024. And that will still be "The Real America". Lost for words, sorry.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by JazzNU Pretty sure this hasn't been posted. Apologies if it's a repeat.



by ti-amie

by dryrunguy Statements to others, Instagram posts, Facebook posts... These January 6th fools clearly are NOT the sharpest knives in the drawers. I'm trying to think of ANY other event where the participants have been their own worst enemies from a legal standpoint (other than mass shooters).

Actually, let's play that game. Name an event, any other event (other than mass shootings), where the statements and social media posts have created more problems for the event's participants... I honestly can't think of any.

by mmmm8
dryrunguy wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:04 am Statements to others, Instagram posts, Facebook posts... These January 6th fools clearly are NOT the sharpest knives in the drawers. I'm trying to think of ANY other event where the participants have been their own worst enemies from a legal standpoint (other than mass shooters).

Actually, let's play that game. Name an event, any other event (other than mass shootings), where the statements and social media posts have created more problems for the event's participants... I honestly can't think of any.
You have to come at it from the perspective that these people think they're committing acts of patriotism rather than treason, that they're in line with political activists in Hong Kong, Belarus, Russia, etc., fighting for the right thing and boasting their activity is "brave."

by ponchi101 These two are not far behind, if not totally ahead:
Bank Robber Caught After Posting Pictures On Facebook With Stolen Cash

And this one too:
Alleged robber caught after trying to befriend his victim on Facebook

I don't think they understand that Social Media has no privacy.

by JazzNU
dryrunguy wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:04 am Statements to others, Instagram posts, Facebook posts... These January 6th fools clearly are NOT the sharpest knives in the drawers. I'm trying to think of ANY other event where the participants have been their own worst enemies from a legal standpoint (other than mass shooters).

Actually, let's play that game. Name an event, any other event (other than mass shootings), where the statements and social media posts have created more problems for the event's participants... I honestly can't think of any.

Fyre Festival will always be here to contend in a game like this.



by ti-amie

by ti-amie Congress should get Trump’s tax returns, Justice Department says

By
Devlin Barrett

While he was president, Trump successfully beat back efforts by the House Ways & Means Committee to see his tax returns, including a battle in federal court. But the new opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said the committee’s request is valid and should be fulfilled.

House Democrats had sought eight years of the president’s tax returns, and federal law gives the Ways & Means Committee broad authority to get an individual’s tax information.

The Biden Justice Department has concluded that seeking Trump’s taxes serves “a legitimate legislative purpose.”

The Justice Department said the committee “has invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former President’s tax information.” The agency sent its 39-page legal opinion to the Treasury Department, which would formally deliver Trump’s returns to the committee.

It wasn’t immediately clear if the former president would take any new legal action in court to try to block the release.

After the Justice Department released its opinion, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the Biden administration “has delivered a victory for the rule of law.”

Access to Trump’s tax returns “is a matter of national security,” the speaker said. “The American people deserve to know the facts of his troubling conflicts of interest and undermining of our security and democracy as president.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Our justice system at work. May be two parts because of five url limit.










by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie House panel investigating Jan. 6 attack seeks records from agencies on insurrection, Trump in first request for information
By John Wagner
Today at 12:00 p.m. EDT

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection issued sweeping requests Wednesday for records from the executive branch pertaining to the attack on the Capitol and President Trump’s efforts to subvert the election.

In letters demanding materials from the National Archives and seven other agencies, Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), the committee chairman, signaled an expansive investigation, touching not only on what happened on Jan. 6 but also materials that could shed light on matters such as “the former President’s knowledge of the election results and what he communicated to the American peopleabout the election.”

Thompson gave the agencies a two-week deadline to produce materials, and asked Archivist of the United States David Ferriero to use his authority under federal regulations to swiftly address the request for records from the Trump White House.

“Our Constitution provides for a peaceful transfer of power, and this investigation seeks to evaluate threats to that process, identify lessons learned and recommend laws, policies, procedures, rules, or regulations necessary to protect our republic in the future,” Thompson wrote.

The requests include information on “communications within and among the White House and Executive Branch agencies during the leadup to January 6th and on that day” as well as “attempts to place politically loyal personnel in senior positions across government after the election.”

Other agencies being asked to provide information includes the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and Justice; as well as the FBI, National Counterterrorism Center and Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The Jan. 6 committee held its first hearing last month with visceral accounts of the Trump supporters’ assault on the police officers who defended the Capitol that day and who said that the trauma and horrific attacks they sustained months ago still plagued them.

The committee is expected to hold additional public hearings after Labor Day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... story.html

by ti-amie This Twitter account gives more details. P1










by ti-amie P2










by ponchi101 The problem with this effort is that by now, in the USA, truth matters little. Even if Tiny were found to have said "let's have a coup" his followers will remain loyal.

by ti-amie I think it goes back to the Tea Party and how that was never exposed as a virtual arm of the John Birch Society. The press chose to focus on the "economic anxiety" of these mythical sages who hang out in diners in the Mid West while not looking at the Koch's and their network and what the JBS has always stood for.

By normalizing fringe right wing extremist views by continuing to report on their antics out of context a public narrative was created that continues. Lies and fantasies have become "conspiracy theories" and treated as if they're valid beliefs.

For example, TFG freed 5,000 Taliban prisoners. Today McCarthy said something to the effect of there are 5,000 Taliban prisoners headed to our shores and there was no push back, to my knowledge, from the reporters he was addressing.

This, in my opinion, is why truth doesn't matter. Add to that lack of critical thinking abilities and the desire to be led as well as dominionism and Christian Nationalism, subjects the MSM hasn't ever touched, and you end up where we are.

It's really sad.

by JazzNU Not as sure as I was before that they'll remain loyal to him since they booed him recently, but they'll remain loyal to their ideology, they might just choose a new leader if he steps too out of line with what they demand. DeSantis, for instance.

by dryrunguy We laughed hysterically about it at the time, but really, Kellyanne Conway hit the nail on the head when she muttered the words... alternative facts.

by ti-amie As long as the remaining Koch brother and others like him keep the spigot open we'll live in a world of alternative facts.

by skatingfan This was the best exposure of the Koch brothers the media ever did.


by skatingfan

by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:06 pm As long as the remaining Koch brother and others like him keep the spigot open we'll live in a world of alternative facts.
The new Koch brothers are the Wilks brothers, Dan & Farris, that fund PragerU. PragerU, if you haven't had the pleasure, is a conservative YouTube channel that puts out short videos with conservative themes that are extremely biased, poorly researched, and are allergic to fact checking. The hosts/presenters of these videos are the usual cast of characters that were familiar with from other Conservative media. I'm not going to link the YouTube channel because I don't want to give them any more clicks than they get already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU

by mmmm8 The Newsroom was really very good at being righteously educational. Too bad it was preaching to the choir.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie This guy seems nice.


by ti-amie I don't use the word "extraordinary" a lot. This is an extraordinary Twitter thread.










Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Watkins claims that Chansley was under "a great deal of familial pressure" not to take the plea because they believed Trump would be reinstated and pardon him.

"It took a lot of courage for a young man who was raised by his mother to say, 'No,'" Watkins claims.

The claim that Chansley's family wanted him to hold out for Trump to return to office and pardon her son is all the more interesting in that Watkins once proposed his pre-trial release to his mother.

The judge found she wouldn't be a good custodian. https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-sie ... -location/

by ti-amie The true believers don't understand that the former guy doesn't give two s**ts about them. I'll never understand why they think he does.

by ponchi101 It is not that he doesn't give two s**** about his supporters. He viscerally hates them, because they are "poor". As you say, baffling.

by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:49 pm It is not that he doesn't give two s**** about his supporters. He viscerally hates them, because they are "poor". As you say, baffling.
Poor, yes. But easily controlled. There's the rub.

by Oploskoffie
ti-amie wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:36 pm The true believers don't understand that the former guy doesn't give two s**ts about them. I'll never understand why they think he does.
It's an interesting area of psychology to have a good Google at and just spend some time reading some the great number of scientific articles that are out there on the subject. One reasonably recent one was in the Scientific American (Google for "People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features" and click on the PDF file located at the Fe University link if you want to read all of it). There's two paragraphs in there that illustrate to me how someone like Trump, such a vocal conspiracy theory believer, can have so many "true believers".

The first is this: "New research suggests that events happening worldwide are nurturing underlying emotions that make people more willing to believe
in conspiracies. Experiments have revealed that feelings of anxiety make people think more conspiratorially. Such feelings, along with a sense of disenfranchisement, currently grip many Americans, according to surveys. In such situations, a conspiracy theory can provide comfort by identifying a convenient scapegoat and thereby making the world seem more straightforward and controllable. “People can assume that if these bad guys
weren’t there, then everything would be fine,” Lewandowsky says. “Whereas if you don’t believe in a conspiracy theory, then you just have to say terrible things happen randomly.”

The second is this: "While humans seek solace in conspiracy theories, however, they rarely find it. “They’re appealing but not necessarily satisfying,” says Daniel Jolley, a psychologist at Staffordshire University in England. For one thing, conspiratorial thinking can incite individuals to behave in a way that increases their sense of powerlessness, making them feel even worse. A 2014 study co-authored by Jolley found that people who are presented with conspiracy theories about climate change—scientists are just chasing grant money, for instance—are less likely to plan to vote, whereas a 2017 study reported that believing in work-related conspiracies—such as the idea that managers make decisions to protect their own interests—causes individuals to feel less committed to their job. “It can snowball and become a pretty vicious, nasty cycle of inaction and negative behavior,” says Karen Douglas, a psychologist at the University of Kent in England and a co-author of the paper on work-related conspiracies."

What I see in the second paragraph is the room that someone like Trump (and those around him) has had to push the craziness, the lies and the theories ever further. The article suggests that it is, indeed, possible to "quell conspiracy ideation" by, amongst other things, encouraging analytic thinking, but how hard has it become to get through to people when political beliefs have become so much more polarized and people's personal media-intake is becoming ever more determined not only one's political beliefs, but also by how "smart" algorithms used by large online (news) media players like YouTube tend to send you down one direction to the point of completely ingoring any other point of view?

by ti-amie I am going to do the search you suggested. Thanks.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie




I think this is a woman and have thought that from the beginning but this is swerving way out of my lane.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie Full NYTimes article. Above is the TL;dr

Machine Claims Were Baseless, Memo Shows

Days before lawyers allied with Donald Trump gave a news conference promoting election conspiracy theories, his campaign had determined that many of those claims were false, court filings reveal.

By Alan Feuer
Sept. 21, 2021
Updated 4:45 p.m. ET

Two weeks after the 2020 election, a team of lawyers closely allied with Donald J. Trump held a widely watched news conference at the Republican Party’s headquarters in Washington. At the event, they laid out a bizarre conspiracy theory claiming that a voting machine company had worked with an election software firm, the financier George Soros and Venezuela to steal the presidential contest from Mr. Trump.

But there was a problem for the Trump team, according to court documents released on Monday evening.

By the time the news conference occurred on Nov. 19, Mr. Trump’s campaign had already prepared an internal memo on many of the outlandish claims about the company, Dominion Voting Systems, and the separate software company, Smartmatic. The memo had determined that those allegations were untrue.

The court papers, which were initially filed late last week as a motion in a defamation lawsuit brought against the campaign and others by a former Dominion employee, Eric Coomer, contain evidence that officials in the Trump campaign were aware early on that many of the claims against the companies were baseless.

The documents also suggest that the campaign sat on its findings about Dominion even as Sidney Powell and other lawyers attacked the company in the conservative media and ultimately filed four federal lawsuits accusing it of a vast conspiracy to rig the election against Mr. Trump.

According to emails contained in the documents, Zach Parkinson, then the campaign’s deputy director of communications, reached out to subordinates on Nov. 13 asking them to “substantiate or debunk” several matters concerning Dominion. The next day, the emails show, Mr. Parkinson received a copy of a memo cobbled together by his staff from what largely appear to be news articles and public fact-checking services.

Even though the memo was hastily assembled, it rebutted a series of allegations that Ms. Powell and others were making in public. It found:

That Dominion did not use voting technology from the software company, Smartmatic, in the 2020 election.

That Dominion had no direct ties to Venezuela or to Mr. Soros.

And that there was no evidence that Dominion’s leadership had connections to left-wing “antifa” activists, as Ms. Powell and others had claimed.

As Mr. Coomer’s lawyers wrote in their motion in the defamation suit, “The memo produced by the Trump campaign shows that, at least internally, the Trump campaign found there was no evidence to support the conspiracy theories regarding Dominion” and Mr. Coomer.


Even at the time, many political observers and voters, Democratic and Republican alike, dismissed the efforts by Ms. Powell and other pro-Trump lawyers like Rudolph W. Giuliani as a wild, last-ditch attempt to appease a defeated president in denial of his loss. But the false theories they spread quickly gained currency in the conservative media and endure nearly a year later.

It is unclear if Mr. Trump knew about or saw the memo; still, the documents suggest that his campaign’s communications staff remained silent about what it knew of the claims against Dominion at a moment when the allegations were circulating freely.

“The Trump campaign continued to allow its agents,” the motion says, “to advance debunked conspiracy theories and defame” Mr. Coomer, “apparently without providing them with their own research debunking those theories.”

Image
Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems employee, was accused of playing a role in a conspiracy to breach voting machines and reverse the 2020 election’s outcome. Credit...Bob Andres/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via Associated Press

Mr. Coomer, Dominion’s onetime director of product strategy and security, sued Ms. Powell, Mr. Giuliani, the Trump campaign and others last year in state district court in Denver. He has said that after the election, he was wrongly accused by a right-wing podcast host of hacking his company’s systems to ensure Mr. Trump’s defeat and of then telling left-wing activists that he had done so.

Soon after the host, Joe Oltmann, made these accusations, they were seized upon and amplified by Ms. Powell and Mr. Giuliani, who were part of a self-described “elite strike force” of lawyers leading the charge in challenging Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.

On Nov. 19, for example, Ms. Powell and Mr. Giuliani appeared together at the news conference at the Republican National Committee’s headquarters and placed Mr. Coomer at the center of a plot to hijack the election by hacking Dominion’s voting machines. By Ms. Powell’s account that day, the conspiracy included Smartmatic, Venezuelan officials, people connected to Mr. Soros and a “massive influence of communist money.”


Ms. Powell and Mr. Giuliani did not respond to messages seeking comment on the documents. Representatives for Mr. Trump also did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Mr. Trump continues to falsely argue that the election was stolen from him, and in recent months Ms. Powell and Mr. Giuliani have stuck by their claims that the election was rife with fraud. A lawyer for Mr. Giuliani said in a court filing last month that at least some of his claims of election fraud were “substantially true.”

And as recently as three weeks ago, Ms. Powell told a reporter for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that the 2020 election was “essentially a bloodless coup where they took over the presidency of the United States without a single shot being fired.”

It remains unclear how widely the memo was circulated among Trump campaign staff members. According to the court documents, Mr. Giuliani said in a deposition that he had not seen the memo before he gave his presentation in Washington, and he questioned the motives of those who had prepared it.

“They wanted Trump to lose because they could raise more money,” Mr. Giuliani was quoted as saying in the deposition.


But at the time that the internal report was prepared, Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell were both “active supervisors,” as he put it in his deposition, in the Trump campaign’s broader plan to challenge the election results — an effort that eventually included more than 60 failed lawsuits filed across the country. While Ms. Powell soon went her own way in claiming that Dominion had conspired to steal the election, Mr. Giuliani continued working closely with Mr. Trump and his campaign, ultimately changing strategies and seeking to persuade state legislatures to overturn the popular vote.

The motion notes that “the lines were blurred” as to whom Ms. Powell was working for at the time: herself, her nonprofit organization or the Trump campaign. Almost immediately after she promoted the conspiracy theory about Dominion at the news conference in November, Mr. Trump sought to distance himself from her. But by December, as Mr. Trump’s legal options narrowed, the former president considered bringing her back into the fold and discussed whether to appoint her as a special counsel overseeing an investigation of voter fraud.

The release of the documents was only the latest legal trouble for Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell, both of whom have been sued directly by Dominion for defamation. Dominion has also brought a defamation suit against Mike Lindell, the chief executive of MyPillow, for amplifying false election claims. Last month, a federal judge in Washington ruled that the cases could continue moving toward trial.

About the same time, a federal judge in Detroit ordered penalties to be levied against Ms. Powell and eight other pro-Trump lawyers — Mr. Giuliani was not among them — who filed a lawsuit that sought to overturn the election results in Michigan using the false claims about Dominion.

“This case was never about fraud,” the judge, Linda V. Parker, wrote in her decision. “It was about undermining the people’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.”

In June, a New York court suspended Mr. Giuliani’s law license, ruling that he had made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while fighting the results of last year’s election for Mr. Trump.

Even recently, the new court documents say, former Trump campaign officials have continued to cling to the baseless notion that the election was marred by fraud.

When lawyers for Mr. Coomer asked Sean Dollman, a representative of the Trump campaign, in a deposition if the campaign still believed that the election was fraudulent, he answered, “Yes, sir.”

The lawyers then asked, “What is that opinion based on?”

According to the court documents, Mr. Dollman gave a less than certain answer.

“We have no underlying definite facts that it wasn’t,” he said.

Susan Dominus, Shay Castle and Mindy Sink contributed reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/us/p ... oting.html

by ti-amie I don't understand.

Why would supposedly sane, rational people do the bidding of a man known to harbor criminal intent at the very least based on his years in NYC.

Why would supposedly sane, rational people willingly put themselves in a position where they will be stripped of their livelihood?

Legal Twitter is bandying the "d" for disbarment word around.

Is there no such thing as self preservation anymore?

by dryrunguy
ti-amie wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:09 pm I don't understand.

Why would supposedly sane, rational people do the bidding of a man known to harbor criminal intent at the very least based on his years in NYC.

Why would supposedly sane, rational people willingly put themselves in a position where they will be stripped of their livelihood?

Legal Twitter is bandying the "d" for disbarment word around.

Is there no such thing as self preservation anymore?
Two words... Stockholm Syndrome.

by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:09 pm I don't understand.

Why would supposedly sane, rational people do the bidding of a man known to harbor criminal intent at the very least based on his years in NYC.

Why would supposedly sane, rational people willingly put themselves in a position where they will be stripped of their livelihood?

Legal Twitter is bandying the "d" for disbarment word around.

Is there no such thing as self preservation anymore?

by ponchi101 Both Dry's and Skating's replies are much better than anything I can come up with.
Although I usually frown a cases like this, in which the only thing to be made is money, this time Dominion has a real case. Their reputation has been shredded around the world, and their sole potential clients are "countries" or very large states, within such countries. It is not like they can sell these machines to anybody else. And now, which country would even dream of getting close to Dominion, simply because in countries where elections are run rigorously, the 1% chance that indeed Dominion was involved in electoral shenanigans is enough to deter them from using them. I have heard, from some Venezuelans, that the election was indeed stolen because of the connection between SmartMatic (which was the perpetrator of the fraud done in the Venezuela in 2004) and Dominion.
I hope they do get to bankrupt Giulianni, Powell and the Pillow Guy.

by ti-amie




by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by JazzNU

by dryrunguy Nothing has ever stuck to that man, and nothing ever will.

by ponchi101 Some people have that luck. Chavez was one. It did not matter what he did or said. His acolytes simply would reply "What about such and such?", as if that mattered.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

This is not news to anyone who's been paying attention. Until I see perp walks it's just white noise for me. I know our justice system wasn't made for this kind of thing and works slowly but come on man!

by ti-amie

Just another tourist visiting the nation's capital.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie


NOW I'm awake

by ti-amie



People are upset with the pace of the process. Sure it would be easy to just throw someone's butt in jail and throw away the key but what does that make you? If you skip one part of the process they'll be screaming about being persecuted and we would never hear the end of it. You have to give them a chance to co-operate.

by ponchi101 B. Maher spoke about it. What happens when the REPS get back into power? They will start issuing subpoenas day and night, just so that somebody will miss one and then get thrown into jail, and from then on, it will be a never ending story.
Damn if you do, damn if you don't.

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:00 pm B. Maher spoke about it. What happens when the REPS get back into power? They will start issuing subpoenas day and night, just so that somebody will miss one and then get thrown into jail, and from then on, it will be a never ending story.
Damn if you do, damn if you don't.
There you go. I was really enjoying the possibility of that man who looks as if he's never seen a bathtub get perp walked.

Sadly you're right.

by ti-amie Here's some good news for this thread!


by ti-amie

What a jerk. 25 years and he gives up pension and benefits for someone he barely knows? Of course his union could work out a deal where he retires with benefits intact but still.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Trump files suit to try to stop the release of documents related to the Capitol riot
October 18, 20215:40 PM ET
CAITLYN KIM

Former President Donald Trump is suing the Democratic-led House select committee that's investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and the National Archives, to try and stop documents related to the riot from being turned over to the panel.

"The Committee's request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by [President] Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration. Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors," the lawsuit, which was filed Monday in district court in Washington, D.C., says.

Trump had urged former officials in his administration not to comply with subpoenas from the House panel, citing executive privilege. However, that power applies to the current sitting president only, not former ones.

Earlier this month, Biden authorized the National Archives to share a first group of documents requested by the committee, adding that other requests would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Lawyers for Trump described the Biden administration's waiver of executive privilege as a "myopic, political maneuver."

The Jan. 6 committee and its chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., had no immediate comment on the lawsuit.

Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich criticized the House investigation as "hyper-partisan" and said Trump "filed a lawsuit in defense of the Constitution, the Office of the President, and the future of our nation, all of which the sham Unselect Committee is trying to destroy."

Two Republicans who have been critical of Trump's actions related to the Jan. 6 attack sit on the committee. That followed the House Republican leader pulling all of his selections to the panel after Democrats objected to two of them.

Turning to the courts has been a maneuver used by Trump throughout his presidency to keep potentially embarrassing documents, such as his tax returns, out of the public eye.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/18/10471229 ... witter.com

by dryrunguy
ti-amie wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:51 pm Trump files suit to try to stop the release of documents related to the Capitol riot

"The Committee's request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by [President] Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration. Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors," the lawsuit, which was filed Monday in district court in Washington, D.C., says.
The inclusion of that particular clause is a bit curious, for multiple reasons, no? One, I have never seen it in a statement like this before (not that I read ALL such statements). Two, what portion of the U.S. Constitution protects a President's close advisors? Three, it's as if they are already setting the stage to throw the "close advisors" under the bus. Which would be thoroughly consistent with how that basket full of deplorables operated.

by ti-amie
dryrunguy wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:59 am
ti-amie wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:51 pm Trump files suit to try to stop the release of documents related to the Capitol riot

"The Committee's request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by [President] Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration. Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors," the lawsuit, which was filed Monday in district court in Washington, D.C., says.
The inclusion of that particular clause is a bit curious, for multiple reasons, no? One, I have never seen it in a statement like this before (not that I read ALL such statements). Two, what portion of the U.S. Constitution protects a President's close advisors? Three, it's as if they are already setting the stage to throw the "close advisors" under the bus. Which would be thoroughly consistent with how that basket full of deplorables operated.
This is today's ( so far) reporting.


by ti-amie This news is, let's say interesting.




by ti-amie Don't forget that Lev Parnas is on trial in NYC.


by ti-amie

Someone posted a picture of the mansion that's being raided today but of course I can't find it now.

by ponchi101 Why has the Mueller report not been issued in full, during this administration?
The DEMS are sometimes such little kids too. Release the damn thing, to no fanfare. Let the press pick it up.

by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:42 pm Why has the Mueller report not been issued in full, during this administration?
The DEMS are sometimes such little kids too. Release the damn thing, to no fanfare. Let the press pick it up.
My best guess is that there must be some stuff in the report that is not to their advantage if the full report was released.

I can't imagine working in a government press office these days. Back when I was a media officer for the federal government (early to mid 1990s), it was a completely different media environment them. You could release a report and have a reasonable shot at controlling the messaging and the press coverage. But in today's media world, where "news" outlets simply make things up and give air time to people who make things up and lie without batting an eye... You couldn't pay me enough to work in a media relations office these days.

And then there's this... Watch from 11:00 to the end.


by ti-amie


by ti-amie


by ti-amie

ANYWAY


by ti-amie The thing that galls me about press coverage since 2016 is that they act as if the GOP is fighting for a noble cause and not in support of a man who in any other circumstance would be under the jail at this point. Look at how they cover the "Build Back Better" legislation. It's strictly in terms of cost and very little about what is actually in the bill. Political reporters these days may as well work for "People" or the Daily Fail.

by ti-amie More info on the raids yesterday.





Calling the DC residence a "home" is like calling Buckingham Palace a "pied-a-terre".

by ti-amie




by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

Translation: He effed around and now he's finding out.

by ponchi101 Still troublesome that 202 REPS see no issues with one man defying subpoenas.
Of course, the example was set when they were all subpoena'd during the previous administration and they did not show up. And nothing happened.

by ti-amie


by ponchi101 "They are not a risk of flight"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That is almost endearing...

by ti-amie

by ti-amie From the Rolling Stone article:
The two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity due to the ongoing investigation, describe participating in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of that day when Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as his election loss to President Joe Biden was being certified.

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”
These two sources also helped plan a series of demonstrations that took place in multiple states around the country in the weeks between the election and the storming of the Capitol. According to these sources, multiple people associated with the March for Trump and Stop the Steal events that took place during this period communicated with members of Congress throughout this process.

Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

“We would talk to Boebert’s team, Cawthorn’s team, Gosar’s team like back to back to back to back,” says the organizer.
And Gosar, who has been one of the most prominent defenders of the Jan. 6 rioters, allegedly took things a step further. Both sources say he dangled the possibility of a “blanket pardon” in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.

“Our impression was that it was a done deal,” the organizer says, “that he’d spoken to the president about it in the Oval … in a meeting about pardons and that our names came up. They were working on submitting the paperwork and getting members of the House Freedom Caucus to sign on as a show of support.”

The organizer claims the pair received “several assurances” about the “blanket pardon” from Gosar.

“I was just going over the list of pardons and we just wanted to tell you guys how much we appreciate all the hard work you’ve been doing,” Gosar said, according to the organizer.

The rally planner describes the pardon as being offered while “encouraging” the staging of protests against the election. While the organizer says they did not get involved in planning the rallies solely due to the pardon, they were upset that it ultimately did not materialize.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... e-1245289/

by ponchi101 How totally NON SURPRISING.
And then they talk about people trying to destroy America.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

Ms Wiley is quoting from a deep dive done by the Washington Post over several months about J6.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie





Let's see where this goes...

by ti-amie


by ti-amie Just your average tourist...


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie What are the chances of us seeing this person perp-walked into custody? I wonder if he's still on that guys yacht in international waters?

by ti-amie Progressives need to take Civics classes and also learn about legal process. A thread.










by ti-amie

by ti-amie





Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Those release conditions are standard. Bannon must surrender his passport (which the government already has), notify pre-trial services of any domestic travel, and court approval outside continental U.S.

(These are misdemeanor charges.)

by dryrunguy At some point, he will be compelled to testify, right? Because Bannon would be just fine with the idea of falling on the sword for 30 days or a year. In many circles, it would make him a martyr who is well-positioned to receive 6-digit speaker fees for decades to come.

by ti-amie
dryrunguy wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:48 pm At some point, he will be compelled to testify, right? Because Bannon would be just fine with the idea of falling on the sword for 30 days or a year. In many circles, it would make him a martyr who is well-positioned to receive 6-digit speaker fees for decades to come.
The fact that the case has been assigned to a MAGAt who clerked for Clarence Thomas makes it more likely that if a sentence of some kind is imposed it will be the shortest one they can get away with.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 What chutzpah.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

Lauren Boebert’s Ex-Manager Also Targeted in FBI Raid on MAGA Election Clerk

The raids on Tina Peters and Sherronna Bishop appear to be related to a leak of election data to QAnon conspiracy theorists.

Kelly Weill
Reporter
Will Sommer
Politics Reporter
Published Nov. 17, 2021 7:42PM ET

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lauren-bo ... ina-peters

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie This broke late yesterday.

(Paywall)

So today's distraction is:



Anyone who cooks and can treat themselves once a year Le Creuset is the best cast iron cook ware out there. I admit that's what I did.

As a woman who is married to a wealthy man and who is earning $235k per year in her government job, and who cooks, she can damn well spend her money any way she wants. But hey, let's distract from their idol using burner phones like those menacing dudes seen on street corners or wherever.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie At least Garland tells you who this Clark person is.


by ti-amie

by ti-amie This video was just released today. It shows a poll worker being threatened by Kanye West's publicist. The recording was made by a police officer.


by ti-amie This puts the above video in context.


by ponchi101 Can't thank that post, and there is no emoji or comment to express how sickening the situation is.
(I hope I am clear, Ti. Nothing against you posting it).

by ti-amie From by Robert Costa @costareports via @threadreaderapp. Of course he's pimping his book (grr) but this is a good summary of Power Point Gate

(thread) Based on our reporting, Eastman begins drafting his memo in late Dec. and Trump WH has it by the new year. WH then gives it to Sen. Lee and others on Jan. 2, as we document in "Peril."

But by Jan. 3, after Pence meets w/ Sen. Parliam., it's clear he's not coming along.
On Jan. 4, Pence is in Georgia for a rally, but once he flies back, Trump calls him to the Oval. See "Peril" pgs. 224-227. "I'm getting guidance that says I can't," Pence tells Trump and Eastman, who is there. "Listen. Listen to John," Trump replies.
As Eastman and Trump pressure Pence and Pence's aides/lawyers, the rest of the Trump WH is in full-steam ahead mode that same day. See "Peril" chapter 41. "Graham was at the WH on January 4, where he received some memos supporting Trump's claims." We put those memos in the book.
Chief of staff Mark Meadows is working with Trump this whole time, and we show him meeting with Graham and Giuliani on how to push Trump's efforts along. See his Jan. 2 meeting with both of them on p. 212-214 of "Peril." But there were still lingering Qs re: his role/knowledge.
Now, months after "Peril" was published, we are learning more about both Meadows and that key day, January *4th.*

Think of it as the set-up day for the eve of the insurrection, Jan. 5, when Bannon and Giuliani work from the Willard and Trump pressures Pence, 1 on 1, in Oval.
Read this: "The powerpoint was presented on 4 January to a number of Republican senators and members of Congress, the source said."

Meadows was in possession of a PowerPoint that echoed Eastman memo. (The origin story of the PP is a key reporting target.)

Capitol attack panel obtains PowerPoint that set out plan for Trump to stage coup
Presentation turned over by Mark Meadows made several recommendations for Trump to pursue to return himself to presidency

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... tol-attack

We now know that in the critical Jan. 4-5 period, where the pressure on Pence is Level 10/10, you have not only the principals leaning on the VP, but numerous docs circulating to make the case.
-Eastman memos
-PowerPoints
-And Jenna Ellis memos (see below)

Memos from Trump campaign lawyer outline her theories for how Pence could reject Electoral College votes
In the weeks leading up to January 6, one of Donald Trump's campaign lawyers wrote memos outlining how she believed then-Vice President Mike Pence could reject electoral college votes and overturn the…
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/politics ... index.html
But despite all of these docs and PowerPts, the most revealing thing of this period isn't a document. It's what he says to Pence on Jan. 5.

At the end of the day, Trump isn't looking to these docs to make his case. He looks to the gathering mob in the streets. (Ch. 43, "Peril")
"If these people say you had the power, wouldn't you want to?" Trump asked.

"I wouldn't want any one person to have that authority," Pence said.

"But wouldn't it almost be cool to have that power?" Trump asked.

"No," Pence said.


/end

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 It won't matter.
By now, it is clear that in the USA there are lots and lots of people that simply really don't want a democracy, or don't care for one. I have said it before: the difference between the GOP and the DEMS is that for the GOP, the end always justifies the means. And the means is to remain in power, regardless of the consequences to the country.

by ti-amie So Lara Logan tweeted out the PowerPoint presentation a while ago but since no one pays attention to her it went largely unnoticed.


by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

As if he doesn't already know.

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie Then there's this


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie I think this could've gone under Maxwell too because it is related but this has a lot more to do with Tiny.


by ti-amie



It seems that there may be more added to this thread.

by ti-amie Keep in mind that this man graduated Yale Law.

by ponchi101 Well, he might not get to use his lunatic's armory, but he will certainly get to use that Law Degree.

by mmmm8 You'll be Casablanca-shocked to find out this guy emotionally abused his wife and six children and completely isolated them from the world.

https://www.salon.com/2022/01/14/comple ... n_partner/


(She's really trying to cash in on this and is even having her(older) kids give interviews, but I'm ok with it).

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie




by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie ‘He never stopped ripping things up’: Inside Trump’s relentless document destruction habits
Trump’s shredding of paper in the White House was far more widespread and indiscriminate than previously known and — despite multiple admonishments — extended throughout his presidency.

By Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey, Tom Hamburger and Jacqueline Alemany
Yesterday at 4:09 p.m. EST

Donald Trump tore up briefings and schedules, articles and letters, memos both sensitive and mundane.

He ripped paper into quarters with two big, clean strokes — or occasionally more vigorously, into smaller scraps.

He left the detritus on his desk in the Oval Office, in the trash can of his private West Wing study and on the floor aboard Air Force One, among many other places.

And he did it all in violation of the Presidential Records Act, despite being urged by at least two chiefs of staff and the White House counsel to follow the law on preserving documents.

“It is absolutely a violation of the act,” said Courtney Chartier, president of the Society of American Archivists. “There is no ignorance of these laws. There are White House manuals about the maintenance of these records.”

Although glimpses of Trump’s penchant for ripping were reported earlier in his presidency — by Politico in 2018 — the House select committee’s investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection has shined a new spotlight on the practice. The Washington Post reported that some of the White House records the National Archives and Records Administration turned over to the committee appeared to have been torn apart and then taped back together.

Interviews with 11 former Trump staffers, associates and others familiar with the habit reveal that Trump’s shredding of paper was far more widespread and indiscriminate than previously known and — despite multiple admonishments — extended throughout his presidency, resulting in special practices to deal with the torn fragments. Most of these people spoke on the condition of anonymity to share candid details of a problematic practice.

The ripping was so relentless that Trump’s team implemented protocols to try to ensure that he was abiding by the Presidential Records Act. Typically, aides from either the Office of the Staff Secretary or the Oval Office Operations team would come in behind Trump to retrieve the piles of torn paper he left in his wake, according to one person familiar with the routine. Then, staffers from the White House Office of Records Management were generally responsible for jigsawing the documents back together, using clear tape.

(Our tax dollars at work)

The Presidential Records Act requires that the White House preserve all written communication related to a president’s official duties — memos, letters, notes, emails, faxes and other material — and turn it over to the National Archives.

Typically, the White House records office makes decisions on archival vs. non-archival materials, according to an Archives official. The Presidential Records Act lays out a process allowing a president to dispose of records only after obtaining the assent of records officials.

It is unclear how many records were lost or permanently destroyed through Trump’s ripping routine, as well as what consequences, if any, he might face. Hundreds of documents, if not more, were likely torn up, those familiar with the practice say.

“It is against the law, but the problem is that the Presidential Records Act, as written, does not have any real enforcement mechanism,” said James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association. “It’s that sort of thing where there’s a law, but who has the authority to enforce the law, and the existing law is toothless.”


One person familiar with the National Archives process said that staff there were stunned at how many papers they received from the Trump administration that were ripped, and described it internally as “unprecedented.”

One senior Trump White House official said he and other White House staffers frequently put documents into “burn bags” to be destroyed, rather than preserving them, and would decide themselves what should be saved and what should be burned. When the Jan. 6 committee asked for certain documents related to Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence, for example, some of them no longer existed in this person’s files because they had already been shredded, said someone familiar with the request.

Early in the administration, the torn paper became such a problem that the administration officials responsible for records management went to then-White House counsel Donald McGahn and then-deputy White House counsel Stefan Passantino, who handled ethics issues, to urge them to remind Trump and other senior West Wing staff about the importance of preserving documents to comply with the records act.

A former senior administration official said Trump was warned about the records act by McGahn, as well as his first two chiefs of staff, Reince Priebus and John F. Kelly, who lamented to allies that Trump would “rip up everything,” according to a person who heard his comments. Passantino also warned other aides about preserving documents.

Passantino declined to comment. McGahn did not respond to requests for comment.

A Trump spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Priebus urged aides not to put what he called “crazy” documents on Trump’s desk — articles, for instance, from far-right websites spouting conspiracy theories, according to a person with direct knowledge of his request. He told others that Trump would read them and sometimes tear them up.

“He didn’t want a record of anything,” a former senior Trump official said. “He never stopped ripping things up. Do you really think Trump is going to care about the records act? Come on.”

Problems with records preservation persisted throughout Trump’s term and became particularly acute at the time of the transition to the Biden administration.

Other administrations have also run afoul of the Presidential Records Act. White House aides in both Democratic and Republican administrations, for example, have long used personal devices to text with reporters as well as other staff, rather than government-issued devices, while others have been caught using personal email for official work.

But people familiar with Trump’s conduct said it ran far deeper than occasionally skirting up against the boundaries of the law.

“The biggest takeaway I have from that behavior is it reflects a conviction that he was above the law,” said presidential historian Lindsay Chervinsky. “He did not see himself bound by those things.”


Former aides said Trump was haphazard in what he ripped, often tearing up papers that were not classified or even particularly sensitive. Some said they viewed it more as a quirk and not a deliberate attempt to avoid public scrutiny, in part because he was so indiscriminate with what he tore.

(...)

“I have seen Trump tear up papers, not into small, small pieces, but usually twice — so take a piece of paper, rip it once, and then rip it again and then throw it into the garbage pail,” said Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer who in 2018 pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations as well as lying to Congress.

The habit dates back to the former president’s time as a businessman, when he used email extremely rarely. Cohen said that Trump seemed to enjoy the actual process of ripping paper, especially if he did not like the contents of the memo.

“When something irritated him, he would tear the document,” Cohen said. “The physical act of ripping the paper for Donald was cathartic, and it provided him a relief, as if the issue was no longer relevant. Basically, you rip the piece of paper and you’re done — that’s how Donald’s brain works.”

The practice continued into the White House. Aides jokingly referred to “The Boxes” — large boxes filled with reams of paper that Trump often traveled with. Two people familiar with the boxes said they contained a true miscellany of paper — physical newspapers, articles, memos, briefing books, a media summary from the day including printed screenshots of cable news headlines — and that Trump would often rifle through them on long flights.

Sometimes he would read something and sign it in his signature Sharpie, placing it in a folder to be sent to a certain recipient, one of these people said. Other times, he would rip the paper once he was done and toss it on the floor.

This person added that they once saw Trump tear up a piece of paper and then slip it into the pocket of his suit jacket.

Trump’s troubling habit became the focus of internal concern early in his administration, one former Trump official said, when records personnel noticed that a range of official documents logged as going to the Oval Office or the White House residence were not being returned to be filed in accordance with White House record-keeping rules.

When staffers first started going to look for these missing records — which spanned a range of topics, including conversations with foreign leaders — they sometimes found them in a pile of ripped paper in the Oval Office or the White House residence.

But on other occasions, torn documents were found in classified burn bags, which are used to dispose of documents, according to one former Trump White House official. Records personnel would routinely dump the contents of burn bags on a table and try to puzzle out which of the torn documents needed to be taped together and preserved, the former official said.

Burn bags, which resemble paper grocery bags, are available throughout the White House complex. There are two types, for classified and unclassified material, and different requirements for each in determining what can be destroyed, experts said. The classified bags are marked with diagonal red stripes.

Both types of bags are ultimately destroyed, but the mechanism for how they are destroyed and safeguarded is different. There were regular “burn runs,” in which classified bags would be collected from offices and sent to the Pentagon for incineration.


Grossman said that Trump’s chaotic approach to handling physical documents leaves gaping holes in the historical record, not to mention being disrespectful to the archivists and general public.

“We don’t know how much of it was or was not successfully taped back together,” Grossman said. “Also, how much did the taxpayers pay to have a bunch of highly qualified archivists sit at a desk and tape things back together?”

Some experts also said Trump hurt his own legacy with his document destruction practices — leaving less behind for historians to examine.

“For a president to just wantonly tear things up is just a little shocking, that there’s not even a little egotistical thought about legacy,” Chartier said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... documents/

by ponchi101 Why would he want historians to examine his presidency? I am sure he wants some fictional account of it, most likely written by an acolyte.
Why are people still unable to understand this guy?

by dmforever
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 4:40 am Why would he want historians to examine his presidency? I am sure he wants some fictional account of it, most likely written by an acolyte.
Why are people still unable to understand this guy?
They understand. They either don't care, or feel the end justifies the means, or agree that he is above the law. The very same people would be screaming bloody murder had Obama done this. It is not a lack of understanding.

Kevin

by ti-amie Remember the boxes mentioned in the article about him tearing paper up?

National Archives had to retrieve Trump White House records from Mar-a-Lago
The recovery of multiple boxes from Trump’s Florida resort, including letters from Barack Obama and Kim Jong Un, underscores the previous administration’s cavalier handling of presidential records

By Jacqueline Alemany, Josh Dawsey, Tom Hamburger and Ashley Parker
Today at 6:00 a.m. EST

President Donald Trump improperly removed multiple boxes from the White House that were retrieved by the National Archives and Records Administration last month from his Mar-a-Lago residence because they contained documents and other items that should have been turned over to the agency, according to three people familiar with the visit.

The recovery of the boxes from Trump’s Florida resort raises new concerns about his adherence to the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of memos, letters, notes, emails, faxes and other written communications related to a president’s official duties.

Trump advisers deny any nefarious intent and said the boxes contained mementos, gifts, letters from world leaders and other correspondence. The items included correspondence with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, which Trump once described as “love letters,” as well as a letter left for his successor by President Barack Obama, according to two people familiar with the contents.

Discussions between the Archives and the former president’s lawyers that began last year resulted in the transfer of the records in January, according to one person familiar with the conversations. Another person familiar with the materials said Trump advisers discussed what had to be returned in December. People familiar with the transfer, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal internal details.

The Archives declined to comment. A spokesman for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

The Archives has struggled to cope with a president who flouted document retention requirements and frequently ripped up official documents, leaving hundreds of pages taped back together — or some that arrived at the Archives still in pieces. Some damaged documents were among those turned over to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.

“The only way that a president can really be held accountable long term is to preserve a record about who said what, who did what, what policies were encouraged or adopted, and that is such an important part of the long-term scope of accountability — beyond just elections and campaigns,” presidential historian Lindsay Chervinsky said.

From a national security perspective, Chervinsky added, if records and documents are not disclosed, “that could pose a real concern if the next administration is flying blind without that information.”

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), a member of the Jan. 6 committee who did not have knowledge of the Mar-a-Lago transfer, said the overall records situation reflected the “unconventional nature of how this White House operated.”

“That they didn’t follow rules is not a shock,” Murphy said. “As for how this development relates to the committee’s work, we have different sources and methods for obtaining documents and information that we are seeking.”

The recovery of documents from Trump’s Florida estate is just the latest example of what records personnel described as chronic difficulties in preserving records in the Trump era — the most challenging since Richard Nixon sought to block disclosure of official records, including White House tapes.

(...)

But personnel familiar with recent administrations said the Trump era stands apart in the scale of the records retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. One person familiar with the transfer characterized it as “out of the ordinary. … NARA has never had that kind of volume transfer after the fact like this.”

Trump himself was unconcerned about the records act, according to former advisers.

“Things that are national security sensitive or very clearly government documents should have been a part of a first sweep — so the fact that it’s been this long doesn’t reflect well on [Trump],” said a lawyer who worked in the White House Counsel’s Office under Obama. “Why has it taken for a year for these boxes to get there? And are there more boxes?”

While the law requires that presidents preserve records related to an administration’s activities, the Archives has very limited enforcement capabilities. The Presidential Records Act operates on the basis of a “gentlemen’s agreement,” as one Archives official phrased it.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor and constitutional scholar, along with other legal experts point to the potential for enforcement that could take place via federal records laws. But several said they thought such action would be unlikely.

“There is a high bar for bringing such cases,” said Charles Tiefer, former counsel to the House of Representatives who teaches at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

Typically, he said, records preservation proceeds by mutual agreement with the occupant of the White House, staff and archivists. “But if there is willful and unlawful intent” to violate the law then the picture changes, he said, with penalties of up to three years in jail for individuals who willfully conceal or destroy public records.

“You can’t prosecute for just tearing up papers,” he said of Trump. “You would have to show him being highly selective and have evidence that he wanted to behave unlawfully.”


Some former Trump aides say they do not believe Trump was acting with criminal intent.

“I don’t think he did this out of malicious intent to avoid complying with the Presidential Records Act,” one former Trump White House official said. “As long as he’s been in business, he’s been very transactional and it was probably his longtime practice and I don’t think his habits changed when he got to the White House.”

:roll:

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ar-a-lago/

by ti-amie Gentleman's agreement and TFG? Please.

by dryrunguy
dmforever wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 6:15 pm
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 4:40 am Why would he want historians to examine his presidency? I am sure he wants some fictional account of it, most likely written by an acolyte.
Why are people still unable to understand this guy?
They understand. They either don't care, or feel the end justifies the means, or agree that he is above the law. The very same people would be screaming bloody murder had Obama done this. It is not a lack of understanding.

Kevin
Let's not forget her emails... (I'm talking about Hillary, not Ivanka)

by ponchi101
dmforever wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 6:15 pm ...

They understand. They either don't care, or feel the end justifies the means, or agree that he is above the law. The very same people would be screaming bloody murder had Obama done this. It is not a lack of understanding.

Kevin
I meant the experts that say that he was hurting his legacy. The people assisting him in tearing up the docs surely understood.

by dmforever
ponchi101 wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:50 am
dmforever wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 6:15 pm ...

They understand. They either don't care, or feel the end justifies the means, or agree that he is above the law. The very same people would be screaming bloody murder had Obama done this. It is not a lack of understanding.

Kevin
I meant the experts that say that he was hurting his legacy. The people assisting him in tearing up the docs surely understood.
I misunderstood. Got it now. :) Sorry.

Kevin

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

Casablanca shocked.

by ti-amie From Palmer Report via @threadreaderapp

When you put Maggie Haberman's fictional reporting about Hillary Clinton's email scandal within the context of her decision to sit on the fact that Donald Trump was flushing documents down the White House toilet, you can ALMOST argue that Haberman criminally conspired with Trump.

Trump committed a crime. Haberman knew about it but failed to report it or tell the authorities, which means at the least she helped cover it up. Now it turns out she sat on her knowledge of Trump's crimes so she could personally profit from it with a book long after the fact.

Given that when Haberman learned about Hillary Clinton's handling of documents, she swiftly reported it AND falsely characterized it as having been a crime, she can't now argue that she had legitimate journalistic reasons for sitting on the information about Trump's actual crime.

If you take away the part about Haberman just happening to write for the New York Times, are her actions any different than the average Trump political henchman? She covered up a Trump crime and is now seeking to profit from it.

Haberman isn't the exception, she's the rule. Most of political "journalism" consists of getting information from people who are dirty, using it to advance your journalism career, protecting the people giving you information, and justifying it by labeling them "sources."

Not in any way suggesting Haberman should be criminally investigated. We don't need that precedent. And besides, you'd probably have to lock up half the "political journalism" industry. It's up to the public to hold dirty journalism accountable.

The real problem isn't when reporters cover up criminal behavior in exchange for inside information. It's how reporters cover people who aren't feeding them inside info. If Hillary had been trading editorial favors with Haberman, would the "email scandal" have even been reported?

Just about every puff piece you've ever read about a political figure in a major news outlet was the result of some kind of editorial favor trading. You give the media dirt on someone else, or access to something, and they write a puff piece about you.

How far downhill has the journalism industry gone? Woodward and Bernstein took Nixon down in real time. But even Woodward sat on crucial information about Trump for a year, so he could save it for his book. Which leads us to the real problem.

Book deals dictate the political journalism and punditry industry. However much a journalist makes from their day job, the real money is in periodically writing a book. Millions of dollars at stake. And you need dirt to promote it, so you sit on things the public needed to know.

Haberman's or Woodward's refusal to report crucial Trump stories because they wanted to cash in with a book later, is no different than John Bolton's refusal to testify at Trump's impeachment because he wanted to save it for a book. Same exact motivation.

It's one thing for us to accept that political journalists must trade dirty favors with dirty people in order to educate the public about dirty scandals. That's cringey, but maybe necessary. But saving dirt for a book means you're miseducating the public.

But again, the real problem isn't that the media protected Trump and his people because they were trading editorial favors. It's that the media has no problem chasing ratings by flat out lying about someone like Biden or Hillary, who doesn't trade editorial favors with them.

The mainstream media spent every day of the 2016 election lying about Hillary's emails in the pursuit of ratings. The media has spent the past several months dishonestly covering Biden for that same reason. If the media were honest, there would be no Trump to begin with.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1491 ... 58117.html

by ti-amie The Hoarse Whisperer
@TheRealHoarse

Maggie Haberman put the Hillary Clinton email story on the front page day after day during the 2016 election…

…and then she covered up Trump destroying documents during the 2020 election.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Serious question. Does this sort of "out of court" settlements help or hurt any movement trying to assist women that have been abused? It is not farfetched that somebody will say "she only wanted the money".
Again, serious question.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Bannon was found on this man's yacht.




by ti-amie




by ti-amie Same hearing via @KlasfeldReports. P1










by ti-amie P2










by ti-amie P3











Adam Klasfeld@KlasfeldReports·50m🚨Engoron says he will release a decision by 3 p.m. ET.

by ti-amie

by patrick Again, 45 is dragging cases in court which can last years. Expect tons of appeals if 45 loses.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by JazzNU ^^ Correct. He may indeed plead the 5th 500 times like his son did, but that has different implications in NY than it does elsewhere. They can use that against you in other civil cases in NY, just not criminal. That many pleadings of the 5th is the tantamount to an admission of guilt. Yeah he looks guilty all the damn time, but on the record and under oath is different than his repeated lies to the media. And if memory serves, they can even note the questions asked along with the pleading the 5th to said question.

New York has a long history of dealing with big time crooks such as this, they knew exactly what they were doing in crafting a law like this. It purposely places the person in a tough spot that is hard to escape from if guilty. You answer questions and open yourself up to criminal and civil liability or you plead the fifth a million times and look guilty. It's a win win for the prosecution when the person is guilty as hell.

Love the final sentence of the judge's order - as audacious as it is preposterous.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by JazzNU

by ti-amie 2 Prosecutors Leading N.Y. Trump Inquiry Resign, Clouding Case’s Future
The resignations came after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, was said to have expressed doubts about the case, and amid a monthlong pause in the presentation of evidence to a grand jury.

By William K. Rashbaum, Ben Protess, Jonah E. Bromwich, Kate Christobek and Nate Schweber
Feb. 23, 2022
Updated 3:28 p.m. ET

Image
Alvin Bragg took office as Manhattan district attorney on Jan. 1. The Trump investigation began under his predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr. Credit...Craig Ruttle/Associated Press

The two prosecutors leading the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his business practices abruptly resigned on Wednesday amid a monthlong pause in their presentation of evidence to a grand jury, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The stunning development comes not long after the high-stakes inquiry appeared to be gaining momentum, and throws its future into serious doubt.

The prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, submitted their resignations after the new Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, indicated to them that he had doubts about moving forward with a case against Mr. Trump, the people said.

Mr. Pomerantz confirmed in a brief interview that he had resigned, but declined to elaborate. Mr. Dunne declined to comment.

Without Mr. Bragg’s commitment to move forward, the prosecutors late last month postponed a plan to question at least one witness before the grand jury, one of the people said. They have not questioned any witnesses in front of the grand jury for more than a month, essentially pausing their investigation into whether Mr. Trump inflated the value of his assets to obtain favorable loan terms from banks.

The precise reasons for Mr. Bragg’s pullback are unknown, and he has made few public statements about the status of the inquiry since taking office. In a statement responding to the resignations of the prosecutors, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bragg said that he was “grateful for their service” and that the investigation was ongoing.


Time is running out for this grand jury, whose term is scheduled to expire in April. Prosecutors can ask jurors to vote to extend their term, but generally avoid doing so. They also are often reluctant to impanel a new grand jury after an earlier one has heard testimony, because witnesses could make conflicting statements if asked to testify again.

And without Mr. Dunne, a high-ranking veteran of the office who has been closely involved with the inquiry for years, and Mr. Pomerantz, a leading figure in New York legal circles who was enlisted to work on it, the yearslong investigation could peter out.

The resignations, following the monthlong pause, mark a reversal after the investigation had recently intensified. Cyrus R. Vance Jr., Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, convened the grand jury in the fall, and prosecutors began questioning witnesses before his term concluded at the end of the year. (Mr. Vance did not seek re-election.)

In mid-January, reporters for The Times observed significant activity related to the investigation at the Lower Manhattan courthouse where the grand jury meets, with at least two witnesses visiting the building and staying inside for hours.

The witnesses were Mr. Trump’s longtime accountant and an expert in the real estate industry, according to people familiar with the appearances, which have not been previously reported. Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz also made regular appearances at the courthouse.

The burst of activity offered a sign that Mr. Bragg was forging ahead with the grand jury phase of the investigation, a final step before seeking charges.

But in recent weeks, that activity has ceased, and Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz have been seen only rarely.

The pause coincides with an escalation in the activity of a parallel civil inquiry by the New York state attorney general, Letitia James, whose office is examining some of the same conduct by Mr. Trump.

Ms. James, who last week received approval from a judge to question Mr. Trump and two of his adult children under oath, has filed court documents describing a number of ways in which the Trump Organization appeared to have misrepresented the value of its properties.

She concluded that the company had engaged in “fraudulent or misleading” practices, and although she lacks the authority to criminally charge Mr. Trump, she could sue him.

Mr. Bragg’s office must meet a higher bar to bring a criminal case and has encountered a number of challenges in pursuing Mr. Trump, including its inability thus far to persuade any Trump Organization executives to cooperate.


Mr. Trump has disputed the notion that he inflated his property values or defrauded his lenders, and has accused Mr. Bragg and Ms. James, both Democrats who are Black, of being politically motivated and “racists.”

“I’ve been representing Donald Trump for over a year in this case and I haven’t found any evidence that could lead to a prosecution against him, or any crimes,” said a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Ronald P. Fischetti. “I hope Mr. Bragg will now look again at all the evidence in the case and make a statement that he is discontinuing all investigation of Donald Trump.”

As Mr. Bragg’s grand jury presentation has come to a halt, another serious criminal inquiry into the former president has been gaining steam. In recent weeks, a district attorney in Atlanta asked a judge to convene a grand jury for an investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

Another criminal investigation, in New York’s Westchester County, is examining Mr. Trump’s financial dealings at one of his company’s golf courses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyre ... ation.html

by ti-amie I had a feeling this was going to happen. As this person says in his response to the above article. Mayor Adams, and hence his boy Bragg, who himself has had problems with corrupt practices, want a different focus. What he doesn't say is that there was a lot of GOP support for Adams.

Steve
Moraga ca

@fg Alvin Bragg's reform of the DA's office has centered on redefining what crimes he will prosecute, which seems to mean that unless you use lethal force, you will have what otherwise might be a felony reduced to a misdemeanor. Apparently, because Trump and his company didn't use a gun, it's not worth Bragg's time. As Woody Guthrie sang: "Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen." Someone should call Bragg and sing those lines to him over the phone.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie








by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie Things that make you go hmmm...


by ti-amie

by ti-amie Trump Is Guilty of ‘Numerous’ Felonies, Prosecutor Who Resigned Says
Mark F. Pomerantz, who had investigated the former president, left after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, halted an effort to seek an indictment.

By William K. Rashbaum, Ben Protess and Jonah E. Bromwich
March 23, 2022
Updated 6:54 p.m. ET

One of the senior Manhattan prosecutors who investigated Donald J. Trump believed that the former president was “guilty of numerous felony violations” and that it was “a grave failure of justice” not to hold him accountable, according to a copy of his resignation letter.

The prosecutor, Mark F. Pomerantz, submitted his resignation last month after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, abruptly stopped pursuing an indictment of Mr. Trump.

Mr. Pomerantz, 70, a prominent former federal prosecutor and white-collar defense lawyer who came out of retirement to work on the Trump investigation, resigned on the same day as Carey R. Dunne, another senior prosecutor leading the inquiry.

Mr. Pomerantz’s Feb. 23 letter, obtained by The New York Times, offers a personal account of his decision to resign and for the first time states explicitly his belief that the office could have convicted the former president. Mr. Bragg’s decision was “contrary to the public interest,” he wrote.

“The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did,” Mr. Pomerantz wrote.

Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne planned to charge Mr. Trump with falsifying business records, specifically his annual financial statements — a felony in New York State.

Mr. Bragg’s decision not to pursue charges — and the resignations that followed — threw the fate of the long-running investigation into serious doubt. If the prosecutors had secured an indictment of Mr. Trump, it would have been the highest-profile case ever brought by the Manhattan district attorney’s office and would have made Mr. Trump the first American president to face criminal charges.

Earlier this month, The Times reported that the investigation unraveled after weeks of escalating disagreement between the veteran prosecutors overseeing the case and the new district attorney. Much of the debate centered on whether the prosecutors could prove that Mr. Trump knowingly falsified the value of his assets on annual financial statements, The Times found, a necessary element to proving the case.

While Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz were confident that the office could demonstrate that the former president had intended to inflate the value of his golf clubs, hotels and office buildings, Mr. Bragg was not. He balked at pursuing an indictment against Mr. Trump, a decision that shut down Mr. Pomerantz’s and Mr. Dunne’s presentation of evidence to a grand jury and prompted their resignations.

Mr. Bragg has said that his office continues to conduct the investigation. For that reason, Mr. Bragg, a former federal prosecutor and deputy New York State attorney general who became district attorney in January, is barred from commenting on its specifics.

Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., had decided in his final days in office to move toward an indictment, leaving Mr. Trump just weeks away from likely criminal charges. Mr. Bragg’s decision seems, for now at least, to have removed one of the greatest legal threats Mr. Trump has ever faced.

The resignation letter cast a harsh light on that decision from the perspective of Mr. Pomerantz, who wrote that he believed there was enough evidence to prove Mr. Trump’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“No case is perfect,” Mr. Pomerantz wrote. “Whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice.”

In a statement responding to the letter, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Ronald P. Fischetti, said that charges were not warranted and that Mr. Pomerantz “had the opportunity to present the fruits of his investigation to the D.A. and his senior staff on several occasions and failed.”

Mr. Fischetti, who was Mr. Pomerantz’s law partner in the 1980s and early 1990s, added: “We should applaud District Attorney Alvin Bragg for adhering to the rule of law and sticking to the evidence while making an apolitical charging decision based solely on the lack of evidence and nothing else.”

In its own statement, Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, called Mr. Pomerantz “a never-Trumper” and said: “Never before have we seen this level of corruption in our legal system.”

Mr. Trump has long denied wrongdoing and leveled personal attacks on the people investigating him, including a thinly veiled reference to Mr. Pomerantz. In one statement, he claimed that lawyers from Mr. Pomerantz’s former law firm had “gone to work in the district attorney’s office in order to viciously make sure that ‘the job gets done.’ ”

Mr. Pomerantz, who confirmed his resignation in a brief interview last month, declined to comment on the letter when contacted by The Times this week.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Bragg, Danielle Filson, said that the investigation was continuing and added: “A team of experienced prosecutors is working every day to follow the facts and the law. There is nothing more we can or should say at this juncture about an ongoing investigation.”

In his letter, Mr. Pomerantz acknowledged that Mr. Bragg “devoted significant time and energy to understanding the evidence” in the inquiry and had made his decision in good faith. But, he wrote, “a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong.”

Mr. Pomerantz contrasted Mr. Bragg’s approach with that of Mr. Vance, who made the Trump investigation a centerpiece of his tenure and convened the grand jury last fall. Mr. Pomerantz’s letter said that shortly before leaving office, Mr. Vance had directed the prosecutors to pursue an indictment of Mr. Trump as well as “other defendants as soon as reasonably possible.”

The letter did not name the other defendants, but the recent Times article reported that the prosecutors envisioned also charging Mr. Trump’s family business and his longtime chief financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg, who had already been indicted along with the company last year, accused of a yearslong scheme to evade taxes.

Mr. Bragg has told aides that the inquiry could move forward if a new piece of evidence is unearthed, or if a Trump Organization insider decides to turn on Mr. Trump. Some investigators in the office saw either possibility as highly unlikely.

“There are always additional facts to be pursued,” Mr. Pomerantz wrote in his letter. “But the investigative team that has been working on this matter for many months does not believe that it makes law enforcement sense to postpone a prosecution in the hope that additional evidence will somehow emerge.”

He added that, “I and others believe that your decision not to authorize prosecution now will doom any future prospects that Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for the criminal conduct we have been investigating.”

As of late December, the team investigating Mr. Trump was mostly united around Mr. Vance’s decision to pursue charges — but that had not always been the case, The Times reported this month. Last year, three career prosecutors in the district attorney’s office opted to leave the team, uncomfortable with the speed at which it was proceeding and with what they believed were gaps in the evidence.

Initially, Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne had envisioned charging Mr. Trump with the crime of “scheme to defraud,” believing that he falsely inflated his assets on the statements of financial condition that had been used to obtain bank loans. But by the end of the year, they had changed course and planned to charge Mr. Trump with falsifying business records — a simpler case that essentially amounted to painting Mr. Trump as a liar rather than a thief.

Mr. Pomerantz, who joined the investigation more than a year ago, said in the letter that Mr. Trump’s financial statements were “false” — that he had lied about his assets to “banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people.”

Mr. Pomerantz is not the only one involved in the investigation to suggest that Mr. Trump or his company broke the law. The New York attorney general, Letitia James, whose office is assisting the criminal investigation and conducting its own civil inquiry, has filed court papers in the civil matter arguing that she has evidence showing that the Trump Organization had engaged in “fraudulent or misleading” practices.

Mr. Trump has accused Mr. Bragg and Ms. James, both of whom are Black Democrats, of carrying out a politically motivated “witch hunt” and being “racists.”

Ms. James’s inquiry, which can lead to a lawsuit but not criminal charges, continues as she seeks to question Mr. Trump and two of his adult children under oath. The Trumps recently appealed a judge’s order that they submit to Ms. James’s questioning.

In another court filing, Ms. James disclosed that Mr. Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, had cut ties with him and essentially retracted a decade’s worth of his financial statements.

Mazars was shaping up to be a crucial witness in the criminal investigation as well. In January, Mr. Pomerantz questioned Mr. Trump’s accountant at Mazars before the grand jury, zeroing in on exaggerations in the financial statements.

But the statements also contained disclaimers, including acknowledgments that Mazars had neither audited nor authenticated Mr. Trump’s claims, potentially complicating the case. And some of Mr. Bragg’s supporters have argued that it would have been a difficult case to win.

Still, Mr. Pomerantz wrote that he and other prosecutors believed that they had amassed sufficient evidence to establish the former president’s guilt, writing that, “We believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury.”

Addressing an apparent belief in Mr. Bragg’s office that they might lose at trial, Mr. Pomerantz wrote, “Respect for the rule of law, and the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that ‘no man is above the law,’ require that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain.”

Mr. Pomerantz is a former head of the criminal division in the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, as well as a longtime defense lawyer. He worked on the Trump investigation pro bono.

Mr. Dunne at the time was serving as Mr. Vance’s general counsel, a job he had held since early 2017. In that role, he had successfully argued before the Supreme Court, winning access to Mr. Trump’s tax records.

Mr. Dunne has declined to comment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyre ... rantz.html

by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:30 pm
How do you clear customs with a revoked passport? Please, let me know. Might come in handy one of these days.

by ti-amie I kept trying to picture how that went down. I mean was there a special customs agent who had agreed to let him go through? A special line? Anyone ese would've been wrestled to the ground and men in black would've been visiting their home. That's the part I don't understand.

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 His perfect strategy. This will take, in American courts, years to reach closure, by which time he will be again president and will use his hand picked AG to settle this in his favor.

by ti-amie

by the Moz Yes yes 2016 was rigged, yet the Donald still won. Yes yes 2020 was rigged, but the Donald lost. This lawsuit is nothing more than a tacit admission that the Dems got smarter and the Donald stupider in the four years between those two 'rigged' contests.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Judge Holds Trump in Contempt Over Documents in New York A.G.’s Inquiry
Former President Donald J. Trump was ordered to turn over materials sought by Letitia James, the New York attorney general, and will be fined $10,000 per day until he does so.

By Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum
April 25, 2022
Updated 1:39 p.m. ET

A New York judge on Monday held Donald J. Trump in contempt of court for failing to turn over documents to the state’s attorney general, an extraordinary rebuke of the former president.

The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, ordered Mr. Trump to comply with a subpoena seeking records and assessed a fine of $10,000 per day until he satisfied the court’s requirements. In essence, the judge concluded that Mr. Trump had failed to cooperate with the attorney general, Letitia James, and follow the court’s orders.

“Mr. Trump: I know you take your business seriously, and I take mine seriously,” said Justice Engoron of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, before he held Mr. Trump in contempt and banged his gavel.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump had argued that they conducted a thorough search for the records being sought by investigators and found no new documents to provide. But Justice Engoron decided that the lawyers had not provided sufficient detail about how they searched.

The contempt order could be short-lived. If Alina Habba, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, files a sworn statement detailing every step that was taken to locate potential documents, the judge might be satisfied, lawyers close to the case said. Ms. Habba said after the hearing ended that she intended to file such a statement, potentially by the end of the day.

Ms. Habba also said she intended to appeal the ruling.

“All documents responsive to the subpoena were produced to the attorney general months ago,” Ms. Habba said. “This does not even come close to meeting the standard on a motion for contempt.”

At the hearing, Justice Engoron objected to an earlier statement from Mr. Trump’s lawyers regarding their efforts to search for documents, calling it “woefully insufficient” and “boilerplate.”

It failed, he said, to outline “what, who, where, when and how any search was conducted.”

The ruling — and Justice Engoron’s comments — represent a significant victory for Ms. James, whose office is conducting a civil investigation into whether Mr. Trump falsely inflated the value of his assets in annual financial statements.

In January, Ms. James, a Democrat, said her office had concluded that the Trump Organization had engaged in “fraudulent or misleading” practices involving the statements. But she said she would continue to investigate before deciding whether to sue Mr. Trump or his company.

Although Ms. James does not have the authority to file criminal charges, her civil inquiry is running parallel to a criminal investigation led by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who is examining some of the same conduct.

Ms. James’s office is participating in that separate investigation, which had appeared to be nearing an indictment of Mr. Trump earlier this year, before Mr. Bragg raised concerns about prosecutors’ ability to prove their case. Mr. Bragg, also a Democrat, inherited the inquiry from his predecessor after taking office on Jan. 1.

The ruling on Monday presents a roadblock for Mr. Trump as he continues to battle the attorney general’s investigation. Ms. James has sought to question the former president and two of his children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., as part of her inquiry, and lawyers for the Trump family are seeking to block the questioning. (In the fall of 2020, Ms. James questioned another of Mr. Trump’s children, Eric Trump, as part of her investigation.)

In March, Justice Engoron sided with Ms. James, ordering Mr. Trump and his children to be deposed. The Trumps have appealed that ruling.

This month, lawyers from Ms. James’s office said that Mr. Trump had declined to turn over documents in response to eight separate requests, and called for him to be held in contempt and assessed a daily fine of $10,000 as long as he continued to not cooperate.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers had said the requests were “grossly overbroad,” and did not “adequately” describe the requested materials.

Ms. Habba said in a document filed with the court last week that Mr. Trump did not have any of the documents that Ms. James had requested, and that any such documents, if they existed, would be in the possession of the Trump Organization.

She added that Ms. James had filed the motion for contempt without warning, “seemingly in an effort to turn this matter into a public spectacle.”

But lawyers for Ms. James’s office have said they believe that at least some of Mr. Trump’s documents have not been turned over. In one filing, her lawyers mentioned a filing cabinet at the company that contained the former president’s files, and noted that he used Post-it notes to pass messages to employees.

According to Ms. James, Mr. Trump’s lawyer said that a file of Mr. Trump’s correspondence had not been searched, in part because the business had determined that Mr. Trump was not involved in preparing his own financial statements.

Ms. James called that assertion improbable, and referred to a statement affixed to the financial statements that says: “Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation” of the valuations.

In a separate case in federal court, Mr. Trump sued Ms. James, seeking to halt her civil inquiry and have her removed from the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation. That case is ongoing.

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney's office, state criminal courts in Manhattan and New York City's jails.

During his time on Metro, Mr. Bromwich has covered investigations into former president Donald J. Trump and his family business, the fall of New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and the crisis at the jail complex on Rikers Island, among other topics. @jonesieman

Ben Protess is an investigative reporter covering the federal government, law enforcement and various criminal investigations into former President Trump and his allies. @benprotess

William K. Rashbaum is a senior writer on the Metro desk, where he covers political and municipal corruption, courts, terrorism and law enforcement. He was a part of the team awarded the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News. @WRashbaum • Facebook

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/25/nyre ... tempt.html

by ponchi101 $10K per day. Let's say, 2 1/2 years until he is back in the presidency. That is about $11MM. He then nominates a new acolyte for AG, that person dismisses this judge and declares the fine unconstitutional.
That simple.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie CNN Exclusive: New text messages reveal Fox’s Hannity advising Trump White House and seeking direction

By Jamie Gangel, Jeremy Herb, Elizabeth Stuart and Brian Stelter, CNN
Updated 4:47 PM EDT, Fri April 29, 2022

Washington
CNN

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Fox’s Sean Hannity exchanged more than 80 text messages between Election Day 2020 and Joe Biden’s January 2021 inauguration, communications that show Hannity’s evolution from staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump’s election lies to being “fed up” with the “lunatics” hurting Trump’s cause in the days before January 6.

CNN obtained Meadows’ 2,319 text messages, which he selectively provided in December to the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. While the logs show Meadows communicating with multiple Fox personalities, as well as a number of journalists from other organizations, Hannity stands out with 82 messages. The texts, including dozens of newly disclosed messages, offer a real-time window into how Hannity, a close friend of Trump, was reacting to the election and its aftermath.

Throughout the logs, Hannity both gives advice and asks for direction, blurring the lines between his Fox show, his radio show and the Trump White House.

On the afternoon of Election Day, Hannity texted Meadows at 1:36 p.m. to ask about turnout in North Carolina. Two hours later, Meadows responded: “Stress every vote matters. Get out and vote. On radio.”

“Yes sir,” Hannity replied. “On it. Any place in particular we need a push.”

“Pennsylvania. NC AZ,” Meadows wrote, adding: “Nevada.”

“Got it. Everywhere,” Hannity said.

The texts also show the two men debating Trump’s strategy to challenge the election, complaining about Fox, and plotting about what to do after Trump left office – including possibly working together.

“You also need to spend at least half your time doing business with us,” Hannity texted Meadows on December 12. “And I’m serious. Did u ever talk to Fox. I’ve been at war with them.”

“I agree. We can make a powerful team,” Meadows responded. “I did not talk with (Fox News CEO) Suzanne (Scott) because I got tied up with pardons but I will make sure I connect. You are a true patriot and I am so very proud of you! Your friendship means a great deal to me.”

“Feeling is mutual,” Hannity wrote back.

Hannity did not respond to requests for comment from CNN; neither did Meadows or his attorney. A spokesman for the January 6 committee declined to comment.

Feeding the fraud conspiracies
Initially after the November 2020 election, Hannity appeared to be all in with Trump’s false election claims. On November 29, he texted Meadows saying he had his team trying to prove election fraud: “I’ve had my team digging into the numbers. There is no way Biden got these numbers. Just mathematically impossible. It’s so sad for this country they can pull this off in 2020. We need a major breakthrough, a video, something.”

Meadows responded, “You’re exactly right. Working on breakthrough.”

“Ok. Would be phenomenal,” Hannity texted back.

But several weeks later, as Trump’s team lost court challenges and the wild claims from attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell failed to materialize into anything more than false conspiracy theories, Hannity’s tone shifted.

Hannity checked in with Meadows on December 22, asking him how he was doing.

“Fighting like crazy. Went to Cobb county to review process. Very tough days but I will keep fighting,” Meadows said, referring to the Trump team’s objections to votes from Cobb County, Georgia.

While Hannity never appeared to dispute Trump’s false claims about the election itself, he expressed alarm at the tactics of some of those pushing Trump’s case. Hannity responded to Meadows, “You fighting is fine. The fing lunatics is NOT fine. They are NOT helping him. I’m fed up with those people.”

By New Year’s Eve, Hannity warned about the fallout if top White House lawyers resigned in protest. Hannity also appeared to accept the fact that the election was over and the President’s best course of action was to go to Florida and engage Biden from there.

“We can’t lose the entire WH counsels office. I do NOT see January 6 happening the way he is being told,” Hannity said. “After the 6 th. He should announce will lead the nationwide effort to reform voting integrity. Go to Fl and watch Joe mess up daily. Stay engaged. When he speaks people will listen.”

Prepping for a Trump interview

Hannity’s text messages to Meadows are of interest to the House select committee, which wrote to Hannity in January requesting an interview. That month, the panel released some of Hannity’s texts to Meadows showing his concern about what would happen on January 6, 2021.

After the letter was sent, Hannity’s attorney, Jay Sekulow, told CNN, “We are reviewing the committee’s letter and will respond as appropriate.”

The texts provide evidence of what many White House and Fox sources claimed during Trump’s time in office: That Hannity acted as a “shadow chief of staff” while also juggling radio and TV shows. Trump would frequently call into Hannity’s show – and Hannity appeared on stage with the President during his final 2018 campaign rally.

While Hannity was fiercely loyal to Trump on-air, his off-air relationship was more complicated. He sometimes complained about Trump’s conduct and fretted that the President was hurting the Republican Party writ large.

Hannity has said he is not a journalist, and Fox does not hold him to traditional journalistic standards. He is more akin to a GOP activist and entertainer, like some of his fellow Fox hosts. In addition to Hannity, Fox’s Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, Maria Bartiromo and Brian Kilmeade all sent messages to Meadows as well.
A spokesperson for Fox did not respond to a request for comment.

In one noteworthy text, Bartiromo messaged Meadows on the morning of November 29, less than an hour before she was set to conduct Trump’s first interview since Election Day. The text included questions she planned to ask Trump.

“Hi the public wants to know he will fight this. They want to hear a path to victory. & he’s in control,” Bartiromo texted at 9:21 a.m. “1Q You’ve said MANY TIMES THIS ELECTION IS RIGGED… And the facts are on your side. Let’s start there. What are the facts? Characterize what took place here. Then I will drill down on the fraud including the statistical impossibilities of Biden magic (federalist). Pls make sure he doesn’t go off on tangents. We want to know he is strong he is a fighter & he will win. This is no longer about him. This is about ????. I will ask him about big tech & media influencing ejection as well Toward end I’ll get to GA runoffs & then vaccines.”

At 10:12 a.m., Trump called into Bartiromo’s show, “Sunday Morning Futures.” Her line of questions mirrored much of what she laid out in the text message.

“Thank you for talking with us in the first interview since Election Day,” Bartiromo said. “Mr President, you’ve said many times that this election was rigged, that there was much fraud. And the facts are on your side. Let’s start there. Please go through the facts. Characterize what took place.”

The committee previously released texts from both Kilmeade and Ingraham expressing alarm over the attacks at the Capitol and its effect on Trump’s legacy. Tucker Carlson appears in only one exchange in the Meadows text logs, when he was trying to speak to Meadows while prepping for his show on November 17.

“Sorry I missed you. I was writing the show. Figured it out I think, but I appreciate it,” Carlson wrote.

The logs also show there were dozens of journalists from other organizations who texted with Meadows during this time period. In contrast to Hannity’s messages, these reporters were frequently seeking the White House chief of staff’s confirmation of breaking news or trying to secure an interview with Trump.

Meadows received texts from reporters with the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Politico, Bloomberg, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN, among others.

‘I’m beginning to feel down’

As the returns were coming in on Election Night, Hannity pinged Meadows to share a tweet about early vote totals out of North Carolina, a state that was crucial to Trump’s reelection hopes. “Will we hold??” Hannity asked Meadows.

“We are still good,” Meadows wrote back.

A week later, Hannity checked in again to see how Meadows was “holding up.”

“I am doing well. Working around the clock. We are going to fight and win,” Meadows said.

“You really think it’s possible,” Hannity responded. “I’m beginning to feel down. To (sic) much disorganization. We need Jim to front the messaging. Someone that’s credible.”

“Arizona now down just 12813. Still ballots to count,” Meadows wrote back. “Very disorganized but I have been busting heads yesterday and today. Let NOT your heart be troubled my friend.”

Hannity and Meadows’ texts underscore the insular effects of the right-wing media echo chamber, where little if any accurate information about the election results was able to break through.

In November and early December, Hannity’s show often amplified Trump’s election lies. Guests including then-White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany made near-nightly appearances to sow doubt about the election results and stoke support for doomed legal challenges. “We will follow the facts,” Hannity claimed on his December 2 program, one day after Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, declared there was no evidence of widespread election fraud.

But in his texts with Meadows, Hannity sounded resigned to the fact that the election was over.

“Texas case is very strong. Still a Herculean climb. Everyone knows it was stolen. Everyone,” Hannity wrote on December 8. “I vacillate between mad as hell and sad as hell. Wtf happened to our country Mark.”

Meadows responded, “So upset to see what we allowed to happen.”

“Honestly we think alike. That’s another discussion,” Hannity wrote back.

‘I’ve been at war with them all week’

The text messages also shed light on Hannity’s tensions with Fox. The Trump-aligned channel infuriated the former President by calling Arizona for Biden on Election Night.

On December 6, Meadows sent Hannity an article about then-Fox host Chris Wallace (who has since been hired by CNN) interrupting Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar when Azar called Biden vice president instead of president-elect.

“Doing this to try and get ratings will not work in the long run and I am doubtful it is even a short term winning strategy,” Meadows wrote.

Hannity responded with a jab at Fox and a suggestion about what Meadows should do after leaving the White House: “I’ve been at war with them all week. We will talk wen I see u,” Hannity wrote. “Also if this doesn’t end the way we want, you me and Jay are doing 3 things together. 1- Directing legal strategies vs Biden 2- NC Real estate 3- Other business I talked to Rudy. Thx for helping him.”

Hannity expressed his frustrations again several days later, telling Meadows that he had made a campaign ad.

“I was screaming about no ads from Labor Day on,” Hannity wrote on December 8. “I made my own they never ran it. I’m not pointing fingers. I’m frustrated.”

In his book, “Frankly, We Did Win This Election,” reporter Michael Bender reported that Hannity had scripted an ad for the Trump campaign, which then paid Fox more than $1 million to run. According to Bender, the ad ran only on one show, Hannity’s. When Bender’s book was published last year, Hannity denied writing a Trump campaign ad.

On December 11, Meadows asked Hannity to send him the phone number of Suzanne Scott, the Fox News CEO. “I can call through switchboard but that makes it a bigger deal,” Meadows said.

The next day, as Hannity pitched Meadows about working for Fox, he also offered an insightful window into how he views Trump. Hannity texted, “I truly feel sorry for our friend. He’s never had a days peace. On the other side of this, he’s exposed a very dark side of the swamp that’s far worse than I ever imagined and I am not particularly optimistic for the future.”

‘The seats are slipping away’



By mid-December, both Hannity and Meadows were concerned about the two Senate run-offs in Georgia that would decide control of the chamber in 2021. By that point, Trump had started his harsh attacks on Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp for certifying the state’s election for Biden.

Hannity and Meadows also began making plans for after the Trump administration, discussing how Trump could fashion a comeback bid and how Meadows could work against the Biden administration.

“These 2 senate seats are slipping away. Kemp is a total idiot,” Hannity wrote on December 12.

Hannity argued that Trump should make the Senate race about him.

“He has to make this about him. I’ll make a deal with you, If you (elect) 2 R’s to the senate, I’ll run again in 2024,” Hannity wrote of Trump. “Make it about him. 2 of the worst candidates I’ve ever seen.”

“The seats are slipping away,” Meadows responded. “I agree that he has to give some hope for the future. Connect the future to these candidates.”

Meadows continued, “Additionally. I think we set up a group of administrative lawyers, with a communication arm that fights election laws in every state and fight Biden actions every day, starting on Jan 20. ACLU filed over 400 lawsuits against Trump administration. We need to do the same. I think I can raise around 10 million dollars to hire a team to make sure the fight continues and prepares the way for 2024.”

‘He can’t mention the election again. Ever.’

As January 6 approached, Hannity expressed his concern about what would transpire. He texted Meadows on January 5, “Im very worried about the next 48 hours. Pence pressure. WH counsel will leave.”

On January 6, after the Capitol was breached by pro-Trump rioters, Hannity was one of a number of people texting Meadows urging Trump to intervene. “Can he make a statement. I saw the tweet. Ask people to peacefully leave the capital,” Hannity texted Meadows at 3:31 p.m.

“On it,” Meadows responded.

Later that evening, after Trump had sent another tweet attacking Vice President Mike Pence, Hannity expressed more alarm to Meadows, “Wth (What the hell) is happening with VPOTUS.”

In the January 6 aftermath, Hannity sounded a glum note to Meadows as many Republicans looked to cast Trump out of the party. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell gave a floor speech on January 19 saying the mob was “provoked” by Trump, prompting Hannity to share the video with Meadows. “Well this is as bad as this can get,” Hannity texted.

Hannity spoke to Trump several days after January 6. The call did not go well, Hannity wrote in a group text to Meadows and GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio. Hannity said he wanted Trump never to speak about the 2020 election again, but that Trump was unwilling, and Hannity appeared at a loss for what to do next.

“Guys, we have a clear path to land the plane in 9 days. He can’t mention the election again. Ever,” Hannity wrote. “I did not have a good call with him today. And worse, I’m not sure what is left to do or say, and I don’t like not knowing if it’s truly understood. Ideas?”

Neither Meadows nor Jordan appeared to respond.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correctly reflect the reporting in Michael Bender’s book, “Frankly, We Did Win This Election,” regarding an ad Hannity scripted for the Trump campaign. Bender reported that the ad ran only on one show on Fox, Hannity’s.


https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics ... index.html

by ponchi101 Hannity was and is a Trump agent. Shocker.

by ti-amie Sometimes you have to shout louder for the folks in the back who can't quite hear you...

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 It will be the ultimate failure of the American Justice system (not LEGAL system, this is not about LAW, is about JUSTICE). A group of men plotted to overthrow the entire democratic system, and will go unpunished.
Not surprised at all about LG.

by ti-amie




by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

Image

by ti-amie Is this the fundraising letter?


by ti-amie






by ti-amie To explain the first tweet this is the local guy who broke the story


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Let's see if Garland has the integrity and courage to apply this to the extent of the law.
His cult will see him as a martyr.
From prison, he will be able to deliver, to any republican, around 50MM votes; he will barter with these people on the grounds of who would pardon him (again, if he lands in prison).
But, as Dry has said several times. Nothing sticks to this guy. He is living proof that some people are that lucky. This will be another legal maneuver that will lead nowhere. In January 25, all these people involved in these moves will be removed from their positions.

by ti-amie

by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:27 pm But, as Dry has said several times. Nothing sticks to this guy.
I've changed my tune a little. Nothing sticks to this guy. And yet he's the victim.

by ti-amie


by ti-amie This is one of the people who was looking for a pardon.


by ponchi101 Changing subjects. Has Congress requested from Garland the full Müeller report? I don't know, it might be of interest. If only to see where it was leading.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie






by ti-amie Peter Strzok
@petestrzok
26 year FBI and Army veteran. Georgetown School of Foreign Service adjunct professor and alum. NYT/WP bestseller: Compromised










by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

I wonder if he will keep his pension?

by ti-amie

by ti-amie





by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie The full motion to unseal

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 18.0_2.pdf

by ti-amie The TL;dr


by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ponchi101 It's like dealing with babies.

by ti-amie FBI searched Trump’s home to look for nuclear documents and other items, sources say
Attorney General Merrick Garland wouldn’t discuss the search but said he personally signed off on asking a judge to approve it
By Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey, Perry Stein and Shane Harris
Updated August 11, 2022 at 8:01 p.m. EDT|Published August 11, 2022 at 2:16 p.m. EDT

Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation. :shock:

Experts in classified information said the unusual search underscores deep concern among government officials about the types of information they thought could be located at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and potentially in danger of falling into the wrong hands.

The people who described some of the material that agents were seeking spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. They did not offer additional details about what type of information the agents were seeking, including whether it involved weapons belonging to the United States or some other nation. Nor did they say if such documents were recovered as part of the search. A Trump spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment.


Attorney General Merrick Garland said he could not discuss the investigation on Thursday. But in an unusual public statement at the Justice Department, he announced he had personally authorized the decision to seek court permission for a search warrant.

Garland spoke moments after Justice Department lawyers filed a motion seeking to unseal the search warrant in the case, noting that Trump had publicly revealed the search shortly after it happened.

“The public’s clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred under these circumstances weighs heavily in favor of unsealing,” the motion says. “That said, the former President should have an opportunity to respond to this Motion and lodge objections, including with regards to any ‘legitimate privacy interests’ or the potential for other ‘injury’ if these materials are made public.”

Material about nuclear weapons is especially sensitive and usually restricted to a small number of government officials, experts said. Publicizing details about U.S. weapons could provide an intelligence road map to adversaries seeking to build ways of countering those systems. And other countries might view exposing their nuclear secrets as a threat, experts said.

One former Justice Department official, who in the past oversaw investigations of leaks of classified information, said the type of top-secret information described by the people familiar with the probe would probably cause authorities to try to move as quickly as possible to recover sensitive documents that could cause grave harm to U.S. security.

“If that is true, it would suggest that material residing unlawfully at Mar-a-Lago may have been classified at the highest classification level,” said David Laufman, the former chief of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence section, which investigates leaks of classified information. “If the FBI and the Department of Justice believed there were top secret materials still at Mar-a-Lago, that would lend itself to greater ‘hair-on-fire’ motivation to recover that material as quickly as possible.”


(...)

The investigation into the improper handling of documents began months ago, when the National Archives and Records Administration sought the return of material taken to Mar-a-Lago from the White House. Fifteen boxes of documents and items, some of them marked classified, were returned early this year. The archives subsequently asked the Justice Department to investigate.

Former senior intelligence officials said in interviews that during the Trump administration, highly classified intelligence about sensitive topics, including about intelligence-gathering on Iran, was routinely mishandled. One former official said the most highly classified information often ended up in the hands of personnel who didn’t appear to have a need to possesses it or weren’t authorized to read it.

That former official also said signals intelligence — intercepted electronic communications like emails and phone calls of foreign leaders — was among the type of information that often ended up with unauthorized personnel. Such intercepts are among the most closely guarded secrets because of what they can reveal about how the United States has penetrated foreign governments.

A person familiar with the inventory of 15 boxes taken from Mar-a-Lago in January indicated that signals intelligence material was included in them. The precise nature of the information was unclear.

The former officials and the other individual spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters.

This spring, Trump’s team received a grand jury subpoena in connection with the documents investigations, two people familiar with the investigation, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details, confirmed to The Post on Thursday. Investigators visited Mar-a-Lago in the weeks following the issuance of the subpoena, and Trump’s team handed over some materials. The subpoena was first reported by Just the News, a conservative media outlet run by John Solomon, one of Trump’s recently designated representatives to the National Archives.

People familiar with the probe have said it is focused on whether the former president or his aides withheld classified or other government material that should have been returned to government custody earlier. The people, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation, said that as authorities engaged in months of discussions on the subject, some officials came to suspect the Trump team was not being truthful.

(...)

Trump and his allies have refused to publicly share a copy of the warrant, even as they and their supporters have denounced the search as unlawful and politically motivated but provided no evidence to back that up.

Lawyers for the former president can respond to the government’s filing with any objections to unsealing the warrant, leaving it to the judge overseeing the case to decide. He also could publicly release the warrant himself.

The judge ordered the Justice Department to confer with lawyers for Trump and alert the court by 3 p.m. Friday as to whether Trump objects to the unsealing.

After Garland’s appearance, Trump took to his own social media network to again decry the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. But he made no indication of whether he would lodge an objection to the government’s filing.

If made public, the warrant would probably reveal a general description of what material agents were seeking at Mar-a-Lago and what crimes they could be connected to. A list of the inventory that agents took from the property would also be released. Details could be limited, however, particularly if the material collected includes classified documents.

(...)

Republicans around Trump initially thought the raid could help him politically, but they are now bracing for revelations that could be damaging, a person familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Jacqueline Alemany, Spencer S. Hsu, Meryl Kornfield and Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ar-a-lago/

by ti-amie Nuclear related material?!

by ti-amie



I'm sorry WHAT?

by ponchi101 What TF does he have to do to be frigging charged with treason? Hand over the football to Putin, on national TV?

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Tiny leaked the information from the warrants, etc. to the WSJ (Murdoch) and Breitbart (which promptly doxxed the agents who participated in the raid) and Is making claims that all the FBI had to do was ask (as its been doing for months). The only thing of note in what he released is that he is being investigated under the Espionage Act.

The DOJ is set to release documents at 3p Eastern.

by ti-amie Bradley P. Moss
@BradMossEsq
For those in the back who have not been listening, let me say this one last time. Declassification had to be done and completed for each individual document before noon on 1/2/2021.

No indication Trump made sure that was done for these docs. A verbal statement is not enough.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie The warrant. Click link for the entire document.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... mp-warrant

by ti-amie Interesting.

Image
Were they trying to blackmail Macron?

Image

I think the lawyer Bobb has been all over Fox talking crap.

by ti-amie






by ti-amie

by ti-amie The real TL;dr


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Miscellaneous Top Secret documents?
The burning sound you are hearing is the sound of comedy writers' keyboards bursting aflame, as they try to put down in writing one joke before that one gets run-over by the next one.
How about "Flaming hot :poop: :poop: :poop: he should not have".

by patrick Speaking of the raid, 45 supporters want him to declare a run for the Presidency in 2024 now. If 45 does this, 45 and his supporters (led by McConnell and McCarthy) will tie this up in court. If the ruling goes against 45, there will be mountains of appeals until 45 gets back in the Oval Office which will be celebrated in Russia.

by ti-amie

That portrait makes me laugh so hard.It also illustrates why we call him Tiny here.

by ti-amie Two great posts, one by an account that spoofs the NY Times because it's political coverage deserves it and another one that I stumbled upon. At some point you have to laugh.





If you have no idea who Ezra Miller is Google his name. His shenanigans have been so over the top I've resisted putting them in our entertainment/show biz thread. The post is funny but not so much when you see how seriously mentally ill Mr. Miller is.

by ti-amie On a more serious note...




by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

Note the time stamp.

by ti-amie This happened today...



I think there were four people.

by ponchi101 Serious question: can an FBI agent STAND HIS GROUND? See if these a**holes have the training to go against a professional?

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

His question was answered. One was expired (per Tiny). One is his personal passport and one is the passport issued for government employees traveling on official business.

Point of information here:


by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Asylum is not automatic. Suppose that Trump were to request asylum at the Russian consulate. Russia would decide to grant or not.
Imagine the price Vlad would extract.

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:11 pm Asylum is not automatic. Suppose that Trump were to request asylum at the Russian consulate. Russia would decide to grant or not.
Imagine the price Vlad would extract.
Maybe Vlad has already been "paid" so to speak? We know KAS has already paid Jared $2bn for a "Hedge Fund" startup.

by ti-amie

Ms Ramgappa's cv

Asha Rangappa
@AshaRangappa_
Fmr FBI Special Agent, lawyer,
@JacksonYale
. Tiger(ish) mom. Legal and national security analyst. Editor
@just_security
. Steam mop influencer. Views mine.

by ti-amie Fox News saying the quiet part out loud? I'm sure the folks who host their evening line up will set things right.


by ti-amie


by ti-amie I think the judge should've redacted his name.



Morgan Kolb (she/her)
@linamonbun

Also non-lawyer, but I believe this special GJ can only issue a report (not indictments) and then the DA can then decide to take that report to a regular GJ to seek an indictment (seems likely). So I think this indicates the drafting process has begun/will soon.

by ti-amie



Laura Rozen
@lrozen
“But towards the weekend, and following the revelation that the FBI removed a leather-bound box from the property and already knew the location of Trump’s safe, scrutiny shifted once more to anyone else who had not yet been suspected – including members of Trump’s family”

by ti-amie

Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck

(Correction: Senator Cornyn was a trial judge and Texas Supreme Court Justice *before* he served as Attorney General.)

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Court orders release of DOJ memo on Trump obstruction in Mueller probe

By Rachel Weiner
Updated August 19, 2022 at 4:16 p.m. EDT|Published August 19, 2022 at 12:15 p.m. EDT

A federal appeals court has ordered the release of a secret Justice Department memo discussing whether President Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The unanimous panel decision issued Friday echoes that of a lower court judge, Amy Berman Jackson, who last year accused the Justice Department of dishonesty in its justifications for keeping the memo hidden.

The panel of three judges, led by Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, said that whether or not there was “bad faith,” the government “created a misimpression” and could not stop release under the Freedom of Information Act.

The memo was written by two senior Justice Department officials for then-attorney general William P. Barr, who subsequently told Congress that there was not enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s inquiry. A redacted version was released last year but left under seal the legal and factual analysis.

Department officials argued that the document was protected because it involved internal deliberations over a prosecutorial decision. But the judges agreed with Jackson that both Mueller and Barr had clearly already concluded that a sitting president could not be charged with a crime. The discussion was over how Barr would publicly characterize the obstruction evidence Mueller had assembled, the Justice Department conceded on appeal.

“The court’s ... review of the memorandum revealed that the Department in fact never considered bringing a charge,” the panel wrote. “Instead, the memorandum concerned a separate decision that had gone entirely unmentioned by the government in its submissions to the court—what, if anything, to say to Congress and the public about the Mueller Report.”

The court said that if the Department of Justice had accurately described to Jackson the motivations behind the memo, the document might be considered protected. Federal courts generally give deference to the government in such cases.

“We have held that an agency’s deliberations about how to communicate its policies are privileged, just like its deliberations about the content of those policies,” the court wrote. But they said the government forfeited that argument by insisting the memo was about the charging decision and resisting a review that showed otherwise.

“Any notion that the memorandum concerned whether to say something to the public went entirely unargued — and even unmentioned” until the appeal, the court said. “We cannot sustain the withholding of the memorandum on a rationale that the Department never presented to the district court.”

Jackson castigated the government for that omission, saying that CREW’s assessment of the memo “was considerably more accurate than the one supplied by the Department” even though the nonprofit “had never laid eyes on the document.”

Barr ultimately told lawmakers that since Mueller had declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice, he and his deputy made their own determination that the evidence was lacking. When Mueller’s full report was released weeks later, his office said there was “substantial evidence” of obstruction. He also wrote a letter to Barr saying the attorney general had mischaracterized his team’s work.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the nonprofit that sued for the document’s release, celebrated the ruling on Twitter and a spokesman for the ethics watchdog called it a “major victory for transparency.”

“Attorney General Barr cited this memo as a reason not to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice,” CREW spokesman Jordan Libowitz said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know what it says. Now they will.”

The court held release of the memo for a week so the Justice Department can weigh an appeal. The department could ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court to keep the document under seal. A Justice spokeswoman declined to comment, as did Barr.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... se-russia/

by ti-amie

Brigitte Powell
@BrigittePowel15
Replying to
@thehill
Well well well..... She didn't think he would turn on her? What goes around.....etc. I think it's well deserved because she and her husband....and especially her husband, knew exactly what they were getting into.

MaconTNHoller @MaconHoller
He owes her family bank $200mil next year.

by ponchi101 Blah, she probably did not let him cut into a deal, that must be all.

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:17 pm Blah, she probably did not let him cut into a deal, that must be all.
Totally agree. Eventually he turns on everyone so I hope she and Mitch aren't too surprised about this.

by ti-amie Sigh












P1 (of course)

by ti-amie P2/L









Sorry for repeating some of what has already been posted.



by ti-amie

by ti-amie




by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

Image

by ti-amie Image

Trump Had More Than 300 Classified Documents at Mar-a-Lago
The National Archives found more than 150 sensitive documents when it got a first batch of material from the former president in January, helping to explain the Justice Department’s urgent response.

By Maggie Haberman, Jodi Kantor, Adam Goldman and Ben Protess
Aug. 22, 2022
Updated 8:47 p.m. ET

The initial batch of documents retrieved by the National Archives from former President Donald J. Trump in January included more than 150 marked as classified, a number that ignited intense concern at the Justice Department and helped trigger the criminal investigation that led F.B.I. agents to swoop into Mar-a-Lago this month seeking to recover more, multiple people briefed on the matter said.

In total, the government has recovered more than 300 documents with classified markings from Mr. Trump since he left office, the people said: that first batch of documents returned in January, another set provided by Mr. Trump’s aides to the Justice Department in June and the material seized by the F.B.I. in the search this month.

The previously unreported volume of the sensitive material found in the former president’s possession in January helps explain why the Justice Department moved so urgently to hunt down any further classified materials he might have.

(...)

The specific nature of the sensitive material that Mr. Trump took from the White House remains unclear. But the 15 boxes Mr. Trump turned over to the archives in January, nearly a year after he left office, included documents from the C.I.A., the National Security Agency and the F.B.I. spanning a variety of topics of national security interest, a person briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Trump went through the boxes himself in late 2021, according to multiple people briefed on his efforts, before turning them over :fuelfire:

(...)

Aides to Mr. Trump turned over a few dozen additional sensitive documents during a visit to Mar-a-Lago by Justice Department officials in early June. At the conclusion of the search this month, officials left with 26 boxes, including 11 sets of material marked as classified, comprising scores of additional documents. One set had the highest level of classification, top secret/sensitive compartmented information.

Even after the extraordinary decision by the F.B.I. to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, investigators have sought additional surveillance footage from the club, people familiar with the matter said.

It was the second such demand for the club’s security tapes, said the people familiar with the matter, and underscored that authorities are still scrutinizing how the classified documents were handled by Mr. Trump and his staff before the search.

(...)

Two former White House officials, who had been designated as among Mr. Trump’s representatives with the archives, received calls and tried to facilitate the documents’ return.

Mr. Trump resisted those calls, describing the boxes of documents as “mine,” according to three advisers familiar with his comments.

(...)

On June 3, Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterespionage section of the national security division of the Justice Department, went to Mar-a-Lago to meet with two of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb, and retrieve any remaining classified material to satisfy the subpoena. Mr. Corcoran went through the boxes himself to identify classified material beforehand, according to two people familiar with his efforts.

Mr. Corcoran showed Mr. Bratt the basement storage room where, he said, the remaining material had been kept.

Mr. Trump briefly came to see the investigators during the visit.

Mr. Bratt and the agents who joined him were given a sheaf of classified material, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Corcoran then drafted a statement, which Ms. Bobb, who is said to be the custodian of the documents, signed. It asserted that, to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that was there had been returned, according to two people familiar with the statement.

Mr. Corcoran did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Ms. Bobb did not respond to an email seeking comment.


(...)

On June 22, the Justice Department subpoenaed the Trump Organization for Mar-a-Lago’s security footage, which included a well-trafficked hallway outside the storage area, the people said.

The club had surveillance footage going back 60 days for some areas of the property, stretching back to late April of this year.

While much of the footage showed hours of club employees walking through the busy corridor, some of it raised concerns for investigators, according to people familiar with the matter. It revealed people moving boxes in and out, and in some cases, appearing to change the containers some documents were held in. The footage also showed other parts of the property.

In seeking a second round of security footage, the Justice Department wants to review tapes for the weeks leading up to the Aug. 8 search.

(...)

The combination of witness interviews and the initial security footage led Justice Department officials to begin drafting a request for a search warrant, the people familiar with the matter said.

(...)

The F.B.I. agents who conducted the search found the additional documents in the storage area in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, as well as in a container in a closet in Mr. Trump’s office, the people said.

Correction: Aug. 22, 2022
An earlier version of this article misstated the classification of a set of documents recovered from former President Donald J. Trump’s home in Florida. They were marked top secret/sensitive compartmented information, not top secret/secret compartmented information.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/us/p ... ments.html

by ti-amie Ms Bobb is in a lot of legal jeopardy. So is Mr. Corcoran who wrote the memo but didn't sign it.

by ponchi101 And on, and on, and on. You find him up to his neck on scandalous behavior. Nothing happens. There is more evidence he is guilty. Nothing happens. He breaks the law repeatedly. Nothing happens.
In the process of making the case so airtight that it will be impossible for it to fail, the DOJ and everybody will see him sworn in as President in 2025, and in 5 seconds name Ivanka AG and have her toss away everything.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. A silly saying, but sometimes it does apply.

by ti-amie Katie S. Phang
@KatiePhang
Trump’s lawyers, who are not licensed to practice in Florida, are denied their requests to represent Trump b/c of their failure to comply with the local rules of procedure.

The Court tells them to try again. And has to point them to a sample motion to get it right.




by ti-amie Kyle Cheney

👀The May 10 letter between NARA and the Trump team is extraordinarily damning for Trump team, confirms there was "special access program" level material found in files at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump ally John Solomon's team posted it here:

https://justthenews.com/government/cour ... -documents

"The Executive Branch here is seeking access to records belonging to, and in the custody of, the Fed Govt itself...to “conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported."

Trump allies pointed to this letter as some kind of evidence of Biden White House meddling. What it shows is officials expressing extreme alarm about national security damage based on records being held by Trump.

The letter shows that even though NARA recovered 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago in January, FBI didn't access them until May.

"Among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages."

The letter does more to show how Trump and his team resisted NARA entreaties than anything that has come out so far.

And this is all before subsequent tranches were discovered at Mar-a-Lago.

NEW: The extraordinary letter shows how alarmed DOJ and NARA became about damage to national security caused by highly classified docs at Mar-a-Lago – and that was months before the Aug. 8 search recovered even more.

DOJ and NARA officials discussed with Trump's team an urgent need to conducft a damage assessment about the handling of those docs, but Trump attempted to claim privilege over them, prompting a request from DOJ to Biden to authorize access to the materials

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/2 ... y-00053250

According to this letter, Biden delegated the privilege decision to National Archivist Debra Wall, who said the case was "not a close one," since there was no way a former president's claim could override an incunbent administration's need for the review.

Trump allies touted portions of this letter that were revealed by Solomon earlier in the evening, saying it showed Biden had been involved in the process. That's a requirement of any NARA matter involving privilege, and here Wall indicate he delegated.

Seven hours later and I’m still mindblown that Trump allies were touting this letter as even a little bit exculpatory.

Another important aspect of this letter: Trump has been on notice since at least May of the FBI’s efforts to access this material. So his motion to seek a special master following the execution of the search warrant is months — not just weeks — late.

ONE MORE POINT: The language about consultation with the White House shows Biden was *more hands off* with the Mar-a-Lago docs than he was with the Jan. 6 records held by NARA. In both cases, archivist consulted with OLC, but in latter Biden delegated privilege decisions to NARA.

By my count, there are at least four other letters between Trump team and NARA/DOJ referenced here:

-April 12: Letter from NARA notifying Trump of FBI concerns
-April 29: Letter from Corcoran
-April 29: Letter from NSD
-May 1: Letter from Corcoran

By my count, there are at least four other letters between Trump team and NARA/DOJ referenced here:

Aggregated by @threadreaderapp

by ti-amie

by ti-amie New from their hand picked judge:


by ti-amie I think that Tiny and his spawn have already sold a lot of this stuff to MBS and other "friends". I mean they paid Jared $2b for what?

I think that even in their wildest dreams they didn't think Tiny would have documents like that in the closet of his office and that something that was top secret was acted upon and the light bulb went off.

Also the lawyer who signed the document stating that everything had been turned over is in deep legal poop. So is the one who wrote it but didn't sign it from what legal twitter is saying.

There is also this:


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by dryrunguy Even if it includes damning stuff about Trump and his minions, he'll post on his own social media platform that he was "completely exonerated" (sound familiar?), and they will blindly believe him.

by ti-amie
dryrunguy wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:11 am Even if it includes damning stuff about Trump and his minions, he'll post on his own social media platform that he was "completely exonerated" (sound familiar?), and they will blindly believe him.

by ponchi101 No (expletive) kidding.
But really, by now, who do you blame? Tiny or the people that after all this crap still do business with him? It gets a point in which you have to say "You were asking for it".

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 2:25 am No (expletive) kidding.
But really, by now, who do you blame? Tiny or the people that after all this crap still do business with him? It gets a point in which you have to say "You were asking for it".
ETTD. Full stop.

by ti-amie

The Affidavit is technically 38 pages but with all of the redactions it's considerably less than that.

There are handwritten notes on some of the TS documents the agents assumed were made by TFG.

Also there are tunnels underneath Mar-a-Lago that lead to a residence across the street where Ghouliani and his then wife stayed while he was on/recovering from a bender after he lost his race for President in 2008 I think. The tunnels were revealed as part of a book that was reviewed in The Guardian.

by ti-amie


by ti-amie The tunnel story.

Giuliani used a tunnel under Mar-a-Lago to go back and forth from Trump's home, where he stayed while he was depressed and drinking heavily, book says
Kayla Gallagher and John L. Dorman Aug 24, 2022, 1:33 PM

After losing the 2008 GOP presidential nod, Giuliani moved to Trump's Mar-a-Lago club, a book says.
A tunnel under the Palm Beach, Florida, estate let Giuliani travel back and forth unseen, it adds.
His ex-wife says he began drinking heavily and had "clinical depression" after leaving the race.

Rudy Giuliani at one time secretly stayed at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club, where he used an underground tunnel to go back and forth from the resort while he was depressed and drinking a lot after falling short in the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, a forthcoming book says.

In the book, "Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America's Mayor," Andrew Kirtzman describes Giuliani's personal struggles after he left the GOP contest following a dismal showing in the Florida primary. The book features commentary from his third ex-wife, Judith Giuliani.

Giuliani "dreamed of becoming president from a young age, [but] blew his big moment when it arrived," Kirtzman wrote, according to an early copy of the book obtained by The Guardian.

Judith Giuliani told Kirtzman that her then-husband fell into "a clinical depression," which she said she knew about because of her background as a nurse.

In the book, she describes her ex-husband's excessive drinking as a way to "dull the pain," according to The Guardian report.

Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly denied he has a drinking issue.

During the difficult time, Trump allowed the Giulianis to stay in a bungalow across the street from Mar-a-Lago that was accessed via an underground tunnel beneath South Ocean Boulevard so they could avoid the media glare.

"We moved into Mar-a-Lago and Donald kept our secret," Judith Giuliani says in Kirtzman's book.


The former president's South Florida estate — already a well-known locale — has garnered sustained attention after the FBI this month searched the property and agents confiscated over 300 classified documents.

The release of the search warrant showed agents were looking for documents as they investigated whether Trump had violated the Espionage Act, which bars the unauthorized removal of defense-related information that could aid a foreign government. The FBI is also investigating whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.

While the former president has said the documents taken by agents were declassified, over a dozen former Trump White House officials have disputed that assertion.

Kirtzman's book, which is set to be published next month, chronicles the close bond and "compelling kinship" between the former mayor and former president.

In the book, Judith Giuliani tells Kirtzman that Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, "kept a protective eye" on their friends.

"What's clear is the two men's friendship survived when a hundred other Trump relationships died away like so many marriages of convenience," Kirtzman writes in the book. "Giuliani would never turn his back on Trump, much to his detriment."

Rudy Giuliani went on to become one of Trump's most trusted allies during the longtime New York businessman's White House administration, at one point serving as the then-president's personal lawyer and acting as a top campaign surrogate before and after the 2020 presidential election.

In the aftermath of the 2020 race, Giuliani worked feverishly to sway Republican lawmakers in a series of key swing states — including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — in a bid to overturn now-President Joe Biden's 2020 win.

After the news broke of the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago, Giuliani told the New York Post that Trump would "raid every one of Biden's houses" if the ex-president launched a 2024 presidential campaign and again became president.


https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-ju ... ida-2022-8

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

I thought that this might be b.s. and so did others






by ti-amie

by ti-amie Brandon Friedman
@BFriedmanDC

The implication of this NYT story is that Trump may have sold classified information that later got informants killed. It's important to note that's exactly what Robert Hanssen did and the Justice Department called it "the worst intelligence disaster in U.S. history."

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie






by ti-amie

Dan Balitewicz
@DanBalitewicz
Replying to @AllThingsNatSec
So that picture is not staged. That’s how they actually found it? Wow

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie






by ti-amie

by ponchi101 I know it is a very close race because there are so many participants, but is there anybody as slimy as Barr, from the people in the previous admin? I mean, he did what he did to help them, and now he is all holier than thou.
The man is scum.

by ti-amie







P1/2

by ti-amie







P 2/L

by ti-amie

by ti-amie There've been a lot of shenanigans down in Flori-duh.

P1 of 2










by ti-amie P 2/L






by ti-amie

by ti-amie All you need to know about the pro TFG ruling re a Special Master out of Florida.


by ti-amie

by Owendonovan Seems neither a trump or Biden appointed judge should be ruling on this.

by ponchi101
Owendonovan wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:09 am Seems neither a trump or Biden appointed judge should be ruling on this.
Exactly. And that was one part that the founding fathers got wrong: the president SHOULD NOT be appointing judges, ever. Not at SCOTUS level, not at any level. An independent body, also separate from congress and senate, should do that.
Now that is coming back to bite you. They just could not think that an immoral person could reach the presidency.

by patrick
ponchi101 wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:26 pm
Owendonovan wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 11:09 am Seems neither a trump or Biden appointed judge should be ruling on this.
Exactly. And that was one part that the founding fathers got wrong: the president SHOULD NOT be appointing judges, ever. Not at SCOTUS level, not at any level. An independent body, also separate from congress and senate, should do that.
Now that is coming back to bite you. They just could not think that an immoral person could reach the presidency.
That person has had a lot of help in getting there (ie- possible Russian interference and people tired of the Clintons serving USA). Once there, the Senate led by McConnell and McCarthy has continued this for the 6th year running whether in majority or minority. Despite the Senate may go blue, experts have the House going red which would make that total 8.

by ponchi101 They could not envision also that a cult would be one of the two major political parties, and that not only that immoral person would reach the presidency, equally immoral men would lead the senate and congress.

by patrick Believed this started when Obama was elected President years ago and served two terms. McConnell was adamant that he will keep Obama from passing anything and was livid that American Affordable Care Act (BKA - ObamaCare) passed. Also, did not give Obama SCOTUS pick the time of light.

by ponchi101 And I blame Obama for that. The constitution is clear: Senate SHALL advice and approve. That is a legal SHALL, which makes it mandatory. McConnell's refusal to even grant Garland a hearing was a refusal of duties, and Obama should have seated Garland in the SCOTUS and have the case decided by them, with Garland recusing himself.
But Obama was sure Clinton would win. The rest, we know what happened.

by ti-amie




by ti-amie So the question is who and how much?

by ti-amie





Zach Everson @Z_Everson
Also seen in Trump's Mar-a-Lago office, Ray J--As @foster978
put it, Ray J is not known for keeping secrets.

9/

Image

Ray J? Ray J?
Come on man.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie I...Ray J?!

by patrick
ti-amie wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:34 amI...Ray J?!
Ray J got too big for his britches. Now, he is saying that he was unfairly criticized for the infamous tape of Kim K. Kanye West had plenty to say. recently. Source : Watched Hip Hop - Miami on Monday therefore, Ray J said this months ago.

by ti-amie
patrick wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 12:05 pm
ti-amie wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:34 amI...Ray J?!
Ray J got too big for his britches. Now, he is saying that he was unfairly criticized for the infamous tape of Kim K. Kanye West had plenty to say. recently. Source : Watched Hip Hop - Miami on Monday therefore, Ray J said this months ago.
Not to mention the rumors about his role in Whitney's death...

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 I am going to get myself a macro: Ctrl+A.
Standing for: AND. NOTHING. HAPPENS.

by ti-amie


by ti-amie




Highlighted details on pages, 2, 18, 19, 20 to 23 and page 26.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content ... ctions.pdf

by ponchi101 There is no way some documents have handwritten notes by Tiny. We know he can't read nor write, functionally.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie This is exactly why you don't treat someone like TFG like a normal person.





https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 3.97.0.pdf

The tweets are the TL;dr re the letter.





This would have him back in Judge Reinhardt's (sp) court room.

by patrick Cannon will get involved again and set up a schedule to that guy's pace and not the assigned Special Master

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 He really has to donate his brain to science, and allow himself to be studied while alive. That hardware is totally bust.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by Jeff from TX
ti-amie wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:06 pm
And no one would be surprised if he had.

by ti-amie

by patrick He will ask for a delay on evidence planning. Somehow, Hurricane Ian can get involved with this guy

by ti-amie






by ti-amie Shenanigans







TL;dr

The Special Master set a time line. The Special Master TFG asked to be appointed with the idea of slowing things down but who is not playing ball with the occupants of Fantasy Land.
The Hack is saying no my time line is this not his.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 And. Nothing. Ever. Happens.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Let's see: Alito, Kavanaugh, ACB, Thomas, Roberts and Gorsuch. Gee, I wonder how they will vote.

by patrick Delay, delay and more delay as he knows his hands are very muddy.

by ponchi101 Everybody knows he is a criminal. Yet, he still walks free. And he only needs to be free until November 2024, then he is president again, after HIS Supreme Court guts the VRA and he is elected by a white majority.

by patrick Therefore, delay, delay and delay again until his and his dedicated followers gut the VRA

by ti-amie

He's sold the information already. Again, JMHO.

by patrick Guess what? The delayer information will be hush news for a while as the media is talking about Hunter Biden

by ti-amie How Trump Deflected Demands for Documents, Enmeshing Aides
The former president exhibited a pattern of dissembling about the material he took from the White House, creating legal risk not just for himself but also some of his lawyers.

By Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt
Oct. 8, 2022
Updated 9:32 a.m. ET
Late last year, as the National Archives ratcheted up the pressure on former President Donald J. Trump to return boxes of records he had taken from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago club, he came up with an idea to resolve the looming showdown: cut a deal.

Mr. Trump, still determined to show he had been wronged by the F.B.I. investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia, was angry with the National Archives and Records Administration for its unwillingness to hand over a batch of sensitive documents that he thought proved his claims.

In exchange for those documents, Mr. Trump told advisers, he would return to the National Archives the boxes of material he had taken to Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla.

Mr. Trump’s aides never pursued the idea. But the episode is one in a series that demonstrates how Mr. Trump spent a year and a half deflecting, delaying and sometimes leading aides to dissemble when it came to demands from the National Archives and ultimately the Justice Department to return the material he had taken, interviews and documents show.

That pattern was strikingly similar to how Mr. Trump confronted inquiries into his conduct while in office: entertain or promote outlandish ideas, eschew the advice of lawyers and mislead them, then push lawyers and aides to impede investigators.

In the process, some of his lawyers have increased their own legal exposure and had to hire lawyers themselves. And Mr. Trump has ended up in the middle of an investigation into his handling of the documents that has led the Justice Department to seek evidence of obstruction.

The path began well before Mr. Trump left office.

Concern about Mr. Trump’s habit of bringing documents to his White House bedroom began not long after he took office. By the second year of his administration, tracking the material he had in the residence had become a familiar obstacle, according to people familiar with his practices, and by the third year, there were specific documents that West Wing officials knew were not where they should be.

In the closing weeks of his presidency, the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, flagged the need for Mr. Trump to return documents that had piled up in boxes in the White House residence, according to archives officials.

“It is also our understanding that roughly two dozen boxes of original presidential records were kept in the residence of the White House over the course of President Trump’s last year in office and have not been transferred to NARA, despite a determination by Pat Cipollone in the final days of the administration that they need to be,” Gary M. Stern, the top lawyer for the National Archives, told Mr. Trump’s representatives in a 2021 letter, using an abbreviation for the agency’s name.

Mr. Stern added that he had raised his concerns about the issue with another top White House lawyer in the final weeks of the administration.

Mr. Stern acknowledged to Mr. Trump’s representatives the complications that had come with the abrupt end of Mr. Trump’s term. “We know things were very chaotic, as they always are in the course of a one-term transition,” he wrote. “This is why the transfer of the Trump electronic records is still ongoing and won’t be complete for several more months. But it is absolutely necessary that we obtain and account for all original presidential records.”

Throughout 2021, Mr. Stern doggedly pressed Mr. Trump’s representatives to have him hand over the boxes.

Mr. Stern went back and forth about the issue with the people Mr. Trump had originally designated to represent him in dealing with the archives — among them Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, and three lawyers who had worked in the White House Counsel’s Office.

In September 2021, as Mr. Stern increased the pressure on Mr. Trump to return the boxes, Mr. Trump told Mr. Meadows that there were about a dozen boxes that had been taken from the White House but that they only contained newspaper clippings and personal effects, according to three people briefed on the matter. (To some aides, Mr. Trump claimed that the contents of the boxes included dirty laundry.)

Mr. Meadows shared Mr. Trump’s characterization of the contents of the boxes with Patrick Philbin, another of Mr. Trump’s representatives to the archives and a former White House lawyer. Mr. Philbin in turn relayed the message — which months later would prove to be false — to Mr. Stern.

But archives officials made clear that even newspaper clippings and printouts of articles seen by Mr. Trump in office were considered presidential records. The archives often found personal effects among the materials presidents turned in, and the archives would send them back to Mr. Trump if they ever found any.

Still, Mr. Trump returned no boxes.

By the fall, Mr. Stern was growing increasingly frustrated and dealing with Alex Cannon, a lawyer who had worked for the Trump Organization, the 2020 campaign and then Mr. Trump’s political action committee. Mr. Cannon had also been involved in responding to requests for documents from the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

In a conversation in late October or early November of last year, Mr. Stern told Mr. Cannon that he had tried other avenues for retrieving the documents and failed. He acknowledged that the Presidential Records Act did not contain an enforcement mechanism but suggested that the archives had options, including the ability to ask the attorney general to assist in retrieving the documents, according to people briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Cannon told Mr. Stern that the documents would be returned by the end of the year, the people said.

Around that time, Mr. Cannon, who told others he worried the boxes might contain documents that were being sought in the Jan. 6 inquiry, called Mr. Trump, who insisted that the boxes contained nothing of consequence.

Nonetheless, Mr. Cannon told associates that the boxes needed to be shipped back as they were, so the professional archivists could be the ones to sift through the material and set aside what they believed belonged to Mr. Trump. What is more, Mr. Cannon believed there was the possibility that the boxes could contain classified material, according to two people briefed on the discussions, and none of the staff members in Mr. Trump’s presidential office at Mar-a-Lago had proper security clearances.

It was around that same time that Mr. Trump floated the idea of offering the deal to return the boxes in exchange for documents he believed would expose the Russia investigation as a “hoax” cooked up by the F.B.I. Mr. Trump did not appear to know specifically what he thought the archives had — only that there were items he wanted.

Mr. Trump’s aides — recognizing that such a swap would be a non-starter since the government had a clear right to the material Mr. Trump had taken from the White House and the Russia-related documents held by the archives remained marked as classified — never acted on the idea.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment. A representative for the archives did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. Cannon declined a request for comment.

By the end of last year, a former adviser to Mr. Trump in the White House, a lawyer named Eric Herschmann, warned him that he could face serious legal ramifications if he did not return government materials he had taken with him when he left office. Mr. Herschmann told Mr. Trump that the consequences could be greater if some of the documents were classified.

Finally, after telling advisers repeatedly that the boxes were “mine,” Mr. Trump consented to go through them, which his associates said he did in December. Mr. Stern was alerted that the boxes were ready for retrieval.

But neither Mr. Trump nor any of his representatives informed Mr. Stern that they contained classified information. In January, the agency arranged for a contractor with a truck to go to Mar-a-Lago to pick up the boxes — which totaled 15, three more than the agency thought Mr. Trump had taken from the White House — and drive them to the Washington area.

Not knowing that the boxes contained classified information, agency personnel began opening the boxes in a room that did not meet government standards for handling secret materials. When they realized the sensitivity of the material, they quickly moved the boxes to specially secured areas, where their contents could be more closely examined.

Shortly thereafter, the National Archives alerted the Justice Department that classified materials may have been mishandled, leading federal authorities to open an investigation.

Around the time the archives retrieved the boxes, officials at the archives became skeptical that Mr. Trump had returned everything and made clear they believed there was more in his possession.

Mr. Trump told Mr. Cannon last winter to tell the archivists that he had returned everything. Mr. Cannon, concerned about making such a definitive statement to federal officials, refused to do so.

Their relationship ultimately became strained over the issue. Mr. Trump has told several advisers that he blames Mr. Cannon for the entire situation because the lawyer told him to give records back, while informal advisers like Tom Fitton, who runs the conservative group Judicial Watch but is not a lawyer, suggested Mr. Trump could claim the documents were personal records and hang on to them.

By the spring, a grand jury investigation had begun, and by June, the Justice Department was moving full steam ahead with the investigation, having issued a subpoena for any remaining classified material.

In a face-to-face meeting at Mar-a-Lago on June 3 between one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran, and a top Justice Department official overseeing the investigation, Jay I. Bratt, the lawyer returned another set of documents in response to the subpoena.

Another Trump lawyer, Christina Bobb, then signed a statement on behalf of Mr. Trump saying that “based upon the information that has been provided to me,” all documents responsive to the subpoena were being returned after a “diligent” search.

Yet two months later, during the Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, the F.B.I. found more than twice as many documents marked as classified as had been turned over in June, including some in Mr. Trump’s office. The F.B.I. also found dozens of empty folders marked as having contained classified information. Among the crimes that the search warrant said the authorities might find evidence of was obstruction.

Ms. Bobb has hired a criminal defense lawyer and signaled a willingness to answer questions from the Justice Department.

In the aftermath of the search, investigators remained skeptical that they had retrieved all the documents and, in recent weeks, a top Justice Department official told Mr. Trump’s lawyers that the department believed he had still not returned all the documents he took when he left the White House, according to people familiar with the discussions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/us/p ... wyers.html

by ponchi101 So he can cut deals with the USA's National Security?

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:09 pm So he can cut deals with the USA's National Security?
That M.O. has bee a wash, rinse, repeat for him for a long time.

What gets me is that supposedly intelligent people let themselves get caught up in the nefarious transactional world of this man. He's exposed all of his closest sycophants to criminal proceedings -Christina Bobb for example - and he will gladly let them all take the weight while he escapes to some country with a non extradition treaty with Jared and Ivanka.

I guess this is what happens when ideology overtakes common sense.

There's new video today of a woman - again - at a MAGAfest praising Putin.

by ti-amie Another perspective on the NYT reporting.








by ti-amie

by patrick But, he will delay and not be charged. He is clogging the legal system with "fake" lawsuits.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie More about Christina Bobb who was apparently not told when growing up never to sign something you haven't read and asked questions about.


by ponchi101 But, what would you expect FROM a lawyer that agreed to work for Tiny? Brilliance? Academic excellency?

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 9:21 pm But, what would you expect FROM a lawyer that agreed to work for Tiny? Brilliance? Academic excellency?
Common sense? I know, I know, that's asking alot.

by ti-amie

Asha Rangappa @AshaRangappa_
Replying to
@steve_vladeck and @MSNBCDaily
Steve you’ve explained this before but under what circumstances would a justice act on an application alone (to grant) and what is the likelihood here because…Thomas


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie US supreme court rejects Trump appeal in Mar-a-Lago documents case
Former president requested independent arbiter to vet more than 100 documents marked classified seized from his Florida home

Reuters
Thu 13 Oct 2022 20.12 BST

The US supreme court on Thursday rejected Donald Trump’s bid to let an independent arbiter vet more than 100 classified documents that were seized from his Florida home as he confronts a criminal investigation into his handling of sensitive government records.

The justices, in a brief order, denied Trump’s emergency request that he made on 4 October asking them to lift a federal appeals court’s decision that prevented the arbiter from reviewing more than 100 documents marked as classified that were among the roughly 11,000 records seized by FBI agents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach on 8 August.

There were no publicly noted dissents by any of the nine justices to the decision, which came two days after the justice department urged them to deny Trump’s request and keep the classified documents out of the hands of the arbiter, known as a special master.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump, who left office in January 2021.

Federal officials obtained a court-approved warrant to search Trump’s residence after suspecting that not all classified documents in his possession had been returned after his presidency ended.

Investigators searched for evidence of potential crimes related to unlawfully retaining national defense information and obstructing a federal investigation. Trump has denied wrongdoing and has called the investigation politically motivated.

Trump went to court on 22 August in a bid to restrict justice department access to the documents as it pursues a criminal investigation.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ments-case

by ti-amie

by ti-amie What was that about the RW and TFG creating their own version of Twitter?





Grifters gonna grift.

by ti-amie






by ponchi101 Yes, grifters gonna grift, but this man has carte blanche to grift because he does everything in the open, AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENS. He really is above the laws of the USA.

by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 11:56 pm Yes, grifters gonna grift, but this man has carte blanche to grift because he does everything in the open, AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENS. He really is above the laws of the USA.
It's twilight zone esque. Truly baffles me.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 And. Nothing. Ever. Happens.
So many tweets and posts and news that Tiny will be behind bars, bankrupt and bald imminently. All the time.
And. Nothing. Ever. Happens.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by patrick Another cover-up which will lead to more delays

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie



by ponchi101 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The GOP CONTROLLED HOUSE is going to demand the Trump returns.
I'm sorry, I can't laugh that hard because of my recent operation (and, it DOES hurt me when I laugh).

by ti-amie The sitting House should get them before the GQP has a chance to. Please don't laugh. We need you.

by ti-amie




by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports@journa.host
News (mostly from the legal beat) — crossposted

Again, the panel emphasizes that it cannot "write a rule that allows only former presidents" to block government investigations after the execution of a warrant.

These concluding paragraphs are worth reading in full, included in screenshot and alt text.

Image


https://journa.host/@KlasfeldReports/109441070808929319

by ti-amie Here's Joyce White Vance giving the tl;dr about the Florida ruling.


by ti-amie

by ti-amie I haven't posted much about the tax fraud trial against TFG business entity based in NYC. The case went to the jury today but not without some fireworks.












P1

by ti-amie










P2

by ti-amie








Jose Pagliery @Jose_Pagliery

Judge is shooting down any chance of a mistrial. Merchan is shaking his head.

“That’s not even really a thought.”

P3

by ti-amie

by patrick Therefore, with the assistance of Cannon, delay tactics has slowed the investigation while an announcement saying a 2024 campaign was said and after mid-terms

by ti-amie Trump did not disclose $19.8m loan while president, documents show
The loan from Daewoo, a company with ties to North Korea, should have been reported in public financial disclosures
Maya Yang
Mon 5 Dec 2022 22.15 GMT

Donald Trump failed to disclose a $19.8m loan from a company with historical ties to North Korea, while he was the US president, according to a new report.

Documents obtained by the New York attorney general, and reported by Forbes, on Sunday indicate a previously unreported loan owed by Trump to Daewoo, the South Korean conglomerate.

Daewoo was the only South Korean company allowed to operate a business in North Korea during the mid-1990s.

Forbes revealed that Trump’s relationship with Daewoo is at least 25 years old. At one point, Daewoo partnered with Trump on a development project near the United Nations headquarters in New York City, Trump World Tower.

Trump and Daewoo continued to do business together, including using Trump’s name on six South Korea-based properties from 1999 to 2007, according to the magazine.

The outlet reports that the debt in question “stems from an agreement Trump struck to share some of his licensing fees with Daewoo”.

According to documents reviewed by Forbes, the $19.8m balance remained the same from 2011 to 2016. Five months into Trump’s presidency, the balance dropped to $4.3m, according to paperwork that showcased Trump’s finances as of 30 June 2017.

Soon after, “Daewoo was bought out of its position on July 5, 2017,” the documents said, without disclosing who satisfied the debt.

Forbes reports that even though the loan was reported on the Trump Organization’s internal documents, it was not disclosed on the former president’s public financial disclosure reports. Under disclosure laws, Trump was required to submit the documents to federal officials during his presidential campaign and after he became president.

In 2016, Trump’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, said that Trump had disclosed all debts related to companies that Trump had a 100% stake in.

Despite the apparent gap in disclosures, Trump may not have violated any laws, though the existence of the debt still could have posed a conflict of interest.

While president, Trump bragged about his relationship with North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un, saying in 2018: “He likes me, I like him. We get along” and that “we fell in love”.

The two leaders met in person, but the relationship came to nought.

Meanwhile, on Monday, jurors began deliberating in the Trump Organization tax fraud trial in New York, in which the company is accused of operating a criminal scheme that allegedly involved fraud and tax evasion.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... disclosure

Link to Forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand ... -in-office

...and water is wet.

by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:43 pm Trump did not disclose $19.8m loan while president, documents show
The loan from Daewoo, a company with ties to North Korea, should have been reported in public financial disclosures
Maya Yang
Mon 5 Dec 2022 22.15 GMT

...

Link to Forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand ... -in-office

...and water is wet.
Sometimes cold, too.

by ti-amie Arie Goldshlager
@ariegoldshlager@mstdn.social
#DonaldTrump

ICYMI

Trump Litigation Tracker

DOJ subpoenas state election officials for Trump documents

"Special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed officials in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania, asking for communications with or involving former President Donald Trump, his campaign aides and a list of allies involved in his efforts to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election."

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-ar ... 1428352689

by ti-amie




by ti-amie

by ti-amie Bragg is the DA who s**t canned a case that had been worked on for years against TFG for "reasons" and is now trying to take credit for this case.

Shameless.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Ok. Good they did this.
But: "In Manhattan, NO CORPORATION is above the law".
Give me a (expletive) break.

by ti-amie Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg was just on Ari who asked him about the case he put on hold. For a big man he does a nice soft shoe.

by ti-amie Items with classified markings found at Trump storage unit in Florida
The former president’s lawyers have told federal authorities no classified material was found in additional searches of Trump Tower in New York and his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.
By Jacqueline Alemany, Josh Dawsey, Spencer S. Hsu, Devlin Barrett and Rosalind S. Helderman
Updated December 7, 2022 at 1:05 p.m. EST|Published December 7, 2022 at 5:00 a.m. EST

Lawyers for former president Donald Trump found at least two items marked classified after an outside team hired by Trump searched a storage unit in West Palm Beach, Fla., used by the former president, according to people familiar with the matter.

Those items were immediately turned over to the FBI, according to those people, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

The search was one of at least three searches conducted by an outside team of his properties for classified materials in recent weeks, after they were pressed by a federal judge to attest they had fully complied with a May grand jury subpoena to turn over all materials bearing classified markings, according to people familiar with the matter.

Emails released by the General Services Administration, which assists former presidents during their transition to private life, show that the government agency helped rent the storage unit at a private facility in West Palm Beach on July 21, 2021. The unit was needed to store items that had been held at an office in Northern Virginia used by Trump staffers in the months just after he left office.

The emails show that GSA and Trump staffers worked together to arrange to ship several pallets of boxes and other items weighing more than 3,000 pounds from Northern Virginia to the Florida storage unit in September 2021.

A person familiar with the matter said the storage unit had a mix of boxes, gifts, suits and clothes, among other things. “It was suits and swords and wrestling belts and all sorts of things,” this person said. “To my knowledge, he has never even been to that storage unit. I don’t think anyone in Trump world could tell you what’s in that storage unit.”

There was no cataloguing of what was put in the storage unit, Trump advisers said — just as there was no cataloguing of what classified documents were taken to a room underneath Mar-a-Lago.

The Washington Post could not immediately determine specifically what was in the items marked classified. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ultimate significance of the classified material in the storage unit is not immediately clear, but its presence there indicates Mar-a-Lago was not the only place where Trump kept classified material. It also provides further evidence that Trump and his team did not fully comply with a May grand jury subpoena that sought all documents marked classified still in possession of the post-presidential office.

In addition to the storage unit, the team hired an outside firm to carry out the search of his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., and, more recently, Trump Tower in New York, according to people familiar with the matter. The outside team also searched at least one other property.

The team also offered the FBI the opportunity to observe the search, but the offer was declined, the people said. It would be unusual for federal agents to monitor a search of someone’s property conducted by anyone other than another law enforcement agency.

Trump’s lawyers have told the Justice Department that the outside team did not turn up any new classified information during their search of Bedminster and Trump Tower, according to people familiar with the process, and have said they utilized a firm that had expertise in searching for documents.

“President Trump and his counsel continue to be cooperative and transparent,” Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said, accusing the Justice Department of committing an “unprecedented” and “unwarranted attack” against Trump and his family.

Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell told Trump’s legal team to continue to search for documents after the Justice Department expressed concerns that the team had not fully complied with a subpoena earlier this year. Howell, according to people familiar with the matter, did not give specific orders on how a search should be done.

Howell’s instructions followed a breakdown in the government’s trust in Trump’s attorneys that led prosecutors in August to seek a court-authorized FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. Since that time, prosecutors have continued to question whether Trump has returned all materials with classification markings, although what steps the government might take to retrieve such materials or procedures it might require Trump’s advisers and lawyers to implement remain unclear.

Trump’s team has sought to avoid another federal high-profile search of his properties, the people familiar with the matter said.

According to the people, at least one of Trump’s lawyers has previously advocated for a less aggressive approach to the Justice Department investigation of Trump and his advisers for three potential crimes: mishandling of national security secrets, obstruction and destruction of government records.

That attorney, former Florida solicitor general Christopher Kise, had proposed such a search months earlier. Many of the other lawyers on Trump’s team have rebuffed Kise’s advice, and he has taken a reduced role in the classified documents case while taking a larger role in the New York investigations into the former president, the people said.

Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section at the Justice Department, communicated to Trump’s lawyers after the FBI search that the department was concerned Trump still may not have returned all the classified documents in his possession. The Washington Post has previously reported that officials at the National Archives also believe that there may still be more records missing. Previous attempts by Trump’s attorneys to identify and return documents proved unsatisfactory to investigators.

At times in the past, Trump has misled his own lawyers as to what was in the boxes that were taken from Mar-a-Lago, The Post has reported.

For example, he told some on his team that he only possessed newspaper clippings and personal items in 2021. One of his former lawyers, Alex Cannon, declined Trump’s entreaty to tell the National Archives he had returned all items because Cannon was not sure if it was true, and his team in February did not release a statement dictated by Trump that claimed he had returned all materials, The Post has reported.

Trump lawyers Christina Bobb and Evan Corcoran met with investigators in June, handing over a taped-up folder of 38 documents collected from the former president’s residence in response to a May subpoena, according to court documents and people familiar with the matter. Prosecutors called the response “incomplete” in court documents and said that they collected evidence of “obstructive conduct” regarding the failure to fully comply with the subpoena.

Bobb signed a certification swearing that she had been told that “a diligent search” was conducted of boxes of records shipped from the White House to Florida when Trump left office, and that the file handed over to investigators contained “all documents that are responsive to the subpoena.” Corcoran told the visiting investigators he had been advised that all available boxes placed in a storage room — and nowhere else — had been searched in response to the subpoena, The Post reported.

Soon after, investigators obtained video surveillance of the club and conducted more interviews with Trump staffers, leading them to seek a search warrant from a judge on the basis of new evidence that sensitive material still remained at Mar-a-Lago, The Post has reported. When agents executed the search warrant in August, they found additional documents with classified markings in the storage room and in Trump’s office, along with thousands of other government papers and items, according to court records.


Perry Stein and Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ds-search/

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

Now that admission from the other day makes more sense.


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

She did a profile of each person on the list and doesn't allow the Thread Reader App to aggregate her posts. If you click on the Twitter link you can see all of the miscreants pictures.

Mueller, She Wrote @MuellerSheWrote

CHESEBRO: he’s the guy who wrote crime fraud excepted emails to Eastman planning to have congress object to GA electors so they could get a lawsuit in front of Clarence Thomas. He also said fear of 1/6 violence could motivate SCOTUS to take their case and overturn the election 2/

JUSTIN CLARK: this is the trump lawyer that was interviewed in the Bannon contempt case. He told the DoJ that Donald never invoked executive privilege for steve. He also told the 1/6 cmte that he refused to participate in the fraudulent electors scheme 3/

DIGENOVA: lawyer for “fraud guarantee”. Rudy pal. Been on my fantasy indictment team for years. He was part of organizing the fraudulent electors scheme. 4/

EASTMAN: another architect of the fraudulent elector scheme and the Pence pressure campaign. He tried desperately to keep his crimey emails from the 1/6 committee, but judge Carter said it was more likely than not that he and Donald violated 18 USC 371 & 1512c2. 5/

ELLIS: she was fired from her job as a parking ticket prosecutor and joined the Kraken strikeforce. She helped spread the big lie and coordinated legislative “hearings” in multiple swing states to push the fraudulent electors scheme. 6/

EPSHTEYN: total asshole. Advised Donald to go on offense and sue for a special master. He was part of the phony elector scheme, had a call with Donald on the morning of 1/6, and had his phone seized by the DoJ back in September. 7/

RUDY: serial farter. Giver of press conferences at landscaping companies. His hair melts. He was one of the main organizers of the elector scheme - holding fake legislative hearings, peddling the big lie, attacking election workers. His law license is suspended. 8/

KERIK: he emailed Rudy & Meadows conceding they didn’t have any evidence of voter fraud & they needed to focus on the fraudulent elector scheme. His lawyer, Parlatore, is paid by the Save America PAC - which is also under criminal investigation. Here’s Kerik in cuffs. 9/

MARKS: he coordinated the swing state pressure campaign with Mike Roman, Epshteyn, and other trump lawyers. He’s not the brightest bulb, having referred to Cleta Mitchell as Clavita, and calling Arizona Nevada. 10/

CLETA: friend of Ginni. Marks can’t say her name properly. Helped coordinate the Ellipse rally and worked on the fraudulent elector scheme. 11/

MORGAN: trump lawyer who signed off on Eastman’s SCOTUS brief on behalf of the trump campaign in support of the Texas lawsuit against the swing states. 12/

OLSEN: spoke to Donald multiple times on 1/6. It was his idea to use the justice department to overturn the election results. He called the 1/6 hearings “Soviet show trials” and sued to block a subpoena. He’s not important enough to have a photo online. 13/

OLSON: called Donald on Christmas Day 2020 and suggested martial law, firing acting AG Rosen, tampering with the DoJ, AND he’s so smart he wrote all the crime ideas down in a memo and sent it to trump. 14/

PASSANTINO: paid for by the Save America PAC. He was the scumbag that repped Cassidy Hutchinson and was paid handsomely by trump to do so until she realized he wasn’t looking out for her best interests. She fired him and hired a different lawyer, then she testified. 15/

POWELL: Kraken lawyer slapped with sanctions for bogus election lawsuits. She was at the 12/18 Oval meeting. Donald wanted to appoint her special counsel to fabricate election fraud to give the states a reason to appoint trump electors. 16/

STEPIEN: former trump campaign manager who assisted with the plot to pressure Pence to throw out electors and delay the count. 17/

TOENSING: DiGenova’s partner. Repped Fraud Gaurantee. Was part of the fraudulent electors scheme. She was included on an emails sent by Bobb updating folks on trumps effort to speak to officials in multiple states to pitch alternate electors. 18/

TROUPIS: he was a recipient of Chesebro’s fraudulent elector scheme memo. He communicated with Ron Johnson asking him to hand deliver fraudulent elector certificates. 19/

LIN WOOD: loudmouth election denier who filed multiple lawsuits to overturn the will of the people in Georgia. He’s being investigated by the state bar. He once posted that they should get a firing squad ready for the former VP. END/

by ponchi101 From the Special Counsel. Correct me if I am wrong but, if that is from Congress, how will that matter in a few weeks? You know McCarthy is pulling the plug on all aspects of the investigation.
Because, you know, the Dems took over two years to prove nothing. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 3:42 pm From the Special Counsel. Correct me if I am wrong but, if that is from Congress, how will that matter in a few weeks? You know McCarthy is pulling the plug on all aspects of the investigation.
Because, you know, the Dems took over two years to prove nothing. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
It would only be appropriate to make a massive dump of all things Jan 6. on Jan.3 at 11:59 am, one minute before the new congress convenes.

by ponchi101 I've said that. Individual disks, sent to all newspapers in the USA and the world.
But no. It would not be "proper". Or some other Dem BS like that.

by ti-amie House committee votes to make public Trump’s tax returns
By Amy B Wang and Michael Kranish
Updated December 20, 2022 at 9:11 p.m. EST|Published December 20, 2022 at 11:50 a.m. EST

The House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday voted 24-16 to release Trump’s tax returns, capping a protracted legal and political battle that began when Trump was in the Oval Office.

Democrats have for more than three years pushed to make Trump’s tax returns public, and the documents were finally made available to the Ways and Means Committee late last month after the Supreme Court denied a last attempt by Trump to withhold the records.

It’s not clear when the committee would release the tax records, which include Trump’s returns from 2015 to 2020.

But two Democrats on the committee said late Tuesday that the records suggest Trump had not been correct in claiming during his 2016 campaign that he could not release the records himself because of an ongoing Internal Revenue Service audit.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.) said in a CNN interview that the committee found that the IRS only started an audit in 2019, on the same day that the committee first requested the returns. The committee chairman, Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), sent a written request for the returns on April 3, 2019.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) echoed those claims on MSNBC. “This is something that the American people should care about,” he said. “The American people want to know if the president of the United States is making decisions based on their interests, or the president’s own financial self-interests.”

Doggett also said the returns showed that there were “tens of millions of dollars in these returns that were claimed without adequate substantiation.”

It was not possible to immediately verify the Democrats’ allegations because the returns have not yet been released to the public.

Trump’s campaign blasted the committee’s vote as a politically motivated attack.

“This unprecedented leak by lameduck Democrats is proof they are playing a political game they are losing,” his campaign said in a statement. “If this injustice can happen to President Trump, it can happen to all Americans without cause.”

The release of Trump’s tax information is the most sweeping such actions taken by Congress in a half-century. A similar action involving a president has not occurred since 1973, when the IRS turned over President Richard M. Nixon’s tax returns to a congressional committee.

The IRS handed over the Nixon tax returns on the day that Congress requested them, a fact noted by House Democrats who were seeking the Trump documents. But Republicans denied any similarity, The Washington Post has reported, noting that Nixon had requested the investigation into his returns, while Trump had fought such a probe.

The committee meeting got underway just after 3 p.m. Tuesday and was immediately moved to a closed session to discuss Trump’s tax returns because of the confidential nature of the subject matter. For the sake of transparency, committee members voted by unanimous consent to make public a transcript of the closed session afterward.

Neal first sought to obtain Trump’s tax returns in 2019 after Democrats retook the House majority. Democrats argued that Congress needed to do so to evaluate the effectiveness of annual presidential audits and for the sake of oversight.

Trump — who broke with a decades-long tradition of presidential candidates and presidents by refusing to make his tax returns public — has for years falsely claimed that he could not release them while under “routine audit” by the Internal Revenue Service.

The New York Times in 2020 reported that Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016, when he won the presidency, and another $750 in 2017. The Times, which obtained tax data covering more than two decades, also reported that he paid no income tax in 10 of the 15 years before he ran for president.

At the time, a Trump spokesman disputed the accuracy of the Times report and said Trump had paid tens of millions of dollars in “personal taxes” to the federal government, a vague phrase that left unclear what taxes were paid. The records obtained by the Times showed that Trump had reduced his taxes by aggressively using losses to offset income, among other methods.

Those revelations followed reporting by The Post and other organizations that showed Trump had paid little or no federal income taxes in the earlier years of his career. The Post wrote in its biography, “Trump Revealed,” that Trump paid no income taxes in 1978 and 1979, using tax deductions such as real estate depreciation that enabled him to claim a negative income of $3.8 million.

When 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton noted in a debate that Trump did not pay federal income taxes for those two years, Trump responded, “That makes me smart.” Then when Clinton speculated that Trump might not have paid “any federal income tax for a lot of years” — which turned out to be the case — Trump said the government would have “squandered” the money.

During his campaign for president, in which he frequently boasted that he was an extraordinarily wealthy and successful tycoon, Trump said that he would release his “beautiful” tax returns to back up his claims. But he said he would not make them public while he was being audited.

The legal battle between Trump and the Ways and Means Committee played out in the courts for years, continuing even after Trump left office. But last month, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the House committee to examine Trump’s tax returns, without stating a reason for denying Trump’s request to withhold the records.

“We knew the strength of our case, we stayed the course, followed the advice of counsel, and finally, our case has been affirmed by the highest court in the land,” Neal said in a statement then. “Since the Magna Carta, the principle of oversight has been upheld, and today is no different. This rises above politics, and the Committee will now conduct the oversight that we’ve sought for the last three and a half years.”

Trump and his Republican allies have criticized the effort to obtain his tax returns as a partisan attack, and warned that Congress making the former president’s returns public after he has left office would violate separation of powers.

“Let me be clear: Our concern is not whether the president should have made his tax returns public, as is traditional, nor about the accuracy of his tax returns,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said Tuesday shortly before the Ways and Means Committee meeting began. “Our concern is that, if taken, this committee action will set a terrible precedent that unleashes a dangerous new political weapon that reaches far beyond the former president.”

Still, federal judges have consistently ruled that lawmakers established the “valid legislative purpose” required for disclosure. The Supreme Court’s decision late last month came after Trump announced he would run for president again in 2024.

In arguing against the release of the tax records, Trump’s legal team said the committee’s premise for seeking the information “has nothing to do with funding or staffing issues at the IRS and everything to do with releasing the President’s tax information to the public.”

Their filing adds: “If allowed to stand, it will undermine the separation of powers and render the office of the Presidency vulnerable to invasive information demands from political opponents in the legislative branch.”

Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee in favor of making Trump’s tax returns public have limited time to do so, with Republicans set to take control of the House — and the committee — in January.

Robert Barnes contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... democrats/

by ti-amie

by ti-amie NEAL OPENING STATEMENT ON COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION OF THE IRS'S MANDATORY AUDIT PROGRAM UNDER THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION
Dec 20, 2022 Press Release
Thank you all for being here.

Ways and Means is entrusted with great responsibilities. Today the weight of our job is heavy.

Congress serves as a check on the Executive Branch, and our Committee is entrusted with oversight of our revenue system.

We all come to Ways and Means with the goal of creating a fairer tax code. Because at the root of it all, it is our federal tax system that funds the democracy we all cherish.

Our voluntary collection relies on the public confidence that our tax laws are applied evenly and justly, regardless of position or power.

For four years, the Committee has been reviewing how the IRS enforces the federal tax laws against, and ensures compliance by, a president.

A president is no ordinary taxpayer. They hold power and influence, unlike any other American. And with great power comes even greater responsibility.

Our Constitution insists that no American officeholder is above the law.

When concern arose over President Nixon’s returns and whether they were properly examined, the Internal Revenue Service established a procedure of mandatory audits for presidents and vice presidents. The policy is simple and states: “individual income tax returns for the President and Vice-President are subject to a mandatory examination.”

Other than that, very little is known about this program.

We are only here today because four years ago, our request to learn more about the program under 6103 was denied. This was the first time that this key oversight function was hampered, and our Committee’s jurisdiction was challenged.

On behalf of the American people, and to preserve the Congress’s oversight abilities, we escalated the matter in court.

After a prolonged battle in federal court, our legislative and oversight authority was affirmed.

Today, we are considering reports that review the program.

I want to be clear that these materials have been reviewed by both sides. When Mr. Brady requested access, I granted it, and his team had ample time for review.

The Committee expected that these mandatory audits were being conducted promptly and in accordance with IRS policies.

However, our review found that under the prior Administration the program was dormant. We know now, the first mandatory audit was opened two years into his presidency. On the day this Committee requested his returns.

We anticipated the IRS would expand the mandatory audit program to account for the complex nature of the former president’s financial situation yet found no evidence of that.

This is a major failure of the IRS under the prior administration, and certainly not what we had hoped to find.

But the evidence is clear. Congress must step in.


I’ve proposed legislation to put the program above reproach. Ensuring IRS conducts yearly, timely examinations while publicly disclosing certain information.

With this statutory requirement, IRS can work toward restoring its integrity and the public’s confidence in the Federal tax system.

Our work has always been to ensure our tax laws are administered fairly and without preference, because at times, even the power of a president looms too large.

After Nixon, the IRS put its own guardrails in place.

Today’s facts are damning, and this isn’t the type of abuse I want for our tax code.

I’m prepared to go one step further because it’s my duty. And because that’s what it means to serve on the Ways and Means Committee. I hope you join me in what’s right for the American people.

###


https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-ce ... tory-audit

by ti-amie
Tristan Snell
@tristansnell@mstdn.social
BREAKING: Trump LOSES motion to dismiss E. Jean Carroll's newest defamation lawsuit. Court rejects Trump's argument that NY's new Adult Survivors Act denied him due process.

This is Carroll's 2nd case, based on Trump's doubling-down of his defamatory statements last October.



Jennifer Taub @jentaub@mstdn.social
💥Here. It. Is. The unsealed deposition of Donald J. Trump in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit(s)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca


https://mstdn.social/@jentaub/109684200343330009

by ti-amie

by Owendonovan I love that the judge specifically called Tiny out on what would likely be Tiny's excuse.

Judge Orders Trump and Lawyer to Pay Nearly $1 Million for Bogus Suit
In a scathing ruling, the judge said the suit against Hillary Clinton and dozens of the former president’s perceived political enemies was “brought in bad faith for an improper purpose.”
In a scathing ruling, a federal judge in Florida on Thursday ordered Donald J. Trump and one of his lawyers together to pay nearly a million dollars in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit against nearly three dozen of Mr. Trump’s perceived political enemies, including Hillary Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey.

The ruling was a significant rebuke of Mr. Trump, who has rarely faced such consequences in his long history of using the courts as a weapon against business rivals and partners, as well as former employees and reporters.

And it was the latest setback for Mr. Trump as he faces a broad range of legal problems and criminal investigations. His lawyers are increasingly under scrutiny themselves for their actions in those cases, as well as divided in the advice they are offering him.

“This case should never have been brought,” U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in a 46-page ruling. “Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.”
“Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” Judge Middlebrooks wrote. “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions.”

Judge Middlebrooks said Mr. Trump’s suit had been “brought in bad faith for an improper purpose” and had “needlessly harmed” the 31 individuals and organizations, including the Democratic National Committee, he had sued “in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative.” The judge added that Mr. Trump’s use of the courts had helped to undermine the public’s confidence in them.

“A continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers undermines the rule of law, portrays judges as partisans and diverts resources from those who have suffered actual legal harm,” he wrote.

The judge said Mr. Trump and the lawyer who filed the case for him, Alina Habba, and her firm, Habba Madaio & Associates, were to pay $937,989.39.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/us/p ... -fine.html

by ponchi101 :clap: to the judge. Finally, somebody speaking plainly and clearly.

by patrick
Owendonovan wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 2:36 pm I love that the judge specifically called Tiny out on what would likely be Tiny's excuse.

Judge Orders Trump and Lawyer to Pay Nearly $1 Million for Bogus Suit
In a scathing ruling, the judge said the suit against Hillary Clinton and dozens of the former president’s perceived political enemies was “brought in bad faith for an improper purpose.”
In a scathing ruling, a federal judge in Florida on Thursday ordered Donald J. Trump and one of his lawyers together to pay nearly a million dollars in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit against nearly three dozen of Mr. Trump’s perceived political enemies, including Hillary Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey.

The ruling was a significant rebuke of Mr. Trump, who has rarely faced such consequences in his long history of using the courts as a weapon against business rivals and partners, as well as former employees and reporters.

And it was the latest setback for Mr. Trump as he faces a broad range of legal problems and criminal investigations. His lawyers are increasingly under scrutiny themselves for their actions in those cases, as well as divided in the advice they are offering him.

“This case should never have been brought,” U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in a 46-page ruling. “Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.”
“Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” Judge Middlebrooks wrote. “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions.”

Judge Middlebrooks said Mr. Trump’s suit had been “brought in bad faith for an improper purpose” and had “needlessly harmed” the 31 individuals and organizations, including the Democratic National Committee, he had sued “in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative.” The judge added that Mr. Trump’s use of the courts had helped to undermine the public’s confidence in them.

“A continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers undermines the rule of law, portrays judges as partisans and diverts resources from those who have suffered actual legal harm,” he wrote.

The judge said Mr. Trump and the lawyer who filed the case for him, Alina Habba, and her firm, Habba Madaio & Associates, were to pay $937,989.39.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/us/p ... -fine.html
Here comes the appeal and more delay tactics.

by skatingfan
patrick wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:19 pm Here comes the appeal and more delay tactics.
Also, this is where the campaign contributions are going.

by ti-amie


by ti-amie






by ti-amie

Video at the link in the tweet.


by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

Didn't someone say something about the Ides of March in a play or something?

Still


by patrick Even if a certain person got indicted, expect delays and a possible chance of him being number one in USA

by ponchi101 It will only cement his base even more. But it has to be done.
As stupid as he is, let's see him lying under oath.

by skatingfan We just have to look at what is happening in Israel with Netanyahu to see what will happen when Trump is re-elected.

by ponchi101 I have not been paying much attention to what Netanyahu is doing, but I have always seen him as a dog of war. Totally dislikeable person.
Will try to catch up.

by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:38 pm I have not been paying much attention to what Netanyahu is doing, but I have always seen him as a dog of war. Totally dislikeable person.
Will try to catch up.
The short version is that he is taking steps to remove accountability from the system.

by ti-amie There have been major demonstrations by Israelis against what Netanyahu is doing and that makes me wonder how he got back into office.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie




by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


Zachary Petrizzo
@ZTPetrizzo
·
Mar 18
Creating some sort of human barrier around Mar-a-Lago isn't exactly new. Jan 6th organizer Ali Alexander reposted a post this morning on Telegram that called for "100,000 patriots" to "shut down all routes to Mar-a-Lago."

by ponchi101 He has to start selling tin-foil layered MAGA hats. Just the logical next step.
These people are lunatics.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Jack E. Smith ⚖️ @7Veritas4
Trump hatchet man, Robert Costello’s testimony before the NY grand jury went over like a lead balloon.

Michael Cohen wasn’t even called back to refute his allegations.

Trump will be indicted.








Jack E. Smith ⚖️ @7Veritas4
Replying to
@7Veritas4 and @Zorpheous
Wednesday still in play. There’s a possibility they will bring Cohen in one last time.


by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ponchi101
ti-amie wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:06 pm
Straight from DE Palma's "The Untouchables", when DeNiro, playing Al Capone, bashes an associate's head with a bat.

by Owendonovan
ti-amie wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:06 pm
It's all lighthearted fun when a republican does this kind of stunt, but if a democrat were to do that, there's be calls for their arrest and possible death penalty charges. I will celebrate his death with gusto, hopefully in front of his supporters.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by ti-amie Teri Kanefield
@Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
Not that legalities would bother House Republicans, but this would be unconstitutional.

Most criminal laws are state-level laws, and um, the federal government can't shield people from state-level prosecution.

Remember how Republicans use to care about local control? Oh wait. That was only when local governments wanted to engage in racial discrimination.

Image

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/m





https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_K ... 2153030144

by ti-amie

by ti-amie



by ti-amie

I bet he'll say he's never heard of the guy. :lol:

by ponchi101 Exactly

by ti-amie Teri Kanefield
@Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
There is now reporting that the Trump Org is also paying Alan Weisselberg's new lawyer, so false alarm about Weisselberg flipping.

I guess the second option was true: there was a different reason he is switching lawyers.

https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_K ... 1463245541

There were people who said this exact thing late last night but their voices were drowned out.

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

by ti-amie March 30, 2023, 5:24 p.m. ET12 minutes ago
12 minutes ago
William K. Rashbaum

This is what will happen when Trump is arrested.

He will be fingerprinted. He will be photographed. He may even be handcuffed.

And the former president of the United States of America will be read the standard Miranda warning: He will be told that he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

These are among the routine steps of felony arrest processing in New York — and this is what in all likelihood will happen next for Donald J. Trump now that a grand jury has voted to indict him in connection with his role in a hush-money payment to a porn star. But the unprecedented arrest of a former commander in chief will be anything but routine.

Accommodations may be made for Mr. Trump. While it is standard for defendants arrested on felony charges to be handcuffed, it is unclear whether an exception will be made for the former president because of his status. Most defendants have their hands cuffed behind their backs, but some white-collar defendants who are deemed to pose less of a danger have their hands secured in front of them.

Mr. Trump will almost certainly be accompanied at every step of the process — from the moment he is taken into custody until his appearance before a judge in Lower Manhattan’s imposing Criminal Courts Building — by armed agents of the United States Secret Service, who are required by law to protect him at all times.

Security in the courthouse is provided by state court officers, with whom the Secret Service has worked in the past. But the chief spokesman for the agency, Anthony J. Guglielmi, said he could not comment on any specific measures that would be put in place for Mr. Trump.

It may take several days for Mr. Trump to appear at the courthouse. Now that the grand jury has voted to indict him, the indictment must be handed up. Then prosecutors would typically contact his defense lawyers to negotiate the terms of his surrender, a common practice in white-collar investigations when the district attorney’s office has been in touch with defense attorneys.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump, who is running for president a third time, have said he will surrender to face the charges and fly from his Florida estate to New York for the arraignment.

After he is arraigned, he is almost certain to be released on his own recognizance because the indictment will likely contain only nonviolent felony charges; under New York law, prosecutors cannot request bail in such cases.

The former president plans to use the charges as part of a campaign strategy to rile up his base.

Surrender, some might argue, is not in the confrontational former president’s DNA, and he often seems to relish antagonizing and attacking the prosecutors who have investigated him. He has called Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who secured the hush money indictment and who is Black, “a racist,” and said that his investigation was politically motivated.

In the unlikely event that the former president refuses to surrender, he would put Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, his leading but undeclared rival for the Republican nomination, in an awkward political position. Under law, Mr. DeSantis’s role would be essentially ministerial and he would have few legal options other than approving an extradition request from New York.

Still, if New York prosecutors sought Mr. Trump’s extradition, Mr. DeSantis would face an unenviable dilemma. He would be compelled to choose between authorizing an arrest warrant for Mr. Trump and inflaming his base, or attempting in some way to aid his Republican rival, and possibly face legal action as a result.

by ti-amie IF this plays out as it should I guess it'll deserve it's own thread.

JSYK Ivanka is blabbing to People magazine that she misses the "normal life" she had in NYC. I guess it makes sense to want to come back to the town where everyone hates your guts.

by ti-amie Stormy Daniels right about now...


by ti-amie NY Times right now



by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by Owendonovan I wonder if Kyle Rittenhouse will be patrolling the riots tiny has called for?

by mmmm8 If the indictments do really keep coming, when does he flee the country? Where is he going?

by ponchi101 He can't go anywhere. All serious countries would not accept him. Russia and China will not. N. Korea? Uhm, no, no McDonalds.

by dryrunguy I'm having a very hard time getting past the notion that this (Stormy Daniels) is almost certainly not the most important thing with which he should be charged. There's so much more, and those things are so much more consequential and egregious.

by nelslus Hopefully, Trump will go the way of Harvey- more and more indictments to come, and this is just to get all of this started. E. Jean Carroll and other rape/sexual harassment charges. Treason. All sorts of financial malfeasance. Etc. etc. Hopefully, Stormy is just the first step. (I'll really start believing in all of this when he is locked up.) And, at the risk of, yet again, stating the obvious- this country must now confront that a sitting president should never be allowed to not face indictments and arrests, especially for truly evil acts. No "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

And, seriously, I am all Team Stormy here. The (expletive) this woman has been put through....

by patrick
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:10 am He can't go anywhere. All serious countries would not accept him. Russia and China will not. N. Korea? Uhm, no, no McDonalds.
Why not Russia? Thought him and Putin was best of terms. North Korea could be a good destination place for him.

At the end of the day, he will not stop from running for President

by dryrunguy
dryrunguy wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:27 am I'm having a very hard time getting past the notion that this (Stormy Daniels) is almost certainly not the most important thing with which he should be charged. There's so much more, and those things are so much more consequential and egregious.
Peggy Noonan of all people said it best in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that was excerpted in today's NY Times newsletter: "Save the mug shot for Georgia, the handcuffs for Jan. 6. Those were real offenses against the country.”

by ponchi101
patrick wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:37 am
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:10 am He can't go anywhere. All serious countries would not accept him. Russia and China will not. N. Korea? Uhm, no, no McDonalds.
Why not Russia? Thought him and Putin was best of terms. North Korea could be a good destination place for him.

At the end of the day, he will not stop from running for President
If he were to land in Russia as a regular American, he will be imprisoned and used as a pawn for some trade.
Putin has NO buddies.

by mmmm8 I think he would no longer be useful for Putin. Maybe Lukashenko.

by ti-amie

by ponchi101 Sorry. My legalese is not good enough. What does that mean?

by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:51 pm Sorry. My legalese is not good enough. What does that mean?
I'm not totally sure what you're asking, but I'll just say, the post above is nothing much to see. It's just a basic court document that laymen wouldn't care about, just says the grand jury returned an indictment, that's it, which you and everyone else in the world already knew. Courts require A LOT of paperwork, this is just one step in that formal process. Not worthy of him posting imo.

by ti-amie
JazzNU wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:16 am
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:51 pm Sorry. My legalese is not good enough. What does that mean?
I'm not totally sure what you're asking, but I'll just say, the post above is nothing much to see. It's just a basic court document that laymen wouldn't care about, just says the grand jury returned an indictment, that's it, which you and everyone else in the world already knew. Courts require A LOT of paperwork, this is just one step in that formal process. Not worthy of him posting imo.
He posted it because the MAGA's were trying to say there was no "true bill" returned by the Grand Jury. When dealing with Tiny's fans you have to lead them by the hand even if they're kicking and screaming the whole time.

by JazzNU
dryrunguy wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:24 pm
dryrunguy wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:27 am I'm having a very hard time getting past the notion that this (Stormy Daniels) is almost certainly not the most important thing with which he should be charged. There's so much more, and those things are so much more consequential and egregious.
Peggy Noonan of all people said it best in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that was excerpted in today's NY Times newsletter: "Save the mug shot for Georgia, the handcuffs for Jan. 6. Those were real offenses against the country.”

Let me first say that I hate Peggy Noonan. Full stop.

This is ridiculous out of her and she, yet again, is using her name recognition to act like she knows what she is talking about. People been dying for how long for him to be charged with something given how long he has brazenly broken the law and now you want to downplay when he actually gets indicted? Don't downplay any criminal offense that gets brought against him, don't assume any other criminal indictment will be coming down the pike. A bird in the hand. Maybe that bigger thing is coming, but maybe not. And maybe this is bigger than you're giving it credit for. And maybe there are more indictments coming, but this is the one that will get a conviction. Don't downplay any criminal indictment. Hope that more are coming and at least one conviction is forthcoming in a state with a governor who will not pardon him for his crimes.


A reminder that he is a dumb man, but a smart criminal and that is in large part because he learned a lot about how to communicate and not get caught from mafia guys he did business with in New York and Atlantic City. You cannot operate casinos in Atlantic City and not do business with the mafia, those that have tried have found out the hard way, that's not how that town works, especially in the 80s. He hasn't been sloppy from a legal standpoint nearly as much as people that hate him want to believe because their advice seems to be one of the few things that stuck in his tiny brain.

So be patient. Don't downplay any criminal indictment that comes. And remember that Capone did all manner of murder and mayhem in and around Chicago and he went to prison for tax evasion. Just because it isn't sexy, doesn't mean it's not effective. May not be as satisfying sure, but effective.

by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:03 pm
patrick wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:37 am
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:10 am He can't go anywhere. All serious countries would not accept him. Russia and China will not. N. Korea? Uhm, no, no McDonalds.
Why not Russia? Thought him and Putin was best of terms. North Korea could be a good destination place for him.

At the end of the day, he will not stop from running for President
If he were to land in Russia as a regular American, he will be imprisoned and used as a pawn for some trade.
Putin has NO buddies.
Yup. Tiny is only useful to Putin if he's in America. Shouldn't the Saudi's or Qatari's be making some noise about this soon?

by ponchi101 Serious here. Tiny has already done everything he could for Putin. The level of division in the USA is solely related to him, so, as an asset, he has delivered everything he could, and more. When you hear lunatics like MTG already voicing out about a NATIONAL DIVORCE, and a considerable number of people backing up the idea, you know that whatever amount of money Putin invested in modifying the 2016 election was a successful investment.

by JazzNU You know they are desperate when they break Eric out, but his powers of deflection need some work. The replies are hilarious.



by ponchi101 Nobel prize winner for NON-SEQUITUR?

by ti-amie
JazzNU wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:46 pm You know they are desperate when they break Eric out, but his powers of deflection need some work. The replies are hilarious.


Remember Bush 1 didn't know how to check out at a supermarket? When is the last time this one has been in a drug store?

by skatingfan

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Errol Louis
@errollouis
"A law enforcement official tells Rolling Stone that the former president was offered a chance to surrender quietly and be arraigned over Zoom. Instead, Trump opted for a midday, high-profile booking at the Manhattan courthouse." https://rollingstone.com/politics/polit ... 234708673/ via
@RollingStone




Don't they know who this clown is by now? They're giving him rock star coverage at the moment.

by ti-amie Errol Louis
@errollouis
·
12m
Believe me, everybody in media is aware that you-know-who is creating a spectacle for self-serving reasons. That doesn't make it any less historic or worthy of coverage and analysis.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/04 ... l#comments

by ti-amie Just in case you think I'm kidding about the over the top coverage...


by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:41 pm

Image

by ponchi101 They had coverage of him here in Colombia.
What a waste of time.

by Owendonovan I walked by his place today after work, 2 tiny supporters being interviewed by a local am radio news station there, let them know my thoughts on him as I walked by and came home.

by ti-amie Yahoo is reporting 34 Felonies in the indictment. As of now no one else has the story.

by ponchi101
Owendonovan wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:38 am I walked by his place today after work, 2 tiny supporters being interviewed by a local am radio news station there, let them know my thoughts on him as I walked by and came home.
C´mon, you can't leave us in suspense!!!!
(Which finger did you use??? ;) )

by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 4:23 pm
Owendonovan wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:38 am I walked by his place today after work, 2 tiny supporters being interviewed by a local am radio news station there, let them know my thoughts on him as I walked by and came home.
C´mon, you can't leave us in suspense!!!!
(Which finger did you use??? ;) )
Unkind, very unkind dark thoughts expressed through a loud P.E. teacher voice that annoyed them and the reporter interviewing them. Then I got a little mean, politely asking the reporter if she was asking his supporters about the mental illness these 2 supporters were suffering from.
Did you know "talk to the hand" still works for annoying people?

by ti-amie Robert Maguire
@RobertMaguire@journa.host
RT @ZcohenCNN
Trump's former national security adviser Robert O'Brien has met with prosecutors & told them about conversations related to seizing voting machines, including the heated Oval Office meeting in mid-Dec. 2020 w/ Michael Flynn & Sidney Powell, per source.

http://www.cnn.com/2023/04/05/politics/el

by ti-amie Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney@bird.makeup
NEWS: Mike Pence will NOT appeal a court order to testify to Jack Smith's Jan. 6 grand jury.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/05/p

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
Replying to
@kyledcheney
NEW: Trump's appeal of the Pence order — on executive privilege grounds — comes after Pence opted against appealing on separate (speech/debate clause) grounds.

Trump's executive privilege claims have not fared well in this probe.

If this tracks previous secret challenges, Trump will file for an emergency stay of the Pence order and an appeals court panel will set an aggressive timeline to resolve it.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie

by Owendonovan That certainly sounds like an indictment to me.

by ti-amie


by Owendonovan I don't want a settlement.

by ponchi101 I'll accept a settlement if there is an admission.
(Not that I have a say in this).

by ti-amie




by ti-amie


by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie Jury sides with Carroll in Trump case
E. Jean Carroll awarded $5 million in damages; jurors conclude Trump sexually abused, defamed her

Image
E. Jean Carroll, center, exits the Manhattan Federal Court following the verdict. (Reuters)

A Manhattan jury has found that Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll, and awarded $5 million in damages. Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her during a chance encounter at a Manhattan department store. He has denied her allegations, calling her a liar. Carroll sued him last year for battery and defamation.

Here’s what to know

Carroll first publicly accused Trump in 2019, during his presidency, writing in a memoir the same year that they bumped into each other at Bergdorf Goodman, the department store. She said Trump violently attacked her in a dressing room.
Trump has assailed Carroll and accused her of making up the story to sell books. His attorneys argued during the trial that her story was not believable.
Carroll testified in graphic detail during the trial about the alleged attack. Trump, who was under no obligation to appear, did not testify or attend the proceedings.

Explaining the verdict and the $5 million in damages

By Mark Berman
The jurors in this civil case in Manhattan were tasked with weighing whether to find former president Donald Trump liable on two claims that writer E. Jean Carroll included in her lawsuit: battery and defamation.

After two weeks of testimony, the jurors deliberated for a little under three hours before siding with Carroll on both claims.

The jurors did not find that Trump had raped Carroll, which she has contended for nearly four years.

But the jurors concluded that Trump sexually abused her and that she was injured as a result. They awarded Carroll $2 million in compensation for those injuries, along with $20,000 in punitive damages after also concluding that Trump’s actions were reckless.

The jurors were also asked to consider whether Carroll generally convinced them that Trump defamed her with a statement he posted to social media last year, assailing her as a liar. Jurors agreed that Trump did so, awarding Carroll $1.7 million in damages for “reputational repair” and $1 million for other damages. They added another $280,000 in punitive damages after concluding that Trump acted recklessly here too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... l-verdict/

by ti-amie


by ti-amie

by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
E. Jean Carroll and her attorney have released the following statements.

“This victory is not just for me but for every woman who has suffered because she was not believed,” Carroll said.

Image

by Owendonovan So a sexual abuser, as a jury of his peers has found him to be, leads the second largest political party in the US. How does anyone find respect for someone who follows him as their leader given what they know about him? What kind of person can overlook this behavior? Is it possible to overcome the extreme distaste of him and his followers somehow?

by ti-amie All valid questions Owen, and none of them have easy answers. The people who generate pictures of him as some kind of avenger with abs to die for and flowing hair don't see the real man. They have this image of them in their heads that has nothing to do with reality and no amount of truth will change their minds.

by ponchi101 The only answer is: it is a cult. It is no longer a political party.

by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 11:52 pm The only answer is: it is a cult. It is no longer a political party.
It certainly reads that way. I just don't know how to operate in a cult setting. I wonder what chink in peoples psychological make-up allow for them to follow?

by ponchi101 Needless to say, I have no professional expertise on this. I can only compare with what happened in Venezuela with Chavez.
People got hooked on the guy and from then on, every and all biases kick in. Confirmation bias kicks in and every "positive" sign is taken as a sign of greatness by the leader. Every negative sign is a plot from "the others". Recency bias is dialed to the max: no historical assessment (meaning the track record by the leader) is analyzed.
It is truly a limbic response. When you point out the faults of the leader, the followers get angry and simply label you a traitor. A detractor that is fixated on bringing the leader down. NO amount of data o evidence can be analyzed in front of them, because the response is violent and automatic.
How it starts? I always wonder about that too.

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 2:53 pm Needless to say, I have no professional expertise on this. I can only compare with what happened in Venezuela with Chavez.
People got hooked on the guy and from then on, every and all biases kick in. Confirmation bias kicks in and every "positive" sign is taken as a sign of greatness by the leader. Every negative sign is a plot from "the others". Recency bias is dialed to the max: no historical assessment (meaning the track record by the leader) is analyzed.
It is truly a limbic response. When you point out the faults of the leader, the followers get angry and simply label you a traitor. A detractor that is fixated on bringing the leader down. NO amount of data o evidence can be analyzed in front of them, because the response is violent and automatic.
How it starts? I always wonder about that too.
I have never understood the need some have to be led. Why give yourself a headache using the wonderful brains we have to apply critical thinking to a situation or a fellow human. It's so much easier to let the leader do your thinking for you and you don't have to worry about how incoherent the thoughts are or what their real world application will mean. It's why when people disagree with POTUS on an issue but will still vote for him the media, looking for simple takes, gets "confused" by something that is normal. No one is 100% right all the time but here we are.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie


by Owendonovan He can't die soon enough.

by ponchi101 But he is walking proof that an improper diet means nothing against longevity.

by ti-amie
“I do not believe for a moment that I am here to assist a genuine effort to enact legislation or conduct legislative ‘oversight,'” Pomerantz said in a three-page statement. “We are gathered here because Donald Trump’s supporters would like to use these proceedings to attempt to obstruct and undermine the criminal case pending against him, and to harass, intimidate, and discredit anyone who investigates or charges him.”

by Owendonovan Fun to watch those whiney republicans hypocritically crying about him pleading the 5th, though.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie









Palmer Report @PalmerReport

Bedminster is still 0% of this story. The DOJ concluded with certainty that there were no documents at Bedminster, or it would have raided the place.

We’re supposed to believe the DOJ raided Trump’s primary home but was too timid or clueless to search his vacation home?

Morons.

And don’t get me started over this stupid (expletive) about Ivana’s casket. That’s one of the most absurd conspiracy theories of all time. It’s Qanon level nonsense. I automatically unfollow anyone who even posts about Ivana’s casket, because it’s just idiots trying by sound clever.

We’re supposed to believe that the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Attorney General, and Jack Smith are all oblivious morons who didn’t think to search Bedminster or Ivana’s casket, but *some clowns on Twitter* outsmarted them all by putting it together?

Just so, so absurd.

Yet because the Dumb People of Twitter are all chanting “search Bedminster, everyone please look at how smart we are for suggesting Bedminster be searched” in unison, the real story here is being lost.

Trump’s departing attorney is not only quitting ahead of Trump’s indictment, he’s publicly accusing Trump’s other attorney of having incompetently led path down a path of self incrimination.

Trump’s departing lawyer expects the Trump indictment to reveal that Trump had the most inept legal representation of all time, and he’s trying to protect his own professional reputation by blaming another Trump lawyer for screwing it all up.

Attorneys don’t quit simply because they expect their client to be indicted, or even convicted. They quit because they expect their client to go down in such embarrassing fashion, the client’s legal team ends up being seen as too inept to ever find work again.

by ti-amie E. Jean Carroll Seeks New Damages From Trump for Comments on CNN
The former president’s repeated denials that he sexually abused Ms. Carroll “show the depth of his malice” and merit heavy damages, her lawyer wrote.


By Benjamin Weiser
May 22, 2023, 5:21 p.m. ET

E. Jean Carroll, who this month won $5 million in damages from former President Donald J. Trump, is now seeking a “very substantial” additional amount in response to his insults on a CNN program just a day after she won her sexual abuse and defamation case.

Ms. Carroll’s filing Monday in Manhattan federal court seeks to intensify the financial pain for Mr. Trump. The jury in her civil case found him liable on May 9 for sexual abuse and defamation. It ordered him to pay Ms. Carroll, a former advice columnist and fixture in Manhattan’s media circles, $2 million for the sexual abuse and $3 million for the defamation.

Monday’s filing came in a separate defamation lawsuit that Ms. Carroll had filed in 2019 against Mr. Trump, 76, which is before the same judge who presided in the civil trial but had been sidetracked by appeals. The older case stemmed from comments Mr. Trump made that year, shortly after she said that he had raped her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. That lawsuit is still pending.

On May 10, Mr. Trump went on CNN and echoed his earlier denials about the episode, calling her account “fake” and a “made-up story.” Despite a photograph showing them together, he claimed again that he had never met Ms. Carroll, 79, called her a “wack job” and said the recent civil trial was “a rigged deal.”

The court filing on Monday argues Mr. Trump’s defamatory statements following the verdict “show the depth of his malice toward Carroll, since it is hard to imagine defamatory conduct that could possibly be more motivated by hatred, ill will or spite.”

“This conduct supports a very substantial punitive damages award in Carroll’s favor both to punish Trump, to deter him from engaging in further defamation, and to deter others from doing the same,” the filing says.

Mr. Trump continues to fight the jury’s decision. After the verdict, his lawyer Joseph Tacopina filed a notice of appeal.

Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta A. Kaplan, said in a brief interview Monday that Mr. Trump’s statements on CNN, “literally the day after the verdict,” made it all the more important for Ms. Carroll to pursue the pending defamation lawsuit.


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/nyre ... ation.html

by ti-amie

It's a holiday weekend here in the States. I wonder if they've filed a request to exhume the former Mrs. Trump's grave yet?

by ti-amie






Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal
·
4m
Worth paying attention, Coley worked directly for AG Garland and ran the press operation.

by ti-amie Teri Kanefield
@Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
Trump says he has been summoned to appear Tuesday in Miami.

(He added that he is innocent and never thought this would happen to a former president who got so many votes.)

The last time he told us he'd be arrested on a Tuesday, he wasn't arrested on a Tuesday. But this time he used a legal term "summoned" so maybe it's true.

See post #1017 above and take this with a lot of salt...

by Owendonovan :bananas: :yahoo: :bananas:
ti-amie wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:40 pm Teri Kanefield
@Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
Trump says he has been summoned to appear Tuesday in Miami.

(He added that he is innocent and never thought this would happen to a former president who got so many votes.)

The last time he told us he'd be arrested on a Tuesday, he wasn't arrested on a Tuesday. But this time he used a legal term "summoned" so maybe it's true.

See post #1017 above and take this with a lot of salt...

by ti-amie There were some who were blindsided that there was a Grand Jury in Florida. It was kept really quiet.

by ti-amie Trump charged in secret documents case
The former president is first ever to face federal criminal charges

The charges include illegal retention of government secrets, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, according to people familiar with the matter. It is the second time he has been criminally charged since March, when he was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments from 2016.
By Devlin Barrett, Perry Stein and Josh DawseyUpdated 53 minutes ago

Former president Donald Trump said Thursday night that he’s been charged by the Justice Department in connection with the discovery that hundreds of classified documents were taken to his Mar-a-Lago home after he left the White House — a seismic event in the nation’s political and legal history.

Trump, who is the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, said he has been summoned to appear in federal court in Miami on Tuesday at 3 p.m. Several Trump advisers confirmed the charges.

A seven-count indictment has been filed in federal court naming the former president as a criminal defendant, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a case that has yet to be unsealed.

The charges include illegal retention of government secrets, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, according to people familiar with the matter. It is the second time Trump has been criminally charged since March, when he was indicted in state court in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments from 2016. Trump, who has denied wrongdoing in both cases, is the only former president ever charged with a crime.

“I have been indicted, seemingly over the Boxes Hoax,” Trump posted on social media site Truth Social. He claimed he was being treated unfairly. “I never thought it possible that such a thing could happen to a former President of the United States,” he said in a screed that ended: “I AM AN INNOCENT MAN!”

A spokesman for special counsel Jack Smith, who has been running the investigation since November, declined to comment.

The charges cap a high-stakes investigation that began in early 2022 and slowly built steam over the summer, until FBI agents conducted a court-ordered search of Trump’s home and private club in early August that turned up more than 100 classified documents, even after Trump’s advisers had claimed they had conducted a diligent search in June for such papers and — in response to a subpoena — handed over all they could find.

(...)

While a president has never been charged with such crimes, prosecutions related to the mishandling of classified materials are not rare, said Steven Aftergood, a classified information expert. “This reflects the Justice Department applying the law to a former president, and that is really encouraging,” Aftergood said. “It really underscores the fact that no one is above the law.”

Much of the Justice Department’s investigation centered around the actions of Trump and his closest advisers following a May subpoena from the government for the return of all documents with classified markings. Witness and videotape evidence gathered by the FBI indicated that Trump may have sought to keep documents, people familiar with the investigation said, despite having turned over some material to authorities in response to the subpoena.

In November, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to serve as special counsel and take charge of the Mar-a-Lago case, saying that Trump’s announced candidacy for the presidency and President Biden’s likely reelection bid meant there should be another layer of independence for the investigations involving Trump.

A separate special counsel, Robert Hur, has been appointed to investigate how a much smaller number of classified documents were taken to Biden’s home and office. Trump has claimed that he should not be charged because Biden’s conduct was worse, but to date the known evidence against the former president appears to dwarf the facts of the Biden case.

For many months, Justice Department prosecutors have questioned witnesses in the case before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.

The secret proceedings yielded evidence of potential mishandling as well as obstruction of justice, people familiar with the investigation have said, making the federal courthouse in the nation’s capital the focal point of a waiting game: Would Trump be the first former president indicted by the Justice Department?

In early May, the parade of witnesses to that grand jury appeared to stop, but in fact it had been redirected to a federal courthouse a thousand miles south, in Miami. That courthouse is much closer to Mar-a-Lago, where most of the alleged conduct under scrutiny took place.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Justice Department lawyers had concluded the case against Trump would be more safely brought in Florida than Washington, in order to avoid potentially time-consuming legal fights over the proper venue.

After months of speculation and anticipation, it had become clear the case of the United States vs. Donald J. Trump was moving toward a momentous decision.

After receiving a formal notice that Trump was a target of the criminal investigation, the former president’s lawyers met Monday at Justice Department headquarters with Smith and other officials, including a senior career lawyer. Trump’s lawyers tried to convince the prosecutors not to file charges.

People familiar with the conversation said the meeting did not go well, and Trump’s team left the meeting expecting their client would soon be indicted.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ar-a-lago/

TL;dr


by ti-amie

by ti-amie Another day, another crime. It's worth clicking on the "read more" link.



Jack Smith, Fani Willis and Tish James right now

Image

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Ricky Davila
@TheRickyDavila
Starting Monday, the Main Street in front of the Fulton County courthouse will shut down for two weeks.

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Twitter was fined $350,000 for failing to turn over Trump’s data

By Rachel Weiner
Updated August 9, 2023 at 5:28 p.m. EDT|Published August 9, 2023 at 1:48 p.m. EDT

The social media company Twitter was forced to hand over records from former president Donald Trump’s account to the special counsel investigating the events leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack and pay sanctions for failing to do so more quickly, as disclosed in an appellate court ruling unsealed Wednesday.

A lower-court judge, Beryl A. Howell, ruled in March that Twitter, now renamed X, had to comply with a sealed search warrant issued by the special counsel and pay $350,000 for missing a court-ordered deadline by three days. The filing also reveals that Howell had found reason to believe that should the search warrant be made public, Trump might engage in obstructive conduct or flee prosecution.

Twitter appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which in July upheld Howell’s ruling. Now that Trump has been charged with four felonies related to his attempts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, the appellate decision has been unsealed.

Attorneys for Twitter did not oppose the search warrant but argued that a gag order preventing the company from alerting Trump to the search violated the First Amendment. The company argued that it should not have to hand over the records until that issue was resolved. Howell sided with the government, finding Twitter in contempt Feb. 7 for failing to comply with the search warrant. She gave Twitter until 5 p.m. to produce the records, with sanctions of $50,000 per day, to double every day that Twitter did not comply. Twitter produced the records three days later.

The following month, Howell upheld the nondisclosure order and imposed a $350,000 contempt sanction on Twitter. She found that there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that disclosing the warrant to Trump “would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation” by giving him “an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates,” according to the appellate ruling. Howell also found the former president might “flee from prosecution,” although the special counsel’s team later said they did not intend to make that argument and it was not included in her final analysis.


In June, the government moved to modify the gag order, saying Twitter could alert Trump to the contents of the warrant — just not the identity of the case agent. That request came shortly after another judge in D.C. unsealed a ruling compelling former vice president Mike Pence to testify against Trump.

Trump was banned from Twitter two days after the Jan. 6 attack. Elon Musk restored Trump’s Twitter access after buying the company in 2022, but the former president has not returned to the platform.

The ruling does not specify what was turned over, but a subpoena could cover draft tweets and direct messages, as well as information on who had access to the account. The grand jury indictment against Trump handed down this month includes references to 18 of Trump’s tweets, including seven from the day of Jan. 6. In those messages, Trump spread false fraud claims, attacked officials who tried to correct the record, rallied supporters to Washington for Jan. 6 and pressured Pence to help overturn the election results.

The panel of three appellate judges found Twitter’s First Amendment rights were not violated, because “the nondisclosure order was a narrowly tailored means of achieving compelling government interests” — protecting the integrity of a grand jury investigation. The appellate court panel — two Biden appointees and one appointee of President Barack Obama — found it was within Howell’s discretion to refuse to delay execution of the search warrant.

The appellate court also upheld Howell’s $350,000 sanction, saying it was reasonable “given Twitter’s $40-billion valuation and the court’s goal of coercing Twitter’s compliance.”

Attorneys and a spokesman for X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... n-6-trump/

by ti-amie Teri Kanefield
@Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
If there are incriminating DMs in Trump's Twitter Account, here is how the government would know:

A cooperating witness turned over incriminating DMs.

Also nobody knows what the DOJ knows which is one reason investigations are done away from the public view.

So if you try to suppress something that the DOJ knows exists . . . ding.

Similarly, they'd have reason to think someone else was putting out some of his key Tweets concerning the leadup to January 6 from evidence already uncovered.

Everyone knows the standard by now: To get the warrant the government needs to present probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in the specific place they are looking.

by patrick
ti-amie wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:49 am Trump charged in secret documents case
The former president is first ever to face federal criminal charges

The charges include illegal retention of government secrets, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, according to people familiar with the matter. It is the second time he has been criminally charged since March, when he was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments from 2016.
By Devlin Barrett, Perry Stein and Josh DawseyUpdated 53 minutes ago

Former president Donald Trump said Thursday night that he’s been charged by the Justice Department in connection with the discovery that hundreds of classified documents were taken to his Mar-a-Lago home after he left the White House — a seismic event in the nation’s political and legal history.

Trump, who is the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, said he has been summoned to appear in federal court in Miami on Tuesday at 3 p.m. Several Trump advisers confirmed the charges.

A seven-count indictment has been filed in federal court naming the former president as a criminal defendant, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a case that has yet to be unsealed.

The charges include illegal retention of government secrets, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, according to people familiar with the matter. It is the second time Trump has been criminally charged since March, when he was indicted in state court in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments from 2016. Trump, who has denied wrongdoing in both cases, is the only former president ever charged with a crime.

“I have been indicted, seemingly over the Boxes Hoax,” Trump posted on social media site Truth Social. He claimed he was being treated unfairly. “I never thought it possible that such a thing could happen to a former President of the United States,” he said in a screed that ended: “I AM AN INNOCENT MAN!”

A spokesman for special counsel Jack Smith, who has been running the investigation since November, declined to comment.

The charges cap a high-stakes investigation that began in early 2022 and slowly built steam over the summer, until FBI agents conducted a court-ordered search of Trump’s home and private club in early August that turned up more than 100 classified documents, even after Trump’s advisers had claimed they had conducted a diligent search in June for such papers and — in response to a subpoena — handed over all they could find.

(...)

While a president has never been charged with such crimes, prosecutions related to the mishandling of classified materials are not rare, said Steven Aftergood, a classified information expert. “This reflects the Justice Department applying the law to a former president, and that is really encouraging,” Aftergood said. “It really underscores the fact that no one is above the law.”

Much of the Justice Department’s investigation centered around the actions of Trump and his closest advisers following a May subpoena from the government for the return of all documents with classified markings. Witness and videotape evidence gathered by the FBI indicated that Trump may have sought to keep documents, people familiar with the investigation said, despite having turned over some material to authorities in response to the subpoena.

In November, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to serve as special counsel and take charge of the Mar-a-Lago case, saying that Trump’s announced candidacy for the presidency and President Biden’s likely reelection bid meant there should be another layer of independence for the investigations involving Trump.

A separate special counsel, Robert Hur, has been appointed to investigate how a much smaller number of classified documents were taken to Biden’s home and office. Trump has claimed that he should not be charged because Biden’s conduct was worse, but to date the known evidence against the former president appears to dwarf the facts of the Biden case.

For many months, Justice Department prosecutors have questioned witnesses in the case before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.

The secret proceedings yielded evidence of potential mishandling as well as obstruction of justice, people familiar with the investigation have said, making the federal courthouse in the nation’s capital the focal point of a waiting game: Would Trump be the first former president indicted by the Justice Department?

In early May, the parade of witnesses to that grand jury appeared to stop, but in fact it had been redirected to a federal courthouse a thousand miles south, in Miami. That courthouse is much closer to Mar-a-Lago, where most of the alleged conduct under scrutiny took place.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Justice Department lawyers had concluded the case against Trump would be more safely brought in Florida than Washington, in order to avoid potentially time-consuming legal fights over the proper venue.

After months of speculation and anticipation, it had become clear the case of the United States vs. Donald J. Trump was moving toward a momentous decision.

After receiving a formal notice that Trump was a target of the criminal investigation, the former president’s lawyers met Monday at Justice Department headquarters with Smith and other officials, including a senior career lawyer. Trump’s lawyers tried to convince the prosecutors not to file charges.

People familiar with the conversation said the meeting did not go well, and Trump’s team left the meeting expecting their client would soon be indicted.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ar-a-lago/

TL;dr


Is this why Musk bought Twitter?

by ti-amie
patrick wrote: Wed Aug 09, 2023 11:17 pm
ti-amie wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:49 am Trump charged in secret documents case
The former president is first ever to face federal criminal charges

The charges include illegal retention of government secrets, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, according to people familiar with the matter. It is the second time he has been criminally charged since March, when he was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments from 2016.
By Devlin Barrett, Perry Stein and Josh DawseyUpdated 53 minutes ago

Former president Donald Trump said Thursday night that he’s been charged by the Justice Department in connection with the discovery that hundreds of classified documents were taken to his Mar-a-Lago home after he left the White House — a seismic event in the nation’s political and legal history.

Trump, who is the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, said he has been summoned to appear in federal court in Miami on Tuesday at 3 p.m. Several Trump advisers confirmed the charges.

A seven-count indictment has been filed in federal court naming the former president as a criminal defendant, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a case that has yet to be unsealed.

The charges include illegal retention of government secrets, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, according to people familiar with the matter. It is the second time Trump has been criminally charged since March, when he was indicted in state court in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments from 2016. Trump, who has denied wrongdoing in both cases, is the only former president ever charged with a crime.

“I have been indicted, seemingly over the Boxes Hoax,” Trump posted on social media site Truth Social. He claimed he was being treated unfairly. “I never thought it possible that such a thing could happen to a former President of the United States,” he said in a screed that ended: “I AM AN INNOCENT MAN!”

A spokesman for special counsel Jack Smith, who has been running the investigation since November, declined to comment.

The charges cap a high-stakes investigation that began in early 2022 and slowly built steam over the summer, until FBI agents conducted a court-ordered search of Trump’s home and private club in early August that turned up more than 100 classified documents, even after Trump’s advisers had claimed they had conducted a diligent search in June for such papers and — in response to a subpoena — handed over all they could find.

(...)

While a president has never been charged with such crimes, prosecutions related to the mishandling of classified materials are not rare, said Steven Aftergood, a classified information expert. “This reflects the Justice Department applying the law to a former president, and that is really encouraging,” Aftergood said. “It really underscores the fact that no one is above the law.”

Much of the Justice Department’s investigation centered around the actions of Trump and his closest advisers following a May subpoena from the government for the return of all documents with classified markings. Witness and videotape evidence gathered by the FBI indicated that Trump may have sought to keep documents, people familiar with the investigation said, despite having turned over some material to authorities in response to the subpoena.

In November, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to serve as special counsel and take charge of the Mar-a-Lago case, saying that Trump’s announced candidacy for the presidency and President Biden’s likely reelection bid meant there should be another layer of independence for the investigations involving Trump.

A separate special counsel, Robert Hur, has been appointed to investigate how a much smaller number of classified documents were taken to Biden’s home and office. Trump has claimed that he should not be charged because Biden’s conduct was worse, but to date the known evidence against the former president appears to dwarf the facts of the Biden case.

For many months, Justice Department prosecutors have questioned witnesses in the case before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.

The secret proceedings yielded evidence of potential mishandling as well as obstruction of justice, people familiar with the investigation have said, making the federal courthouse in the nation’s capital the focal point of a waiting game: Would Trump be the first former president indicted by the Justice Department?

In early May, the parade of witnesses to that grand jury appeared to stop, but in fact it had been redirected to a federal courthouse a thousand miles south, in Miami. That courthouse is much closer to Mar-a-Lago, where most of the alleged conduct under scrutiny took place.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Justice Department lawyers had concluded the case against Trump would be more safely brought in Florida than Washington, in order to avoid potentially time-consuming legal fights over the proper venue.

After months of speculation and anticipation, it had become clear the case of the United States vs. Donald J. Trump was moving toward a momentous decision.

After receiving a formal notice that Trump was a target of the criminal investigation, the former president’s lawyers met Monday at Justice Department headquarters with Smith and other officials, including a senior career lawyer. Trump’s lawyers tried to convince the prosecutors not to file charges.

People familiar with the conversation said the meeting did not go well, and Trump’s team left the meeting expecting their client would soon be indicted.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ar-a-lago/

TL;dr


Is this why Musk bought Twitter?
As I was reading this I thought the exact same thing.

by ti-amie MLive Curated
@mlive_curated@social.iheartmichelle.com
All 16 pro-Trump electors have pleaded not guilty to Michigan felony charges

from MLive.com
by Simon Schuster

#Michigan #Fascism

https://www.mlive.com/politics/2023/08/all

by ti-amie Meanwhile AG Fani Willis is moving at a faster pace than anticipated. There's also this.

George Takei :verified: 🏳️‍🌈🖖🏽
@georgetakei@universeodon.com
I am no lawyer, but telling a witness who is supposed to testify before a grand jury in your case tomorrow that he “shouldn’t” is obstruction of justice. It's witness tampering. And that’s a crime that can get added to all the others.

Image

by ti-amie Someone on the inside giving TFG a heads-up?







Rebekah Jones @GeoRebekah

And yet, this document DOES have a case number, file date and all of those details.....?

Image

by ti-amie

by ti-amie Andrew Feinberg
@AndrewFeinberg
NEW: If I am reading this right, Judge Engoron has found that Donald Trump committed fraud and has ordered the cancellation of all of his New York business certificates and the dissolution of the Trump Organization.

Image


by ponchi101 No.
It is "Oh, (expletive) FINALLY".
So tempted to override our banned words list.
(No, I won't).

by Owendonovan I'm wondering what medication will get me through his trials and an election year at the same time? This case seemed pretty open and shut as it's basically just numbers. I hope jury pools aren't too hard to come by, I can't imagine a trump lawyer agreeing to any juror outside of maga. I suppose a judges patience will determine that.

by skatingfan
Owendonovan wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2023 2:38 am I'm wondering what medication will get me through his trials and an election year at the same time? This case seemed pretty open and shut as it's basically just numbers. I hope jury pools aren't too hard to come by, I can't imagine a trump lawyer agreeing to any juror outside of maga. I suppose a judges patience will determine that.
Sleeping pills?

by ti-amie Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president
Matthew Chapman
October 11, 2023 5:25PM ET

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.

The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office without unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve.

But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

"The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution — not to 'support' the Constitution," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."


The former president has already tried to remove the 14th Amendment case to federal court, but this motion was denied.

Other lawsuits are trying to disqualify Trump on the same grounds in other states, including Minnesota. However, these cases face obstacles, chiefly that the 14th Amendment doesn't lay out a clear enforcement mechanism, according to experts.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-sup ... stitution/

by ponchi101 There is no floor for these people.

by ti-amie This is...I don't know why people put themselves at risk for a sociopath/psychopath who doesn't give a rat's patootie about them.

Ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg’s Testimony Abruptly Ended After Forbes Story Accused Him of Perjury
A source close to New York Attorney General Letitia James confirmed that her office is looking into the latest report about the former Trump CFO's testimony
Published 10/12/23 04:41 PM ET|Updated 21 hr ago
Adam Klasfeld

The Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg’s testimony reached an abrupt and unexpected end on Thursday afternoon, just hours after Forbes magazine accused the convicted tax cheat of perjuring himself during an earlier stint as a witness.

Weisselberg insisted on Tuesday from the witness stand that he “never focused” on calculating the square footage of the former president’s Trump Tower triplex, a three-floor penthouse in his namesake skyscraper.

Two days later, on Thursday, Forbes reported that emails not currently in the attorney general’s possession show otherwise.

A source close to New York Attorney General Letitia James confirmed that her office is looking into the latest Forbes report.

Hours after the publication of that story, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron convened a sidebar with attorneys for the state and defense, but the subject of their private huddle remains unknown. Weisselberg was excused for the day shortly after that conversation, as attorneys for both sides reserved the right to call him back.

Former Trump Organization Executive Allen Weisselberg sits in the courtroom during the civil fraud trial of former President Donald Trump at New York State Supreme Court on Oct. 10, 2023 in New York City.Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
On Tuesday, Weisselberg kept trying to distance himself from Trump’s false computation of his triplex at 30,000 square feet instead of 10,996 square feet, repeatedly claiming “never” to have focused on the topic.

https://themessenger.com/politics/allen ... es-perjury

by ti-amie The original story from Forbes.

Trump’s Longtime CFO Lied, Under Oath, About Trump Tower Penthouse
Dan Alexander
Forbes Staff
Senior editor at Forbes, covering Donald Trump's business.

In trying to distance himself from Donald Trump’s false financial statements, Allen Weisselberg kept lying.
Allen Weisselberg, the longtime chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, lied in sworn testimony on Tuesday when questioned about Donald Trump’s penthouse atop Trump Tower.

Weisselberg was on the stand as part of a $250 million lawsuit that the New York attorney general is waging against Trump and his associates, including Weisselberg, accusing them of lying about Trump’s net worth to financial institutions. To arrive at inflated figures, the Trump Organization used demonstrably incorrect facts, such as valuing Trump’s penthouse as if it contained 30,000 square feet, when it in fact consisted of 10,996.

Under questioning, Weisselberg acknowledged that the 30,000-square-foot figure was wrong. He tried to suggest, however, that he had little to do with the bogus calculation, batting away a series of questions about the financial documents and discussions with Forbes, which has been valuing Trump’s fortune since 1982. “I never focused on the triplex, to be honest with you,” Weisselberg said. “It was almost de minimis relative to his net worth, so I really didn’t focus on it.”

He repeated similar lines as his testimony continued. “I never focused on the apartment Mr. Trump owned,” he said at one point. At another: “I didn’t correlate the square footage of Donald’s apartment. I never focused on it. It was always in my mind a de minimis asset of the overall of Donald J. Trump’s statement of financial condition. That was never a concern of mine. I never even thought about the apartment. It was de minimis in my mind.”

But that’s not true. A review of old emails and notes, some of which the attorney general’s office does not possess, show that Weisselberg absolutely thought about Trump’s apartment—and played a key role in trying to convince Forbes over the course of several years that it was worth more than it really was. Given the fact that these discussions continued for years, and that Weisselberg took a very detailed approach in reviewing Trump’s assets with Forbes, it defies all logic to think he truly believes what he is now saying in court.

The saga started in 2009, on a relatively friendly note. Forbes had been valuing Trump’s fortune for decades at that point, though some of his smaller assets remained absent from the overall calculation. Weisselberg and Trump summoned a Forbes reporter to a meeting, according to the reporter’s notes. The reporter was hesitant to add Trump’s personal home to the valuation, something Trump and his underlings seemed to be okay with at the time. “They understand if we don’t want to include the penthouse at Trump Tower,” the reporter noted.

Three years later, in 2012, a different reporter wrote, “Allen asked why we count large private estates for other billionaires and not Trump. He said we should be including his NY penthouse. He thinks it’s worth more [than] $88m.” Weisselberg had a point. The penthouse wasn’t worth $88 million, but it was worth something. The reporter added it to the calculation with an estimated $64 million valuation.

Weisselberg kept pushing. The next year, a reporter explained, “Now Allen says it’s worth $200M, and there’s no debt.” Believing the penthouse was nearly 30,000 square feet, the figure that the Trump Organization would eventually claim on its internal documents, the reporter decided to bump up the estimate to $90 million.

A year later, in 2014, Weisselberg once again weighed in on the value. “Now Allen says it’s $163m with 0 debt,” a reporter wrote in her notes. “He is sending us sales records for One57”—a luxury apartment building nearby, which Trump’s financial statements also referenced—“and then applying a per-square-foot rate, based on 30k sf.”

The reporter opted to leave the valuation at $90 million in her calculation and sent a summary of her estimates to Weisselberg and his deputy, Jeff McConney. Weisselberg then set up a phone call, which was followed by an email exchange, titled “Mr. Trump’s penthouse.” “Hi Jeff, Allen— I just wanted to let you know that I was not able to bump up the value of Mr. Trump’s penthouse this time. While I understand your point that it may indeed sell for more than $90 million due to its large square footage, this is still an untested market. Since no apartment in New York is known to have sold for more than that sum to date, we’re not comfortable upping the number at this time.” Weisselberg replied at 5:02 p.m. on a September Friday, delving into the weeds on the penthouse. “Thank you for the response, but keep in mind that his apartment is a triplex which consists of 6 apartments.”

In 2015, Trump hosted three Forbes journalists inside Trump Tower, with Weisselberg by his side. “This is the entire floor of Trump Tower, just so you know,” Trump said, showing off his penthouse. “Now, this wraps all around the building. All around the elevators. And I have three times three. So there’s like 11,000 feet on a floor. So I have three. So 33,000—and I have the roof.”

The next year, Forbes uncovered property records that showed that the penthouse was only 10,996 square feet, not 30,000 square feet or 33,000 square feet. Reporters reached out to Weisselberg and others at the Trump Organization to ask about the discrepancy, emails that are now being used as evidence in the case.

Even after receiving those messages, the Trump Organization apparently continued to value the penthouse on its documents as if it had 30,000 square feet. It wasn’t until after Forbes published a story in May 2017, exposing the lie publicly, that the Trump Organization seemed to change its internal documents, reducing the square footage to 10,996.

Weisselberg was demoted from his role as CFO after he was criminally charged in a separate tax case in 2021. He remained with the Trump Organization until January, when he was sentenced to five months in jail as the result of the other case, which also implicated the Trump Organization. Weisselberg signed a separation agreement with the firm that month, which promises to pay him $2 million over two years, if he complies with his obligations under the agreement.

An attorney for Weisselberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Weisselberg is expected to retake the stand in the attorney general’s case to continue his testimony in the coming days.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand ... penthouse/

by ti-amie I guess the accommodations at Riker's are not as bad as they're said to be.

by ti-amie


by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports

The next witness is up now in People v. Trump:
Jack Weisselberg, who is Allen Weisselberg's son and a director at Ladder Capital, takes the stand in the civil fraud case.

The AG's counsel Colleen Faherty leads the direct examination.

The NYAG has the witness run down lingo regarding fixed-rate loans, asking the witness to describe "pooling" loans, senior tranche, junior tranches, and other such terms.

The testimony so far has been setting the stage for the facts at issue.

NYAG pivots to the evidence:

Email from Allen to Jack Weisselberg on Oct. 19, 2011

"As discussed we are looking for a forward commitment in the amount of $65 mil., and a term of ten years to take effect in August 2012. Thanks talk to you soon."

Subject line for the email:

"TTCOML Oct 2011 RENT ROLL FIVE YEAR PROJECTION"

Jack Weisselberg says TTCOML is short for "Trump Tower commercial loan," one that was ultimately effectuated.

Just so the significance isn't lost on anyone:

This email appears to show the father (on the borrowing side) engaging directly with his son (on the lending side) on a 10-year, $65M loan.


Here's the body of another email from Allen to Jack Weisselberg from Oct. 20, 2011.

Image

Chris Kise (TFG lawyer) raises a series of statute of limitations objections, overruled by the judge in that the state is allowed to show a pattern or practice.

Trump, visibly displeased even sitting behind him, crosses his arms tightly and shakes his head.

A reply:

Larry Frank @tdbt71

The savings and loan scandal repeat - borrowing from yourself to fund yourself

by ti-amie Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
I am headed back to the office after yet another long day in court that ended with a bang, not a whimper. But what was today’s latest skirmish about Judge Engoron’s principal law clerk really about? Controlling what we, the media, say and write tonight—and depriving the AG’s team of a major dunk on Eric Trump. 1/

Let me explain. Andy Amer of the AG’s office was focused on a 2021 conference call about Trump’s statement of financial condition that one participant, Patrick Birney, testified was convened to apprise Don Jr. and Eric of a change in the valuation methodology for their golf courses. 2/

Despite Eric’s agreeing that he likes Birney very much and his inability to refute Birney’s testimony, nothing Amer showed Eric shored up any recollection of the call whatsoever. 3/

That call, however, was not only just over 2 years ago, but as Amer pointed out, took place well after the AG’s investigation was underway and nearly two years after Eric Trump gave his first of two depositions related to this case. 4/

At that first, October 2020 deposition, Eric Trump took the Fifth more than 500 times, a fact that the attorney general highlighted in a Jan. 2022 court filing. 5/

And that’s where Amer was headed. He was going to show that especially once Eric perceived that he was at sufficient risk that he had to plead the Fifth hundreds of times in fall 2020, his lack of recollections as to how they handled later statements of financial condition (and related valuation changes) was not credible. 6/

That’s likely where we would have ended the day but for vociferous objections from Cliff Robert & then Chris Kise, who, in supposedly trying to shut down that line of questions sideswiped the judge’s principal law clerk. 7/

Predictably, that enraged the usually droll Engoron, and we were off to the races about a potential expansion of the gag order, the legitimacy of the notes the judge and his clerk exchange, and whether Kise’s First Amendment rights trump (no pun intended) the clerk’s right to safety. 8/

Lawyers joke if the law’s not on your side, argue the facts. If the facts aren’t on your side, argue the law. And if you’ve got neither, pound the table and yell. That’s what happened today with the added factor that Trump’s team timed their outrage to strip the AG’s team of a last, devastating word today.

Don’t buy it. As Amer himself said with a grin, today was a great day for the AG’s team, even if Don Jr.’s joviality and Eric’s stinginess disguised that at times. More on why later…. FIN.

by ti-amie Judge Gags Trump’s Lawyers From Statements About Communications With Staff, Threatening ‘Serious Sanctions’
The judge said "hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters, and packages" poured into chambers since trial began
Published 11/03/23 03:14 PM ET|Updated 6 min ago
Adam Klasfeld

AManhattan judge expanded his gag order against former President Donald Trump on Friday to bar his lawyers from mentioning his "confidential communications" between him and his staff.

"Failure to abide by this directive shall result in serious sanctions," New York County Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron warned in a three-page ruling.

Engoron justified his order on his efforts to keep his staff from violent harm. Judges and prosecutors whom Trump have criticized have received death threats in the past, including U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

"The threat of, and actual, violence resulting from heated political rhetoric is well-documented," Engoron wrote. "Since the commencement of this bench trial, my chambers have been inundated with hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters, and packages. The First Amendment right of defendants and their attorneys to comment on my staff is far and away outweighed by the need to protect them from threats and physical harm."

On Oct. 3, 2023, Engoron imposed a gag order narrowly barring Trump from making statements about his staff after he smeared the judge's law clerk on Truth Social, baselessly accusing her of having an affair with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The judge ordered Trump to delete the "untrue" and "disparaging" post, then gagged him later in the day. The narrow order did not prevent Trump from making any statements about the judge or New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the lawsuit threatening the former president's business empire.

"As I have made clear, as the Judge in this case and the trier of fact, the gag order does not apply to me," Engoron wrote. "However, I will not tolerate, under any circumstances, remarks about my court staff."

Trump has attacked both the judge and the attorney general via social media repeatedly since that time, without violating the terms of the gag order.

https://themessenger.com/politics/judge ... -sanctions

by Owendonovan It's as though they're asking to be jailed so they can call themselves martyrs and use it politically, though not quite understanding martyrdom requires your death.

by ti-amie I love that Judge Engoron wrote this is plain English not legalese in response to Tiny's lawyers request for a mistrial pretty much because the Judge is being mean to them.
TL;dr




https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/D ... ystem=prod

by ti-amie Frank G. Runyeon
@frankrunyeon

NEW: Death threats & antisemitic rants "inundated" Justice Engoron & his law clerk after Donald Trump attacked them on social media, says top NY court security official, citing 275 transcribed pages.

The threats are "serious and credible and not hypothetical or speculative."

Image

"You should be assassinated," one threat reads.

A NY court security official links Donald Trump's statements to the threats.

"When Mr. Trump violated the gag orders, the number of threatening, harassing and disparaging messages increased," Capt. Hollon said.

Image

The information was filed today as part of Justice Engoron's opposition to Trump's motion to lift the gag orders. The judge argued they were necessary for the safety of this staff.

This affidavit by court security is meant to support that position.

"Although Mr. Trump did not directly threaten Ms. Greenfield, the comments made in his post resulted in hundreds of threatening and harassing voicemail messages that have been transcribed into over 275 single spaced pages."


https://www.law360.com/articles/1769677

by ti-amie Donald Trump has worst day yet in NY civil fraud trial as underling's scribbled note ties him to conspiracy
Laura Italiano Nov 21, 2023, 5:30 PM EST

The defense called Donald Trump's former spreadsheet czar Jeffrey McConney to testify.
McConney said he wrote "DJT TO GET FINAL REVIEW" on a document the state alleges is fraud-filled.

Donald Trump had his worst day yet in his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York on Tuesday at the hands of his own key witness, a former Trump Organization executive who linked the former president directly to the fuzzy math at the center of the case.

The witness was Jeffrey McConney, who was the comptroller and spreadsheet czar at the Trump Org. McConney had been called to the witness stand by the defense, but on cross-examination by lawyers for the state attorney general's office Tuesday, he linked Trump firmly to the conspiracy and fraud counts that have yet to be decided in the non-jury trial.

McConney was handed People's Exhibit 3054, a draft of Trump's net-worth statement for 2014. He was asked to look at a note scribbled in thin blue ink on the draft's first page, "DJT TO GET FINAL REVIEW," which he said he'd written.

Image
A handwritten note that links Donald Trump to the counts in his NY fraud trial. NY attorney general's office/Insider

Trump has denied involvement in preparing a decade's worth of these annual net-worth statements, which New York's attorney general, Letitia James, has alleged — and the trial judge has agreed — were each year riddled with billions of dollars of exaggerations.

The AG has alleged the net-worth statement that McConney was handed the draft for, from 2014, contained $3.5 billion in exaggerations.

"Donald Trump would get final review?" Andrew Amer, the state's lawyer, asked McConney.

"That was my understanding, yes," McConney answered from the witness stand, his voice gruff.

Amer asked next whether Trump would get the final review of every net-worth statement until leaving for the White House in 2017, after which Eric Trump would approve the drafts.

"That was my understanding, yes," McConney answered again. Asked whether that was his handwriting on the drafts — the thin blue pen marks — McConney also said yes, it was.

Why the spreadsheet czar's scribbles matter

McConney's testimony was significant for several reasons — not just the damage it did to Trump, but the damage it did to Trump's two eldest sons; to the Trump Org's former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg; and to McConney himself.

The three Trumps and the two ex-executives are all defendants in the AG's lawsuit, which alleges that Trump used net-worth exaggerations to win hundreds of millions of dollars in interest-rate discounts and property-sale profits. James is seeking at least $250 million in penalties and to bar the five defendants from ever running a New York business again.

Starting with the damage to McConney himself, his blue-ink notations directly contradict his testimony from the prior day.

The spreadsheet czar had testified on direct examination Monday that he would review each year's draft net-worth statement with Weisselberg, who would then give the approved draft to the outside accounting firm, Mazars USA, which would print the final statement.

This chain of command — McConney to Weisselberg to Mazars — leaves out one very important link, as the state's lawyer, Amer, pointed out on cross on Tuesday.

"I believe there was a step in between that involved Donald Trump prior to 2017?" Amer said to McConney, who appeared uncomfortable on the stand as he said Trump indeed did the ultimate signing off.

Trump, who has not attended the trial for the past two weeks, had said on the witness stand on November 6 that he had little involvement in the drafting of these net-worth statements. In a pretrial deposition, he denied knowing who had written "DJT to get final review" on that 2014 draft.

Image
An excerpt from Donald Trump's pretrial deposition in his NY civil fraud case. NY Attorney General's Office/Insider

But McConney's blue-ink handwriting is all over the net-worth statement drafts, showing he revised language and even added cautionary notes that were then passed along for Trump's "final review," as McConney said in his own description of the drafting process.

In one key cautionary note from the 2015 draft, McConney made a notation in ink that "this computation also includes forecasted deals that have not signed yet." In the note, McConney asked whether Trump wanted to exclude some $151 million in as-yet-fictional assets from the net-worth statement.

The final version of that year's net-worth statement shows McConney's suggestion was ignored, possibly by Trump himself. The AG alleges that Trump routinely padded out his net-worth statements with the same sorts of nonexistent assets.

Image
"Do you want to delete these deals?" Trump was asked in a handwritten note warning of $151 million in "forecasted" deals. NY Attorney General's Office/Insider

McConney's many handwritten notes indicate it was Trump and his top executives who made the last edits and then signed off on these net-worth statements. As such, the notes do serious damage to the primary Trump defense: blame Mazars, blame the accountants.

The attorney general's office also appears poised to argue that these handwritten notes show McConney, Weisselberg, and Trump intentionally conspired in cooking the numbers each year. Intent and conspiracy are two elements that must be proved for the attorney general to win all six of the yet-decided counts in the case.

Still to be proved or disproved: conspiracy and intent

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron has already found, pretrial, that Trump's 2014-through-2021 statements fraudulently inflated his wealth.

The trial is meant to determine whether the five defendants further broke six specific state laws: falsifying business records, filing false financial statements, insurance fraud, and conspiracy to commit each of these counts. These six counts all require proof that the frauds and falsehoods were committed intentionally.

Since the case is civil, not criminal, the judge will not issue a "guilty" verdict. Instead, his verdict will find whether the five defendants are "liable" for monetary and other penalties for violating these six laws.

How else do McConney's handwritten notes harm the defense?

The fact that these incriminating, hand-scrawled drafts were turned over to authorities by Mazars but not by the Trump Organization could come up at the end of the trial as evidence that Trump's side failed to retain and turn over documents as required by state subpoenas.

McConney's cross-examination came minutes after a dramatic, tearful conclusion to his direct testimony.

The longtime Trump executive became weepy in answering the final question from the defense lawyer Jesus Suarez, who asked why he'd left the Trump Organization after 35 years working there.

He left to "stop being accused of misrepresenting assets for the company that I loved working for," he said, wiping away tears as he described a history of being subpoenaed on the federal and state level in connection with the Trump Organization.

"It was like working with family," he said. "I feel proud of what I did."

The trial continues Monday with testimony expected by the chief accounting officer for Trump Hotels, Mark Hawthorn. It will be the ninth week of trial and the third week of the defense case.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-w ... ?r=US&IR=T

by ti-amie It never ends.

Darren Samuelsohn @dsamuelsohn
NEWS: Trump Agreed to ‘Enhanced Monitoring’ in Civil Fraud Case After Roughly $40 Million in Undisclosed Asset Transfers: Court Docs
One undisclosed transfer was the $5.5 million Trump used instead of a bond to appeal E. Jean Carroll's sexual assault judgment, the monitor says
by
@KlasfeldReports

@TheMessenger

https://themessenger.com/politics/trump ... -transfers
File411
@File411
·
24m
I’m genuinely curious what liability Trump’s attorneys & accounts have here. Because this kind of action typically does require their input especially if those funds in/out via his Revocable trust of which Jr is an officer of..
The obvious questions as indicated above is who authorized the transfers, where did they come from and where did they go?

by skatingfan Cotton Eye Joe

by ti-amie
skatingfan wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 1:37 am Cotton Eye Joe
Stop it! :lol:

by ti-amie Seth Hettena @seth_hettena
More than 5,000 pages of classified documents that were just lying around Mar-a-Lago are so sensitive that attorneys for Walt Nauta and Carlos De Olivera cannot be allowed to see them, prosecutors say.
Quote
Zoe Tillman @ZoeTillman

Unsealed docs in FL show prosecutors want to withhold (summarize or delete) unspecified subset of classified material from Trump/cleared counsel/codefs, and withhold ~5,500 pp material from Walt Nauta/Carlos De Oliveira that counsel + Trump do have
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... vegolr0/v0

Translation:


Sarah @SarahSaysWhatev
Over 5000 pages of classified documents that were just lying around Mar-a-Lago are so sensitive that attorneys for Walt Nauta and Carlos De Olivera cannot be allowed to see them, prosecutors say.

by ti-amie The mystery of the missing binder: How a collection of raw Russian intelligence disappeared under Trump
By Jeremy Herb, Katie Bo Lillis, Natasha Bertrand, Evan Perez and Zachary Cohen, CNN

December 15, 2023

Washington (CNN) — A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Its disappearance, which has not been previously reported, was so concerning that intelligence officials briefed Senate Intelligence Committee leaders last year about the missing materials and the government’s efforts to retrieve them, the sources said.

In the two-plus years since Trump left office, the missing intelligence does not appear to have been found.

The binder contained raw intelligence the US and its NATO allies collected on Russians and Russian agents, including sources and methods that informed the US government’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win the 2016 election, sources tell CNN.

The intelligence was so sensitive that lawmakers and congressional aides with top secret security clearances were able to review the material only at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where their work scrutinizing it was itself kept in a locked safe.

The binder was last seen at the White House during Trump’s final days in office. The former president had ordered it brought there so he could declassify a host of documents related to the FBI’s Russia investigation. Under the care of then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, the binder was scoured by Republican aides working to redact the most sensitive information so it could be declassified and released publicly.

The Russian intelligence was just a small part of the collection of documents in the binder, described as being 10 inches thick and containing reams of information about the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. But the raw intelligence on Russia was among its most sensitive classified materials, and top Trump administration officials repeatedly tried to block the former president from releasing the documents.
The day before leaving office, Trump issued an order declassifying most of the binder’s contents, setting off a flurry of activity in the final 48 hours of his presidency. Multiple copies of the redacted binder were created inside the White House, with plans to distribute them across Washington to Republicans in Congress and right-wing journalists.

Instead, copies initially sent out were frantically retrieved at the direction of White House lawyers demanding additional redactions.


Just minutes before Joe Biden was inaugurated, Meadows rushed to the Justice Department to hand-deliver a redacted copy for a last review. Years later, the Justice Department has yet to release all of the documents, despite Trump’s declassification order. Additional copies with varying levels of redactions ended up at the National Archives.

But an unredacted version of the binder containing the classified raw intelligence went missing amid the chaotic final hours of the Trump White House. The circumstances surrounding its disappearance remain shrouded in mystery.

US officials repeatedly declined to discuss any government efforts to locate the binder or confirm that any intelligence was missing.

The binder was not among the classified items found in last year’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, according to a US official familiar with the matter, who said the FBI was not looking specifically for intelligence related to Russia when it obtained a search warrant for the former president’s residence last year.

There’s also no reference to the binder or the missing Russian intelligence in the June indictment of Trump over the mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

One theory has emerged about the binder’s whereabouts.

Cassidy Hutchinson, one of Meadows’ top aides, testified to Congress and wrote in her memoir that she believes Meadows took home an unredacted version of the binder. She said it had been kept in Meadows’ safe and that she saw him leave with it from the White House.

“I am almost positive it went home with Mr. Meadows,” Hutchinson told the January 6 committee in closed-door testimony, according to transcripts released last year.

A lawyer for Meadows, however, strongly denies that Meadows mishandled any classified information at the White House, saying any suggestion Meadows was responsible for classified information going missing was “flat wrong.”

“Mr. Meadows was keenly aware of and adhered to requirements for the proper handling of classified material, any such material that he handled or was in his possession has been treated accordingly and any suggestion that he is responsible for any missing binder or other classified information is flat wrong,” Meadows attorney George Terwilliger said in a statement to CNN. “Anyone and any entity suggesting that he is responsible for anything missing does not have facts and should exercise great care before making false allegations.”

In the years since Trump left office, his allies have pursued the redacted binder so they can release it publicly, suing the Justice Department and the National Archives earlier this year. And Trump’s lawyers are now seeking access to the classified intelligence from the 2016 election assessment as they prepare for his defense against charges stemming from efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

This account of the classified binder’s journey to the White House, how its trail went cold once Trump left office, and the lingering questions it raises is based on interviews with more than a dozen sources familiar with the matter, all of whom requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.

The CIA, the FBI, the National Archives and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment for this story. A spokeswoman for the Senate Intelligence Committee declined comment. A lawyer for Hutchinson also declined comment. A spokesman for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

‘A safe within a safe’ at the CIA

The missing binder is at the heart of one of the most contentious fights waged behind the scenes by then-President Trump. Despite fierce opposition from his own national security officials, Trump spent years trying to declassify material that he said would prove his claims the FBI’s Russia probe into his campaign was a hoax.

The binder’s origins trace back to 2018, when Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes, compiled a classified report alleging the Obama administration skewed intelligence in its assessment that Putin had worked to help Trump in the 2016 election.

The GOP report, which criticized the intelligence community’s “tradecraft,” scrutinized the highly classified intelligence from 2016 that informed the assessment Putin and Russia sought to assist Trump’s campaign. House Republicans cut a deal with the CIA in which the committee brought in a safe for its documents that was then placed inside a CIA vault – a setup that prompted some officials to characterize it as a “turducken” or a “safe within a safe.”

Republican and Democratic sources disagreed on the substance of the report. GOP sources familiar with its details said the report argued the intelligence community assessment was skewed by senior Obama administration officials to exclude intelligence suggesting that Russia actually wanted Hillary Clinton to win in 2016, while overemphasizing the significance of intelligence indicating that Russia preferred Trump.

Democratic sources, however, say the Republican allegations were overblown. One source said the intelligence referenced in the report actually proved the opposite of what Republicans were claiming – saying it showed that Russia was meddling in US elections and seeking to personally manipulate Trump and help him win.

The Democratic view was corroborated in 2020 by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, which concluded that the 2016 assessment was a “sound intelligence product” and that analysts were under no political pressure to reach specific conclusions, undercutting Nunes’ allegations.

Nunes, who left Congress to become CEO of Trump's media company, provided a statement in response to questions mocking CNN for focusing on "secret Trump binders.”

National security leaders resist

Nunes’ 2018 report became one of many documents connected to the Russia investigation that Trump and his allies wanted to make public.

But Trump’s national security leaders, particularly CIA Director Gina Haspel, vehemently resisted public release of the report and other Russia documents, fearing the exposure of sources and methods. The disagreement followed Haspel throughout her tenure in the Trump administration.

Trump privately made clear that he wanted to get his hands on the GOP report. During one exchange in October 2020, Trump suggested he should personally visit CIA headquarters and demand access to it, according to a source familiar with the conversation.

In the leadup to the 2020 election, two Trump intelligence leaders, acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell and his successor, John Ratcliffe, declassified some documents and intelligence related to Russia and the FBI. But the House GOP report remained classified.

Trump considered firing Haspel after the election as he pushed to release more information about the Russia investigation. At least one Trump adviser floated replacing Haspel with Kash Patel, an aide to Nunes in 2018 when the GOP report was drafted. In 2019, Patel went to work for Trump on the National Security Council before becoming chief of staff to the acting defense secretary in Trump’s final months.

In December 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr worked with Ratcliffe to dissuade Trump from declassifying at least a subset of the intelligence related to Russia, arguing that it would damage national security, sources familiar with the matter said. Other current and former officials say Barr and aides in his office also pushed the FBI and the intelligence agencies to satisfy Trump’s demands and make public more of the information, pressure that continued after Barr left office.

At one point after the election, Haspel, FBI Director Christopher Wray and NSA Director Gen. Paul Nakasone trekked to Capitol Hill on short notice to speak to congressional intelligence leaders about their deep concerns of Trump possibly releasing the material, sources said.

Secrets arrive at the White House

On December 19, four days after Barr announced his resignation, Nunes met with Meadows at the White House to discuss how to declassify documents related to the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia, Hutchinson testified to Congress.

Eleven days later, sources say that a copy of the GOP report was brought to the White House as one part of the massive binder of documents on Russia and the FBI investigation. Hutchinson told the January 6 committee she signed for the documents when they arrived at the White House.

Over the next few days, Meadows discussed the documents with then-White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and also met with Republican staffers from the House Intelligence Committee to review them, according to Hutchinson.

In his book about his time as Trump’s chief of staff, Meadows wrote that Trump demanded the documents be brought to the White House. “I personally went through every page, to make sure that the President's declassification would not inadvertently disclose sources and methods,” he wrote.

Along with the GOP report scrutinizing the intelligence on Russia, the binder’s contents included the FBI’s problematic foreign intelligence surveillance warrants on a Trump campaign adviser from 2017; interview notes with Christopher Steele, author of the infamous dossier on Trump and Russia; FBI reports from a confidential human source related to the Russia investigation; and internal FBI and DOJ text messages and emails, among other documents.

The version of the binder Hutchinson signed for was kept in Meadows’ office safe, she testified, except when it was being worked on by congressional staffers.

“He wanted to keep that one close-hold. He didn't want that one to be widely known about,” Hutchinson told the January 6 committee. “I just know Mr. Meadows. He wouldn't have had that one copied unless he did it on his own, but I don't think he knows how to use a copy machine.”

In her book, Hutchinson recalled a moment when Meadows asked her to retrieve the binder and complained when she told him it was in the safe. “I told you not to let it out of your sight. It should have been in your desk drawer,” Meadows told her.

“My desk drawer, Mark, is not where classified documents belong. It was in the safe. You have nothing to worry about,” Hutchinson writes that she responded.

Once the committee aides completed their proposed redactions, additional copies were made at the White House so the binder could be declassified and released.

A botched rollout

Meanwhile, at the FBI, top officials scrambled to protect the most sensitive details and limit the damage of what they felt were insufficient redactions.

“Any further declassification would reveal sensitive intelligence collection techniques, damage foreign partner relations, jeopardize United States Intelligence Community equities, potentially violate court orders limiting the dissemination of FISA information … (and) endanger confidential human sources,” a top FBI official wrote to White House officials, according to a source who read portions of the letter to CNN.

On January 19, 2021, Trump issued a declassification order for a “binder of materials related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

The White House had planned to distribute the declassified documents around Washington, including to Trump-allied conservative journalist John Solomon. But Trump’s order did not lead to its release – and earlier this year Solomon sued the Justice Department and National Archives for access to the documents.

His court filings provide colorful details of the last-minute scramble.

Solomon claims that on the night of January 19, Meadows invited him to the White House to review several hundred pages of the declassified binder. One of Solomon’s staffers was even allowed to leave the White House with the declassified records in a paper bag.

“Mr. Solomon’s staff began setting up a scanning operation for the complete set of documents to be released the next morning,” Solomon’s attorneys wrote in a court filing last month. “But as they set up the equipment, they received a call from the White House asking that the documents — still under embargo — be returned because the White House wished to make some additional redactions to unclassified information under the Privacy Act.”

Hutchinson writes in her book that Cipollone told her after 10:30 p.m. on January 19 to have Meadows retrieve the binders that had been given to Solomon and a right-wing columnist. “The Crossfire Hurricane binders are a complete disaster. They’re still full of classified information,” Hutchinson writes that Cipollone told her. “Those binders need to come back to the White House. Like, now.”

The documents were returned the next morning, on January 20, after they were picked up by a Secret Service agent in a Whole Foods grocery bag, according to Hutchinson.

‘How quickly can we get this to DOJ?’
On the morning of January 20, the final day of the Trump presidency, Meadows rushed to the Justice Department to turn over a copy of the binder Trump ordered declassified for a final review.

Hutchinson told the committee that sometime between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. that morning, Meadows emerged from the White House in a hurry to deliver a copy of the binder to the Justice Department.

Hutchinson recalled Meadows asking his security detail, “How quickly can we get this to DOJ?”

Meadows also delivered a memo instructing the Justice Department to conduct its own privacy review of the bulk of the documents Trump had declassified before they were released.

“I am returning the bulk of the binder of declassified documents to the Department of Justice (including all that appear to have a potential to raise privacy concerns) with the instruction that the Department must expeditiously conduct a Privacy Act review under the standards that the Department of Justice would normally apply, redact material appropriately, and release the remaining material with redactions applied,” Meadows wrote in the memo.

Solomon’s lawyers contend in a legal filing that Meadows “promised Mr. Solomon that he would receive the revised binder. However, this never occurred.”

As for the unredacted version of the binder, Hutchinson writes in her book that she saw Meadows get into his limo the night of January 19 with the “original Crossfire Hurricane binder tucked under his arm.”

“What the hell is Mark doing with the unredacted Crossfire Hurricane binder?” Hutchinson recalled asking herself as Meadows drove away.

When she looked in Meadows’ safe for the last time before she left the White House, Hutchinson said it was gone.

“I don't think that would have been something that he would have destroyed,” Hutchinson told the January 6 committee. “It was not returned anywhere, and it never left our office to go internally anywhere. It stayed in our safe, in the office safe most of the time.”

Terwilliger, an attorney for Meadows, disputes Hutchinson’s account, saying Meadows did not mishandle any classified documents at the White House.

The hunt continues

Even after Trump left office, the hunt for the binder continued on multiple fronts.

Roughly a year after Trump left office, Senate Intelligence Committee leaders were briefed by intelligence officials about the disappearance of the raw Russian intelligence contained in the unredacted version of the binder and the government’s efforts to retrieve it, sources told CNN.

At the same time, Trump’s allies sought to regain access to the declassified version of the binder that Meadows had taken to the Justice Department.

In June 2022, Trump named Solomon and Patel as his representatives to the National Archives, who were authorized to view the former president’s records. Solomon’s lawsuit included email correspondence showing how Solomon and Patel tried to get access to the binder as soon as they were named as Trump’s representatives.

“There is a binder of documents from the Russia investigation that the President declassified with an order in his last few days in office. It's about 10 inches thick,” Solomon wrote in June 2022 to Gary Stern, the Archives’ general counsel. “We'd like to make a set of copies -- digital or paper format -- of every document that was declassified by his order and included in the binder.”


In February and March, the FBI released under the Freedom of Information Act several hundred pages of heavily redacted internal records from its Russia investigation, following lawsuits from conservative groups seeking documents from the probe.

The Justice Department said in a June filing seeking to dismiss Solomon’s lawsuit that the FBI’s document release had fulfilled Meadows’ request for a Privacy Act review, noting that it had “resulted in the posting of most of the binder” on the FBI’s FOIA website.

Solomon responded claiming the documents that the FBI released were only “a small part of the binder’s contents with substantial additional redactions.”

Last July, Meadows said in an interview with Solomon that he turned over the documents to the Justice Department out of an “abundance of caution.”

“We gave them those declassified documents -- I want to stress they were declassified documents -- to do a final redaction for some of that personal information, with the instruction that they were to go ahead and disseminate those,” Meadows said. “We expected fully that they would do that, at the most a few days -- but here we are a few years later.”

Update: This story has been updated to provide a more detailed description of conservative journalist John Solomon.


https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/202 ... id=ios_app

by ti-amie My gue$$ i$ that Vlad ha$ it or TFG i$ trying to u$e it a$ leverage.

by ti-amie Laffy
@GottaLaff@mastodon.social
#WompWomp 1/...

Reuters: U.S. APPEALS COURT SAYS CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST #MARKMEADOWS MUST REMAIN IN STATE COURT

Big win for #FaniWillis
#legal

They're moving fast, guys! ADDED: Meadows' team just presented their case on Friday. The Court returned its verdict the very next business day.

2/ Via Emptywheel:

In key paragraph in Pryor's ruling against Mark Meadows, he adopts Amit Mehta's logic on Thompson, for a criminal case.

This seems to be strong endorsement of notion that #Trump has neither civil OR criminal immunity.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24

3/ Via Kyle Cheney:

MORE: Judge Rosenbaum, who concurred in the 3-0 decision, warns however that it blows a hole in protections for the federal government and urges Congress to reform the removal statute to cover former officials

4/ More:

This opinion, authored by William Pryor, one of most conservative judges on the fed bench, is *brutal* for Meadows.

It accuses him of trying to "infiltrate" Ga''s post-election recount and attempting to alter "valid election results."
Image

Judge ROSENBAUM, who joined panel ruling, nevertheless describes it as supporting a "nightmare scenario" that "keeps me up at night" & cd destabilize the republic. Despite that she said, it's the only faithful way to interpret the statutes in ques

5/ Chief Judge Pryor, one of the court’s most staunch conservatives:

“At bottom, whatever the chief of staff’s role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering viable election results in favor of a particular candidate.”

6/ Via Anthony Michael Kreis:

One more thing about Mark Meadows’ potential for success at the #SupremeCourt: I’m hard-pressed to see more than one vote that disagrees with the judgment in the 11th Cir. I guess only Alito would be a strong voice to reverse. The rest would have varying reasons to affirm. #SCOTUS

7/ Good 🧵from law prof Lee Kovarsky:

A FEW QUICK THOUGHTS ON 11TH CIR OPINION

Astonishing defeat on every front. He's not protected because he's a former officer (not current one), & not protected even if CA11 turns out to be wrong on that ques

This is particularly devastating bc ruling against him on whether his activity was under color of law FOR THE PURPOSES OF REMOVAL will do double duty as an opinion on whether he was engaged in official conduct FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS IMMUNITY DEFENSES

8/ cont'd

This means that state courts have *all the cover in world* to refuse to recog an officer immunity they were unlikely to recog anyway. The only entity that can save Meadows on officer immunity is SCOTUS, and that seems *exceedingly* unlikely.
In every way bad for Meadows, it's bad for Trump defense in GA. Trump was going to claim Supremacy Clause immun & Pres immun but CA11's opinion on scope of official duty means it's going to be imposs for Trump to prevail on either defense in GA

9/ He's going to be saved there by jury or by winning the nat election, that's it, IMHO.

ALSO devastating to Trump et al in the other prosecutions, esp in DC. In all of these cases he's claiming various forms of immunity that turn on basic idea he was somehow engaged in good governance, not unlawful electioneering

It's *impossible* to overstate signifi of this opinion being written by Chief Judge Pryor, conserv stalwart & probably single biggest circuit court ally to Justice Thomas there is.

10/ More:

Judge Pryor clearly wrote this opinion well in advance of argument. It is an unmistakable signal to R-appointed Justices that the immunity defenses are totally frivolous.

It offers an energetic rebuttal to a "Take Care Clause" argument that seemed to gain traction in some R-aligned circles. It's really just a worst case scenario for Trump, not to mention Meadows.


11/ More:

I should add that I'm still quite skeptical of the first holding, that former officers aren't covered under the statute. The holding is a combination of interpretive canons that I find less persuasive under the specific circumstances here.

But, the holding about whether the agreement at the core of the charge was within the scope of M's and T's official duties is exactly what I've been predicting from the start - maybe even a touch more aggressive than I'd expected.

by ti-amie Tl;dr on the above:

Brian Hawthorne
@bhawthorne@infosec.exchange
@1dalm @GottaLaff The 3-judge panel of the court of appeals for the 11th federal district ruled 3-0 that the law Meadows was using to get his trial moved from state court to federal court only applies to current federal officers, not former officers.
And even if it did, what Meadows did wasn’t part of his official duties so the law would not apply anyway.

The result is that Meadows’s trial will remain in Georgia State Court.

by ti-amie Trump Loses Again in Bid to Boot Civil Fraud Case in New York
In tossing Trump's latest challenge, a Manhattan judge told the former president that 'a lie is still a lie'
Published 12/18/23 05:08 PM ET|Updated 2 hr ago
Adam Klasfeld

For at least the fifth time, former President Donald Trump on Monday lost an attempt to dismiss his civil fraud case through a maneuver seeking a directed verdict in his favor.

In tossing Trump's latest challenge, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron reminded the former president that "a lie is still a lie."

"At least five times during the recently concluded ten-and-a-half-week trial of this matter, defendants moved for a directed verdict," Engoron wrote in a three-page ruling. "The first such time was at the close of plaintiff's case, which is when defendants normally move for such relief. This court took that motion, and most of the others, under advisement. It denied two of them on the spot."

Trump brought his most recent challenge toward the end of the defense case, when his experts argued that his business had latitude on what he could disclose about his assets without engaging in fraud.

Engoron rebuffed what he described as the "fatal flaws" of their arguments.

"Valuations, as elucidated ad nauseum in this trial, can be based on different criteria analyzed in different ways," the ruling states. "But a lie is still a lie. Valuing occupied residences as if vacant, valuing restricted land as if unrestricted, valuing an apartment as if it were triple its actual size, valuing property many times the amount of concealed appraisals, valuing planned buildings as if completed and ready to rent, valuing golf courses with brand premium while claiming not to, and valuing restricted funds as cash, are not subjective differences of opinion, they are misstatements at best and fraud at worst."

https://themessenger.com/politics/trump ... ct-verdict

by ti-amie Trump recorded pressuring Wayne County canvassers not to certify 2020 vote
CRAIG MAUGER The Detroit News

Then-President Donald Trump personally pressured two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to recordings reviewed by The Detroit News and revealed publicly for the first time.

On a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, which also involved Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump told Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP Wayne County canvassers, they'd look "terrible" if they signed the documents after they first voted in opposition and then later in the same meeting voted to approve certification of the county’s election results, according to the recordings.

"We've got to fight for our country," said Trump on the recordings, made by a person who was present for the call with Palmer and Hartmann. "We can't let these people take our country away from us."

McDaniel, a Michigan native and the leader of the Republican Party nationally, said at another point in the call, "If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. ... We will get you attorneys."

To which Trump added: "We'll take care of that."

Palmer and Hartmann left the canvassers meeting without signing the official statement of votes for Wayne County, and the following day, they unsuccessfully attempted to rescind their votes in favor of certification, filing legal affidavits claiming they were pressured.

The moves from Palmer, Hartmann and Trump, had they been successful, threatened to throw the statewide certification of Michigan's 2020 election into doubt.

The revelation of the contents of the call with the former president comes as he faces four counts of criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States and its voters of the rightful outcome of the election. Efforts to prevent certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote victory in Michigan are an integral part of the indictment.

The call involving Trump, McDaniel, Hartmann and Palmer occurred within 30 minutes of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers meeting ending on Nov. 17, 2020, according to records reviewed by The News.

The recordings further demonstrated the direct involvement of Trump, as an incumbent president, with Republican officials in Michigan in a bid to undermine Biden's win and how some details of his efforts had remained secret as he launched a campaign to win back the White House in 2024.

Neither Palmer nor McDaniel and Trump, through spokespeople, disputed a summary of the call when contacted by The News. Hartmann died in 2021.

The News listened to audio that was captured in four recordings by someone present for the conversation between Trump and the canvassers. That information came to The News through an intermediary who also heard the recordings but who was not present when they were made. Sources presented the information to The News on the condition that they not be identified publicly for fear of retribution by the former president or his supporters.

The timestamp of the first recording was 9:55 p.m. Nov. 17, 2020. The time was consistent with Verizon phone records obtained by a U.S. House committee that showed Palmer received calls from McDaniel at 9:53 p.m. and 10:04 p.m.

Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, said Trump's actions "were taken in furtherance of his duty as president of the United States to faithfully take care of the laws and ensure election integrity, including investigating the rigged and stolen 2020 presidential election."

"President Trump and the American people have the constitutional right to free and fair elections," Cheung said.

Allegations that the 2020 election was "stolen" remain unproven. In Michigan, a Republican-controlled state Senate committee investigated the claims and found no evidence of widespread fraud.

Palmer acknowledged to The News that she and Hartmann took the call from Trump in a vehicle and that other people entered the vehicle and could have heard the conversation. She said she could not, however, identify who entered the vehicle or might have heard the conversation.

Palmer told The News repeatedly that she didn't remember what was stated on the phone call with McDaniel and Trump.

McDaniel, a Wayne County resident, said she stood by her past push for an audit of the election in Michigan, a request she and then-Michigan Republican Party Chairwoman Laura Cox made in a Nov. 21, 2020, letter to the Board of State Canvassers.

“What I said publicly and repeatedly at the time, as referenced in my letter on Nov. 21, 2020, is that there was ample evidence that warranted an audit," McDaniel said in a statement.

But Jonathan Kinloch, who was a Democratic member of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers in November 2020, said what happened on the call with Trump was "insane."

“It’s just shocking that the president of the United States was at the most minute level trying to stop the election process from happening," said Kinloch, a Wayne County commissioner.

Despite the urging from McDaniel to seek an audit or not sign the certification, Michigan law required county canvassers across the state to prepare a statement of the votes in their counties and advance the findings to the Secretary of State's office.

About 18% of Michigan's population resides in Wayne County, and there were about 878,000 votes cast there for the November 2020 election.

Palmer previously said she left the Nov. 17, 2020, Wayne County Board of Canvassers meeting prior to physically signing the certification. As she was leaving, Trump called out of a "genuine concern for my safety," Palmer told reporters three years ago.

Back then, she described the contents of the Nov. 17, 2020, call with Trump as "Thank you for your service. I’m glad you're safe. Have a good night.”

The segments of the call reviewed by The News didn’t include those comments.

However, in the days after the call on Nov. 17, 2020, Palmer and Hartmann publicly attempted to rescind their votes and said "intense bullying and coercion" plus bad legal advice forced them to agree to certify the election after they had voted no.

'Never know what happened'
During an interview in September 2021, Palmer told the U.S. House's Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol that she couldn't recall the exact words that Trump used on the call and whether he raised issues related to the election.

The recordings reviewed by The News, which covered four minutes of a longer exchange that could have lasted no more than 11 minutes, according to phone records, clearly showed that Trump was focused on the 2020 election.

Trump said Republicans had been "cheated on this election" and "everybody knows Detroit is crooked as hell," according to the recordings.

McDaniel said if Hartmann and Palmer certified the election without forcing an audit to occur, the public would "never know what happened in Detroit."

"How can anybody sign something when you have more votes than people?" Trump asked the canvassers, according to the recordings.

About 13 hours after the call, Trump posted on social media about Wayne County, again saying there were more votes than people.

"The two harassed patriot canvassers refuse to sign the papers," Trump added, referring to Hartmann and Palmer.

Want to subscribe? Five benefits of a digital subscription to The Detroit News

Trump's statement about there being more votes than people was inaccurate. There were only out-of-balance precincts in Detroit where there were mismatches between the number of ballots counted and the number of voters tracked. The absentee ballot poll books at 70% of Detroit's 134 absentee counting boards were initially found to be out of balance without explanation, an outcome that was not unusual for the largest city in Michigan.

In addition, Trump performed better in Detroit in 2020 than 2016, with his percentage of votes rising from 3% to 5%, and the Republican receiving 5,200 more votes in 2020 than four years earlier, according to the city's official results.

Jonathan Brater, Michigan's election director, said in an affidavit that the overall difference citywide in absentee ballots tabulated and names in poll books in Detroit was 150. There were "fewer ballots tabulated than names in the poll books," Brater said.

"If ballots had been illegally counted, there would be substantially more, not slightly fewer, ballots tabulated than names in the poll books," Brater said.

A call at night
The high-profile Wayne County canvassers meeting drew a national spotlight as supporters of Trump publicly urged the board not to certify the election based on unproven allegations of widespread fraud focused on vote counting in Detroit, a Democratic stronghold that's located in Wayne County.

Hartmann and Palmer initially voted to block the certification of the county's election, withholding the votes needed to approve certification. But later in the meeting, they changed course and supported certifying the election based on the condition that an audit take place of some precincts within Wayne County.

Later, Hartmann and Palmer refused to sign the official certification paperwork and publicly acknowledged they received a call from Trump and McDaniel.

Palmer and Hartmann participated in the call inside a vehicle that was parked outside the county's election department building on East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Palmer said. Hartmann was sitting next to Palmer during the call, she said.

Kinloch said Hartmann and Palmer left the meeting room on the night of Nov. 17, 2020, and never came back to sign the official statement of the votes for Wayne County.

The Michigan Bureau of Elections later told county officials the vote that occurred and the signatures of the chair or vice chair of the four-member canvassing board and the county clerk were the only things necessary to advance the certification to the State Board of Canvassers, Kinloch said.

The state board certified the 2020 presidential election on Nov. 23, 2020, solidifying Biden's victory in Michigan.

During the Nov. 17, 2020, call, Trump specifically told the Republican canvassers they'd look "terrible" if they signed the certification after initially voting against certification.

Chris Thomas, a lawyer who served as Michigan's elections director for more than three decades, said the Republican canvassers in Wayne County had no legal reason to block certification of the election.

It's pretty unfortunate, Thomas said, that Republican leaders offered to give them something, legal protection, for not doing their jobs.

"Offering something of value to a public official to not perform a required duty may raise legal issues for a person doing so," Thomas said.


https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/p ... 004514007/

by ti-amie

by Owendonovan Tiny's NY fraud trial decision by Jan. 31.

by ti-amie Today in Judge Kaplan's courtroom. Roberta Kaplan is Ms Carroll's lawyer.

Inner City Press
@innercitypress

Judge Kaplan: There was a trial last year about the truth or falsity of Ms. Carroll claims. Mr. Trump was listed as a witness but did not testify. The jury found for Ms. Carroll. There are no do-overs, it's called issue preclusion or collateral estoppel.

Judge Kaplan: The jury found that Mr. Trump inserted his fingers into her v*gina. And that Ms. Carroll did not make up her claim. And that Mr. Trump's June 11 and June 22 statements were defamatory. Now Mr. Trump may not make any argument against this

Ms. Carroll adhered to the Court's rulings. Ms. Kaplan on behalf of Ms. Carroll questioned if Mr. Trump could offer any admissible testimony. Ms. Habba, you said he could testify about the reporters' questions, and if he was acting with ill will

Judge Kaplan: A judge must seek to exclude inadmissible evidence. Concerns exist here, as including in Ms. Kaplan's letter. I want to confirm a few things. Ms. Habba, what would he testify to?

Habba: I have only three questions for my client.
Judge Kaplan: We're going to do it my way.
Habba: He's going to stand by his deposition. That he had to respond to accusation and deny them.
Judge Kaplan: That's 100%?
Habba: I'm not testifying for my client

Judge Kaplan: Let me hear from the other side.
Roberta Kaplan: Just now Mr. Trump said under his breath he's going to say he never did it.
Judge Kaplan: He will not testify about questions asked of him by reporters?
Habba: No. If I may you Honor--
Judge Kaplan: No

Judge Kaplan: What are your questions?
Habba: That he stands behind his deposition. I'll ask about his state of mind, he'll say he was defending himself --
Judge Kaplan: And that's it?
Habba: Yes. And that he never intended to hurt Ms. Carroll.

Roberta Kaplan: He had an opportunity to participate in a trial--
Judge Kaplan: And he lost. I will so instruct the jury. More than once.
Trump says, "I wasn't at the trial, I never met this woman
Judge Kaplan: Mr. Trump, keep your voice down.

Judge Kaplan: Will your client abide?
Habba: Absent having a glass ball
Trump is speaking
Judge Kaplan: Mr. Trump, that is not allowed... I will permit him to get on the stand. You ask if he stands by it. That's it.

Habba: Only one question?
Judge Kaplan: You can ask the 2d question.
Habba: "Why did you make the statements"-
Judge Kaplan: No.
Habba: I have a right to ask about intent.
Judge Kaplan: I will decide what he has a right to do here. That's my job, not yours

Habba: I can ask it that way--
Judge Kaplan: It will not be an open ended question. If you ask it, there is likely to be an objection and I am likely to sustain it.
Habba: That's it.
Judge Kaplan: OK.
Habba: What about 2d question?
Judge Kaplan: It keeps changing

Habba: As long as we have the deposition in, I think I'll be fine.
Judge Kaplan: Well, I hope you will.
[Jury entering!]

Judge Kaplan: I hope lunch was better than the cafeteria usually is. Ms. Habba you may call your witness.
Habba: Defense calls President Donald Trump...
Trump: Donald John Trump.
Habba: You viewed your deposition?
Trump: I stand by it 100%, yes.

Trump: She said something I considered a false accusation --
Roberta Kaplan: Objection!
Judge Kaplan: Sustained.
Habba: I have no further questions.
Judge Kaplan: Cross examination.
Roberta Kaplan: There was a trial here, correct?
Trump: Yes

Roberta Kaplan: Mr. Trump, is this the 1st trial between you and Ms. Carroll you've attended?
Trump: Yes.
Roberta Kaplan: No further questions.
Habba: Did you have counsel at the previous trial & follow their advice?
Trump: Yes.
Roberta Kaplan: Objection
Sustained

Habba: No further questions.
Judge Kaplan: Jurors, you may go until tomorrow morning, closing arguments.
[Jury leaves]

(...)

And we're back!
Trump's lawyer: We seek to limit this instruction
Judge Kaplan: But you previously argued that under New York law Mr. Trump could have been found to have committed sexual assault if he touched her breast --
Trump's lawyer: That was previous counsel

Judge Kaplan: That's Mr. Trump's counsel, his argument. It was found in the previous case that there was digital penetration. Under penal law
[there's some laughter]
Judge Kaplan: How do you proposed we describe it? Digital penetration?

Trump's lawyer Madaio: There's no need for the jury to hear any of this.
Judge Kaplan: Mr. Madaio, I'm giving you one more chance.

Trump's lawyer Madaio: What the jury found was sexual abuse-
Judge Kaplan: You're just repeating yourself.
Madadio: You know our objections.
Judge Kaplan: I do. Objection overruled.

Thanks to @innercitypress/@Matthew Russell Lee for doing the live tweeting.

by ti-amie My base figure was $20m

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
A rundown of the Carroll v. Trump verdict form — and how jurors are asked to break down the three categories of damages.

Question 1:

Reputational and compensatory damages for Trump's defamation.
Image

Questions 2 and 3: Punitive damages

Both of these questions go to whether Trump acted "maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll's rights."

This is why Carroll's lawyers emphasized Trump's ongoing attacks.

Image

by ti-amie Michael Oyewole 🇳🇬
@MichaelOyewole_
·
29m
BREAKING: The E. Jean Carroll verdict against Donald Trump:

Compensatory damages: $7.3 million

Reputational repair: $11 million

Punitive damages: $65 million

TOTAL: $83.3 million

by ti-amie Jury rules Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages for defamation
PUBLISHED FRI, JAN 26 2024 9:51 AM EST UPDATED 2 MIN AGO

Dan Mangan
Adam Reiss

KEY POINTS
A federal jury said that Donald Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages for defaming her in statements he made as president when the writer said he had raped her in the 1990s.

The massive verdict came less than three hours after the nine-member jury began deliberating in U.S. District Court in Manhattan following closing arguments in the trial.

Trump earlier this week defeated former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley in the Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire. Last week, he won the Iowa GOP caucuses.

A federal jury on Friday said that Donald Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages for defaming her in statements he made as president when the writer said he had raped her in a New York department store in the 1990s.

The massive civil verdict — which comes on top of a $5 million sexual abuse and defamation verdict that Carroll won against Trump last year — was delivered than three hours after the nine-member jury began deliberating in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Trump was not in court for the reading of the unanimous verdict at 4:40 p.m. ET. But shortly afterward, he said in a social media post that he would appeal it.

Jurors awarded Carroll $7.3 million for compensatory damages other than reputation repair, and another $11 million for repairing her reputation.

They then awarded her another $65 million in punitive damages after finding that Trump in a June 21, 2019, statement about Carroll had “acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will or spite, vindictively or out of wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll’s right.”

Earlier Friday, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan, in her closing argument, had urged jurors to award her a “very large” amount of money, to make the billionaire former president “stop” slandering her, as he has continued to do since June 2019.

“He doesn’t care about the law or truth but does care about money and your decision on punitive damages is the only hope that he stops,” Kaplan said.

Trump in a social media post on his TruthSocial site after the verdict wrote, “Absolutely ridiculous!”

“I fully disagree with both verdicts, and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party,” wrote Trump, who is the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination.

“Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!”

Trump may find it difficult to overturn the latest verdict and the prior one on appeal.

Last month, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s argument that he was immune from damages in the current case on the grounds that he was president at the time he defamed Carroll. The appeals court ruled that Trump had waived the potential defense of presidential immunity for not raising it for years after Carroll first sued him in 2019.

Trump last year posted $5.6 million as security while he appeals the verdict in the prior sex abuse and defamation case. When he appeals the last case, he will likely to have to post more than $90 million in security.

Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is not related to Roberta, told jurors before their deliberations that they had to accept as facts that Trump “sexually assaulted” Carroll in the mid-1990s and defamed the writer in 2019.

“What remains for you to decide,” Judge Kaplan said, is whether “Mr. Trump acted maliciously when he made his two statements” about Carroll.

“You must accept as true the facts as I explained to you as they have already been decided,” the judge said, referring to Trump’s sexual assault of Carroll, and his slandering of her decades later.

Trump looked on during the instructions with a frown on his face.

Earlier, Trump stalked out of the courtroom after Carroll’s lawyer began her closing argument, in which she urged jurors to award monetary damages “large enough that it will finally make him stop” slandering the writer.

Trump’s dramatic departure came minutes after Kaplan warned his lawyer that she was risking being tossed into jail before summations began in the case.

“The record will reflect that Mr. Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom,” said Judge Lewis Kaplan.

Trump returned about an hour later after Carroll’s attorney finished her summation, and just before his attorney began her closing argument.

Carroll in a 2019 New York magazine article wrote that in the mid-1990s, Trump had raped her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman department store on Fifth Avenue, just up the street from the Trump Tower, where he lived and worked.

Trump denied her allegation at the time, saying she had made it up.

Another Manhattan federal court jury last year found he had sexually abused Carroll in the attack, and had defamed her in statements he made in late 2022 denying her claims.

Kaplan ruled later in 2023 that that jury’s verdict meant that jurors in the current trial would have to accept as legally established that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll, and defamed her in his 2022 statements.

Trump on Friday posted several social media messages attacking Kaplan for rulings in the case, accusing the judge of having “absolute hatred of Donald J. Trump (ME!).” Trump’s Truth social account posted 14 times about Carroll when he was in the courtroom.

In her closing argument, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to the judge, asked jurors to impose punitive damages on Trump for refusing to stop defaming Carroll even after a jury last year held him liable for doing so and ordered him to pay her $5 million.

Trump’s comments have sparked death threats and vicious emails and tweets directed at Carroll, the lawyer said.

“The dollar amount has to be very large,” Roberta Kaplan said. “It is at least as much and probably much more than the $12 million” that the lawyer noted an expert witness had testified it could cost to repair Carroll’s reputation after Trump accused her of investing her claim.

“Last trial, Donald J. Trump didn’t even bother to show up, but this trial where it is about damages he has been sure to be here and the one thing he cares about his money,” Kaplan said. “He doesn’t care about the law or truth but does care about money and your decision on punitive damages is the only hope that he stops.”

“How much will it take to make him stop? You cost him lots and lots of money,” she said.

Trump “is worth billions of dollars he said that under oath, he could pay a million dollars a day for ten years and still have money in the bank,” Kaplan said. “When you begin deliberations I encourage you to step back and think of bigger picture, a former president of the United States who sexually assaulted, defamed and continues to defame.”

Earlier, Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba, who had already irked Judge Kaplan for showing up late in court, angered him when she persisted in arguing that defense lawyers should be able to show a slide to jurors during their summation that represented some tweets related to Carroll.

“You are not going to use a slide to represent how many tweets there were, you are not using that slide, period,” Judge Kaplan said.

When Habba said, “I need to make a record,” referring to putting her argument on the record, the judge issued his warning.

“You are on the verge of spending time in the lockup, now sit down!,” the judge told Habba.

Kaplan snapped at Habba several more times during her closing argument, at one point telling her that if she continued pressing a particular point “there will be consequences.”

In her summation, Habba said that Carroll “has failed to show she is entitled to any damages at all.”

“It is Ms. Carroll’s burden is not President Trump’s to prove that his statements caused harm and she failed to meet that burden, it is common sense,” Habba said.

The attorney also suggested that Carroll had made up her claims of receiving “thousands of threats.”

Carroll had testified that she deleted most of those threats, making them unavailable as evidence.

“Either Ms. Carroll is lying to you and those messages never existed in the first place or she deleted them and wants you to rely on them and guess what they are not here and she has to give them to you to support her claim for damages and that is a fact,” Habba said.

Habba also said that not only did Carroll “not suffer any emotional harm” after publishing her claim in 2019 about Trump raping her “she was happier than ever.”

“She told Vanity Fair [magazine] that the support she received walking down the streets was heartwarming,” Habba said. “One of the most carefree and happy times of her life that she was in a cocoon of love ... does this sound like someone whose world has come crashing down, who can’t sleep?”

“She was enjoying the newfound attention she was receiving,” the lawyer said.

Before the arguments began and jurors entered the courtroom, the judge issued a warning.

“During closing arguments, no one is to say anything other than opposing counsel,” said Kaplan. “There are to be no interruptions or audible comments by anyone else and that will apply when I charge the jury and that will apply to counsel then as well.”

Carroll’s lawyers have complained during the trial about Trump making comments that were audible to jurors while sitting with his attorneys at the defense table.

The nine-member jury is expected to begin deliberations later Friday after several hours of summations by Carroll’s lawyer and Trump’s attorney, and instructions from the judge.

Last year she won a $5 million judgment against him at the first trial. Trump is appealing that verdict.

Kaplan previously ruled that because of the prior verdict, there was no legal question that Trump defamed Carroll. That ruling left only the question of monetary damages remaining for the jury.

Trump during his very brief testimony in the trial Thursday said of Carrol’s claim, “I consider it a false accusation.”

Kaplan struck that testimony, in light of the prior jury’s verdict which found he had sexually abused Carroll.

Trump earlier this week defeated former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley in the Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire. Last week, he won the Iowa GOP caucuses.

This is developing news. Check back for updates.


https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/26/trump-e ... ments.html

by ti-amie John Harwood @JohnJHarwood
question for law brains:
how quickly will Trump be actually required to pay Carroll? is this something that gets delayed on appeal for years? and if he refuses, does it then turn into a criminal case?
cc:
@gtconway3d
@JoyceWhiteVance
@AWeissmann_

Joyce Alene
@JoyceWhiteVance
He can appeal if he posts a bond

by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports
And there it is:
Completed verdict form in Carroll v. Trump.
@TheMessenger
https://themessenger.com/politics/trump ... mages-jury

Image

by ti-amie erica orden
@eorden

Not only did Judge Kaplan order two anonymous juries for the Carroll trials, he also encouraged jurors on Friday to continue to keep their identities private.

“My advice to you,” Judge Kaplan said, “is that you never disclose that you were on this jury.”

by Owendonovan :bananas: :yahoo: :bananas: $83.3 million.

by patrick Unfortuntaely, Carroll will never see that money. Appeals are coming and he will beg that he is broke and MAGA will donate to the cause. Florida almost did it as someone put in a bill to help but the drop-out of the week said he will veto that bill

by ti-amie If he appeals he has to put the full amount he owes into an escrow account. Even DeSantis shot down that mess in his state trying to get taxpayers to pay his legal bills. It'll be interesting to see how he tries to squirm out of this.

by ti-amie Special counsel questioned witnesses about 2 rooms FBI didn't search inside Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence: Sources
The FBI missed the rooms in their search for classified documents, said sources.

By Katherine Faulders, Mike Levine, and Alexander Mallin
February 1, 2024, 7:28 PM

Special counsel Jack Smith's team has questioned several witnesses about a closet and a so-called "hidden room" inside former President Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago that the FBI didn't check while searching the estate in August 2022, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

As described to ABC News, the line of questioning in several interviews ahead of Trump's indictment last year on classified document charges suggests that -- long after the FBI seized dozens of boxes and more than 100 documents marked classified from Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate -- Smith's team was trying to determine if there might still be more classified documents there.

According to sources, some investigators involved in the case came to later believe that the closet, which was locked on the day of the search, should have been opened and checked.

As investigators would later learn, Trump allegedly had the closet's lock changed while his attorney was in Mar-a-Lago's basement, searching for classified documents in a storage room that he was told would have all such documents. Trump's alleged efforts to conceal classified documents from both the FBI and his own attorney are a key part of Smith's indictment against Trump in Florida.

Jordan Strauss, a former federal prosecutor and former national security official in the Justice Department, called the FBI's alleged failure to search the closet "a bit astonishing."

"You're searching a former president's house. You [should] get it right the first time," Strauss told ABC News.

In addition to the closet, the FBI also didn't search what authorities have called a "hidden room" connected to Trump's bedroom, sources said.

Smith's investigators were later told that, in the days right after the search, some of Trump's employees heard that the FBI had missed at least one room at Mar-a-Lago, the sources said.

According to a senior FBI official, agents focused on areas they believed might have government documents.

"Based on information gathered throughout the course of the investigation, areas were identified and searched pursuant to the search warrant," the official told ABC News.

Within a few months of the FBI's search, federal prosecutors in the Justice Department pushed Trump's legal team to ensure that no classified documents remained at any of Trump's properties, but it's unclear if those prosecutors or any Trump lawyers even knew about the unexamined spaces then.

It's also unclear if Trump ever kept any classified documents in either of those spaces, or whether Smith's team ever considered seeking another warrant to search Mar-a-Lago again.

In their questioning of witnesses, Smith's team seemed to focus more on the missed spaces in the three months before first indicting Trump in the case, sources said.

Reached by ABC News, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign criticized President Joe Biden and the news media, saying the investigations into Trump are "just desperate attempts at election interference ... to stop the presumptive Republican nominee for President."

'Rigorous and professional'
Strauss, who served in the Justice Department from 2005 to 2016, said he was particularly surprised to hear about the FBI's alleged inaction considering how "exceptionally thorough" he said they usually are and how meticulously they planned for the Mar-a-Lago search ahead of time.

Testifying before Congress last year, FBI Director Chris Wray noted that agents conducting the search even wore casual clothes to Mar-a-Lago -- rather than the more common "raid jackets" -- so they wouldn't draw too much attention.

Wray assured lawmakers that in such "sensitive" investigations, "Our folks take great pains to be rigorous [and] professional."

But when agents reached the locked closet near the front of Trump's residence, they couldn't locate a key for it and were told the space behind the door -- an old stairwell turned into a closet with shelves -- went nowhere, so they decided not to break it open, sources said

Sources also told ABC News that FBI agents didn't do more in part because they felt like they had been at Mar-a-Lago long enough. But the senior FBI official disputed that, saying, "Discussions took place that day about additional areas of the property and it was determined that actions already taken met the parameters of the search warrant."

"[The FBI] is almost notorious for their relentlessness and follow-through," Strauss said.

At the time, the FBI didn't know the lock change -- at least in their view -- could have been potentially significant, sources said.

According to the indictment against Trump, after Trump received a federal subpoena demanding the return of all classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, his attorney -- identified to ABC News as Evan Corcoran -- was told to look for any responsive documents in boxes stacked inside a basement storage room.

But in the days before Corcoran arrived at Mar-a-Lago on June 2, 2022, Trump aide Walt Nauta -- acting "at Trump's direction" -- moved more than 30 boxes from the storage room to Trump's residence, so the attorney never even saw many of Trump's boxes, according to the indictment.

Corcoran found 38 classified documents in the storage room and gave them to the FBI, but Trump ensured that "many documents responsive to the [subpoena] could not be found," the indictment alleges.

Through their investigation, Smith's team learned that while Corcoran was still in the storage room, Trump asked a longtime Mar-a-Lago employee to change the lock on the closet, sources said. For years, the lock on the closet was managed by the Secret Service, but on June 2, 2022, Trump had it changed and wanted the key, the sources said.

One former maintenance worker described Trump's request as unusual, according to the sources.

Unlike the locked closet, the FBI didn't even know the so-called "hidden room" existed until after they left Mar-a-Lago, sources said.

Though agents searched Trump's bedroom, a small door in one of the walls was concealed behind a large dresser and a big TV, sources said. The space behind the wall was the "hidden room," which maintenance workers sporadically entered to access cables running through it, sources said.

Strauss said it's not uncommon for agents executing search warrants to miss some things, especially when they're searching expansive properties.

Nevertheless, the fact that witnesses were saying the FBI missed a "hidden room" within Trump's bedroom caught the attention of Smith's team, according to sources.

'Bathrooms and bedrooms'
A federal judge had signed off on the search of Mar-a-Lago, approving the FBI's plan to search Trump's office and "all storage rooms and any other rooms or locations where boxes or records may be stored."

During their search, they allegedly found 27 classified documents in Trump's office and 75 more in the basement storage room, where Corcoran had searched two months earlier and found a smaller set of other apparently classified documents, according to the indictment against Trump.

The FBI did not find classified documents in any ballroom, bathroom, or in Trump's bedroom, where he allegedly stored classified documents at times over the year-and-a-half after leaving the White House.

During the summer of the FBI search, Trump was primarily living at his property in Bedminster, New Jersey. The FBI didn't search that property -- it only searched Mar-a-Lago.

As ABC News previously reported, within months of the FBI search, the Justice Department suspected Trump was still holding classified documents somewhere, so -- under pressure from the department -- one of Trump's attorneys conducted another search of Mar-a-Lago and other properties, and he found a handful of more classified documents.

In his testimony to Congress last year, Wray said that, under "specific rules," there are only certain locations that can securely store classified information, "and in my experience, ballrooms, bathrooms and bedrooms are not" among them.

"Our folks in this case have proceeded honorably and in strict compliance with our policies, our rules, and our best practices," Wray added.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing, insisting he did not break the law by holding onto the documents later seized by the FBI. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

Nauta, the aide who allegedly helped move Trump's boxes, and Mar-a-Lago's property manager, Carlos De Oliveira, have also been charged for their alleged roles in Trump's conspiracy. Both have pleaded not guilty.


https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-couns ... =106826552

by ti-amie Trump’s Former Finance Chief in Negotiations to Plead Guilty to Perjury
Allen H. Weisselberg would admit to lying on the stand during the former president’s civil fraud trial, according to people familiar with the talks.

By William K. Rashbaum, Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess
Feb. 1, 2024
Updated 4:28 p.m. ET
Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to Donald J. Trump, is negotiating a deal with Manhattan prosecutors that would require him to plead guilty to perjury, people with knowledge of the matter said.

As part of the potential agreement with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Mr. Weisselberg would have to admit that he lied on the witness stand in Mr. Trump’s recent civil fraud trial, the people said.

Mr. Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer at Mr. Trump’s family business, also would have to say that he lied under oath during in an interview with the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the civil fraud case.

The situation springs from a web of criminal and civil cases brought by the two agencies and would culminate a lengthy pressure campaign by the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, whose prosecutors had sought Mr. Weisselberg’s cooperation as they investigated whether Mr. Trump committed electoral and financial crimes. Even without Mr. Weisselberg’s cooperation, they indicted Mr. Trump last year in the election-related case, which is scheduled for trial in late March.

The deal being negotiated would most likely not require Mr. Weisselberg, 76, to turn on his former boss. Although Mr. Weisselberg was involved in the action at the heart of that case — a hush-money payment meant to bury a potential sex scandal just before the 2016 election — prosecutors are not expected to call him as a witness. And the investigation that most required Mr. Weisselberg’s help, the district attorney’s inquiry into Mr. Trump’s finances, may no longer be a priority for prosecutors.

Although the potential agreement is unlikely to immediately affect Mr. Trump, it could strengthen Mr. Bragg’s hand before the former president’s trial. It could deter other witnesses in Mr. Trump’s circle from lying on the stand. And perjury charges could discredit Mr. Weisselberg, who has disputed details of the prosecution’s evidence in the case involving the 2016 election.

Yet Mr. Weisselberg, a fiercely loyal aide who for decades oversaw the finances of Mr. Trump’s family business, the Trump Organization, already had a credibility problem: It will be his second guilty plea in Manhattan in two years.

Mr. Weisselberg previously admitted that he orchestrated a scheme to award himself and other Trump Organization executives off-the-books luxuries. He went to jail on Rikers Island for about 100 days, and while he was there, the district attorney’s office warned him that it could file new charges.

Mr. Bragg’s office renewed that threat after the fraud trial last month, according to the people with knowledge of the matter, who requested anonymity to discuss confidential negotiations. That set the plea negotiations in motion. If the two sides don’t agree, the district attorney’s office could seek to indict Mr. Weisselberg.

Prosecutors often argue that perjury — particularly in a high-profile trial — undermines the broader ends of justice and cannot be ignored.

But Mr. Trump’s legal team has decried what it believes is an overzealous prosecution in service of a larger pursuit of Mr. Trump, and has argued it would be unfair to send Mr. Weisselberg — a septuagenarian with no violent history — to jail for a second time.

Mr. Weisselberg’s lawyer, Seth Rosenberg, declined to comment through a spokesman for his firm, Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder. A lawyer for Mr. Trump declined to comment as well, but the former president has previously accused Mr. Bragg, a Democrat, of carrying out a politically motivated witch hunt against him and Mr. Weisselberg.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Bragg declined to comment.

It is not yet clear whether, if the deal happens, Mr. Weisselberg would plead guilty to a low-level felony or a misdemeanor, or what his sentence might be.

It is also unclear which of Mr. Weisselberg’s statements in the civil fraud case caught prosecutors’ attention — but trial transcripts offer hints.

In 2022, the attorney general, Letitia James, sued Mr. Trump, his adult sons and Mr. Weisselberg, accusing them of fraudulently exaggerating the value of the former president’s assets to obtain favorable loans from banks. One such asset was Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment in Trump Tower, which is 10,996 square feet, but had been listed for years on his annual financial statements as measuring 30,000 square feet.

While testifying, Mr. Weisselberg claimed that he “never focused” on the unit.

Shortly thereafter, Forbes magazine published an article contending that Mr. Weisselberg had lied under oath. The article cited emails and notes between the former chief financial officer and the magazine, which compiles a list of America’s richest people, showed that Mr. Weisselberg “played a key role in trying to convince Forbes over the course of several years” of the apartment’s value.

After that article was published, Mr. Weisselberg abruptly stopped testifying.

Mr. Weisselberg was also questioned under oath in 2020 about the triplex during an interview with Ms. James’s office, statements that might now also be under scrutiny by the district attorney’s office.

A plea would cap a legal odyssey for Mr. Weisselberg. After decades of serving the Trump family outside the public eye, his life was upended in the summer of 2021, when Mr. Bragg’s predecessor filed criminal charges against him and the Trump Organization for a tax fraud scheme involving the luxury perks.

In August 2022, Mr. Weisselberg pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against Mr. Trump’s company. After the Trump Organization was convicted of tax fraud and other crimes that year, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, decided that Mr. Weisselberg had testified truthfully as the deal had required.

But none of Mr. Weisselberg’s testimony had damaged Mr. Trump personally. In fact, Mr. Weisselberg never provided evidence implicating the former president in any case.

Mr. Weisselberg went to jail in early 2023, but not before Mr. Trump’s company awarded him a $2 million severance package that required him not to cooperate with any law enforcement investigation unless legally required.

In April, while Mr. Weisselberg was on Rikers Island, Mr. Bragg announced criminal charges against Mr. Trump stemming from what prosecutors say was the cover-up of the sex scandal in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors also renewed their pressure campaign while Mr. Weisselberg was behind bars. They offered him a way out: Cooperate with the district attorney’s office against Mr. Trump and avoid further jail time. Mr. Weisselberg still didn’t budge.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/nyre ... fraud.html

by Owendonovan Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity
The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?
A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election, ruling that he must go to trial on a criminal indictment accusing him of seeking to overturn his loss to President Biden.

The unanimous ruling, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, handed Mr. Trump a significant defeat. But it was unlikely to be the final word on his claims of executive immunity: Mr. Trump, who is on a path to locking up the Republican presidential nomination, is expected to continue his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Still, the panel’s 57-page ruling signaled an important moment in American jurisprudence, answering a question that had never been addressed by an appeals court: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?
The question is novel because no former president until Mr. Trump had been indicted, so there was never an opportunity for a defendant to make — and courts to consider — the sweeping claim of executive immunity that he put forward.

AKA Loser.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/p ... court.html

by ti-amie Judge orders Trump to pay more than $350 million in N.Y. civil fraud trial

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron on Friday ordered former president Donald Trump to pay more than $350 million in penalties, handing down a hefty penalty following a months-long civil trial in which Trump and others were accused of financial fraud by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Engoron also said Trump could not serve as an officer or a director for any New York company for three years. Trump has denied all wrongdoing and assailed the case.

Here's what to know

Trump was not the only member of his family penalized Friday. Two of his adult children — Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who were also defendants in the case — were fined $4 million each. Both men were also blocked from serving as an officer or director for any New York corporation for two years.
Attorneys for Trump sharply criticized the ruling, with one calling it “manifest injustice" and saying they hoped it would be overturned on appeal.

With this decision, Trump now owes more than $440 million in fines and damages across multiple civil trials.

Trump testified in this case in November, clashing with the judge and lashing out at the case. In his decision Friday, Engoron said the hefty financial penalty was in part due to how unreliable Trump was as a witness.

Engoron ruled before the trial that Trump and his company had broadly committed fraud. The trial was meant to allow Engoron to determine any penalties and whether any illegal acts occurred.

The case stems from a 2022 lawsuit James filed against Trump, which alleged that he, his company and others inflated the value of his assets to get better terms from lenders and banks. Trump’s defense said nobody was victimized and that there was no fraud.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -decision/

by ti-amie Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Judge Engoron knocks Ivanka Trump: "She consistently denied recalling the contents of documentary evidence that confirmed that she actively participated in events, even after she was confronted with the evidence."

"The Court found her inconsistent recall, depending on whether she was questioned by OAG or the defense, suspect. In any event, what Ms. Trump cannot recall is memorialized in contemporaneous emails and documents; in the absence of her memory, the documents speak for themselves."

by ti-amie A good question...




And the answer
joeshill OP
·
55 min. ago
Competent Contributor

"enjoined from applying for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered with the New York Department of Financial Services"

This would seem to prevent him from getting a bond from any company licensed to do business in NY.
And this:
BigSkyMountains
·
5 min. ago
Not only a bond. He can't refinance any of his existing properties, even if the loans come due.

There are plenty of state-by-state lenders out there, but I doubt there's many that are in the business of bonds at this scale, or commercial real estate at this scale. Maybe his billionaire buddies will chip in with unsecured personal loans?

They're going to have to do some type of asset sale here on a short timeline.

An interesting tidbit from the ruling (page 28) is that Trump's statement of financial condition said that 40 Wall St was budgeted to earn $26M per year in NOI (operating income before loan payments). Instead, they were actually losing $20M per year in 2015. They also put unrealistic cap rates (a valuation metric for real estate) on top of inflated financials. A lot of his properties clearly have negative equity. And now is a really bad time to be selling commercial real estate.

by ponchi101 The donations will come in.
"I will do ANYTHING for the real president of the USA!!!"

by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 1:18 pm The donations will come in.
"I will do ANYTHING for the real president of the USA!!!"
Andrew—Author of America Rises On Substack—Wortman
@AmoneyResists
The most incredible story in three parts.

Image

Image

Image

by ti-amie Dr. Jack Brown :verified:
@DrJackBrown@mstdn.social
"If he does not have funds to pay off the judgement, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets."

Leticia James
Attorney General, New York State
Re Donald Trump's NY Fraud case

by ti-amie Trump Tries to Change NY Business Addresses to FL in Fraud Judgment
Nice try.
Ron Filipkowski minutes ago

Donald Trump's attorneys were required to submit a proposed order for Judge Engoron to sign that conformed to his verdict and judgment in the case. They complied, but in the process it seems that Trump is trying to pull a fast one somewhere along the way. The proposed judgment that was submitted had the addresses changed for 6 of Trump's businesses from New York to Florida. It is unclear whether this was something done by Trump before his trial in a feeble attempt to put them out of the jurisdiction of the NY courts, or if it was done after the trial to try to avoid the judgment. As with all things Trump, nothing is on the straight and narrow.

Either way, the Attorney General's Office filed an immediately objection to the proposed judgment over these address changes. In their filing, the AG said "several of the addresses for the Defendants in the proposed judgment are incorrect ... the Court should reject Defendants' attempt to change the business address of six entity Defendants to Florida as the record establishes those entities are located in Trump Tower at 725 5th Avenue in New York, the office building in which the executives who carry out business activities of those entities work."

Image

Image

by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Justice Engoron's signed judgment has been made public.

Straight legal analysis about what comes next in the appellate process,
@Just_Security
https://justsecurity.org/92637/what-to- ... -and-more/

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/D ... ystem=prod

TL;dr

Alex Cole
@acnewsitics
BREAKING: The New York County clerk has just entered the judgment signed by Justice Engoron, which means Donald Trump has 30 days to come up with over $454,156,783.05 plus $87,000 interest daily to appeal. If not, Letitia James can start seizing his properties.

by patrick Trump will never pay and his assets is probably valued less than that or he signed off his agents to very trusty people,

by ponchi101 How about Trump tower and Mar-a-lago? Those should be easy to seize.
Other than that, agree with you.

by ti-amie So he offered to pay $100m instead of the full amount he'd need to put in escrow. Here's NY AG's response. It takes her 35 pages to say "no".

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... cation.pdf


by ti-amie Court denies Trump's bid to freeze $464M judgment, after his lawyers say he'd have to sell properties to pay
The former president had sought to post a fraction of the bond amount.

By. Peter Charalambous and Aaron Katersky
February 28, 2024, 3:57 PM

A New York appellate court on Wednesday denied Donald Trump's attempt to freeze the judgment in his civil fraud case, a ruling that means, for now, that the former president is required to post a bond for hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming weeks.

Judge Anil Singh declined to address the amount of the bond, effectively requiring Trump by default to post a bond for the full judgment of $454 million.

Defense attorneys had said Trump was prepared to post a $100 million bond, arguing he had no way to secure a higher amount without selling off some of his real estate. A bond to cover the judgment in the case would have to be at least 120% of the total judgment -- more than $550 million, attorneys said.

"In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses from the Attorney General," defense attorneys argued.

Judge Singh did agree to pause the enforcement of the part of the judgment that prohibited Trump and his sons from running their family business for the next several years. The ruling means the former president, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump can remain in charge of the Trump Organization for the time being.

Trump still has at least two opportunities to appeal the ruling -- first with a panel of judges at New York's Appellate Division, First Department next month, then with New York's Court of Appeals if the first attempt is unsuccessful.

Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron, in a judgment issued earlier this month, found Trump, his adult sons, and two former Trump Organization executives liable for a decade of fraudulent business activity in which they used "numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentation" to inflate Trump's net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms. He ordered the defendants to pay a total of $464 million in disgorgement and pre-judgment interest.

In their court filing early Wednesday, Trump's lawyers argued that the penalties are "unprecedented and punitive."

"The exorbitant and punitive amount of the Judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond," defense lawyers wrote in the filing. "Appellants nonetheless plan to secure and post a bond in the amount of $100 million."

In the filing, Trump's lawyers said that posting a bond to cover the entire judgment would not only be impossible but also unnecessary given the preexisting oversight provided by the Trump Organization's independent monitor. According to the filing, the current oversight coupled with the $100 million bond ensures that New York Attorney General Letitia James could collect the judgment if needed.

"Those assets are not going anywhere, nor could they given the oversight of the Monitor and the practical realities of the existence of the very public Judgment," the filing said.

In their motion for a stay, defense attorneys Clifford Robert and Alina Habba called Engoron's order "draconian" and said the punishments would unfairly impede Trump's family real estate business.

"The extraordinary relief Supreme Court has granted is punitive, patently improper, unsupported by the evidence, and/or unavailable under the Executive Law, and is premised upon claims this Court ruled are time-barred," the motion said.

The filing cited "the Attorney General's public threats that she will seize Appellants' real property forthwith to satisfy the Judgment," a reference to remarks New York Attorney General Letitia James made during an interview with ABC News.

"If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets," James told ABC News last week.

In response to defense's filing, an attorney for the New York attorney general pushed back against Trump's plan to post a $100 million bond, arguing in their own filing that Trump and his co-defendants might attempt to evade enforcement of the $464 million judgment.

"Contrary to defendants' argument, there is substantial risk that defendants will attempt to evade enforcement of the judgment (or make enforcement more difficult) following appeal," the attorney general's filing said.

Dennis Fan of the AG's office suggested in the filing that Trump's lawyers admitted the former president lacks the money to cover the judgment.

"There is no merit to defendants' contention that a full bond or deposit is unnecessary because they are willing to post a partial undertaking of less than a quarter of the judgment amount," Fan wrote. "Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment; defendants would need 'to raise capital' to do so."

Fan argued that a full bond would be necessary in order to ensure the judgment could ultimately be collected, highlighting past behavior by the Trump Organization that he argued demonstrates the possibility they might evade the fine. He cited a $40 million transfer previously flagged by the company's independent monitor and a recent effort to list Trump's companies with Florida addresses.

"And even now, in claiming urgency, defendants have made no efforts to be forthcoming with this Court about their specific efforts to obtain a bond," the filing said.

The attorney general asked the court to deny Trump's request for an interim stay, expedite its review of the request, continue the oversight of the Trump Organization through its monitor, and ensure that the defendants can fully satisfy the entire judgment.

Trump's attorneys requested the stay pending their appeal of Engoron's ruling, which they filed Monday.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-plans-p ... =107634579

by Owendonovan I kinda wish all of his cases were heard in NY. The NYers have gotten the correct legal opinions. I hope he takes a dirt nap right after he pays up.

by ponchi101 I know we hate him, and the man is scum and deserves everything he should get from these trials.
But nobody has $400 MM in cash just in a bank account. Not Elon, not Bill, not Mark, nobody. So, if he losses the appeal, he will still have to sell assets to pay, so might as well accept those properties as bond and when he losses, liquidate them.
Don't make it harder for him to pony up because what is really needed is for him to be behind bars by September. Otherwise, the bunch of whining democrats that will not vote for Biden because "he is old" (he is, but look at the other option) will hand the presidency to Tiny and then he will appoint his AG and get everything thrown out the window.
He said it. Expect a reign of revenge. So, let's get it over with and throw him in prison.

by ti-amie Inner City Press
@innercitypress
Trump docket: Habba's request for "temporary administrative stay" of $83.3 million judgment for E. Jean Carroll has just be denied by Judge Kaplan. Inner City Press wrote the book (below); story coming


Third paragraph down

Image

by ti-amie Is this why Elmo's been to visit him in Mar-a-lago? Is Elmo so liquid that he can afford to be stiffed by Tiny?

by ponchi101 Imagine this in a whiny, unbearable voice:
"Secretary of Energy Melon Musk. How does that sound, Melon? You would be the greatest secretary of energy of all time!!!"
"Ah, the name is Elon, not Melon, and I am South African"
"Even better! People in the South love me! SO, how about it? I promise you you will be the secretary of energy, you don't have to give up any of your stock in ... in that car company you drive, and you just let me take control of Tweety! What do you say?"
Long pause. And now think of Woody Harrelson in Natural Born Killers.
"I say go for it"

by Owendonovan I love how he's crying about having to possibly sell properties to raise cash, as though this is first time someone might have to sell an asset to satisfy a judgement.

by ti-amie
Owendonovan wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 2:05 pm I love how he's crying about having to possibly sell properties to raise cash, as though this is first time someone might have to sell an asset to satisfy a judgement.
It's the first time he hasn't been able to game the system. Like the judge said above he knew this was coming but he thought he could weasel his way out of paying. Don't forget the system he was gaming was in NYS. The thing is if he has to sell that building on 5th avenue how quickly can they get all of the foreign agents and others out of there?

by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Trump has "obtained a supersedeas bond" with Federal Insurance Company to pursue an appeal of the $88.3 million E. Jean Carroll judgment, his lawyer Alina Habba reports.

She asks the judge to approve the bond.

Image


So Elmo didn't go for the okey doke huh?
Jerry’son @priceawolowitz1
I wonder if there’s a back door colateralization (sic) that the New York administrator is going to disallow?
Did their shareholders know about this?

by ti-amie More info

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
Trump secured the supersedeas bond from Federal Insurance Company, which is a principal of The Chubb Corporation.

Chubb is incorporated in Zurich, Switzerland.

Image

by ti-amie I saw this question on another site. Not Xitter.

Did Elmo put up the collateral for the loan from Chubb? See the above gif.

by ti-amie Good lawyering is good lawyering. E. Jean Carroll is getting her money's worth.

Robert Macnaughton
@MacnaughtonNYC
So Roberta Kaplan completely made the right move in accepting the superseading bond today, thereby insuring her client will get paid from Chubb, even if @NewYorkStateAG seizes everything. And little Greenberg will be left holding the bag, & will some 'splainin to do to Chubb...

by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports

Just in

New York AG urges an appellate court to keep rejecting Trump's bid to stay enforcement of the civil fraud judgment:

Trump "never demonstrated" he has enough liquid assets to satisfy the judgment—and he has "substantial liabilities," such as E. Jean Carroll's cases.

Image

"Moreover, there is significant risk that absent a full bond or deposit, defendants will attempt to evade enforcement of the judgment or to make enforcement more difficult after an appeal."

The AG's opposition here. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef ... 8QYmk6hg==

"Absent a full bond or deposit, OAG would be highly prejudiced and likely forced to expend substantial public resources to execute the judgment if it is affirmed on appeal," that section concludes.

If Trump doesn't post a bond or obtain a court-ordered stay, the civil fraud judgment becomes enforceable March 25, the anticipated start date of the New York criminal trial.

by ti-amie Josh Gerstein
@joshgerstein
NEW: Insurance giant Chubb issues letter to customers defending $91.6 bond for Trump to facilitate his appeal in Carroll libel case. Company calls itself 'part of the justice system plumbing' & says bond 'fully collateralized' if verdict is upheld. Stmt:

Image

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... nd-3132024

by ti-amie If I'm a shareholder I wouldn't be reassured at all.

by ponchi101 They are big enough that if he loses (when he loses) they can indeed go after his assets. The have the muscle.
If he doesn't, they get it back.
And if he loses, AND wins the presidency? Heck, owning the POTUS for $91MM is a bargain.
No loss scenario.

by patrick Imagine if the judge in the Willis' case, who already dropped 3 charges, against the GOP nominee, drops more charges. Basically, the GOP nominee has perfected the delay game in all of his federal/state/local cases. GOP nominee is not hiding the fact that all these events happened. Therefore, if the GOP nominee gets elected in Nov, all will be dropped somehow.

Therefore, delay, delay, delay is the name of the game supported by a certain person in Russia.

by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

News:

Manhattan DA’s office consents to a 30-day adjournment of Trump’s criminal trial — to sift through ~73K pages of records they got from the US Attorney’s office.

Image

On Manhattan DA's consent to an up-to-30-day adjournment:

They say they asked the U.S. Attorney's office for the documents "more than a year ago," which that office "previously declined to provide."

—Then USAO dumped ~73K pages earlier this month; then ~31K pages "yesterday";…

by ti-amie
Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻
@AWeissmann_
·
4h
What on god’s green earth were the Southern District federal prosecutors thinking in turning this over so late? If I’m the Manhattan DA, himself a former Southern District prosecutor, I’m LIVID. x.com/klasfeldreport…
Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Asked why the office previously declined to release documents the DA requested more than a year ago, SDNY declined to comment.

There's no indication that this went to the AG.

The DA's filing referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in particular, not the Department of Justice generally, which indicates this was the call of "Sovereign District" SDNY — not a place generally known for taking cues from DC.

by patrick More delay from the defense team in Daniels' trial. Bragg has been slowfooting this for some strange reason(s) after being first to the finish line last year with his investigation.

by ti-amie Roger Parloff
@rparloff
Judge Cannon is asking the parties to "engage with" these two proposed jury instructions. Both are disturbing; the second comes close to a directed verdict of acquittal.

Image

I wonder how long Smith is going to let her play her games?

by Owendonovan Speaks to what his properties are worth....

Trump Spurned by 30 Companies as He Seeks Bond in $454 Million Judgment
Donald J. Trump’s lawyers said in a court filing that he faces “insurmountable difficulties” as he tries to raise cash for the civil fraud penalty he faces in New York.
By Ben Protess, Maggie Haberman and Kate Christobek
March 18, 2024
Updated 6:17 p.m. ET
Donald J. Trump’s lawyers disclosed on Monday that he had failed to secure a roughly half-billion dollar bond in his civil fraud case in New York, raising the prospect that the state could seek to freeze some of his bank accounts and seize some of his marquee properties.

The court filing, coming one week before the bond is due, suggested that the former president might soon face a financial crisis unless an appeals court comes to his rescue.

Mr. Trump has asked the appeals court to pause the $454 million judgment that a New York judge imposed on Mr. Trump in the fraud case last month, or accept a bond of only $100 million. Otherwise, the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the case, might soon move to collect from Mr. Trump.

Still, even if the higher court rejects his appeal, Mr. Trump is not entirely out of options. He might appeal to the state’s highest court, quickly sell an asset or seek help from a wealthy supporter.

Mr. Trump’s team has also left the door open to exploring a bankruptcy for corporate entities implicated in the case, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. That option, however, is politically fraught during a presidential race in which he is the presumptive Republican nominee, and for now it appears unlikely.

The judge in the civil fraud case, Arthur F. Engoron, levied the $454 million penalty and other punishments after concluding that Mr. Trump had fraudulently inflated his net worth to obtain favorable loans and other benefits. The case, brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James, has posed a grave financial threat to Mr. Trump.

The former president has been unable to secure the full bond, his lawyers said in the court filing on Monday, calling it a “practical impossibility” despite “diligent efforts.” Those efforts included approaching about 30 companies that provide appeal bonds, and yet, the lawyers said, he has encountered “insurmountable difficulties.”
The company providing the bond would essentially promise to cover Mr. Trump’s judgment if he lost an appeal and failed to pay. In exchange, he would pledge cash and other liquid assets as collateral, and he would pay the company a fee as high as $20 million.

But Mr. Trump does not have enough liquidity to obtain the bond. The company would require Mr. Trump to pledge more than $550 million in cash and securities as collateral — a sum he simply does not have.


Although the former president boasts of his billions, his net worth is derived largely from the value of his real estate, which bond companies rarely accept as collateral. Mr. Trump has more than $350 million in cash, a recent New York Times analysis found, far short of what he needs.

He might have to post an appeal bond worth more than $454 million — possibly above $500 million, to reflect the interest he will owe — in order to prevent Ms. James from seizing his assets on March 25.

Under the law, Ms. James could have moved to collect from Mr. Trump as soon as Justice Engoron ruled, but she offered a 30-day grace period, until March 25. It is unclear whether she will provide Mr. Trump extra time or if she will move swiftly to collect. Nor is it clear whether the appellate court will rule on his plea for help before the deadline.

Mr. Trump could also seek to appeal to New York’s highest court, and it is unclear whether Ms. James will hold off on the seizure while he pursues that route.

A spokeswoman for Ms. James did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump has denied all wrongdoing and claimed that Ms. James and Justice Engoron, both Democrats, are out to get him.

“This is a motion to stay the unjust, unconstitutional, un-American judgment from New York Judge Arthur Engoron in a political witch hunt brought by a corrupt attorney general,” Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said in a statement. “A bond of this size would be an abuse of the law, contradict bedrock principles of our republic, and fundamentally undermine the rule of law in New York.”

The looming deadline could not come at a worse time for Mr. Trump. He also faces four criminal indictments, including one in Manhattan that is tentatively set for trial in mid-April.

And just last week he finalized a $91.6 million bond in a defamation case he recently lost to the writer E. Jean Carroll, a costly deal that drained him of precious cash.

Mr. Trump, who obtained that bond from the insurance giant Chubb, pledged an investment account at Charles Schwab as collateral, records show. He most likely pledged more than $100 million in cash and stocks and bonds that he could sell in a hurry — investments that are now no longer available for him to use in the civil fraud case.

A nearly $500 million bond, Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote on Monday, “is unprecedented for a private company.”

Yet Mr. Trump’s legal team “devoted a substantial amount of time, money, and effort” to finding one, according to a court filing by Alan Garten, the top lawyer at Mr. Trump’s family business.

Using four separate brokers, the lawyers approached more than two dozen companies that provide appellate bonds, including Chubb and Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate run for decades by Warren E. Buffett, Mr. Garten said. He added that most of the companies were either unable or unwilling to handle a bond of this size, and that none were willing to accept property as collateral.

Their best bet appeared to be Chubb, but within the past week, Chubb notified Mr. Trump’s lawyers that it, too, could not accept property as collateral.

“This presents a major obstacle,” Mr. Garten wrote.

Mr. Trump’s company has not ruled out the possibility of having the corporate entities declare bankruptcy, the people with knowledge of the discussions said. That move would automatically halt the judgment against those entities and prevent Ms. James from seizing some of the former president’s properties.

But Mr. Trump, scarred from an experience in the 1990s when some of his companies filed for bankruptcy, is likely to balk at a filing.

And even if he supported it, bankruptcy — which Mr. Trump used to describe derisively as “the b-word” — might not be a cure-all, legal experts said. Seeking court protection could trigger defaults in loans he holds, and would most likely set off litigation over whether Mr. Trump is still responsible to pay his company’s debts.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers on Monday also submitted a filing from one of his insurance brokers, Gary Giulietti, who said his team had for several weeks been “scouring the market” for a bond.

“Simply put, a bond of this size is rarely, if ever, seen,” he wrote.

Mr. Giulietti, who testified as an expert witness at the trial, also occasionally golfs and dines with Mr. Trump.

In his decision, Justice Engoron criticized his testimony, saying that in more than 20 years on the bench, he had never encountered an expert witness who “not only was a close personal friend of a party, but also had a personal financial interest in the outcome of the case.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/nyre ... -case.html

by ti-amie To quote the late Jimi Hendrix: "Castles made of sand fall into the sea eventually".

by ti-amie Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
·
10m
NEW from me and
@GaryGrumbach
: FL public records confirm that Trump used a Schwab brokerage account as collateral to obtain his $91.63 million bond through Chubb’s Federal Insurance Co. in the E. Jean Carroll case. 1/

The record — a Uniform Commercial Code filing dated March 7, 2024 — was filed by Chubb’s outside counsel, Akerman LLP, and lists two debtors: the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (into which Trump’s assets roll up) and Donald J. Trump, Jr., one of the trustees. 2/

by ti-amie
Jose Pagliery@Jose_Pagliery

Two court clerks tell me that the New York AG has effectively placed liens on everything Donald Trump owns in Westchester County.

Her target? Seven Springs, his 212-acre forested family estate.

Story
@thedailybeast
Marie Brennan 🐾
@MarieB08

Don't forget about his trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor. That would also require a Westchester County filing and while only 140 acres, it has a much higher property value than Seven Springs in terms of subdivision & new construction possibilities.

by ti-amie It's way too soon to start celebrating but I think this is the post of the day on the topic of what AG James is up to.



I mean Bone Saw or Vlad could still send him some money via Manafort or someone else but still

by ti-amie Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
As
@KatiePhang noted yesterday, prior mortgages on Trump properties won’t prevent Tish James from trying to collect on them. But some of those loans are bigger than appreciated. Take Axos Bank’s loans to Trump for Trump Tower’s commercial portion and the Doral course. 1/

Both loans are listed as “over $50 million” on Trump’s August 2023 Office of Government Ethics disclosure. But, according to @washingtonpost, those loans are for $100 million and $125 million respectively. 2/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... rrabrants/

And meanwhile, as one would expect, Axos left no stone unturned in terms of what collateral Trump pledged. How do I know? Because it filed its financing statement describing not only its interest in Trump Tower’s commercial unit, but also all leases associated with it. 3/

And here it is:
https://appext20.dos.ny.gov/ASPIMGVIEWP ... T&pApp=UCC

I tell you this because while Trump complains that the New York Attorney General is desperate to sell off his empire, Tish James has no interest in assuming “the risk of executing on Defendants’ illiquid assets.” Her office said as much in its reply brief yesterday.

In fact, their position is that if Trump and his businesses truly cannot obtain or provide an undertaking, they should consent to have their real-estate assets “held by [the New York] Supreme Court to satisfy the judgment.”

Image

In other words, the AG’s office is saying it does not want a mess of a fire sale any more than Trump does; in lieu of an adequate bond or cash, they would much rather Trump just let the court hold the assets in a kind of escrow.

That doesn’t mean Tish James can’t or won’t force a sale of assets like Trump Tower. But as satisfying as some of her constituents might find it, it’s by no means her first or even second preference. Remember that if and when she is put in a position to enforce her judgment. FIN.

by patrick At the end of the situation, Trump will never pay a dime. If the voters do their civil and democratic duty, bankruptcy will be filed.

by ponchi101 I can so well see 7 million democrats not showing up to vote for Biden just because "he is too old" (o some other whine) and handing Trump the chance to name some devout AG and have all these swept away.

by ti-amie Shannon Skinner (she/her)
@shansterable@c.im
Please ignore the man behind the curtain claiming "Trump is about to get $3 billion richer after deal is approved to take his company public."

"SEC filings indicate Trump Media’s revenue amounted to just $1.1 million during the third quarter. The company posted a loss of $26 million that quarter."

"Not only that, but Truth Social appears to be shrinking. The number of Truth Social’s US monthly active users on iOS and Android is down 39% year-over-year."

As soon as the 6-month lock-up period is done and founders can finally cash out their shares, there will be a race to the exits.

#OrangeMussolini used his initials as the stock ticker. I just can't wait to share the graph showing DJT stock in freefall. You can't make this (expletive) up.

#Trump #SPAC #DigitalWorld #Investing #Invest #Finance #DevinNunes #Fraud

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/22/business/tr

by Jeff from TX
ti-amie wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:28 am Shannon Skinner (she/her)
@shansterable@c.im
Please ignore the man behind the curtain claiming "Trump is about to get $3 billion richer after deal is approved to take his company public."

"SEC filings indicate Trump Media’s revenue amounted to just $1.1 million during the third quarter. The company posted a loss of $26 million that quarter."

"Not only that, but Truth Social appears to be shrinking. The number of Truth Social’s US monthly active users on iOS and Android is down 39% year-over-year."

As soon as the 6-month lock-up period is done and founders can finally cash out their shares, there will be a race to the exits.

#OrangeMussolini used his initials as the stock ticker. I just can't wait to share the graph showing DJT stock in freefall. You can't make this (expletive) up.

#Trump #SPAC #DigitalWorld #Investing #Invest #Finance #DevinNunes #Fraud

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/22/business/tr
Except there is nothing to prevent foreign players from propping up the stock

by ti-amie With his takeover of the RNC and this scheme it seems to me he's set himself up to receive tons of money from overseas. It's still not clear to me if he will get his tiny hands on enough money by Monday.

by ti-amie Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

On Trump's Truth Social post on Justice Merchan's daughter:

This isn't a new line of attack.

Trump tried going after her before in a failed bid to recuse the judge, who noted in a ruling that a judicial ethics committee found there was no conflict.
Image

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
BREAKING: NY judge issues a gag order restricting Trump's ability to attack witnesses, prosecutors, their families or jurors. https://nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/P ... dicial.pdf

Image