Update on Trump Legal Cases

[tlynn78]

Trump appeals immunity decision

How quickly and what the Supreme Court decides will determine the timing of the Oct. 7 trial.

Trump charged for the attack on Israel? I didn’t expect that.

That'll be next..

[silverscreenselect]

1) Judge Scott McAfee has ordered Nathan Wade's former law partner Terrence Bradley to testify about some communications he had with Wade, saying they were not covered by attorney-client privilege. Bradley is expected to testify tomorrow afternoon (which would be televised, as all the Georgia Trump proceedings will be). The defense attorneys hope that Bradley will indicated Wade informed him his relationship with DA Willis started before he was appointed special prosecutor in the case. If the judge credits that testimony, he could find that Willis and Wade lied under oath about their relationship.

2) The Manhattan District Attorney has asked the judge for a gag order on Trump in the upcoming hush money trial scheduled to begin at the end of March. The order would prohibit Trump from making statements about potential witnesses or jurors or to harass the court staff, prosecution staff or their families. He's also asked the court for permission to introduce the Access Hollywood tape into evidence where Trump talked about grabbing women by their p.... They claim that the original release of this footage in 2016 plus allegations of sexual assault against Trump led him to hatch the hush money scheme originally.

[Bob78164]

1) Judge Scott McAfee has ordered Nathan Wade's former law partner Terrence Bradley to testify about some communications he had with Wade, saying they were not covered by attorney-client privilege. Bradley is expected to testify tomorrow afternoon (which would be televised, as all the Georgia Trump proceedings will be). The defense attorneys hope that Bradley will indicated Wade informed him his relationship with DA Willis started before he was appointed special prosecutor in the case. If the judge credits that testimony, he could find that Willis and Wade lied under oath about their relationship.

2) The Manhattan District Attorney has asked the judge for a gag order on Trump in the upcoming hush money trial scheduled to begin at the end of March. The order would prohibit Trump from making statements about potential witnesses or jurors or to harass the court staff, prosecution staff or their families. He's also asked the court for permission to introduce the Access Hollywood tape into evidence where Trump talked about grabbing women by their p.... They claim that the original release of this footage in 2016 plus allegations of sexual assault against Trump led him to hatch the hush money scheme originally.

It bears noting that under the order requested by the New York County District Attorney's office, Donny would still be able to say anything he wants about Alvin Bragg himself. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Another damn election denier!

Needs to be prosecuted and bankrupted.

[jarnon]

Another damn election denier!

Needs to be prosecuted and bankrupted.

(I thought there was another topic about hacked voting machines. I’ll respond here anyway.)

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?

[flockofseagulls104]

Another damn election denier!

Needs to be prosecuted and bankrupted.

(I thought there was another topic about hacked voting machines. I’ll respond here anyway.)

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. The Georgia legislature is trying to push through bandaids that don't address the major issues and political stooges like Brad Raffensperger are in full denial of tons of evidence of extreme vulnerability and maladministration. Georgia is not a swing state, like the MSM tells you. We have two counties that are completely controlled by the democrat 'progressives' (Election Robbers), Fulton and DeKalb, and a few more where they are creeping into and establishing their tentacles, like Cobb and Gwinnett. The absolute control of the election process by these counties is why Georgia is not completely red.

[Bob78164]

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?

As sss explained not very long ago, when he cast his vote, he received a voter-verifiable paper trail recording his vote. --Bob

[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?

As sss explained not very long ago, when he cast his vote, he received a voter-verifiable paper trail recording his vote. --Bob

However, Flock wrote that the tabulating machine only reads a QR code on the paper, which is meaningless to the voter, so there’s plenty of opportunity for shenanigans.

[silverscreenselect]

The Supreme Court has granted cert in Trump's immunity claim in his Washington federal case. Oral arguments are set for April 22. (Supreme Court oral arguments are not televised but live audio is available.) The Court may hold its decision for the last week in the term, when they typically release their major opinions for the term. Or they may expedite it and issue an opinion in early May. In the latter case, assuming they reject Trump's claim, the trial could start by the end of the summer.

The New York appellate court has rejected Trump's motion to post a bond of only $100 million instead of the full amount in his civil fraud trial appeal. If Trump doesn't post that $455 million bond by March 25, the state can begin levying on his properties.

And a trial court judge in Illinois has adopted the reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court; and removed Trump from the Illinois ballot based on the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court decision on the Colorado case will probably determine whether that decision will stand.

[jarnon]

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend on MSNBC. They contend that conservative judges, from the Supreme Court on down, have a predisposition to take Trump’s side. One pundit railed that the courts have abandoned fairness and are totally partisan. A legal analyst argued that Alito and Thomas are desperate for a Republican president so they can retire instead of dying on the bench.

(This position is the mirror image of Fox News’ contention that special counsel Hur and Weiss’s investigations of the Bidens are a sham, and they’re really following Garland’s hidden agenda to clear the Bidens and prosecute their accusers.)

Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t swallow that argument. Yes, conservative judges generally agree with Trump on policy matters. But in the criminal cases, MSNBC would have you believe that those judges are more lenient to Trump than they would be to a Democrat who commits the same offenses. That would subvert the rule of law and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. I still believe that judges are more ethical than that.

[Bob78164]

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend on MSNBC. They contend that conservative judges, from the Supreme Court on down, have a predisposition to take Trump’s side. One pundit railed that the courts have abandoned fairness and are totally partisan. A legal analyst argued that Alito and Thomas are desperate for a Republican president so they can retire instead of dying on the bench.

(This position is the mirror image of Fox News’ contention that special counsel Hur and Weiss’s investigations of the Bidens are a sham, and they’re really following Garland’s hidden agenda to clear the Bidens and prosecute their accusers.)

Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t swallow that argument. Yes, conservative judges generally agree with Trump on policy matters. But in the criminal cases, MSNBC would have you believe that those judges are more lenient to Trump than they would be to a Democrat who commits the same offenses. That would subvert the rule of law and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. I still believe that judges are more ethical than that.

The Supreme Court (or at least its Republican caucus) does seem to be making an effort to drag out its proceedings long enough that it becomes difficult or impossible to complete Donny's trial before the election. Judge Cannon in Florida has already gotten slapped down once for her tactics by a rather conservative appellate court, but she seems to be balking at scheduling that trial before the election.

I do think there are still judges on both sides who believe in and try to apply the rule of law. But I'm no longer confident that's true of a majority of the Supreme Court. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend on MSNBC. They contend that conservative judges, from the Supreme Court on down, have a predisposition to take Trump’s side. One pundit railed that the courts have abandoned fairness and are totally partisan. A legal analyst argued that Alito and Thomas are desperate for a Republican president so they can retire instead of dying on the bench.

(This position is the mirror image of Fox News’ contention that special counsel Hur and Weiss’s investigations of the Bidens are a sham, and they’re really following Garland’s hidden agenda to clear the Bidens and prosecute their accusers.)

Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t swallow that argument. Yes, conservative judges generally agree with Trump on policy matters. But in the criminal cases, MSNBC would have you believe that those judges are more lenient to Trump than they would be to a Democrat who commits the same offenses. That would subvert the rule of law and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. I still believe that judges are more ethical than that.

The Supreme Court (or at least its Republican caucus) does seem to be making an effort to drag out its proceedings long enough that it becomes difficult or impossible to complete Donny's trial before the election. Judge Cannon in Florida has already gotten slapped down once for her tactics by a rather conservative appellate court, but she seems to be balking at scheduling that trial before the election.

I do think there are still judges on both sides who believe in and try to apply the rule of law. But I'm no longer confident that's true of a majority of the Supreme Court. --Bob

In your completely objective assessment, you seem to brush aside the fact that all of these lawfare shots at Trump could have been started long ago. Somehow, they seem to have all been coordinated to activate in the middle of election season. But nothing to see there, right, booby?

I do think there are still lawyers on both sides who believe in and try to apply the rule of law. But I'm no longer confident that's true of partisan above average lawyers.

[flockofseagulls104]

I don't think it's a big surprise to rational people.

The Supreme Court issues a unanimous decision that the lawfare assault on Trump is not going forward. At least not in the area of partisan TDS suffering shitheads that somehow get some power can try and kick him off the ballot.

9-0 without even a dissenting opinion.

Spin this one, trollboy and booby.

[silverscreenselect]

I don't think it's a big surprise to rational people.

The Supreme Court issues a unanimous decision that the lawfare assault on Trump is not going forward. At least not in the area of partisan TDS suffering shitheads that somehow get some power can try and kick him off the ballot.

9-0 without even a dissenting opinion.

Spin this one, trollboy and booby.

That decision was pretty much expected based on the way the oral argument went. But it wasn't just Bob#### and me who thought the 14th amendment should apply. A number of conservative legal scholars expressed the same opinion. Politically, it's probably best Trump is on the ballot. His supporters would already be rioting in the streets right now if he was kicked off the ballot.

[Bob78164]

That decision was pretty much expected based on the way the oral argument went. But it wasn't just Bob#### and me who thought the 14th amendment should apply. A number of conservative legal scholars expressed the same opinion. Politically, it's probably best Trump is on the ballot. His supporters would already be rioting in the streets right now if he was kicked off the ballot.

The Court didn't decide whether Donny is an oath-breaking insurrectionist. It decided only that state courts can't keep him off their states' ballots for being an oath-breaking insurrectionist. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

That decision was pretty much expected based on the way the oral argument went. But it wasn't just Bob#### and me who thought the 14th amendment should apply. A number of conservative legal scholars expressed the same opinion. Politically, it's probably best Trump is on the ballot. His supporters would already be rioting in the streets right now if he was kicked off the ballot.

The Court didn't decide whether Donny is an oath-breaking insurrectionist. It decided only that state courts can't keep him off their states' ballots for being an oath-breaking insurrectionist. --Bob

Only partisan, TDS-suffering shitheads think President Trump broke any oaths or had anything to do with an imaginary insurrection.

The spin I expected. They should have you guys on as guests on MSLSD.

[flockofseagulls104]

I don't think it's a big surprise to rational people.

The Supreme Court issues a unanimous decision that the lawfare assault on Trump is not going forward. At least not in the area of partisan TDS suffering shitheads that somehow get some power can try and kick him off the ballot.

9-0 without even a dissenting opinion.

Spin this one, trollboy and booby.

That decision was pretty much expected based on the way the oral argument went. But it wasn't just Bob#### and me who thought the 14th amendment should apply. A number of conservative legal scholars expressed the same opinion. Politically, it's probably best Trump is on the ballot. His supporters would already be rioting in the streets right now if he was kicked off the ballot.

The real riots will come when Trump wins in November. Antifa and the swamp are planning them as we speak.

[jarnon]

I don't think it's a big surprise to rational people.

The Supreme Court issues a unanimous decision that the lawfare assault on Trump is not going forward. At least not in the area of partisan TDS suffering shitheads that somehow get some power can try and kick him off the ballot.

9-0 without even a dissenting opinion.

Spin this one, trollboy and booby.

Here is the Court’s decision: Trump v. Anderson

The justices ruled unanimously that, while a state such as Colorado can decide if a candidate for state office violated the 14th Amendment, only the U.S. government can determine the eligibility of a federal candidate. Five of the justices stated more specifically that Congress should make that determination. The other four said that detail is outside the scope of this case.

Many other issues are left unresolved and will probably be addressed in future litigation:

• Does the amendment apply to a former president?
• Can an insurrectionist run for office, hoping that Congress will remove his disqualification?
• Did Donald Trump engage in an insurrection?

[silverscreenselect]

Former Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg pled guilty today to two felony counts of perjury in connection with the Trump civil fraud trials that resulted in a $350 million judgment. Judge Engoron specifically mentioned during his decision that he found Weisselberg's testimony in the case not to be credible. Weisselberg was originally charged with five counts of perjury but agreed to a plea deal. The two counts he pled to involve a deposition he gave to the state AG's office in 2020, although he has admitted to lying at trial. He will serve five months in prison under the terms of the deal.

[flockofseagulls104]

Former Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg pled guilty today to two felony counts of perjury in connection with the Trump civil fraud trials that resulted in a $350 million judgment. Judge Engoron specifically mentioned during his decision that he found Weisselberg's testimony in the case not to be credible. Weisselberg was originally charged with five counts of perjury but agreed to a plea deal. The two counts he pled to involve a deposition he gave to the state AG's office in 2020, although he has admitted to lying at trial. He will serve five months in prison under the terms of the deal.

IMHO more lawfare. We're going to throw the book and the kitchen sink at you unless you admit to something you didn't do. Then we'll let you off easy. Ala Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis.

[silverscreenselect]

Trump apparently has as much success overseas in court as he does here. He sued a British company founded by Christopher Steele for defamation claiming that the "Steele dossier" his company produced was fake. The trial court dismissed Trump's claim in February because the report was never intended to be made public (a necessary element for this type of suit in Great Britain). Now, the judge has awarded Steele's company $382,000 (300,000 pounds) in legal fees against Trump. A similar lawsuit filed by Trump in the United States was dismissed in 2022.

Also, yesterday, the judge in the E. Jean Carroll case denied Trump's latest request for a time extension to raise the necessary appeal bond money. The court said that Trump's time crunch in this case was due to his own delay tactics.

[silverscreenselect]

Also, yesterday, the judge in the E. Jean Carroll case denied Trump's latest request for a time extension to raise the necessary appeal bond money. The court said that Trump's time crunch in this case was due to his own delay tactics.

Trump has posted a $91+ million bond in the E. Jean Carroll case, so his appeal can continue for now without Carroll levying on his assets. A much larger bond is due on March 25 in the civil fraud trial. That's the same day his criminal hush money trial begins in New York.

[silverscreenselect]

Judge McAfee today dismissed six counts in the Georgia indictment against Trump and his co-defendants, three of which involve Trump. 35 counts remain, including 10 involving Trump. The dismissed counts would not result in removing any defendants from the case. The dismissed counts involved attempts to get various elected officials (including Brad Raffensperger in the infamous "find me 11,000 votes" call) to violate their oaths of office. The judge said those charges were not specific enough because they didn't indicate exactly how the defendants' conduct would cause officials to violate their oaths. The judge admitted that this was a fairly novel area of Georgia law. He went on to say that the acts that the defendants are alleged to have committed, including the Raffensperger call, were admissible as evidence regarding other charges, including the racketeering charge against all the defendants.

At this point, Willis has three options. She can proceed with the case on the remaining 35 counts, convene another grand jury to reindict on those six charges, or appeal the judge's decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals. Reindictment would probably delay the case 2-3 months, while an appeal could take six months or longer to resolve.

This decision relates to an earlier motion to dismiss filed by various defendants. Judge McAfee held a hearing on the motion in December but did not issue his ruling until today. Neither that motion nor his decision has any effect on the motion to remove Fani Willis from the case. However, I would think it means he's not inclined to grant the Willis disqualification motion, because that would severely compromise the state's ability to take further action on this decision. (A newly appointed special DA would have to make that decision.)

[flockofseagulls104]

However, I would think it means he's not inclined to grant the Willis disqualification motion, because that would severely compromise the state's ability to take further action on this decision. (A newly appointed special DA would have to make that decision.)

If the judge is basing his decisions on purely legal grounds, why would he consider what that decision has to do with the state's ability to do anything?
Are we admitting that justice is not truly blind to politics, or what?

[silverscreenselect]

However, I would think it means he's not inclined to grant the Willis disqualification motion, because that would severely compromise the state's ability to take further action on this decision. (A newly appointed special DA would have to make that decision.)

If the judge is basing his decisions on purely legal grounds, why would he consider what that decision has to do with the state's ability to do anything?
Are we admitting that justice is not truly blind to politics, or what?

No, this would be a purely legal decision, based on principles of judicial fairness. The state has no automatic right of appeal in this case. Instead, they have 10 days to file a request with Judge McAfee for a "certificate of immediate review," which would allow them to do so. Judge McAfee indicated he would be favorably inclined to issue such a certificate The state then has 10 days to file their notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals, which has the discretion whether or not to hear the appeal. The state's ability to consider its options would be severely hampered if Willis were disqualified now. The judge didn't have to issue the order today. He could have done so last month or next week.