Trump INDICTED

[Dizkneelande 1,094]

"Trump retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he has to say."

The ACLU filed a court document blasting Judge Tanya Chutkan's gag order as unconstitutionally vague.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

40 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

"Trump retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he has to say."

The ACLU filed a court document blasting Judge Tanya Chutkan's gag order as unconstitutionally vague.

That judge is an incompetent diversity hire. She has a very high rate of her rulings being overturned.  

[jonmx 2,425]

1 hour ago, Dizkneelande said:

"Trump retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he has to say."

The ACLU filed a court document blasting Judge Tanya Chutkan's gag order as unconstitutionally vague.

That is the first time the ACLU showed a spine in a decade.  I hope they have finally rekindled their love for free speech. 

[Dozer FBG 325]

18 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Can you expand on Meadows's expertise to determine the 2020 election was the most secure in American history?  Since you bolded it and all.  You weren't here, but in the past, as a systems engineer, I've shown that introducing an untested mail-in process in a bunch of states is the opposite of "most secure."  But perhaps Meadows has more systems experience than I do.

Calling the Georgia case a RICO case is a joke, especially since the Biden crime family with the Big Guy at top is the epitome of a RICO case, yet our impartial federal justice system refuses to call it so.

And I'm not a Trump fan, I wish he'd go away.  

Sure, I’ll expand on it. 

 

In his book Meadows says :

 

“The election was "stolen" and "rigged" with help from "allies in the liberal media," who ignored "actual evidence of fraud, right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze."

 

But then when he speaks to Jack Smith’s investigators:

 

That-- to this day -- he has yet to see any evidence of fraud that would have kept now-president Joe Biden from the White House, and he told them he agrees with a government assessment at the time that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in U.S. history.

 

I’m sorry I missed your methodology discussion. If you link it I’ll check it out.

 

My guess is you have more systems experience than Mark Meadows.

 

And if you have a problem with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, take it up with Fani Willis.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

Yeah, this nonsense is what RICO was for. The last word stands for organization.  Doesn’t seem there was much of one, or that it was around for a while prior to any “crimes”.  “Quick, call the heads of the five  families that have been running their crime networks for years, we have to allege there was fraud”.  Yeah, criminal organizations are known for pointing out crimes to the authorities. That’s who they usually call. 

[jerryskids 6,729]

1 hour ago, Dozer FBG said:

Sure, I’ll expand on it. 

 

In his book Meadows says :

 

“The election was "stolen" and "rigged" with help from "allies in the liberal media," who ignored "actual evidence of fraud, right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze."

 

But then when he speaks to Jack Smith’s investigators:

 

That-- to this day -- he has yet to see any evidence of fraud that would have kept now-president Joe Biden from the White House, and he told them he agrees with a government assessment at the time that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in U.S. history.

 

I’m sorry I missed your methodology discussion. If you link it I’ll check it out.

 

My guess is you have more systems experience than Mark Meadows.

 

And if you have a problem with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, take it up with Fani Willis.

Thanks for the response.  If I have time I'll look for my older posts, but it is an extension of what I said:  by definition, introducing major new and untested processes into a system inherently introduces the opportunity for error.  Theoretical best case is zero error, which is a unicorn for the changes of this magnitude.  

On a related note, it drives me nuts when people (on both sides it seems) equate "no cheating" or "accurate" with the counting of votes.  In the year of our lord 2020 I'm confident in their ability to count votes, within a small margin of error.  The opportunity for cheating introduced by shotgun blasting ballots out is in the veracity of the ballots coming back in, not the count.

Regarding Willis, since I don't have her direct number, I'll stick with discussing it on this low-rent FF message board.  I will say that she seems smart and has set this case up for victory.  Those are good qualities in a DA, but a DA should also have a sense of doing the right thing.  While charging Trump under RICO may be legal, I do not feel it is the right thing.

Finally, since you and I don't have history, I will say that I'm a conservative who is not a Trump fan and wishes he would go away for, well, practically any other candidate, who would likely easily beat Joe Biden.  Biden is clearly in cognitive decline and running him for POTUS again is a disservice to him as a human and us as a country.  But we seem destined for this "truth is stranger than fiction" election at this point.

[Dozer FBG 325]

Scott MacFarlane reports:
 

Donald Trump's defense files 27-page argument to further its argument that the 2020 election conspiracy case should be dismissed because of "Presidential immunity"

It's a winding argument referencing George W Bush, Alexander Hamilton, Nixon & the Federalist papers.

Trump motion:

"George W Bush’s critics widely accused him of lying to Congress to induce the Iraq War on false allegedly pretenses by claiming that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was hoarding stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction which turned out to be non-existent"
 

'Pres. Nixon was widely accused of criminal obstruction of justice for the exercise of his official duties in the so-called “Saturday Night Massacre,” when he ordered three subsequent Attorneys General to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor"
 

"In the 1824 election, Andrew Jackson’s supporters accused President John Quincy Adams of effecting a “corrupt bargain” with Henry Clay by appointing him Secretary of State in exchange for using his influence as Speaker of the House to deliver the election"

Still scheduled for trial on March 4.

[Mike Honcho 5,251]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:26 PM, jonmx said:

The Democrats effort to criminalize speech is going to fail.  The only RICO going on here are by the Democrats in bringing these cases to court.  Most of these will be thrown out.  This prosecuter does not know her RICO from a hole in the ground. 

There is no first amendment protections for committing fraud. 

[Mike Honcho 5,251]

On 10/24/2023 at 5:11 PM, Dozer FBG said:

Flip City

Mark Meadows has testified before a grand jury in exchange for immunity.

Meadows told prosecutors he agreed the 2020 election was the most secure in American history and that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were turning out to be baseless.

ABC News Article:

Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night…

 

 

On 10/24/2023 at 10:36 PM, Dozer FBG said:

Politico Article:

Trump’s ex-lawyers become prosecutors’ star witnesses

In two courtrooms 800 miles apart on Tuesday, a stark reality for former President Donald Trump became clearer than ever: If Trump is taken down in his myriad criminal and civil cases, it will likely be at the hands of his own former lawyers.
-

So, now three Trump lawyers have flipped on Trump.

Powell, Ellis, and The Cheese.

 

Seems Meadows and the lawyers did learn something from Trump, 'The Art of the Plea Deal'

[Mike Honcho 5,251]

On 10/26/2023 at 3:45 AM, jonmx said:

Here is what these plea deals say.

"...the defendant shall be completely exonerated of guilt of the said offenses."

And what is the condition...

"...the defendant shall testify truthfully"

Considering that these defendants are already required by law to testify truthfully, the prosecutor has secured absolutely nothing.   

So basically in the cases of the biggest crime in American history we have defendant after defendant given deals where they are completely exonerated upon completion of the terms (follow the law), and we have the government media putting out headlines declaring victory and all the trained braindead minions cheering.  Stupidest thing I have ever seen. 

If it went to trial, they can't be compelled to testify, now they can....so so the prosecutor actually secured a lot. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

This is the first time Trump has ever been accused of being organized.  

[jonmx 2,425]

4 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

There is no first amendment protections for committing fraud. 

There are no legitimate allegation of fraud.  Attacking thr integrity of elections is protected free speech.   There are many elements of fraud which much be present than simply saying things the government deems untrue.  The case should be thrown out. 

[jonmx 2,425]

4 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

If it went to trial, they can't be compelled to testify, now they can....so so the prosecutor actually secured a lot. 

If the case was strong and there were serious violations of the law, these witnesses would have just had reduced charges.  These charges will be exonerated from the record.  They have only secured what they would of had if they had agreed they were not charging them in the first place.   They are so desperate to try to speed up this trial they are handing out get out of jail cards for free.  It is all about getting out news headlines. These cases are only going to empower Trump in thr long run when they fall on their face.  

[Mike Honcho 5,251]

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

If the case was strong and there were serious violations of the law, these witnesses would have just had reduced charges.  These charges will be exonerated from the record.  They have only secured what they would of had if they had agreed they were not charging them in the first place.   They are so desperate to try to speed up this trial they are handing out get out of jail cards for free.  It is all about getting out news headlines. These cases are only going to empower Trump in thr long run when they fall on their face.  

Says a lot that you can't admit you made a mistake in saying they would have had to testify truthfully anyway when they wouldn't have had to testify at all. 

[jonmx 2,425]

14 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Says a lot that you can't admit you made a mistake in saying they would have had to testify truthfully anyway when they wouldn't have had to testify at all. 

I still say that.  Nothing was won.  People are required to testify unless there are potential charges against them.  Taking away their ability to charge people who supposedly committed heinous crimes is comproming the government power and is not a win for the government.  The government can do this at anytime and in any case, so I am missing what the government won.  They technically could get the same results without the witness even agreeing to it. You eliminate the charges, the witness must testify and testify truthfully. 

[Mike Honcho 5,251]

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

I still say that.  Nothing was won.  People are required to testify unless there are potential charges against them.  Taking away their ability to charge people who supposedly committed heinous crimes is comproming the government power and is not a win for the government.  The government can do this at anytime and in any case, so I am missing what the government won.  They technically could get the same results without the witness even agreeing to it. You eliminate the charges, the witness must testify and testify truthfully. 

Before they made the "plea deal" THERE WERE CHARGES AGAINST THEM!  They could not have been forced to testify, only NOW do they have to testify. And without a plea deal, if you eliminate the charges without some kind of deal, they might be compelled to testify and would promptly take the fifth to avoid self-incrimination.  The DA gained a lot with these deals. 

[jonmx 2,425]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Before they made the "plea deal" THERE WERE CHARGES AGAINST THEM!  They could not have been forced to testify, only NOW do they have to testify. And without a plea deal, if you eliminate the charges without some kind of deal, they might be compelled to testify and would promptly take the fifth to avoid self-incrimination.  The DA gained a lot with these deals. 

Giving out what is essentially immunity is a position of weakness and desperation.  I don't know how how to say that. The government can compell anyone to testify if they agree not to charge them.  This is not a win.  

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 minute ago, jonmx said:

Giving out what is essentially immunity is a position of weakness and desperation.  I don't know how how to say that. The government can compell anyone to testify if they agree not to charge them.  This is not a win.  

[Mike Honcho 5,251]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

I know, right?  

[jonmx 2,425]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I know, right?  

Apparently not. 

[jonmx 2,425]

1.  The government can drag anyone into court.

2.  That person can take the 5th and refuse to testify out of fear of self-incrimination. 

3.  The government can agree to not charge that individual and thus compel them to testify.  

The government does not have to win anything for the above to happen.  They can do this over and over and over again to 300 million people with or without their consent.  It is a power the government has.  To spin this as some huge victory and declare the world is falling in around Trump is naive of how the legal system works.   The government has a huge amount of power.  The government has chose to sacrifice power to go after Trump.  The government can do this to anyone.   They won nothing they don't inherently already had.  

[seafoam1 2,922]

25 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Before they made the "plea deal" THERE WERE CHARGES AGAINST THEM!  They could not have been forced to testify, only NOW do they have to testify. And without a plea deal, if you eliminate the charges without some kind of deal, they might be compelled to testify and would promptly take the fifth to avoid self-incrimination.  The DA gained a lot with these deals. 

[Fnord 2,189]

21 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Giving out what is essentially immunity is a position of weakness and desperation.  I don't know how how to say that. The government can compell anyone to testify if they agree not to charge them.  This is not a win.  

 

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

1.  The government can drag anyone into court.

2.  That person can take the 5th and refuse to testify out of fear of self-incrimination. 

3.  The government can agree to not charge that individual and thus compel them to testify.  

The government does not have to win anything for the above to happen.  They can do this over and over and over again to 300 million people with or without their consent.  It is a power the government has.  To spin this as some huge victory and declare the world is falling in around Trump is naive of how the legal system works.   The government has a huge amount of power.  The government has chose to sacrifice power to go after Trump.  The government can do this to anyone.   They won nothing they don't inherently already had.  

 

On 10/25/2023 at 1:17 PM, Fnord said:

LOL. On one hand we have the duly elected DA from one of the largest metropolitan areas in the US.

On the other, we have wrongmx, a wannabe right-wing stormtrooper who believes nothing unless the explanation involves an elaborate conspiracy perpetrated by bootlickers and brownshirts. And yet ironically chafes when presented with evidence of ACTUAL conspiracies, perpetrated by HIS OWN bootlicking, brownshirt brethren.

Which has a better grasp of US law? Stay tuned to find out!

 

[jonmx 2,425]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

 

 

 

We have had lots of duly elected DA's crash and burn on cases I said were politically-driven abuses of power.   My track record on these cases is perfect vs. what the legal experts in the MSM say.   Trump may not win at the lower level because these courts were carefully chosen by the prosecutors as friendly to their case.   But Trump eventually will win on appeal.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

None of this has hurt Trump.  

[squistion 2,125]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

None of this has hurt Trump.  

How could it not? 

[Dozer FBG 325]

Trump's lawyer Alina Habba submitted her client's gag order sanctions payment to court today.

In a letter, Habba said this doesn't waive any appellate rights over the penalty.

 

[Dozer FBG 325]

Former President Trump Expected to Testify in Civil Trial on Nov. 6, New York AG Says…

Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump also are expected to be called as witnesses starting Wednesday.

[Dozer FBG 325]

10 minutes ago, Dozer FBG said:

Former President Trump Expected to Testify in Civil Trial on Nov. 6, New York AG Says…

Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump also are expected to be called as witnesses starting Wednesday.

More…

Politico Article:

Daughter Ivanka Trump must testify at Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial, New York judge rules

NEW YORK — Ivanka Trump must take the witness stand in the civil fraud case against her father, her brothers and their family business, a judge ruled Friday.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

How could it not? 

Because it’s a political prosecution and people see that? And don’t like it? 

[League Champion 1,909]

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

1 hour ago, League Champion said:

 

That’s a dam fine list right there. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

New YorkCNN — 

Leon Cooperman, the hedge fund billionaire who has famously clashed with Sen. Elizabeth Warren over her proposed wealth tax, is cautioning voters against returning Donald Trump to the White House.

“It would be terrible for the country if Donald Trump were reelected,” Cooperman told CNN in a phone interview late last week. “He’s a divisive human being who belongs in jail.”

It’s rare for a Wall Street figure to make such critical comments about Trump, at least publicly.

Cooperman, in the past, has donated to mostly Republicans and forcefully battled with Warren over her proposed Ultra-Millionaire Tax.

But the billionaire has previously said he voted for Joe Biden in 2020 “very reluctantly.”

 

Cooperman told CNN he’s not thrilled with the prospect of a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024, calling them both “bad choices.” Cooperman said he expects neither Trump nor Biden will be their party’s respective nominee next fall. But Cooperman added that if it is a Biden-Trump rematch, he likely won’t vote.

“I’m looking for centrists, not radical left or right,” said Cooperman, who donated to Republican Chris Christie’s 2024 campaign over the summer, according to federal records.

[Dozer FBG 325]

Within minutes of each other, Judge Cannon and Judge Chutkan issued orders related to Donald Trump's access to classified evidence in their criminal cases.

Kyle Cheney Tweet (Links to Motions in Each Case)

 

Chutkan has permitted Smith to summarize his classified info, rather than provide the actual material to Trump:

"Based on its review of the withheld materials, and its discussion with defense counsel during a recent ex parte hearing, the court finds that the government’s proposed summary of the classified information for substitution adequately describes any content of the withheld materials that could be considered relevant and helpful to the defense."

ETA Link to Chutkan Order:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

Is it any wonder this unqualified diversity hire judge gets her cases overturned at a high rate? Let them do what they want. Doesn’t matter. Get  on with the appeal. 

[BeachGuy23 642]

15 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Is it any wonder this unqualified diversity hire judge gets her cases overturned at a high rate? Let them do what they want. Doesn’t matter. Get  on with the appeal. 

Unqualified diversity hire?  What in the world would lead you to that conclusion?

Chutkan received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1983 from George Washington University. She later attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was an associate editor of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review

These are schools and accomplishments that few people, let alone racist MAGAturds could even comprehend achieving.

Unqualified diversity hire?

hahahahaha

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

Getting your cases overturned at a higher rate than normal disqualifies most judges from moving up.  Unqualified diversity hire. Case closed. 

[Reality 3,121]

What a massive crock of shlt this entire thing is. You know it's bad when this is the best they can do. This will literally only push more people to vote for Trump.

Nice work libs.

[BeachGuy23 642]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Getting your cases overturned at a higher rate than normal disqualifies most judges.  Unqualified diversity hire. Case closed. 

Show your work on her getting cases overturned at a higher rate.

And I showed you her education credentials.  Her professional ones are just as impressive.  So explain to me how she's an unqualified diversity hire if she's completely qualified.

You really need to check your racist tendencies friend. 

[BeachGuy23 642]

Just now, Reality said:

What a massive crock of shlt this entire thing is. You know it's bad when this is the best they can do. This will literally only push more people to vote for Trump.

Nice work libs.

Surely.  Who doesn't want to vote for a guy who's caught 90+ indictments, who had to pay massive fines for his scam college and charity.  Who sexually assaulted at least one woman and who paid off a porn star.  Surely intelligent and reasonable people will eagerly vote for that guy.

LOL