TRUMP CONVICTED

printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Judge in Trump Georgia case orders hearing on Fani Willis misconduct accusations
The Georgia judge overseeing former President Trump’s criminal case scheduled a hearing next month to weigh accusations that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) hired her romantic partner as a top prosecutor on the case.

Judge Scott McAfee scheduled the hearing for Feb. 15 and directed Willis to respond to the allegations in writing by Feb. 2.

The accusation first surfaced last week in court papers filed by an attorney for Mike Roman, a Trump 2020 campaign operative who is one of the former president’s co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case. The filing did not contain any hard proof of the alleged relationship.

Roman said the purported relationship between Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade makes the indictment “fatally defective” and asked the judge to dismiss the charges. He also asked the judge to block the Fulton County district attorney’s office from further involvement in the case.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis speaks during a worship service at the Big Bethel AME Church, where she was invited as a guest speaker on Jan. 14, 2024, in Atlanta. (Miguel Martinez/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP)

During a church service earlier this week, Willis appeared to defend her hiring of Wade, without naming him, also insinuating that race had played a role in the criticisms.

Trump’s lead lawyer in Georgia, Steve Sadow, signaled last week that the former president might join Roman’s motion after Willis has had a chance to respond. Trump himself called for the case against him to be dropped, describing Willis as “totally compromised.”

The allegations have given Trump-allied Republicans more fodder to paint the district attorney’s case as corrupt and politically motivated.

A hearing in Wade’s ongoing divorce case, which Roman’s lawyer has said would yield evidence to support the claim, is scheduled for Jan. 31, two days before Willis is required to reply. The district attorney was subpoenaed in the divorce case the day the accusations went public, according to a court document obtained by The Hill.

Trump is charged alongside more than a dozen others — including Roman — with racketeering and other counts for allegedly entering a monthslong conspiracy to keep Trump unlawfully in power. It is one of four criminal indictments Trump, who pleaded not guilty, faces as he campaigns to return to the White House.

The Washington Post first reported the Feb. 15 hearing’s scheduling, which is slated for the same day that Trump and his legal team are expected to appear for a hearing in his hush money criminal case.
thehill.com

Judge in Trump Georgia case orders hearing on Fani Willis misconduct accusations

The Georgia judge overseeing former President Trump’s criminal case scheduled a hearing next month to weigh accusations that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) hired her romantic partn…
thehill.com thehill.com

So what is wrong? The boy toy leaking information to the government's side? How is it a conflict of interest?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
talk about picked cherries! I haven’t seen such bs since our Covid deniers went away.

"It is hard to imagine an actual insurrectionist quickly asking for peace and encouraging disbandment," the group writes, focusing on one of many actions Trump took that day to direct the crowd.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
"Trump Wins Big!"

At least that is how he will spin it.

Judge limits new filings in Trump Jan. 6 case but denied bid to hold special counsel in contempt
A federal judge will require special counsel Jack Smith to seek permission before making any additional filings in former President Trump’s case for election interference, a small victory for the former president as the court otherwise declined to advance a filing designed to hold prosecutors in contempt.

The effort from Trump to censure prosecutors came after Smith filed a motion seeking to bar the former president from making certain arguments in court. That filing came as Judge Tanya Chutkan had otherwise paused proceedings in the case as Trump appeals her order rejecting his arguments he is immune from prosecution as a former president.

While Chutkan’s order paused deadlines in the case, she found Thursday that other actions like turning over required evidence in the case did not violate her order to prohibit “any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant.”

“The Stay Order did not clearly and unambiguously prohibit the Government actions to which Defendant objects,” she wrote.

“On its own terms, then, the Stay Order’s key operative sentence did not clearly bar the Government from voluntary rather than obligatory compliance with the Pretrial Order’s now-stayed deadlines,” she said.

But Chutkan gave more scrutiny of Smith’s motion to limit certain arguments from Trump, writing that any new motion would impose some burden on Trump’s defense team.

“Diligent defense counsel will need to conduct a preliminary review of each substantive motion the Government files in order to know whether they need to take further action. While that is not a major burden, it is a cognizable one,” she wrote.

“Accordingly, the court will adopt Defendant’s recommendation that the parties be forbidden from filing any further substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave from the court.”

Both parties will now be required to first seek permission from the court, laying out whether their motion “is ancillary to the pending appeal and so requires a timely response or other action before the mandate is returned.”

Trump had asked Chutkan to go further, asking her to force prosecutors to justify why they should not be held in contempt or forced to withdraw their motions.

They also argued Smith should cover Trump’s legal costs for preparing the brief asking for Chutkan’s intervention.

Trump’s trial is largely on ice as he appeals Chutkan’s order rejecting his bid to dismiss the case on his immunity claims.

Trump last week appeared before a panel of appeals court judges who weighed the matter and sounded largely skeptical Trump still enjoys the immunity afforded to sitting presidents.

The panel has not yet ruled on the matter.
thehill.com

Judge limits new filings in Trump Jan. 6 case but denied bid to hold special counsel in contempt

A federal judge will require special counsel Jack Smith to seek permission before making any additional filings in former President Trump’s case for election interference, a small victory for the f…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Where to put? Supreme Court thread, My Judges, aw heck, I am here.

Trump urges Supreme Court to ‘put swift and decisive end’ to 14th Amendment challenges
Former President Trump told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the decision kicking him off Colorado’s ballot was based on a “dubious interpretation” of the 14th Amendment, urging the justices to reverse the ruling and terminate the dozens of challenges proceeding across the country.

“The Court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots,” Trump’s lawyers wrote to the justices.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Feb. 8 in the extraordinary case, which could dictate Trump’s political future in Colorado and his ability to remain on the ballot in states nationwide.

Anti-Trump groups and voters across the country have filed lawsuits seeking Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment, citing the former president’s actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

The Amendment prohibits someone from holding “any office … under the United States” if they “engaged in insurrection” after taking an oath to support the Constitution.

Trump filed his written brief in the case on Thursday, telling the justices he did not do anything that “remotely qualifies” as engaging in insurrection and that the ballot challenges should fail because of several other threshold issues.

“The fact remains President Trump did not commit or participate in the unlawful acts that occurred at the Capitol, and this Court cannot tolerate a regime that allows a candidate’s eligibility for office to hinge on a trial court’s assessment of dubious expert-witness testimony or claims that President Trump has powers of telepathy,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

But as they have long argued, Trump said the justices need not reach the contentious issue of whether Trump engaged in insurrection.

Trump urged the high court, which includes three justices he appointed, to instead rule that the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban does not apply to the presidency.

The former president also contended that the clause cannot be enforced without further legislation from Congress, among other arguments, all off-ramps that would keep Trump on the ballot without evaluating his actions surrounding Jan. 6.

Trump’s positions on those various threshold issues are backed by some legal scholars and nearly 200 Republican members of Congress, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who filed a friend-of-the-court brief earlier in the day supporting Trump.

Various Republican state attorneys general, the Republican National Committee and former officials like Trump-era Attorney General Bill Barr also filed briefs supporting the former president.

“The text of section 3 does not confer enforcement authority on state courts or state officials, and it does not specify a process for determining whether an individual has ‘engaged in insurrection’ and disqualified himself from holding an enumerated office,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to ‘enforce’ section 3 with ‘appropriate legislation.’”

The plaintiffs who originally challenged Trump’s ballot eligibility and other respondents in the case are due to file their briefs at the Supreme Court by Jan. 31, which is also likely to be accompanied by a large number of briefs from outside supporters.
thehill.com

Trump warns of ‘chaos and bedlam’ if states are allowed to drop him from ballots

Former President Trump told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the decision kicking him off Colorado’s ballot was based on a “dubious interpretation” of the 14th Amendment, urging the justices to r…
thehill.com thehill.com

"powers of telepathy"

You mean knowing events somewhere else in real time? Like on TV? On the phone talking to someone who knows what is going on?
 
Last edited:
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
printer said:
Where to put? Supreme Court thread, My Judges, aw heck, I am here.

Trump urges Supreme Court to ‘put swift and decisive end’ to 14th Amendment challenges
Former President Trump told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the decision kicking him off Colorado’s ballot was based on a “dubious interpretation” of the 14th Amendment, urging the justices to reverse the ruling and terminate the dozens of challenges proceeding across the country.

“The Court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots,” Trump’s lawyers wrote to the justices.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Feb. 8 in the extraordinary case, which could dictate Trump’s political future in Colorado and his ability to remain on the ballot in states nationwide.

Anti-Trump groups and voters across the country have filed lawsuits seeking Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment, citing the former president’s actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

The Amendment prohibits someone from holding “any office … under the United States” if they “engaged in insurrection” after taking an oath to support the Constitution.

Trump filed his written brief in the case on Thursday, telling the justices he did not do anything that “remotely qualifies” as engaging in insurrection and that the ballot challenges should fail because of several other threshold issues.

“The fact remains President Trump did not commit or participate in the unlawful acts that occurred at the Capitol, and this Court cannot tolerate a regime that allows a candidate’s eligibility for office to hinge on a trial court’s assessment of dubious expert-witness testimony or claims that President Trump has powers of telepathy,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

But as they have long argued, Trump said the justices need not reach the contentious issue of whether Trump engaged in insurrection.

Trump urged the high court, which includes three justices he appointed, to instead rule that the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban does not apply to the presidency.

The former president also contended that the clause cannot be enforced without further legislation from Congress, among other arguments, all off-ramps that would keep Trump on the ballot without evaluating his actions surrounding Jan. 6.

Trump’s positions on those various threshold issues are backed by some legal scholars and nearly 200 Republican members of Congress, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who filed a friend-of-the-court brief earlier in the day supporting Trump.

Various Republican state attorneys general, the Republican National Committee and former officials like Trump-era Attorney General Bill Barr also filed briefs supporting the former president.

“The text of section 3 does not confer enforcement authority on state courts or state officials, and it does not specify a process for determining whether an individual has ‘engaged in insurrection’ and disqualified himself from holding an enumerated office,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to ‘enforce’ section 3 with ‘appropriate legislation.’”

The plaintiffs who originally challenged Trump’s ballot eligibility and other respondents in the case are due to file their briefs at the Supreme Court by Jan. 31, which is also likely to be accompanied by a large number of briefs from outside supporters.
thehill.com

Trump warns of ‘chaos and bedlam’ if states are allowed to drop him from ballots

Former President Trump told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the decision kicking him off Colorado’s ballot was based on a “dubious interpretation” of the 14th Amendment, urging the justices to r…
thehill.com thehill.com

"powers of telepathy"

You mean knowing events somewhere else in real time? Like on TV? On the phone talking to someone who knows what is going on?
Click to expand...
Lotta consciousness of guilt in top Republican circles. Of course they line up behind the ochre Moloch. If he goes, a number of them are in immediate peril.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

Conway predicts difficult path for Trump's legal team after Supreme Court filing

Former President Donald Trump is urging the US Supreme Court to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that removed him from that state’s ballot. Conservative lawyer George Conway reacts.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Jack's biggest fan...


Trump incriminates himself - again - in new social media post, providing Jack Smith more evidence

If Donald Trump's lips are moving, there's a good chance he's incriminating himself. When he posts something, he's often outright confessing to crimes, and providing additional evidence that can be used by Special Counsel Jack Smith in Trump's upcoming federal prosecution.
 
C

CCGNZ

Well-Known Member
How many more ludicrous arguments over Mr. Orange's preposterous "complete Presidential immunity" choking the courts am I going to hear,You took a oath to uphold the Constitution (remember your hand on a bible FKHEAD),and broke them. YOU utterly failed to defend the nation against all threats foreign and domestic,eg's.,You discussed classified info w/Russians right beside you in the Oval office,you took a boatload of top secret documents that belonged to the country,not you,and held them as your personal property in a highly insecure environment,and you coaxed your followers to violently attack Congress.YOU SWORE A OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S. AS PRESIDENT, you do not have absolute rule nor are you a king or a "dear leader".The fact that your cognitive ability to understand the rule of law is that of a "simpleton" at best and a 7 yr. old at worst combined w/your privileged never been told no or can't background is your problem,you are NOT exceptional and to think the nation is going to rewrite or discard our constitution to accommodate you and your musings of self grandeur are truly the machinations of a deeply deranged narcissist.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
CCGNZ said:
How many more ludicrous arguments over Mr. Orange's preposterous "complete Presidential immunity" choking the courts am I going to hear,You took a oath to uphold the Constitution (remember your hand on a bible FKHEAD),and broke them. YOU utterly failed to defend the nation against all threats foreign and domestic,eg's.,You discussed classified info w/Russians right beside you in the Oval office,you took a boatload of top secret documents that belonged to the country,not you,and held them as your personal property in a highly insecure environment,and you coaxed your followers to violently attack Congress.YOU SWORE A OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S. AS PRESIDENT, you do not have absolute rule nor are you a king or a "dear leader".The fact that your cognitive ability to understand the rule of law is that of a "simpleton" at best and a 7 yr. old at worst combined w/your privileged never been told no or can't background is your problem,you are NOT exceptional and to think the nation is going to rewrite or discard our constitution to accommodate you and your musings of self grandeur are truly the machinations of a deeply deranged narcissist.
Click to expand...
He's squirming and worried, enjoy the show while he either makes a mockery of the US justice system and constitution or ends up disqualified and in the slammer. Think maybe they should give him a pass on the US constitution and law because he's so fucking special and popular. There could be trouble if they don't put him above the law and constitution after all, be very afraid, land of the free and home of the brave...
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
CCGNZ said:
How many more ludicrous arguments over Mr. Orange's preposterous "complete Presidential immunity" choking the courts am I going to hear,You took a oath to uphold the Constitution (remember your hand on a bible FKHEAD),and broke them. YOU utterly failed to defend the nation against all threats foreign and domestic,eg's.,You discussed classified info w/Russians right beside you in the Oval office,you took a boatload of top secret documents that belonged to the country,not you,and held them as your personal property in a highly insecure environment,and you coaxed your followers to violently attack Congress.YOU SWORE A OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S. AS PRESIDENT, you do not have absolute rule nor are you a king or a "dear leader".The fact that your cognitive ability to understand the rule of law is that of a "simpleton" at best and a 7 yr. old at worst combined w/your privileged never been told no or can't background is your problem,you are NOT exceptional and to think the nation is going to rewrite or discard our constitution to accommodate you and your musings of self grandeur are truly the machinations of a deeply deranged narcissist.
Click to expand...
That man continues to believe that he has a shot at autocracy. “Dictator for a very, very long day.”
“I am your retribution” is naked, preening, oiled-up psychopathy.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
That man continues to believe that he has a shot at autocracy. “Dictator for a very, very long day.”
“I am your retribution” is naked, preening, oiled-up psychopathy.
Click to expand...
The closer he gets to his reckoning the more his little damaged brain will melt down, it will be interesting when he is squirming in front of Chutkan with most of his appeals and motions exhausted. Pundits say they will cut him loose on appeal after conviction, maybe for a year. Is this the way an average convicted bank robber or murder is treated? If convicted these are serious crimes and he continues to be a threat to the community. If she locked him up after conviction he would appeal, but on what grounds if the SCOTUS says he is not immune quickly. If he is disqualified, then that would change his legal statues too.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
The closer he gets to his reckoning the more his little damaged brain will melt down, it will be interesting when he is squirming in front of Chutkan with most of his appeals and motions exhausted. Pundits say they will cut him loose on appeal after conviction, maybe for a year. Is this the way an average convicted bank robber or murder is treated? If convicted these are serious crimes and he continues to be a threat to the community. If she locked him up after conviction he would appeal, but on what grounds if the SCOTUS says he is not immune quickly. If he is disqualified, then that would change his legal statues too.
Click to expand...
Whenever you say “pundits” please make it a reflex action to cite them. Would you listen to Gateway Pundit?

At the very least, exclude “pundits” of the following sort:
1705690744499.jpeg
 
C

CCGNZ

Well-Known Member
BudmanTX said:
Orange Pooh head, just got told FU by his wife at the funeral today..... :shock:
Click to expand...
I think it's a separate beds marriage,possibly separate bedrooms,Melania married the clown to get on the uppity cocktail party circuit and expedite getting her parents citizenship in the US expedited,of course she had to bare him a child as this is a pre requisite before the Orange will consider rings. I look at her attitude and it's like "I gave you a kid and my job is done", She gives off that vibe that she just wants to be left alone to bask in the country club life. The scowl on her face as 1st lady led me to believe that she had a "I didn't sign up for this attitude" and being a Presidents wife was not part of the deal. I sure don't see her out and about doing the 2.0 thing,and to do a rewind is prob a nightmare of epic proportions for her. This is speculation of course but I think she's intensely private and probably feels duped as none of this was in their "arrangement" and the look on her face tells the story IMO
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
CCGNZ said:
… of course she had to bare him a child as this is a pre requisite before the Orange will consider rings.
Click to expand...
Nine rings were given to the kings of men …

also, I thought Epstein was the one to bare children for him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top