Current Events > Trump Trials General Part 17: Trump Won't Be Around for Long

(+) Yeah! (+)

his hair is looking more grey than usual

thronedfire2 posted...

his hair is looking more grey than usual

and thinner

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1785399742014386676

DoesntMatter posted...

and thinner

Some of it flew away the other day

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4631023-stefanik-jack-smith-ethics-complaint/

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) filed an ethics complaint against special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday, accusing the prosecutor overseeing the federal investigations into former President Trump of trying to unlawfully interfere with the 2024 presidential election.

Stefanik, the House GOP conference chair and a close Trump ally, filed the complaint with the Justice Departments Office of Professional Responsibility, arguing Smith is trying to rush Trumps federal election subversion case.

Its obvious to any reasonable observer that Jack Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election and stop the American people from electing Donald Trump, Stefanik said in a statement. At every turn, he has sought to accelerate his illegal prosecution of President Trump for the clear (if unstated) purpose of trying him before the November election.

Smith should be censured for violating the Justice Departments manual, she argues, citing a section that says attorneys may never select the timing of any action for the purpose of affecting any election.

So for those of you keeping sore:

• You can't try Trump before an election because that's election interference.
• You can't try Trump during his presidency because of standing DOJ guidelines.
• You can't try Trump after his presidency because presidents have total immunity.

Smith should be censured for violating the Justice Departments manual, she argues, citing a section that says attorneys may never select the timing of any action for the purpose of affecting any election.

In this case the ellipsis is doing most of the heavy lifting in her assertion.

I'm sure she can prove that to be the intent.
Lol

Here are some thoughts I have had. Rather than three posts, I am going to put all three in one.

-While it may seem that Trump getting fined $9,000 isn't that much it could be very serious and have dire consequences for him. By being found in criminal contempt that would mean Trump has broken the law which also means that he has violated the terms of his bond agreements in the Washington DC case, the Mar-a-Lago case, and the Georgia case. That means any of the other judges could revoke bond and order him to be remanded until trial. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Smith files a motion with both Chutkan and Cannon and I suspect Willis will also file her own motion with McAfee.

-Trump being unindicted co-conspirator in Arizona may actually set him up to commit other crimes. I could see him being forced to testify. There would be a high probability that at some point Trump would perjure himself. I know perjury is not the same as election interference, but it wouldn't be a bad consultation prize.

-It seems that the technique being used in the Manhattan case is to have it so that Cohen doesn't give much new information when he takes the stand. By the time we get to him the jurors will have heard nearly everything he says from several more credible witnesses. He won't be last but after he is done it won't be much longer before the prosecution is finished.

UltimateWing posted...

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1785362154117570765

What is he doing here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klVhwlwHhY4

UltimateWing posted...

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1785362154117570765

What is he doing here?

This:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/811c66fe.jpg

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1785511984852517259

darkace77450 posted...

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1785511984852517259

Does anyone know how many this is now?

I forgot it's Wednesday, so no court today.

I do expect the law firm probably saw Trump not listening to advice, or not producing discovery when his lawyers wanted .

In other Trump-related news, DC Bar panel excoriated Jeff Clark in their discipline recommendation. Process isn't done yet; this is just a recommendation to the full Board for the DC Bar.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/trump-coup-lawyer-jeff-clark-absolutely-scorched-in-dc-bar-finding

ThePieReborn posted...

In other Trump-related news, DC Bar panel excoriated Jeff Clark in their discipline recommendation. Process isn't done yet; this is just a recommendation to the full Board for the DC Bar.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/trump-coup-lawyer-jeff-clark-absolutely-scorched-in-dc-bar-finding

Aren't we also waking for the full board for the DC bar to make a decision about Rudy Giuliani? Any idea how long that typically takes?

CableZL posted...

Aren't we also waking for the full board for the DC bar to make a decision about Rudy Giuliani? Any idea how long that typically takes?

I believe so. His license was suspended and a recommendation to disbar was filed back in July

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/07/disciplinary-panel-calls-for-rudy-giulianis-disbarment-00105220

And here's a very recent (only a week old!) summary article of all his various legal woes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/04/25/rudy-giulianis-mounting-legal-trouble-here-are-all-the-issues-trump-attorney-faces-amid-arizona-indictment/?sh=3a60b1fc2a9d

CableZL posted...

Aren't we also waking for the full board for the DC bar to make a decision about Rudy Giuliani? Any idea how long that typically takes?

I believe so after a quick search. I'm not sure how long it takes. My state is fairly quick, as it's about a year to a year and a half on attorney complaints.

mystic_belmont posted...

I forgot it's Wednesday, so no court today.

I do expect the law firm probably saw Trump not listening to advice, or not producing discovery when his lawyers wanted .

Aw, when there was no court Monday I though it would be in place of Wednesday

Just finished reading through the DC Bar panel's recommendation. It outlined the entire play-by-play of Clark's efforts to interfere. He basically attempted to usurp Rosen's authority as Acting Attorney General.

The panel recommended disbarment and refused to consider, or even entertain, a lesser sanction.

ThePieReborn posted...

Just finished reading through the DC Bar panel's recommendation. It outlined the entire play-by-play of Clark's efforts to interfere. He basically attempted to usurp Rosen's authority as Acting Attorney General.

The panel recommended disbarment and refused to consider, or even entertain, a lesser sanction.

I haven't read the recommendation, but that's my understanding from what I remember of the January 6th Select Committee's report and reading through Liz Cheney's and Cassidy Hutchinson's books.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawyers-larocca-hornik-aj-delgado-lawsuit-manhattan-1895983

A law firm wants to withdraw from representing Donald Trump, citing a breakdown in relations, court documents show.

In a filing to a Manhattan court, the law firmLaRocca, Hornik, Greenberg, Rosen, Kittridge, Carlin and McPartlandsaid there had been an "irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship."

The firm, which has represented Trump and his election campaign for several years, had been defending the former president in a lawsuit filed by A.J. Delgado, Trump's former senior advisor who said she was fired after she became pregnant by her supervisor during the 2016 presidential campaign. She was Trump's director of Hispanic outreach at the time.

Delgado is suing the Trump campaign and Trump's former advisers Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer, claiming gender and pregnancy discrimination. All the defendants have denied any wrongdoing in the case.

Lol

darkace77450 posted...

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4631023-stefanik-jack-smith-ethics-complaint/

And of course, she fails to mention Trump delaying his own trials when people have been trying to prosecute him for years.

Bob Odenkirk's no doubt getting a phone call today.

"...Hello? Oh, uh...no, sorry, Mr. Trump, I, uh, can't represent you. That's just a character I play on TV."

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

And of course, she fails to mention Trump delaying his own trials when people have been trying to prosecute him for years.

If Trump hadn't delayed his trials so they happened during the election season, than they wouldn't be happening during an election season.

GTA1984 posted...

While it may seem that Trump getting fined $9,000 isn't that much it could be very serious and have dire consequences for him. By being found in criminal contempt that would mean Trump has broken the law which also means that he has violated the terms of his bond agreements in the Washington DC case, the Mar-a-Lago case, and the Georgia case. That means any of the other judges could revoke bond and order him to be remanded until trial. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Smith files a motion with both Chutkan and Cannon and I suspect Willis will also file her own motion with McAfee.

Yep, I've heard former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner point this out as well. I think at least Willis will pursue it.

GTA1984 posted...

Trump being unindicted co-conspirator in Arizona may actually set him up to commit other crimes. I could see him being forced to testify. There would be a high probability that at some point Trump would perjure himself. I know perjury is not the same as election interference, but it wouldn't be a bad consultation prize.

That would be amazing because he would 100% perjure himself on the stand.

GTA1984 posted...

It seems that the technique being used in the Manhattan case is to have it so that Cohen doesn't give much new information when he takes the stand. By the time we get to him the jurors will have heard nearly everything he says from several more credible witnesses. He won't be last but after he is done it won't be much longer before the prosecution is finished.

Yep, I heard 2 lawyers talking about how this is the way to get around his credibility issues/lying previously in a court case (which Trump's defense is going to bring up), by having credible witnesses saying the exact same thing and when Cohen comes in he's just further corroborating it as well as the fact that he's been convicted in regards to this very case already when he lied.

darkace77450 posted...

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4631023-stefanik-jack-smith-ethics-complaint/

Honestly, they can just point to the days. They got the documents back in August, he announced he was running in November.

He chose to run while being investigated.

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1785839846256456173

At a Wisconsin rally Trump likely committed another possible gag order violation. This time it was the one in Washington DC by attacking Cassidy Hutchinson who is a likely witness in the DC trial.

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1785807481480114536

GTA1984 posted...

At a Wisconsin rally Trump likely committed another possible gag order violation. This time it was the one in Washington DC by attacking Cassidy Hutchinson who is a likely witness in the DC trial.

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1785807481480114536

Why is this doofus allowed to travel freely? People who steal cars get put on GPS house arrest and this mofo tried to steal an election and gets to fuck off to Wisconsin to try to steal another one.

Is it any wonder anyone has any faith at all even if convicted he'll actually face consequences beyond financial ones?

I think future trials need to warn Trump ahead of time that violating gag orders won't be fines, but will be jail time. He knows the consequences, he's paid for them.

He stops once the threat of jail time comes up.

mystic_belmont posted...

I think future trials need to warn Trump ahead of time that violating gag orders won't be fines, but will be jail time. He knows the consequences, he's paid for them.

He stops once the threat of jail time comes up.

Unless getting himself tossed behind bars for a couple days and milking it to his base is his goal.

Cory898 posted...

Unless getting himself tossed behind bars for a couple days and milking it to his base is his goal.

Trump doesn't want to go to jail. He may on the outside say he wants it, but he really doesn't.

Blanche just entered Cohen's "Von Shitzenpantz" tweet into the record

CNN's Jake Tapper just read live on air a portion of the court transcript in which Trump is referred to as "Von Shits-In-Pants" by one of the witnesses. I hope Trump is seething.

Yep. If he wants it, then give it to him. We can't make his already dumb and zealous base MORE dumb and MORE zealous.

It makes no sense to not put Trump in jail temporarily because they're scared of his cultists.

Either he faces consequences, or he doesn't.

mystic_belmont posted...

I think future trials need to warn Trump ahead of time that violating gag orders won't be fines, but will be jail time. He knows the consequences, he's paid for them.

He stops once the threat of jail time comes up.

"If you violate this gag order, I will throw you in jail for contempt of court. Do you understand, Mr. Trump?"

That isn't hard, is it?

Cory898 posted...

Unless getting himself tossed behind bars for a couple days and milking it to his base is his goal.

He may think he wants to go to jail, but I promise you one night behind bars would straighten him up (unless he's given special accommodations others wouldn't receive).

Blanche's defense of Trump's gag order violations is so pathetic. "Sure, he made wild and outrageous claims that 95% of the jury were leftist thugs, but he didn't say any INDIVIDUAL jury member was a leftist thug!"

Merchan is going to eat his lunch

Euripides posted...

Merchan is going to eat his lunch

And then he's going to fine his client an insignificant amount of money, and we'll be back here doing it again next Thursday.

darkace77450 posted...

And then he's going to fine his client an insignificant amount of money, and we'll be back here doing it again next Thursday.

His hands are tied in terms of the fines. He's levying the highest fine he's allowed to by law

i mean i think you just acknowledge that he continues to cause harm so long as he has access to social media and that fines aren't any kind of deterrent for him.

Isnt there a way in the constitution that can be discovered to prohibit Trump from gaining office again?

after thinking about it kinda worried what the world will be in if he does

OriginalPlain2 posted...

Isnt there a way in the constitution that can be discovered to prohibit Trump from gaining office again?

after thinking about it kinda worried what the world will be in if he does

Yes, during either of his impeachments the Senate could have voted to convict and to bar him from ever serving in public office again. But aside from a few exceptions Senate Republicans refused to do so.

I think Merchan sentencing him to incarceration but deferring it until after the trial.

Trump would probably lock himself up through election day.

divot1338 posted...

I think Merchan sentencing him to incarceration but deferring it until after the trial.

Trump would probably lock himself up through election day.

I like this, since Merchan can also dictate that if Trump wants to appeal it, he can do after the trial.

Euripides posted...

His hands are tied in terms of the fines. He's levying the highest fine he's allowed to by law

The judge should then levy a much higher fine than the law allows and claim judges should have total immunity from consequences on unlawful fines because otherwise judges would forever be afraid to pass large sentences.

OriginalPlain2 posted...

Isnt there a way in the constitution that can be discovered to prohibit Trump from gaining office again?

after thinking about it kinda worried what the world will be in if he does

Yea. Would be pretty cool if we had the Supreme Court actually interpret the constitution correctly.