Update on Trump Legal Cases

[silverscreenselect]

Here's someone WITH EVIDENCE explaining how the court system doesn't work in examining evidence of election fraud.

He has been at it for 3 years, up against the brick walls built by the conflicted, corrupt and clueless politicians every step of the way. Our elections are supposed to be transparent, but in actuality, they are not even close to being transparent. And, surprise, at the end even the attorney representing the state admits Raffensperger is corrupt.

This is an example of the 60 ubiquitous court cases trollboy loves to cite. They do NOT WANT to examine evidence. The powers that be block it at every turn.

Once again, you fail to recognize the distinction between evidence that a court accepts as fact after examination and cross-examination and presenting of opposing testimony and something that has repeatedly been rejected by fact finders. In almost every court case, both sides present evidence. The court then decides which evidence to believe. I covered malpractice cases in which both sides brought in expert doctors who stated what the defendants did or did not do correctly. That's evidence on both sides. The court then decides which evidence to believe. 60 courts have rejected this type of evidence before.None have accepted it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's someone WITH EVIDENCE explaining how the court system doesn't work in examining evidence of election fraud.

He has been at it for 3 years, up against the brick walls built by the conflicted, corrupt and clueless politicians every step of the way. Our elections are supposed to be transparent, but in actuality, they are not even close to being transparent. And, surprise, at the end even the attorney representing the state admits Raffensperger is corrupt.

This is an example of the 60 ubiquitous court cases trollboy loves to cite. They do NOT WANT to examine evidence. The powers that be block it at every turn.

Once again, you fail to recognize the distinction between evidence that a court accepts as fact after examination and cross-examination and presenting of opposing testimony and something that has repeatedly been rejected by fact finders. In almost every court case, both sides present evidence. The court then decides which evidence to believe. I covered malpractice cases in which both sides brought in expert doctors who stated what the defendants did or did not do correctly. That's evidence on both sides. The court then decides which evidence to believe. 60 courts have rejected this type of evidence before.None have accepted it.

Once again, you ignore the obvious fact that the elected officials are the ones that are blocking, putting up barriers and stonewalling any access to the actual data or documents that can confirm or deny any 'widespread' fraud. And, they actively fight and deny the rights of citizens to get that information, either by ignoring legal requests for it or destroying the evidence. And if you think these courts are not affected by the politics of it, you are naive as you are partisan.

But you have to have your troll. Don't think, just contradict.

[silverscreenselect]

Trump goes 0 for 2 in court today:

1) Judge McAfee in Georgia refused to dismiss charges against Trump on the grounds that his statements were protected by the First Amendment free speech clause. He said that the question of Trump's intent when making the statements was for the jury to decide.

2) Judge Merchan in the New York hush money trial denied Trump's motion to delay the trial on the grounds of Presidential Immunity because Trump waited too late to file the motion.

[jarnon]

She took another motion under advisement where Trump claimed he had the authority to label the classified documents as his "personal" documents.

Today Judge Cannon denied that motion too.

[flockofseagulls104]

Lawfare is not limited to Donald Trump.

It has been used against John Eastman (they just took away his ability to practice law in California, while partisan hacks like booby remain). They are also trying to do the same to Jeffrey Clark. The end game is to have any lawyer think twice about questioning the elections or election system.

Here is Mark Wingate, a Fulton County Election Board member, testifying in behalf of Clark that NO signature verification was done on mail-in ballots in 2020. And no chain of custody or surveillance tapes for drop boxes could be provided to him. This is an election board member, testifying under oath. He did not vote for certification of the election. This is evidence.

So they are trying to disbar any prominent attorney who questioned the 2020 election in any way, even though there ARE VALID QUESTIONS about it. But, as they did in Eastman's case, they will ignore the obvious evidence and probably disbar him. Because there are a lot of boobys that get themselves in position to do things like this.

[silverscreenselect]

So they are trying to disbar any prominent attorney who questioned the 2020 election in any way, even though there ARE VALID QUESTIONS about it. But, as they did in Eastman's case, they will ignore the obvious evidence and probably disbar him.

No, they didn't ignore the evidence; they chose not to credit it after considering all the evidence in these matters. And there's plenty of actual evidence that Trump, Eastman, and the rest knew their claims were false when they made them, unlike gullible fools like you. And that's why they're being disbarred.

[flockofseagulls104]

So they are trying to disbar any prominent attorney who questioned the 2020 election in any way, even though there ARE VALID QUESTIONS about it. But, as they did in Eastman's case, they will ignore the obvious evidence and probably disbar him.

No, they didn't ignore the evidence; they chose not to credit it after considering all the evidence in these matters. And there's plenty of actual evidence that Trump, Eastman, and the rest knew their claims were false when they made them, unlike gullible fools like you. And that's why they're being disbarred.

"The evidence of election fraud is so overwhelming, which includes thousands of affidavits, plenty of video clips showing it happening, countless provable lies by our SOS office about supposedly investigating it and being caught lying about a recorded call, no honest, informed objective and sane person could conclude it doesn’t exist.

The true conspiracy theorists are those who think thousands of poll watchers, hundreds of state officials, lawyers and voter rights groups all conspired to fabricate from whole cloth the suggestion there was election fraud.

It’s astonishing to me to see the election fraud deniers, faced with mountains of evidence to the contrary, still insist there is nothing to see here."

[silverscreenselect]

no honest, informed objective and sane person could conclude it doesn’t exist.

Yet 60 courts did conclude it didn't exist, as contrasted with zero courts that concluded it did. And those courts were in red states, blue states, Democratic judges, Republican judges, and non-partisan judges. They were all unanimous.

And if you'd bother to follow the evidence unearthed by the January 6 commission, you'd realize that there was a concerted and coordinated effort led by people like Eastman, Clark, and Sidney Phillips to manufacture fraud claims, none of which held up in court.

That's why Trump and many of his buddies are on trial in Georgia on racketeering conspiracy charges.

[flockofseagulls104]

the evidence unearthed by the January 6 commission

As opposed to the evidence they suppressed, ignored and destroyed?

[jarnon]

Jack Smith has filed a brief opposing Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution, ahead of the April 25 Supreme Court oral arguments.

Interestingly, an eclectic bunch of citizens filed briefs of their own. Some of those supporting Smith:

• John Danforth, Ty Cobb, Bill Weld and other former government officials
• Lawrence Tribe and other law professors
• The Puerto Rico House of Representatives
• Retired military leaders
• Common Cause
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
• Public Citizen
• American Civil Liberties Union

Supporting Trump:

• Twenty-one states
• National Republican Senatorial Committee
• Senators Steve Daines and Roger Marshall and twenty-six members of Congress
• American Center for Law and Justice
• United States Justice Foundation
• State Republican parties
• Former Attorney General Meese, two law professors, and Citizens United (presenting the unique argument that the appointment of a special prosecutor like Smith is not legal)

The briefs are all available here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 3-939.html

[silverscreenselect]

Donald Trump filed another motion with the New York appellate court to have Judge Juan Merchan removed from his hush money case set to begin next Monday and to delay the trial so he can file for a change of venue. In what may be a record, even for Donald Trump, the court denied his motion in an order issued either 45 minutes or two hours after the hearing. (Reports vary on the time.) In any event, this appears to be the last motion Trump can file before the jury selection starts next week.

I also understand that they will use an expedited form of jury selection. Prospective jurors have already filled out questionnaires, and those who indicate on the forms they already have an opinion in the case (which is probably a lot of people) will not be required to show up Monday in person.

[silverscreenselect]

In Georgia, attorneys for Trump and other co-defendants have asked Judge McAfee to allow them to seek an appeal on his decision not to dismiss the case on the grounds that Trump's statements were protected by the First Amendment. If the judge allows the appeal, they can then attempt to get the Court of Appeals to accept the case. The DA's office yesterday filed its opposition to the earlier motion to the Court of Appeals to hear its decision to disqualify Fani Willis. If the Court of Appeals takes up either appeal, it would delay the trial by several months at least.

[silverscreenselect]

For the third time this week, Trump tried to get a New York appeals court to delay his hush money trial, this time on the grounds that the judge should recuse himself.

And for the third time this week, he lost in just a few minutes, apparently the time it took the judge to type up the order denying his motion.

[silverscreenselect]

State prosecutor Pete Skandalakis, head of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, has been named to head the investigation into whether Lt. Gov. Burt Jones should be charged in connection with the Trump RICO conspiracy case. Jones was one of Trump's fake Georgia electors, several of whom were charged previously (or cut immunity deals with the prosecution). However, another Fulton County judge determined that Willis could not prosecute Jones because she had held a fundraiser for one of Jones's Democratic opponents before the 2022 election. The appointment of Skadalakis does not mean Jones will be charged, but that a grand jury may do so. His trial, if any, would be held separately from the rest of the Trump Georgia defendants.

[silverscreenselect]

It's showtime, folks.

[Ritterskoop]

It's showtime, folks.

I think jury selection is gonna take a really long time.

[silverscreenselect]

It's showtime, folks.

I think jury selection is gonna take a really long time.

Maybe not. They have now selected (and sworn in) six jurors and have six more plus six alternates to go. The judge has told these six to report back Monday, which is probably when the trial will start. The judge came up with a fairly streamlined process that essentially allowed people to opt out on their say-so alone, rather than the judge questioning them to determine if they were just looking for an excuse or had a legitimate bias. Another factor is the limited number of preemptory challenges each side has (10 each). That's very low for a case of this magnitude. A preemptory challenge allows one side to eliminate a juror without showing any cause and often occurs because they get a "bad vibe" about a juror. So far, the prosecution has used four challenges and the defense six. As the number of preemptory challenges left dwindles, attorneys are reluctant to use them in case they run out before "the juror from Hell" shows up.

Trump's attorneys are also bringing up social media posts from some of the jurors to show bias. That strategy has met with mixed success so far.

[silverscreenselect]

They ended the day with seven jurors chosen and each side having four preemptory challenges left. The court will not meet tomorrow, but there's a very good chance they could finish this week. CNN has information about the seven jurors selected. The most interesting is a civil litigator who reads The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and New York Post. That's a good cross-section of media.

[jarnon]

We used to have electronic voting machines in my county in Pennsylvania. A few years ago, we switched to paper ballots that we mark with Trump’s favorite implement, a Sharpie. They’re counted by tabulating machines (like old SATs and audition tests) that aren’t connected to the Internet. Haven’t you improved voting technology in Georgia?

No, too much money and political capital at stake. I congratulate your county, but unfortunately, the rest of your state has the same problems that we have in Georgia.

This guy agrees with you: Princeton election expert warned legislators about a commonly used computer voting system And SSS can’t delegitimize him as a right-wing kook.

[Pastor Fireball]

They ended the day with seven jurors chosen

It's six now. One was dismissed this morning.

[silverscreenselect]

They ended the day with seven jurors chosen

It's six now. One was dismissed this morning.

And now it's down to five. This morning one woman said that after thinking about it, she wasn't sure if she could be impartial. That occurred after some relatives contacted her after guessing she'd been chosen. Reading between the lines, she might be worried that if her relatives could find her, so could nutcases. The second juror apparently wasn't honest about his arrest record, and the prosecution asked he come back after they turned up evidence he'd been arrested in the 90s for tearing down political posters. The judge did admonish the press about revealing too much information about the jurors, and their employment records won't be made public in any way anymore.

There are two big hearings coming up in the case. Tomorrow, they're holding what they call a Sandoval hearing which is required in New York. There the prosecutors tell the court what lines of questioning they may use to impeach Trump if he testifies. They can't mention the E. Jean Carroll or $450 million fraud case if Trump doesn't testify, but they want to impeach him by bringing those trials up to show he's a liar if he should testify. The judge will decide what goes in or what stays. Then on Tuesday, there will be a hearing to see whether Trump will be held in contempt for violating the gag order. The judge could warn Trump about being imprisoned (that's what happened to Sam Bankman-Fried who violated his pretrial gag order) or impose stiffer fines.

[BackInTex]

They ended the day with seven jurors chosen

It's six now. One was dismissed this morning.

And now it's down to five. This morning one woman said that after thinking about it, she wasn't sure if she could be impartial. That occurred after some relatives contacted her after guessing she'd been chosen. Reading between the lines, she might be worried that if her relatives could find her, so could nutcases. The second juror apparently wasn't honest about his arrest record, and the prosecution asked he come back after they turned up evidence he'd been arrested in the 90s for tearing down political posters. The judge did admonish the press about revealing too much information about the jurors, and their employment records won't be made public in any way anymore.

There are two big hearings coming up in the case. Tomorrow, they're holding what they call a Sandoval hearing which is required in New York. There the prosecutors tell the court what lines of questioning they may use to impeach Trump if he testifies. They can't mention the E. Jean Carroll or $450 million fraud case if Trump doesn't testify, but they want to impeach him by bringing those trials up to show he's a liar if he should testify. The judge will decide what goes in or what stays. Then on Tuesday, there will be a hearing to see whether Trump will be held in contempt for violating the gag order. The judge could warn Trump about being imprisoned (that's what happened to Sam Bankman-Fried who violated his pretrial gag order) or impose stiffer fines.

Unbelievable this is happening in this country. Sad that folks like you and Bob see nothing wrong with it.

[wbtravis007]

It's six now. One was dismissed this morning.

And now it's down to five. This morning one woman said that after thinking about it, she wasn't sure if she could be impartial. That occurred after some relatives contacted her after guessing she'd been chosen. Reading between the lines, she might be worried that if her relatives could find her, so could nutcases. The second juror apparently wasn't honest about his arrest record, and the prosecution asked he come back after they turned up evidence he'd been arrested in the 90s for tearing down political posters. The judge did admonish the press about revealing too much information about the jurors, and their employment records won't be made public in any way anymore.

There are two big hearings coming up in the case. Tomorrow, they're holding what they call a Sandoval hearing which is required in New York. There the prosecutors tell the court what lines of questioning they may use to impeach Trump if he testifies. They can't mention the E. Jean Carroll or $450 million fraud case if Trump doesn't testify, but they want to impeach him by bringing those trials up to show he's a liar if he should testify. The judge will decide what goes in or what stays. Then on Tuesday, there will be a hearing to see whether Trump will be held in contempt for violating the gag order. The judge could warn Trump about being imprisoned (that's what happened to Sam Bankman-Fried who violated his pretrial gag order) or impose stiffer fines.

Unbelievable this is happening in this country. Sad that folks like you and Bob see nothing wrong with it.

Probably don’t need to worry your pretty little head about it. All he needs is one person on the jury who doesn’t care what the laws are or the evidence shows to vote for his acquittal.

Chances are pretty good that someone like you in that respect is on the jury.

Course, he’s still going to act like a jackass every day for quite awhile, which won’t help his chances in the election. So, that’ll be good.

[BackInTex]

Unbelievable this is happening in this country. Sad that folks like you and Bob see nothing wrong with it.

Probably don’t need to worry your pretty little head about it. All he needs is one person on the jury who doesn’t care what the laws are or the evidence shows to vote for his acquittal.

Chances are pretty good that someone like you in that respect is on the jury.

Course, he’s still going to act like a jackass every day for quite awhile, which won’t help his chances in the election. So, that’ll be good.

Well, the prosecuter doesn't care about the law. It's a sham. You can say it's legit. Lie to yourself and everyone else. It's what you do.

As far as helping or hurting Trump's election chances, this trial is doing nothing but improve his chances. Thinking folks actually understand why this is happenig and that it's not right and that the alternative to Trump is behind it, thus the alternative is no better than the thugs that run Cuba, Russia, Venezuala or other countries liberals think are better than the US.

[tlynn78]

Unbelievable this is happening in this country. Sad that folks like you and Bob see nothing wrong with it.

Probably don’t need to worry your pretty little head about it. All he needs is one person on the jury who doesn’t care what the laws are or the evidence shows to vote for his acquittal.

Chances are pretty good that someone like you in that respect is on the jury.

Course, he’s still going to act like a jackass every day for quite awhile, which won’t help his chances in the election. So, that’ll be good.

Well, the prosecuter doesn't care about the law. It's a sham. You can say it's legit. Lie to yourself and everyone else. It's what you do.

As far as helping or hurting Trump's election chances, this trial is doing nothing but improve his chances. Thinking folks actually understand why this is happenig and that it's not right and that the alternative to Trump is behind it, thus the alternative is no better than the thugs that run Cuba, Russia, Venezuala or other countries liberals think are better than the US.

Yes, I'm thinking wb is getting his legal acumen from the bored's "experts." What they're doing is absolute rot, and most thinking people know it.