#  >  > Living And Legal Affairs In Thailand >  >  > Thailand and Asia News >  >  > Speakers Corner >  >  Legal Charges Against Trump

## Saint Willy

How long after Jan 20th will they take to charge him, and what will he go down for first?

----------


## sabang

Aw jeez, can we just get rid of him first? I've already said, I think his biggest challenges will be in commercial courts.

----------


## harrybarracuda

The major thing is to get his financial records that will undoubtedly show he undervalued his assets for tax purposes and overvalued them to get loans.

Both of which will hopefully put him behind bars.

----------


## David48atTD

> How long after Jan 20th will they take to charge him, and what will he go down for first?



State charges ... Federal charges are complex if he attempts to self pardon (before he exits) and pardon his cronies, including his family.

----------


## Saint Willy

> if he attempts to self pardon


My feeling is he will not, because a pardon implies that he admits guilt, which he will never do!

----------


## panama hat

> My feeling is he will not, because a pardon implies that he admits guilt, which he will never do!


He'd save his own skin over everything else, I'd suggest.

----------


## David48atTD

^ or ^^ difficult quandary that one.

Self preservation vs ego ... which one is stronger?

----------


## Saint Willy

> Self preservation vs ego ... which one is stronger?


It would be like his mind trying to divide by zero!

----------


## nidhogg

Lets hope that at least a few charges can be found for Barr.

----------


## Loy Toy

> Lets hope that at least a few charges can be found for Barr.


G.W Bush and that filthy fucking heathen Dick Cheney got off scot free for the crimes they committed.

Trump will walk straight into his own television series.

----------


## HuangLao

> State charges ... Federal charges are complex if he attempts to self pardon (before he exits) and pardon his cronies, including his family.


Just doing a quick research browse regarding the possible lawsuits/civil and criminal charges that might be pending when he turns civilian. 
Quite a few serious and legitimate legal actions that he/family/associations could be facing. 
Over and above all of these complexities, he has numerous [manipulated] loans coming due that he can't meet. 

Actually, his whole business/personal life has been one continuous legal activity and flim-flam shenanigans after the other.....
He's been a phony business mogul [in name, not in practice] for decades. And catching up with him.

As for the Presidential pardon side of it, it's my understanding that any respective state charges supersede or overturn any such pardon protection. 
Presidential pardons and executive directives of these types are covered for federal wrongdoings, less any state charges.

----------


## Klondyke

> G.W Bush and that filthy fucking heathen Dick Cheney got off scot free for the crimes they committed.


But that was not Un-American, that's not so bad...

----------


## qwerty

He raised about $1.5 billion for his campaign and still ran out of money in the last month or so before the election.  Some people are wondering where all of that money went!

A thorough audit of his campaign finance might find that a few hundred  million dollars found their way into the pockets of various family  members.

----------


## Cujo

I don't think self pardon is possible. He can't pardon himself until he's been convicted of something to pardon himself for. He won't be charged/convicted until he leaves office at which time he loses the power to pardon, so it's a moot point really.

----------


## panama hat

Social Media will help . . .

----------


## jabir

> G.W Bush and that filthy fucking heathen Dick Cheney got off scot free for the crimes they committed.
> 
> Trump will walk straight into his own television series.


I expect him to buy his own soapbox, shortlisted to America One or Newsmax.

----------


## Switch

Trump loses out big style in my book. Surely the American electorate will see him as a fraudulent person. He is certainly not a gentleman in this case. He has no integrity, and he is clearly a bad loser.
It matters not, that he is or is not pardoned. His behavior as a a human being sets him apart from humanity.

Reputation is like virginity, you can only lose it once. Losing his reputation as the former holder of the country’s highest office is much, much worse.

----------


## Grumpy John

555!  A lot of opinions of what may or may not happen!   All this effort could be put to better use...like nailing down next weeks Powerball numbers.    :rofl:

----------


## nidhogg

> Trump loses out big style in my book. Surely the American electorate will see him as a fraudulent person. He is certainly not a gentleman in this case. He has no integrity, and he is clearly a bad loser.
> It matters not, that he is or is not pardoned. His behavior as a a human being sets him apart from humanity.
> 
> Reputation is like virginity, you can only lose it once. Losing his reputation as the former holder of the countrys highest office is much, much worse.


Sadly, more than 40% of the electorate voted for him.  Unbelievable to me.

----------


## Switch

Biden lacks the verve of youth on this job. Harris should, deservedly run for president in 4 years time. She was supportive graceful and robust when she introduced Biden in his deserved victory speech.
Much more to come from this exquisite political giant, especially now that the republicans are a headless chicken.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> G.W Bush and that filthy fucking heathen Dick Cheney got off scot free for the crimes they committed.
> 
> Trump will walk straight into his own television series.


Absolutely right!!
No president has ever gone to jail after his term. 
A show of prosecution will be made so that the legal system makes a show of preserving their independence, and try to preserve the myth that no one is above the law. It will purposely take as long as the  statute of limitations allows to allow passions to subside and memories to fade. Then some vague determinations will be made, some fines will be paid. trump might even make money from the proceeds  of contributions, as he is doing right now by leading these idiots to believe that he  could retain the presidency by legal challenges and soliciting contributions towards this effort, but with the caveat in the small print that these funds can be also used to pay campaign debts. 
As I have said all along the danger to our Republic is not so much trump, as it is the idiots that are so easily manipulated.  trump will one way or another go away, the idiots are not going anywhere, they will remain , useful tools for some other trump wanabee .

----------


## bsnub

> 555! A lot of opinions of what may or may not happen! All this effort could be put to better use...like nailing down next weeks Powerball numbers.


The butt hurt is real isn't it deeks. Too bad, you do not have the balls to post under your previous nick you spineless bastard. Typical trumpanzee.



Your tears taste wonderful

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## harrybarracuda

> his successor, gerald ford, granted him "a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president"


I just hope to fuck Biden doesn't fall for that "healing the country" shit.

At least until he's been charged and convicted so everyone knows what a c u n t he is.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Biden lacks the verve of youth on this job. Harris should, deservedly run for president in 4 years time. She was supportive graceful and robust when she introduced Biden in his deserved victory speech.
> Much more to come from this exquisite political giant, especially now that the republicans are a headless chicken.


I can't see he running in 2024 at 82 years of age... especially if he has to do a proper, touring campaign.

----------


## thailazer

> I just hope to fuck Biden doesn't fall for that "healing the country" shit.
> 
> At least until he's been charged and convicted so everyone knows what a c u n t he is.



A pardon would not go down well, as so many want to see the truth revealed.

----------


## misskit

*Trump family facing cash crunch as lenders say they are wary of dealing with ousted president: WSJ*

According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump will be walking into a financial morass when he leaves office and resumes control of the Trump Organization that is deeply in debt and will likely see revenues decrease with the president no longer able to count on tax dollars flowing into his properties to pay for his entourage when he visits.


With the New York Times previously reporting that the president is facing over $400 million in debt coming due soon — some of it personally guaranteed by Trump — the Journal is reporting a cash crunch may force the family to sell off some properties to retire debt at a time when lenders will likely keep their distance with the Trump Organization facing investigations in New York.

MORE Trump family facing cash crunch as lenders say they are wary of dealing with ousted president: WSJ – Raw Story

----------


## raycarey

pardon or not....it will be interesting to see if biden's AG appoints a special counsel to investigate everything that went on from november 2016 to january 2017.....and he/she should find a lot of dirty dealing at the very beginning with the inauguration slush fund.

----------


## Switch

Fill a few suitcase with cash, and exile himself to a country with no US extradition treaty. Too much face to save, even for a charlatan like him.

----------


## raycarey

^^
that should read nov 2016-jan 2021

----------


## S Landreth

> if biden's AG appoints a special counsel to investigate everything that went on....


What Im looking forward to are his offspring and what they knew and when. The market would react to trumps tweets. Someone knew what sectors of the market to dump and buy before some of those tweets went out.

----------


## thailazer

This story did not get a mention in the USA last month due to all the other crap going on.  It appears to be a big one, with money laundering on a huge scale implicated.

----------


## Saint Willy

Got a transcript?

----------


## helge

> Fill a few suitcase with cash, and exile himself to a country with no US extradition treaty.


I'm sure the Secret Service guys will be thrilled.

They were fond of Columbia btw  :Smile:

----------


## panama hat

> This story did not get a mention in the USA last month due to all the other crap going on. It appears to be a big one, with money laundering on a huge scale implicated.


Deutsche Bank has made it known that they will, have, set in motion recovery of funds and potential legal action








> They were fond of Columbia btw


Ah, the good old days

----------


## qwerty

So, what country will he choose for his exile?  My money is on Dubai.  There is a whole neighborhood there full of corrupt ex-officials from all over the world who cannot return to their home countries.

----------


## Saint Willy

Full of brown people though...

----------


## panama hat

He isn't going anywhere like that . . . who doesn't have extradition is the question.

----------


## bsnub

> who doesn't have extradition is the question.


Russia of course.  :Smile:

----------


## raycarey

he's got years and years of appeals ahead of him before even considering exile....and let's keep in mind that he's an obese 74 year old with anger/rage issues....he's a massive heart attack waiting to happen.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> He isn't going anywhere like that . . . who doesn't have extradition is the question.


He'd like that. Cheap labour.

----------


## thailazer

Well, here is the warm up!

Ivanka Trump deposed by DC attorney general in inauguration investigation - ABC News

----------


## MarilynMonroe

> I can't see he running in 2024 at 82 years of age... especially if he has to do a proper, touring campaign.


Didn't Switch also say that Harris had a screechy voice and it wouldn't get her far because of it. And that when I mentioned that was stupid, he ran me to the ground and made it personal having nothing to do with Harris? Yup, how the hell  can he say how great she is now, but yet run a woman like me to the ground for standing up for her? Unbelievably two faced.

----------


## aging one

Not quite done yet are you?  Do you remember posting this from over two weeks ago.  Anger is an issue with you Vendetta.




> Also, Switch would not put SA down like that and go all pesonal on him like he did me. That is not acceptable imo. It was downright assault in my books.
> You are all assholes and Im done. I don't deserve it and all the shit I get, enjoy your life without me. I'm done trying.

----------


## Cujo

> Didn't Switch also say that Harris had a screechy voice and it wouldn't get her far because of it. And that when I mentioned that was stupid, he ran me to the ground and made it personal having nothing to do with Harris? Yup, how the hell  can he say how great she is now, but yet run a woman like me to the ground for standing up for her? Unbelievably two faced.


Here we go , me me me me me me. Lets make it about you and your feelings shall we. Just fuck off like you said you would you tedious cutn

----------


## Saint Willy

Originally Posted by *harrybarracuda*  (Legal Charges Against Trump)
_I can't see he running in 2024 at 82 years of age... especially if he has to do a proper, touring campaign._



> Didn't Switch also say that Harris had a screechy voice and it wouldn't get her far because of it. And that when I mentioned that was stupid, he ran me to the ground and made it personal having nothing to do with Harris? Yup, how the hell  can he say how great she is now, but yet run a woman like me to the ground for standing up for her? Unbelievably two faced.



dafuc are you on about?

----------


## Cujo

> Originally Posted by *harrybarracuda*  (Legal Charges Against Trump)
> _I can't see he running in 2024 at 82 years of age... especially if he has to do a proper, touring campaign._
> 
> 
> 
> dafuc are you on about?


It seems to be about every two weeks.
Canada teachers must be on a two week pay cycle. Payday and she goes out and gets a case of molsons and here we go again.

----------


## bsnub

> Payday and she goes out and gets a case of molsons and here we go again.


Don't forget the cheap big bottle of vodka.  :Smile:

----------


## Topper

> Don't forget the cheap big bottle of vodka.


I try not to, that's for sure and it's cheaper than beer here.

For all of trump's financial problems, people are donating to him like crazy.  He's raised 207 million SINCE the election to supposedly fight for overturning the election while trump can use the money for basically any expenses he wants.  

I would imagine as long as trump can whine about "them/deep state/grey aliens/FBI/DOJ/God" cheating him, his fan base will continue to donate.

----------


## Saint Willy

And while they keep donating he will keep bleating to keep the tap flowing

----------


## HuangLao

> And while they keep donating he will keep bleating to keep the tap flowing


Indeed..
Expect all this fanciful rambling and promotion to continue long after the new the government is official - well into next year. 
All, in which, he'll continue to rake in the personal cash taken under false and nefarious causes. 
As it's all about him and his delusions. 

Expect this loon to be front and centre spotlight for some time to come. 
Nothing short of silly and insane distractions.

----------


## Saint Willy

> well into next year.


Nexxt 4 years. 

+

----------


## bsnub

> Nexxt 4 years.


Hopefully he croaks before that.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Hopefully he croaks before that.


Hopefully he croaks in prison.

Otherwise let him wreck the Republican presidential election again.

----------


## helge

> Expect this loon to be front and centre spotlight for some time to come.
> Nothing short of silly and insane distractions.


Comes in handy for the other side of the aisle.

Makes them look like grown ups


And:

----------


## thailazer

From the Seattle Times.....

NEW YORK – A state judge dealt a loss to the Trump Organization on  Tuesday, ordering the president’s company to turn over records related  to a property that is the subject of a civil investigation by the New  York attorney general’s office.

“We will immediately move to  ensure that the Trump Organization complies with the court’s order and  submits records related to our investigation,” Attorney General Letitia  James, a Democrat, said in a statement after the ruling.
The  documents and communications at issue could help investigators answer  questions about a conservation easement that was granted several years  ago at the Seven Springs estate in suburban New York’s Westchester  County, a move that netted President Donald Trump’s company a $21  million tax deduction. The materials, which Trump’s lawyers had sought  to shield, include messages exchanged between an engineer and a land-use  lawyer who worked on Trump’s behalf.
The company’s lawyers argued  unsuccessfully that those records were covered by attorney-client  privilege. The Trump Organization was ordered to provide the documents  by Friday, though New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron said he  would consider an extension. 
Trump has been accused of inflating  the value of assets to get favorable loan rates and undercutting  property values for tax benefits. James’s wide-ranging investigation is  scrutinizing the Trump Organization’s dealings involving various  properties, and whether the company lied to banks and regulators for  financial gain.
Representatives for Trump’s business organization  have said it operates aboveboard and follows all applicable laws. They  have dismissed James’s investigation as politically motivated.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> The companys lawyers argued  unsuccessfully that those records were covered by attorney-client  privilege.


"The crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime, tort, or fraud. In _Clark v. United States_, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "_A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law._ He must let the truth be told".

----------


## misskit

President Trump’s Post-Election Conduct and ‘Threats’ Violated the Ku Klux Klan Act, Civil Rights Groups Allege

Outgoing President Donald Trump’s post-election campaign of “intimidation and coercion of election officials and volunteers” targets Black voters in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of the early Jim Crow era, civil right groups claim in a new complaint.


Joining a lawsuit originally brought by the Detroit-based Michigan Welfare Rights Organization last month, the NAACP and three Black voters from the Motor City — Maureen Taylor, Nicole L. Hill and Teasha K. Jones — likened Trump and his campaign’s tactics to those of the white supremacist group. The original complaint only went so far as to accuse Trump of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Republican National Committee, whose counsel did not immediately return an email requesting comment, also has been added as a defendant.


“Under the specter of preventing ‘fraud,’ defendants engaged in a conspiracy, executed through a coordinated effort, to disenfranchise voters by disrupting vote counting efforts, lodging groundless challenges during recounts, and attempting to block certification of election results through intimidation and coercion of election officials and volunteers,” their new complaint filed late on Monday states. “These systematic efforts – violations of the [Voting Rights Act] and the Ku Klux Klan Act – have largely been directed at major metropolitan areas with large Black voter populations. These include Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and others. Defendants have not directed these efforts at predominantly white areas.”


In 1871, Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act aimed to clamp down on attempts to terrorize and disenfranchise formerly enslaved people. The then-nascent Klan engaged in open threats, economic coercion, and physical violence to prevent free Black people from participating in the nation’s electoral process.


Trump’s efforts for discredit the 2020 election has also featured threats of violence, the rights groups note.


MORE President Trump Accused of Violating Ku Klux Klan Act | Law & Crime

----------


## bsnub

At noon on 20 January, presuming he doesn’t have to be dragged out of the White House as a trespasser, Donald Trump will make one last walk across the South Lawn, take his seat inside Marine One, and be gone.

 From that moment, Trump’s rambunctious term as president of the  United States will be over. But in one important aspect, the challenge  presented by his presidency will have only just begun: the possibility  that he will face prosecution for crimes committed before he took office  or while in the Oval Office.

 “You’ve never had a president before who has invited so much  scrutiny,” said Bob Bauer, White House counsel under Barack Obama. “This  has been a very eventful presidency that raises hard questions about  what happens when Trump leaves office.”

 For the past four years Trump has been shielded from legal jeopardy by a justice department memo  that rules out criminal prosecution of a sitting president. But the  second he boards that presidential helicopter and fades into the  horizon, all bets are off.

 The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, is actively investigating Trump’s business dealings. The focus described in court documents is “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization” including possible bank fraud.

A second major investigation by the fearsome federal prosecutors of  the southern district of New York has already led to the conviction of  Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen. He pleaded guilty  to campaign finance violations relating to the “hush money” paid to  Stormy Daniels, the adult film actor who alleged an affair with Trump  during the 2016 presidential campaign.

 During the course of the prosecution, Cohen implicated a certain  “Individual 1” – Trump – as the mastermind behind the felony. Though the  investigation was technically closed last year, charges could be revisited once Trump’s effective immunity is lifted.

 It all points to a momentous and fiendishly difficult legal  challenge, fraught with political danger for the incoming Biden  administration. Should Trump be investigated and possibly prosecuted for  crimes committed before and during his presidency?

 “It looks like the incoming administration will have to confront some  form of these issues,” said Bauer, who is co-author of After Trump:  Reconstructing the Presidency. “The government is going to have  decisions to make about how to respond, given the potential that it  becomes a source of division.”

Any attempt to hold Trump criminally liable in a federal prosecution  would be a first in US history. No exiting president has ever been  pursued in such a way by his successor (Richard Nixon was spared the ordeal by Gerald Ford’s contentious presidential pardon).

 Previous presidents have tended to take the view that it is better to  look forwards in the name of national healing than backwards at the  failings of their predecessor. And for good reasons – any prosecution  would probably be long and difficult, act as a huge distraction, and  expose the incoming president to accusations that they were acting like a  tinpot dictator hounding their political enemy.

That a possible Trump prosecution is being discussed at all is a sign  of the exceptional nature of the past four years. Those who argue in  favor of legal action accept that there are powerful objections to going  after Trump but urge people to think about the alternative – the  dangers of inaction.

 “If you do nothing you are saying that though the president of the  United States is not above the law, in fact he is. And that would set a  terrible precedent for the country and send a message to any future  president that there is no effective check on their power,” said Andrew  Weissmann, who was a lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation  looking into coordination between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

 As head of one of the three main teams answering to the special  counsel Robert Mueller, Weissmann had a ringside seat on what he calls  Trump’s “lawless White House”. In his new book, Where Law Ends, he  argues that the prevailing view of the 45th president is that “following  the rules is optional and that breaking them comes at minimal, if not  zero, cost”.

 Weissmann told the Guardian that there would be a price to be paid if  that attitude went unchallenged once Trump leaves office. “One of the  things we learnt from this presidency was that our system of checks and  balances is not as strong as we thought, and that would be exacerbated  by not holding him to account.”

Bauer, who was an adviser to Biden during the presidential campaign  but has no role in the transition team, is also worried that a sort of  double immunity would be established. Presidents cannot be prosecuted  while in office under justice department rules, but under such a double  immunity nor could they be prosecuted once leaving the White House in  the interests of “national healing”.

 “And so the president is immune coming and going, and I think that  would be very difficult to square with the idea that he or she is not  above the law.”

 Biden has made clear his lack of enthusiasm  for prosecuting Trump, saying it would be “probably not very good for  democracy”. But he has also made clear that he would leave the decision  to his appointed attorney general, following the norm of justice  department independence that Trump has repeatedly shattered.

 Other prominent Democrats have taken a more bullish position, adding  pressure on the incoming attorney general to be aggressive. During the  Democratic primary debates, Elizabeth Warren called for an independent taskforce to be set up to investigate any Trump corruption or other criminal acts in office.

 Kamala Harris also took a stance that may come to haunt the new  administration. The vice president-elect, asked by NPR last year whether  she would want to see charges brought by the Department of Justice, replied: “I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes.”

There are several possible ways in which the justice department could  be forced to confront the issue of whether or not to take on Trump. One  would be through a revelation as yet unknown, following the emergence  of new information.

 Weissmann points out that the Biden administration will have access  to a wealth of documents that were previously withheld from Congress  during the impeachment inquiry, including intelligence agency  and state department files. Official communications sent by Jared  Kushner and Ivanka Trump through their personal emails and messaging  apps – an ironic move given the flak Hillary Clinton endured from the  Trump family in 2016 for using her personal email server – may also  become available for scrutiny.

 But the two most likely avenues for the pursuit of any criminal  investigation would relate to Trump’s use of his presidential pardon  power and alleged obstruction of justice. “Trump issued a series of  pardons largely characterized by political self-interest,” Weissmann  said.

 Though the presidential pardon power is extensive, it is not, as Trump has claimed, absolute – including the “absolute right”  to pardon himself. He is not immune from bribery charges if he were  found to have offered somebody a pardon in exchange for their silence in  a judicial case.

For Weissmann, the way Trump continually teased his associates –  including Roger Stone and Paul Manafort – with the promise of pardons in  the middle of federal prosecutions was especially egregious. “There may  be a legitimate reason to give somebody a pardon, but what’s the  legitimate reason for dangling a pardon other than to thwart that person  from cooperating with the government?”

 Perhaps the most solid evidence of criminal wrongdoing compiled  against Trump concerns obstruction of justice. John Bolton, the former  national security adviser, went so far as to say that for Trump,  obstruction of justice to further his own political interests was a “way of life”.

 In his final report on the Russia investigation, Mueller laid out 10  examples of Trump’s behavior that could be legally construed as  obstruction. Though Mueller declined to say whether they met the  standard for charges – the US attorney general, Bill Barr, suggested  they did not, but gave no explanation for his thinking – he did leave  them in plain sight for any future federal prosecutor to revisit.

 In one of the starkest of those incidents,  Trump tried to scupper the special counsel inquiry itself by ordering  his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to fire Mueller. When that became  public he compounded the abuse by ordering McGahn to deny the truth in  an attempt at cover-up.

 Weissmann, who played a key role in gathering the evidence against  Trump in the Mueller report, said that such obstruction goes to the  heart of why Trump should face prosecution.

 “When the president, no matter who it is, obstructs a special counsel  investigation there have to be consequences. If you can obstruct an  investigation criminally, but you don’t have to worry about ever being  prosecuted, well then, there’s no point in ever appointing a special  counsel.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ost-presidency

----------


## S Landreth

Manhattan DA brings in forensic accounting specialists for Trump probe

The Manhattan District Attorneys Office has brought in forensic accounting specialists to assist its criminal investigation into President Trump and his businesses, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

People familiar with the matter confirmed the plans to the Post. One source with knowledge of the investigation said that District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. has hired FTI Consulting to investigate property deals and to advise Vance on whether the Trump Organization altered the value of certain assets in order to get tax breaks and better interest rates.

The probe, which first began in 2018 to look into alleged hush-money payments given to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump, has now expanded to include potential wrongdoings by Trumps larger businesses activities, the Post reported.

The sources spoke to the news outlet on the condition of anonymity because the investigation, which is believed to encompass several years of activities, is highly sensitive.

Spokespeople for both Vance and FTI Consulting declined to comment when contacted by the Post, and Trump Organization representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.   :Smile: 

Trump and company officials have repeatedly condemned the district attorneys investigation, claiming that it is a witch hunt that is politically motivated.

According to an FTI corporate brochure, the company provides the industry's most complete range of forensic, investigative, data analytic and litigation services, and has extensive experience serving leading corporations, governments and law firms around the globe.

This comes as Vance and Trump's lawyers have been fighting in court over prosecutors' subpoena to Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, for the president's personal and business tax returns. A federal appeals court ruled in October that Trump cannot block enforcement of the subpoena, after which Trump's lawyers filed a motion to stay with the Supreme Court that has yet to be decided.

The district attorney's office has indicated in court filings that it is investigating potentially extensive criminal conduct at the Trump Organization. Prosecutors have suggested that Trump and his businesses could be investigated for tax and insurance fraud.

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the district attorneys office had interviewed employees of Deutsche Bank and insurance brokerage Aon in connection with the investigation into Trump.

The newspaper also reported that Trump has discussed with advisers whether to issue preemptive pardons to his children. The president has also claimed he can pardon himself, though it is unclear whether he has the legal authority to do so.

Additionally, Trump's pardon power only applies to federal crimes, and not state crimes.: Manhattan DA brings in forensic accounting specialists for Trump probe: report | TheHill

I do hope the people who will be serving the multitude of subpoenas to the crime family will be wearing body cams.

----------


## Saint Willy

> The sources spoke to the news outlet on the condition of anonymity because the investigation, which is believed to encompass several years of activities, is highly sensitive.


So why the heck speak up now??? Wait till Jan 20

----------


## raycarey

> Manhattan DA brings in forensic accounting specialists for Trump probe


i've read this is a somewhat unusual move by the DA's office....they have people on the payroll who do this job quite well.....the reason for it is because trump is going to continue to claim that it's a personal and/or partisan attack.

DA vance is getting out in front of that by hiring the reputable firm which worked on the bernie madoff case and lehman bros. bankruptcy...FTI Consulting....and apparently they specialize in valuation. 

one of the allegations against trump is that he increased the value of his properties on loan applications to get lower interest rates.....and decreased the value on his tax forms for deductions.....both of which are crimes.

he's in deep shit...and he knows it.

tax fraud barbie is probably also sweating.

----------


## Saint Willy

> he's in deep shit...and he knows it.


Completely self inflected so not an iota of sympathy.  They only surprise is why it took so long.

----------


## S Landreth

> one of the allegations against trump is that he increased the value of his properties on loan applications to get lower interest rates.....and decreased the value on his tax forms for deductions.....both of which are crimes.
> 
> he's in deep shit...and he knows it.


Hefty fines, maybe prison time, attorneys fees, pardon proof and constantly on his mind.

Hope theyll drag it out for a couple years.

Should look good on his résumé when he runs again in 2024  :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

Impeached again

President Trump directly asked Georgia's top elections officials to overturn his defeat to President-elect Joe Biden in the state during a Saturday phone call, according to audio posted Sunday by The Washington Post.

During the conversation, the president repeatedly asked Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) to "find" more than 11,000 ballots he would need to overcome a gap between him and Biden in the state, thereby flipping the state in his favor.

You have a big election coming up and because of what youve done to the president...you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam. Because of what youve done to the president, a lot of people arent going out to vote, and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative, because they hate what you did to the president," the president told Raffensperger, before adding that the Republican official would be "respected, really respected, if this can be straightened out before the election.

The audio is the first actual evidence of the president's attempts to directly pressure a state official to overturn the results of the 2020 election, though he has called for Georgia officials including Gov. Brian Kemp (R) to call a special legislative session for the purpose of overturning the state's results on Twitter in recent weeks. He has also publicly called for Kemp to resign.

So little time: Trump asked Georgia secretary of state to 'find' 11.7k ballots, 'recalculate' election result | TheHill

*edit below.*

The loser knows how serious this is.......

David Shafer - President @realDonaldTrump has filed two lawsuits - federal and state  against @GaSecofState. The telephone conference call @GaSecofState secretly recorded was a confidential settlement discussion of that litigation, which is still pending.: https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/stat...68002026205184

*2nd edit*

*Be smart:* The fact that someone taped a conversation between a secretary of state and the president of the United States, both from the same political party, speaks to the mistrust and legal fears that have followed Trumps frantic efforts to overturn the results.


After Trump tweeted that the secretary of state was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions, Raffensperger delivered his own brushback pitch. He replied: President Trump: What you're saying is not true. The truth will come out.An hour later, the Post released its story, as well as audio of the call.

https://www.axios.com/trump-georgia-...e3fe6ebbc.html

 ::doglol::

----------


## Topper

Maybe trump will be getting an invitation to talk with the fine law enforcement officials in Georgia soon.  Do you supposed Florida will allow extradition from Trump-A-Lago after Jan 20?

----------


## Chico

Wow you all really think Trump we be charged. :smiley laughing: 

If he was jeez imagine the shit the USA would find itself in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

----------


## panama hat

> Wow


Yea




> If he was jeez imagine the shit the USA would find itself in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Jeez, imagine if he wasn't . . . imagine. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,




> Wow


Yea

----------


## Chico

^ sad stalker

----------


## panama hat

> ^ sad stalker


 . . . just



> Wow

----------


## S Landreth

> Do you supposed Florida will allow extradition from Trump-A-Lago after Jan 20?


I do believe Florida does have an extradition treaty with all of its neighbors. Georgia being one of them.

Marc E. Elias  I am certain his criminal defense lawyers will tell him not to go to the Georgia rally tomorrow night.

Michael R. Bromwich (former DOJ IG; Asst US Attorney, SDNY) - Unless there are portions of the tape that somehow negate criminal intent, "I just want to find 11,780 votes" and his threats against Raffensperger and his counsel violate 52 U.S. Code § 20511.  His best defense would be insanity.: https://twitter.com/marceelias/statu...92532350283776

----------


## nidhogg

^that would be fun.  State officials trying to arrest a sitting president in front of the secret service.  Oh my.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> ^that would be fun.  State officials trying to arrest a sitting president in front of the secret service.  Oh my.


Nah, they've only got to wait a couple of weeks.

----------


## HuangLao

That might present quite the dilemma and complexities for the Secret Service attachment that is assigned [5 year mandate] to an outgoing Prez/VP. 
Are they authorized to protect and serve the kunt - technically, being federal Treasury Agents - and therefore over ride any possibility of actually being arrested by any such local or federal law enforcement? 

Don't believe these types of scenarios have ever been tested as applying to former Presidents. 
Yet, most Presidents haven't been viewed as being insane.....and certainly a different story with this guy. 

Quite perplexing.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> technically, being federal Treasury Agents
> 
> Quite perplexing.


What's perplexing is that you think the Secret Service still comes under Treasury.

 :rofl: 

Added: Imagine if this bloke was the one to facilitate baldy orange loser's expulsion from the WH, or even better, his arrest!




> President-elect Joe Biden will nominate _Cuban refugee Alejandro Mayorkas_ to be his Homeland Security secretary

----------


## thailazer

From Heather Cox Richardson's daily brief regarding that call to Georgia:

University of Georgia Law Professor Anthony Michael Kreis told _Politico_  reporters Allie Bice, Kyle Cheney, Anita Kumar, and Zach Montellaro  that it is against the law in Georgia for anyone to “solicit” or  “request” election fraud. “There’s just no way that… he has not violated  this law,” Kreis said. Michael R. Bromwich, former inspector gneral of  the Department of Justice, tweeted that “unless there are portions of  the tape that somehow negate criminal intent,” Trump’s “best defense  would be insanity.”

----------


## helge

> Wow you all really think Trump we be charged


No, not really

Did I hear during the campaign, that there wasn't a chance, that Biden would pardon Trump ?
Yes; he said so

On the other hand I heard today that Biden can't see anything productive in having Trump dragged in front of a judge, during his stint as president.

Sorry; no link and hearsay  :Smile: 

I reckon he'll go free for all and everything

----------


## S Landreth

Trump berates Ga. secretary of state, urges him to find votes



The loser knows its over and out of desperation makes a call

Two House Democrats ask Wray to open 'immediate criminal investigation' into Trump

Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) called on FBI Director Christopher Wray to open a criminal probe into President Trump after the release of a recording of his Saturday call demanding Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) find additional votes for him.

The two said that the substance of the call should trigger a full criminal investigation.

"As members of Congress and former prosecutors, we believe Donald Trump engaged in solicitation of, or conspiracy to commit, a number of election crimes," Lieu and Rice wrote in a letter Monday. "We ask you to open an immediate criminal investigation into the president.": Two House Democrats ask Wray to open 'immediate criminal investigation' into Trump | TheHill

Georgia secretary of state says Trump could face probe over taped election call

What's new: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said in a statement hours later that the secretary of state can refer the matter to her office after it completes its own probe, per WSB-TV. It is unclear whether Raffensperger's office will look into the call.

"It is my understanding from news reports that a member of the State Election Board has requested that the Secretary's Election Division investigate the call, after which the board can refer the case to my office and the state Attorney General."

"As I promised Fulton County voters last year, as District Attorney, I will enforce the law without fear or favor. Anyone who commits a felony in violation of Georgia law in my jurisdiction will be held accountable. Once the investigation is complete, this matter, like all matters, will be handled by our office based on the facts and the law."


 Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis: : Georgia official: Trump could face investigation over taped phone call - Axios

----------


## Topper

The President can't be indicted...that's why trump was safe visiting Georgia.  In a couple of weeks, things will be different.

I find it amazing hilarious that Meadows and trump's lawyers didn't try to tell trump to stfu.  Surely anyone with half a brain would know that the Georgia side would be recording the conversation for exactly the reasons the recording showed.

----------


## bsnub

> Meadows and trump's lawyers didn't try to tell trump to stfu.


Dude do you think that Buffoon actually listens to anyone?

----------


## raycarey

> Impeached again


i don't think this is the best path.

impeachment is designed to remove someone from office....the election has already done this....he'll be gone in 2 weeks.

yes, a message needs to be sent to the criminal president....i would propose that congress censure him and then refer the matter to the FBI and GBI.

the GBI referral might actually cause him to think twice in his remaining days in office, because he can't pardon himself.

----------


## TizMe

> I find it amazing hilarious that Meadows and trump's lawyers didn't try to tell trump to stfu.


They probably did. But when was the last time he took advice from anybody?

----------


## Cujo

Well after recent events let's hope he's done for at least incitement to riot or similar.

----------


## S Landreth

> yes, a message needs to be sent to the criminal president....


Rep. Diana DeGette - We are moving forward with introducing Articles of Impeachment against President Donald J. Trump.

He is a real danger to our country.

He must be removed from office immediately and barred from ever holding an elected office again.: https://twitter.com/RepDianaDeGette/...34507985309696

----------


## panama hat

^ How long a process is impeachment this time?  Is it really worth it?  Why not wait another few short weeks and the have him thoroughly done over by all means of the law

----------


## deeks

Nahh all the presidents pardon themselves from previous crimes when they leave office, The only way to get them is with crimes after office.

----------


## panama hat

Actually they don't . . .

----------


## deeks

> Actually they don't . . .


Oh, Now you have me intrigued, Please prey-tell the President whom was indicted after leaving the office.

----------


## deeks

Panzi hat is a lefty liberal, How hard was that to figure out, For reference.
1 Make a point.
2 Ask Leftist liberal to debunk said point.
3 Note the leftist liberal reply.
4 Show the leftist liberal that the reply completely off toppic.
5 Watch the leftist liberal by any means try to divert from the original Point.
6 Sit back and admire lefty lib friends come in to bat for the cuck.

----------


## deeks

Still waiting for the President that was indicted after office.
I'll give ya half an hour ok.
It's not hard to search, only had 45 of em.
Lincoln and Kennedy was both shot, so brings down to 43.
Lets round it out to 40, Hussein,Bush,Clinton-----nope. makes 40.

----------


## Cujo

Deeks,  did Obama pardon himself ?
Either of the Bushes? Clinton ? Carter? Ford?
in fact name one in recent history that did.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Nahh all the presidents pardon themselves from previous crimes when they leave office, The only way to get them is with crimes after office.


They can't pardon themselves, and even if they could, their pardons would only extend to federal crimes.

You're why baldy orange loser loves the poorly educated.

----------


## harrybarracuda

The truth is that Biden will be tempted to pardon the bald orange turd in an attempt to bring his supporters on board.

But the fact is that not hammering him will open the door to the next populist scumbag to come along and manipulate retards with deeks-level intellects into voting for them, and repeat the same crimes.

At the very least they have to investigate and prosecute under the emoluments clause.

The SDNY can do him on tax and banking fraud.

----------


## deeks

Been 45 minutes now.-----------------???????

----------


## harrybarracuda

The only president that would definitely have been indicted was pardoned.... by a Republican.




> The draft indictment showed that a grand jury planned to charge Nixon with bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal investigation.


All of these crimes were committed while in office.

So which bit do you need explaining to you?

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/31/p...ler/index.html

----------


## Cujo

> Been 45 minutes now.-----------------???????


I'm still waiting for you to name one that did.

----------


## deeks

Harry has the only point worth even mentioning is the emoluments clause, Your Honor i saved the tax payer a lot.https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/12/p...ost/index.html And your honor i can save the taxpayer more by promoting my hotels.

----------


## deeks

All of them brother.

----------


## deeks

> I'm still waiting for you to name one that did.


Point 6    ,see people?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Harry has the only point worth even mentioning is the emoluments clause, Your Honor i saved the tax payer a lot.https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/12/p...ost/index.html And your honor i can save the taxpayer more by promoting my hotels.


You are quite stupid aren't you?

If baldy orange loser has undervalued his properties to limit taxes, he has committed tax fraud.

If baldy orange loser has overvalued his properties to increase what he can borrow and at what rates, he case committed banking fraud.

There's a good chance a crook like him has committed both.

No pardon of his or even his successor will get him out of either.

----------


## nidhogg

> The truth is that Biden will be tempted to pardon the bald orange turd in an attempt to bring his supporters on board..


Do not agree with that (the reason), as trumptards will never support biden.

But, that being said, I do think Bidens intent would have been to let sleeping dogs lie.  No real benefit going after him, and plenty of downside.

That being said, with recent events not sure Biden CAN let it slide now.  The line was well and truly crossed.

Easiest way for biden to be hands off is to pass on all the political stuff, and let the states crucify him on the financials.

----------


## deeks

Harry Harry, FFS.

----------


## deeks

> Nahh all the presidents pardon themselves from previous crimes when they leave office, The only way to get them is with crimes after office.


5 hours, show me a potus that was indicted after leaving office.

----------


## Cujo

> 5 hours, show me a potus that was indicted after leaving office.


Show me a potus that pardoned himself.
(By the way, for potus to be indicted would mean he would have to have committed a crime)

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Show me a potus that pardoned himself.
> (By the way, for potus to be indicted would mean he would have to have committed a crime)


Like all trumpanzees, he is several sandwiches short of a picnic.

----------


## bsnub

> Show me a potus that pardoned himself.


He can't because none ever have. I do not know why you lot waste the time responding to the troll.

----------


## Pragmatic

> Like all trumpanzees, he is several sandwiches short of a picnic.


 And the Bush family wasn't?

----------


## bsnub

> And the Bush family wasn't?


So you are trying to draw a parallel to the Bush family? I was never a fan of them but they at least respected the democratic institutions of the US. So your whataboutism comparison is absurd.

----------


## misskit

The Bushes weren’t the most clever of people but they were most certainly more clever and patriotic than the Trump family.

Trump and his bunch are just grifters.

----------


## Klondyke

> Bush family? I was never a fan of them but they at least respected the democratic institutions of the US





> The Bushes weren’t the most clever of people but they were most certainly more clever and patriotic than the Trump family.


At least they liberated Afghanistan and Iraq...
What did Trump liberate, he?

----------


## nidhogg

> What did Trump liberate, he?


The country from a republican senate.

----------


## misskit

^ LOL!

----------


## thailazer

> The country from a republican senate.

----------


## HuangLao

> At least they liberated Afghanistan and Iraq...


Huh?

Liberate?
Really...? 


More akin to forced colonial invasion and occupation.

----------


## David48atTD

> Nahh all the presidents pardon themselves from previous crimes when they leave office, The only way to get them is with crimes after office.


*Key Background*

  Its unclear whether presidents have the power to pardon themselves   the idea remains untested in the court system because no president has  attempted such a maneuver. 

Trump Is Reportedly Mulling Pardoning Himself. Is That Legal?

----------


## Klondyke

> Huh?
> 
> Liberate?
> Really...? 
> 
> More akin to forced colonial invasion and occupation.


You had never heard the many speeches of GWB?  Where the "liberation" were counted more than the "world is safe"?  (OK, it was not from his own head...)

----------


## cyrille

> You had never heard the many speeches of GWB?  Where the "liberation" were counted more than the "world is safe"?  (OK, it was not from his own head...)


No - if it were from the head of GWB then it would have made more sense, incredible though that would seem.

----------


## panama hat

> No - if it were from the head of GWB then it would have made more sense, incredible though that would seem.


Incredible but true

----------


## S Landreth

Manhattan DA expands probe into Trump company to include family estate

A probe into the Trump Organization's business dealings led by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has reportedly expanded to include the Trump family's Westchester County estate.

CNN reported Friday that court documents it had obtained revealed President Trumps son, Eric Trump, who serves as the executive vice president of the Trump Organization, was directly involved in discussions on the 212-acre property, called Seven Springs.

Town officials have reportedly been sent grand jury subpoenas seeking information surrounding any conversations or correspondence they have had with the Trump Organization on its development plans.

Roland Baroni, a lawyer for the town of North Castle, N.Y., told CNN that the town had received and complied with a subpoena "asking for the planning board files, any correspondence, any email" exchanged between the town and the Trump Organization.

North Castle is one of three municipalities the large family compound covers.

CNBC reported Friday that a lawyer for the town of Bedford, N.Y., said they had also received a subpoena from Vance's office sometime before Christmas for information and records relating to the estate.

The town supervisor for the third town, New Castle, declined CNBC's request for comment.

People familiar with the investigation told CNN that the Trump Organization had also been subpoenaed for information on the property, including tax deductions the company took after donating a portion of the land to a public trust for conservation.

The Hill has reached out to the Trump Organization for comment.

According to CNN, Trumps business sought to develop the property multiple times, including putting together plans to potentially build a golf course or a community of residential homes.

By making a land donation for conservation, a property is able to undergo a tax deduction based on the value of the property. Vances investigation is looking into whether the value was inflated on the property to get a more beneficial tax deduction.

Court filings indicated that 158 acres of the Westchester County property were given to the North American Land Trust with an appraised value of $21.1 million.

The property, which the Trump Organization purchased in 1995 for $7.5 million, is also part of a civil investigation being conducted by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) into whether the company lied about the value of certain assets to receive more beneficial loans and tax benefits.

This comes as The Associated Press reported Friday that Trumps former personal attorney Michael Cohen had been interviewed for hours this week by Vances office, at least partially on Trumps relationship with Deutsche Bank.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the investigations by Vance and James, both Democrats, are part of a witch hunt with political motivations.

witch hunt  :Smile:  : Manhattan DA expands probe into Trump company to include family estate: report | TheHill

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> What did Trump liberate, he?


Yout tax money to the rich, your foreign policy to the Russians, and our Democracy to the white supremacists

----------


## S Landreth

This attorney is about to make Donald Trump's life a living hell/Attorney says she'll try to depose Trump in three cases after he leaves White House

Roberta Kaplan, an attorney representing President Trump's niece Mary Trump and author E. Jean Carroll, is preparing to bring forth three lawsuits against Trump once he leaves office.

Kaplan, 54, told The Washington Post in a story published on Monday that she has prepared three lawsuits alleging defamation and fraud against the president.

Carroll has filed a defamation suit against Trump after he said she was "totally lying" about her allegation that he had raped her in the dressing room of a department store more than two decades ago. Mary Trump alleges that her uncle and two of his siblings left her out of millions worth of inheritance.

Kaplan is also representing people who took part in ACN, a marketing company that was promoted on "The Celebrity Apprentice." According to the Post, Trump and his three oldest children are being sued for making the company appear as a promising opportunity.

Because of his prominence, he marketed his ability to convince unsophisticated, very poor Americans to invest, Kaplan said.

Kaplan is well known for arguing on behalf of Edie Windsor before the Supreme Court in a lawsuit that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and resulted in the recognition of same-sex marriage.

Apart from the suits being brought forth by Kaplan, Trump is also facing a civil investigation from New York Attorney General Letitia James and a criminal investigation Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

Recent reports have suggested that Trump is considering issuing multiple pardons for his allies, children and possibly for himself. The constitutionality of pardoning himself has been brought into question, with several scholars saying a self-pardon would likely not hold up legally.: Attorney says she'll try to depose Trump in three cases after he leaves White House | TheHill - This attorney is about to make Donald Trump&#39;s life a living hell - Raw Story - Celebrating 16 Years of Independent Journalism

----------


## S Landreth

Investigators already have Trumps tax records, as outgoing president faces losing legal protections/Trump Investigators Have Tax Records Even Before Court Order

Investigators probing President Donald Trumps finances have gotten hold of some of his tax records, allowing them to move ahead even without a Supreme Court order that would give them eight years of his returns.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who subpoenaed Trumps accounting firm Mazars USA in 2019, is leading one of the most closely watched cases that could result in criminal charges. While Vance agreed to await a high-court decision on forcing the handover of tax records from 2011 to 2018, his office now has some of the information from other sources, according to people familiar with the matter.

That information could help Vance support allegations that Trumps company used accounting gimmicks to overstate the value of its assets when applying for loans and underplay it to reduce its tax bills, according to the people, who asked not to be named because the matter is private.

Charges arent imminent as Trump departs Washington. But losing the election in November meant Trump also will lose what presidential protections he had when hes replaced by Joe Biden at noon. Among those he claimed: that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

No Sweeping Immunity

Trump invoked that longstanding Justice Department policy to fight Vances request for the tax records. In July, the Supreme Court rejected the presidents bid for sweeping immunity but left open the possibility that he could make more specific objections. Lower courts have since rejected Trumps arguments that the subpoena is overly broad and was issued in bad faith, and the matter is once again before the Supreme Court.

A spokesman for Vances office declined to comment on what it was looking at, but the Manhattan prosecutor sketched a possible outline for his investigation in a court filing in September.

In that filing, a response to Trumps complaint that the subpoena amounted to a fishing expedition, Vance cited a range of alleged financial misrepresentations by the Trump Organization already reported in the news media. Taken together, his office wrote, the company could have violated various New York statutes related to tax fraud, insurance fraud and the falsification of business records.

Vance isnt the only one who wants the tax returns. Trump has also been trying to stave off House Democrats who sought them after taking power two years ago. That fight continues -- on Inauguration Day.

Forging Ahead

The Supreme Court, without explanation, has deferred action for the past three months on Trumps bid to block Vances subpoena. The delay has kept the document demand on hold because Vance agreed in October not to enforce the subpoena while the Supreme Court considered Trumps request.

Should the court reject Trump, Vance would be free to insist that Mazars turn over the information. Mazars has said it will comply with its legal obligations.

Even as the battle has worn on, Vances office has made significant progress in its investigation, including interviewing people who worked with the Trump Organization or are familiar with its business practices.

The office has spoken with Michael Cohen, Trumps former lawyer and fixer, who pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws on behalf of Trump during his 2016 run. It has also spoken with representatives of Deutsche Bank AG, which has lent more than $300 million to Trump, and Aon Plc, an insurance broker that did significant business with the Trump Organization.

Significance of FTI

Vances decision to hire financial consulting firm FTI Consulting, which was reported by the Washington Post last month, suggests that the prosecutor has already identified examples of potential wrongdoing at the Trump Organization, according to the people.

In a high-profile case such as this, FTI can guide Vances investigators through a companys statements and explain any nuances that might justify -- or undermine -- the companys claims. If prosecutors do file charges against the Trump Organization or individual officers, an FTI representative could serve as an expert witness in court.

The Supreme Court case isnt the only issue hanging over the DAs investigation. Vance is in the last year of his current four-year term, but so far hasnt declared whether he will run for re-election in the Democratic primary, which will be held in June. Several other candidates have said they would challenge him.

While Vances office is staffed with career professionals who would proceed with any case launched this year no matter who is DA next January, the Trump Organization probe is being guided by his general counsel, Carey Dunne. Vance recruited Dunne from the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP four years ago. Its not clear whether Dunne would stay on if Vance leaves.: https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-...e-court-ruling - Trump investigators already have tax documents as President faces losing legal protections | Fortune

----------


## misskit

To make matters worse for Trump....

*Trump Tax Law Firm Ends Work for Ex-President*
*
Morgan Lewis has battled New York attorney general’s office over its probe of Trump Organization*

The law firm that handled the tax affairs of Donald Trump and his company during his presidency said it would stop representing him and his business.


The firm, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, is currently wrangling with the New York attorney general’s office over documents related to its work for the former president’s business, the Trump Organization. Led by Democratic Attorney General Letitia James, the office is conducting a civil-fraud probe into Mr. Trump’s financial dealings.


“We have had a limited representation of the Trump Organization and Donald Trump in tax-related matters,” a Morgan Lewis spokeswoman said. “For those matters not already concluded, we are transitioning as appropriate to other counsel.”


The spokeswoman didn’t provide a reason for the firm’s decision.

MORE Trump Tax Law Firm Ends Work for Ex-President  - WSJ

----------


## thailazer

Could a divorce be on the legal agenda?

----------


## sabang

Well here's the sab take on things. I don't thing charges against Trump will proceed, and I think from a Democrat perspective that's a good thing. Why so (he certainly deserves it)?

Simple. Trump, if able to run, will split the conservative vote in two- between the Right wing knuckle draggers, and the old style mainstream Republicans. Thus, assuming the Dems do not totally stuff it up- which cannot be ruled out- they should probably street it in the next election. You've got to be as ruthless and calculating as your opposition guys. Ain't no nice guys in the GOP these days.

----------


## panama hat

Well, it isn't the Democrat Party that is levying legal charges against the orange buffoon . . . hence the separation of powers, but of course the political neo-cons will portray it as political - same same in the end.

If he is convicted for anything, even small issues, then he can't run again. 

And the idea of a split in the Republican Party - that's why the Senate won't support Schumer and Pelosi.

----------


## Saint Willy

> Well here's the sab take on things. I don't thing charges against Trump will proceed, and I think from a Democrat perspective that's a good thing. Why so (he certainly deserves it)?
> 
> Simple. Trump, if able to run, will split the conservative vote in two- between the Right wing knuckle draggers, and the old style mainstream Republicans. Thus, assuming the Dems do not totally stuff it up- which cannot be ruled out- they should probably street it in the next election. You've got to be as ruthless and calculating as your opposition guys. Ain't no nice guys in the GOP these days.


Fair point. In much the same way that the Aussie liberals are happy to let the Greens split the Labor vote, or the Lapbor party allow Pauline Pantsdown split the Liberal vote.

----------


## David48atTD

*1. The impeachment trial never begins*

It's important to remember that during the trial, the *US Senate has the power to set the rules of how everything works*.
While  precedents are important and will guide much of how the trial will run,  they're not binding. If a majority of senators want to change a rule,  they can.
Which means *the Senate can just decline to hold a trial* if it wants.



*2. Donald Trump is acquitted*



After all the arguments have been presented, *the 100 US senators who act as the jury in the trial will be asked to vote* on the single article of impeachment on the table — incitement of insurrection.



*3. Donald Trump is convicted, but not banned from running for office again*

If Democrats manage to convince 17 Republicans of their case, however, *Trump will be convicted of the article of impeachment*.




*4. Donald Trump is convicted and banned from running for office again*

If Trump is convicted, the Senate will likely hold a vote to ban him from running for office in the future.

If *a simple majority* of senators vote in favour, *Trump will be banned* from running for federal office ever again.
That will *not only include the presidency*, but also running for *the Senate or the House of Representatives* as well.


More here

----------


## bsnub

> Democrat Party


It is the Democratic Party. Democrat Party is what stupid right wing fucktards call it.

----------


## David48atTD

Republican senators rally against Donald Trump's impeachment, making conviction unlikely

All but five US Senate Republicans have voted in  favour of an effort to dismiss Donald Trump's historic second  impeachment trial, making clear a conviction of the former president for  "incitement of insurrection" is unlikely.

*Key points:*
Democrats are defending the constitutionality of the trial by pointing to the opinions of legal scholars and an 1876 precedentThe vote suggests the Democrats will be unable to get the 17 Republican votes they need for a convictionSenator Patrick Leahy, who is presiding over the trial, was rushed to hospital on Tuesday out of an "abundance of caution" 

While  the Republicans did not succeed in ending the trial before it began,  the test vote on Tuesday made clear Mr Trump still has enormous sway  over his party as he becomes the first former president to be tried for  impeachment.

*Republican senators rally against Donald Trump'&#39;'s impeachment, making conviction unlikely - ABC News*

----------


## David48atTD

> It is the Democratic Party.







> The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary  political parties in the United States, along with its main, historic  rival, the Republican Party. Wikipedia

----------


## Topper

The 45 "senators" need trump's base to continue to donate to them in order to keep their place in the senate.  Pure and simple.  

Perhaps if the senate doesn't have the testicular fortitude to convict, perhaps the DOJ will charge trump with insurrection.  As I recall, it's a federal crime as well.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Loses Lead Impeachment Lawyers A Week Before Trial

Former President Donald Trump has parted ways with his lead impeachment lawyers just over a week before his Senate trial is set to begin, two people familiar with the situation said Saturday.

Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, both South Carolina lawyers, are no longer with Trumps defense team. One of the people described the parting as a mutual decision that reflected a difference of opinion on the direction of the case. Both insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations.

One said new additions to the legal team were expected to be announced in a day or two.

The upheaval injects fresh uncertainty into the makeup and strategy of Trumps defense team as he prepares to face charges that he incited the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. However, all but five Senate Republicans this week voted in favor of an effort to dismiss the trial before it even started, making clear a conviction of the former president is unlikely regardless of his defense team.

Greg Harris and Johnny Gasser, two former federal prosecutors from South Carolina, are also off the team, one of the people said.

Trump has struggled to find attorneys willing to defend him after becoming the first president in history to be impeached twice.

They probably wanted to be paid up front  :Smile:  : Trump Loses Lead Impeachment Lawyers A Week Before Trial | HuffPost

----------


## Cujo

They probably don't want the trial to be all about how the election was stolen and he was just exercising his constitutional duty or some such B/S.
You just know that's how it's going to go.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

What lawyer quits a high profile case with a very high probability of winning? 
A lawyer that don't want his reputation damaged by working for a guilty A-hole.

----------


## AntRobertson

Shots fired against those complicit in spreading Trump's lies.

Smartmatic files $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

Opening sentence: "The Earth is round".

----------


## bsnub

> Opening sentence: "The Earth is round".


Oh, snap! That first page pulls no punches.  :Smile:

----------


## panama hat

> Opening sentence: "The Earth is round".


 :rofl:   Absolutely brilliant - but I've never seen a legal brief been so 'amateurish' in text.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Read the $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News, Rudy Guiliani and Sidney Powell - CNN

----------


## Klondyke

> but I've never seen a legal brief been so 'amateurish' in text.


 ....and that I've not seen just a few...

----------


## panama hat

> ....and that I've not seen just a few...


English, fuckwit.  Try it.

----------


## David48atTD

Re the 2nd Impeachment Trial ... "It seems very likely that Trump will be acquitted," Professor Ackerman said.

*Could there be a Plan B if impeachment fails?*

There  is a little-known clause in the constitution's 14th amendment that  Professor Ackerman says Democrats could use to bar Mr Trump from ever  running for office again.


"Any officer of the  United States who engaged in an insurrection  insurrection is defined  as a failed rebellion  shall be disqualified from further service if a  simple majority in both houses so decide," he said.
It's a much more achievable threshold than a two-thirds majority, and Democrats could accomplish it without Republican support.


*Could Democrats really pursue the 14th amendment?*

Professor Ackerman said the leadership of the Democratic Party had the 14th amendment as an option up their sleeves.
"Are the congressional leadership aware of this? Absolutely, yes.


"Is President Biden aware that his staff are aware of this? Absolutely, yes."
And  unlike an impeachment, using the 14th amendment could be more  politically appealing to Democrats because, Professor Ackerman believes,  it would not create as much of a spectacle.

tinyurl.com/nef9dmbw

----------


## Cujo

This is driving me nuts. I was sure Trump had already been impeached over this. Why do they keep referring to this as an impeachment trial?
Will he be impeached a thurd time?

----------


## David48atTD

> This is driving me nuts. I was sure Trump had already been impeached over this. Why do they keep referring to this as an impeachment trial?
> Will he be impeached a thurd time?


Think of the impeachment trial more along the lines of  a pretty loose civil trial — it's basically a process to decide whether  someone should be fired from their job.


Because Trump is no longer in office, however, there is effectively no immediate punishment if he is found guilty.


But if he is found guilty, the Senate could vote to ban him from holding a federal elective office again.

----------


## David48atTD

*U.S. Senate Impeachment Trial of Former President Trump*

----------


## Loy Toy

CNN, including the other media machines are sensationally broadcasting the fact an elected public servant was given a job, completely fucked up and created a dangerous situation whereupon people died. An impeachment trial??????What a fucking joke and waste of media air space.

Arrest the cvnt and through away the key. End of story................

----------


## David48atTD

Good clip embedded in this news item ... www.tinyurl.com/1w322yfw

----------


## Klondyke

> What a fucking joke and waste of media air space.
> 
> Arrest the cvnt and through away the key. End of story.


He surely cannot be arrested. And that's really not the aim of this showcase. 

The real aim is barring him to apply for that job again.  And not to be decided by the population but by their authorities who know better what's good for them...(reminding something?)

----------


## Cujo

Apparently his defense team really screwed up.

----------


## russellsimpson

> If Democrats manage to convince 17 Republicans of their case, however, Trump will be convicted of the article of impeachment.



 :rofl:   :rofl:   I needed  that.

At this point it's just a cheap charade.

----------


## Cujo

Divided chamber finds process constitutional during emotional day as Democrats recount Capitol attack


A divided US Senate voted to proceed with the historic second impeachment trial of Donald Trump after an emotional opening day in which the prosecution argued that the former president was singularly responsible for inciting the deadly assault on the US Capitol while the defense warned that the proceedings would further cleave a divided nation.


After nearly four hours of debate in the same chamber that was invaded by pro-Trump rioters on 6 January, the senators, now seated as jurors and sworn to deliver impartial justice, voted 56 to 44 on the question of whether there was a constitutional basis for putting an impeached former president on trial. Six Republicans joined all Democrats in an early victory for the prosecution that undermined one of the central pillars of Trumps defense.


Trump is the first president to face an impeachment trial after leaving office, and the only president in American history to be impeached twice. But the assault on the Capitol, an event that one House impeachment manager called the the framers worst nightmare come to life, shook the nation and the world as loyalists to the former president stormed the seat of the American government in an effort to prevent Congress from formalizing Joe Bidens victory. Though they ultimately failed, the domestic attack left five people dead and Americas commitment to a peaceful transfer of power tarnished.


Democrats use Trump trial to show sometimes symbolism is the point
Read more
Republicans near-uniform opposition to holding a trial strongly suggested that there were not enough votes in the chamber to convict the de-platformed, one-term president even after he brazenly sought to overturn his election defeat with baseless claims of a stolen election. At least 17 Republicans would have to join all Democrats to find Trump guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. A conviction would allow the Senate to disqualify him from ever again holding office.


Last month, only five Republicans joined Democrats to defeat an attempt to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional. Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican of Louisiana, was the only member to switch his vote, leaving open the possibility that some lawmakers could yet change their minds.


Republicans have largely coalesced around the argument that the Senate did not have the authority to hold the trial because impeachment was intended to lead to a presidents removal from office, a position that has allowed them to avoid weighing in on whether Trumps conduct amounted to an impeachable offense. But that view has been challenged by constitutional scholars, including the leading conservative lawyer Charles Cooper, who argued that the claims were unfounded.


Citing these scholars, writings by the nations framers and historical precedents, the House impeachment managers warned that allowing Trump to escape punishment would establish a January exception for presidents to betray their oaths of office.


House Democrats opened the trial with a chilling and dramatic video of the Capitol siege that threatened the lives of the former vice-president, Mike Pence, members of Congress, and everyone working in the building that day. The video pulled from the extensive visual recordings from rioters, reporters and witnesses to create a reel juxtaposing the presidents incendiary speech to supporters at a rally near the White House with scenes of mayhem and violence on Capitol Hill. There, Trump encouraged his supporters to fight like hell and march to the Capitol to make their voices heard before lawmakers certified Bidens victory.


The cries and chants from the video echoed through the chamber, where just over a month ago rioters sat in the dais and swung from the balcony. It concluded with a tweet from Trump, sent only moments after the building was secured on 6 January: These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!


You ask what a high crime and misdemeanor is under our constitution? Thats a high crime and misdemeanor, the congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the leader of the House Democrats prosecuting the case, told the silent chamber, after playing the video. If thats not an impeachable offense, then there is no such thing.


David Schoen, attorney for Donald Trump, speaks to reporters while leaving the Capitol.
David Schoen, attorney for Donald Trump, speaks to reporters while leaving the Capitol. Photograph: Win McNamee/EPA
In their rebuttal, Trumps defense team argued that the impeachment trial was not only unconstitutional but would open up new and bigger wounds across the nation.


Accusing Democrats of abuse of power, Trumps lawyer David Schoen said the party was fueled by their hatred of Trump and their determination to see him impeached. He played a video compilation of Democratic politicians calling for Trumps impeachment as early as 2017.


This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we have only seen once before in American history, he said, warning: If these proceedings go forward, everyone will look bad.


In a meandering defense that reportedly left Trump enraged, his lead lawyer Bruce Castor denounced the Capitol assault as repugnant, praised the senators as patriots and concluded by suggesting that if the former president had committed a crime, the punishment should be criminal prosecution, not impeachment.


There is no opportunity where the president of the United States can run rampant in January at the end of his term and just go away scot free, Castor said. The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people.




The trial will resume on Wednesday with the substantive arguments over the sole charge of incitement of insurrection. Each side has 16 hours to present its case, and the trial is expected to stretch into the holiday weekend. Prosecutors have promised to present new evidence to prove that Trump was singularly and directly responsible for the Capitol attack.


Trumps lawyers have argued that the presidents claims of voter fraud and his fiery rhetoric to the crowd on 6 January were not only protected under the first amendment, but similar to language used by Democrats to rally their own supporters. In pre-trial briefings, they emphasized his instruction that the crowd march peacefully to the Capitol.


Trump, who left Washington for his Mar-a-Lago resort on the day of Bidens inauguration, has refused a request by Democrats to testify voluntarily at his trial. It appears unlikely that the House managers will call witnesses, appealing instead to the collective memories of the senators who lived through harrowing afternoon.




Concluding the Democrats argument for the day, Raskin offered an emotional and deeply personal account of his experience that day. Still grieving the loss of his son, who had died by suicide just days before, the former constitutional law professor brought his family to work with him, eager for them to witness this historic event  the peaceful transfer of power in America.


When the riot erupted, they were separated. His daughter and son-in-law hid in an office, fearing for their lives, Raskin recalled, his voice quivering. When it was all over and they were reunited, his daughter said she never wanted to return to the Capitol, a place known as the Peoples House.


Senators, this cannot be our future, he said through tears. This cannot be the future of America.

Trump impeachment: Senate votes to proceed with trial | Trump impeachment (2021) | The Guardian

----------


## Cujo

Senators and reportedly Trump himself voice displeasure with performances from Bruce Castor and David Schoen


The performance of Donald Trump’s legal team on the first day of his second impeachment trial has drawn sharp criticism from Republican senators and other onlookers, many of whom appeared unimpressed by the at times rambling and incoherent opening statements.


Two members of the former president’s legal team, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, sought on Tuesday to persuade the Senate to dismiss the trial on constitutional grounds. Castor’s performance in particular drew criticism as waffling and lacking in focus.


Several Republican senators said they didn’t understand the lawyers’ arguments. The Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, who voted with Democrats to move forward with the trial, said Trump’s team did a “terrible job” and was “disorganized”, “random” and “did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand”.


Cassidy was not the only Republican who was displeased with Trump’s defense team.

Susan Collins, a Republican senator of Maine, said she was “perplexed” by Castor, who is Trump’s lead lawyer, saying he “did not seem to make any arguments at all, which was an unusual approach to take”.


“The president’s lawyer just rambled on and on,” said Senator John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas. “I’ve seen a lot of lawyers and a lot of arguments, and that was not one of the finest I’ve seen.”


The Texas senator Ted Cruz, one of Trump’s staunchest allies, said he didn’t think the lawyers did “the most effective job”, while praising the Maryland representative Jamie Raskin, who is acting as the Democrats’ lead prosecutor, as “impressive”.


Cornyn and Cruz both still voted to dismiss the trial, along with 42 other Republican senators. Six Republicans, including Cassidy and Collins, voted with Democrats to advance the trial.


Trump himself was also reportedly unhappy with his lawyers’ showing. Politico reported that sources close to the former president say he grew “increasingly frustrated” as he watched the day unfold. Other outlets, including CBS and CNN, also reported the president was disappointed, according to sources.






The trial’s opening day saw Raskin deliver an emotional speech that recounted his personal experience of the Capitol attack, describing how his daughter and son-in-law were in an office in the Capitol and hid under a desk, where they sent what they thought were their final texts. Through tears, Raskin said: “This cannot be the future of America.”


Castor opened his meandering presentation by praising senators as “patriots” and mentioning that he still gets lost in the Capitol. The speech included such cryptic lines as “Nebraska, you’re going to hear, is quite a judicial thinking place”. He spoke for 20 minutes before addressing the 6 January insurrection and failed to directly address the president’s actions that day or argue against the constitutionality of the impeachment trial.


Castor concluded his opening comments by bizarrely daring the justice department to arrest Trump if the allegations at the heart of the impeachment trial were true.


“A high crime is a felony, and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor,” Castor said. “After he’s out of office, you go and arrest him ... The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people. And so far, I haven’t seen any activity in that direction.”


The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman said a Trump adviser had defended the performance as a “deliberative strategy” meant to distract from Raskin’s emotional presentation – though critics pointed out that a master strategist wouldn’t need to put out a background statement explaining their strategy.


It was a performance that left many observers befuddled, with some reporters comparing the lawyer to a college student who did not do the reading before class, joking that Castor would be fired by tweet if Trump still had access to his Twitter account.








Alan Dershowitz, who served as a member of Donald Trump’s defense team during his first impeachment trial, seemed less than impressed with Castor’s rambling presentation.


“There is no argument. I have no idea what he is doing,” Dershowitz told the conservative outlet Newsmax. “I have no idea why he’s saying what he’s saying.”  :smiley laughing: 

'He just rambled': Republicans unimpressed by Trump's impeachment lawyers | Trump impeachment (2021) | The Guardian

----------


## russellsimpson

T.V. at it's very best. A real horse and one trick pony show.  :rofl: 

I'll be more than glad to see the end of all this shit.

Maybe Monday next?

Time to get the fuck on with what has to be got the fuck on with.

----------


## Klondyke

^At the end of the day, by all these witch hunts, they will make from such an ugly character a big man in US history...

----------


## Klondyke

^And that only because he - as one of the very few of the big guys - is not willing to follow the ones who own America (as per George Carlin)...

----------


## panama hat

> ^And that only because he - as one of the very few of the big guys - is not willing to follow the ones who own America (as per George Carlin)...


He is one of those, you utter fuckwit

----------


## misskit

This made me laugh out loud. Michael van der Veen, one of Trump’s impeachment lawyers called him a “fucking crook” just last year.  :rofl: 


*One of Trump's impeachment lawyers reportedly sued the former president last year over his voter fraud claims*

One of the lawyers representing former President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial filed a lawsuit against the former president over his voter fraud claims, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.


Philadelphia lawyer Michael van der Veen sued Trump last year, saying his claims about mail-in voter fraud were made with "no evidence in support" of them, according to The Post report.


According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, van der Veen represented a client who filed a lawsuit against Trump ahead of the 2020 election, accusing him and his administration of suppressing mail-in voting by reorganization efforts in the US Postal Service.


His firm also sent marketing emails accusing the Pennsylvania Republicans of running a campaign to "unfairly and illegally intimidate voters," according to The Inquirer.


"Donald Trump doesn't want you to be able to vote," one August 20 email from van der Veen's firm read, which was obtained by The Inquirer. "It's time to stand up for what's right."

Justin Hiemstra, a former client of van der Veen, told The Inquirer that van der Veen once described Trump as a "f---ing crook" two years ago. The lawyer represented Hiemstra against charges that Hiemstra tried to steal Trump's tax returns by hacking into a government database, according to The Inquirer.


"I'm not sure if [those comments] were made to make me feel more comfortable, or if they were his actual opinions," Hiemstra told The Inquirer.


He added: "He definitely came off as fairly anti-Trump in the context that I knew him."


Representatives from the office of van der Veen did not immediately return Business Insider's request for comment.


This week, the Philadelphia lawyer is a part of Trump's defense team, alongside attorneys Bruce Castor Jr. and David Schoen. This is Trump's second impeachment trial after the House voted along party lines to accuse the former president of inciting the deadly insurrection on January 6.

One of Trump&#39;s impeachment lawyers reportedly sued the former president last year over his voter fraud claims

----------


## Klondyke

I was really touched when seeing the hon. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. when he burst into tears, unable to speak further, when telling us how he apologized to his daughter.

"I told her how sorry I was and I promised her that it would not be like this again, the next time she came back to the Capitol with me. And you know what she said? She said Dad, I don't want to come back to the Capitol."

----------


## Cujo

> This made me laugh out loud. Michael van der Veen, one of Trump’s impeachment lawyers called him a “fucking crook” just last year. 
> 
> 
> *One of Trump's impeachment lawyers reportedly sued the former president last year over his voter fraud claims*
> 
> One of the lawyers representing former President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial filed a lawsuit against the former president over his voter fraud claims, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
> 
> 
> Philadelphia lawyer Michael van der Veen sued Trump last year, saying his claims about mail-in voter fraud were made with "no evidence in support" of them, according to The Post report.
> ...


Hilarious. I wonder if Trump knows.
What's even more hilarious is what he says here at minute 5.50




No wonder Trump's reportedly been seen shouting at the T.V.
 :rofl:

----------


## Cujo

And now...
Investigation into his call to Raffensperger

----------


## Cujo

> Damned by his own words: Democrats follow Trump's wide-open multimedia trail.
> 
> As US president, Donald Trump seemed be talking and tweeting 24 hours a day. That has thrown his near total absence from public life over the past three weeks into sharp relief. 
> 
> The Silence of the Tweets.
> 
> 
> It also means that when clips of Trumps rally speeches filled the Senate chamber on day two of his impeachment trial on Wednesday, his voice was jarring and jangling in the ear, like a blowhard from a cruder, coarser time.
> 
> ...


Damned by his own words: Democrats follow Trump's wide-open multimedia trail | Trump impeachment (2021) | The Guardian

----------


## Cujo

Check this out at 5.30

----------


## Cujo



----------


## misskit

The Senate could be holding their vote for impeachment in about an hour.

Live link.

----------


## David48atTD

^  Boy, can the defense attorney, in summing up can waffle on.

Talking about raising talking points naught to do with Trump.

Talking about people not on trial.

Talking about ... really nothing at all.

Bit like Trump himself ... a windbag, full of puffery and hot air.

----------


## David48atTD

Reading the live comments from those commenting about the trial ...




> Carl Mcalevey
> ​I've  been up all night. just loving every second of this exposure of the  democrats absolute lies they've been trying to peddle for 4 years, now  without CNN they're getting owned





> Carl Mcalevey
> ​I've  watched too many presidential foot jobs from these buggers to sleep. I  just hope a bottleo opens soon because its time to celebrate another  loss to the attempts of the communists to take over

----------


## David48atTD

Credit

Senate  Republicans handed former President Trump his second impeachment  acquittal on Saturday, clearing him of charges that he incited the mob  that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.

By  a vote of 57 to 43, the Senate acquitted former President  Trump.

Republicans voting guilty: Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski,  Romney, Sasse, Toomey

----------


## Saint Willy

It was always going to be that, even with his buffoonery of a legal team

----------


## russellsimpson

I pretty much watched the whole wrap up today, certainly educational and highly entertaining. A few thoughts.

I thought Mcconnell delivered the most blisteringly powerful critique of what happened on that fateful day. His comments were so passionate as to cause me to  have a change of mind as to who was responsible for the events of the day, ex-president Donald Trump. Excellent effort from the minority leader. I understand as well why he voted to acquit in spite of the speech. I would prefer not to delve into that as I'm still digesting the proceedings.  I know little of how the American federation functions, our system to the north is significantly different. I'll leave that political discussion to the forum constitutional wonks.

I have several thoughts  arising from watching today. I hope to share these at a latter date.

----------


## panama hat

Well, there're still the 60+ other charges . . . Trump is going to have fun and still end up in jail.  

This was always going to be a side-show with no possible way of a 'guilty' verdict.

----------


## russellsimpson

It was close though. Had McConnell voted otherwise it would have been all over now.

----------


## russellsimpson

Okay, so a few things arising from todays proceedings I would enjoy some feedback on........

Is it true that the Washington mayor denied a request to bring additional federal troops into the capital because he didn't wish the troops in the city, presumably fearing a military takeover? Dumb question I know but only a talking point.

I think McConnell threw under the bus and I think Trump's political career is done even he tries for a comeback. That's covered well on another thread.

I think the defense made some good arguments with the Portland comparison. I found those months long siege really quite unacceptable and the reserve should have been in there like a dirty sheet.

On the charge of insurrection?
Doesn't an insurrection require more than a few hundred people? Insurrections are where a group of people are attempting to change the government. These fat headed blovians only wanted to "overthrow" the building. Most serious in itself no doubt.

"incitement"............ latter for that one. Legal terms, way over my pay scale.

I kept wanting to ask Mr. Raskin how old his daughter Hannah was? She sounded a little young to be experiencing all that enotion over this incident. Mr Raskin let your daughter carry on with childhood pursuits. Please sir.  She has time.

It dawned on me pretty early on today that the lawyers and Impeachment Managers weren't speaking to the Senators, their minds were already made up. They were speaking mainly to the general public.

I hadn't even heard of the Trump supporters attempting to drive the democrat coach off the road. Jeez. You can't make this stuff up. I predict several major movies. Who will play Trump? Maybe Trump if he isn't rotting in the hooscow. 

I am now entirely convinced that the intention of the rioters was to stop the certification, something I had not seen clearly previously. Thank you Mitch.

More comments on the video presentations at a latter date.

Better than a hockey game today. Much.

----------


## tomcat

> I thought Mcconnell delivered the most blisteringly powerful critique of what happened on that fateful day.


...covering his ass: he voted _not guilty_ to appease tRumpers and then listed the reasons he should have voted _guilty_...a hypocrite of the highest rank...

----------


## Loy Toy

Absolute sickening performance from McConnel the hypocrite.

----------


## russellsimpson

All I said TC is that he delivered the most blistering critique. I can't remember ever seeing anyone thrown another soul under the bus with that such absolute.

Politicians have always had a lower standard of hypocrisy than any random plebe strolling down the main street of Peoria. Show me a politician on either side who hasn't sometimes had to compromise their integrity. John Kassich thinks he's pure, but then he's a legend in his own mind.

----------


## tomcat

> All I said TC is that he delivered the most blistering critique


...noted...McConnell's still a hypocrite and you're still a Canadian...

----------


## russellsimpson

British as well. I'm sure a  cause of great chagrin for some of the other pommies hereabouts.

----------


## tomcat

> I'm sure a cause of great chagrin for some of the other pommies hereabouts.


...I don't think you've risen to anyone's radar yet...

----------


## russellsimpson

I doubt I have. I recognize very few folks on here, only a few folks from the AJ forum. You, AO, Cyrille......any others have changed nics or just aren't here. Oh yes, Storekeeper as well. I've never had the energy to try to figure out anyone's new nic. I would love to know what became of Anna and William. But I shan't pursue it. It's a new day. I've moved on long ago.

----------


## Saint Willy

> I've moved on long ago.


No need to stop here either...

----------


## russellsimpson

That's okay KW. No problem really. :Smile:

----------


## Klondyke

> I know little of how the American federation functions


Obviously since it is quite exceptional, isn't? There is a case, a judging,  but no judge, just managers (business managers?). Don't they have enough educated judges? 

Allegedly, the highest Supreme Judge refused to judge it... Wondering why?

----------


## happynz

> Allegedly, the highest Supreme Judge refused to judge it... Wondering why?


Allegedly, my aunt's fanny...Try doing a wee bit of research. 

The US Constitution gives the Senate the sole right to decide how to proceed after the House impeaches. 



> Article II, Section 4:The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
> The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


The judiciary branch is not asked to participate.

----------


## cyrille

> Allegedly, my aunt's fanny...Try doing a wee bit of research.


Well, that sounds a bit 'niche'.

----------


## Klondyke

> Allegedly, my aunt's fanny...Try doing a wee bit of research. 
> The US Constitution gives the Senate the sole right to decide how to proceed after the House impeaches.


The US  Constitution is quite funny (or exceptional?)




> The U.S. Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice of the United States presides over impeachment proceedings
> The current chief justice was John Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005.


First impeachment of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

----------


## AntRobertson

> I thought Mcconnell delivered the most blisteringly powerful critique of what happened on that fateful day


He delayed the trial until Trump was out of office then said Trump is guilty but can't be convicted because he's out of office (he can).

McConnell is a cynical, corrupt, dishonest, cowardly and evil piece of shit who aided and abetted.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> It was close though. Had McConnell voted otherwise it would have been all over now.


Why? That would have made it 58/100 when they needed 67/100.

----------


## panama hat

> Why? That would have made it 58/100 when they needed 67/100.


He would have lobbied fro and received support, I'd say.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> He would have lobbied fro and received support, I'd say.


Nah, two many cowards in that party.

----------


## lom

> Nah, two many cowards in that party.


only two?

----------


## harrybarracuda

Too even.

 :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Seekingasylum

People tend to forget that the US is still an emerging country, a former British subject nation still struggling to find its democratic feet. The GOP is very much a chickenhead, pork-barrel party  without any doctrine other than self interest and exploitation of the weak, the vulnerable and the stupid whom they strive to manipulate and deceive in order to further their own personal wealth creation. Scarcely surprising therefore it has yet again failed to punish its former leader who in truth has never been anything other than a fraudulent, tax-evading, ,corrupt rapist with a sideline in narcissistic sociopathy.

Still, it is interesting that the British have now taken a leaf out of their prayer book and are now in the midst of disbursing vast sums of public money to the cronies of Bozo Johnson and his Brexit henchmen.

----------


## thailazer

> Why? That would have made it 58/100 when they needed 67/100.


McConnell would have swayed many votes to follow him and a likely guilty verdict would have been the outcome.

----------


## russellsimpson

> People tend to forget that the US is still an emerging country, a former British subject nation still struggling to find its democratic feet.


I predict you may be the recipient of some less than generous feedback from the usual suspects..

Incoming!   :Smile: 

 ::spin::

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I predict you may be the recipient of some less than generous feedback from the usual suspects..
> 
> Incoming!


Not really. It's true.

The last survivor of the Civil War only died in the 1950's.

----------


## russellsimpson

Yes, a more careful read was called for on my part.

I felt the _emerging nation_ comment might rankle.

----------


## S Landreth

Manhattan D.A. Recruits Top Prosecutor for Trump Inquiry

The Manhattan district attorney has enlisted a former federal prosecutor who is an expert on white-collar crime to join the team investigating the Trump family business.

As the Manhattan district attorneys office steps up the criminal investigation of Donald J. Trump, it has reached outside its ranks to enlist a prominent former federal prosecutor to help scrutinize financial dealings at the former presidents company, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

The former prosecutor, Mark F. Pomerantz, has deep experience investigating and defending white-collar and organized crime cases, bolstering the team under District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. that is examining Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization.

The investigation by Mr. Vance, a Democrat, is focused on possible tax and bank-related fraud, including whether the Trump Organization misled its lenders or local tax authorities about the value of his properties to obtain loans and tax benefits, the people with knowledge of the matter said, requesting anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation. Mr. Trump has maintained he did nothing improper and has long railed against the inquiry, calling it a politically motivated witch hunt.

In recent months, Mr. Vances office has broadened the long-running investigation to include an array of financial transactions and Trump properties  including Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, various Trump hotels and the Seven Springs estate in Westchester County  as prosecutors await a ruling from the United States Supreme Court that could give them access to Mr. Trumps tax returns.

The prosecutors have also interviewed a number of witnesses and have issued more than a dozen new subpoenas, including to one of Mr. Trumps top lenders, Ladder Capital, the people with knowledge of the matter said.

In addition, investigators subpoenaed a company hired by Mr. Trumps other main lender, Deutsche Bank, to assess the value of certain Trump properties, one of the people with knowledge of the previously unreported subpoenas said.

Months earlier, Mr. Vances office had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank itself, The New York Times previously reported. More recently, Deutsche Bank employees provided testimony to Mr. Vances office about the banks relationship with the Trump Organization, a person briefed on the matter said.

Still, despite the burst of investigative activity, prosecutors have said the tax returns and other financial records are vital to their inquiry  and the Supreme Court has delayed a final decision for months.

Manhattan prosecutors have also subpoenaed the Trump Organization for records related to tax deductions on millions of dollars in consulting fees, some of which appear to have gone to the presidents daughter Ivanka Trump.

The Trump Organization turned over some of those records last month, though the prosecutors have questioned whether the company has fully responded to the subpoena, the people with knowledge of the matter said.

Mr. Trump won an acquittal in his second impeachment trial last week, but remains the focus of at least two state criminal investigations. Besides the inquiry in Manhattan, prosecutors in Georgia are scrutinizing Mr. Trumps effort to persuade local officials to undo the election results there. His departure from office has left him without the shield from indictment that the presidency provided.

The Manhattan district attorneys office has not accused Mr. Trump of wrongdoing and it remains unclear whether Mr. Vance, whose term ends in January, will ultimately bring charges against Mr. Trump or any Trump Organization employees.

The Trump Organization declined to comment, but in the past, lawyers for the company have said that its practices complied with the law and have called the investigation a fishing expedition.

Mr. Pomerantz, 69, was sworn in earlier this month to serve as a special assistant district attorney, according to Danny Frost, a spokesman for the district attorney, who otherwise declined to comment on the inquiry. Mr. Pomerantz will work solely on the Trump investigation.

The hiring of an outsider is a highly unusual move for a prosecutors office, but the two-and-a-half-year investigation of the former president and his family business is unusually complex. And Mr. Vance, whose office has had a few missteps in other white-collar cases, had already hired FTI, a large consulting company, to help analyze Mr. Trumps financial records.

Prosecutors are scrutinizing whether the Trump Organization artificially inflated the value of some of his signature properties to obtain the best possible loans, while simultaneously lowballing the property values to reduce property taxes, the people with knowledge of the matter said. The prosecutors are also looking at the Trump Organizations statements to insurance companies about the value of various assets.

The Trump Organizations lawyers are likely to argue to prosecutors that it could not have duped sophisticated financial institutions that did their own analysis of Mr. Trumps properties without relying on what Mr. Trumps company told them. The companys lawyers are also likely to emphasize that the practice of providing such differing valuations is widespread in New Yorks real estate industry.

Deutsche Bank has said it is cooperating with the investigation. A spokesman for Ladder Capital, which securitized the loans years ago and thus no longer owns them, declined to comment.

Mr. Pomerantz, who has been helping with the case informally for months, has taken a temporary leave from the law firm Paul Weiss to join Mr. Vances office. Among other tasks, he will likely handle interactions with key witnesses.

Mr. Vance also retained veteran constitutional lawyers to work on the briefs filed in the 18-month legal battle over the offices subpoena for Mr. Trumps tax returns and other financial records, which has twice reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was argued by Mr. Vances general counsel, Carey Dunne, who is helping to lead the investigation.

The court could rule for a second time on the matter soon, potentially putting eight years of Mr. Trumps personal and corporate tax records and other documents in the hands of prosecutors for the first time, a development that Mr. Vances office has called central to its investigation.

Mr. Pomerantz, a leading figure in the New York legal circles, clerked for Judge Edward Weinfeld in Manhattan and Justice Potter Stewart on the Supreme Court. He then became a federal prosecutor in the United States attorneys office in Manhattan, where he rose to lead the appellate unit before leaving in 1982.

In private practice, he developed a specialty in organized crime and was involved in a 1988 case that helped determine the legal definition of racketeering. His former law partner, Ronald P. Fischetti, estimated they tried nearly 25 cases that involved organized crime in some form or another.

Mr. Pomerantz returned to the Manhattan U.S. attorneys office to head the criminal division between 1997 and 1999, overseeing major securities fraud and organized crime cases, perhaps most prominently against John A. Gotti, the Gambino boss.

He later joined Paul Weiss, one of the best-known law firms in New York, where he defended Robert Torricelli, the New Jersey senator accused of campaign finance violations.

He worked both sides of the street, so hes not going to be biased by virtue of temperament, said Robert S. Litt, a former general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence, who has known Mr. Pomerantz since 1976.: Manhattan D.A. Recruits Top Prosecutor for Trump Inquiry - The New York Times

----------


## David48atTD

^  Finally ... someone hiring the 'best people'   :Smile:

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

trump knows what he did and now he is sweating bullets in fear that the Manhattan DA will know also.  Which is why he desperately tried to retain the presidency and run the clock down.

----------


## S Landreth

::doglol:: 

Supreme Court refuses Trump effort to block tax return subpoena

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for prosecutors in New York City to receive eight years of former President Donald Trumps tax returns and other financial records as part of an ongoing investigation into possible tax, insurance and bank fraud in Trumps business empire.

The high courts decision to turn down Trumps request for a stay of a grand jury subpoena advances a criminal probe by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. that appears to be one of the most serious of an array of legal threats Trump faces in his post-presidency.: Supreme Court refuses Trump effort to block tax return subpoena - POLITICO - https://mobile.twitter.com/Manhattan...60879893286915

----------


## panama hat

> Supreme Court refuses Trump effort to block tax return subpoena


One would hope he showed the same good judgement choosing tax accounts as he did lawyers.

----------


## Saint Willy

There’s every chance that he will, the man only likes sycophants

----------


## panama hat

True, true. 

And because it's so much fun:




> *House Democrat Sues Trump, Giuliani And 2 Far-Right Groups Over Capitol Riot*
> 
> 
> Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson is suing former President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani and two far-right groups  the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers  for allegedly conspiring to incite the deadly violence on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol.
> 
> The lawsuit, filed on Thompson's behalf by the NAACP and the civil rights law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, accuses Trump and the other defendants of violating the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Actby trying to interfere in Congress' certification of the Electoral College count. The legislation was part of a series of Enforcement Acts at the time intended to protect the enfranchisement of Black citizens from violence and intimidation.
> 
> The suit is the first against Trump since the Senate acquitted him Saturday in his second impeachment trial. Seven Republicans broke with Trump and voted for his conviction on the charge of inciting an insurrection, but the tally still fell short of the 67 needed to convict him.
> 
> ...


https://www.npr.org/2021/02/16/96837...r-capitol-riot

----------


## Cujo

Proving it will be the problem.
They stirred up a crowd at a rally but did they actually incite them to insurrection is what they'll have to prove and I expect that'll be difficult unless they can find people that will testify that they were specifically instructed to go to the capitol building and attempt to take over. ('fight' could taken many ways as they have claimed)

----------


## AntRobertson

> Proving it will be the problem.
> They stirred up a crowd at a rally but did they incite them to insurrection.


I think that was proven beyond all doubt by the evidence presented at the trial.

There's a direct line from Trumps lies to the crowd (before, during and after) and statements from those involved and why they were and who they thought it was for.

----------


## Wakey

> Proving it will be the problem.
> They stirred up a crowd at a rally but did they actually incite them to insurrection is what they'll have to prove and I expect that'll be difficult unless they can find people that will testify that they were specifically instructed to go to the capitol building and attempt to take over. ('fight' could taken many ways as they have claimed)


They aren't zombies under mind-control of a tyrant. They acted of free will and anger. What will happen if criminals all start stating that someone famous induced them into committing their crime?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> They aren't zombies under mind-control of a tyrant. They acted of free will and anger. What will happen if criminals all start stating that someone famous induced them into committing their crime?


It's the law you imbecile. I see changing nicks hasn't got you out of a single digit IQ.




> *18 U.S. Code § 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence*

----------


## Wakey

So in that case, all movie-producers who show people profiting from crimes of violence in their movies can face the same charge.

----------


## Saint Willy

I see your buddies have been furiously greening you

----------


## Cujo

> So in that case, all movie-producers who show people profiting from crimes of violence in their movies can face the same charge.


Stupidest comparison in the history of comparisons.
Who do we think this poster is?

----------


## Wakey

Try saying why it's stupid rather than obsessing about who said it.

----------


## Cujo

> Try saying why it's stupid rather than obsessing about who said it.


Really? It's pretty obvious, I really don't think it needs explaining.

----------


## panama hat

> Who do we think this poster is?


It'll be smegly . . . not even our mods would let Fluke back that quickly






> Stupidest comparison in the history of comparisons.


Yes, it is

----------


## harrybarracuda

> So in that case, all movie-producers who show people profiting from crimes of violence in their movies can face the same charge.


Go and have a lie down, there's a dear.

----------


## Norton

> Proving it will be the problem.


Right. This is going nowhere. Matters not. When NY state, the IRS and  Dominion are done with Frump n family, they are going down. Stick a fork in the fat pig. He is done.

ความอดทนเป็นคุณธรรม

----------


## S Landreth

Donald Trump’s Tax Records Finally Turned Over For New York Investigation

 :Smile: 

lock him the fvck up

----------


## S Landreth

Manhattan prosecutors are focusing their investigation on Trump's Seven Springs estate in New York

New York prosecutors investigating Donald Trump's finances have intensified their inquiry into his Seven Springs estate, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

Investigators in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office have in recent weeks taken a closer interest in the 213-acre estate in Westchester County that Trump purchased for $7.5 million in 1995, people with knowledge of the investigation told The Journal.

Trump originally purchased the estate, complete with a 39,000-square-foot mansion, with the aim of turning it into a golf resort. Then he was unable to secure the necessary zoning permits to turn it into a luxury subdivision, and much of the land was placed in a conservation easement, The Journal reported.

Sources told The Journal that District Attorney Cy Vance's office had issued subpoenas and requested recordings of government meetings where Trump's attempts to develop the property were discussed.

Ralph Mastromonaco, an engineer involved with the development plans, told The Journal that he had received a subpoena.

The Seven Springs estate is also of interest in a separate civil investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James, The Associated Press reported on Monday. Both investigations are looking into whether Trump misrepresented the value of the estate to secure tax benefits from the conservation arrangement, the AP said.

The broader investigations are said to be focused on Trump's personal finances and the business dealings of the Trump Organization.

As Insider previously reported, Trump is the focus of multiple civil and criminal investigations now that he has left office and no longer enjoys the legal protections of executive power.

Vance recently won a Supreme Court battle to force the former president to hand over his tax returns, which Trump had long resisted.

Vance's investigation is also said to be looking into loans taken out on several of Trump's Manhattan properties, including Trump Tower.: Manhattan prosecutors are focusing their investigation on Trump's Seven Springs estate in New York - Claimed value of sleepy NY estate could come to haunt Trump

----------


## S Landreth

Federal Investigators Execute Search Warrant at Rudy Giuliani’s Apartment

Federal investigators in Manhattan executed a search warrant on Wednesday at the Upper East Side apartment of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who became President Donald J. Trump’s personal lawyer, stepping up a criminal investigation into Mr. Giuliani’s dealings in Ukraine, three people with knowledge of the matter said.

One of the people said the investigators had seized Mr. Giuliani’s electronic devices.

Executing a search warrant is an extraordinary move for prosecutors to take against a lawyer, let alone a lawyer for a former president, and it marks a major turning point in the long-running investigation into Mr. Giuliani.

The federal authorities have been largely focused on whether Mr. Giuliani illegally lobbied the Trump administration in 2019 on behalf of Ukrainian officials and oligarchs, who at the same time were helping Mr. Giuliani search for dirt on Mr. Trump’s political rivals, including President Biden, who was then a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The United States Attorney’s office in Manhattan and the F.B.I. had for months sought to secure a search warrant for Mr. Giuliani’s phones.

----------


## misskit

*Palm Beach Police Have Reportedly Discussed Trump’s Possible Extradition If He’s Indicted*

Law enforcement officials in Palm Beach County, Florida are reportedly developing a contingency plan in case Donald Trump is indicted by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.


As the former president continues to wage war with political foes from Mar-a-Lago, Trump and his businesses are still under a grand jury investigation into allegations of banking and tax fraud. This raises the possibility of Trump being extradited to New York if he’s charged with wrongdoing on these matters. Politico reported Thursday that Florida officials are holding discussions about what they would do in that scenario.


According to the report, Florida has an interstate extradition statute that would allow Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) “to intervene and even investigate whether an indicted ‘person ought to be surrendered’ to law enforcement officials from another state.” Trump and DeSantis are known to be allies, and the former has suggested that he would consider the governor as his running mate if he runs for president again — though DeSantis and Trump could also be formidable rivals in 2024.


Politico’s report also noted that conversations about Trump’s extradition from Florida might be a moot point if he relocates to his property in Bedminster, New Jersey while Mar-a-Lago closes for the summer season. This could actually have legal repercussions for Trump: Even though New Jersey has a similar extradition statute, Governor Phil Murphy (D) is less likely than DeSantis to stand in the way of a possible indictment.

Palm Beach Reportedly Discussing Trump Extradition

----------


## bsnub

Right wing fake news lairs. 




> I've got nothing to say,
> I've got nothing to do,
> All om my neurons are
> Functioning smoothly
> Yet still I'm a cyborg just like you,
> I am one big myoma that thinks,
> My planet supports only me,
> I've got this one big problem: will I live forever?
> I've got just a short time you see,
> ...

----------


## Cujo

It would be great if someone more talented than I and more familiar with U.S. legal procedures could write an article beginning "former President Trump was today arrested and booked on charges of tax fraud and fraudulent filings blah blah blah,....." and attach this photo and post it on some right wing redneck site in the hope that it'll go viral and start panic among the Trumptards.

----------


## bsnub

> It would be great if someone more talented than I and more familiar with U.S. legal procedures could write an article beginning "former President Trump was today arrested and booked on charges of tax fraud and fraudulent filings blah blah blah,....."


Amerikkka is a joke as an American I do not take it seriously as a nation state. It is an amazing place if you are super rich and can puddle jump over the shithole states that are full of trailer trash and think a fancy night out is at the Olive Garden. This is the mentality we are dealing with. Epicly dumb fucks like Slick who swallow the talking points without question. That dunce has never been to anyplace in the world outside of his oil job paid ticket. He is a prime example of a dimwitted fucktard.

He is the cancer that is eating America from the inside.

----------


## russellsimpson

> Proving it will be the problem.
> They stirred up a crowd at a rally but did they actually incite them to insurrection is what they'll have to prove and I expect that'll be difficult unless they can find people that will testify that they were specifically instructed to go to the capitol building and attempt to take over. ('fight' could taken many ways as they have claimed)


I like this.

----------


## Klondyke

*Activists and Ex-Spy Said to Have Plotted to Discredit Trump ‘Enemies’ in Government
*
The campaign included planned operations against President Trump’s national security adviser at the time, H.R. McMaster, and F.B.I. employees, according to documents and interviews.
May 13, 2021

WASHINGTON — A network of conservative activists, aided by a British former spy, mounted a campaign during the Trump administration to discredit perceived enemies of President Trump inside the government, according to documents and people involved in the operations.

The campaign included a planned sting operation against Mr. Trump’s national security adviser at the time, H.R. McMaster, and secret surveillance operations against F.B.I. employees, aimed at exposing anti-Trump sentiment in the bureau’s ranks.

The operations against the F.B.I., run by the conservative group Project Veritas, were conducted from a large home in the Georgetown section of Washington that rented for $10,000 per month. Female undercover operatives arranged dates with the F.B.I. employees with the aim of secretly recording them making disparaging comments about Mr. Trump.

The campaign shows the obsession that some of Mr. Trump’s allies had about a shadowy “deep state” trying to blunt his agenda — and the lengths that some were willing to go to try to purge the government of those believed to be disloyal to the president.

Central to the effort, according to interviews, was Richard Seddon, a former undercover British spy who was recruited in 2016 by the security contractor Erik Prince to train Project Veritas operatives to infiltrate trade unions, Democratic congressional campaigns and other targets. He ran field operations for Project Veritas until mid-2018.

Last year, The New York Times reported that Mr. Seddon ran an expansive effort to gain access to the unions and campaigns and led a hiring effort that nearly tripled the number of the group’s operatives, according to interviews and deposition testimony. He trained operatives at the Prince family ranch in Wyoming.

The efforts to target American officials show how a campaign once focused on exposing outside organizations slowly morphed into an operation to ferret out Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies in the government’s ranks.

Whether any of Mr. Trump’s White House advisers had direct knowledge of the campaign is unclear, but one of the participants in the operation against Mr. McMaster, Barbara Ledeen, said she was brought on by someone “with access to McMaster’s calendar.”

At the time, Ms. Ledeen was a staff member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, then led by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.

This account is drawn from more than a dozen interviews with former Project Veritas employees and others familiar with the campaign, along with current and former government officials and internal Project Veritas documents.

The scheme against Mr. McMaster, revealed in interviews and documents, was one of the most brazen operations of the campaign. It involved a plan to hire a woman armed with a hidden camera to capture Mr. McMaster making inappropriate remarks that his opponents could use as leverage to get him ousted as national security adviser.

Although several Project Veritas operatives were involved in the plot, it is unclear whether the group directed it. The group, which is a nonprofit, has a history of conducting sting operations on news organizations, Democratic politicians and advocacy groups.

The operation was ultimately abandoned in March 2018 when the conspirators ended up getting what they wanted, albeit by different means. The embattled Mr. McMaster resigned on March 22, a move that avoided a firing by the president who had soured on the three-star general.

Project Veritas did not respond to specific questions about the operations. On Thursday, James O’Keefe, the head of the group, said this article was “a smear piece.”

“Because The New York Times is losing to Project Veritas in a court of law, it is trying to smear Project Veritas in the court of public opinion,” he said. “I think the court, like me, may well be appalled at The New York Times’s continued pattern of defamation of Project Veritas.” He also released a video.

Project Veritas sued The Times for defamation last year over coverage of one of the group’s videos.

Neither Mr. Seddon nor Mr. Prince responded to requests for comment. Mr. McMaster declined to comment.

When confronted with details about her involvement in the McMaster operation, Ms. Ledeen insisted that she was merely a messenger. “I am not part of a plot,” she said.

The operation against Mr. McMaster was hatched not long after an article appeared in BuzzFeed News about a private dinner in 2017. Exactly what happened during the dinner is in dispute, but the article said that Mr. McMaster had disparaged Mr. Trump by calling him an “idiot” with the intelligence of a “kindergartner.”

That dinner, at an upscale restaurant in downtown Washington, was attended by Mr. McMaster and Safra A. Catz, the chief executive of Oracle, as well as two of their aides. Not long after, Ms. Catz called Donald F. McGahn II, then the White House counsel, to complain about Mr. McMaster’s behavior, according to two people familiar with the call.

White House officials investigated and could not substantiate her claims, people familiar with their inquiry said. Ms. Catz declined to comment, and there is no evidence that she played any role in the plot against Mr. McMaster.

Soon after the BuzzFeed article, however, the scheme developed to try to entrap Mr. McMaster: Recruit a woman to stake out the same restaurant, Tosca, with a hidden camera. According to the plan, whenever Mr. McMaster returned by himself, the woman would strike up a conversation with him and, over drinks, try to get him to make comments that could be used to either force him to resign or get him fired.

Who initially ordered the operation is unclear. In an interview, Ms. Ledeen said “someone she trusted” contacted her to help with the plan. She said she could not remember who.

“Somebody who had his calendar conveyed to me that he goes to Tosca all the time,” she said of Mr. McMaster.

According to Ms. Ledeen, she passed the message to a man she believed to be a Project Veritas operative during a meeting at the University Club in Washington. Ms. Ledeen said she believed the man provided her with a fake name.

By then, Mr. McMaster already had a raft of enemies among Trump loyalists, who viewed him as a “globalist” creature of the so-called deep state who was committed to policies they vehemently opposed, like remaining committed to a nuclear deal with Iran and keeping American troops in Afghanistan.

The president often stoked the fire, railing against national security officials at the C.I.A., F.B.I., State Department and elsewhere who he was convinced were trying to undermine him. These “unelected deep-state operatives who defy the voters to push their own secret agendas,” he said in 2018, “are truly a threat to democracy itself.”

Mr. Seddon recruited Tarah Price, who at one point was a Project Veritas operative, and offered to pay her thousands of dollars to participate in the operation, according to interviews and an email written by a former boyfriend of Ms. Price and sent to Project Veritas Exposed, a group that tries to identify the group’s undercover operatives.

The May 2018 email, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, said that Ms. Price was “going to get paid $10,000 to go undercover and set up some big-name political figure in Washington.” It was unclear who was funding the operation. Ms. Price’s former boyfriend was apparently unaware of the target of the operation, or that Mr. McMaster had been forced to step down in March.

Two people identified the political figure as Mr. McMaster. Ms. Price did not respond to requests for comment.

Ms. Ledeen was a longtime staff member for the Judiciary Committee who had been part of past operations in support of Mr. Trump. In 2016, she was involved in a secret effort with Michael T. Flynn — who went on to become Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser — to hunt down thousands of emails that had been deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

According to the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Ms. Ledeen had prepared a 25-page proposal about how to obtain what she believed were “classified emails” that had already been “purloined by our enemies.” The exchange was included in emails the special counsel obtained during the investigation.

Ms. Ledeen later claimed to have obtained the deleted Clinton emails from the dark web and sought Mr. Prince’s assistance to authenticate them. “Erik Prince provided funding to hire a tech adviser to ascertain the authenticity of the emails. According to Prince, the tech adviser determined that the emails were not authentic,” the special counsel’s report said.

She is part of a network of conservative activists who had particular influence in the Trump White House. She is a member of one group, Groundswell, that pushed to purge the White House and other government agencies of “deep state” enemies of Mr. Trump.

Last year, Axios reported that a memo written by Ms. Ledeen — laying out a case against a nominee for a top job in the Treasury Department — was instrumental in Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw the nomination.

Ms. Ledeen is married to Michael Ledeen, who wrote the 2016 book “The Field of Fight” with Mr. Flynn. She said she retired from the Senate earlier this year.

After Mr. Flynn resigned under pressure as national security adviser, Mr. Trump gave the job to Mr. McMaster — inciting the ire of loyalists to Mr. Flynn.

Ms. Ledeen posted numerous negative articles about Mr. McMaster on her Facebook page. After The Times published its article about Mr. Prince’s work with Project Veritas, she wrote on Facebook, “We owe a lot to Erik Prince.”


*A Former Spy’s Role*

Mr. Seddon first came to know Mr. Prince in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when he was stationed at the British Embassy in Washington and Mr. Prince’s company, Blackwater, was winning large American government contracts for work in Afghanistan and Iraq. Former colleagues of Mr. Seddon said he nurtured a love of the American West, and of the country’s gun culture.

He is married to a longtime State Department officer, Alice Seddon, who retired last year.

After Mr. Seddon joined Project Veritas, he set out to professionalize what was once a small operation with a limited budget. He hired former soldiers, a former F.B.I. agent and a British former commando.

Documents obtained by The Times show the extent that Mr. Seddon built espionage tactics into training for the group’s operatives — teaching them to use deception to secure information from potential targets.

One role-playing exercise involved a trainee being interrogated by a law enforcement officer and having to “defend their cover” and “avoid exciting” the officer.

Another exercise instructs trainees in how to target a person in an elevator. The students were encouraged to think of their “targets as a possible future access agent, potential donor, support/facilities agent.”

“The student must create and maintain a fictional cover,” one document read.

The early training for the operations took place at the Prince family ranch near Cody, Wyo., and Mr. Seddon and his colleagues conducted hiring interviews inside an airport hangar at the Cody airport known locally as the Prince hangar, according to interviews and documents. Mr. Prince is the brother of Betsy DeVos, who served as Mr. Trump’s education secretary.

During the interview process, candidates fielded questions meant to figure out their political leanings, including which famous people they might invite to a dinner party and which publications they get their news from.

After finishing the exercises, the operatives were told to burn the training materials, according to a former Project Veritas employee.

Project Veritas also experienced a windfall during the Trump administration, with millions in donations from private donors and conservative foundations. In 2019, the group received a $1 million contribution made through the law firm Alston & Bird, according to a financial document obtained by The Times. The firm has declined to say on whose behalf the contribution was made.

That same year, Project Veritas also received more than $4 million through DonorsTrust, a nonprofit used by conservative groups and individuals.


*Targeting F.B.I. Employees*

Around the time Mr. McMaster resigned, Mr. Seddon pushed for Project Veritas to establish a base of operations in Washington and found a six-bedroom estate near the Georgetown University campus, according to former Project Veritas employees. The house had a view of the Potomac River and was steps from a dark, narrow staircase made famous by the film “The Exorcist.”

The group used a shell company to rent it, according to Project Veritas documents and interviews.

The plan was simple: Use undercover operatives to entrap F.B.I. employees and other government officials who could be publicly exposed as opposing Mr. Trump.

The group has previously assigned female operatives to secretly record and discredit male targets — sometimes making first contact with them on dating apps. In 2017, a Project Veritas operative also approached a Washington Post reporter with a false claim that a Senate candidate had impregnated her.

During the Trump administration, the F.B.I. became an attractive target for the president’s allies. In late 2017, news reports revealed that a senior F.B.I. counterintelligence agent and a lawyer at the bureau who were working on the Russia investigation had exchanged text messages disparaging Mr. Trump.

The president’s supporters and allies in Congress said the texts were proof of bias at the F.B.I. and that the sprawling Russia inquiry was just a plot by the “deep state” to derail the Trump presidency.

Project Veritas operatives created fake profiles on dating apps to lure the F.B.I. employees, according to two former Project Veritas employees and a screenshot of one of the accounts. They arranged to meet and arrived with a hidden camera and microphone.

Women living at the house had Project Veritas code names, including “Brazil” and “Tiger,” according to three former Project Veritas employees with knowledge of the operations. People living at the house were told not to receive mail using their real names. If they took an Uber home, the driver had to stop before they reached the house to ensure nobody saw where they actually lived, one of the former Project Veritas employees said.

One woman living at the house, Anna Khait, was part of several operations against various targets, including a State Department employee. Project Veritas released a video of the operation in 2018, saying it was the first installment in “an undercover video investigation series unmasking the deep state.”

In the video, Mr. O’Keefe said Project Veritas had been investigating the deep state for more than a year. He did not mention efforts to target the F.B.I.

A former Project Veritas employee and another person identified the woman who targeted the State Department employee as Ms. Khait, who had appeared on the television show “Survivor.”

Ms. Khait did not respond to a request for comment.

By the time Project Veritas released its first “deep state” video, Mr. Seddon had left the group for other ventures — chafing at what he viewed as Mr. O’Keefe’s desire to produce quick media content rather than to run long-term infiltration operations, three former Project Veritas employees said.

He was replaced by Tom Williams, a longtime associate of Mr. Prince’s, two of the former Project Veritas employees said. Mr. Williams also eventually left the group.

Mr. O’Keefe has long defended his group’s methods. In his 2018 book, “American Pravda,” Mr. O’Keefe wrote that a “key distinction between the Project Veritas journalist and establishment reporters” is that “while we use deception to gain access, we never deceive our audience.”

Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting
Campaign Said to Have Targeted Trump '&#39;'Enemies'&#39;' in Government - The New York Times

----------


## misskit

^ Not surprising at all with that scummy Project Veritas involved.

----------


## russellsimpson

Wow, what a feeding frenzy.

A special thanks to Klondyke for wetting down the flames.

----------


## Klondyke

^Obviously a good timing for disclosing something like this after the Liz Cheney debacle and after the increasing findings of the election audits...  (what however such media like NYT do not trumpet...)

----------


## S Landreth

> *Palm Beach Police Have Reportedly Discussed Trump’s Possible Extradition If He’s Indicted*
> 
> Law enforcement officials in Palm Beach County, Florida are reportedly developing a contingency plan in case Donald Trump is indicted by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.
> 
> 
> As the former president continues to wage war with political foes from Mar-a-Lago, Trump and his businesses are still under a grand jury investigation into allegations of banking and tax fraud. This raises the possibility of Trump being extradited to New York if he’s charged with wrongdoing on these matters. Politico reported Thursday that Florida officials are holding discussions about what they would do in that scenario.
> 
> 
> According to the report, Florida has an interstate extradition statute that would allow Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) “to intervene and even investigate whether an indicted ‘person ought to be surrendered’ to law enforcement officials from another state.” Trump and DeSantis are known to be allies, and the former has suggested that he would consider the governor as his running mate if he runs for president again — though DeSantis and Trump could also be formidable rivals in 2024.
> ...



^getting closer

Manhattan DA Subpoenaed Private School in Trump Investigation

Manhattan DA prosecutors subpoenaed an elite Manhattan private school as part of its investigation into Trump

New York prosecutors have subpoenaed an elite private school in Manhattan as part of an investigation into former President Donald Trump and his Trump Organization, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Sources told The Journal that Columbia Grammar & Preparatory School was subpoenaed by prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's office.

Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg's grandchildren are students at the school. Prosecutors are reportedly trying to "flip" Weisselberg, who also oversees the Trump family's finances, into cooperating with the investigation into irregularities in Trump's and the Trump Organization's finances.

Jennifer Weisselberg — the children's mother — previously told Insider that Trump would include school tuition in the compensation package for her former husband, Barry Weisselberg. She is a cooperating witness in investigations from both the Manhattan District Attorney's office and the New York Attorney General's office.

Prosecutors could be examining whether the tuition arrangement allowed Barry or Allen Weisselberg to avoid paying taxes, according to The Journal.

Jennifer Weisselberg told The Journal that more than $500,000 in tuition was paid for with checks written either by Trump or Allen Weisselberg. But the records in her possession don't show who made the payments, The Journal reported.

The subpoenas for the elite Upper West Side school will allow prosecutors to obtain copies of the transactions for tuition payments, which could tell them whether they came from Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Barry Weisselberg, the Trump Organization, or some other source.

Prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's office have already gone to the Supreme Court to subpoena reams of financial documents from the Trump Organization, including tax filings. They have also subpoenaed Allen Weisselberg's bank records.

The Trumps and Weisselbergs have ties to Columbia Prep

Michael Cohen, a former executive at the Trump Organization and personal lawyer for Trump, was previously the chairman of Columbia Prep's board. He helped make sure the Weisselberg grandchildren would be considered for admission, Jennifer Weisselberg previously told Insider.

The children of Jack Weisselberg, Allen Weisselberg's other son, have also attended Columbia Prep, according to The Journal.

Barron Trump, the former president's youngest son, attended the school when he lived in New York City.

And the Trump Foundation — Donald Trump's now-dissolved charity organization — donated $150,000 to the school between 2014 and 2016, according to The Journal's review of tax filings.

A court ordered the dissolution of the Trump Foundation in 2019, after New York Attorney General Letitia James brought a lawsuit accusing it of misusing funds.

James' office is conducting its own investigation into Trump's and the Trump Organization's finances. It has made fewer public moves than the investigation from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. Vance is set to retire in December and is widely expected to make a decision about whether to bring charges against Trump or the Trump Organization before then.

Trump faces numerous other legal headaches, including investigations into his conduct as president, lawsuits over sexual-misconduct allegations, and an investigation in Georgia into his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results there.

In an earlier interview with Insider, Jennifer Weisselberg said the Trump Organization would pay employees like her former husband with perks like tuition and housing instead of cash as a way to control their lives.

"They want you to do crimes and not talk about it and don't leave," she said.

*Looking down the road……..*

House strikes deal to create independent January 6 commission

Sedition - 20 years, Insurrection - 10 years

[USC02] 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

https://homeland.house.gov/imo/media...ion%20text.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

NY DROPS HAMMER: ‘CRIMINAL’ PROBE OF TRUMP ORG

Trump Organization Now Under Criminal Investigation, New York Attorney General Says

“We have informed the Trump Organization that our investigation into the Organization is no longer purely civil in nature,” Fabien Levy, New York AG Letitia James’s press secretary, said in an email Tuesday night. “We are now actively investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity, along with the Manhattan DA. We have no additional comment.”

----------


## David48atTD

^  
Key Points

New  York State Attorney General Letitia James’ office, which already was  conducting a civil investigation of former President Donald Trump’s  company, is now probing the Trump Organization “in a criminal capacity,”  her spokesman said.James’ spokesman indicated that her  office’s probe is being conducted in conjunction with the already  ongoing criminal investigation of Trump and the Trump Organization by  the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.Both  investigations are eyeing claims, made by Trump’s former personal lawyer  Michael Cohen, that the Trump Organization misstated real estate  valuations to reduce their tax liabilities, and get better loan and  insurance terms. 

New York attorney general investigating Trump Organization for crimes

 :party43: .

----------


## misskit

An unexpected charge!  


*Trump sued for calling COVID-19 China virus*

The complaint, filed in a federal court in New York by the Chinese Americans Civil Rights Coalition (CACRC), alleged that Trump's use of that phrase and other similar racist slurs is baseless, since the origin of the coronavirus is not yet determined, and that the former president's conduct harmed the Chinese American community.


Trump's "extreme and outrageous conduct was carried out throughout the pandemic with reckless disregard of whether such conduct would cause Chinese Americans to suffer emotional distress," stated the suit dated May 20.


The coronavirus pandemic has led to a spike in violence against Asian Americans - a sizable portion of them Americans of Chinese descent - which activists have blamed on Trump's rhetoric.


The suit further alleged that Trump continued to use those derogatory words to refer to the coronavirus even as he knew that the virus didn't necessarily come from China.

"The truth matters, words have consequences ... especially from those in powerful and influential positions," the complaint said. "(Trump) intentionally repeated those defamatory words to serve his own personal and political interest with astonishing level of actual malice and negligence, hence severely injuring the Chinese/Asian Americans communities in the process."


The CACRC is asking that US$1 be paid to every Asian American and Pacific Islander living in the United States as an apology, which would total US$22.9 million.


The plaintiffs said they would use the money to establish a museum that will showcase the history of Asian American and Pacific Islanders communities and their contribution to the United States.


Trump sued for calling COVID-19 China virus

----------


## panama hat

> Trump sued for calling COVID-19 China virus


 :rofl:  Lawsuit number 31.863

----------


## harrybarracuda

> An unexpected charge!  
> 
> 
> *Trump sued for calling COVID-19 China virus*
> 
> The complaint, filed in a federal court in New York by the Chinese Americans Civil Rights Coalition (CACRC), alleged that Trump's use of that phrase and other similar racist slurs is baseless, since the origin of the coronavirus is not yet determined


Of course the origin of the Wuhan virus is confirmed.

How stupid are they?

----------


## S Landreth

Manhattan DA convenes grand jury in Trump investigation

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. has convened a grand jury in his wide-ranging investigation into former President Donald Trump, The Washington Post reported Tuesday, citing two sources familiar with the probe.

Prosecutors have been investigating Trump, the Trump Organization and its officers since at least 2018. The grand jury signals that they are ready to present evidence and potentially seek indictments.

The panel was convened recently, according to the Post, but it was unclear precisely when. It will meet three days a week over a span of six months.

A spokesperson for Trump did not reply to a request from CNBC for a response to the legal developments.

In New York state, this kind of special grand jury typically hears a number of different cases and is especially useful in complex, long-running matters.

Although much of Vance’s investigation is still opaque, court filings and witnesses have confirmed that prosecutors are investigating several kinds of financial activities that Trump and the Trump Organization engaged in.

One of them is whether the former president and his company falsely inflated the value of their properties for insurance adjusters and then undervalued the properties for tax purposes.

Another area under investigation is how the Trump Organization paid its top executives and whether taxes were paid on various forms of compensation.

Earlier this year, Vance and his team won a court battle over Trump’s tax returns, which they subpoenaed from the firm that prepared them.

The former president has repeatedly and forcefully denied any wrongdoing. He has accused the district attorney’s office of engaging in a politically motivated investigation.

New York state’s attorney general, Letitia James, is also investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity.

The attorney general’s office had initially opened a civil investigation into the Trump Organization. But earlier this month, James’ spokesman announced that the case had evolved into a criminal probe.

----------


## S Landreth

Litigation Tracker: Pending Criminal and Civil Cases Against Donald Trump

On both the criminal and civil litigation fronts, former President Donald Trump faces a bevy of lawsuits and investigations, with more cases likely to follow. Some are civil suits stemming from his pre-presidential business dealings. Others are defamation claims from women he allegedly assaulted. More still are criminal probes and civil actions that scrutinize his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Chart below tracks all these cases. It will be continually updated as major legal developments occur.

Key Takeaways

1. E. Jean Carroll Defamation and Federal Tort Claims Act Litigation

Carroll is suing Trump for defamation after he publicly accused her of fabricating a rape allegation against him. The parties are currently involved in an appeal before the Second Circuit, where Trump (and so far, the Justice Department as well) is arguing that he had official immunity from Carrolls defamation claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

2. Summer Zervos Defamation Suit

Summer Zervos, a former contestant on the Apprentice, has filed a civil suit against former President Trump for defamation after he claimed her allegations of his inappropriate sexual conduct were lies designed to help the Clinton campaign and improve her fame. The case is currently at the New York Court of Appeals, the highest New York state court.

Update: On Mar. 30, the New York Court of Appeals denied Trumps appeal on his motion to dismiss the case. Trump originally filed the motion claiming that a state court could not hear a suit against a sitting president. The court stated that issues were now moot, and the case can now go forward.

3. Mary Trump Fraud Litigation

Mary Trump is suing Donald Trump for defrauding her out of millions of dollars in an inheritance dispute. The suit is pending in New York state court, where the parties are currently battling over former President Trumps move to dismiss the case.

4. Panama Hotel Fraud and Tax Litigation

Ithaca Capital is suing Trumps hotel management company for fraud in federal court. Primarily, Ithaca claims that Trump representatives exaggerated the value of a Panama hotel during Ithacas negotiations to purchase it.

5. Doe v. The Trump Corporation Class Action

A group of anonymous plaintiffs have filed a class action against the Trump family and their business, alleging that the Trumps used their brand to scam investors into paying for worthless business opportunities. The district court denied the Trumps bid to force the case into arbitration, and the Trumps are now appealing.

6. DC Civil Suit over Misuse of 2017 Inauguration Funds

In a non-criminal suit, the DC Attorney General is suing several Trump-affiliated entities for misusing inauguration funds to enrich Trumps family business. The suit is currently in discovery before DCs local court, where the AGs office is deposing key Trump executives, notably including his children.

7. Bennie Thompson Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack

Congressman Bennie Thompson, represented by the NAACP, is suing Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and two right wing militia groups for conspiring to forcibly prevent Congress from counting the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6. The district court is currently waiting for Trump and his co-defendants to respond to Thompsons complaint.

8. Eric Swalwell Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Riots

On Mar. 5, 2021, Representative Eric Swalwell sued Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr., and Congressman Mo Brooks in federal court over the Jan. 6 riots. Swalwell alleges that the defendants violated federal civil rights lawsincluding the Ku Klux Klan Actwhen they conspired to interfere with the Electoral College Count on Jan 6. Beyond that, Swalwell also says the defendants should be held liable for negligently violating DC criminal codes on incitement, encouraging the rioters violent conduct, and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on members of Congress.

Update: On May 17, 2021, Giuliani moved to dismiss the claims against him.

9. Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots

Two Capitol Police officersboth on duty during the Jan. 6 insurrectionsued Donald Trump for injuries they sustained while protecting the Capitol. Both allege that the rioters physically attacked them with fists, chemical spray, and other weapons. They allege that the former president, by his incendiary words and conduct, directed the physical attack and emotional distress.

10. NAACPs Legal Defense Fund Voting Rights Case for Post-Election Actions

The LDF is suing Trump, the Trump Campaign, and the RNC for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act. While the litigation is still at its early stages, Trump faces damages and a declaratory judgment that he did indeed violate these provisions of the law.

11. New York Attorney Generals Civil and Criminal Investigations

Since Mar. 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James has been investigating allegations that the Trump Organization altered property values to avoid tax liabilities. The investigation began after Trumps former attorney Michael Cohen provided congressional testimony that Trump engaged in fraud. In Oct. 2020, Jamess office deposed Eric Trump, and in Jan. 2021 a state court judge ruled that Trumps tax attorneys must turn over thousands of documents.

Update: On May 18, 2021, a spokesperson for New Yorks Attorney General said, We have informed the Trump Organization that our investigation into the organization is no longer purely civil in nature. We are now actively investigating the Trump Organizations in a criminal capacity, along with the Manhattan DA.

12. Criminal Investigations into Trumps Finances

During his presidency, the Manhattan District Attorney investigated Trumps finances. Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance recently gained access to Trumps tax information in the course of a criminal investigation into potential tax crimes, insurance fraud, and other financial crimes under state law. Criminal charges have not been filed.

Update-1: New reporting on Mar. 1 revealed that Vances investigation has focused on Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, whose potential cooperation with prosecutors could be a significant breakthrough in the investigation. On Mar. 31, the New York Times reported that prosecutors have subpoenaed Mr. Weisselbergs personal bank records, and on Apr. 8, investigators took possession of financial records from Weisselbergs daughter-in-law.

Update-2: New reporting on Mar. 8 revealed that Vances probe has expanded to include an investigation of a loan the Trump Organization received to build its Chicago tower, and whether the forgiveness of that loan was reported as income.

Update-3: Vance has convened a special grand jury that is expected to decide whether to indict former president Donald Trump, other executives at his company or the business itself should prosecutors present the panel with criminal charges, the Washington Post reported on May 25, 2021. The move indicates that District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.s investigation of the former president and his business has reached an advanced stage . It suggests, too, that Vance believes he has found evidence of a crime  if not by Trump then by someone potentially close to him or by his company.

13. DC AG Incitement Criminal Investigation

The DC Attorney General, Karl Racine, has announced a criminal investigation into Trumps alleged role in provoking the Jan. 6th riots. No charges have been filed, though Racines office is reportedly looking into a local DC code that makes it a misdemeanor to incite violence.

14. Fulton County, Georgia Criminal Election Influence Investigation

The Fulton County DAs Office has opened a criminal investigation into attempted election interference by Trump. The DAs Office has requested that all official and unofficial emails concerning the election be preserved and has reportedly also planned to look into a call between Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as part of the investigation as well as Rudy Giulianis potential false statements to Georgia officials.

Update-1: Officials are reportedly expected to seek a grand jury subpoena the week of March 1, 2021 for documents and witnesses connected to the investigation.

Update-2: On Mar. 11, a recording of a call between then-President Trump and the chief investigator of the Georgia Secretary of States office, Frances Watson, was released by the Wall Street Journal. On the call, Trump urged Watson to look for fraud in mail-in ballots. The Fulton County DAs Office has said that they will request a copy of the phone call.

Update-3: As of Mar. 28, there are reportedly two grand juries considering subpoenas for documents relevant to the investigation.: Litigation Tracker: Pending Criminal and Civil Cases Against Donald Trump

----------


## panama hat

Can one send thoughts and prayers?

----------


## thailazer

Will have to see if Trump gets charged.   All the news talking heads think he will be as they would not have gone through all of this effort without sufficient evidence.  We should know within six months what the deal is.   Trump's lawyers must be a busy lot!

----------


## Cujo

> Can one send thoughts and prayers?


Yes, good idea.
I think he's an asswipe and I pray he ends up in prison. How's that?

----------


## panama hat

> Yes, good idea.
> I think he's an asswipe and I pray he ends up in prison. How's that?


Echoes my thoughts and prayers . . .  Yup, that'll do

----------


## S Landreth

Step 1 

Trump Organization could face criminal charges in New York next week

The Manhattan district attorney has informed lawyers for Donald Trump that criminal charges against the Trump Organization are possible, a lawyer for Trump confirmed on Friday.

The New York Times first reported that possible charges against the former president’s company were related to “fringe benefits the company awarded a top executive”.

Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer, has widely been reported to be the target of such investigations.

Citing “several people with knowledge of the matter”, the Times said charges against Weisselberg and the Trump Organization could be unveiled as soon as next week.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Let's hope Weisselberg squeals like a schoolgirl to avoid prison.

I'm dying to know how the bald orange c u n t laundered the proceeds from the Russian buying that mansion for a spectacularly absurd price.

----------


## Cujo

Sounds like they're tightening the screws.



> New York prosecutors have given lawyers for Donald Trump 24 hours to respond with any last arguments as to why criminal charges should not be filed against his family business, according to a report on Sunday.
> 
> 
> The deadline set for Monday was another strong signal that the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, and the New York attorney general, Letitia James, are considering criminal charges against the former president’s company as an entity, according to sources quoted by the Washington Post.
> 
> 
> On Friday, it was reported that Vance could announce charges against the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, within seven days.
> 
> 
> ...


New York prosecutors set deadline for Trump on legal action – report | Donald Trump | The Guardian

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Organization and CFO to be charged Thursday

The Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg are set to be charged with tax-related crimes by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office on Thursday, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Weisselberg is the subject of a criminal tax investigation by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. Prosecutors are reportedly looking into whether benefits given to Weisselberg and other executives were represented in the company's financial record-keeping system and if the company paid taxes on those benefits.

The Hill has reached out to the Trump Organization for comment.  :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

LOCK HIM UP!

 :bananaman:

----------


## misskit

*Trump Organization and its CFO indicted by Manhattan grand jury, report says*


The Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg, its longtime finance chief, were indicted Wednesday by a grand jury in Manhattan, The Washington Post reported.


The indictments against the organization and Weisselberg will stay sealed until Thursday afternoon, the report said. The Post also reported, citing sources, that Weisselberg is expected to surrender Thursday morning.


Weisselberg is expected to be arraigned in front of a state judge later that day, according to the Post. The Trump Organization is also poised to be arraigned.


The charges reportedly center around allegations of Weisselberg and other Trump Organization executives receiving benefits without reporting them properly on their tax returns, unnamed sources told the Post.


Former President Donald Trump is not expected to be charge this week, the report’s sources said, but the indictments could bring possible fines and legal problems to his company. However, prosecutors hope Weisselberg will exchange testimony against Trump for a reducing his own risk, another source told the Post.


A representative for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. declined CNBC’s request for comment. Trump Organization lawyer Ronald Fischetti had no immediate comment. Weisselberg’s lawyer, Mary Mulligan, did not comment on the matter.

The investigation of the Trump Organization originally was focused on how the New York company accounted for a hush money payment Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen paid to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election.


But since then, the probe has expanded into allegations by Cohen that the Trump Org misstated the value of various real estate assets to benefit from lower tax obligations or to receive more favorable terms on loans and insurance related to those properties.


In recent months, the Manhattan DA’s office also has eyed how various fringe benefits received by Trump Organization executives were accounted for by the company, and whether executives paid taxes on those benefits.


Fischetti in an email to CNBC last week said, “In my more than 50 years of practice, never before have I seen the District Attorney’s Office target a company over employee compensation or fringe benefits.”


“The IRS would not, and has not, brought a case like this,” Fischetti said.


“Even the financial institutions responsible for causing the 2008 financial crises, the worst financial crisis since the great depression, were not prosecuted.”


Cohen, who pleaded guilty in 2018 to multiple federal crimes, has repeatedly met with investigators from the Manhattan DA’s office to assist them with their probe of the Trump Organization.


Trump Organization and its CFO indicted by Manhattan grand jury, report says

----------


## David48atTD

NBC News confirms the Trump Organization and its longtime CFO, Trump ally Allen Weisselberg, have been indicted. 

The charges will be revealed in a New York court on Thursday. 
But will the loyal Weisselberg cooperate with prosecutors? 
Philip Rucker, Paul Butler, and A.B. Stoddard join to discuss.

----------


## David48atTD

Fmr. U.S. Attorney and MSNBC Contributor Chuck Rosenberg joins to break down what we can expect to come after the indictments against the Trump Org. and its CFO Allen Weisselberg.

----------


## harrybarracuda

I just hope they remember to put him in Jeffrey Epstein's old cell.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Organization: CFO Allen Weisselberg surrenders to prosecutors ahead of expected criminal indictment

Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg surrendered to the Manhattan district attorney's office Thursday morning ahead of expected criminal charges against him and the company in connection with alleged tax crimes, his attorney told CNN.

Weisselberg is set to be arraigned later Thursday at a lower Manhattan courthouse.

extra.......

The Trump Organization released a statement Thursday saying that its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, is being used by Manhattan prosecutors “as a pawn” for politics.

“The District Attorney is bringing a criminal prosecution involving employee benefits that neither the IRS nor any other District Attorney would ever think of bringing (_that statement was fake news_). This is not justice; this is politics," the statement, attributed to a spokesperson from the Trump Organization, said.

----------


## Saint Willy

> The Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg, its longtime finance chief, were indicted Wednesday by a grand jury in Manhattan, The Washington Post reported.


 :party43:

----------


## nidhogg

While it is a start, I do hope they have something a bit more serious up their sleeves than not paying tax on perks.  That is piss penny stuff.

----------


## misskit

I think this is the way to get Weisselberg to rat on Trump. Notice no charges directly on Trump.

----------


## bsnub

> I think this is the way to get Weisselberg to rat on Trump.


I would agree. Let us hope.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Organization And Its Top Exec Charged With Financial Crimes

Unindicted Coconspirator #1 - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...eisselberg.pdf

----------


## harrybarracuda

> While it is a start, I do hope they have something a bit more serious up their sleeves than not paying tax on perks.  That is piss penny stuff.





> Prosecutors in court said the counts include a scheme to defraud, conspiracy, criminal tax fraud, offering a false instrument for filing and falsifying business records.
> 
> 
> The indictment also alleges Weisselberg evaded $1.76 million in taxes over the period beginning in 2005 and that he concealed for years that he was a resident of New York City, thereby avoiding paying city income taxes. Weisselberg pleaded not guilty Thursday afternoon.


As you well know, tax fraud brings a good number of years.

If he can plea that right down by admitting (and proving) that he was instructed by baldy orange cunto to fiddle Trump's taxes and defraud banks, he'd be mad not to.

I'm pretty sure that's what the prosecutors are after.

----------


## Saint Willy

If only Trump had a way of pardoning these guys…

----------


## Hugh Cow

The Republicans are going to be in the wilderness for years unless they ditch Trump and find a new leader prepared to move their party more towards the centre. Hopefully the political pendulum that started swinging to the right not only in the USA but around the world, driven in part by fear of a radical left agenda, will now swing back to a more central, consensus based politics.

----------


## Saint Willy

> , will now swing back to a more central, consensus based politics.


Optimistic!




> The Republicans are going to be in the wilderness for years unless they ditch Trump


Trump was not the cause, merely a product of the GOP. Him staying or going is not really going to change much about them.

----------


## Cujo

I'm just wondering, if the 'Trump Organization' is charged, then in the event of conviction one assumes it would be the 'Trump Organization' that would be convicted and sent to pokey. How does that work then?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I'm just wondering, if the 'Trump Organization' is charged, then in the event of conviction one assumes it would be the 'Trump Organization' that would be convicted and sent to pokey. How does that work then?


They hold the corporation liable and punish it accordingly.

But if the accountant rolls on his boss, it's a different story.

----------


## Cujo

> They hold the corporation liable and punish it accordingly.


So no-one is held accountable then.

----------


## Klondyke

Will they look now also in others who have been hard earning for their consultancy services in other countries than at home (please no names here)?

----------


## Topper

> So no-one is held accountable then.


Right now, no one other than Wesselburg (sp).

----------


## AntRobertson

> Wesselburg (sp).


Weaselburg.

----------


## Cujo

> Right now, no one other than Wesselburg (sp).


That's a separate thing though isn't it. He's charged and will be held accountable, and the Trump 'organisation' is charged, Who will be held accountable in the second instance?

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Organization: What could happen if it's indicted? - Los Angeles Times

----------


## David48atTD

> Trump Organization: What could happen if it's indicted? - Los Angeles Times


Tempt us with a few paragraphs?

For me, it's below ...

----------


## Saint Willy

WASHINGTON —[COLOR=var(--primary-text-color)]For decades, going into business with Donald Trump was considered a risky proposition despite his celebrity. He earned a reputation for stiffing contractors and biting off more than he could chew, leading to an infamous implosion in Atlantic City, N.J., when his casinos ran out of money. Eventually, banks started asking Trump to personally guarantee their loans.

Now, working with the Trump Organization could become even more fraught. Already marginalized in the corporate world, the former president’s namesake company is facing criminal charges from New York prosecutors. The Washington Post reported that a grand jury in Manhattan returned indictments against the company and its longtime accountant, Allen Weisselberg, on Wednesday. The indictments are expected to be unsealed Thursday.

The investigation involves potential tax violations related to unreported compensation, according to a source with knowledge of the case. Danny Frost, a spokesman for Manhattan Dist. Atty. Cy Vance Jr., declined to comment.
However, that could be only the beginning of the Trump Organization’s problems — the full scope of investigations into the company is unclear. The New York state attorney general‘s office, which has been conducting a civil inquiry into whether the company improperly inflated or deflated the value of its properties, is also working with the district attorney’s office on the criminal case.

The cases might sound like small potatoes after years in which Trump faced a special counsel investigation over Russian support for his candidacy and two subsequent impeachments, one for pressuring Ukraine to open an investigation into Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate for president who eventually defeated him in last year’s election, and the other for “incitement of insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Trump was acquitted in the Senate in both cases.

But an indictment by a grand jury, legal experts said, would cloud Trump’s financial future, and could potentially cripple his company.

Under New York state law, a corporation convicted of the financial charges being mulled in the Trump Organization case would face at most a $10,000-per-count penalty and an order to pay restitution. New York state prosecutors do not have the power, unlike those in some other states, to ask a judge to dissolve a company.

Such an outcome may not seem particularly dire, but legal and business experts said the Trump Organization is likely to face serious “collateral consequences” that could ruin the company. That’s because other businesses, banks and municipalities are leery — or precluded by internal rules, laws or regulations — from engaging with entities accused of such offenses. Banks, in particular, are hesitant to lend money to those facing such accusations, legal and business experts said, because there is a strong chance they will never recover their money.

“The Trump Organization, if indicted, could find itself without a place to put its assets and without a source of capital,” said Daniel Horwitz, a defense attorney who is a former Manhattan prosecutor. “If you are a bank, are you going to lend money to a company accused of a financial crime? If you are another company, would you do business with another that has been indicted? The answer is frequently no.”
Horwitz and other legal experts said a conviction would trigger a further series of challenges for the Trump Organization because businesses, banks and governments face stricter rules in that scenario. For example, a range of financing strategies popular with private companies are off-limits by the Securities and Exchange Commission to “bad actors,” including those convicted of financial crimes, according to Will Thomas, an assistant professor of business and law at the University of Michigan.

Analogous cases are hard to come by, but Thomas and others pointed to the saga of Arthur Andersen as an example of how such collateral consequences can doom a company. The Big Five accounting firm was convicted in federal court in 2002 of obstructing justice tied to its work for Enron, an energy giant accused of engaging in massive accounting fraud.
The firm vigorously appealed the verdict and won its case in the Supreme Court in 2005. But by then it was too late. The conviction had forced the firm to surrender its accounting license because federal regulations do not allow people or entities convicted of felonies to audit publicly traded companies. Arthur Andersen struggled to drum up any new business. By the time it won its appeal, the once-proud firm was essentially dead, with only about 200 employees out of nearly 30,000 who had once been on its payroll.
An indictment would come at a time when its businesses are already struggling. The pandemic starved Trump’s hotels of traveling customers, his golf courses are losing money, and his extremist politics have turned off potential partners. Lucrative licensing and entertainment deals such as “The Apprentice,” the reality show that made him a television star, have withered or ended altogether.

The Trump Organization’s lawyers met with the district attorney’s office Monday to argue why the company shouldn’t face criminal charges, and the former president issued a seething statement afterward. He said prosecutors were being “rude, nasty, and totally biased,” and he said the investigation involved “things that are standard practice throughout the U.S. business community, and in no way a crime.”

The Wall Street Journal was first to report that an indictment was expected Thursday.

Ronald Fischetti, a lawyer for Trump, and Alan Futerfas, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, did not respond to requests for comment. Weisselberg’s lawyer, Mary Mulligan, declined comment.

Weisselberg has been under scrutiny as to whether he avoided taxes on perks such as private school tuition and rent-free apartments that could have been considered compensation for his job.
Court papers show that investigators are also looking at the finances involving several properties, including Trump Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, N.Y., the 40 Wall Street office building in Manhattan, the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, and the Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles.

Sam Buell, a Duke University law professor and former federal prosecutor, isn’t sure that an indictment will be the turning point that some have predicted.

“I can’t see it being this kind of pivotal thing where this guy becomes toxic in a way that he wasn’t before,” he said.

He said it might be a different story if Trump relied heavily on government programs, such as healthcare or financial trading. But Trump’s business involves real estate and licensing deals that require less regulatory oversight.

Buell was skeptical that New York prosecutors would bring charges only on tax issues because such allegations are usually only part of larger cases, rather than the sole infraction.
“You wouldn’t want to be accused of ticky-tack prosecution that you wouldn’t bring against somebody else,” Buell said. “That would just be feeding into the narrative that you would get from the defense.”
Legal experts said prosecutors are almost certain to indict a high-ranking officer along with the Trump Organization itself because, at trial, they would have to prove that an executive or other officers in the company broke the law. They could not recall another instance in which a company was charged in a serious fraud but prosecutors spared top employees responsible for the misconduct.

“If there is evidence sufficient to indict a company, then there is evidence to indict the officers engaged in the alleged criminal activity,” said Jeffrey Robbins, a former federal prosecutor.

There are times, experts said, that prosecutors enter into deals in which companies plead guilty but officers are not charged with crimes. However, such cases typically involve companies whose officers cooperated extensively with an inquiry and agreed to reform business practices and to pay restitution. That does not seem to be the case with the Trump Organization.

Trump remains influential within the Republican Party, particularly for a one-term president. He left his eldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, and Weisselberg in charge of the company during his time in the White House. But his caustic politics, history of racist comments and continued refusal to accept his defeat in the last election have left him radioactive among companies that view controversy as bad for their bottom line.

Even Deutsche Bank, which lent money to Trump when other banks stayed away, reportedly does not want to do any more business with him.

Other companies cut ties after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol by Trump supporters. For example, the PGA of America announced that it would no longer hold its championship tournament at Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, N.J., next year.

----------


## misskit

*Trump appears to acknowledge tax schemes while questioning whether alleged violations are crimes*

Former president Donald Trump lashed out at Manhattan prosecutors Saturday night for indicting his organization and its chief financial officer for tax fraud, calling it “prosecutorial misconduct” in his most extensive comments on the charges since they were unsealed Thursday.

As Trump criticized the investigation, he appeared to acknowledge the tax schemes while questioning whether the alleged violations were in fact crimes.


“They go after good, hard-working people for not paying taxes on a company car,” he said at a rally in Sarasota, Fla. “You didn't pay tax on the car or a company apartment. You used an apartment because you need an apartment because you have to travel too far where your house is. You didn't pay tax. Or education for your grandchildren. I don't even know. Do you have to? Does anybody know the answer to that stuff?”

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged the Trump Organization and CFO Allen Weisselberg with orchestrating a 15-year scheme to avoid taxes by providing benefits hidden from the federal government. Weisselberg, they said, evaded taxes on $1.7 million in fringe benefits, which included the Trump Organization paying his rent, leasing him cars and other gifts. The Trump Organization and Weisselberg both pleaded not guilty this week, and Trump was not charged in the case.

MORE Trump appears to acknowledge tax schemes while questioning whether alleged violations are crimes

----------


## AntRobertson

The Trump family defense in general seems to be: it was only $1.7M; and Yeah But What About Hunter Biden.

----------


## nidhogg

> The Trump family defense in general seems to be: it was only $1.7M; and Yeah But What About Hunter Biden.


Trump may not even understand the problem.  He thinks not paying taxes is " smart"- his words.

But while i get the concept of hanging out the little fish to catch a big fish, there better be something a fuck sight more than failure to pay tax on 1.7 million coming soon.

----------


## AntRobertson

I read an interesting article the other day that was saying the knock on effect could be devastating.

Apparently a lot of his loans have what’s almost a morality clause built-in and can be called up over this sort of thing. He’s already toxic enough that mainstream banks are hesitant and even dark money would be cautious over the exposure it could bring.

In a nutshell: it could topple his entire business.

Remains to be seen of course. I don’t have much faith in the ‘justice’ system though.

----------


## Topper

> But while i get the concept of hanging out the little fish to catch a big fish, there better be something a fuck sight more than failure to pay tax on 1.7 million coming soon.


There are other unindicted co-conspirators who have also received the same benefits and this has gone on for 15 years.  The second set of books they kept on compensation that should have been taxed shows they knew what they were doing was illegal, so it's not about the amount of money, but the long term "scamming" for the lack of a better word the IRS.  It's not like they did this just last year, it's been going on for 15 years and the amount shown is just what Wisselburg owes, not the rest of the trump executives.

----------


## helge

I'm of the opinion that deep down, all these charges being brought against Trump, is just good old fashioned envy.

He's rich and did well as a president

Fact
















 :Smile: 
I hope I'll live to see the day, when a US president could possibly face jailtime.

But I doubt it

----------


## Topper

> I hope I'll live to see the day, when a US president could possibly face jailtime.


Public humiliation would be better in his case than jail.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> He's rich and did well as a president


I'd say he was a shit president who used the office to enrich himself and his family - probably illegally.

Time will tell.

----------


## helge

> I'd say he was a shit president who used the office to enrich himself and his family - probably illegally.


I was joking and now you do this to me  :Sad: 

This out of context quote could haunt me forever  :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda



----------


## spliff

Like all the impeachments and charges before he'll never be found guilty because he's not.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Like all the impeachments and charges before he'll never be found guilty because he's not.


He doesn't have a Republican majority to protect him this time.

 :Smile:

----------


## bsnub

> Like all the impeachments and charges before he'll never be found guilty because he's not.


 :smiley laughing: 

You have to be one dumb, blinkered trumpanzee to buy that load of shit.

----------


## spliff

> You have to be one dumb, blinkered trumpanzee to buy that load of shit.



okay...but who hasn't fiddled their taxes befor? It's the American way.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> okay...but who hasn't fiddled their taxes befor? It's the American way.


As I said, I hope he gets Jeffrey Epstein's cell.

----------


## Topper

> okay...but who hasn't fiddled their taxes befor? It's the American way.


I've fiddled with mine for sure.  I didn't brag about it on national TV or have my personal lawyer, that was going to jail for paying off a porn star at the direct orders of me, testify before Congress that I was fiddling with my taxes though.  

It was probably something like that which caught the fed's eye.  I might be wrong though.

----------


## S Landreth

DC Attorney General Moves Ahead With Trump Inauguration Suit

The attorney general for the District of Columbia will continue investigating whether Donald Trumps 2017 inauguration committee misspent more than $1 million, after discussions to resolve the matter out of court stalled this month.

The AGs office has a civil lawsuit against the inaugural committee and the Trump Organization. And this month, the case was forced into mediation, a deal-making session in which a neutral negotiator tries to get different sides to come to an agreement.

While lawyers met on July 14 to discuss resolving the case out of court, the meeting went nowhere.

According to court records, the closed-door meeting resulted in no agreement reached. The reason: Investigators are dead set on seeing this case through to the very end, a source with knowledge of the case told The Daily Beast.

That means the case will proceed, as all sides wait to see whether D.C. Superior Court Judge José M. López rules that the local law enforcement agency has already proven its case before trial. The office of the local attorney general, Karl Racine, has a pending motion for summary judgment arguing that the evidence already presented weighs that heavily in his favor.

The local attorney general claims the Trump Organization and Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C. were unjustly enriched by overbilling the nonprofit inauguration committee. The office wants the judge to force the return of $1.08 million in misspent charitable funds. (The AGs office wants to award that money to another civic-minded nonprofit of its choosing.)

Racines office is seeking a similar outcome to the victory that New Yorks attorney general had in 2018 over the Trump Foundation, forcing it to disband and hand over money to other charities. hhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/dc-att...-suit?ref=home


Trump businesses making millions from political and taxpayer spending

It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it, Trump said

----------


## S Landreth

Justice Department says Trump's tax returns should be released

The Justice Department on Friday said the Treasury Department must turn over former President Trump’s long-sought tax returns to the Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee.

Read the full memo: DOJ Memo Trump Tax Returns | Internal Revenue Service | American Government

----------


## David48atTD

Anyone got an update on the progress of this case/trial?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Anyone got an update on the progress of this case/trial?


Complex financial frauds take a while to unpick and put in a form that can be presented to grand and normal juries. Be patient.

----------


## David48atTD

Capitol Police Officers Sue Trump, Others Over Jan. 6 Riot   

Officers say former president, members of far-right groups promoted election fraud claims that fomented riot 


WASHINGTONSeven U.S. Capitol Police officers sued former President  Donald Trump and others, including nearly two dozen members of  right-wing extremist groups and organizations, alleging they conspired  to promote baseless claims of widespread election fraud that fomented  the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

          The suit filed Thursday names as defendants the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers,  both groups of which some members were charged in the attack, as well  as Trump associate Roger Stone, saying they propagated false claims of  election fraud, encouraged the use of force, intimidation, and threats,  and incited violence against members of Congress and the law enforcement  officers whose job it was to protect them.


Capitol Police Officers Sue Trump, Others Over Jan. 6 Riot - WSJ

----------


## thailazer

The infection is still festering, and this should speed things up.  Fruman is likely to plead guilty, and he likely has some scoop on some of nefarious activities.

Rudy Giuliani associate Igor Fruman likely to plead guilty Wednesday

----------


## S Landreth

Tony Evers Asks Judge to Make Trump 'Personally' Pay Fees

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) asked a federal judge to force former President Donald Trump to personally pay fees for his audacious election-subversion efforts, days after a brutal sanctions ruling imperiled the law licenses of nine lawyers who attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election in key states.

More than eight months ago, former President Trump filed this lawsuit in an audacious attempt to overrule the will of the voters by fiat, the governors attorney Jeffrey A. Mandell wrote in a 17-page legal brief. He sought unprecedented relief, and his team pressed the case in a slapdash manner incommensurate with the gravity of the subject matter. Now, Trump recasts the litigation in a sepia tone, glossing over flaws with conclusory exculpations and dismissing criticism as Monday morning quarterbacking.'

The Wisconsin Democrat casts this effort as revisionist history.

Trump provides no legitimate defense of litigation conduct that went beyond mere procedural missteps, constituting a deliberate abuse of the judicial process and attempt to overturn the votes of 3.3 million Wisconsinites, Evers brief demanding sanctions states.

Requesting attorneys fees, Evers pointed to the far heavier sanctions sought by the city of Detroit in a case by the so-called Kraken lawyers, whose efforts to overturn election results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin were rejected by every court. On Wednesday night, a federal judge in Michigan referred each of the nine attorneys associated with the Michigan arm of that litigation to face disciplinary proceedings in their home states for possible suspension or disbarment.

On Friday, the governors attorneys informed U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig about that decision.

Recent sanctions decisions in other post-election litigation support the propriety of sanctions here, the governors brief states. Federal trial courts in Michigan and Colorado awarded fees under both 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and inherent authority in other baseless post-election cases.

The Michigan and Colorado decisions cited several key considerations also present here, the brief continues. There, as here, the litigation was not a normal case in any sense, as its purpose was questioning the validity of a Presidential election, and the fairness of the basic mechanisms of American democracy.'

Judge Ludwig, who will determine the sanctions motion, was appointed by Trump and scathingly rejected his effort to overturn Wisconsins election.

In his reply brief, plaintiff asks that the Rule of Law be followed, Ludwig observed.

It has been, the judge concluded.

Wrangling over the consequences of that failed litigation has continued for several months since then, and Gov. Evers wants Trump to personally pay a price for it, under the courts inherent authority.

Nearly a month after losing re-election and having the results confirmed via recount, Trump prosecuted a lawsuit, devoid of factual or legal support, in an attempt to subvert the voters will, pushing bad-faith election litigation to new lows. His actions warrant sanctions under the Courts inherent authority, and his attorneys conduct merits fee shifting under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

DocumentCloud

----------


## harrybarracuda

Yeah we know baldy orange cunto isn't good at paying bills.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Organization faces new scrutiny in New York civil probe

The Trump Organization is facing new pressure to comply with a New York state civil investigation into the company's financial dealings.

A New York judge has given the former president's company until next week to report on its efforts to furnish records subpoenaed by the state attorney general, according to a court order unsealed on Friday.

The judge's order also gives New York state Attorney General Letitia James (D) a possible avenue to bring on a third party to assist with collecting company records for the probe, which is looking into whether former President Trump misled banks and insurers about the value of his financial assets.

The court order, signed earlier this month and made public Friday, comes amid ongoing clashes between the Trump Organization and James over her offices requests for documents and depositions. 

For more than a year now, the Trump Organization has failed to adequately respond to our subpoenas, hiding behind procedural delays and excuses," James said in a statement. "Once again, the court has ordered that the Trump Organization must turn over the information and documents we are seeking, otherwise face an independent third-party that will ensure that takes place.

The New York attorney general opened the investigation in March 2019 after the president's former attorney Michael Cohen testified to Congress that Trump had altered the value of his assets in financial statements in order to get loans, better insurance rates and tax breaks.

The civil probe is separate from an ongoing criminal investigation that James is carrying out in conjunction with the Manhattan district attorney.

In the civil case, court records show that Jamess office is investigating the valuation of several Trump properties including the Seven Springs resort in Westchester County, N.Y., an office building on Wall Street in New York City, the Trump International Hotel in Chicago and the Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles.

Fridays unsealed court order, signed by New York state Judge Arthur Engoron, provides a mechanism by which James can move in mid-October to bring on a third party to oversee the Trump Organizations compliance with the subpoenas if the company fails to do so on its own.

----------


## S Landreth

Arbitrator slaps down Trump's NDA challenge against Omarosa

Former President Donald Trump cannot enforce a nondisclosure agreement with former confidant Omarosa Manigault Newman, an arbitrator ruled late last week.

The arbitrator, Andrew Brown, wrote that the terms of the agreement were vague, indefinite, and therefore void and unenforceable.

The agreement effectively imposes on Respondent an obligation to never say anything remotely critical of Mr. Trump, his family or his family members businesses for the rest of her life, Brown wrote in the decision dated Sept. 24.

Such a burden is certainly unreasonable.

Trump, via his campaign organization, targeted Manigault Newman after she wrote a confessional book about her tenure serving in the White House as communications director for the Office of the Public Liaison. She had been a mainstay in Trumps orbit for years before he entered politics, first as a contestant on The Apprentice TV show and later as an executive in his eponymous company.

Donald has used this type of vexatious litigation to intimidate, harass and bully for years! Finally the bully has met his match! she said in a statement.

----------


## russellsimpson

Is there a summary of charges somewhere to be found in this vast thread?

----------


## S Landreth

there is

----------


## panama hat

> Is there a summary of charges somewhere to be found in this vast thread?


Well, it's a growing concern, as it were . . . 






> Former President Donald Trump cannot enforce a nondisclosure agreement with former confidant Omarosa Manigault Newman, an arbitrator ruled late last week.


Wouldn't it be great if this opened the floodgates

----------


## S Landreth

^  :Smile: 

Trump summoned a young press aide to his Air Force One cabin so he could look at her butt, new book says

Stephanie Grisham, a former longtime top White House staffer, writes in her forthcoming memoir that President Donald Trump took an inappropriate liking to one of his young staffers, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

The book, a copy of which The Post obtained, says Trump became "obsessed" with a young press staffer whom Grisham didn't name. He would regularly ask where the aide was during media events and once demanded that she be delivered to his cabin on Air Force One so he could "look at her [behind]," the book says, according to The Post reported.

Grisham, who joined the Trump campaign in 2016 and went on to serve as White House press secretary and the first lady's chief of staff, also writes that Trump once asked her to assure him that his penis wasn't small or abnormally shaped, as the adult-film star Stormy Daniels had claimed.

Twenty-six women have publicly accused the former president of sexual misconduct, including allegations of rape, groping, and harassment. Trump has denied all of the allegations and called the women liars.

----------


## Loy Toy

There is no doubt Trump is a cvnt but he is human (just),........ has male tendencies and is powerful and we know how woman like powerful men.

Clinton should have cum clean (excuse the pun) from the get go and admitted that he received the blow job rather than lie. Most blokes wouldn't knock back a blow job on the run.

Rape or physical abuse is unacceptable.

----------


## David48atTD

> Is there a summary of charges somewhere to be found in this vast thread?


CRIMINAL ...
Federal?
State?
Tax? 
Election Tampering?

CIVIL?

JANUARY 6th INCITEMENT ?

The list is long  :Smile: 

A summary is here ... Donald Trump Legal Trouble Explainer: Criminal, Civil Lawsuits Updated - Rolling Stone

----------


## russellsimpson

Thank you kindly David 48, I much appreciate that. :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

reposting.........

Litigation Tracker: Pending Criminal and Civil Cases Against Donald Trump 

On both the criminal and civil litigation fronts, former President Donald Trump faces a bevy of lawsuits and investigations, with more cases likely to follow. Some are civil suits stemming from his pre-presidential business dealings. Others are defamation claims from women he allegedly assaulted. More still are criminal probes and civil actions that scrutinize his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Chart below tracks all these cases. It will be continually updated as major legal developments occur.

16. Fulton County, Georgia Criminal Election Influence Investigation 

 ::doglol::

----------


## David48atTD

Trump to give deposition in lawsuit brought by protesters who claim his security guards assaulted them

Key Points

Former President Donald Trump is scheduled to be deposed next week in New York City.Protesters  filed a lawsuit alleging they were violently attacked by his security  guards on the sidewalk outside of Trump Tower in September 2015.Trumps  videotaped deposition on Monday morning will be held in Trump Tower  itself, which is located on Fifth Avenue in Manhattans Midtown section. 
Trump to give deposition in lawsuit over protesters'&#39;' assault claims


The article refers to the video clip of the incident which is here.  Scuffle Between Trump Staffers, Protesters Dims Anticipated Campaign Announcement

It's fun to watch because it's got some footage of Trump before he was elected a POTUS

----------


## David48atTD

While not Trump ... related

---

Steve Bannon: Congress plots criminal charge for former Trump aide



*A  committee investigating the 6 January Capitol riot has said it will  pursue criminal charges against former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon  next week.* 

Mr Bannon had been summoned to testify before the congressional panel investigating the riot on Thursday.

He did not appear, prompting the head of the committee to schedule a Tuesday vote to hold him in criminal contempt.

If convicted, Mr Bannon faces a fine and up to one year in prison. Democrats say he is trying to delay the probe. 


Steve Bannon: Congress plots criminal charge for former Trump aide - BBC News

----------


## Cujo

> Former President Donald Trump has been ordered to answer questions under oath in a lawsuit Monday, and his attorneys could soon set a date for a deposition in another case, as well.
> 
> The lawsuits, involving allegations that his security guards roughed up protesters outside Trump Tower in New York and allegations of defamation by former "Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos, respectively, are just two cases in the mass of civil litigation Trump faces post-presidency.
> 
> At least 10 civil cases are pending against Trump, whose ability to delay them has been curtailed since he left office in January. Trump had argued in some of the cases that as a sitting president he was immune from civil lawsuits. His office didn't respond to a request for comment on the cases.
> 
> Here's a rundown of where the major civil suits stand.
> 
> Protesters at Trump Tower
> ...


Trump faces a pile of civil lawsuits as depositions begin

----------


## panama hat

If only this whole circus would start . . .

----------


## harrybarracuda

Bannon has been held in contempt.

Not just by most reasonable people as you would expect.

US: January 6 panel votes to hold Steve Bannon in contempt - The Week

----------


## Cujo

It's still got to go to the AG i think, or the DOJ for a criminal referral. This is just the first step.

----------


## bsnub

> It's still got to go to the AG i think, or the DOJ for a criminal referral.


The AG runs the DOJ. No telling if it will be him personally who decides to press charges. Most likely not, as it will be delegated to DOJ prosecutors who will decide.

----------


## S Landreth

Another to add to the long and growing list

Trump’s Pile of Legal Fights Grows Bigger With New Golf Course Probe, Says Report

The legal pressure on Donald Trump keeps ratcheting up. His family business was already under indictment in Manhattan, he faces at least 10 civil cases against him, and now, according to a new report, his New York golf resort is facing a fresh criminal inquiry.

The New York Times reports that the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office has subpoenaed financial records from Trump National Golf Club Westchester. According to the Times, local District Attorney Mimi E. Rocah is looking into whether the Trump Organization misled local officials about the golf resort’s value in order to ease its property tax burden. However, Rocah, who is a Democrat, is yet to accuse any Trump Org officials of wrongdoing and the Times states that it’s unclear if Trump’s personal conduct is under question. Neither the Trump Org nor Rocah commented on the Times report.: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...be-says-report

----------


## David48atTD

This is a good a place as any ...

---

Lev Parnas found guilty on campaign finance charges

New York (CNN)  Rudy Giuliani's former associate Lev Parnas was convicted on six counts related to "influence buying" campaign finance schemes. 

A  jury of eight men and four women found Parnas guilty of scheming with  co-conspirators to use a Russian backer's money to fund political  contributions they hoped to trade for political favor for their budding  joint cannabis venture. 

The Ukrainian businessman was also convicted for using money from Igor Fruman - who previously pleaded guilty  -- and a fake company to funnel hundreds of thousands in political  contributions to GOP and pro-Donald Trump committees and then lying  about it to the Federal Election Commission.

A $325,000 donation to the America First Action Super PAC at issue in the case was first flagged in a 2018 FEC complaint

Lev Parnas found guilty on campaign finance charges - CNNPolitics

----------


## harrybarracuda

Has he got room to snitch for a reduced sentence?

----------


## S Landreth

Pa. voting official sues Trump, Giuliani, others over 2020 allegations

The supervisor of a voting machine warehouse in the Philadelphia suburbs is suing Donald Trump and top political advisers in a Philadelphia-based county court, saying the former president slandered him during a months-long effort to overturn the 2020 election results.

In a 60-page lawsuit, James Savage, the voting machine warehouse custodian in Delaware County, says that in the aftermath of Trumps effort, he suffered two heart attacks and has regularly received threats. In addition to Trump, hes suing some of Trumps key advisers, including his former campaign attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, who has largely escaped investigators scrutiny so far.

Simply put, Mr. Savages physical safety, and his reputation, were acceptable collateral damage for the wicked intentions of the Defendants herein, says Savages attorney J. Conor Corcoran, executed during their lubricious attempt to question the legitimacy of President Joseph Bidens win in Pennsylvania.

Savage is seeking monetary damages and a jury trial on charges of defamation and civil conspiracy. The suit against Trump, Giuliani, Ellis, local GOP officials and others was first reported by Law360. The defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series by targets of Trumps false voter fraud claims seeking compensation for the wreckage they say Trump left as he and his allies pushed claims about malfeasance by state and local election officials.

Trump or his campaign, and many of his allies, have faced suits from employees of Dominion Voting Systems, Capitol Police officers who responded to the violent Jan. 6 attack and members of Congress who fled the pro-Trump mob seeking to halt certification of the election.

Savages attorneys conceded that Trump and the other defendants typically didnt name Savage in public statements linking him to misconduct, but the new lawsuit says that doesnt matter.

Although the Defendants mostly referred to Mr. Savage by his job title, the Voting Machine Warehouse Supervisor, anyone who heard or saw these defamatory statements or insinuations would have known that they were referring to Mr. Savage, because he was the only Chief Custodian/Voting Machine Warehouse Supervisor position in Delaware County, the suit says.

It was obvious there was only one person who was being accused of election fraud by all of the Defendants herein, the complaint adds.

As the warehouse supervisor, Savage managed the storage, security, programming, testing, and delivery of all voting equipment in Delaware County.

As is well known by poll watchers and election officials, this position did not vest the Plaintiff with any ability to conduct vote tabulation whatsoever, his attorney noted.

But two GOP poll watchers also named in the lawsuit  Greg Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes  accused him of tampering with machines by illegally uploading votes. Those claims became part of a patchwork of easily debunked allegations that Trump and his allies relied on to sow doubts about the integrity of the vote.

Hoopes and Stenstrom both spoke at a public hearing called in late November by Pennsylvania Republicans, attended by Giuliani and Ellis, and lodged their claims against Savage, claiming they witnessed him uploading USB cards to the voting machines in his custody, which altered the tabulation by 50,000 votes.

I personally witnessed ... that happen 24 times, over 24 times, Stenstrom said at the hearing. We have multiple other witnesses who saw it, including Democrat poll watchers.

Trump, who called into the Pennsylvania hearing, referenced the 50,000 vote figure in his remarks but didnt identify Savage specifically.

Stenstrom repeated those claims at a subsequent press conference, in an interview with Foxs Sean Hannity and in an affidavit filed in multiple lawsuits supporting Trumps effort to overturn Bidens victory in Pennsylvania.

All Defendants herein knew that such fraud was impossible, Savages attorney argues.

----------


## panama hat

I wish him well . . . and that he wins big to live the rest of his life in luxury

----------


## S Landreth

Trump cannot shield White House records from Jan. 6 committee, judge rules

A federal judge has rejected former President Donald Trump’s effort to block Jan. 6 investigators from accessing White House records related to his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, determining that he has no authority to overrule President Joe Biden’s decision to waive executive privilege and release the materials to Congress.

“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in her ruling Tuesday.

Trump immediately appealed the decision. The National Archives, which houses the White House records, has indicated it plans to hand over the sensitive documents by Friday afternoon unless a court intervenes.

The decision is a crucial victory for the Jan. 6 committee, albeit one that may ring hollow if an appeals court — or, potentially, the Supreme Court — steps in to slow the process down.

In August, the Jan. 6 committee issued a massive records request to the National Archives, seeking documents from the Trump White House between April 2020 and Jan. 2021 that might shed light on Trump’s effort to spread false claims of voter fraud and overturn his defeat. Investigators say the records are essential to understanding how Trump weaponized his administration to try to cling to power even after he lost the election.

As the Archives began identifying records, Biden backed the committee’s requests, waiving executive privilege and urging officials to give the panel access to his predecessor’s documents. Last month, Trump sued the Jan. 6 committee and the National Archives, saying the records should be withheld because of “executive privilege” confidentiality, and asked a judge to prevent the records from being released.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the House committee, saluted the ruling.

“We can only present the facts,” he said. “Look, I'm happy we got a good decision from the judge. It says we're on sound footing by getting this information. And if somebody is hollering this hard and this loud, I am to assume that undoubtedly, you have something to hide. If we have access to the records, they'll speak for themselves. So we look forward, as a committee, to getting it. And we'll let the evidence based on what we look at determine guilt or innocence.“

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...f-bfffcf270000

----------


## David48atTD

^  I loved this quote ...




> "[Mr Trump's] position that he may override the  express will of the executive branch appears to be premised on the  notion that his executive power exists in perpetuity,'" she said.
> "*But presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president.*"

----------


## Norton

> Trump immediately appealed the decision


Of course he did cuz this is the one that will not only put him out of biz but could land him in jail.

----------


## beachbound

> ^  I loved this quote ._"_*But presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president*..


You know that’s just the thing that gets under his thin, orange skin.  :Smile:

----------


## thailazer

Trump is certainly Engaging Cry-Baby Mode at this point.   He even started talking about Georgia again, and his behavior this week should be interesting.

----------


## helge

> Of course he did cuz this is the one that will not only put him out of biz but could land him in jail.


You are dreaming

I won't happen

Wish it would though

But would set an awful precedent for your presidents

----------


## AntRobertson

> But would set an awful precedent for your presidents


Yeah imagine that, presidents actually being held to account for their crimes.

How awful.

 :Dunno:

----------


## S Landreth

Friday the 12th of November - 8:00 pm EST

 :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Of course he did cuz this is the one that will not only put him out of biz but could land him in jail.


I doubt the stupid orange c u n t even knows what's going on. He's spent his life relying on smarter *** people to do his work for him.



*** It doesn't take much to be smarter than him.

----------


## Norton

> You are dreaming
> 
> I won't happen
> 
> Wish it would though
> 
> But would set an awful precedent for your presidents


Maybe not but unlike Tricky Dicky he won't get pardoned by the President. No matter Trump is done as a politician. Plus when the IRS and the states sueing are done with him his self proclaimed fortune will be non existent. Som nam na motherfucker.  :Smile:

----------


## bsnub

Isn't odd that the forum trumpanzees are not in here foaming at the mouth defending their orange god?  :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Maybe not but unlike Tricky Dicky he won't get pardoned by the President.


I wouldn't bet on that.

----------


## Topper

> I wouldn't bet on that.


I would.....he asked people to overthrow the Constitution.  At the end of the day, every elected official has to wonder if the same will happen to them.

----------


## beachbound

> I would.....he asked people to overthrow the Constitution.  At the end of the day, every elected official has to wonder if the same will happen to them.


But, Trump wasn’t elected. He was chosen by God.

----------


## helge

> But, Trump wasn’t elected. He was chosen by God.


Interesting

----------


## panama hat

Just string out every court process until he runs again . . . this also gives his acolytes enough time to gerrymander his win . . . after that he has four years of peace from prosecution and then he'll die or be too old to prosecute or jail

----------


## beachbound

^
In the meantime, he’s lining his pockets 

*Trump raising millions despite no official 2024 announcement


https://www.google.com/amp/s/currently.att.yahoo.com/amphtml/att/trump-raising-millions-despite-no-013142519.html
*

----------


## S Landreth

Appeals court temporarily blocks archives from handing Trump records to Jan. 6 committee 

A federal appeals court on Thursday intervened to temporarily block the National Archives from handing over Trump administration records to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol ahead of a Friday deadline.

A three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary injunction keeping the records from being turned over to allow former President Trump to continue his legal challenge.

"The purpose of this administrative injunction is to protect the courts jurisdiction to address [Trump's] claims of executive privilege and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits," the panel said in a brief order.

The panel also set a rapid pace for Trump's appeal, scheduling oral arguments for Nov. 30.

----------


## panama hat

> "The purpose of this administrative injunction is to protect the court’s jurisdiction to address [Trump's] claims of executive privilege and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits," the panel said in a brief order.


It never friggin' stops.






> Just string out every court process until he runs again . . . this also gives his acolytes enough time to gerrymander his win . . . after that he has four years of peace from prosecution and then he'll die or be too old to prosecute or jail

----------


## Norton

> Just string out every court process until he runs again


Delays will happen but let's not forget 3 years of delays on all the various suits and investigations is not going to happen. In any case, I repeat, Trump will not be the GOP candidate in 2024.

----------


## S Landreth

Appeals court appears wary of Trump's suit to block documents from Jan. 6 committee

A federal appeals court on Tuesday appeared wary of former President Trump's lawsuit to block the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot from obtaining voluminous tranches of documents from his White House.

A three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals grilled Trump's lawyers during a hearing that lasted more than three hours on Tuesday, a sign that the former president will likely lose the latest round in the case.

Judge Patricia Millett said that she believes "the burden is on the former president to come forward with some reason" with enough weight to back up his claims of executive privilege and counter President Biden's decision to waive that privilege.

"The former president's going to have to come back with some interest, something that's missed in that calculation, some supervening interest, and it won't be enough to go, 'See, I told you it was an executive privilege document.' You're going to have to come up with something more powerful that's going to outweigh the incumbent president's decision to waive executive privilege," said Millett, an appointee of former President Obama.

Justin Clark, one of the attorneys representing Trump in the case, responded that the stakes in the case posed "constitutional harm to the executive branch"

Trump sued last month to block the National Archives from complying with the select committee's expansive records request, citing executive privilege over the internal communications with his advisers and top officials.

A district court judge quickly rejected his lawsuit, ruling that Trump, as a former president, has little authority to prevent the current president from waiving executive privilege over the records held by the National Archives.

The case is presenting the courts with an unprecedented scenario in which a former president is challenging a current president's privilege waiver. At issue in the case is whether Trump has the authority to prevent the documents from being handed over, even though they are in the custody of an executive branch agency.

The judges seemed to struggle to come up with any scenario where a former president could interfere with the actions of a sitting administration.

"We have one president, we have one president at a time under our Constitution," Millett said. "And the incumbent president has said, has made the judgment and is best positioned, as the Supreme Court has told us, to make that call as to the interests of the executive branch."

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> G.W Bush and that filthy fucking heathen Dick Cheney got off scot free for the crimes they committed.
> 
> Trump will walk straight into his own television series.


Agree, 
If trump spends a day in jail I'll be a monkeys uncle.

I sure hope  de does spend at least a day in jail 'cause I always wanted monkey.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Justin Clark, one of the attorneys representing Trump in the case, responded that the stakes in the case posed "constitutional harm to the executive branch"


I would love to hear the explanation for that one.

----------


## nidhogg

> I would love to hear the explanation for that one.


The big joke (for me) is that the logic is that their position is based on the fact that sure as fuck the republicans will use this to dig dirt on Biden.

The premise is that this is not safe, as we are such a bunch of c*nts, we are sure to abuse it in the future.

----------


## S Landreth

New York Attorney General To Subpoena Trump In Fraud Investigation

New Yorks attorney general plans to subpoena former President Donald Trump as part of the states civil fraud investigation into the Trump Organization, according to reports.

Attorney General Letitia James is seeking to have Trump sit for a deposition early next year to question him about whether the Trump Organization manipulated valuations of its real estate properties, The Washington Post first reported Thursday.

If James finds evidence of wrongdoing, she could file a civil lawsuit against Trump, but could not file criminal charges. However, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. has been conducting a criminal probe into the Trump Organizations business practices for the last several years. James is also involved in that investigation.

Investigators in the criminal probe have spent more than two years looking into whether the Trump Organization misled banks or tax officials about the value of the companys assets. The probe has already resulted in tax fraud charges against the former presidents company.


Appeals court rejects Trump effort to deny records to Jan. 6 panel

A federal appeals court on Thursday denied former President Trump's effort to block the National Archives from turning over his White House's records to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

A three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Trump's lawyers' arguments that the former president could wield claims of executive privilege to prevent the current administration from sharing the documents with Congress.

"On the record before us, former President Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Bidens judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents," Judge Patricia Millett wrote in a 68-page opinion for the panel.

"Both Branches agree that there is a unique legislative need for these documents and that they are directly relevant to the Committees inquiry into an attack on the Legislative Branch and its constitutional role in the peaceful transfer of power."

The panel gave Trump 14 days to ask the Supreme Court to review the decision before the Archives could begin turning over the records.

----------


## S Landreth

Judge scraps Trump lawsuit to shield tax returns from Congress

A federal judge has rejected former President Donald Trump’s bid to block congressional Democrats from obtaining his tax returns.

Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee to federal District Court in D.C., said Trump was “wrong on the law” and that Congress is due “great deference” in its inquiries. “Even the special solicitude accorded former Presidents does not alter the outcome,” McFadden wrote in a 45-page ruling. “The Court will therefore dismiss this case.”

McFadden stayed the impact of his ruling for 14 days to allow Trump to appeal the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...rump-order.pdf

----------


## baldrick

trump 2024 - in prison

----------


## TizMe

I'd love to see Trump under oath, because he's incapable of telling the truth.

----------


## Cujo

> trump 2024 - in prison


I seriously doubt it. 
What I don't doubt is that January 6 he'll announce his intention to run in 2024.

----------


## S Landreth

New York AG Letitia James subpoenas Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump 

New York Attorney General Letitia James has issued subpoenas for two of former President Trump's children, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump, as part of a civil investigation, according to court documents filed Monday.

*Why it matters:* The move represents another escalation in the attorney general's investigation into the former president's business practices. James requested a deposition from Trump in early December.

*The big picture:* The subpoenas for both Trump and his two children were issued on Dec. 1, though the ones for Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were not publicly known until now, the New York Times reported.


In late December, Trump sued James in an effort to block her office's civil investigation into whether the Trump Organization engaged in financial fraud by submitting false property valuations to reduce its tax burden.Trump's son Eric was questioned by the attorney general's office for James' civil investigation in October 2020.

----------


## thailazer

> I seriously doubt it. 
> What I don't doubt is that January 6 he'll announce his intention to run in 2024.


With Liz Cheney's announcement the other day, a Trump announcement would be a turd hitting a wall.  I still would not put it past him though!

----------


## S Landreth

:Smile: 

Attorney General James Seeks Donald Trump, Trump Children’s Interviews in Ongoing Trump Organization Investigation | New York State Attorney General

Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump Seek to Stop Interviews From Taking Place This Month

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump, this evening, filed a motion to quash upcoming interviews that would take place, under oath, in Attorney General James’ investigation into Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization:

_“For more than two years, members of the Trump family and the Trump Organization have continually sought to delay and impede our investigation into Donald Trump and the Trump Organization, but despite their names, they must play by the same rules as everyone else. These delay tactics will not stop us from following the facts or the law, which is why we will be asking the court to compel Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump to testify with our office under oath. Our investigation will continue undeterred.”_

----------


## thailazer

A small suit, but it will tweak him!

----------


## S Landreth

More to add to the growing list.

Police officer lawsuits pile up against the terrorist supporter Trump over Jan. 6

Three more police officers who responded to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — including two who aided the evacuation of lawmakers — have sued Donald Trump, seeking damages for their physical and emotional injuries.

A Capitol Police officer who defended lawmakers in the House chamber during the violent Capitol assault filed the first of two new lawsuits against Trump on Tuesday, asking a court to hold the former president responsible for the mob of his supporters who conducted the attack. The other lawsuit was filed by two officers with the Metropolitan Police Department who were called in to help the Capitol Police during the insurrection.

In a 49-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C, Capitol Officer Marcus Moore, a 10-year veteran of the force, described the intense terror of the day as he moved from his post at the Madison Building to the East Side of the Capitol and eventually into the House chamber, helping evacuate lawmakers to safety.

He’s seeking a judgment against Trump and compensatory damages, saying explosions inside and outside the building left him with tinnitus. He also indicated he witnessed one rioter inside the Capitol armed with a gun.

Moore is one of hundreds of Capitol Police officers who describe themselves as traumatized by the violence at the Capitol and who have continued to pinpoint Trump — and his monthslong campaign to overturn the 2020 election results — as the source of that day’s violence. He’s also the tenth officer to sue Trump and accuse him of instigating the attack. Two officers, James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, filed suit against Trump in March. Another seven filed suit in August.

In a second lawsuit filed Tuesday, two officers with the Metropolitan Police Department — Bobby Tabron and DeDivine Carter — described suffering physical assaults with poles, pepper spray and other projectiles, in addition to hand-to-hand violence. They are also seeking compensatory damages for their injuries.

----------


## S Landreth

Supreme Court rejects Trump's bid to shield records from Jan. 6 committee

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected former President Trump's bid to block a trove of his administration's records from being handed to the Jan. 6 House committee.

The ruling came in an unsigned, one-paragraph order. Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch conservative, was alone in indicating that he would have granted Trumps request.

The move clears the way for congressional investigators to receive a batch of Trump-era schedules, call logs, emails and other requested documents that the committee says could illuminate key circumstances surrounding the deadly Capitol riot.

The order leaves intact a lower federal appeals court ruling that found Trumps assertion of executive privilege and other legal theories unpersuasive in light of President Bidens refusal to invoke privilege, as well as the House panels pressing task.

The justices wrote that although the unprecedented dispute between a former president and lawmakers raised serious and substantial concerns, the Washington, D.C.,-based federal appeals court had suitably analyzed the issues at hand.

Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trumps claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the courts decision, the court wrote.


New York attorney general: "Significant evidence" of Trump Organization fraud

New York's attorney general filed a motion Tuesday seeking to compel former President Trump and his two elder children to appear for sworn testimony in her office's civil investigation into the Trump Organization's financial dealings.

Why it matters: Attorney General Letitia James revealed new details in the court filing and a statement on her office's investigation into the Trump Organization's business practices, including a preliminary finding alleging the company used "fraudulent and misleading asset valuations to obtain economic benefits."

It's the latest escalation in James' investigation, after she issued subpoenas for Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump and requested a deposition from the former president last month, who are named in Tuesday's filing.

James' motion is in response to the former president's efforts to block her investigation by filing a lawsuit and seeking her removal from the probe. Trump has accused the Democratic attorney general of launching a "politically motivated attack."

Worth noting: A statement from the attorney general's office said that while James "has not yet reached a final decision regarding whether this evidence merits legal action, the grounds for pursuing the investigation are self-evident."

Representatives for the Trump Organization and former president did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/file...2022-01-18.pdf


 
NY AG James - We have uncovered significant evidence indicating that the Trump Organization used fraudulent and misleading asset valuations on multiple properties to obtain economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage, and tax deductions for years.  https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/s...52355442847748

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch conservative, was alone in indicating that he would have granted Trump’s request.


So Justice Clarence Thomas should be fired.

There really should be term limits on SC justices.

----------


## S Landreth

^at the very least,.........term limits

----------


## S Landreth

Wonderful news………

Fulton County judges approve special grand jury for Trump Georgia election probe

The judges on Fulton County’s Superior Court bench on Monday cleared the way for a special grand jury to be used for District Attorney Fani Willis’ investigation of former President Donald Trump and his efforts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results.

Chief Judge Christopher S. Brasher wrote that a majority of the judges had agreed to the request issued by Willis’ office late last week.

The special grand jury will be impaneled May 2 and can continue for a period “not to exceed 12 months,” Brasher wrote in an order.

“The special purpose grand jury shall be authorized to investigate any and all facts and circumstances relating directly or indirectly to alleged violations of the laws of the State of Georgia,” Brasher wrote.

ORDER APPROVING REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE GRAND JURY

----------


## nidhogg

There are already how many cases against Trump in process, 50?  More?  How many more in the works?

You would have thought that at least ONE would have produced some fruit by now.  This just seems endless.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> There are already how many cases against Trump in process, 50?  More?  How many more in the works?
> 
> You would have thought that at least ONE would have produced some fruit by now.  This just seems endless.


Remember he has been stonewalling every one.

----------


## nidhogg

> Remember he has been stonewalling every one.


Yeah - and each one seems to end up at the Supreme court for one thing or another.

That being said, with the sheer number of cases - one should have landed by now.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Yeah - and each one seems to end up at the Supreme court for one thing or another.
> 
> That being said, with the sheer number of cases - one should have landed by now.


One just did. But of course they will be taking as long as they legally can to supply the docuemtns and witnesses.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Sued by Ukraine Whistleblower for Impeachment Retaliation

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the whistleblower who sparked the first impeachment of Donald Trump, filed suit in Washington, D.C., against the former president, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and two other Trump associates, alleging a “concerted campaign of unlawful intimidation.”

“Purposefully attacking witnesses for participating in an official proceeding and telling the truth cannot” be “tolerated in a nation built on the rule of law,” the lawsuit says. “This kind of unlawful conduct must not be accepted as ‘normal’ in any healthy democracy.”

The suit, filed Wednesday, stems from Vindman’s role in Trump’s impeachment in late 2019 for allegedly attempting to bully and cajole Ukraine’s president into digging up or making up dirt on Joe Biden’s son Hunter as part of a scheme to influence the 2020 presidential election.

Trump was acquitted by the Senate in early 2020. He was impeached and acquitted a second time a year later for his alleged role in inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection by a mob of his supporters, who stormed the U.S. Capitol in an effort to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s election victory.

The former president’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

According to Vindman’s complaint, he “immediately became the target of a dangerous campaign of witness intimidation” after being called to testify before Congress about a phone call with Ukraine’s president during which he believed Trump behaved illegally.

“The attacks on Lt. Col. Vindman did not simply happen by accident or coincidence, nor were they the result of normal politics,” according to the suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where it also targets Trump aide Julia Hahn and former White House adviser Dan Scavino.

“Rather, the coordinated campaign was the result of a common understanding” among Trump and his “close aides” to target Vindman “in a specific way for the specific purpose of intimidation and retaliation” by painting him as disloyal, as an insubordinate officer, or as a Ukrainian spy, the suit says.

He “was left with no choice but to retire from the military altogether” after the attacks made it impossible for him “to serve in any national security position or foreign affairs role,” according to the complaint.

The attacks engineered by Trump and the others allegedly “had the intended and foreseeable effect of” encouraging other Trump supporters “to attack Lt. Col. Vindman in even more dangerous and frightening ways,” including with threats of violence.

They “sent a message to other potential witnesses as well: cooperate and tell the truth at your own peril,” the suit says. “The message reverberates to this day,” as witnesses to the Capitol insurrection “continue to heed former President Trump’s instructions to defy” congressional subpoenas, it adds.

The complaint seeks an injunction and unspecified damages, including punitive damages, for violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act. It also requests legal fees.

Vindman is represented by the Protect Democracy Project and Altshuler Berzon LLP.

The case is Vindman v. Trump, D.D.C., No. 22-cv-257, complaint filed 2/2/22.

Trump Sued - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...nt-retaliation

----------


## S Landreth

discrepancies  :Smile: 


Donald Trump's accountants quit  in the midst of preparing his and Melania's taxes  after questioning 'discrepancies'

Donald Trump's longtime accountants have suddenly severed all ties with the former president and his business  quitting even though they are in the midst of preparing his and Melania's tax returns.

In a letter made public Monday by the New York Attorney General Letitia James, the accounting firm, Mazars USA, told The Trump Organization's top corporate lawyer it has stepped away from Trump and his business due to questions about the reliability of key company financial statements.

News of Mazar USA's stunning move surfaced in papers filed Monday by James, as part of New York prosecutors' ongoing probe into possible banking, insurance and tax fraud on the part of Trump and his business.

Since at least 2004, Mazars has prepared annual financial statements  so-called "Statements of Financial Condition"  containing detailed estimates of Trump's net worth.


Prosecutors Probing Donald Trump Have 'Tons' of His Sharpie-Scrawled Documents

Follow the Sharpie: Prosecutors probing Donald Trump are sitting on 'tons' of documents bearing his handwriting, sources tell Insider

Nearly three years into their investigation into Donald Trump and his company, Manhattan prosecutors have assembled a trove of potentially incriminating financial documents bearing the former president's handwritten signature, initials or other writing, Insider has learned.

The documents  marked by the bold lines of Trump's ubiquitous black Sharpie, and some in prosecutors' possession for a year or more  are evidence in an ongoing investigation into possible tax, banking and insurance fraud, according to three people directly involved in the probe.

One described these hard copy documents as extensive.

"They have a ton already that have his signature on it, that have his initials, that have his handwriting on it," said the source, who like others who spoke to Insider this week asked to not be named due to their involvement in the ongoing probe.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status...24254229766148

----------


## harrybarracuda



----------


## S Landreth

Judge orders Trump, children to answer questions about their business practices under oath

A New York judge on Thursday ordered former President Donald Trump and two of his children to answer questions under oath about the Trump Organization's business practices in the state attorney general's civil probe of the company.

Lawyers for Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump had sought to quash the subpoenas from Attorney General Letitia James' office, arguing her investigation is politically motivated and designed to provide fuel for an ongoing criminal probe into the company by the Manhattan district attorney's office.

In his ruling, state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron gave the green light for the three to be deposed within the next three weeks. He also ordered the former president to turn over documents and information that had been subpoenaed within two weeks, and portrayed the Trumps' claims of being selectively targeted as overblown.

"In the final analysis, a state attorney general commences investigating a business entity, uncovers copious evidence of possible financial fraud, and wants to question, under oath, several of the entities' principals, including its namesake. She has the clear right to do so," the judge wrote in his eight-page decision.

NY AG James - Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump must all comply with this court order and testify before my office within 21 days.

No one is above the law. https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/s...08994424770560

----------


## harrybarracuda

Oh please tell me it's in front of the cameras.

----------


## nidhogg

> in the state attorney general's civil probe


From what I was hearing today, is that as this is a civil case, while one can plead the 5th, it can be inferred negatively (unlike a criminal case where it cannot).

Going to be fun.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> From what I was hearing today, is that as this is a civil case, while one can plead the 5th, it can be inferred negatively (unlike a criminal case where it cannot).
> 
> Going to be fun.


In all fairness, can you imagine an arrogant fucking prick like baldy orange cunto keeping his answers to pleading the 5th?

He can't keep his fat gob shut at the best of times.

----------


## nidhogg

> He can't keep his fat gob shut at the best of times.


Dunno.  My guess is he is going to start having memory problems..... "I don't recall......."

----------


## Cujo



----------


## Cujo



----------


## Topper

I wonder why the case where he was co-conspirator 1 that sent Cohen to jail hasn't reared it's ugly head.

----------


## S Landreth

Judge rejects Trump effort to toss lawsuits accusing him of Jan. 6 conspiracy

A federal judge has rejected former President Donald Trump’s effort to dismiss multiple lawsuits accusing him of bearing legal responsibility for the violent Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

In a 112-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said the evidence suggests Trump assembled the crowd and then instructed the rally goers to march on the Capitol, despite knowing that the crowd likely included violent and destructive elements.

And Trump’s Twitter attack amid the violence on then-Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the counting of electoral votes that would finalize President Joe Biden’s victory, suggests a “tacit agreement” with those who stormed the Capitol and sent Pence and lawmakers fleeing for safety, Mehta wrote.

“It is reasonable to infer that the President would have understood the impact of his tweet, since he had told rally-goers earlier that, in effect, the Vice President was the last line of defense against a stolen election outcome,” ruled Mehta, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

The ruling leaves Trump’s inner circle — and possibly the former president himself — vulnerable to another flurry of deposition subpoenas and document demands. The ruling also declares Trump potentially liable for conduct while he was the sitting president, a rare and momentous legal decision.

“To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step,” Mehta wrote. “The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent, and the court believes that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...536.66.0_6.pdf

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I wonder why the case where he was co-conspirator 1 that sent Cohen to jail hasn't reared it's ugly head.


Presidential immunity?

----------


## harrybarracuda

When you consider how much these republitard wankers fucking whined endlessly about Hillary's emails, the current silence is deafening.




> The US National Archives said in a letter addressed to Congress on Friday that it had informed the Department of Justice that there was classified information among the 15 boxes of documents it had recovered from former US President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.
> In a letter to the oversight committee chair, Representative Carolyn Maloney, US archivist David Ferriero wrote that the archives had "identified items marked as classified national security information within the boxes."
> Ferriero noted many Trump White House aides would conduct official business over private email without copying in their official White House accounts.
> What state secrets Trump took with him when he left office are unknown.

----------


## S Landreth

Lawyer for Trump accuser seeking DNA sample

A lawyer for a woman who accused former President Trump of rape is seeking a DNA sample instead of a deposition in order to move on with the case more quickly, she told The Associated Press in an article published Wednesday.

In a 2019 book, E. Jean Carroll accuses Trump of raping her in a New York department store in the 1990s. She has filed a defamation lawsuit against the former president.

Carroll told reporters Tuesday that she is going to trial for all the women “who have been grabbed and groped, assaulted and raped by men in power and are silenced.”

“We are looking to bring justice, at least in this one case, against a powerful man,” Carroll said.

Carroll added that she would “never settle, ever” in this case.

“This is about principle,” Carroll said. “It's about a powerful man assaulting and raping a woman and then getting away with it. That's not right.”

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, first announced the choice to seek a DNA sample rather than a deposition in a Manhattan court Tuesday during a pretrial hearing.

“We want the case to go forward,” Kaplan said, emphasizing that a deposition would “inevitably result in an inordinate amount of delay.”

----------


## Norton

> In a 2019 book, E. Jean Carroll accuses Trump of raping her in a New York department store in the 1990s


Not at all sure what DNA sample is being asked for. There would be no DNA traces from Trump for something that happened in the 1990s.

----------


## pickel

> There would be no DNA traces from Trump for something that happened in the 1990s.


Don't know about Trumps case, but police have used rape kits since 1978. Just depends how long they keep them as evidence. When DNA testing became available a lot of cold cases were solved as they had held onto the evidence.

----------


## Norton

> Don't know about Trumps case, but police have used rape kits since 1978. Just depends how long they keep them as evidence. When DNA testing became available a lot of cold cases were solved as they had held onto the evidence.


Yes but unless DNA samples were taken at the time of the rape, too late now.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Yes but unless DNA samples were taken at the time of the rape, too late now.


Try googling "rape kit".

----------


## pickel

> Yes but unless DNA samples were taken at the time of the rape, too late now.


The samples they took back then would have the DNA in them Norton. They can still extract it. That is, if they used a rape kit on her and still have the sample.

----------


## Norton

> The samples they took back then would have the DNA in them Norton. They can still extract it. That is, if they used a rape kit on her and still have the sample.


Yep, if. Don't know but guessing they must have or attorney would not be asking for DNA release.

----------


## Cujo

WTF, Did someone get to them? Who appointed the new DA who is reluctant to press charges.
This in ITSELF needs to be invetigated,



> One of the most aggressive criminal investigations against Donald Trump appears to be running into the sand after the two leading prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorneys office investigating the former presidents finances resigned.
> 
> 
> The inquiry by Manhattan prosecutors into the operations of Trump and the Trump Organization has been among the most dangerous of the many legal perils facing him. The investigation, which began in August 2018 under the former district attorney Cyrus Vance and continued under incumbent Alvin Bragg, has dug ever deeper into alleged discrepancies in the value of the familys assets in an effort to show a pattern of fraudulent behavior.
> 
> 
> According to the New York Times, the two top prosecutors on the case, Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, quit the proceedings amid signs that the move on Trump is stalling as it reaches a make-or-break moment.
> 
> Anonymous sources told the Times that Bragg, who took over the investigation when he began as DA in January, had indicated that he was uncertain about taking the case to the next level.
> ...


Or just running out the clock.

Key inquiry into Trumps finances in jeopardy as two prosecutors resign | Donald Trump | The Guardian

----------


## S Landreth

Jan. 6 panel claims Trump 'engaged in criminal conspiracy'

Former President Trump may have committed a crime in his effort to keep the 2020 presidential election results from being certified, the House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol said in a court filing Wednesday evening.

The development came in the committee’s legal battle to compel documents from John Eastman, the lawyer charged with drafting the strategy for the Jan. 6 certification.

The panel said that Trump and Eastman had worked together to try to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence to obstruct Congress’s certification of the Electoral College votes.

“Had this effort succeeded, the electoral count would have been obstructed, impeded, influenced, and (at the very least) delayed, all without any genuine legal justification and based on the false pretense that the election had been stolen. There is no genuine question that the President and Plaintiff attempted to accomplish this specific illegal result,” the committee wrote in its filing.

The committee also claims it “has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The accusations are the most serious that the committee has leveled against Trump so far. The allegations filed on Wednesday are not formal charges nor do they indicate that the former president could face a criminal prosecution, but they signal that the committee has set its sights at the highest levels in probing what led up to the Capitol riot.

The filing came in response to Eastman’s lawsuit seeking to block the committee’s subpoena for his private communications, which he has argued are privileged, in part because of his legal work on behalf of the former president.

But the committee argues that Eastman, an attorney for the Trump campaign, may not claim his conversations with the former president are covered by attorney-client privilege, partly because legal advice rendered with the intention of committing a crime is not protected.

----------


## Cujo

Uh oh.

----------


## S Landreth

The title of this thread should read.....

Donald Trump and Jail Time


Judge rules Trump's efforts to overturn election likely criminal

Former President Trump and his legal adviser, John Eastman, likely committed multiple federal crimes in their effort to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden's 2020 election victory, a federal judge ruled on Monday in a civil case involving subpoenas from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.

U.S. District Judge David Carter said in a 44-page decision on whether some of Eastman's private communications should be shielded from the panel that he found it "more likely than not" that the two engaged in criminal conduct.

"The illegality of the plan was obvious," Carter, who was appointed by former President Clinton, wrote. "Our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections. Ignoring this history, President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election."

The ruling has no direct bearing on whether Trump will face criminal charges over his efforts to undermine the 2020 results. Carter's decision came in a dispute over a subset of documents that the select committee had demanded in its subpoena.

The judge ruled that ten of the documents in the subset were privileged and should be withheld, but ordered Eastman to turn over the other 101 records to congressional investigators.

But while the ruling was narrowly-tailored and came in a civil dispute over Eastman's legal challenge to a subpoena, Carter's explosive findings mark the first time that a judge has found a reasonable likelihood that Trump broke the law in trying to remain in power.

Still, Carter acknowledged that the case before him is not positioned to address who should be assigned responsibility for last year's attack on the Capitol.

"More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for accountability," the judge wrote. "This case cannot provide it. The Court is tasked only with deciding a dispute over a handful of emails. This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit. At most, this case is a warning about the dangers of 'legal theories' gone wrong, the powerful abusing public platforms, and desperation to win at all costs."

"If Dr. Eastman and President Trumps plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution," Carter continued. "If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself."

Eastman Ruling

Trump likely committed felony obstruction, U.S. judge says

----------


## David48atTD

*Ohio Man Found Guilty of Felony and Misdemeanor Charges for Actions Related to Capitol Breach*

*Defendant Illegally Entered Capitol, Stole Ornate Coat Rack
*
                            WASHINGTON  An Ohio man was found guilty today of felony and  misdemeanor charges for his actions during the breach of the U.S.  Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including the theft of an ornate coat rack from  the Capitol Building.

His and others actions disrupted a joint session  of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral  votes related to the presidential election..

              Dustin Byron Thompson, 38, of Columbus, Ohio, was found  guilty of a total of six charges following a trial in the District of  Columbia. 
The jury found him guilty of one felony, obstruction of an  official proceeding, and five misdemeanor offenses. 

The misdemeanor  charges include theft of government property; entering and remaining in a  restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a  restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a Capitol  Building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol  Building.

              A co-defendant, Robert Anthony Lyon, 28, of Reynoldsburg,  Ohio, pleaded guilty on March 14, 2022, to misdemeanor charges of theft  of government property and disorderly and disruptive conduct in a  restricted building or grounds. He is awaiting sentencing.

Ohio Man Found Guilty of Felony and Misdemeanor Charges for Actions Related to Capitol Breach | USAO-DC | Department of Justice

----------


## Cujo

Wrong thread.

----------


## David48atTD

> Wrong thread.


Which is a better one?

----------


## bsnub

> Which is a better one?


The right wing domestic terrorist thread, but Landreth beat you to it already.

----------


## David48atTD

Without the comb-over and the orange tan  :Smile:

----------


## helge

Give Donald a pitchfork and a pair of glasses ....and he would look all american  :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

Judge holds Trump in contempt for failing to comply with NY AG subpoena

A New York state judge on Monday found former President Trump in contempt of court for not turning over documents after he was ordered to comply with a subpoena from the New York attorney general’s office.

New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay $10,000 a day until he’s shown that he’s complied with the document demands.

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) applauded the ruling on Monday.

“Today, justice prevailed,” James said in a statement. “For years, Donald Trump has tried to evade the law and stop our lawful investigation into him and his company’s financial dealings. Today’s ruling makes clear: No one is above the law.”

Engoron had rejected Trump’s challenge to the subpoena for his records and testimony in February, ordering the former president to sit for a deposition and turn over any requested records in his control.

Trump appealed the part of the ruling requiring him to be deposed, but didn’t challenge the order to turn over documents.

Alina Habba, Trump’s attorney, said the former president will appeal Engoron’s contempt ruling.

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision,” Habba said in a statement. “All documents responsive to the subpoena were produced to the attorney general months ago. The only issue raised by the attorney general at today’s hearing was with an affidavit submitted which copied the form mandated by the attorney general. This does not even come close to meeting the standard on a motion for contempt and, thus, we intend to appeal.”

Earlier this month, James’s office asked Engoron to hold Trump in contempt after he blew a deadline for providing the documents and said that the former president’s attorney had even objected to the terms of the subpoena weeks after the judge found it to be valid.

“Mr. Trump’s purported ‘Response’ violates the Court’s order; it is not full compliance, or any degree of compliance, but simply more delay and obfuscation,” James’s office wrote in its contempt motion.

Trump’s attorney Alina Habba told the court that a search for any relevant documents in Trump’s possession found that they were all under the control of his company.

“After conducting a diligent search and review, Respondent’s counsel determined that Respondent was not in possession of any documents responsive to the Subpoena and that all potentially responsive documents were in the possession, custody or control of the Trump Organization,” Habba wrote in a court filing last week.

Habba did not immediately respond when asked for comment on Engoron’s ruling.

_______________

Judge orders Cushman & Wakefield to comply with Trump subpoenas

Judge orders Cushman & Wakefield to comply with Trump property subpoenas for NY attorney general probe 

A New York judge Monday ordered commercial real-estate services giant Cushman & Wakefield to comply with subpoenas about its appraisals of several Trump Organization properties that are being eyed in a civil investigation by the New York Attorney General’s Office, a spokesperson for that office said.

The order by Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron came hours after the same judge held former President Donald Trump in contempt of court for failing to comply with another subpoena issued by Attorney General Letitia James seeking business documents as part of her probe.

The judge, a Democrat who was elected to the bench in 2015, said Trump would have to pay $10,000 per day in penalties for every day he failed to turn over the documents. Trump’s lawyer said she would appeal that ruling.

“For the second time today, a judge has made clear that no one is above the law,” James said in a statement. “Cushman & Wakefield’s work for Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization is clearly relevant to our investigation, and we are pleased that has now been confirmed by the court. Our investigation will continue undeterred.”

James’ investigation is focused on allegations that the Trump Organization misstated the true values of multiple real-estate assets when it applied for loans and insurance coverage, and in tax-related filings, in an effort to obtain more favorable financial terms.

James’ office on Monday said that Engoron had given Cushman & Wakefield, which had refused to comply with the demand for documents, until May 27 to turn over the documents pursuant to her subpoenas.

“Cushman & Wakefield’s work for the Trump Organization is significant to our ongoing investigation into Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization’s financial practices,” said James said earlier this month.

----------


## panama hat

It just goes on and on ad infinitum . . .

----------


## S Landreth

New York judge denies Trump's bid to reverse $10,000-per-day contempt fine

A New York judge has denied a request from former President Trump's lawyers to reverse a $10,000-per-day contempt fine against Trump.

*Why it matters:* Judge Arthur Engoron issued the fine after he found Trump in contempt over his failure to comply with a subpoena that was issued as part of a state investigation into the Trump Organization's business practices. Trump is appealing the contempt finding.

*Details:* Trump's legal team had submitted affidavits asking Engoron to lift the sanctions, claiming he didn't have the subpoenaed documents, but Engoron refused to budge.


The judge said Trump's two-sentence affidavit did not provide adequate evidence that Trump had thoroughly searched for the records and thus did not merit a purge of the contempt finding, CNBC reports.Trump's lawyers had also submitted affidavits stating they concluded that Trump did not possess the documents requested after a comprehensive search.

*What they're saying:* "I am surprised he doesn't seem to have any documents, they're all with the organization," Engoron said Friday in a state court, per Reuters.


"I will consider your request to terminate the fine," he told Trump lawyer Alina Habba. "But if you don't hear from me, the clock is still ticking."Engoron ruled earlier this week that the $10,000-per-day fine must start on Tuesday, April 26.The Trump Organization did not immediately return a request for comment.

*The big picture:* New York Attorney General Letitia James previously said her office found "significant evidence" that the Trump Organization "used fraudulent and misleading asset valuations to obtain economic benefits."

----------


## S Landreth

DC Reaches $750K Settlement in Trump Inaugural Lawsuit

The District of Columbia attorney general says his office has reached a $750,000 settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged former President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee overpaid for events at the Trump International Hotel to enrich his family.

The District of Columbia attorney general said Tuesday that his office had reached a $750,000 settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged former President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee overpaid for events at the Trump International Hotel to enrich the former president’s family in the process.

Attorney General Karl Racine announced the settlement agreement in the case against the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the Trump Organization and the Trump International Hotel in Washington in a tweet on Tuesday. The document had not yet been signed by a judge.

The agreement says the case is being resolved “to avoid the cost, burden, and risks of further litigation” and that the organizations “dispute these allegations on numerous grounds and deny having engaged in any wrongdoing or unlawful conduct.”

As part of the agreement, the defendants will pay the District of Columbia a total of $750,000, which will be used to benefit three nonprofit organizations, the settlement paperwork says.

“We’re resolving our lawsuit and sending the message that if you violate DC nonprofit law—no matter how powerful you are—you’ll pay,” Racine said in a tweet.

Racine has said the committee misused nonprofit funds and coordinated with the hotel’s management and members of the Trump family to arrange the events. He said one of the event’s planners raised concerns about pricing with Trump, the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and Rick Gates, a top campaign official at the time.

The committee has maintained that its finances were independently audited, and that all money was spent in accordance with the law. The committee raised an unprecedented $107 million to host events celebrating Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. But the committee’s spending has drawn mounting scrutiny.

Gates, a former Trump campaign aide who cooperated in the special counsel’s Russia investigation, personally managed discussions with the hotel about using the space, including ballrooms and meeting rooms, the attorney general’s office has said. In one instance, Gates contacted Ivanka Trump and told her that he was “a bit worried about the optics” of the committee paying such a high fee, Racine said.

Prosecutors say the committee could have hosted inaugural events at other venues either for free or for reduced costs but didn’t consider those options.




> “a bit worried about the optics”


  :Smile:

----------


## panama hat

A good start

----------


## S Landreth

Appeals court questions Trumps effort to block NY AG subpoena

A New York appeals court appeared skeptical on Wednesday of former President Trumps effort to challenge a state attorney general subpoena demanding his testimony.

During a hearing, a panel of judges on the New York Supreme Courts Appellate Division seemed unpersuaded by Trumps attorney, who argued that the civil subpoena was improper in part because it would complicate the former presidents right against self-incrimination amid a separate criminal investigation.

Justice Rolando Acosta repeatedly questioned whether the state judiciary has the authority to intervene in such an investigation on Trumps behalf.

Youre asking us to eliminate dozens of years of precedent, to somehow act like a legislature and say, Lets constrain the powers that the legislature has given you to prosecute civilly and criminally,' Acosta said.

Trump is asking the appeals court to overturn a judges order that he and his two oldest children sit for a deposition with the attorney generals office.

Arthur Engoron, the lower court judge, had ruled in February against Trumps effort to block the subpoena, saying New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) was within her rights to seek both documents and testimony from the former president and his family as her office investigates potential fraud within his company.

In the final analysis, a State Attorney General commences investigating a business entity, uncovers copious evidence of possible financial fraud, and wants to question, under oath, several of the entities principals, including its namesake. She has the clear right to do so, Engoron wrote in his decision.

Last month, Engoron also found Trump in contempt and fined him $10,000 a day for failing to comply with aspects of the subpoena that were not part of the appeal, specifically the demands for business documents within his control.

Prior to the appeals court hearing on Wednesday, Engoron lifted the contempt ruling on the condition that Trump pay more than $100,000 in fines to Jamess office.

Trumps legal team is arguing in its appeal that the attorney generals subpoenas should be blocked because of the joint criminal investigation into his company that Jamess office is participating in with the Manhattan district attorney (DA). The attorney generals civil subpoena, they argue, is circumventing the grand jury process for criminal investigations and jeopardizing Trumps constitutional rights.

They have never denied that whatever information they get under the guise of this civil subpoena is going to go right to the DAs office, Trumps attorney, Alan Futerfas, said during Wednesdays hearing.

Judith Vale, a lawyer with the attorney generals office, countered that there is nothing unusual about parallel civil and criminal investigations and said the Trumps are free to invoke their rights against self-incrimination during a deposition.

Under state and federal law the privilege against self-incrimination is a shield against being compelled to incriminate yourself, Vale said. It is not a sword that can be used to quash a civil investigative subpoena.

Its unclear when the appeals court will decide the case.

Both parties will face off in court again on Friday, when Jamess office will ask a federal judge to throw out Trumps lawsuit seeking to block the investigation.

----------


## David48atTD

The Jan. 6 committee may release videotapes of witness testimony during public hearings slated to start in June, according to reporting by Politico. 

At least eight public hearings are set to take place. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is in the hot seat for refusing to testify before the panel.

----------


## David48atTD

The committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol took the unprecedented step Thursday of issuing subpoenas to five Republican congressmen, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California. 

The Washington Post's Jackie Alemany joins Morning Joe to discuss.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump pays $110,000 fine, contempt order not lifted: New York AG

Trump pays $110,000 fine but must do more to lift contempt order, New York AGs office says

Former President Donald Trump paid a $110,000 fine imposed as part of a contempt-of-court order against him, but has failed so far to take all the steps required to lift the order, the New York attorney generals office said Friday.

Trump has until Friday to fulfill all of the requirements for the contempt order to be purged. If he does not do so, a $10,000 per day fine against him could be reinstated.

Alina Habba, an attorney for Trump, did not immediately respond to CNBCs request for comment.

Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron held Trump in contempt last month, after New York Attorney General Letitia James office argued that Trump had failed to comply with a subpoena for documents as part of its civil investigation.

The attorney generals office is probing allegations that the Trump Organization illegally manipulated the stated values of different properties in order to get financial benefits when applying for loans, obtaining insurance policies and paying taxes.

Engorons contempt order required Trump to pay $10,000 per day for as long as he failed to comply with the subpoena. Last week, the judge said that he would lift the contempt order if the former president met certain conditions by Friday.

Trump complied with some of those conditions, a spokesperson for James office said. Trump paid $110,000 to the office on Thursday, and a digital forensics company completed a required review of his files that same day, according to the spokesperson.

But as of 12:15 p.m. ET on Friday, the former presidents lawyers had not completed a third condition: submitting new affidavits that give more detail about their search for documents sought by the investigators, the spokesperson said.

The $10,000 daily fine against Trump was imposed on April 25. It was halted after Trumps lawyers on May 6 provided Engoron with 66 pages of documents detailing their efforts to locate the records requested by James office.

----------


## Hugh Cow

The prosecutor is draining the swamp so everyone can see who was in the bottom of the mud all along.

----------


## S Landreth

Ethics law offers possible path for Trump prosecution

As federal investigators weigh the potential criminality of former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, legal experts say a decades-old ethics law — one routinely violated by members of Trump’s inner circle — could provide them a glide path to prosecution.

The Hatch Act prohibits electioneering by executive branch officials, including the promotion of the president’s political interests, during the course of their formal duties. 

The law was regularly flouted by the Trump administration while in office, a trend that continued throughout the two months between the presidential election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

While the ethics law has been used almost entirely administratively since it was passed in the 1930s, experts say a rarely used criminal provision of the law could be a novel and relatively straightforward strategy to ensure consequences for Trump in what is sure to be a challenging atmosphere.

Norm Eisen, who served as special counsel to Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, called the actions leading up to Jan. 6 part of a “disturbing and endemic pattern of conduct by Trump enablers in the White House that implicates the Hatch Act, including criminal aspects.” 

“This is no exception. It may be the culmination and the worst example,” he said of events and statements around the Capitol riot. 

“The problem is that criminal prosecution is really unusual. But everything that happened at the end of the Trump White House was also unusually wrong, and I think it is already the subject of criminal review. So given that context I think it is quite likely that prosecutors will take a fresh look at the Hatch Act among other potential remedies that have been more extensively discussed publicly.”

Much of the discussion over possible charges for Trump have focused on weighty crimes that carry heavier penalties, eyeing statutes that bar interfering with or delaying an official proceeding or conspiracy to defraud the United States.

But the sister statute for the Hatch Act, which bars coercing federal employees into political activity, carries a three-year prison sentence and could include a fine.

While the Hatch Act is typically thought of as applying ahead of elections, an opinion from the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) issued the day after the 2020 election notes that an individual doesn’t cease to be a candidate until the Jan. 6 certification of the election results.

Some actions from Trump and his associates after the election — from a call to Georgia’s secretary of state to a pressure campaign at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate alleged election fraud — offered early signs the Hatch Act may have been violated. 

But depositions with Trump staff and text messages from his chief of staff Mark Meadows released in the last month show the extent to which the White House was the locus for coordinated efforts between the campaign, lawmakers and the DOJ.

Indeed, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol has used Meadows’s campaign activities — noting his “unofficial role in the Trump campaign” and calling him a “functionary” — as justification for fighting his claims that his testimony should be protected by executive privilege.

“The administrative version of the Hatch Act and the criminal version of the Hatch Act exists to make sure that there there’s clear guidance and a clear prohibition on officials using their government jobs to help facilitate any candidate for elective office winning or holding on to their power,” said Donald Sherman, chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 

“And it seems quite clear from the facts available, that that was not just something that Mark Meadows did, but it was his primary focus as White House chief of staff in the days and weeks after the 2020 election,” he added.  

“I mean, to call it a textbook case of a Hatch Act violation is a bit too on the nose. I think it’s far beyond what Congress or OSC or really anyone could have envisioned in terms of the worst-case scenario of an abuse of this principle.”  

The Jan. 6 committee is still grappling with whether to make a criminal referral for prosecution of Trump and others in his circle as part of its final work product capping its investigation. 

But it is preparing its own legislative proposals as part of a broader effort to ensure that Jan. 6 — the attack as well as the misuse of power — never happens again.

“You know what’s hiding in plain sight? In so much of the evidence that’s come out from a whole bunch of different sources is that there were government officials deeply involved in Donald Trump’s campaign, and so at the simplest level this is a Hatch Act issue spotter,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), one of the committee’s members, told The Hill.

“You can just identify so many cases where government officials were involved in reelection activity and political activity that went beyond reelection to arguable illegality.”

Good governance advocates have for years lamented the relative toothlessness of the Hatch Act. The president is exempt while in office, and other high-ranking officials are largely immune once they leave their posts. The only repercussions — at least administratively — are largely employment-related, like a reduction in salary grade or other demotions geared toward reprimanding rank-and-file employees. High-ranking officials can, however, be barred from future federal service.

“That’s kind of one of the general flaws in all of this,” Delaney Marsco, senior legal counsel for ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, told The Hill.

“Unless the president asks, their superior asks, it’s very hard to get any accountability for these types of violations. And once they leave office, it’s pretty much nonexistent.” 

The OSC, which oversees Hatch Act violations, wrote in its report documenting Trump administration violations of the law that its “enforcement tools are limited with respect to Senate-confirmed presidential appointees and White House commissioned officers.”

And on the criminal front, it’s not clear that the Justice Department would consider such a charge, though its recent request to the Jan. 6 committee to review some of its depositions suggests they could be weighing some sort of criminal charges against those in Trump’s orbit.

The OSC report noted flagrant Hatch Act abuses by 11 Trump officials while in office, including Meadows and others who have been interviewed by the committee: former press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and advisers Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller. The report, however, landed in November last year, well after the team had left office. 

Since then, depositions released by the committee in court cases walk through the extent of Meadow’s actions for the campaign: He was on Trump’s call with Georgia’s secretary of state and visited the state during its election audit. He was the coordinator of calls between lawmakers and the Trump legal team — at one point Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) begged him for more time with Rudy Giuliani. And he was also involved in Trump’s pressure campaign at the DOJ.

“While [Meadows] is on the federal payroll, yes, he’s chief of staff to the president, but he’s not chief of staff to the president’s campaign, he’s chief of staff to the White House. And he seems to have completely lost that distinction,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis specializing in government ethics.  

She said the lack of repercussions for holding the Republican National Convention at the White House — something she called a “Hatch Act crime spree” — was a green light to those in Trump’s orbit to push things further.

“When you don’t enforce a law, when you don’t prosecute or take accountability when people violate a law, you’re giving them permission to violate it in the future. Draw a straight line from the Hatch Act violations at the RNC at the White House, right up through the post election violations,” Clark said.

Still, not all are sure Meadows himself violated the law or that his violations can be proven in a court of law. 

“If Meadows as chief of staff in the White House was putting any pressure on any federal employee to engage in partisan political activity, which I believe would include trying to reverse the election result, he is in violation of the criminal statute,” Richard Painter, chief ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush White House, told The Hill.

Painter filed a complaint with the DOJ while Trump was in office alleging he violated the criminal statute, asking for an investigation into him and his aides. 

“If I had enough evidence to feel that that complaint was justified in October 2020, whatever happened after the election was far worse,” he said.

But he said a conviction against someone like Meadows can be “a mess.” It would have to go beyond demonstrating the extent he organized meetings — even using White House phones is usually considered “de minimis” — and would need to show Meadows coerced others into helping the campaign.

“They’re allowed to engage in [their] personal capacity in political activity. And they’re allowed to do it in the White House,” he said. “Meadows can play politics one minute then do official work the next. You got to really take one hat off and put on the other.”

“If he sought to coerce a federal employee, including a staff member to a senator or representatives or a staff member of the Justice Department or the attorney general or anything like that, he would have committed a criminal offense,” Painter added.

An attorney for Meadows declined to comment.

But recent court filings in his battle with the committee lists a slew of examples in which former chiefs of staff “engaged in efforts related to their president’s election efforts.”

“While the Congressional defendants contend, without citing any factual support, that White House chiefs of staff do not get involved with an incumbent president’s reelection campaign, common sense and facts … are to the contrary. The breadth of the chief of staff’s duties necessarily includes activities relevant to the president’s reelection,” Meadows attorney George Terwilliger wrote in a Friday brief. 

Meadows has in the past brushed aside concerns he had violated the law.

“Nobody outside of the Beltway really cares,” he said in 2020 of the Hatch Act.

That’s precisely why some see action — either from the DOJ or from the committee — as a necessity.

“It’s not small potatoes because it goes to the heart of what our government is supposed to be — that it’s not just for the benefit of the office holders,” Clark said.

“Executive branch officials swear an oath, and it ain’t an oath to the president. It’s an oath to the Constitution.”

----------


## S Landreth

Appeals court rules Trump must testify in NY probe

Former President Trump and two of his adult children must provide testimony in the New York attorney general’s probe into his business practices, a state appeals court ruled Thursday, rejecting his challenge to a subpoena.

A four-judge panel for the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Trump’s appeal in the case, dismissing the former president’s arguments that the subpoena is part of a politically motivated investigation.

“OAG began its investigation after public testimony of a senior corporate insider and reviewed significant volumes of evidence before issuing the subpoenas,” the panel wrote in its four-page decision, using an acronym for the Office of Attorney General. “Appellants have not identified any similarly implicated corporation that was not investigated or any executives of such a corporation who were not deposed. Therefore, appellants have failed to demonstrate that they were treated differently from any similarly situated persons.”

The ruling also applies to Donald Trump Jr., who is currently an executive vice president at the family’s company, and Ivanka Trump, who stepped down as a corporate officer in 2017.

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), who is conducting a civil investigation into potential fraud at the Trump Organization, applauded the decision.

“Once again, the courts have ruled that Donald Trump must comply with our lawful investigation into his financial dealings,” James said in a statement. “We will continue to follow the facts of this case and ensure that no one can evade the law.”

James has said that her investigation has found evidence that the Trump Organization fraudulently misrepresented the value of its assets in the years before Trump was elected.

Trump attorney Alan Futerfas was not immediately able to comment on the decision.

The ruling is not certain to bring an end to Trump’s legal battles against James. He could still appeal the decision to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest judicial body. And Trump is also asking a federal judge to block James from carrying out the investigation, though it’s not clear when that lawsuit might be decided.

Trump had appealed a lower court ruling ordering him to provide testimony and documents to James’s office. Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump in contempt earlier this month for failing to comply with the order to provide business records to the investigators.

The former president’s lawyers had echoed his public accusations that James’s investigation was motivated by political animus. They also argued that by forcing him to testify in the civil investigation, the attorney general is jeopardizing Trump’s right against self-incrimination in the midst of a parallel criminal probe being carried out by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Futerfas had pointed to James’s comments promising to go after Trump while campaigning for her office as evidence that the civil investigation is improper and intended to feed information to criminal investigators.

“They have never denied that whatever information they get under the guise of this civil subpoena is going to go right to the DA’s office,” Futerfas told the appellate panel at a hearing earlier this month.

But the judges also rejected that argument on Thursday, saying James had a valid basis for launching an investigation, citing the congressional testimony that Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen gave in 2019 detailing fraudulent practices at Trump’s business.

“The political campaign and other public statements made by OAG about appellants do not support the claim that OAG initiated, or is using, the subpoenas in this civil investigation to obtain testimony solely for use in a criminal proceeding or in a manner that would otherwise improperly undermine appellants’ privilege against self-incrimination,” the panel said in its decision.

Think,......Perjury  :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

The fact is that baldy orange cunto should have been investigated years ago, so you can see some validity in the argument that there is an element of political motivation behind it.

----------


## S Landreth

^Couple years ago it was the president. Presidential Immunity

It no longer is.

Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit that sought to block New York’s investigation of his business practices

A federal judge on Friday dismissed Donald Trump’s lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James, allowing her civil investigation into his business practices to continue.

In a 43-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes said she based her decision on case law that, in most cases, bars federal judges from interfering in state-level investigations.

Sannes’ ruling came a day after a New York appeals court ruled that Trump must answer questions under oath in James’ probe, upholding a lower-court ruling requiring him to sit for a deposition.

A message seeking comment was left with Trump’s lawyers.

Trump sued James in December, just after she issued a subpoena for his testimony, resorting to a familiar but seldom successful strategy in an attempt to end the three-year investigation.

Through his lawyers, the Republican former president alleged that the probe was political in nature and that James, a Democrat, had violated his constitutional rights in a “thinly-veiled effort to publicly malign Trump and his associates.”

James responded that Trump’s lawsuit was a sudden “collateral attack” on her investigation and that there was no legal basis for it and no evidence to support his claim that the probe is purely political.

At a May 13 hearing that precipitated Sannes’ ruling Friday, a lawyer for James’ office said the probe is winding down and that evidence from it could support legal action against the former president, his company, or both.

The lawyer, Andrew Amer, said “there’s clearly been a substantial amount of evidence amassed that could support the filing of an enforcement proceeding,” although a final determination on filing such an action has not been made.

Amer, a special litigation counsel in James’ office, said the office is “nearing the end” of the civil investigation, which James has said uncovered evidence Trump’s company misstated the value of assets like skyscrapers and golf courses on financial statements for more than a decade.

----------


## harrybarracuda

You know he hasn't always been President, right?




> The fact is that baldy orange cunto should have been investigated _years ago_

----------


## S Landreth

^Trump's decade-old audit


Up to 50 subpoenas expected as grand jury begins Trump inquiry

ATLANTA  As many as 50 witnesses are expected to be subpoenaed by a special grand jury that will begin hearing testimony next week in the criminal investigation into whether former President Donald Trump and his allies violated Georgia laws in their efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.

The process, which is set to begin Wednesday, is likely to last weeks, bringing dozens of subpoenaed witnesses, both well-known and obscure, into a downtown Atlanta courthouse bustling with extra security because of threats directed at the staff of the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis.

Willis, a Democrat, has said in the past that Trump created a threatening atmosphere with his open criticism of the investigation. At a rally in January, he described the Georgia investigation and others focusing on him as prosecutorial misconduct at the highest level that was being conducted by vicious, horrible people. Willis has had staffers on the case outfitted with bulletproof vests.

But in an interview Thursday, she insisted the investigation was not personal.

Im not taking on a former president, Willis said. Were not adversaries. I dont know him personally. He does not know me personally. We should have no personal feelings about him.

She added that she was treating Trump as she would anyone else. I have a duty to investigate, she said. And in my mind, its not of much consequence what title they wore.

Willis emphasized the breadth of the case. As many as 50 witnesses have declined to talk to her voluntarily and are likely to be subpoenaed, she said. The potential crimes to be reviewed go well beyond the phone call that Trump made to Georgias secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, on Jan. 2, 2021, during which he asked him to find enough votes to reverse the election results.

Willis is weighing racketeering among other potential charges and said that such cases have the potential to sweep in people who have never set foot in Fulton or made a single phone call to the county.

Her investigators are also reviewing the slate of fake electors that Republicans created in a desperate attempt to circumvent the states voters. She said the scheme to submit fake Electoral College delegates could lead to fraud charges, among others  and cited her approach to a 2014 racketeering case that she helped lead as an assistant district attorney, against a group of educators involved in a cheating scandal in the Atlanta public schools.

There are so many issues that could have come about if somebody participates in submitting a document that they know is false, she said. You cant do that. If you go back and look at Atlanta Public Schools, thats one of the things that happened, is they certified these test results that they knew were false. You cannot do that.

Raffensperger, a Republican, is likely to be one of the better-known figures to testify before the grand jury. His office confirmed Friday that he and Gabriel Sterling, the chief operating officer for the secretary of states office, had received subpoenas and planned to appear soon before the panel.

In the Republican primary Tuesday, Raffensperger defeated a Trump-endorsed candidate, Rep. Jody Hice, who supported the former presidents false claims of election fraud.

Raffensperger will now vie for a second term in the general election in November, in which he is hoping to benefit from the national name recognition, and bipartisan kudos, that he received after standing up to Trump.

Willis declined to divulge the names of witnesses who will be called before the grand jury. But two Democratic state senators, Jen Jordan and Elena Parent, said Thursday that they had received subpoenas to appear. Both senators serve on a judiciary subcommittee that heard Rudy Giuliani, Trumps lawyer at the time, give a presentation in December 2020 in which he laid out a number of baseless allegations of electoral fraud.

Both Jordan and Parent said that they had already had conversations pertaining to the investigation with Fulton County prosecutors.

Delivered weeknights, this email newsletter gives you a quick recap of the day's top stories and need-to-know news, as well as intriguing photos and topics to spark conversation as you wind down from your day.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Friday that prosecutors planned to subpoena one of its journalists, Greg Bluestein, who has written about the efforts to overturn the election. The paper plans to seek to have the subpoena dismissed to prevent Bluestein from testifying.

The Georgia investigation is one of a number of inquiries concerning Trumps political and business affairs that he has faced since leaving office. They include one run by a select committee in the House of Representatives that is looking into the role that the former president and others may have played in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Willis said that there had been no formal coordination between her office and the Jan. 6 committee. But, I mean, obviously, were looking at everything that relates to Georgia that that committee is overturning, she said.

Willis inquiry is a criminal probe, and it has risen in prominence since prosecutors in New York City stopped presenting evidence to a grand jury earlier this year in an ongoing investigation into Trumps business practices, casting doubt on the case. Trumps business interests are also the subject of a criminal investigation in Westchester County, New York.

Willis said her investigation was unrelated to what was happening in New York.

They were investigating apples and we were investigating oranges, she said of the Manhattan inquiry, adding, I dont know the district attorney or the attorney general or, quite frankly, if Im honest, any elected officials in New York or any of the prosecutors in New York.

The Fulton County special grand jury, made up of 23 people, was impaneled in early May and has up to one year to do its work. After completing its investigation, it will issue a report advising Willis on whether to pursue criminal charges.

But Willis said that beyond that limitation, it was difficult to talk about timelines. I dont know how many games folks are going to play, she said. I dont know how many times were going to have to fight someone just to get them to come speak to a grand jury and tell the truth. And there could be delays for those reasons. In a perfect world, Id be done in the next 60 to 90 days. But I live in an imperfect world.

----------


## Topper

Thanks SL!  I think Fani is going to get a conviction.

----------


## S Landreth

Where Trump’s long list of legal challenges stand

Former President Trump faces a number of investigations and lawsuits related to his business practices with the Trump Organization and his four-year stint in the White House as he considers running for reelection in 2024.

Here’s every major legal challenge the former president is facing, from several investigations into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol to a family inheritance feud.

*The Jan. 6 investigation and related cases*

Trump is facing nine lawsuits related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and the 2020 presidential election.


A criminal investigation from the Fulton County, Ga., district attorney’s office is examining whether Trump officials disrupted the 2020 election in the county. The Fulton County has requested a grand jury for the investigation.The NAACP has filed a lawsuit against Trump for allegedly interfering with the 2020 election in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act. The NAACP recently won a victory over the winter and the lawsuit, which 10 members of Congress have signed on to, is moving forward.Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) is suing Trump in a separate lawsuit over the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.U.S. Capitol Police officers filed three separate lawsuits against Trump for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 rioting, which injured more than 100 officers. Four officers committed suicide afterward and one died from a stroke shortly after.Two officers from Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department also filed a lawsuit against Trump, seeking compensation for physical and emotional damages.D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine (D) said his probe into those who incited Jan. 6 could result in charges against Trump.

*New York officials probing the Trump Organization’s property valuations*

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is investigating whether Trump inflated property values for investors and deflated them in federal tax forms. She is pushing for Trump to hand over documents and for Trump himself to sit for a deposition, a call he has so far refused in violation of a court order.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) is continuing a similar probe into potential tax fraud and financial crimes. The case already resulted in charges filed last year against former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg for his alleged role in a 15-year tax fraud scheme.

The Westchester County, N.Y., district attorney’s office also launched an investigation in October into whether the Trump Organization misled officials about the property value of Trump National Golf Club Westchester.

*Federal investigators are looking at whether Trump mishandled classified documents*

The National Archives has asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether the former president mishandled classified documents.

Fifteen boxes of official records that Trump was legally required to turn over were recovered from his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.

*Mary Trump* *is suing her uncle for allegedly defrauding her* *from the family inheritance*

Trump’s niece says she was defrauded out of millions of dollars from her inheritance.

The lawsuit is ongoing in the New York Supreme Court. Mary Trump has requested a preliminary conference to proceed, while Donald Trump has moved to dismiss the case.

Trump is suing his niece and The New York Times in a separate lawsuit over reporting on his taxes. Mary Trump revealed in her tell-all book that she gave information to the newspaper for the story.

*E. Jean Carroll’s sexual assault suit*

E. Jean Carroll, a magazine writer who says Trump sexually assaulted her in the ’90s, is suing the former president for saying she fabricated her claims that he raped her.

The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. A federal judge recently denied Trump’s attempt to countersue.

*Former personal attorney* *Michael* C*ohen is also suing Trump*

In Manhattan federal court, Cohen is suing Trump, the U.S. government and other officials for allegedly retaliating against him after writing a tell-all book about his time serving Trump in a legal capacity.

The attorney says he was returned to federal prison in 2020 because of the book, according to The Associated Press.

*Trump Tower lawsuit*

Trump actually sat for a four-hour deposition on this one in October.

Six protesters are suing Trump, accusing his security guards of assaulting them outside Trump Tower during a 2015 protest.

Trump called the lawsuit pending in New York State Court “ridiculous” after his deposition.

*Doe v. Trump Organization*

A class-action lawsuit first filed in 2018 alleges the Trump Organization used their business to scam investors into supporting false or worthless business opportunities.

The case is taking place in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.

*Tenants suing Trump for hiking prices*

In a lawsuit filed in the New York Supreme Court, tenants who lived in a building once owned by Trump’s father say the Trump family hiked rents by inflating prices for appliances.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in March.

----------


## Cujo

Jesus Christ. Don't let this become a TC type landreth cut and paste spam thread.

----------


## Topper

^ I read them.....and I imagine things will heat up here starting Thursday.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Jesus Christ. Don't let this become a TC type landreth cut and paste spam thread.


I think you'll find there are worse cut and paste merchants on here.

The witless wanketeers for a start.

----------


## S Landreth

Judge orders Trump attorney to turn over documents to Jan. 6 panel

A federal judge ordered former President Trumps legal adviser, John Eastman, to turn over another batch of 159 documents subpoenaed by the House Jan. 6 select committee, including a single email he found to likely be part of a criminal effort to overturn the 2020 election. 

The late Tuesday ruling adds to a decision earlier this year finding that Eastman, who crafted two memos outlining the Trump campaign strategy to block the Jan. 6, 2021, Electoral College certification, cannot shield some of his work from the committee by claiming attorney-client privilege because he participated in a project to undermine the election that was likely criminal.

Judge David Carter, a California-based federal judge who has been reviewing Eastmans correspondence, found that Trump and his team may have engaged in criminal activity in early December 2020, writing that his emails confirm that the plan was established well before January 6, 2021.

Dr. Eastman and President Trumps plan to stop the count was not only established by early December, it was the ultimate goal that the legal team was working to protect from that point forward, Carter wrote.

The judge gave Eastman until 5 p.m. Wednesday to turn over the latest batch of records.

Eastman detailed two strategies for the Trump campaign: one encouraging former Vice President Mike Pences availability to buck his ceremonial duty to certify the election results on Jan. 6, 2021, and the other advising sending alternate electors from states that Trump had lost.

In a March ruling, Carter wrote that the illegality of the plan was obvious and deemed it a coup in search of a legal theory.

Eastmans actions, Carter found Tuesday, implicates the crime-fraud exception, a loophole in the otherwise broad attorney-client privilege that forfeits the protection from disclosure if an attorney more likely than not aided in a criminal or fraudulent enterprise.

Carter wrote that five of Eastmans documents detail a discussion among Trumps broader legal team about whether to bring a case that would raise questions about Pences availability on Jan. 6, 2021, to reject the election results.

According to the ruling, an attorney involved in the effort wrote in a Dec. 22, 2020, email that a negative ruling would tank the January 6 strategy. Carter wrote that the concern over near-zero chance of success in court appeared to drive them to pursue a political strategy.

This email cemented the direction of the January 6 plan, Carter wrote. 

The Trump legal team chose not to seek recourse in courtinstead, they forged ahead with a political campaign to disrupt the electoral count. Lawyers are free not to bring cases; they are not free to evade judicial review to overturn a democratic election, he determined.

The ruling also rejects certain documents Eastman was hoping to shield through First Amendment claims, including emails related to meetings on Dec. 9 and 16, 2020, to discuss the campaigns ground game.

Some of those emails include correspondence with a high-profile leader to discuss state legislative actions that can reverse the media-called election for Joe Biden. 

Both meetings were with what Eastman described as civic minded citizens of a conservative viewpoint. The Dec. 9 meeting included comments from an unidentified sitting lawmaker to discuss a plan to challenge the electors in the House of Representatives, while the Dec. 16 meeting included an elector for President Trump who would discuss the Electoral College.

Carter determined that withholding these documents from the panel incorrectly limits the Select Committees mandate.

Dr. Eastman admitted that his January 6 plan hinged on electors get[ting] a certification from their State Legislatorswithout it, the dueling slates would be dead on arrival in Congress, Carter wrote.

Dr. Eastmans actions in these few weeks indicate that his and President Trumps pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Penceit targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials. Convincing state legislatures to certify competing electors was essential to stop the count and ensure President Trumps reelection. 

The decision is the second ordering Eastman to turn over documents to the committee after he tried to shield some 37,000 documents from the panel. Carter previously ordered the attorney to review at least 1,000 of his emails every day.

Carters March ruling was widely quoted in a business meeting by the panel that month as it sought to censure two former advisers to Trump that refused to comply with their subpoenas.

The latest ruling comes ahead of the select committees primetime public hearing on Thursday evening. Carters findings that Trumps effort was likely criminal has no direct impact on whether he or Eastman will face prosecution, but the rulings have provided momentum for lawmakers eager to lay out their case to the public.

________________


Trump, two adult children scheduled to testify July 15 in New York AG investigation

Former President Trump and two of his adult children are scheduled to sit for depositions on July 15 in a probe by the attorney general of New York into Trumps business dealings, according to a court filing Wednesday.

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) and lawyers for the former president, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump reached an agreement that will give former President Trump time to appeal if he wishes. The Trumps have until Monday to ask the states Court of Appeals to hear the case.

James has been investigating whether former President Trump inflated the Trump Organizations property values for investors and then deflated them in federal tax documents. She has been pushing him to turn over documents and sit for a deposition for months, but he has has appealed her efforts in court. She first requested that he testify in the civil investigation in December. 

Trump lawyer Alina Habba did not immediately return a request from The Hill for comment.

A federal judge threw out a lawsuit that former President Trump filed to block Jamess investigation late last month. Trump had argued that Jamess probe is politically motivated, but U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes rejected the argument. 

Habba said at the time she would appeal Sanness ruling. 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) is conducting a similar criminal case looking into possible financial crimes by the Trump Organization.

----------


## Topper

Thanks SL!

----------


## S Landreth

^maybe this will be his downfall.......

Ex-Watergate prosecutor: Trump has "zero" defense in Georgia probe

Former President Trump's taped phone call pressing Georgia's Republican secretary of state in January 2021 to "find 11,780 votes" should be "enough" to indict him, a former Watergate prosecutor told MSNBC on Sunday.

 
*Why it matters:* Officials in Georgia are investigating allegations that Trump attempted to interfere with the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in the state.


While Trump has dismissed both the Fulton County investigation and the Jan. 6 committee hearings as "witch-hunts," former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman told MSNBC's "The Katie Phang Show" that of all the cases against Trump it's the Georgia one that could "send Donald Trump to prison."

*Between the lines:* Trump's "only defense" of his call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was "to somehow pick up on some ambiguity in the tape, that he did not really mean what he said," Akerman told host Katie Phang.

*Yes, but:* "Once you look at what he said, trying to get Brad Raffensperger to come up with extra votes to make him a winner in Georgia, and put in the context about the January 6th committee has found, I think they have gotten a case beyond a reasonable doubt," Akerman said

*The bottom line:* "What is significant with those tapes is that when you put it in context of all of the evidence that the January 6 committee has uncovered — you put that together, Donald Trump has zero defense in Georgia," Akerman said.

*The other side:* Trump, who's attacked Raffensperger since leaving office over his conduct on voter integrity, said in a post on his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday: "My phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State, with many other people, including numerous lawyers, knowingly on the line, was absolutely PERFECT and appropriate."

----------


## Topper

My repub friends on FB are frothing in trump's defense.  Some people just can't see what's in front of them.

----------


## S Landreth

Brian Kemp subpoenaed to testify in Fulton County Trump investigation

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) will submit a sworn recorded statement to the Fulton County district attorney's office next month for an investigation into former President Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

*Why it matters:* Kemp is the highest profile Georgia official to be subpoenaed to testify before the district attorney's special grand jury focused on the case. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Attorney General Chris Carr have already appeared.

*Driving the news:* Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade wrote that the office has agreed to accept recorded testimony on July 25 "to accommodate the Governor and his schedule," per a document obtained by Axios and first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday.


The office is requesting access to a long list of documentation, including call logs, emails and correspondence with the former president or his allies, as well as any information that "explains what former President Trump was thinking or doing or those working on his behalf."

*Catch up quick:* Atlanta District Attorney Fani Willis has been investigating possible criminal charges to Trump and his allies over allegations that he tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election for nearly a year and a half.

*The big picture:* After refusing Trump's pressure to call a special legislative session regarding the election, Kemp became one of the former president's top political targets.


Trump campaigned for Kemp's opponent, former Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.), but Kemp defeated his challenger with more than 70% of the vote in a May primary.Kemp's spokesperson declined to comment on the case beyond confirming receipt of the subpoena.

----------


## Cujo

In the end nothing will come of it because the Democrats are pussies.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> In the end nothing will come of it because the Democrats are pussies.


They're fucked anyway whether they prosecute baldy orange cunto or not.

----------


## Topper

> They're fucked anyway whether they prosecute baldy orange cunto or not.


I'm going to guess, oddly enough, the DOJ or Georgia people care about politics but more about justice, because justice matters.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I'm going to guess, oddly enough, the DOJ or Georgia people care about politics but more about justice, because justice matters.


If they don't do anything, baldy will be riling the base with claims of how it was all a waste of time.
If they do, he'll be riling the base will claims of a political witchhunt.

Either way the Republitards will be out to vote in bigger numbers than the Democrats, and the independents will be voting about gas prices and a general weariness of the identity shite.

----------


## Topper

> he'll be riling the base will claims of a political witchhunt.


Which he's doing now.....only the Jan 6th hearing are seeming to be effective in communicating how he fucked over his base by getting them to donate after he lost the election to all but those who are too brainwashed in to believing his gospel.

----------


## DrWilly

> to all but those who are too brainwashed in to believing his gospel.



Unfortunately that's still a large damn number. 


Additionally the smart Republicans that don't necessarily believe his gospel are happy to continue selling their souls and will still support him knowing he has numbers. 

And the circle continues.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Which he's doing now.....only the Jan 6th hearing are seeming to be effective in communicating how he fucked over his base by getting them to donate after he lost the election to all but those who are too brainwashed in to believing his gospel.



OK so I'll start again and you can tell me if you agree or not:




> _They're fucked anyway whether they prosecute baldy orange cunto or not._

----------


## Topper

> OK so I'll start again and you can tell me if you agree or not:


I'm guessing things will be changing, starting in a few months.  The democrats were simply unable to seize the moment.

----------


## S Landreth

^it's already started.

That trump support is waning.

It would be nice to see a mugshot of the loser around mid-October.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I'm guessing things will be changing, starting in a few months.  The democrats were simply unable to seize the moment.


My prediction: They are going to get fucked hard. They are stupidly divided.

----------


## S Landreth

Georgia officials must testify in Trump investigation, judge rules

A Georgia judge ruled that Republican lawmakers including Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan and state Sen. William Ligon must testify before a panel focused on the Atlanta investigation of former President Trump.


But, the judge set parameters regarding what questions they can be asked.

*Why it matters:* This sets a precedent for any other lawmakers trying to fight subpoenas from the Fulton County DA's special grand jury focused on the broad-reaching investigation into former president Trump and his allies' efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

*The big picture:* U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said he plans to fight his own subpoena by the Fulton DA's investigation, but that legal challenge would take place out of Georgia.

*Driving the news:* Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ruled Wednesday that the lawmakers must testify, but they are entitled to constitutionally protected "legislative immunity" during that testimony.


The witnesses, he ruled, may not be asked about anything said while participating in a session of the legislature, including any subcommittee, nor any communications they've had with other legislators or staff about any session.

*Catch up quick:* Ligon, a Republican from coastal Georgia, chaired several "Election Law Study" state Senate judiciary subcommittees in which Trump's one-time lawyer Rudy Giuliani, among others, testified about false allegations of voter fraud.


Ligon issued a "chairman's report" after the meeting that called the November election "chaotic" and said "any reported results must be viewed as untrustworthy" and repeated other false allegations of voter fraud.

*Yes, but:* McBurney explicitly stated that asking about any communication between a lawmaker or staffer with any private citizen, including lobbyists, are within the bounds of the law.

----------


## S Landreth

Five things to know about the Georgia probe into Trump and his allies

The criminal probe into former President Trump and his allies in Georgia took a striking turn this week, with subpoenas being issued to several high-profile figures.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and conservative lawyers John Eastman, Jenna Ellis and Cleta Mitchell are among those subpoenaed.

The headline-making move puts new focus on a criminal investigation that has got less attention than the work of the House Select Committee on Jan. 6.

But some experts believe it could end up being just as important.

Here are some of the most salient points about the Georgia probe.

*Whats it all about?*

The probe, at its core, is about whether laws were broken by Trump and his team in their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.

Georgia was among the closest of the battleground states in the election, with President Biden eking out a victory by roughly two-tenths of a percentage point.

The post-election efforts by Team Trump to change that result have been particularly vivid  mostly thanks to a phone call the then-president made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021.

In the call, which was taped, Trump pressed Raffensperger to find the number of votes required to overturn Bidens margin of victory.

*Raffensperger resisted Trumps efforts and has rebutted his false claims of election fraud.*

At a public hearing of the Jan. 6 committee on June 21, Raffensperger insisted, The numbers are the numbers, and numbers dont lie.

There were other efforts by Trumps team in Georgia as well, including a state Senate hearing at which Giuliani made claims of fraud that have been debunked; and a letter that a Trump ally in the Department of Justice wanted to send to Georgia lawmakers.

The proposed letter was so aberrational that even then-White House counsel Pat Cipollone reportedly described it as a murder-suicide pact.

Authorities in Georgia, led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, have been investigating these actions, among others.

Williss office, as The New York Times has noted, has previously said it is investigating whether any of these acts rise to the level of solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the elections administration.

*A grand jury began sitting in May.*

Those proceedings are continuing, hence this weeks subpoenas.

Some experts believe the Georgia probe poses the greatest threat to Trump

The Georgia probe could in the end be the most dangerous legal arrow aimed at Trump.

One reason is the recorded phone call with Raffensperger.

In addition to the ominous request to find votes, the then-president also implied, in vague terms, that Raffensperger was complicit in election fraud or was willfully ignoring it. This, Trump warned Raffensperger, was a criminal offense.

Raffensperger has said he viewed Trumps words as a threat.

Last month, former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman told MSNBCs Katie Phang, Donald Trump has zero defense in Georgia. If I had to put my money on one prosecution thats going to go forward here that will send Donald Trump to jail  its Georgia.

Of course, Trump and his supporters see things completely differently.

I did NOTHING wrong in Georgia, but others did, the former president wrote on Truth Social on Thursday, apparently responding to news of the subpoenas. They CHEATED in the 2020 election and those are the ones that should be investigated (and prosecuted).

*The DA seems to like her chances*

Willis, the district attorney leading the probe, is exuding confidence so far.

In an interview with Yahoo News last month, she spoke about her willingness to enforce subpoenas even on recalcitrant, high-profile witnesses.

Ive had a witness arrested before because they ignore my subpoena. And you do not expect to have to do it. But I will, she said.

In the same interview, Willis said she feels great about the make-up of the grand jury and underlined the importance of maintaining the integrity of elections  something she traced back to lessons learned from her father, a onetime Black Panther who became a lawyer.

She recalled being dragged to the polls as a young girl and added: So you understand very, very early on, voting is such an intrinsic right  And so I understand how important the infraction on someones right to vote is. So I do get the significance.

In a separate interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Willis promised that she will be guided only by whether the facts would support criminal prosecution.

If we can do that, Im going to bring an indictment  I dont care who it is, she said.

But if its Trump, any trial will be a sensation.

*Some key figures have already testified*

The Georgia grand jury has already heard testimony from other key witnesses.

Raffensperger appeared before it in private in early June  before he testified to the House Select Committee in public.

According to The Associated Press, Raffensperger told one reporter on his way into the Georgia proceedings that his testimony would be hopefully short  but ended up staying for more than five hours.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has been subpoenaed and is expected to testify before the grand jury later this month.

Kemp, like Raffensperger, resisted Trumps pressure to overturn the elections. Trump then backed challengers to both men in Republican primaries this year. In the end, Raffensperger and Kemp both survived, dealing Trump his most notable defeats of this years election season to date.

CNN reported in May that several individuals who were willing to serve, on specious grounds, as pro-Trump electors in Georgia have also been interviewed. The CNN report said these people had been told they were considered witnesses, rather than subjects or targets  suggesting that Willis might be more interested in what they can reveal than in charging them.

*A decision on charges could come soon  or not*

Willis, despite her expressions of confidence, has shifted around when it comes to predicting a timetable for when the grand jury might finish its work.

In January, she told The Associated Press she expected a decision on whether to bring charges in the first half of the year.

But in an NBC News interview this week, Willis said she was not in a rush to finish. She also said that, if a decision had not been reached before early voting in the midterm elections begins, she would halt activities until after the election.

The grand jury, empaneled in May, can sit for up to a year. But a decision on whether to charge, or not, can come at any time.

___________


Atlanta newspaper subpoenaed in probe of Trumps election meddling

An Atlanta newspaper has been issued a subpoena by the special grand jury investigating possible criminal activity of former President Trump and his allies following the 2020 election.

The Fulton County grand jury is looking to obtain the full audio recording of a leaked Jan. 11, 2021, conference call involving former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Bobby Christine, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. The AJC reported on the call in question at the time.

That Journal report outlined how Christine had told others in his office on the call that he had dismissed two cases of alleged voter fraud in the state based on a lack of evidence.

In my opinion, there is no there, there, Christine said on the call, the newspaper reported.

On Tuesday, the same grand jury issued subpoenas to several members of Trumps inner circle around the time of the election, including Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and conservative lawyer John Eastman.

The subpoenas stem from an ongoing investigation from current Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is looking to ascertain whether Trump and his allies tired to unlawfully influence the 2020 election.

Trump and his allies have long baselessly suggested widespread voter fraud, including in Fulton County, Georgia, led to a rigged presidential election against him.

----------


## Norton

The press can say as they feel about Trump being prosecuted and spending time but it ain't going to happen. Trump has lied, cheated and stole from the gullable his entire life and never spent a minute behind bars.

He will not be the Republican presidential candidate either but will continue stirring up groups like the proud boys to do things like they did Jan 6.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump rally in North Carolina canceled as former president summoned to court

Former President Donald Trump and a host of Republican personalities have canceled their scheduled appearances Friday in Greensboro.

News of the cancellation comes as Axios reports Trump, his son, Donald Trump Jr., and his daughter, Ivanka Trump, have been scheduled to testify under oath Friday in an investigation into Trumps finances.

The American Freedom Tour had announced in May appearances in Greensboro by Trump, Trump Jr., television news personality Kimberly Guilfoyle, former New York state judge Jeanine Pirro, Pinal County (Arizona) Sheriff Mark Lamb and political commentator Dinesh DSouza.

The American Freedom Tour did not publicize that the event would no longer take place Friday, but quietly removed it from its website. Tickets for the event initially sold for $9 to $3,955.

The News & Observer requested further information and received a generic response. We are very sorry that due to unforeseen circumstances we are rescheduling the American Freedom Tour stop in Greensboro, NC, an emailed reply stated.

Your ticket may be used at any American Freedom Tour event in America. The only event currently scheduled on the organizations website is on Aug. 20 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The email added that phone calls would be placed to those registered to attend the Greensboro event to provide more detailed information and answer further questions. A second email would go out once the event is rescheduled, the message said.

__________

Related..


Trump set for July 15 testimony in New York probe

Former President Trump and his adult children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., are scheduled to testify under oath on July 15 as part of a probe by the New York attorney general into his finances, a court filing revealed Wednesday.

*Driving the news:* This comes almost two weeks after a court ruled that the family was obligated to testify as part of the probe.


Trump's attorneys had argued that the attorney general's office was planning to use the testimonies for a separate criminal investigation, but a four-judge panel in the appellate division of New York's trial court said that these were not related.

*State of play:* The former president and his children are slated to appear for testimony starting July 15 until the next week, unless a New York appeals court intervenes, according to the court documents.

*Don't forget:* New York Attorney General Letitia James said earlier this year that her office's investigation found that the Trump Organization allegedly used "fraudulent and misleading asset valuations to obtain economic benefits."

_________

Cushman & Wakefield Reaches Deal with NY AG to Stay Contempt

Donald Trumps Real Estate Appraiser Says It Reached an Agreement to Turn Over Documents to New York AG, Stay Contempt Order

Former President Donald Trumps real estate appraiser Cushman & Wakefield said that it has reached an agreement with New York Attorney General Letitia James to provide subpoenaed documents in order to stay a $10,000 per day contempt order.

We are pleased to have reached an agreement with the OAG that relates to an interim stay of the contempt ruling, the company said in a statement.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron imposed the contempt order on Wednesday, finding that Cushman & Wakefield blew past a court-imposed deadline and even waited for one to expire before challenging the scope of a subpoena.

James has been investigating whether Trump illegally inflated or deflated assets in order to reap tax benefits. The investigation began after Trumps former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen testified before Congress that the former president had been cooking the books.

Cushman & Wakefield, a multi-billion dollar real estate services firm that acted as Trumps appraiser on three properties, insists that it has been cooperative in the investigation.

Since the beginning of the New York Attorney Generals investigation in 2019, Cushman & Wakefield has endeavored to cooperate with the [Office of the Attorney General]s investigation, responding to multiple document subpoenas and eight testimony subpoenas, the company said in its statement. We will continue to work to produce the documents requested by the OAG by Wednesday, July 13, in accordance with our agreement.

The attorney generals office did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.

According to the company, the agreement took place at a hearing conducted on Friday, during which Cushman & Wakefield sought an interim stay of the contempt order. If Cushman & Wakefield provides all of the subpoenaed documents by Wednesday, the attorney general will agree to seek to dissolve the contempt order and will not seek to collect any fines, the company says.

The subpoenas related to Cushman & Wakefields appraisals of the Seven Springs Estate, Trump National Golf Club, Los Angeles, and 40 Wall Street. The attorney general also wants information about Cushman & Wakefields broader business dealings with the Trump Organization.

Cushman & Wakefield immediately appealed the judges contempt order, which accused the company of treating court orders cavalierly.

Cushman & Wakefield has only itself to blame if it chose to treat the looming deadlines cavalierly, Justice Engoron wrote. With the statutes of limitations continuing to run, every delay prejudices OAG (and indirectly, the people of New York State).

Engoron previously found Trump in contempt in April, skewering his legal team for their boilerplate assertions of compliance.

Mr. Trump, I know you take your business seriously, and I take mine seriously, Engoron addressed the former president directly, though he was not physically in the courtroom. Engoron punctuated his ruling by banging the gavel.

The judge purged that contempt order in late June, after Trump and his lawyers supplied detailed affidavits showing his companys lax approach to document retention and deletion policies.

There is no filing on the public docket memorializing the agreement that the company says it reached with the attorney general in court on Friday.

----------


## S Landreth

Rep. Jody Hice moves to quash grand jury subpoena in Georgia case

GOP Georgia Rep. Jody Hice moves to quash subpoena from Trump election-meddling grand jury

Georgia Republican Rep. Jody Hice on Monday asked a federal judge to quash a subpoena demanding his testimony before a state special grand jury that is investigating former President Donald Trump for possible criminal interference in the state during the 2020 election.

The same grand jury in Atlanta previously was known to have subpoenaed other Trump allies, among them Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who likewise has asked a federal judge in his home state to quash that demand.

The subpoena for Hice, which was issued June 29, did not become widely known Monday, when a motion by his attorney seeking to have matters related to the subpoena be heard in federal court first became public.

The subpoena called for Hice to appear Tuesday before the Fulton County grand jury.

But that appearance was postponed until a federal judge has time to address Hices motion to quash, according to a notice in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The notice said the delay was agreed to by Hices lawyer and the Fulton County District Attorneys Office, which is presenting evidence to the grand jury.

A hearing on Hices motion to quash was set for July 25 in Atlanta federal court.

Hices lawyer Loree Anne Paradise in a court filing argued that the grand jury subpoena violates the Constitutions Speech or Debate Clause, because it appears related to Congressman Hices inquiries into alleged irregularities in the 2020 election, the Constitution and implementing statute charges Congress with certifying the results of presidential elections.

Congressman Hice was acting squarely within his Congressional jurisdiction and his actions may not be questioned in any legal proceeding, Paradise wrote.

The attorney also said under the so-called high-ranking official doctrine, the Fulton County district attorney, who is overseeing the presentation of evidence to the grand jury, in order to subpoena Hice, must first show that she could not otherwise obtain the information she wants from other sources.

Hice had backed Trump in his efforts to overturn President Joe Bidens victory in Georgias 2020 presidential vote. On the heels of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, during which a horde of Trump supporters invaded the halls of Congress, Hice voted against certifying Bidens victory.

In May, Hice lost a primary race in which he sought to replace Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as the partys nominee for that office in the November midterm elections.

In January 2021, Raffensperger resisted a direct request from Trump to help him find enough votes in Georgia to reverse Bidens victory in the state.

Hice was subpoenaed by the Fulton County Court grand jury on June 29, according to the notice from Paradise. It was not clear why Hice waited weeks after the subpoena was issued to have his lawyer move to quash it.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> “Congressman Hice was acting squarely within his Congressional jurisdiction and his actions may ‘not be questioned’ in any legal proceeding,” Paradise wrote.


Yes, because people who have nothing to hide often seek to stop people finding out what they're up to.

 :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## harrybarracuda



----------


## harrybarracuda

Definitely not the full shilling that bloke.




> It is 2022 and Donald Trump is still trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election he lost.
> Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) told WISN in Milwaukee on Tuesday that the former president called him “within the last week” to ask him to overturn the 2020 election results in his state. Trump lost Wisconsin to Joe Biden by more than 20,000 votes.
> 
> 
> Vos said Trump phoned him after the state Supreme Court ruled this month that absentee ballot drop boxes are illegal.
> Reporter Matt Smith asked when Vos last spoke with Trump.
> “Within the last week,” Vos replied.

----------


## harrybarracuda

On the bright side:




> The road for Republicans retaking the Senate runs through Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Georgia.
> While it's still early, these states' three GOP nominees who've picked up the backing of former President Donald Trump have yet to break away from their Democratic opponents in polling and have already fallen behind in fundraising.
> Herschel Walker has struggled with gaffes on the campaign trail and revelations about secret children in Georgia.
> A seemingly dormant Mehmet Oz campaign has struggled to unify the MAGA base in Pennsylvania.
> JD Vance emerged from the second quarter with a paltry fundraising haul, bringing in just $2.3 million compared to $9.1 million for his Democratic opponent in Ohio, Rep. Tim Ryan.
> "They're not the best choices because we're not going back to Trump," a member of the Republican National Committee told Insider, requesting anonymity to speak candidly about worries among the party brass.

----------


## aging one

The only reason Trump wants to run for president again is once again only about him. To protect himself from prosecution. A sitting president may not be indicted. 
Trump Says He Needs 2024 Election Win to Stop Criminal Probes - Rolling Stone

----------


## S Landreth

^yeah but  :Smile: 

Time is on our side

Justice Department probe into Trump won’t stop if he announces 2024 run: Deputy AG 

The Justice Department’s investigation into various efforts by Donald Trump to undermine the 2020 election will continue regardless of whether the former president announces his intention to again seek office in 2024.

“We’re going to continue to do our job, to follow the facts wherever they go, no matter where they lead, no matter to what level,” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said Tuesday in response to questions after speaking at a cybersecurity conference in New York.

“We’re going to continue to investigate what was fundamentally an attack on our democracy.”

DOJ traditionally avoids investigative action that might implicate a candidate in the 60 days preceding an election. But Monaco’s comments indicate the Justice Department may not stick to that norm, which is not an official DOJ policy.

“The mandate the team has remains, which is to follow the facts wherever they go, regardless of what level, regardless of whether the subject of those investigations were present on Jan. 6,” Monaco said.

The Justice Department has previously parted with that tradition on other matters, including then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement about a development in the investigation of 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

The comments come as DOJ has reportedly been expanding the scope of its investigation into Jan. 6 but has yet to directly investigate Trump as a target.

Last week, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, said he was in initial discussions with DOJ about allowing them to review depositions tied to Trump’s “alternate elector” scheme that would send faulty certificates to Washington in an attempt to reverse President Biden’s victory in key states.

DOJ has also brought charges against some 850 people that entered the Capitol or were otherwise connected to the events of the day, including seditious conspiracy charges against members of extremist groups like far-right militia the Oath Keepers, and the Proud Boys.

In recent weeks law enforcement officials also executed search warrants at the homes of Jeffrey Clark, a former DOJ assistant attorney general Trump considered installing as attorney general in order to forward investigations into his baseless claims of election fraud, and John Eastman, an attorney who encouraged former Vice President Mike Pence to forego his ceremonial duties to certify the election results. 

Last week, Trump said he had already made a decision about whether to run for office for a third time.

​​“Well, in my own mind, I’ve already made that decision, so nothing factors in anymore. In my own mind, I’ve already made that decision,” he said in an interview in New York magazine.

----------


## harrybarracuda

FFS if they haven't nailed him by 2024 they might as well just give up now.

----------


## Cujo

> FFS if they haven't nailed him by 2024 they might as well just give up now.


Say what?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Say what?


With which of those really long words do you require assistance?

----------


## Cujo

> With which of those really long words do you require assistance?


It's the tenses that confuse me, I'm sure if you apply yourself you can figure it out.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> It's the tenses that confuse me, I'm sure if you apply yourself you can figure it out.


Ah, pedantry.

I'm sure you got the gist of my post.

We're still not even close to charging him with crimes committed in 2020 so I suspect the slippery c u n t will be off the hook when Biden loses.

----------


## S Landreth

Now We Know When E. Jean Carrolls Lawsuit Against Donald Trump Is Scheduled to Go to Trial

Following extensive delays, former President Donald Trump will face a defamation trial in a lawsuit filed by his rape accuser E. Jean Carroll early next year, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan set a trial date for Feb. 6, 2023, unless the case is disposed by motion or otherwise, his ruling says  apparently alluding to a possible settlement.

Carrolls attorney Roberta Kaplan and Trumps counsel Alina Habba did not immediately respond to Law&Crimes emails requesting comment.

On Nov. 4, 2019, Carroll sued Trump in state court for defamation, and she went public with her claims that the then-sitting president of the United States raped her in the dressing room of the department store Bergdorf Goodman in the 1990s. The lawsuit focuses less on the sexual assault allegations than Trumps manner of denying them to reporters.

Shes not my type, Trump told the press.

The case was removed to federal court after then-Attorney General Bill Barrs Department of Justice sought to transfer the case there. The government argued that Trump made his denials in his capacity as the U.S. president, an assertion her attorneys described as offensive.

There is not a single person in the United States  not the president and not anyone else  whose job description includes slandering women they sexually assaulted, Carrolls counsel Kaplan, who is not related to the judge with the same surname, previously said.

Judge Kaplan denied the Justice Departments bid to change the case caption from Carroll v. Trump to Carroll v. United States. He also routinely criticized Trump and his lawyers for what he described as delay tactics.

In the days following, defendant, then the president of the United States, attempted to evade service of the complaint at his New York City residence and the White House, Kaplan wrote in a ruling in March of this year. Service was completed only by mail after the state court granted plaintiffs application for alternative service. Defendant then attempted to delay the progress of the lawsuit through frivolous motions practice.

Kaplan added that Trumps litigation tactics have had a dilatory effect and, indeed, strongly suggest that he is acting out of a strong desire to delay any opportunity plaintiff may have to present her case against him.

The new scheduling order suggests that the time for delay is past.

It calls for discovery to be complete by Nov. 16 of this year. The parties will submit pre-marked trial exhibits on Dec. 8, which will also serve as the date for motions in limine, debating what evidence should be admitted or barred from trial.

The parties previously agreed to conduct depositions of witnesses between Aug. 3 and Oct. 19.

Carroll has long attempted to acquire Trumps DNA to compare with a stain on the dress that she said she saved from the day of the alleged attack.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...p-schedule.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

Fat boy and Friends


Georgia fake electors may face charges in election probe

The Georgia prosecutor whos investigating whether former President Donald Trump and others illegally interfered in the 2020 general election in the state has informed 16 Republicans who served as fake electors that they could face criminal charges.

They all signed a certificate declaring falsely that then-President Trump had won the 2020 presidential election and declaring themselves the states duly elected and qualified electors even though Joe Biden had won the state and a slate of Democratic electors was certified. Eleven of them filed a motion Tuesday to quash their subpoenas, calling them unreasonable and oppressive.

Also Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, agreed to file any challenges to a subpoena in the investigation in either state superior court or federal court in Georgia, according to a court filing. He had previously filed a motion in federal court in South Carolina trying to stop any subpoena from being issued to him there on behalf of the prosecutor in Georgia.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last year opened a criminal investigation into attempts to influence the administration of the 2020 Georgia General Election. A special grand jury with subpoena power was seated in May at her request. In court filings earlier this month, she alleged a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump Campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.

Willis office declined to comment Tuesday on the motion to quash the subpoenas.

A lawyer for Williss office said in a court filing Tuesday that each of the 16 people who signed the false elector certificate has received a letter saying they are targets of the investigation and that their testimony before the special grand jury is required.

In the motion to quash the subpoenas, lawyers for 11 of the fake electors said that from mid-April through the end of June, Williss office had told them that they were considered witnesses, not subjects or targets of the investigation. For that reason, they had agreed to voluntary interviews with the investigative team, the motion says. Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer and another of the fake electors appeared for interviews in late April.

On June 1, grand jury subpoenas were sent to all 11 of those fake electors. And on June 28, the district attorneys office told their lawyers for the first time that their clients were considered targets, rather than witnesses, the motion says.

On Dec. 14, 2020, when Georgias official Democratic electors met to certify the states electoral votes for Biden, the fake Republican electors also met to certify a slate of electoral votes for Trump. They did that because there was a lawsuit challenging the election results pending at the time, and if a judge found that Trump had actually won their electoral slate would become valid, the motion says.

The district attorneys office knew all that and properly labeled them witnesses, prompting them to agree to voluntary cooperation, the motion says.

The abrupt, unsupportable, and public elevation of all eleven nominee electors status wrongfully converted them from witnesses who were cooperating voluntarily and prepared to testify in the Grand Jury to persecuted targets of it, the motion says. As a result, their lawyers advised them to invoke their federal and state rights protecting them against self-incrimination, and they reluctantly accepted that advice, the motion says.

Their lawyers assert that the change in status from witnesses to targets was based on an improper desire to force them to publicly invoke their rights as, at best, a publicity stunt. Therefore, they should be excused from appearing before the special grand jury, the motion says.

The motion asks Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, whos overseeing the special grand jury to excuse the 11 electors from appearing before the panel. It also asks him to look into Willis actions indicating the improper politicization of this investigatory process.

And it asks him to grant a motion filed Friday by state Sen. Burt Jones seeking to remove Willis and her office from the investigation. Jones, whos the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor, alleged that the investigation is politically motivated because Willis is an active supporter of his Democratic opponent. McBurney on Tuesday set a Thursday hearing on that motion.

Williss office has said Jones claims are without merit and a lawyer representing the office wrote in a filing Tuesday that Jones has identified no actions that show political motivation

____________


16 Fake Trump Electors in Georgia Are Now the DA's 'Targets'

Fulton County DA Confirms Shes Designated All 16 False Trump Electors as Targets in Georgia Probe

All 16 of the people claiming to have been Georgias electors for Donald Trump  even though the former president lost in that state  have been designated as targets of investigation, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D)  revealed on Tuesday afternoon.

The DA made the disclosure in response to a disqualification motion by one of the electors: GOP state Sen. Burt Jones.

Williss office described Jones as similarly situated to his 15 other unofficial electors whom she says were informed of their target status.

Earlier in the day, counsel for 11 of the would-be electors moved to quash the subpoenas and disqualify the DA, arguing that her office assured them that they were mere witnesses to her investigation.

At no time in our communications with the DAs Office before June 28 did anyone ever suggest that the nominee electors status had changed or that they were no longer considered witnesses, including when they were subpoenaed, an italicized passage of the motion reads.

Our Investigation Has Matured

Once the date arrived, the 11 electors attorneys say their clients received a rude surprise.

Immediately upon learning that the nominee electors were, in fact, planning to testify substantively to the Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade informed us for the first time that all of these eleven nominee electors were suddenly targets, stating that as our investigation has matured and new evidence has come to light, in a spirit of integrity we feel it only fitting to inform you that your clients status has changed to Target,' the motion reveals.

After losing the election by a convincing margin both nationally and in Georgia, Trump called Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) to urge him find 11,780 votes  the number the former president needed to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat. Another plan reportedly called for Trump sending his electors to Congress for certification, even though Georgia voters chose President Joe Biden.

*The would-be Trump electors who now identify themselves as the DAs targets are Mark Amick, Joseph Brannan, Brad Carver, Vikki Consiglio, John Downey, Carolyn Fish, Kay Godwin, Cathy Latham, David Shafer, Shawn Still, and CB Yadav.*

The development follows a bombshell Yahoo News report last week that the prosecutors office has informed prominent state Republicans that they are also targets, meaning that they could be indicted.

The recipients of the earlier letters reportedly included state Sen. Burt Jones (R), who was Gov. Brian Kemps (R) running mate for lieutenant governor; David Shafer, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party; and state Sen. Brandon Beach (R).

Jones also asked to disqualify Willis recently, accusing her of not acting as a disinterested prosecutor.

Those letters also indicated that the GOP officials were in prosecutors crosshairs in connection with the electors scheme.

A Much Broader Net

After being informed their clients were targets, the electors counsel said that they advised them not to testify before the grand jury.

The abrupt, unsupportable, and public elevation of all eleven nominee electors status wrongfully converted them from witnesses who were cooperating voluntarily and prepared to testify in the Grand Jury to persecuted targets of it, their attorneys Holly Pierson and Kimberly Bourroughs wrote. In light of the escalation, counsel advised the elector nominees to invoke their federal and state constitutional and statutory rights not to provide substantive testimony to the grand jury, advice they have reluctantly accepted. The unavoidable conclusion is that the nominee electors change of status was not precipitated by new evidence or an honestly-held belief that the they have criminal exposure but instead an improper desire to force them to publicly invoke their rights as, at best, a publicity stunt.

In a recent interview, Georgia criminal appellate lawyer Brandon Bullard told Law&Crime it is uncommon for local prosecutors to send out target letters preceding indictment, a more frequent feature of federal prosecutions.

Bullard, who shared his insights after the reports concerning Georgia GOP targets on Friday, said that the apparently widening scope of the investigation could signal a RICO-type prosecution, where youre looking at what were looking at holding several lots of people accountable for the combined for their several acts, in furtherance of some other illegal scheme.

It does suggest a much broader net, perhaps, or at least theyre considering a broader net than just the former president and even perhaps even his close associates, Bullard added.

In October 2021, the Brookings Institute  a centrist think tank  contemplated in a report the possibility of a prosecution under Georgias Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in Fulton County.

Trumps multifaceted and sustained effort to subvert the count and certification of the election in Georgia may include a host of distinct state crimes, the report said. As such, prosecution under Georgias RICO law may be available and appropriate. Indeed, it is difficult not to draw parallels between Trumps threats and intimidation and more classic targets of RICO charges.

The DAs office has not filed any charges to date in connection with its investigation. The special grand jury that it has empaneled is not empowered to return indictments.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ors-motion.pdf

___________


Giuliani Ordered To Testify In Georgia 2020 Election Probe

A judge in New York has ordered Rudy Giuliani to appear next month before a special grand jury in Atlanta thats investigating whether former President Donald Trump and others illegally tried to interfere in the 2020 general election in Georgia.

New York Supreme Court Justice Thomas Farber on July 13 issued an order directing Giuliani, a Trump lawyer and former New York City mayor, to appear before the special grand jury on Aug. 9 and on any other dates ordered by the court in Atlanta, according to documents filed Wednesday in Fulton County Superior Court.

Giulianis lawyer did not immediately return a call and email seeking comment Wednesday.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis began her investigation early last year, and a special grand jury with subpoena power was seated in May at her request. In a letter requesting the special grand jury, she said her team was looking into any coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020 elections in this state.

Earlier this month, she filed petitions to compel seven Trump associates, including Giuliani and U.S. Sen Lindsey Graham, to testify before the special grand jury.

Because they dont live in Georgia, she had to use a process that involves getting a judge in the state where they live to order them to appear.

Giuliani had been summoned to appear in court in New York on July 13 to present any reasons why a subpoena should not be issued for him to testify in Atlanta, but he failed to show up for the hearing, Farber wrote in his order.

In a court filing Wednesday, Willis informed the judge overseeing the special grand jury that Giuliani had been served with Farbers final order instructing him to appear before the special grand jury.

Its possible that Giuliani could file a motion with the court in Atlanta to try to avoid testifying.

Graham, who has denied any wrongdoing, reached an agreement with Willis yesterday that said he would file any challenge to the attempt to compel his testimony in Georgia, either in Fulton County Superior Court or in federal court in Atlanta, rather than in South Carolina or Washington, where Willis was planning to try to get a judge to issue a subpoena.

U.S. Rep. Jody Hice filed a challenge to a subpoena issued for his testimony in federal court in Atlanta. He has argued that his actions after the election were done in his role as a member of Congress and are shielded from legal proceedings and inquiry. A judge is set to hear arguments on that next week.

Georgias lieutenant governor and a former state lawmaker also challenged subpoenas. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, whos overseeing the special grand jury, declined to quash the subpoenas but did set guidelines for the questions they could be asked based on their status as members of the General Assembly.

In the petition for Giulianis testimony, Willis identified him as both a personal attorney for Trump and a lead attorney for his campaign.

As part of those efforts, she wrote, he and others presented a Georgia state Senate subcommittee with a video recording of election workers that Giuliani alleged showed them producing suitcases of unlawful ballots from unknown sources, outside the view of election poll watchers.

Within 24 hours of the hearing on Dec. 3, 2020, Secretary of State Brad Raffenspergers office had debunked the video and said that it had found that no voter fraud had taken place at the site. Nevertheless, Giuliani continued to make statements to the public and in subsequent legislative hearings claiming widespread voter fraud using that debunked video, Willis wrote.

There is evidence that (Giulianis) appearance and testimony at the hearing was part of a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump Campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere, the petition says.

__________

*Extra*

Lawsuit Claims Trumps Lawyer Called AG That Black B*tch

Donald Trumps favorite New Jersey defense lawyer, Alina Habba, was sued Tuesday by a Black former legal assistant who claims she was tormented by her boss loudly and repeatedly singing the N-word while listening to rap.

And the lawsuit alleges that Habba earlier this year lost her cool when she suffered a legal defeat to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is Blackangrily shouting, I hate that black bitch!

A tipster alerted The Daily Beast to the lawsuit Wednesday evening, and we confirmed that the lawsuit was filed in New Jerseys Middlesex County.

Habba did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Habba, a young and attractive lawyer with a fearsome TV personality and aggressive courtroom personality, has become the go-to defense attorney for Trump in several lawsuits targeting him and his family company. According to several sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, fellow lawyers representing Trump dont get along with her caustic approach.

Habba has fiercely attacked New Yorks AG, who is currently investigating the Trump Organization for bank and insurance fraud in a years-long probe that appears to be approaching a conclusion. And she is expected to represent the ex-president and his company at a trial next week that seeks to prove Trump personally directed his security guards to attack protesters outside his corporate headquarters in Manhattan.

According to the lawsuit, Nasyia Drayton was a legal assistant and the only African-American employee at Habba Madaio & Associates, a small firm in Bedminster, he same town thats home to the Trump National Golf Club. Her name appears in unrelated New York court documents as a person associated with Habbas firm.

Reached late Wednesday night, Drayton declined to speak about the lawsuit and deferred questions to her Princeton attorney, Jacqueline Tillmann.

My client is a young, soft-spoken woman, not political. Shes 27. She was a legal secretary and trying to keep her job, trying to support her family, Tillmann told The Daily Beast. I do think it's unfortunate that we couldn't arrive at some agreement. It's my policy to try to settle things.

According to the lawsuit, Drayton started working with Habba at her previous firm and was let go during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic.

When Habba left and started her own law firm, she hired Drayton as a legal assistant. The lawsuit alleges that Habba and her new firm partner, Michael Madaio, would regularly blast hip-hop music and sing along to raunchy lyrics that allegedly made Drayton deeply uncomfortable.

The lawsuit claims that on Jan. 26, Habba and Madaio played, and loudly sung, several songs in the office with sexually explicit lyrics that Drayton felt were both racially offensive and sexually inappropriate within the office setting. Drayton alleges Habba and Madaio cranked up DMXs Ruff Ryders Anthem, Kanye West and Jay Zs N----s in Paris, and Rich Ass Fuck by Lil Wayne.

Every time Habba said the N-word, Drayton claimed, she felt demeaned and violated. Songs that portrayed women as objects of male sexual gratification made her feel humiliated, embarrassed and uncomfortable in the office, the lawsuit reads.

Drayton claims she started having panic attacks at work after Habba lost a court battle in Manhattan in April, when Justice Arthur F. Engoron punished Trump for refusing to turn over evidence by forcing him to pay a $10,000 daily fine that eventually added up to $110,000. After the hearing, Drayton alleges, Habba emerged irate from her office and yelling, I hate that Black bitch!

An exhibit attached to the lawsuit shows Drayton sent her bosses an email on June 9 titled, Workplace environment feeling uncomfortable. In it, the legal assistant wrote that the songs, Habbas alleged statement about the New York attorney general, and other interactions made her uncomfortable. As a result, Drayton claims, Habba axed her.

Saying these things was difficult. It took a lot of courage to do this. No one wants to be seen as a trouble maker, Tillmann told The Daily Beast late Wednesday night. When the slight rises to this level, one remembers them. My client let a lot of things go. But when the Letitia James comment was made, then the music with supervisors singing those lyrics... and singing n----, n----, n----, it doesn't feel good as an employee.

It's not that my client feels that Ms. Habba doesn't have the right to be a Kanye fan or sing. It's about the time and place. The office is not the place for thisparticularly when an employee says, This hurts me.

----------


## S Landreth

Good as any place to put this because the fat boy will certainly lose


Judge Won't Move Trial in Trump's RICO Case Against Clinton

Judge Refuses to Move Trial Date in RICO Civil Suit Against Hillary Clinton, Calls Trumps Request for Six-Month Delay Vague and Generalized

A federal judge on Friday rubbished a request from Donald Trumps lawyers to push back a scheduled trial date in a RICO lawsuit the ex-president filed against his former political rival Hillary Clinton over the 2016 election.

Trumps $24 million lawsuit alleges that Clinton and other associated defendants violated racketeering, conspiracy, injurious falsehood, malicious prosecution, computer fraud and abuse, trade secret, and stored communications laws.

Plaintiff initiated this action on March 24, 2022, U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote on Friday.  On April 15, 2022, I entered an Order setting the case for trial on May 8, 2023. Plaintiff now seeks a continuance of the trial date until November 2023. The Motion fails to set forth good cause for the broad relief requested, and it is therefore denied.

After walking the parties through the specifics of Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Middlebrooks continued:

_Here, Plaintiff [Trump] attributes the need for the requested six-month extension to the perceived complexity of the case and the generalized need for additional time to complete discovery. These representations are vague, and do not constitute good cause for an extension. Plaintiff fails to offer any specific details about the discovery he anticipates needing or why he will be unable to obtain that discovery before the trial date that I have set. As to the two foreign Defendants who have not yet been served, and the two former federal employees who are not required to respond until September 6, 2022, if Plaintiff requires additional time for discovery as to these Defendants, he may file an appropriate motion supported by specific facts at a later time. But I am not persuaded that granting the broad relief requested here  a six-month continuance  is appropriate at this juncture, before the Scheduling Order has been entered and before the Parties have endeavored to comply with anticipated deadlines. The Court will enter a Scheduling Order in due course. For now, I expect the Parties to prepare this case for trial in accordance with the date that I have set._

A trial is currently scheduled for May 8, 2023  assuming the case survives a mountain of motions to dismiss the matter. As Law&Crime reported on Thursday, Trumps attorneys asked to reschedule the matter to November 2023 because of the voluminous evidence they hope to collect.

This is a complex case, simply as so much evidence will need to be reviewed, wrote Trump attorney Peter Ticktin. Due to the multitude of Defendants in the action, and various complexities of the case, the Plaintiff would request that the Trial Date be pushed back 6 months, which is a reasonable amount of time based on the amount of anticipated discovery and motion practice, that will occur.

Ticktin again complained of [e]xceptional circumstances, the complexities of the case, the amount of parties involved in the litigation, and the amount of anticipated discovery before wrapping up his request to punt the trial.

Clintons attorneys  and attorneys for a mountain of other named defendants  objected to the move.  The defendants asked Judge Middlebrooks to settle the outstanding motions to dismiss before granting Ticktins request to push back the trial.  Ticktins request was based in part on discovery that might not be needed and on presumed belief that a 45-day trial might be necessary.  The defense noted that neither might be necessary if the motions to dismiss succeed.

As Defendants told counsel for Plaintiff during a conference call on July 15, 2022, until the Court adjudicates the consolidated Motion to Dismiss that the Defendants filed on July 14, 2022, considerations of efficiency, economy, and burden dictate that the parties postpone any discussions about the future of this case until the Court ascertains the number of Defendants and claims, if any, genuinely at issue, defense counsel wrote.

Clintons attorneys moved to dismiss Trumps original lawsuit and an amended complaint by raising the statute of limitations as a complete bar against recovery on most or all of the allegations.  Generally, most federal claims must survive a statute of limitations of four or five years; Trumps lawsuit deals with conduct which surrounded the 2016 election  more than five and a half years ago.  Elsewhere, Clintons attorneys wrote that Trumps many claims fail on the merits and that Trumps factual allegations as to individual defendants are insufficient.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ly-22-2022.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ Reportedly Investigating Extent of Trumps Involvement in Fake Elector Scheme as Part of Jan. 6 Probe

The Department of Justice is investigating former President Donald Trumps actions as part of its sprawling Jan. 6 investigation, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. The latest reporting says that prosecutors are probing the fake elector scheme and how involved Trump was in it.

From the Post, citing four people familiar with the matter:

_The prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021; his pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election; and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers and advisers about fake electors and sending electors back to the states, the people said. Some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trumps involvement in the fake-elector effort led by his outside lawyers, including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, these people said._

The reporting came down the same night of Attorney General Merrick Garlands sit-down interview with NBCs Lester Holt.

Garland was asked about division in the country and whether it was a factor in the DOJs thinking on potentially bringing criminal charges against a former president.

We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for the events surrounding Jan. 6, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable, Garland replied. Thats what we do.

Later, Garland was asked whether a Trump 2024 run would give the DOJ pause.

Ill say again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer, legitimate, lawful transfer of power, from one administration to the next, he said.

The Posts reporting also broke on a day when The New York Times obtained emails showing an Arizona lawyers December 2020 email communications with the Trump campaign about sending fake electors to Congress on Jan. 6.

We would just be sending in fake electoral votes to Pence so that someone in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the fake votes should be counted, attorney Jack Wilenchik reportedly said in an email to Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn.

A follow-up email from Wilenchick reportedly said with a smiley face emoji that alternative votes was probably a better term than fake.

----------


## S Landreth

Federal Judge Rejects Trumps Absolute Immunity Claim and Refuses to Dismiss Lawsuits of Four U.S. Capitol Cops


A federal judge in Washington, D.C. refused to dismiss three lawsuits brought by four U.S. Capitol Police Officers against former President Donald Trump over injuries they sustained on Jan. 6.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued a brief 2-page order which mostly cited a previous ruling to reject Trumps claims of absolute immunity in lawsuits by Marcus J. Moore, Bobby Tabron and DeDivine K. Carter, and Briana Kirkland.

In these three matters, four U.S. Capitol Police officers have sued former President Donald J. Trump for damages arising from injuries they sustained during the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol Building, Mehtas order began. Plaintiffs allegations and claims are the largely the same as those advanced by the U.S. Capitol Police plaintiffs in Blassingame v. Trump.

Mehta, a Barack Obama appointee, then referred back to his ruling in Blassingame in declining to toss Moore v. Trump, Tabron v. Trump, and Kirkland v. Trump.

In nearly identically worded motions, President Trump has moved to dismiss all three actions on one ground: he is absolutely immune from suit because the acts complained of fall within the outer perimeter of his presidential responsibilities, the order said. The court already rejected President Trumps assertion of immunity in Blassingame. The court does so again.

Without needlessly repeating the reasoning, the judge added a parenthetical explaining what he was referring to:

See generally id. at *18 (holding that Defendant Trumps alleged actions entirely concern[ed] his efforts to remain in office for a second term and therefore do not fall within the outer perimeter of a presidents official responsibilities). Accordingly, President Trumps motions to dismiss are denied.

The judge previously found that Trump could not assert presidential immunity from several claims brought by officer James Blassingame in connection with Jan. 6.

After all, the Presidents actions here do not relate to his duties of faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign affairs, commanding the armed forces, or managing the Executive Branch, the Feb. 2022 ruling said. They entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term. These are unofficial acts, so the separation-of-powers concerns that justify the Presidents broad immunity are not present here.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...p-lawsuits.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

Ivanka Trump and Donald Jr. deposed in New York AG probe: report

Former President Trump’s two children sat for depositions in the New York attorney general’s probe into Trump’s business and finances, CNN reported Wednesday.

Ivanka Trump, 40, and Donald Trump Jr., 44, were subpoenaed along with their father earlier this year, and Trump’s multiple attempts to block the probe and the calls to testify have failed.

CNN reported that Trump Jr.’s deposition took place last Thursday, and Ivanka sat for hers Wednesday.

The depositions were initially scheduled for July 15, but New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) agreed to postpone when the former president’s first wife, Ivana Trump, died the day prior.

James’s office is conducting the investigation into whether the former president inflated the property value of his Trump Organization before investors and subsequently deflated them to get tax and loan benefits.

Trump has fought James’s subpoenas and attempts by her office to obtain related documents since the start of the probe, claiming that the investigation is a politically motivated witch hunt.

The former president is expected to testify later this month, according to the new CNN report. 

____________


Georgia prosecutor insists Lindsey Graham must testify in 2020 election probe

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)'s actions surrounding the 2020 election in Georgia "certainly appear" linked to former President Trump's effort to pressure Georgia election officials, prosecutors in Georgia argued in a court filing Thursday seeking the senator's testimony.

*Driving the news:* The Fulton County district attorney's office pointed to Georgia election officials' account that in November 2020 Graham "implied for us to audit the envelopes and then throw out the ballots for counties who have the highest frequency error of signatures" as grounds to compel Graham to talk to investigators as part of their probe into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.


Graham's actions "certainly appear interconnected with former President Trump’s similar efforts to pressure Georgia election officials into 'finding 11,780 votes' and to spread Georgia election fraud disinformation," the office wrote.

*The other side:* Graham has rejected that characterization and said he was simply trying to learn more about Georgia's signature verification process.


*The intrigue:* Part of Graham's argument to quash his subpoena rests in the constitution's speech and debate clause, which protects members of Congress from questions about legislative actions.


Fulton's lawyers reject that, arguing that only applies with "references to actual legislative acts."

*Catch up quick:* The same federal judge hearing Graham's case ruled that Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) had to testify before the grand jury. But she said he could, on a case-by-case basis, claim legislative immunity on some questions.


The broad-reaching investigation has already sent target letters to those who might face indictment, including the slate of Republican electors who falsely "certified" a Trump victory in Georgia in December 2020.

*What's next:* A hearing on Graham's case is set for Wednesday.


*Of note:* Graham has enlisted former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn to help argue his case.

____________

*Extra.*


Pro-Trump apparel company fined for falsely labeling products "Made in USA"

The Federal Trade Commission ordered apparel company Lions Not Sheep and its owner Sean Whalen to stop labeling its products with fake "Made in USA" tags and pay more than $200,000 in fines.

*The big picture:* Lions Not Sheep is known for its pro-gun and pro-Trump shirts, featuring phrases like "Let's Go Brandon," "Give Violence a Chance" and "Shall Not Be Infringed."

*Driving the news:* The company was replacing the "Made in China" tags on its clothes with phony "Made in USA" tags, according to the FTC.


Whalen posted a video of himself in October 2020, saying he could "conceal the fact that his shirts are made in China by ripping out the origin tags and replacing them," according to the commission's original complaint.The FTC ordered Whalen and his company to "stop making bogus Made in USA claims" and "come clean about foreign production." Whalen must also pay a $211,335 fine.

*What they're saying:* "Whalen and Lions Not Sheep must stop claiming that products are made in the United States unless they can show that the product’s final assembly or processing—and all significant processing—takes place here and that all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced here," the FTC said in a press release.


To use a "Made in USA" tag, Lions Not Sheep must ensure that the item is "substantially transformed in the United States, its principal assembly takes place in the United States, and U.S. assembly operations are substantial," as well as clearly disclose "the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients or components, or processing," according to the FTC.

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/07/lio...ep-made-in-usa

----------


## tomcat

...FBI raids Mar-a-Lago looking for purloined Fed papers for the National Archive...right wing bellowing in outrage... :rofl:

----------


## harrybarracuda

> ...FBI raids Mar-a-Lago looking for purloined Fed papers for the National Archive...right wing bellowing in outrage...


For "purloined Fed papers" read "Evidence of crimes".

----------


## Topper

> .right wing bellowing in outrage...


It gives me a chuckle, where was the outrage when the boxes of classified material found at his house or his continued big lie or when they learned about his inaction during the insurrection.

----------


## tomcat

...Fox News seemed prepared for this just like the BBC has the plan for when the Queen dies... :rofl:

----------


## S Landreth

Court Rules Democrats Can Have Donald Trump's Tax Returns

Democrats in Congress can have copies of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns, a federal court ruled Tuesday, the latest development in a legal fight that’s dragged on for years.

“We expect to receive the requested tax returns and audit files immediately,” Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee said in a tweet Tuesday, though Trump could appeal the decision.

Democrats have said in the past that they wouldn’t rush to publicize Trump’s tax information, which can reveal details about income and how much tax someone pays, but in Trump’s case is probably complicated by his multiple sources of business income.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the decision “an important victory for the rule of law.”

Democrats initially asked for the returns in 2019 under a federal law granting certain congressional committees any private tax information they formally request from the IRS.

The Trump administration defied the request, arguing that Democrats only wanted the president’s tax returns in order to embarrass him, so Democrats asked a federal court to intervene.

Tuesday’s decision, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes as Trump faces legal peril following his single term in office, which closed with him inciting a violent mob at the U.S. Capitol as part of a broader effort to overthrow the 2020 election.

A team of FBI agents searched Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Florida, on Monday, prompting an outcry from Trump and congressional Republicans, who said it was wrong to target a former president.

One of the defenses Trump raised in the tax return case was that the threat of future requests for private documents would overly burden a sitting president.

“While it is possible that Congress may attempt to threaten the sitting President with an invasive request after leaving office, every President takes office knowing that he will be subject to the same laws as all other citizens upon leaving office,” Senior Circuit Judge David Sentelle wrote in the court’s opinion. “This is a feature of our democratic republic, not a bug.”

Trump was the first presidential candidate in decades to refuse to release his tax returns, citing an ongoing IRS audit, even though audits don’t preclude someone from releasing the documents.

Once he became president, however, the audit excuse was awkward, since the IRS automatically audits the president and vice president each year, a tradition the agency instituted in the wake of a 1970s scandal involving Richard Nixon underpaying his taxes. In federal court, Democrats said they needed the information in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the IRS audit.

A Trump-appointed judge declined to rule on the merits of the case, but after Joe Biden assumed control of the White House, the government reversed its position, and U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden agreed the committee should get what it asked for.

Through his private attorneys, Trump asked an appeals court to block the release, saying Democrats lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose” for their request and that handing over the tax returns would infringe Trump’s constitutional rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday that complying with the request wouldn’t violate the separation of powers among branches of the federal government or Trump’s rights, and that the Ways and Means Committee Democrats have a legitimate purpose regardless of whether they might also like to embarrass the president politically.

“The mere fact that individual members of Congress may have political motivations as well as legislative ones is of no moment,” Sentelle wrote. “Indeed, it is likely rare that an individual member of Congress would work for a legislative purpose without considering the political implications.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democ...b0acf9d0024990

________________


Rudy Giuliani must testify in Atlanta 2020 election probe next week

An Atlanta judge ordered Rudy Giuliani to testify in person before a panel investigating the 2020 election on Aug. 17, unless a doctor can explain why Trump's former lawyer is unable to do so.

*Why it matters:* Giuliani is among those closest to former President Trump that the Fulton County special purpose grand jury has subpoenaed. He was originally ordered to testify today.

*Driving the news:* Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney granted Giuliani about a week of additional time to travel to Atlanta, after a doctor argued Giuliani could not travel by airplane following a recent cardiac procedure to implant stents.


McBurney suggested Giuliani break into a few days a car trip to Atlanta to make it more doable over the next week.

*Of note:* The judge granted Giuliani's legal and medical team the opportunity to argue in detail why he needs additional time before making the trip to Atlanta.

*Catch up quick:* Giuliani's lawyers first attempted to shift his testimony to Zoom and also suggested district attorney staff travel to New York to interview him, prosecutors explained Tuesday.


However, the district attorney's office has maintained he must testify in person before a special purpose grand jury focused on the wide-ranging probe.

*Flashback:* Giuliani appeared before Georgia legislators in December 2020, outlining many false claims of voter fraud to call into question Biden's November 2020 Georgia victory. He urged them to appoint their own slate of presidential electors to certify a Trump victory.

*The intrigue:* In the Tuesday hearing, Giuliani's lawyer W. H. Thomas reiterated a request that the district attorney inform Giuliani whether he is in fact a target of the investigation. McBurney urged prosecutors to do so before Giuliani's presumed testimony next week.

*What's next:* Lawyers for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are expected in federal court Wednesday to fight his own subpoena before the panel, citing legislative immunity granted by the constitution's speech and debate clause.

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/09/rud...i-fulton-trump

----------


## nidhogg

I have to think that for the FBI to get and carry out a search warrant on Trumps home, they gotta have a great big fat smoking gun in their sights.  It has to be way more than a simple failure to return documents to the National Archive, whichever document they are after has to be a doozy.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I have to think that for the FBI to get and carry out a search warrant on Trumps home, they gotta have a great big fat smoking gun in their sights.  It has to be way more than a simple failure to return documents to the National Archive, whichever document they are after has to be a doozy.


I don't know what's worse, the fact that a fucking moron like that had access to the nation's most confidential secrets or that he will undoubtedly have shared them with the three fuckwit children.

----------


## S Landreth

Real estate firm turns in documents in Trump civil probe

A commercial real estate firm said Monday that it has turned over some 36,000 documents on its appraisal of Trump Organization properties to the New York Attorney General's office.

*Driving the news:* Cushman & Wakefield was held in contempt last month and ordered to pay $10,000 a day after it failed to turn over documents subpoenaed by Attorney General Letitia James in an investigation into former President Trump's business.


The attorney general's office said it discovered "serious problems" with some of Cushman & Wakefield appraisals for the Trump Organization, including for 40 Wall Street, his Seven Springs property in New York, and his Los Angeles golf club, according to NBC News, which first reported the story.

*What they're saying:* "Cushman has fully responded to the OAG subpoena that was recently at issue, and Cushman is pleased that OAG has fulfilled our agreement by asking the Court to dissolve its previous Contempt Order," a company spokesperson said in an email to Axios on Monday.


"Standing by the work of our appraisers, Cushman has gone to great expense and effort to identify, collect, review and produce the massive set of documents requested by the OAG," the statement reads. "We will continue to work in good faith with the OAG.”In a letter to the judge last Friday, AG James wrote that it had received the documents. The attorney general requested the court "dissolve the Contempt Order and hold any contempt purged, without any fines due or owing."

*The big picture:* New York Attorney General Letitia James has been investigating Trump's business practices for over three years.


Trump was held in contempt of court in April and was fined $10,000 each day he refused to turn over documents, as required by another subpoena issued by James' office. That order was lifted in late June.Representatives for the attorney general's office and the Trump Organization did not immediately respond to Axios' requests for comment.

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/09/tru...robe-documents

----------


## harrybarracuda

I said this before he even got elected:

If they prove he has overvalued properties to obtain loans, and undervalued them to avoid paying tax, he's going to prison for fraud.

Having to be pardoned by Biden would be the biggest smack in the face this wanker could get, although personally I'd let him shit a few bricks in prison for a while first.

----------


## baldrick

He agreed to testify

Going to be funny as fcuk

----------


## Cujo

> Eric Trump may have revealed just a little too much about how the White House operated under his father.
> 
> 
> One day after the FBI executed a search warrant on Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, the son of the former president claimed that President Joe Biden must have approved the action. His reasoning: That’s how it worked when Trump was in office.
> 
> Most modern presidents have taken pains to distance themselves from Justice Department operations with political implications. In this case, the White House said Biden found out about the search warrant the same way as everyone else: from the news.
> 
> 
> But as Twitter users were quick to point out, Eric Trump’s comments appeared to admit that wasn’t the case in the Trump White House:


Eric Trump's Accidental Confession About His Father Has Twitter Users Howling | HuffPost Latest News

The twitter responses are good.

----------


## S Landreth

> He agreed to testify


Today  :Smile: 

New York Attorney General Letitia James has sought the deposition for more than half a year as Trump and two of his children, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump, fought subpoenas through a trio of New York courts. They were eventually ordered to sit for depositions, and earlier this month Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were questioned.

----------


## Topper

^ I can't wait to hear the first Republican presidential candidate promising to pardon trump.

"If I'm elected, my first official act will be to pardon President trump for all of the crimes he has been convicted of committing."

----------


## Cujo

> He agreed to testify
> 
> Going to be funny as fcuk


I missed that. In the land fraud case though right?
I saw some footage of him answering questions in a deposition about something years ago (I think maybe the Trump umiversity fraud or some other scam he was involved in).
He was really beligerent and his whole body language roared "who do you think you are to question me". It was very satisfying.
Not the Jan 6 committee.

----------


## DrWilly

> I have to think that for the FBI to get and carry out a search warrant on Trumps home, they gotta have a great big fat smoking gun in their sights.  It has to be way more than a simple failure to return documents to the National Archive, whichever document they are after has to be a doozy.


Not just the FBI, a judge had to agree also.

----------


## OhOh

> they gotta have a great big fat smoking gun in their sights


Depends on which judge signed off the accusations, made by the FBI. A rather epic, epic ... move considering laws of the country.

----------


## Norton

> It just the FBI, a judge had to agree also.


Yes and to get the judge to agree they had slam dunk proof Trump had presidential archive docs in the house. If they happen to find other good stuff nothing prevents them using it.  :Wink:   :Wink:

----------


## S Landreth

"So there are five people taking the Fifth Amendment, like you see on the mob, right? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
Trump told the crowd at an Iowa rally in September 2016.

 :Smile: 

Trump Says He Invoked Fifth During Testimony In Civil Investigation

Donald Trump says he invoked the Fifth Amendment and wouldn’t answer questions under oath in the long-running New York civil investigation into his business dealings.

Trump arrived at New York Attorney General Letitia James’ offices Wednesday morning, but sent out a statement more than an hour later saying he declined to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution.”


_____________

Edit.

What Trump's pleading the Fifth means for New York AG Tish James

----------


## tomcat

.....

----------


## harrybarracuda



----------


## panama hat

> He agreed to testify


How many times has he actually done what he said he would, though.



> Donald Trump says he invoked the Fifth Amendment and wouldn’t answer questions under oath


Sigh







> A rather epic, epic ... move considering laws of the country.


Considering what "laws'?

----------


## harrybarracuda

I wouldn't panic.

Pleading the Fifth to any question instantly tells the AG he's guilty, so they know to keep going.

----------


## TizMe

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/sta...kSF_E56CBgodZA

----------


## aging one

> Depends on which judge signed off the accusations, made by the FBI. A rather epic, epic ... move considering laws of the country.


This makes no sense what so ever. You know nothing of the case. Best just keep shut. Are you sure you are a native speaker of English?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Depends on which judge signed off the accusations, made by the FBI. A rather epic, epic ... move considering laws of the country.


He didn't sign off on "accusations".

He signed off on evidence presented of a crime being committed.

Added: At least *one* crime.

----------


## bsnub

> Depends on which judge signed off the accusations, made by the FBI.


You clearly have no idea how the rule of law works in America.

----------


## DrWilly

> Are you sure you are a native speaker of English?


Without a doubt he is not.

----------


## panama hat

> Are you sure you are a native speaker of English?


He's a mainland Chinese pretending . . . it slips through often enough





> You clearly have no idea how the rule of law works in America.


Oh, but he clearly does . . . Let's see if he'll elucidate 


> A rather epic, epic ... move considering laws of the country.


Considering what "laws'?

 . . . or post cnp cnp cnp

----------


## S Landreth

Garland says he personally approved search warrant at Trumps residence

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday that the Department of Justice is filing a motion to unseal parts of the search warrant for former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

Driving the news: Garland also said that he "personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter."

"The department does not take such a decision lightly. Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken," Garland said.

The big picture: The FBI on Monday searched Trump's Florida residence in what is likely related to documents Trump took from the White House that may have been classified, two sources familiar with the matter told Axios' Jonathan Swan.

When a search warrant is requested for a major figure, such as a former president, "it goes through a long review process," Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor, previously told Axios.

Details: "Both the warrant and the FBI property receipt were provided on the day of the search to the former president's counsel, who was on site during the search," Garland said.

The Justice Department has moved to unseal the search warrant signed and approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 5, "including Attachments A and B" and "the redacted Property Receipt listing items seized pursuant to the search, filed with the Court on August 11, 2022."

"In these circumstances involving a search of the residence of a former President, the government hereby requests that the Court unseal the Notice of Filing and its attachment (Docket Entry 17), absent objection by former President Trump," the filing states.
State of play: Garland also addressed "unfounded attacks on the Justice Department agents and prosecutors" in the aftermath of the search.

"I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked. The men and women of the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated patriotic public servants every day."

"Every day they protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism and other threats to their safety, while safeguarding our civil rights."

"They do so at great personal sacrifice and risk to themselves. I am honored to work alongside them," he said.

Trump said in a Truth Social post Thursday after Garland's press conference that Mar-a-Lago was raided "out of nowhere and with no warning" by "very large numbers of agents." He claimed he and his representatives had been cooperating fully.

" The government could have had whatever they wanted, if we had it," he said.

"They got way ahead of themselves," he added.

Between the lines: Hours before Garland's remarks, an armed person tried to break into the FBI building in Cincinnati, leading to a lockdown in the nearby area.

What he's saying: "Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy. Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor," Garland said.

"Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations."

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...17854180_3.pdf



 
Garland delivers remarks after FBI search at Mar-a-Lago





____________

*Edit.*


"Top Secret" documents are recovered from Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence

Last month, the National Archives, the government agency that manages presidential records, noticed that documents were missing from the Trump presidential archives. They found 15 boxes of documents at the former president's Mar-a-Lago home. According to The Washington Post, some of them were clearly marked as classified, including some that were top secret. So should the Department of Justice be investigating? Let's ask. 

____________


Trump took 'top secret' documents to Mar-a-Lago, Washington Post reports

Former President Donald Trump took documents that were clearly marked as "top secret" with him to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, The Washington Post reported Thursday, citing two unnamed sources.

"Top Secret" is the highest level of classification, referring to material that could harm national security if released.

According to The Post, the documents were found by the National Archives, which stores and preserves presidential records.

The revelation comes after The New York Times reported earlier on Thursday that National Archives officials had uncovered suspected classified material among 15 boxes of letters and other documents that had been taken from the White House to his Florida compound when he left office in January 2021. https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...go-wapo-2022-2

___________

*2nd Edit*


FBI searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence for classified nuclear documents

The FBI sought to locate classified documents related to nuclear weapons, among other items, when agents searched former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, this week, people familiar with the investigation told The Washington Post.

The people did not offer additional details to the Post about what the agents were seeking or whether any documents were recovered. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/11/p...nts/index.html

----------


## S Landreth

Trump urges FBI Mar-a-Lago search warrant release

Trump says he won't oppose Mar-a-Lago search warrant release

Former President Trump said late Thursday the warrant authorizing the FBI to search his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida should be publicly released.

*Driving the news:* Responding to Merrick Garland's request to a federal court earlier Thursday to unseal parts of the warrant that the attorney general personally approved, Trump said a statement: "Release the documents now!"

*What he's saying:* "Not only will I not oppose the release of documents related to the unAmerican, unwarranted, and unnecessary raid  I am going a step further by ENCOURAGING the immediate release of those documents," Trump said.

*What we're watching:* U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart gave the Justice Department until 3pm Friday to notify him of whether Trump's attorneys opposed the unsealing of the warrant and property receipt.

*Of note:* CNN, NBC News, the Washington Post and E.W. Scripps Company filed a motion on Thursday seeking to have "all probable cause affidavits filed in support of the search warrant" of Trump's Palm Beach residence unsealed due to "the historic importance of these events."


Public access to the records "will promote public understanding of this historically significant, unprecedented execution of a search warrant in the residence of a former President," the outlets said in the filing.

*Go deeper:* Presidential Records Act and Trump search explained

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Trump urges FBI Mar-a-Lago search warrant release
> 
> Trump says he won't oppose Mar-a-Lago search warrant release


It wouldn't fucking matter if he did, he has no say in it.

----------


## S Landreth

"And the crescendo reviewer had to be the Attorney General of the United States. That makes it the most important search warrant in the history of the United States."

From the link......




> *Go deeper:* Presidential Records Act and Trump search explained


*FBI's search warrant*


*To obtain and execute a search warrant*, the FBI must have an affidavit that sets forth probable cause that at least one crime was committed.Search warrants also require a connection between the crime and the place that is being searched; federal agents must be able to list the specific items that are going to be searched; and the evidence has to be relatively fresh.When a search warrant is requested for a major figure, including a president or other elected official, "it goes through a long review process," Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor, told Axios.

*In Trump's case,* for instance, the FBI first works with prosecutors at the Department of Justice to review the search warrant, Rossi said.


Chris Wray, the Trump-appointed director of the FBI, had to sign off on the warrant before it was sent for review to senior DOJ leaders, including Attorney General Merrick Garland.

*The bottom line:* "This search warrant for the former president of the United States of America was looked at by a ton of people, it was perused by every prosecutor and agent you could find. And it went through multiple layers of review," Rossi said.


"And the crescendo reviewer had to be the Attorney General of the United States. That makes it the most important search warrant in the history of the United States."

_____________


Mulvaney: Someone very close to Trump told FBI about Mar-a-Lago docs

Only a handful of people who were very close to former President Donald Trump could have tipped off federal investigators about boxes of classified documents being stored at his Mar-a-Lago resort, onetime White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said Thursday.

The FBI raided Trumps ritzy residence in Palm Beach, Fla., Monday in search of sensitive papers that the 45th president purportedly removed from the White House at the end of his term of office.

Multiple outlets have reported that the Department of Justice opted to apply for a search warrant after a person with knowledge of the storage arrangement blew the whistle.

This would be someone who was handling things on day-to-day, who knew where documents were, so it would be somebody very close, inside the president, Mulvaney told CNN Thursday. My guess is theres probably six or eight people who had that kind of information.

Mulvaney added that whoever talked to the feds was so close to Trump they knew the existence and location of a safe at Trumps home.

​​I didnt even know there was a safe at Mar-a-Lago, and I was the chief of staff for 15 months​, he said.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> “This would be someone who was handling things on day-to-day, who knew where documents were, so it would be somebody very close, inside the president,”


We shall call them.... "Deep Anal".

 :Smile:

----------


## thailazer

News is saying there was no plausible reason for Trump to have classified documents at his personal residence.   I wouldn't put it past Trump that he thought he could sell them to Saudi Arabia or Russia at some point.

----------


## Topper

> News is saying there was no plausible reason for Trump to have classified documents at his personal residence. I wouldn't put it past Trump that he thought he could sell them to Saudi Arabia or Russia at some point.


LOL, or try to impress others of how important was once upon a time...

----------


## Cujo

> News is saying there was no plausible reason for Trump to have classified documents at his personal residence.   I wouldn't put it past Trump that he thought he could sell them to Saudi Arabia or Russia at some point.


My first thought to be honest.

----------


## S Landreth

FBI seized a series of classified, "top-secret" materials in Mar-a-Lago search

The FBI agents who searched Mar-a-Lago on Monday removed 11 sets of classified information from the Trump property, including some marked as "top secret," the Wall Street Journal reports.

*Why it matters:* The inventory  which was reviewed by the WSJ along with the warrant from the search  confirms the FBI removed classified documents that were only meant to be kept in secure government facilities.


The revelations undercut Trump and his allies claims that the search warrant was baseless.The full contents of the documents are still unknown.The Justice Department is currently seeking to unseal the warrant and inventory.The Washington Post reported on Thursday that the FBI sought some classified documents relating to nuclear weapons in their search. Trump denied on Truth Social the reports of possessing any materials related to nuclear weapons.Trumps legal team has not confirmed the report and Axios has not independently verified the contents of the warrant.

*Driving the news:* The FBI found four sets of "top secret documents", three sets of "secret documents", and three sets of "confidential documents"  all of which the Justice Department argues are federal property, the WSJ found.


The FBI seized roughly 20 boxes of materials in total, including binders, handwritten notes, the executive grant of clemency for Roger Stone, and information about the "President of France."One set of documents was labeled Various classified/TS/SCI documents, referring to top-secret and sensitive compartmented information.

*Trumps lawyers argue* the president used his authority to declassify the documents before he left office.


As the WSJ notes, a president has the power to declassify documents, but there are federal regulations that dictate that process.

*The backdrop:* Republicans immediately went into an uproar following the news of Monday's FBI search and demanded to see the Justice Department's warrant while claiming  without evidence  that Trump is victim to a corrupt and rogue Biden Justice department.


On Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced he "personally approved the decision" to seek the warrant.Garland noted the decision to do so was unusual and not taken "lightly," but he felt it necessary following the repeated calls from government officials to do so, as well as in response to the attacks on the FBI and the DOJ's credibility.Trump's legal team also had the ability to publicly release the warrant but chose not to do so.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Under Investigation For Violating Espionage Act, Search Warrant Shows

The FBIs search warrant for Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence shows the former president is under investigation for possibly violating the Espionage Act.

The search warrant, which a federal judge unsealed Friday at the request of the Justice Department, also states Trump is being investigated for potentially removing or destroying records and obstructing an investigation. All of those crimes may be punished with fines or imprisonment.

A list of documents the FBI gathered from Trumps Florida home, reported that some of the documents collected were marked Various classified/TS/SCI documents ― an acronym for top-secret and sensitive compartmented information that indicates one of the highest levels of government classification.

The Espionage Act was established in 1917 to prohibit anyone from obtaining defense information with the possible intent of using it against the U.S. or to further the interests of a foreign country.

Twenty boxes were taken in total, including 11 marked with various degrees of classification. The list also denoted binders of photos, a handwritten note, the executive grant of clemency for Trumps campaign advisor Roger Stone and information about French president Emmanuel Macron. No further information about the materials was included.

Trump suspected of violating Espionage Act, according to search warrant





https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...854.17.0_7.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

I edited out the intro to skip right to the Statutes

Feds’ Bombshell Search of Trump’s Home Investigated Possible Intent to Commit ‘Injury’ to the ‘United States’ — Here’s What the Statutes Say

Let’s discuss the statutes one by one.

*18 U.S.C. § 793*

This statute under the Espionage Act covers the “[g]athering, transmitting or losing” of “defense information.”

The warrant doesn’t facially explain which subsection of the statute may be at play, but subsection (a) involves an interesting element.

That subsection criminalizes the “obtaining information respecting the national defense” by someone with the “intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”

Subsection (d) of the statute covers an individual “lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document.” This particular subsection criminalizes the communication, delivery, transmission of material “relating to the national defense” if the possessor of the material “has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Subsection (d) also criminalizes the willful retention and failure to deliver such material “on demand” to an officer or “employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”

Subsection (f) makes it a crime punishable by a fine or by imprisonment of “not more than ten years, or both” to, with “gross negligence,” permit the aforementioned types of materials “to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.” It also makes it a crime to “hav[e] knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fail[] to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer.”

Subsection (g) contains a conspiracy element: “[i]f two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.”

*18 U.S.C. § 2071*

This statute covers “concealment, removal, or mutilation generally.”

It reads, in full, as follows.  Note the section about forfeiting one’s office and being disqualified from future office:

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, *shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.* As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

*18 U.S.C. § 1519*

This statute involves the “[d]estruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy.”  Specifically, it involves making a “false entry” in certain records.

It is also brief; the full text is here:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

*Background*

The National Archives has for months been communicating with Trump echelons about documents which it expected to receive under the Presidential Records Act.

On Feb. 7, the Archives released the following:

In mid-January 2022, NARA arranged for the transport from the Trump Mar-a-Lago property in Florida to the National Archives of 15 boxes that contained Presidential records, following discussions with President Trump’s representatives in 2021. Former President Trump’s representatives have informed NARA that they are continuing to search for additional Presidential records that belong to the National Archives.

As required by the Presidential Records Act (PRA), these records should have been transferred to NARA from the White House at the end of the Trump Administration in January 2021.

On Feb. 8, the Archives released a follow-up:

Throughout the course of the last year, NARA obtained the cooperation of Trump representatives to locate Presidential records that had not been transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration. When a representative informed NARA in December 2021 that they had located some records, NARA arranged for them to be securely transported to Washington. NARA officials did not visit or “raid” the Mar-a-Lago property.

*Discussion*

Good read in the link above

----------


## pickel

Trump has claimed they were declassified documents. The President has the authority to declassify them, but is there an actual process to make it official? Or are there certain documents that can't be declassified ever, even by the President?

----------


## DrWilly

> Trump has claimed they were declassified documents. The President has the authority to declassify them, but is there an actual process to make it official? Or are there certain documents that can't be declassified ever, even by the President?



Yes, there is a process. You can bet he didn’t follow it nor can he declassify them after the event of being discovered with them.

----------


## pickel

^
What is the process? 

He's a sneaky worm, and I'm just wondering what his strategy is.

----------


## S Landreth

^Hope it helps..

Part 3. Declassification and Downgrading


Trump says "it was all declassified" - how declassification usually works

After news of the search emerged, the former president claimed in a post Friday on Truth Social that the material "was all declassified." In the coming weeks, that claim will likely be evaluated by the government, and possibly, the courts. It's not clear how much information the public will have about how it unfolds.

As for the president's power to declassify materials, here's some background on how it works, according to current and former intelligence officials familiar with the declassification process.

First, a U.S. president does have uniquely sweeping declassification abilities, though there is a process that involves written documentation and several other steps.

It's not the case that a president can declassify documents with just verbal instructions. His instruction to declassify a given document would first be memorialized in a written memo, usually drafted by White House counsel, which he would then sign.

Typically, the leadership of the agency or agencies with equities in the document would be consulted and given an opportunity to provide their views on the declassification decision. As the ultimate declassification authority, however, the president can decide to override any objections they raise.

Once a final decision is made, and the relevant agency receives the president's signed memo, the physical document in question would be marked  the old classification level would be crossed out  and the document would then be stamped, "Declassified on X date" by the agency in question.

Former Trump administration officials have claimed that Trump previously declassified the documents taken with him to Mar-a-Lago, but that the classification markings had not been updated.

"The White House counsel failed to generate the paperwork to change the classification markings, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't declassified," former Trump defense official Kash Patel told Breitbart in May, regarding other material that had earlier been removed from Mar-a-Lago. "I was there with President Trump when he said 'We are declassifying this information.'"

Courts may ultimately have to decide how sweeping a sitting president's declassification powers can be. But U.S. officials familiar with the classification process to date point out that, unless and until the documents are stamped "Declassified" by the requisite agency, and following the submission of a written memo signed by the president, they have historically not been considered declassified.

It is also unclear how central a legal question the classification process and the president's role in it could be. As the New York Times points out, none of the statutes cited in the warrant rely on whether the records were classified or not. The search warrant signed by the Florida magistrate judge entails items "illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 793, 2071, or 1519."

That first code, Section 793, and more commonly known as the Espionage Act, applies to defense information. It applies, for instance, to material illegally removed "from its proper place of custody" or that is lost, stolen or destroyed.

The next statute, Section 2071, bans concealing, removing, mutilating or destroying records filed with U.S. courts. And the final one, Section 1519, prohibits concealing, destroying or mutilating records to obstruct or influence an investigation.

----------


## pickel

^
Thanks for that.

----------


## S Landreth

Mar-a-Lago search warrant's clues

The FBI seized documents from former President Trump's home that may have been kept in violation of the Espionage Act, as well as other federal laws, according to documents released yesterday.

*Why it matters:* The search related to highly sensitive documents that could carry national security concerns.


Trump on Friday afternoon said in a statement that "it was all declassified" and insisted that "they didn't need to 'seize' anything. They could have had it at anytime."The Justice Department has rebutted those claims.

*Driving the news:* Affidavit B in the redacted search warrant materials made public on Friday called for seizure of "all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of" 18 U.S. Code *§* 793, 2071, or 1519.c


That covers the Espionage Act as well as laws against removing government records or obstructing justice.The search warrant described Mar-a-Lago as a 17-acre estate with 58 bedrooms and 33 bathrooms. The search applied to the "45 office" as well as storage rooms and other rooms used by the former president and his staff. It didn't cover private guest suites or other areas for third parties and not available to Trump or his staff.

*What they're saying:* "It doesn't matter if he was holding on to the information because he was using it as memorabilia or wanted to trade it for financial benefit" or whether his motives were "petty or corrupt," said Ryan Goodman, an NYU law school professor and former special counsel at the Department of Defense and founding co-editor of the Just Security online national security forum.


"That's why I think he's in very serious trouble," Goodman said. "If the Justice Department wanted to pursue a criminal case, based on the available information known to the public to date, they appear to have a very strong case."

*But, but, but:* The search — and the many boxes and binders seized — does not guarantee there will be an indictment, Goodman said.


Obtaining and securing the most sensitive documents may have been the overarching objective.

*Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas,* told Axios that "we should be careful" not to rush to conclusions because "there's still a whole lot we don't know."


Still, he said, a reference to the Espionage Act on a search warrant for the home of an ex-U.S. president "is really quite stunning.""This is about more than just, ‘President Trump took some stuff home with him that he shouldn't have.’"

*Details:* The inventory shows the FBI removed 11 sets of classified information from the Trump property, including some marked as "top secret." Agents collected ...


"Various classified/TS/SCI documents" — referring to documents containing "top secret" or "sensitive compartmented information."21 boxes of "miscellaneous confidential documents," "miscellaneous secret documents" or "miscellaneous top secret documents."The executive grant of clemency for Trump's associate Roger Stone, "Info re: President of France," a leatherbound box of documents, two binders of photos and a handwritten note.

*What we're watching:* The affidavit to support the search warrant was not included in the materials unsealed Friday. Its contents could reveal a great deal more about the circumstances and information behind the execution of the search and seizure.

----------


## DrWilly

> former Trump defense official Kash Patel told Breitbart in May, regarding other material that had earlier been removed from Mar-a-Lago. "I was there with President Trump when he said 'We are declassifying this information.'"



 :Lmao: 


It's like the Catholic vicar proclaiming the beef is now fish so he eat it on Fridays.

----------


## DrWilly

> Still, he said, a reference to the Espionage Act on a search warrant for the home of an ex-U.S. president "is really quite stunning."
> "This is about more than just, ‘President Trump took some stuff home with him that he shouldn't have.’"


It's also more than he might sell it to the Saudi's or Russians. The AG had to have had _probable cause_, meaning they had some pretty strong evidence of espionage.

----------


## thailazer

> It's also more than he might sell it to the Saudi's or Russians. The AG had to have had _probable cause_, meaning they had some pretty strong evidence of espionage.


Yeah that.  It might be that he was somehow making initial contacts with a foreign entity on what he had and that was snagged by the NSA or DIA.

----------


## beachbound

> It's like the Catholic vicar proclaiming the beef is now fish so he eat it on Fridays.


Reminds me of a comment by Judge Jeanine Puerile, On The Five Fools yesterday. 

“Trump didn’t get a copy of the warrant! I spoke to Eric Trump, yesterday!”
 :rofl:

----------


## S Landreth

^^ & ^^^ At first I was leaning towards concealing records to obstruct or influence an investigation.




> The next statute, Section 2071, bans concealing, removing, mutilating or destroying records filed with U.S. courts. And the final one, Section 1519, prohibits concealing, destroying or mutilating records to obstruct or influence an investigation.


The January 6th investigations and Trumps actions/inactions taken before/during that date.

Sedition

_Although it is not the same as treason  which involves actually levying war against the U.S. or helping enemies of the federal government  seditious conspiracy is a very serious charge and carries a 20-year maximum sentence._

_Seditious conspiracy is an extremely rare and challenging crime to prosecute, as well. It is hard to prove, politically charged and requires federal prosecutors to show conspiracy amongst two or more members who agreed to use force to overthrow the government. The law was first enacted during the Civil War after Southern states succeeded from the Union._

Itll be interesting to see what charges will be filed against the fat orange loser trump

----------


## panama hat

> former Trump defense official Kash Patel told Breitbart in May, regarding other material that had earlier been removed from Mar-a-Lago. "I was there with President Trump when he said 'We are declassifying this information.'"





> "The White House counsel failed to generate the paperwork to change the classification markings, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't declassified


Umm . . . quite sure that not following procedure invalidates the intent in a legal context . . . where the heck do they get these muppets?

----------


## S Landreth

"Jon Sale, a prominent Florida defense attorney who had been part of the Watergate prosecutorial team, confirmed he was asked this week to represent Trump  and declined. He called the request a 'privilege' but said that because of 'other professional commitments,' he did not have the time to provide the kind of lawyering he believed Trump will need."

 :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

What is the Espionage Act?

The unsealing of the search warrant that the FBI executed at former President Trumps Mar-a-Lago property revealed that the agency believes Trump may have violated the Espionage Act of 1917, among other potential crimes.

The warrant was made public on Friday after the Justice Department filed a motion to request that it be unsealed. Attorney General Merrick Garland said he made the decision given the intense public interest in the situation and because Trump chose to publicly reveal that the search occurred.

The warrant revealed that FBI agents recovered 11 sets of classified items during the search, including one labeled various classified/TS/SCI documents, meaning top secret/sensitive compartmentalized information.

Officials took three items labeled confidential, three labeled secret and four labeled top secret.

The Espionage Act makes it illegal for anyone who has information related to national defense to use it to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

Under the Espionage Act, it is also illegal for anyone who lawfully has possession of information related to national security to provide it or attempt to provide it to those not permitted to obtain it. These individuals also cannot willfully retain and fail to deliver documents or other materials on demand to an officer of the United States who is allowed to receive them.

Anyone convicted of violating the law could face a fine or up to 10 years in prison.

Derek Bambauer, a law professor at the University of Arizona, said the act is a core part of national security law and was designed to allow the government to prosecute people with sensitive information that could put the countrys national security at risk. He said it can apply to people who deliberately transfer the information to someone not authorized to have it or store it in a place it should not be.

Former President Wilson signed the act into law a few months after the United States entered World War I. The law was passed to prevent interference with the war effort or recruiting soldiers and to prevent Americans from supporting the countrys enemies during wartime.

Bambauer said the law tends to be invoked at times of perceived crisis, but courts typically give deference to the government in enforcing these types of laws and determining when a national security issue is considered a threat.

For the FBIs search warrant of Mar-a-Lago to be approved, the agency needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and that evidence was located in a specific place. A federal judge signed off that the FBI demonstrated probable cause before the search happened.

Bambauer said a noteworthy feature of the law in this situation is that whether the information or documents are classified is wholly irrelevant to potential violations. The information only needs to be sensitive and a threat to the security of the country.

Trump and his allies have claimed that he declassified the documents found at Mar-a-Lago while he was still serving as president, so there is no legal issue.

Bambauer said Trump may have declassified certain information while president, but classification status is not mentioned in the law.

The language of the law, the Espionage Act, doesnt talk about classification at all, which is not surprising because classification, at least as a structural concept, didnt exist at the time this was passed, he said.

Gerry Gleeson, a lecturer at Michigan State University and former state prosecutor, said any criminal investigation into violations of this law would look at national defense, not classification status.

He said probable cause, needed to obtain a search warrant, is a different standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, needed for someone to be found guilty of a crime. He said grand juries usually issue indictments for who a U.S. attorney wants to indict in most cases, but the government needs to consider if it can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Career federal prosecutors are serious people, and thats a serious inquiry that they would take before they decide whether they want to pursue charges against anyone, whether its a politician or an individual citizen, Gleeson said.

The Espionage Act consists of more than half a dozen provisions, each laying out different circumstances where a violation may occur. Experts said the varying levels of intent required to meet the standard of breaking the law could have implications for Trump.

Bambauer said a state of mind provision is common in criminal law in that some level of knowledge or intent is required. He said many of the provisions in the Espionage Act are similar, but one way they differ is in terms of state of mind.

The first provision of the law states that someone must have intent or reason to believe that the information would be used to harm the U.S. A defense could argue that someone accused of violating the law did not know the information could threaten national security, if plausible, Bambauer said.

But the sixth section states that someone who lawfully possesses a document could violate the law if they permit it to be taken from its proper place through gross negligence. 

Bambauer said that section could be relevant in leading to charges, based on what the public knows. 

Gleeson said the act makes a distinction between information and documents, with the latter requiring less intent than the former.

He said the fourth section of the act only states that a person must have reason to believe that documents or other materials could be used to harm the U.S. Part of the section also states that anyone who willfully retains the materials and refuses to provide them on demand from an officer or employee of the United States could face charges.

Gleeson said this part could play a role in Trumps case based on reporting that Trump received a subpoena for national security documents months before the search took place.

It doesnt have to be top secret, he said. It just has to be information related to the national defense that could be possibly used to injure the United States.

----------


## S Landreth

Former Nixon counsel says Trumps media supporters will have egg all over their face when probe ends

John Dean, former President Richard Nixons White House counsel, predicted on Sunday that media supporters of former President Trump will have a egg all over their face when the Department of Justices (DOJ) investigation into matters involving classified documents comes to an eventual end.

During an appearance on CNNs Reliable Sources, host Brian Stelter asked Dean for his thoughts on the conservative medias response to the FBIs search of Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence in which many right-leaning voices have lobbed attacks on law enforcement and claimed the probe is politically motivated.

Some TV cable news hosts such as Fox News Jesse Watters and Sean Hannity have gone so far to say they have declared war on us and now its game on and that the search was a clear and gross abuse of power.

When asked to respond to an array of news clips over the past week, Dean said: Well, I think that they dont seem to want to appreciate that the FBI and other federal law enforcement as well as state and local, they enforce search warrants every day, against every kind of person.

And theres a reason Trump provoked this. Hes the one who didnt cooperate. Hes the one who forced [Attorney General] Merrick Garlands hand. We dont know what it is he has or had.

Garland isnt a risk taker, he isnt a guy whose bold and goes where no one else has ever gone. Hes somebody who does it by the book so I think these people are going to have egg all over their face when this is over, Dean added. While they may not ever admit it, there, there certainly should.

Dean is famously known for his role in initially covering up the Watergate scandal but later cooperated with federal prosectors and testified against Nixon during hearings on the congressional investigation into the scandal.

The FBI and DOJ have faced a series of attacks since a search warrant was executed on Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence nearly one week ago. In rare public remarks, Garland said last week the department would seek to unseal the warrant and reveal documents that were taken, in which some were determined to be classified and top secret.

----------


## S Landreth

New targets


Breitbart Slammed for Doxxing FBI Agents Involved in Mar-a-Lago Raid

Conservative media outlet Breitbart is facing criticism for publishing the names of FBI agents involved in the raid of former President Donald Trump's home.

Breitbart published a leaked version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, including the names of an FBI special agent and supervisor agent, on Friday. The agents both signed their names on receipts for property seized from Trump's home, including boxes of classified documents that reportedly may have included nuclear secrets. A redacted version of the warrant, which omitted the names of the agents, was officially released hours later.

Commentators soon took to Twitter to accuse Breitbart, an outlet previously managed by former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, of doxxingthe practice of identifying a person or releasing personal information about them, often with the aim of enabling targeted harassment. Some also accused Trump of leaking the warrant to Breitbart in hopes of targeting the agents.

"[U.S. Attorney General Merrick] Garland called Trump out to make warrant public," tweeted digital strategist Alan Rosenblatt. "Trump tried to get one over on Garland, releasing warrant to Breitbart, w/out redacting FBI agents names. That's right, Trump doxxed FBI agents serving a legal search warrant. Once again, Trump is inciting violence."

"It's also worth noting that they published the names of the FBI agents, which serves no purpose other than opening them up to threats and harassment," legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted. "Breitbart is also confused about what 'SSA' means. It refers to Supervisory Special Agent, a FBI supervisor."

"Trump, via Breitbart, released unredacted copy of property receipt containing names of FBI agents," tweeted attorney Mark S. Zaid. "Based on his history, this can only be interpreted as intentional to cause these Special Agents (one of whom I know) & their families grief & subject them to possible threats."


"From what I can tell, the court unsealed it - but before that could happen, Trump himself leaked it to Breitbart," author Tessa Dare tweeted. "But the version he leaked had the FBI AGENTS' NAMES in it, whereas the official unsealed one kept those redacted to protect them and their families. A**hole."

"[Breitbart] incl the names of the individual FBI agents involved in the search," Elephant Journal tweeted. "The court issued release of the warrant redacts that sensitive information. Team Trump just put a target on the backs of the agents & their families. That is 100% the intent."

"Trump's social media platform sent a push alert this afternoon to an article with an unredacted version of the search warrant that included the names of two FBI agents," tweeted CNN correspondent Donie O'Sullivan. "Those agents' names are now circulating on pro-Trump social media and are being villainized."

"So... when Trump leaked the warrant docs to WSJ, Fox & Breitbart this afternoon, the names of the FBI agents in moved were not redacted," news anchor Ed Greenberger tweeted. "Anyone who thinks Trump cares about America, or Americans, is a damn fool."

____________


Did Trump leak Mar-a-Lago warrant revealing names of FBI agents as threats against bureau rise?

Donald Trump is under fire for allegedly leaking the entire unredacted warrant and endangering FBI agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago home as part of an investigation into the removal of official records from the White House.

A judge unsealed a redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant documents, which show the Justice Department recovered 11 sets of classified documents, including some marked with the highest levels of classification.

The disgusting, vile, deranged former POTUS just leaked the entire warrant, a viral tweet by user Spiro Agnews Ghost claimed. The one his lawyers said he didnt have with the FBI agents names unredacted, so he could purposefully endanger them. However, the handle did not offer proof that Mr Trump was behind the leak.

Meanwhile, Breitbart faced flak for publishing a leaked version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant that included the names of an FBI special agent and supervisor agent, with users claiming Mr Trump himself leaked the document to the right-wing organisation.

A law enforcement source told CNN that the FBI is investigating an unprecedented number of threats against bureau personnel and property in the wake of the Mar-a-Lago search, including some against agents listed in court records as being involved in the recent search.

On Friday, the names of the two agents who signed the search warrant paperwork circulated online.

The names had reportedly been included in a version of the search warrant that was leaked prior to the official unsealing of the documents as the version released by the court redacted the names.

This week, some violent threats against attorney general Merrick Garland surfaced online.

The threats state that Mr Garland personally approved the decision to seek a warrant of the search.

Furthermore, the biography and contact information of the federal magistrate judge who signed the search warrant was also wiped from a Florida courts website after he too became the target of violent threats, according to CNN.

Mr Trump denied reports that he had documents related to nuclear weapons at his home and accused the FBI of planting information.

Mr Trump lashed out on his media platform Truth Social in response to a report from The Washington Post published Thursday evening that claimed the FBI agents were looking for documents relating to nuclear weapons.

Mr Trump compared the report to the investigation into Russia interfering with the 2016 presidential election and the special counsel investigation by Robert Mueller.

Nuclear weapons issue is a Hoax, just like Russia, Russia, Russia was a hoax, two impeachments were a hoax, the Mueller investigation was a hoax, and much more, he said. Same sleazy people involved.

The former president also asked why the FBI would not allow inspection of Mar-a-Lago with his lawyers present.

According to a copy of the warrant and inventory of documents recovered from Mr Trumps property which was obtained by The Independent, agents recovered from the ex-president a set of papers bearing markings identifying them as Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information  a level of classification above the top secret level which is often applied to intelligence sources as well as the US nuclear arsenal.

----------


## harrybarracuda

I so badly want to see baldy orange cunto's perp walk.

----------


## S Landreth

fingerprints


FBI search of Mar-a-Lago raises critical national security questions

Administration sources familiar with the investigation tell ABC News the amount and the sensitivity of confidential, secret and top-secret documents allegedly discovered in the Mar-a-Lago search raise critical national security questions that must be urgently addressed.

Those officials say law enforcement and security officials must now try to track the chain of custody of the material and try to determine if any of the material was compromised.

Officials acknowledged these critical questions need to be addressed because the material, in theory, would be of great value to foreign adversaries and even allies. Interviews with Trump administration officials are anticipated and authorities may even check for fingerprints to see if that provides insight into who had access.

The FBI warrant and inventory allege that 11 sets of sensitive information were recovered during the Mar-a-Lago search -- including confidential, secret and top-secret documents. There was even top-secret, sensitive compartmented information (SCI) material. This classification of materials sometimes involves nuclear secrets and terrorism operations based on a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) overview of security protocols, which ABC News has reviewed.

The top-secret SCI documents are classified as national intelligence and involve intel "concerning or derived from intelligence sources," according to a (DNI) document reviewed for this reporting. This material may come from allies, spying, eavesdropping or informants.

Top-secret SCI should only be handled under the strictest of conditions in secure-designated locations. Such locations are supposed to be impervious to eavesdropping and no electronic devices are allowed. Only a select few are ever allowed to view SCI -- for example, a "need to know appropriately cleared recipient."

Why the concern? U.S. officials know such sensitive documents are targeted by enemy nations and other adversaries who are constantly attempting espionage and eavesdropping activities here in the U.S.

Loss of information classified as confidential would "damage" national security -- loss of secret documents would cause "serious damage" to national security and the compromise of top-secret material creates the potential for "exceptionally grave damage to the national security," according to Executive Order No. 13526 signed by then-President Barack Obama in 2009.

Among the critical questions in the wake of the Mar-a-Lago raid are how were critical documents stored at the White House, and how was it that so many boxes of such highly classified material could be removed in the first place; who exactly was involved in the authorization to remove the material and who removed the material; how was the material transported to Mar-a-Lago -- by plane, by truck -- and who had access to it during transport. Top-secret material must have specifically authorized transport, may not be sent via U.S. mail and may only be transmitted by authorized government courier service. Other critical questions include: was the material stored in Mar-a-Lago, who had access to it and was it under constant security camera surveillance; and what were the security measures and protocols.

The Presidential Records Act establishes that presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the archivist as soon as the president leaves office.

----------


## panama hat

And another example of why the moron is special:





> *Trump demands return of seized documents  by order of social media*
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has demanded the return of some documents seized by the US justice department in an FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida last week  apparently under the impression that posts on his Truth Social platform carry legal weight.
> 
> In a post on Sunday, the former president wrote: By copy of this Truth, I respectfully request that these documents be immediately returned to the location from which they were taken. Thank you!
> It is generally held that social media posts are not legal documents.
> According to an actual legal document, a search warrant unsealed on Friday, the FBI seized records concerning top secret national security matters.
> 
> ...


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...i-truth-social

----------


## S Landreth

^It’s throwing everything against the wall in desperation.

Here are Trump’s shifting defenses for taking classified documents to Mar-a-Lago

FBI search was unnecessary and inappropriate

Documents were declassified under a standing order  :Smile: 

The documents seized are protected by attorney-client and executive privileges

----------


## harrybarracuda

Get read for baldy's sweat greaseball to plead the 5th.

Rudy Giuliani: Donald Trump's former lawyer probed over 'attempts to interfere' in 2020 election result in Georgia | US News | Sky News

----------


## S Landreth

In other trump is a failure court news..


Weisselberg to plead guilty in Trump tax case

The Trump Organizations chief financial officer is coming close to reaching a plea deal in a case investigating whether he funneled off-the-books income to himself and other executives at the company, but the potential deal reportedly does not bring prosecutors any closer to their main target: Former President Trump.

The New York Times reported Monday, citing two people with knowledge, that Allen Weisselberg and his lawyers met with a judge and that a hearing is scheduled on Thursday in the case, pointing to a possible agreement being reached by then.

A potential deal might mean Weisselberg faces a far shorter sentence of five months in prison, a person familiar with the matter told the Times.

Prosecutors had hoped that Weisselberg would eventually testify against Trump himself but ultimately refused, despite the potential deal being reached.

Last June, criminal indictments were filed against Weisselberg and the Trump Organization related to charges that the company avoided paying taxes on fringe benefits such as cars, apartments and other bonuses they received through the company.

The case is being investigated by the Manhattan District Attorneys office, who filed 15 criminal charges against Weisselberg and the Trump Organization, including fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records. If convicted, the executive could face up to 15 years in prison, though various sentencing factors would likely bring that number down, legal experts have said.

The District Attorneys office did not immediately return a request for comment from The Hill.

The case is separate from a deposition Trump gave last week related to an investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) over allegations that the Trump Organization misstated the value of assets and misled lenders and tax authorities.

Trump said he invoked his Fifth Amendment right during the deposition, and his lawyer told the Times afterward that the only question he answered was about his name.

His Mar-a-Lago estate was also searched by the FBI one week ago, in an unprecedented operation in which authorities seized documents, a portion of which were marked classified at the highest levels.

An unsealed search warrant made public Friday revealed that federal law enforcement officials suspect Trump violated the Espionage Act and other laws.

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ opposes release of affidavit used to search Trump's Mar-a-Lago home

The Department of Justice said Monday in a court filing that it opposes requests to unseal the affidavit used to obtain a federal judge's permission to search former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

*Driving the news*: In a court filing, prosecutors said releasing the affidavit can "harm the government's ongoing criminal investigation."


They won't, however, oppose the release of other sealed documents tied to the search, including cover sheets and the government's motion to seal.The Justice Department's opposition came in response to several news organizations' requests to unseal the affidavit.

*What they're saying: "*If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a road map to the government's ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps," U.S. Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez and Justice Department counterintelligence chief Jay I. Bratt said in the filing.


The document has sensitive information about witnesses, prosecutors said, particularly given the high-profile nature of the matter and "the risk that the revelation of witness identities would impact their willingness to cooperate with the investigation."The DOJ did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

*Catch up quick*: The search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was carried out last Monday as part of an ongoing DOJ investigation into the discovery of classified White House records recovered from Trump’s home earlier this year.


On Thursday, the Justice Department announced it had filed a motion to unseal parts of the search warrant for Trump's Florida residence.Trump said he did not oppose the warrant being publicly released.


___________

In other news…….

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘obviously’ going to be indicted  :Smile: 

https://thehill.com/homenews/3603784...o-be-indicted/

----------


## S Landreth

Hearing on unsealing the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit to put DOJ arguments on display

A federal judge in Florida has scheduled a hearing Thursday on whether to unseal the affidavit that federal investigators used to justify a search warrant for former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home — a major point of contention between the government and the former president, his supporters and the news media.

The Department of Justice is arguing against unsealing the document for fear it could compromise an “ongoing criminal investigation” involving national security, while Trump and his Republican allies are calling the unprecedented search a major instance of government overreach and demanding the justification be made public. Several media companies, meanwhile, have urged the document be disclosed because of the public's "clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred in these circumstances."

The hearing comes as investigators sort through the troves of documents — including some labeled top secret and highly classified — that they collected at the Florida resort last week, and prepare to take next steps in the case.

A group of news organizations, including NBC News, has filed court papers asking Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart to make public the affidavit that convinced him to take the extraordinary step of signing the warrant allowing FBI agents to conduct the search.

It was a request U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland himself wrestled with. Garland carefully considered whether to seek a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago over a period of few weeks, a senior DOJ official told NBC News, confirming a Wall Street Journal report. Senior Justice Department and FBI officials held many meetings on how to proceed with the probe before Garland approved moving ahead with a search warrant, the official added.

In a statement last week announcing he was moving to unseal the search warrant and the property receipt in the case, Garland suggested he’d signed off on the search warrant out of necessity. “Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken,” he said.


Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing Monday they're open to releasing more documents about the probe, but not the affidavit, which Trump and his lawyers said they have not seen. The filing said its premature release could “cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation.”

“If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a roadmap to the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps,” they wrote.

It could also interfere with witnesses they’ve already interviewed, and witnesses they could interview in the near future, the filing said.

The “information about witnesses is particularly sensitive given the high-profile nature of this matter and the risk that the revelation of witness identities would impact their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Disclosure of the government’s affidavit at this stage would also likely chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations,” the filing said.

The government also said the probe involves national security issues, adding, “The fact that this investigation implicates highly classified materials further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if information is disclosed to the public prematurely or improperly.”

The filing noted that the Department of Justice consented to having the search warrant and property receipt unsealed after Trump publicly disclosed the Mar-a-Lago search, and that Trump was already in possession of both documents.

----------


## S Landreth

highlights


Myths & Misunderstandings Relating to Mar-a-Lago Documents Investigation

In the days since former President Donald Trump announced on his social media platform that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had executed a search warrant at his home and business at Mar-a-Lago, there has been much discussion as to what authorities Trump has or had as a former president and what laws or regulations he may have violated by possessing documents with classification markings outside of proper controls. This has led to the repeating of many myths and misunderstandings, often by the former president himself, as to presidential authority relating to classified information.

*Myth #1: As former president Nixon once said, When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.*

True that Nixon said it, but the idea is false.

*Myth #2: As long as information has been declassified by competent authority or is otherwise unclassified, former government officials (to include a former president) are free to possess and/or disclose the information at will.*

False. Yada, yada, yada..

Known as Controlled Unclassified Information, examples include information relating to federal taxpayers, witness protection, critical infrastructure protection and nuclear security.

Yada, yada.

Moreover, the unauthorized possession of certain controlled unclassified information such as Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information could be subject to prosecution under, among other statutes, 18 USC 793 of the Espionage Act, which does not mention classified information but rather applies to closely held national defense information the disclosure of which, if publicly known, could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

*Myth #3: The President possesses the absolute authority to declassify information at will.*

Partly true, partly false.

*Myth #4: Trump claims that while president he had a standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them.*

Absurd.

*Myth #5: Former presidents control the disposition of their White House records.*

False.

Starting with the administration of President Ford, and in reaction to the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration, in addition to the Federal Records Act, records of each presidential administration are controlled by the Presidential Records Act (PRA), depending upon which element of the White House is involved. In this Act, Congress made it clear that the American people, not the former president, owns the records and assigns responsibility to the incumbent president for the custody and management of his presidential records.

----------


## S Landreth

A familiar problem: Trump struggles to hire a legal defense team

By any fair measure, Donald Trump is confronting a serious legal problem. The former president allegedly took highly classified national security secrets to his glorified country club  and refused to give them back. It ultimately led FBI agents to arrive at his door, as part of an apparent criminal investigation.

Common sense suggests this is precisely the time the Republican would use his resources to hire the best legal defense team money can buy, in preparation for a possible felony indictment. There is, however, an inescapable problem: Top-shelf attorneys dont want to work for him. The Washington Post reported:

_Former president Donald Trump and close aides have spent the eight days since the FBI searched his Florida home rushing to assemble a team of respected defense lawyers. But the answer they keep hearing is no. The struggle to find expert legal advice puts Trump in a bind as he faces potential criminal exposure from a records dispute with the National Archives that escalated into a federal investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act and other statutes._

The article quoted one prominent Republican lawyer saying, simply, Everyone is saying no.

The result is an almost comical dynamic: As the Post summarized, a former American president is currently represented by a legal defense team that includes a Florida insurance lawyer whos never had a federal case, a past general counsel for a parking-garage company, and a former host from a propagandistic cable outlet.

It is, to be sure, embarrassing. But its also surprisingly familiar.

Much more in the article

----------


## DrWilly

Who can blame them? He doesn't pay his bills, refuses to listen to advice and will throw them under a bus at a drop of a hat. There is literally no upside for any lawyer to take his case(s). Let him have a legal aid student!

----------


## S Landreth

^You are right. He has a bad history.

_________

Rudy Giuliani, a target in Atlanta probe into Trump 2020 election subversion scheme, appears before grand jury

Rudy Giuliani, who was told by Atlanta prosecutors that he is a target in their probe of former President Donald Trump's 2020 election subversion schemes in Georgia, appeared behind closed doors for grand jury testimony in the investigation Wednesday.

Giuliani declined to comment to CNN on his way into the Superior Court of Fulton County just before 8:30 a.m. ET. He wrapped up his appearance before an Atlanta-area grand jury after roughly six hours, his car flanked by police escorts as he departed without speaking to reporters.

Bob Costello, an attorney for Giuliani, told CNN he would not provide any details about what Giuliani was asked and how he responded.

"The grand jury is secret, and we're going to keep it that way," Costello told CNN.

The indication that he is a target of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' probe marked an escalation of the investigation and raises questions about Trump's criminal exposure in the probe. Willis' office has also informed 16 Trump-supporting operatives who were presented fraudulently as presidential electors in 2020 that they are targets of her investigation, but the focus on Giuliani brings the investigation into Trump's inner circle.


_______________

*Extra.*

But when a reporter asked Giuliani if he was concerned that Trump could “throw him under a bus,” Giuliani replied cryptically. “I’m not, but I do have very, very good insurance, so if he does, all my hospital bills will be paid,” Giuliani quipped.

____________

*In other news.........*

Trump Org CFO Allen Weisselberg WILL testify against Donald's company where he's worked for 42 years as part of plea deal that will see him serve just 100 days in jail for 15 felony offences

Several sources close to the investigation said they expected the Trump Organization to come out firing. ‘They are fully ramped up for trial and expect to fight this all the way through,’ said one, who confirmed that Weisselberg had agreed to plead guilty to 15 felony charges and could see his potential jail time cut to 100 days.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump legal adviser ordered to testify in Ga. election probe

A judge in Colorado on Tuesday ordered a legal adviser for former President Donald Trumps campaign to travel to Georgia to testify before a special grand jury thats looking into whether Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia.

Judge Gregory Lammons in Fort Collins, Colorado, made the decision after holding a hearing on a request from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to compel testimony from attorney Jenna Ellis. Prosecutors are interested in Elliss role in helping to coordinate and plan legislative hearings in Georgia and others states where false allegations of election fraud were pushed, according to testimony in court.

Fulton County prosecutors have purchased plane tickets and made a hotel reservation in preparation for Ellis to testify on Aug. 25.

The investigation, prompted by a January 2021 phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, began early last year. During that call, Trump suggested Raffensperger could find the votes to overturn his narrow election loss in the state. It has become clear since the special grand jury was seated in May that the focus of the investigation extends well beyond that call.

Willis last month filed petitions with the judge overseeing the special grand jury seeking to compel testimony from seven Trump associates and advisers, including Ellis, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. Because they dont live in Georgia, she had to use a process that involves getting a judge in the state where theyre located to order them to appear before the special grand jury in Atlanta.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Letitia James

Trump Appellate Brief Argues New York Attorney Generals Investigation into Trump Org Finances Is Unconstitutional in its Entirety

An attorney for former President Donald Trump filed a motion in federal appellate court this week seeking to put the kibosh on New York States multi-year investigation into allegedly fraudulent or misleading asset valuations for Trump Organization properties.

The investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) has not resulted in an actual case being filed so far, but rather, a fairly limited discovery-focused process that has largely dealt with enforcing subpoenas in order to gather information. Conversely, however, James work has been put to use in a separate, but related, criminal investigation into Trump Organization tax practices being conducted by the Manhattan District Attorneys Office.

In the Tuesday filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, attorney Alina Habba argues the AGs investigation is both harassing and overreaching. The 45-page brief asks the court to step in so as to protect the 45th presidents rights and to curtail this improperly motivated and unconstitutional abuse of process.

James launched her investigation into Trump Organization asset valuation practices over three years ago. The ongoing probe, she says, was initiated after Trumps longtime personal lawyer and fixer, and former friend, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that the then-presidents namesake family business was cooking the books. The company has consistently denied those claims.

In December 2021, Habba filed a motion in federal district court seeking to have the investigation dismissed on the basis that James was guided solely by political animus and a desire to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against a private citizen who she views as a political opponent. Eventually, U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes disagreed, writing that even though James public statements reflect personal and/or political animus toward Trump, thatis not, in and of itself, sufficient to show that the investigation was biased.

Trumps lawsuit was dismissed in May of this year.

Vowing to appeal at the time, on the basis of an exception to a general legal doctrine that precludes federal courts from intervening in state court proceedings, Habba has now made good on that promise.

The Trump brief takes issue with the district courts ruling for focusing solely on the manner in which the investigation has been conducted, rather than looking at the subjective bad faith of the prosecuting authority. The brief cites precedent to argue an inquiry into such alleged bad faith is the gravamen of the exception to the doctrine that aims to keep federal courts out of state courts business.

The underlying action is based on allegations the Trump Organization inflated the value of certain business assets in order to obtain more favorable loan terms while also fraudulently deflating the value of other assets in order to secure lower property tax rates.

In February of this year, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron declined to quash civil subpoenas and depositions for members of the Trump family, writing in an 8-page ruling that it would have been a blatant dereliction of duty (and would have broken an oft repeated campaign promise) for the attorney general not to investigate those fraud allegations that came via Cohens February 2019 congressional testimony. Two months later, a higher state court affirmed Engorons ruling.

In dismissing Trumps federal lawsuit earlier this year, Judge Sannes found that the New York State court decisions to uphold the subpoenas invoked the doctrine of res judicata, essentially meaning that the court system had already dealt with the issue in full and the issue was therefore settled as a matter of law.

Habbas filing on behalf of Trump argues against that notion, saying that the district courts order elided several key points.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...1622-brief.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg pleads guilty in tax scheme

Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg on Thursday pleaded guilty to tax violations and admitted to helping run a years-long tax fraud scheme at the former president’s business.

*Why it matters:* Weisselberg's testimony may put him front and center at a future trial in the criminal case against the Trump Organization, where he will have to testify about his role in the elaborate scheme.

*Driving the news:* Weisselberg on Thursday admitted to all 15 felonies that prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office accused him of, but steered away from Trump and his family.


Weisselberg has refused to cooperate with prosecutors in their investigation into Trump and his family, the New York Times notes.

*The big picture:* Last year, the Manhattan district attorney’s office charged Weisselberg and the Trump family business for taking more than $1.7 million in "off the books" compensation from the organization.

*Details:*Under the terms of the plea deal, Weisselberg, who was facing up to 15 years in prison, will serve five months as well as five years of probation, AP reported.


With time credited for good behavior, he is expected to be in prison for about 100 days, the New York Times reported.Weisselberg must also pay nearly $2 million in taxes, penalties and interest, per AP.

*Under the plea deal*, Weisselberg must also testify as a prosecution witness at the forthcoming trial for the Trump Organization, per AP.


Prosecutors alleged that the scheme allowed Weisselberg to skirt paying taxes on rent and private school tuition, per the Times.Weisselberg, 75, is the only person facing criminal charges so far in the investigation into the Trump organization's business practices.Weisselberg and the Trump Organization have tried to get the charges dismissed, claiming they were politically motivated.

*What to watch:* A judge last week denied a request to dismiss the Manhattan tax fraud case against the Trump Organization and Weisselberg, allowing the case to move forward to a trial in October.

___________

But at a hearing on Thursday, Weisselberg learned that failing to cooperate could result in 15 years of jail time. Under the deal, the CFO would have to testify in a trial against former President Donald Trump's company.

District Judge Juan Merchan advised Weisselberg that he could spend between five and 15 years in prison.

“If you fail to testify truthfully at the upcoming trial of the Trump Organization,” Merchan said, “I would then not be bound by my sentence promise.”

https://www.rawstory.com/allen-weisselberg-plea-deal/

----------


## S Landreth

Florida judge orders government to submit redacted Mar-a-Lago affidavit

The Florida judge who approved the search warrant for former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence gave the U.S. Department of Justice until next Thursday to file a redacted version of the affidavit related to the search.

*Why it matters:* It's a sign of Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart's potential willingness to unseal parts of the affidavit, which would shed light on new details of the investigation, including the probable cause that warranted the search.

*Driving the news:* "The government shall file under seal ex parte its redactions and any briefing it would like to include," Reinhart said in court on Thursday.


Reinhart also said that he is "not prepared to find that the affidavit should be fully sealed," adding that there were parts of the document that "could be presumptively unsealed," per the New York Times.

*The big picture:* The Justice Department argued Thursday for the affidavit to remain sealed, contending that its release "would provide a roadmap and suggest next investigative steps we are about to take," the Washington Post reports.


Jay Bratt, the head of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of DOJs National Security Division who argued on behalf of the government on Thursday, said that releasing the affidavit may "chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations," per CNN.

*Between the lines:* Reinhart has received a deluge of antisemitic and other threats since the FBI search.


The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have also warned about a surge in threats to federal law enforcement after the search.

*State of play:* The unsealed search warrant and inventory revealed the FBI removed around 20 boxes, including 11 sets of classified information from the Trump property, including some marked as "top secret."


House Republicans have pressed for more information from the Justice Department and FBI in the wake of the search.


 ___________


Top DOJ official: Trump Mar-a-Lago investigation still in 'early stages' - POLITICO

___________


That Tells You Everything You Need to Know: Trump Lawyers Noticeably Silent During Hearing on Probable Cause Affidavits Release

The only people who have not asked to have anything unsealed in the proper way are the attorneys for the person screaming into every microphone that everything should be unsealed, national security and privacy law attorney Kel McClanahan told Law&Crime.That tells you everything you need to know. He does not want to have the affidavit unsealed. He wants to have it look like he wants it unsealed so that he can scream conspiracy.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...avits-release/

----------


## panama hat

One just hopes the orange afterbirth doesn't croak before he gets sent to jail.  Ah well, even if he does, his 'kids' will be next.

----------


## DrWilly

Even in Jail  he and his supporters will scream conspiracy.

----------


## panama hat

True, but fewer people will see or hear him . . . bonus.  Double bonus if he dies in jail.

----------


## S Landreth

It would be nice to see the DOJ charge trump with three different crimes.

The Thursday document release..........

The cover sheet to the warrant application indicates that the search was connected to a possible violation of three statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 793 (the willful retention of national defense information), 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (the concealment or removal of government records), and 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (the obstruction of a federal investigation).  Law&Crime explained how those statutes operate in a previous report.

6 pages: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...to-seal-57.pdf

----------


## David48atTD

“The cult of criminality surrounding Donald Trump has been present since he first ran for president. So, Trump executive Allen Weisselberg is really just the latest in a very long list of people charged with crimes in Trump's orbit—and it shows no sign of slowing down.”

----------


## David48atTD

Susanne Craig, investigative reporter for the New York Times, talks with Alex Wagner about Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg's guilty plea in the tax fraud case brought by the Manhattan district attorney's office, and what it means for potential future prosecutions of other Trump Organization executives.

----------


## S Landreth

White House officials privately express concern classified information taken to Mar-a-Lago could put intelligence community at risk

White House officials have privately expressed deep concern over the tranche of classified material taken to former President Donald Trump's home in Florida, including some documents that are only meant to be viewed only in secure government facilities, CNN has learned.

As more information has emerged in the days since FBI agents combed the former President's private residence, current administration officials have become increasingly concerned about what Trump took and whether that information -- some located in a basement-level storage facility at Mar-a-Lago -- could potentially put the sources and methods of the US intelligence community at risk.

"There is a deep concern," one senior administration official told CNN.

Intelligence officials have also expressed concern about what Trump might have taken, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. Intelligence community representatives have had discussions with the Justice Department, congressional intelligence committees, and the National Archives in recent months about potentially missing sensitive documents, the source said.

White House officials have steadfastly maintained near-silence on the matter, insisting it is for the Justice Department to comment on the ongoing investigation. President Joe Biden hasn't been briefed on the criminal probe, officials say, and information about it has arrived at the West Wing via media reports.

Asked Wednesday whether Biden needs to be briefed on the national security implications, White House chief of staff Ron Klain insisted the President would maintain his distance.

"One reason why Joe Biden got elected President is he promised that he would stay out of meddling like his predecessor did in investigations being conducted by the Justice Department, that he would not politically interfere in the Justice Department enforcing our laws," he told CNN's Don Lemon.


Without knowing precisely what is in the material taken from Mar-a-Lago, officials have raised concerns internally about whether it could hamper the nation's spy agencies by putting at risk the ways officials gather intelligence. There have also been discussions about the potential diplomatic fallout, including whether the information found at Mar-a-Lago may cause tensions with allies.

The Justice Department removed 11 sets of classified documents from Trump's home, according to documents unsealed by a judge last week. The inventory shows that some of the materials recovered were marked as "top secret/SCI," which is one of the highest levels of classification. The matter that was retrieved by the FBI included material about French President Emmanuel Macron, which has also raised concerns inside the White House.

The French Embassy in Washington declined to say whether they'd had discussions with the White House about the material. The White House also declined to comment on internal concerns about the classified information taken to Mar-a-Lago.

Biden as president has previously raised concern about Trump's handling of sensitive information. He took the unprecedented step early in his term of cutting off Trump's access to intelligence briefings, a courtesy previously extended to all former presidents.

"What value is giving him an intelligence briefing?" Biden said in an interview with CBS News in February 2021. "What impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something?"  :Smile: 

Biden aides have previously questioned whether Trump could reveal classified or sensitive information he learned during his days as president in speeches or interviews, which are often delivered off-the-cuff.

----------


## S Landreth

:Smile: 

Trump hints at legal action in response to Mar-a-Lago search

Former President Trump on Friday hinted at taking legal action in response to the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property last week.

Trump said in a post on his social media platform Truth Social that a “major motion” related to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution will soon be filed related to the search. He claimed his rights have been violated at a level “rarely seen” before.

The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Trump and his allies have lambasted the search and accused DOJ officials of acting on political motivation against Trump, who is considering a third run for the presidency in 2024.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Baldy orange cunto and his lawsuits...

How many did he lose after the election?

 :rofl:

----------


## Topper

> Baldy orange cunto and his lawsuits...
> 
> How many has he lost after losing the election and leaving office?


Fixed that for ya

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Fixed that for ya


Actually he hadn't left office when he started filing these lawsuits, but whatever floats your boat.

----------


## S Landreth

Until the DOJ files criminal charges against the loser trump for,.......... 18 U.S.C. § 793 (the willful retention of national defense information), 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (the concealment or removal of government records), and 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (the obstruction of a federal investigation).

____________


Trump Can't Avoid Time Limits in RICO Suit: Clinton Lawyers

Hillary Clinton Says Trump Can’t Use Four Years of ‘Eminently Important Presidential Duties’ to Avoid Statute of Limitations in RICO Lawsuit

Attorneys for Hillary Clinton say it is legally wrong for Donald Trump to assert that he was so consumed with the duties of the presidency that he could not file a politically charged civil racketeering lawsuit before the statute of limitations expired.

In a joint Thursday filing, lawyers for Clinton and other defendants — among them John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Marc Elias, Michael Sussmann, Glenn Simpson, Igor Danchenko, Rodney Joffe, the Democratic National Committee, and the law firm Perkins Coie — reasserted arguments that Trump’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations despite Trump’s “novel” attempt to pause the clock during his four-year term as president.

“Plaintiff’s lengthy Opposition largely ignores the legal flaws that Defendants identified in their two rounds of motions to dismiss,” Thursday’s reply motion from the defendants argues.  “In sum, Plaintiff’s allegations do not add up to any cognizable claims. As an initial matter, his own tweets confirm his claims are untimely. In an attempt to revive them, Plaintiff urges the Court to invent a novel Presidential tolling doctrine wholly unsupported by case law and belied by his own extracurricular litigation while in office.”

Trump filed the case on March 24, 2022, more than five years after the 2016 election. The statute of limitations would generally be a fatal flaw to the case. As Law&Crime has previously noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a four-year statute of limitations applies to civil RICO claims. Federal statutes say a four-year statute of limitations applies to civil claims which arise “under an Act of Congress,” but there are exceptions for certain cases, such as matters involving securities.

Trump’s legal team claimed on Aug. 4 that the “immense and unrelenting demands involved in serving as President” made it impossible for Trump to file his RICO lawsuit against myriad actors connected to Clinton’s 2016 campaign at an earlier date. Trump’s lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks to grant “an equitable tolling of all relevant statutes of limitations” in Trump’s favor.

Clinton and a collection of other defendants replied Thursday to those assertions (we’ve omitted most of the legal citations):

_Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling during his presidential term because “he was preoccupied with carrying out his eminently important presidential duties” and was “tirelessly . . . devoted to serving the Nation and ensuring the well-being of the American people.” Plaintiff failed to plead these factual predicates for his latest effort to avoid the statute of limitations. And any such pleading would be futile, because no authority supports the “rare remedy” of equitable tolling here._

_Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that presidential duties do not afford a President shelter from civil litigation. Although Plaintiff relies on language from Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), he ignores its holding. There, the Court rejected a stay of civil litigation during President Clinton’s term. Notwithstanding the burdens of the office, the Court concluded that the President’s engagement in civil litigation would not unduly interfere with his responsibilities._

The defendants noted that Congress could have — but did not — craft a statute which gave presidents the chance to equitably toll the civil statutes of limitations during their presidencies.

Trump’s lawyers have also argued that some of the alleged pro-Clinton conduct didn’t become apparent until well after it occurred and that the statute of limitations should also be tolled on those grounds as well.

The defendants, however, have long argued that Trump has been complaining of the same alleged ills for years; therefore, they argue that Trump’s suggestion that some of the evidence has been newly discovered is not accurate.

“Plaintiff nowhere acknowledges that his own tweets prove he was on notice of his purported claims, at the very latest, by October 2017,” Clinton and the other defendants asserted in their Thursday filing.

The defendants continued on that train of thought:

_Despite now insisting that he could not have discovered his claims until recently, Plaintiff took to Twitter in 2017 to accuse Clinton, the Democrats, the intelligence community, and others of the very conduct at the heart of the [amended complaint]: the alleged fabrication of the Steele Dossier and use of DNS data as part of an effort to build a supposedly false narrative of his connections to Russia. [Citation omitted.] Because Plaintiff’s tweets are judicially noticeable and prove his claims are untimely, the Court should dismiss on statute- of-limitations grounds._

Clinton and her lawyers have argued in previous motions that the statute of limitations slammed shut long ago and that Trump’s massive lawsuit should fail simply because he didn’t file it on time.

“Plaintiff’s claims fare no better on the merits,” Clinton’s team also reasserted on Thursday. “He simply reiterates and block-quotes allegations in the Amended Complaint (‘AC’), asserting they must be adequate because they are voluminous. But notwithstanding the density of Plaintiff’s allegations, each claim is missing necessary legal predicates, devoid of well-pleaded factual allegations, or improperly based on ‘labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements.’ [Citation omitted.] And where Plaintiff cites cases, they are irrelevant, distinguishable, or — often — contrary to his own position.”

“Plaintiff’s insistence . . . that Defendants shared a corrupt motive to harm his ‘political reputation’ and ‘damag[e] his electability’ exposes this suit for what it is: an effort to exact political payback and inflict needless litigation costs on Plaintiff’s perceived opponents,” Clinton and the other defendants continued via their lawyers on Thursday.  “But Plaintiff’s political grudges are not legally cognizable claims, and nothing in the Opposition overcomes the many deficiencies that require dismissal of the AC with prejudice.”

Trump sued Clinton, her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and a group of other defendants for allegedly conspiring to malign Trump and his campaign during the 2016 election — which he won.  The gravamen of the lawsuit is Trump’s complaint that the defendants cooked up a narrative surrounding Russian collusion and that their collective actions should now be redressable by a damages payment of $24 million.

The lawsuit alleges RICO violations and other civil torts. In an amended complaint, Trump’s attorneys said Trump suffered a “loss of political and/or business reputation, loss of business opportunities, loss of competitive position, loss of business revenue, loss of goodwill, loss of trade secrets, and/or loss of contractual relations, and has suffered actual, compensatory, special, incidental, and consequential damages in addition to costs of defense and attorneys’ fees” due to the alleged acts of the defendants.

Clinton and several of the aforementioned defendants lawyers said Thursday that the case should be “dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.”

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ug-11-2022.pdf

___________

The latest news.......


Schiff, Rosenstein Removed from Donald Trump's RICO Lawsuit

Judge Removes Adam Schiff and Rod Rosenstein from Donald Trump’s $24 Million RICO Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton and Others

A federal judge has removed Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif. 28) and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as defendants in a multi-million-dollar racketeering lawsuit launched by Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton and a number of his perceived political foes.

U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks substituted the U.S. Government as the party to be sued in the absence of Schiff and Rosenstein.

The maneuver — known as a Westfall Act substitution — is similar to a recent move which yanked fired FBI director James Comey, fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok, resigned FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith as personal defendants from the same lawsuit.

The procedure allows the federal government, at its request, to step into the shoes of its employees when they are sued for acts undertaken in connection with their employment.

_The Westfall Act accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties. The Westfall Act empowers the Attorney General (or his delegate) to certify that the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose. Upon such certification, the employees are dismissed from the action and the United States is substituted in their stead. This is automatic . . . [t]he United States remains the defendant unless and until the district court determines that the federal officer originally named as defendant was acting outside the scope of his employment._

___________

Trump Amends Clinton RICO LOLsuit, Makes It 85 Pages Dumber

----------


## S Landreth

Trump pushes for un-redacted affidavit’s release, despite the risks

Former President Trump is pushing for the full, unredacted release of the affidavit that led to the search warrant for his Mar-a-Lago estate, a move that carries risks for both Trump and the Justice Department.

“Pres. Trump has made his view clear that the American people should be permitted to see the unredacted affidavit related to the raid and break-in of his home,” Taylor Budowich, a spokesperson for the former president, said Thursday after Federal Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said he may be willing to unseal portions of the document.

Reinhart ordered Justice Department officials to suggest redactions to the document by next Thursday.

“Today, magistrate Judge Reinhard rejected the DOJ’s [Justice Department’s] cynical attempt to hide the whole affidavit from Americans,” Budowich continued. “However, no redactions should be necessary and the whole affidavit should be released, given the Democrats’ penchant for using redactions to hide government corruption, just like they did with the Russia hoax.”

Trump and his supporters have for years believed the FBI and Justice Department are biased against the former president, arguing that the bureau improperly surveilled his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump separately posted on Truth Social, his social media platform, calling for the “immediate release” of the unredacted affidavit, citing the need for transparency. He also called for Reinhart to recuse himself from the case without giving a clear reason.

The rhetoric from Trump and his camp follows a similar playbook, experts say, in which the former president demands the release of potentially sensitive information.

If the government and judge decline to release the full, unredacted document, it allows Trump and his allies to claim federal law enforcement is hiding something, further fueling distrust among Trump supporters.

“It certainly is consistent with a project of delegitimizing law enforcement and law enforcement targeting him in particular,” said Dan Richman, a law professor at Columbia University. “Because he knows, as everybody knows, the government will regardless of the case be averse to the disclosure of search warrants as an institutional matter.”

The affidavit, which was used to convince Reinhart that there was enough evidence to support the probable cause needed to obtain a search warrant, contains information about the federal law enforcement investigation into Trump’s handling of material marked classified following his departure from the White House.

The Justice Department has argued that released the affidavit could jeopardize an ongoing investigation, as well as the sources of information in the case. Releasing identifying information about those sources could lead to threats. Reinhart, for example, has been subjected to threats since signing off on the warrant for the Mar-a-Lago search.

Beyond the risks for the Justice Department, there could be some risks for Trump should the full affidavit come out.

“There is a risk if it seems like he was sharing intel with unauthorized parties while out of office,” said one former Trump adviser, who noted that such details could ultimately be redacted by the government.

Experts also pointed out that the affidavit could reveal exchanges between the Justice Department and Trump’s team discussing the need to return sensitive materials, ultimately showing the government had made multiple good faith efforts to secure the documents in question before resorting to a search warrant.

The release of the affidavit could also carry political risks for Trump if it bolsters the case that Trump mishandled classified information.

Polling has already showed a significant percentage of voters believe Trump may have broken the law as president.

A Politico-Morning Consult poll released days after the Mar-a-Lago search found roughly half of registered voters approved of the raid, though only 15 percent of Republicans approved. And 58 percent of voters said they believe Trump definitely or probably broke the law as president.

While calls to release the affidavit are likely to galvanize his hardcore supporters, it could ultimately create further concerns for the broader public. Trump will have to win over a broader base to win the White House if he runs for president in 2024.

Richman, the Columbia law professor, said he would not expect it to be the end of the matter if the judge opts to release the affidavit with limited or no redactions, saying the government would likely appeal such a decision.

“I would expect that central to the appeal would be the broader institutional question of whether this ought to be done,” Richman said. “It could set a really poor precedent for high profile searches in the future.”

----------


## S Landreth

Trump sues to stall FBI probe, asks for ‘special master’ to review Mar-a-Lago documents

Former President Trump is seeking to temporarily block the FBI from reviewing the classified materials seized from his home, asking the court to appoint a “special master” in the interim to help them review the evidence collected as they executed a search warrant.

In a 21-page motion that echoes much of the former president’s claims that the search was politically motivated, Trump’s attorneys ask for outside oversight to ensure the materials seized from his home do not include items they argue could be protected by executive privilege.

The suit asks for the court to enjoin the FBI from reviewing the evidence it has collected until a special master is appointed.

____



Trump lawsuit responding to FBI’s Mar-a-Lago raid

Former President Trump on Monday filed a legal motion requesting the appointment of a special master in response to the FBI’s raid of his Mar-a-Lago property this month.

27 pages: gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.1.0 | PDF | Search And Seizure | Mar A Lago

___________


Judge says FBI’s evidence for searching Mar-a-Lago is ‘reliable

The federal magistrate judge who authorized the warrant to search Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate emphasized Monday that he “carefully reviewed” the FBI’s sworn evidence before signing off and considers the facts contained in an accompanying affidavit to be “reliable.”

Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart offered his assessment in a 13-page order memorializing his decision to consider whether to unseal portions of the affidavit, which describe the evidence the bureau relied on to justify the search of the former president’s home.

“I was — and am — satisfied that the facts sworn by the affiant are reliable,” Reinhart said in the order.

___________

*Extra.......*

Magistrate Explains What We Can Expect to Learn from Trump Affidavit Containing Probable Cause ‘Evidence of Multiple Federal Crimes’ at Mar-a-Lago

Reinhart seems zeroed in on several particular classes of information that almost surely will not be released. Those areas include materials connected to secret grand jury proceedings, the identities of key witnesses, the identities of law enforcement officers, data about the layout of Mar-a-Lago itself, investigative techniques used by federal authorities, information that could result in the future obstruction of justice, and facts that could lead to reputational harm if no charges are filed.

Bruce Reinhart Explains Mar-a-Largo Affidavit Redactions

----------


## S Landreth

Donald Trump 'had over 300 classified documents at Mar-a-Lago'

Donald Trump 'had over 300 classified documents at Mar-a-Lago including boxes handed back in January, ones returned in June and those seized by FBI in raid this month'

Donald Trump took 300 classified documents with him when he left the White House, according to a new report on Monday night.

The scale of the former president's unlawful cache of files is what pushed the Justice Department to launch their unprecedented raid on August 8, according to The New York Times.

The paper reported that the first tranche of 150 classified documents were returned to the National Archives in January.

Some of the rest were returned in June, and the remainder was seized in the August raid on Mar-a-Lago.

It remains unclear what the classified material discussed. A receipt made public following the August search said there were classified documents relating to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and documents detailing the clemency Trump granted to his longtime backer, Roger Stone.

The paper reported that the 15 boxes which Trump handed over in January - nearly a year after he left office - included documents from the C.I.A., the National Security Agency and the F.B.I.

The documents detailed multiple topics of national security interest, a source told the paper.

Trump reportedly went through the boxes himself in late 2021 before handing them over.

____________


Trump Had 300 Classified Documents At Mar-A-Lago, Called Boxes ‘Mine’: Report

Former President Donald Trump had more than 300 classified documents at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, that have since been recovered by the federal government, The New York Times reported Monday.

The figures represent three batches of documents that federal officials have recovered in recent months amid growing concern Trump had absconded with the files after he left the White House. About 150 documents marked classified were handed over to the National Archives in January, a large number that prompted concern from officials there that Trump may have had additional sensitive material in the bowels of the resort.

Trump reportedly went through those boxes himself late last year before they were turned over.

Officials at the Justice Department later went to the Florida estate in June with a subpoena for any additional classified material. But reviews of security footage and information from interviews with Trump’s aides led them to believe there were even more documents that hadn’t been turned over.

The Times added former White House officials were tasked with trying to return the documents to the federal government, but Trump resisted, calling the boxes: “Mine.”

The FBI, armed with a search warrant, went to Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 and recovered 11 more sets of classified material. A federal judge unsealed the warrant shortly afterward, which shows Trump was under investigation for possible violations of the Espionage Act.

The Times, the first to report the number of sensitive material found during the searches, added it’s unclear what type of classified information officials found. But the paper, citing a person briefed on the investigation, said they included material from the CIA, the National Security Agency and the FBI on topics related to national security.

It’s unclear if Trump could face any charges related to the documents. The Presidential Records Act requires all official government material be turned over to the National Archives at the end of a term. The archives knew, in part, that it was missing documents that had been widely reported in the media, including Trump’s “love letters” with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The Times’ report comes amid the ongoing firestorm after FBI agents searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort earlier this month.

Trump has castigated the search, declaring the FBI’s actions a politicization of the Justice Department that has never happened to a former president. His aides quickly moved to say he had a “standing order” to automatically declassify documents that left the Oval Office for his estate, although there is no evidence so far to back up that claim.

The DOJ’s investigation into the documents is ongoing, as are several other government inquiries into Trump’s behavior leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and his efforts to remain in power.

*_____________*

*extra*


What the Times also revealed in its report is that the former president was keeping some of the documents hidden in his own closet in his personal office.

"You know, I read the story, and I just felt the noose tightening around his neck," Weissmann said of Trump and the Times report. "But I think there's another shoe to drop here, just to mix a lot of metaphors, which is with the filing today that Donald Trump made, he is opening the door wide for the Justice Department to respond. The attorney general has famously said we only speak through court filings. Well, this is going to allow the attorney general to respond to all the false statements that are in that filing and to fill in some of the timelines and corroborate or not The New York Times story because they know all of the facts and all of the truth and can easily dispel it. But they now have a perfect vehicle for doing that."

He went on to say that he anticipates the Trump filing is possibly going to reveal some of the methodologies behind the Justice Department's affidavit that they don't want to be public. A response to Trump's filing from the DOJ could ultimately give the details around the efforts to try and get the documents back over the past eight months.

O'Donnell noted that Trump lawyer Christina Bobb may have implicated herself as having lied to the court under oath in an affidavit she signed saying that Trump handed everything over.

Moss explained this puts her and Trump in a "whole lot of trouble." He also joked that the real abbreviation for MAGA is "Make Attorneys Get Attorneys." He told Bobb that she should be hiring a lawyer as soon as possible. The next step for the DOJ and FBI is to watch the CCTV tapes to see if Bobb knew that there were more documents and if she lied knowingly or lied because her client lied to her.

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ might be honing in.......
 
 

Justice Department issues new subpoena to National Archives for more January 6 documents

The Justice Department has issued a new grand jury subpoena to the National Archives for more documents as part of its investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, two sources familiar with the investigation tell CNN.

This latest subpoena, issued on August 17, is in addition to a subpoena the Department of Justice sent to the Archives earlier this year, requesting the same documents and information that the Archives had previously handed over to the House select committee investigating January 6.

This new subpoena, which has not been previously reported, is understood to request additional documents and data from the Archives, pertaining to a period of time both before and after January 6.

Thomas Windom, an Assistant US Attorney, who is leading the criminal probe into the effort to impede the transfer of power after the 2020 election, including the potential role played by former President Donald Trump and allies to organize a group of fake electors who could keep Trump in power despite losing the election. The US Attorney's Office declined to comment.

The subpoena requests that the documents be produced by the end of August.

The new subpoena is the latest indication that the Justice Department is ramping up its investigation and has broadened the scope of its probe into the potential role White House staff played in events leading up to the attack on the Capitol that day.

Last week, CNN and others reported that Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, who pushed back on efforts by the former President and his allies to overturn the 2020 election, had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating the events surrounding January 6.

Other Trump lawyers, including Pat Cipollone and Patrick Philbin, have also been subpoenaed, and DOJ officials have been gearing up to try to access direct communications with Trump when he was in office, which could set off a legal fight over executive privilege.

----------


## S Landreth

Judge gives Trump until Friday to clarify request for special master on records seized by FBI

A federal judge on Tuesday responded to former President Trumps lawsuit requesting a special master to review the documents collected by the FBI from his Mar-a-Lago residence, giving Trump a Friday deadline to clarify his request.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon issued an order for Trump to elaborate on how the court has jurisdiction and precisely what he wants the court to order in the case.

She also asked Trumps team to provide more details on whether it served the Department of Justice (DOJ) with the suit and on the lawsuits effect on another proceeding determining if parts of the affidavit that supported the search warrant should be released.

The request was one of two brief orders filed on Tuesday by Cannon, who was nominated to the position by Trump in 2020. She also issued a separate one asking two of his attorneys to correctly format and resubmit their motions to appear pro hac vice, which allow lawyers to appear in courts in which they are not admitted for a particular case.

The former president filed the lawsuit on Monday to temporarily block the FBI from reviewing the documents it seized from his Florida home until the agency appoints a special master to provide outside oversight, marking Trumps first major legal action since agents executed a search warrant at the property on Aug. 8.

A letter released by the National Archives on Tuesday said the DOJ seized at least 700 pages of classified materials when it first recovered documents from Trumps Florida home in January. Authorities separately seized another 11 sets of classified documents earlier this month.

Trump has repeatedly attacked the FBI and the search as being politically motivated, and he has said the materials include those protected by attorney-client privilege and potentially executive privilege.

He alluded to the forthcoming suit on Friday, claiming the FBI violated his Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.

His attorneys outlined many of those concerns in Mondays motion, asking the court to appoint a special master, who generally ensures a courts orders are carried out. The appointment is typically rare in the context of the execution of a search warrant.

The request comes after the DOJ began its common practice of leveraging a filter team to examine the documents, which is designed to avoid prosecutors seeing protected materials.

Trump also asked the court to require the government to provide a more detailed property receipt, which lists the seized materials, and to return any documents outside the scope of the search warrant.

A federal judge signed off on the warrant days before the search took place, permitting agents to search the 45 Office, all storage rooms and other areas at Mar-a-Lago available to be used by Trump and his staff in which boxes or documents could be stored.

The warrant allowed the agents to seize any property in those areas that constituted evidence of violations of the Espionage Act and two other statutes.

The laws included one statute that bars the concealment, removal and mutilation of government documents, and the other prohibits similar actions when done with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence [an] investigation.

----------


## thailazer

^ The orange one is throwing anything he can at the wall, but not much is sticking.   The title of the motion "Donald Trump vs. The United States of America" sums it up nicely.

----------


## S Landreth

^He is and this should be entertaining.

Same subject, more detail into the judges request,


Judge Overseeing Trump Suit Against U.S. Has Some Questions

Federal Judge Has Several Questions for Trumps Lawyers in Court Fight Over Mar-a-Lago Warrant

A federal judge overseeing former President *Donald Trumps* litigation against the United States government has several questions for counsel regarding the FBIs search and seizure of what are purported to be secret executive branch documents from Trumps Mar-a-Lago estate.

The Court is in receipt of . . . Plaintiffs Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief, wrote U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon before firing off several specific areas of concern for Trumps assemblage of attorneys.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, ordered the attorneys to file, on or before Aug. 26, answers to the following questions in order to facilitate [an] appropriate resolution:

_(1) the asserted basis for the exercise of this Courts jurisdiction, whether legal, equitable/anomalous, or both;_

_(2) the framework applicable to the exercise of such jurisdiction;_

_(3) the precise relief sought, including any request for injunctive relief pending resolution of the Motion;_

_(4) the effect, if any, of the proceeding before Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart; and_

_(5) the status of Plaintiffs efforts to perfect service on Defendant._

Reinhart is the magistrate judge who signed off on the underlying Aug. 5 warrant to search Trumps palatial Florida estate.  That warrant led to an Aug. 8 search that resulted in federal agents uncovering and seizing a cache of materials.  Proceedings directly involving the warrant are ongoing in Reinharts courtroom.

Trumps lawyers asked the court  before the case was assigned to Judge Cannon  to (1) appoint a special master, or disinterested party, to review the materials seized; (2) to ban the government from reviewing the materials until the special master is appointed; (3) to promulgate a more detailed list of the items taken, and (4) to demand a return of any items seized outside the scope of the warrant.

The original filing from Trumps legal team does not seek the quash the warrant itself. Still, Trump dubiously characterized the move as a significant Fourth Amendment action to strongly assert his rights against the FBIs unnecessary, unwarranted, and unAmerican Break-In of his home (capitalization in original).

They took documents covered by attorney-client and executive privilege, which is not allowed, Trump claimed.

The practice of appointing a special master to sort out such material is not uncommon.

Cannon appeared to wonder why Trumps lawyers filed a separate case to make the aforementioned requests rather than to litigate the matter before Reinhart.

Reinhart has noted that Trumps attorneys never filed anything on the record in connection with the warrant, thus rendering their viewpoints on the issues at hand  aired frequently on television broadcasts but not where they count in court  unofficial at best.

Trump has frequently argued, however, that Reinhart is biased against him.

The wrongful, overbroad warrant was signed by a Magistrate Judge who recused himself just two months ago, from a MAJOR civil suit that I filed, because of his bias and animus toward me, Trump claimed on Monday.

Trump also suggested on Monday that he would have given the materials to the National Archives until they are required for the future Donald J. Trump Presidential Library and Museum without the need for a despicable raid at Mar-a-Lago. That claim is slightly at odds with a letter released later on Monday. That letter suggests that Trumps attorneys were attempting to slow down the process of document transmission to the National Archives.

The letter also states that Trump cannot assert claims of executive privilege over his executive branch documents because they are earmarked to remain with the executive branch.

Cannons list of questions on Tuesday called for a filing but notably did not schedule a hearing on the matter.

----------


## Cujo

Half the problem is he's scraping the bottom of the lawyer barrel.
No one reputable wants to represent him and end up in front of the beak themselves.

----------


## OhOh

> No one reputable wants to represent him and end up in front of the beak themselves.


You're suggesting the judicial system of NaGastan no longer exists, if fear of retribution is its stick.

----------


## S Landreth

Criminal trial for Trump Organization to start in October with jury selection

A judge has cleared the way for a trial in the criminal case against the Trump Organization and its longtime chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to begin this fall.

The case has the potential to shine a bright light on the business practices of former President Donald Trump, through internal company records that he fought hard to keep secret.

In the first public courtroom proceeding in this case in almost a year, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan denied multiple defense motions to dismiss the case and ordered jury selection to begin Oct. 24.

Weisselberg and the Trump Organization were indicted in July 2021 on charges they conspired through a variety of gimmicks and deceptions to evade federal, state and local taxes, an alleged scheme that stretched over 16 years and allegedly saved Weisselberg close to $1 million.

Since then, all of the action in the case has taken place in correspondence and behind closed doors. Throughout late 2021, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office continued to gather evidence, interviewing witnesses and presenting evidence to a grand jury.

On Jan. 1, a new Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, was sworn in, replacing Cyrus Vance Jr., who brought the indictment. Donald Trump went to the Supreme Court of the United States twice in an effort to block Vance's team from gathering documents. He failed both times.

In February, two senior investigators quit the District Attorney's office because they believed Bragg was unlikely to charge Donald Trump individually with crimes.

One of the attorneys, Mark Pomerantz, told Bragg in a letter his team had gathered voluminous evidence of financial crimes committed by Trump, connected with false and misleading statements about his finances.

"I fear that your decision means that Mr. Trump will not be held fully accountable for his crimes," Pomerantz wrote. "I have worked too hard as a lawyer, and for too long, now to become a passive participant in what I believe to be a grave failure of justice."

In a statement in April, Bragg insisted the investigation of Trump is ongoing, and pledged to inform the public when the probe ends. Bragg has not brought charges against Trump, and allowed a grand jury hearing evidence in the probe to lapse at the end of April.

Reached by phone in February, former Trump lawyer Ron Fischetti told NPR he believed his client is in the clear.

"I'm very happy  and you can quote me on that," he said.

Whether or not there are additional indictments, the Trump Organization and Weisselberg now are set to be tried by a local Manhattan jury. Prosecutors will likely present evidence they say shows that Donald Trump personally wrote checks for private school tuition for two of Weisselberg's family members, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The income was never declared, the indictment says.

Prosecutors also say that the Trump Organization deducted the value of un-taxed benefits such as rent and utilities from Weisselberg's compensation, and recorded it in a ledger. Both Weisselberg and the Trump Organization have pleaded not guilty and denied all wrongdoing.

Lawyers for Weisselberg and the Trump Organization have attacked the case against them as politically motivated. Weisselberg's lawyers said their client is "collateral damage in the Manhattan District Attorney's and New York Attorney General's years-long pursuit of Mr. Weisselberg's long-time boss, Donald J. Trump."

They also argued that the case is deeply flawed because it relies on information gathered from an untrustworthy source: former Trump executive Michael Cohen, who was convicted of tax evasion and campaign finance crimes in 2018.

On Friday, Judge Merchan denied almost all defense motions, but did remove one count against the Trump Organization of criminal tax fraud in the third degree.

*Extra

*D.A. Bragg: Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg to Serve 5 Months in Jail & Testify in Upcoming Criminal Trial Against Trump Organization  Manhattan District Attorney's Office

----------


## Cujo

> You're suggesting the judicial system of NaGastan no longer exists, if fear of retribution is its stick.


No I'm not.

----------


## Cujo

oops. DP

----------


## S Landreth

Can anyone else see the problem with the complaint?

Theres a hint  :Smile: 


Tea Party seeks removal of anti-Trump raid judge

Tea Party Patriots Action, the long-influential conservative group, has filed a federal complaint against the Obama-appointed magistrate ( not true  :Smile:  ) who approved the FBI raid of former President Donald Trumps winter home, the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

In a long complaint filed in the Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit, Tea Party Patriots CEO Jenny Beth Martins argument was to the point: Florida-based Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart had it out for Trump.

Judge Reinhart has a conflict of interest and a pattern and history of hostility to President Trump, said the filing, which listed several examples including social media attacks and donations to anti-Trump critics, such as former President Barack Obama and 2016 GOP foe Jeb Bush.

Martins legal complaint, provided to Secrets, seeks to have the judge removed from the case and even dumped from the bench.

Judge Reinhart should be disciplined and removed as a federal magistrate because of his failure to meet the standards of ethical conduct and character necessary for the public to have confidence in the nonpartisan role of a judge in a matter of this extreme public interest, the sixth of seven charges in the ethics complaint said.

Reinhart signed off on the raid and has subsequently leaned to making some of the search warrant public, as Trump and the media have sought.

On Monday, the West Palm Beach magistrate gave the Justice Department and the FBI until tomorrow to argue against the release.

In the meantime, critics of his earlier action to OK the search for classified documents inside the resort have dug up ample evidence of Reinharts anti-Trump liberal past, including donations and social media attacks. Martin also cited a case involving Hillary Clinton in which Reinhart recused himself as an example that he should have followed in the Mar-a-Lago case.

The entire episode of the unprecedented search of the former presidents home, authorized by a political appointee of President Trumps successor, and approved by a federal magistrate who has been outspoken in his opposition to and loathing of President Trump threatens the principle of equal justice under law and the confidence of the American people in an unbiased judiciary, the complaint said.

----------


## pickel

> You're suggesting the judicial system of NaGastan no longer exists, if fear of retribution is its stick.


He's fully entitled to a Public Defender, just like poor people. Private Lawyers can choose their clients.

----------


## misskit

> You're suggesting the judicial system of NaGastan no longer exists, if fear of retribution is its stick.


The lawyers are mostly afraid of not being paid. Trump is known for not paying his lawyers.

----------


## aging one

> You're suggesting the judicial system of NaGastan no longer exists, if fear of retribution is its stick.


Give me a freaking break. No decent lawyer wants to work for Trump because he is a con man and a fraud, who often does not pay his bills. 

Trump Having Hard Time Finding Lawyers Because They Want To Be Paid: Journalist | HuffPost Latest News

----------


## Cujo

> Give me a freaking break. No decent lawyer wants to work for Trump because he is a con man and a fraud, who often does not pay his bills. 
> 
> Trump Having Hard Time Finding Lawyers Because They Want To Be Paid: Journalist | HuffPost Latest News


Not to mention lies to them, refuses to take sound legal advice and demands they do unethical and illegal things which leads them into trouble themselves.
See the Bobb woman who signed a declaration that all government documents had been removed from Mar A Lago when they hadn't, putting herself in Peril.
I'm sure she just took Trumps word for it.
Look at Michael Cohen spending 3 years in Prison for Trump related activities.
He's Toxic.

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ Provides Judge With Redacted Trump Affidavit

The Justice Department on Thursday submitted to a judge a redacted version of the affidavit it relied on when it federal agents searched the Florida estate of former President Donald Trump to look for classified documents.

The document was filed under seal and it was not immediately clear when it might be made public, or how much of it will be disclosed.

The United States has filed a submission under seal per the Courts order of Aug. 22, Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said in a statement. The Justice Department respectfully declines further comment as the Court considers the matter.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart had given the department until Thursday at noon to propose to him the redactions to the affidavit it wanted to make before any portion of it was released to the public. But he acknowledged on Monday that it was possible that the redactions, or blacked-out portions, would be so extensive as to make the document essentially incomprehensible.

The affidavit is likely to contain key information about the FBIs basis for executing a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach on Aug. 8. Documents already made public as part of the investigation show that the FBI retrieved from the property 11 sets of classified documents, including information marked at the top secret level.

Multiple news media organizations, including The Associated Press, argued in court last week for the disclosure of the document, citing the extraordinary public interest in the federal search of a former presidents home. The Justice Department has opposed the release of the affidavit, saying it could reveal information about witnesses and about sensitive investigative techniques.

Reinhart has said that though he was sensitive to the departments concerns, he was not inclined to keep the entire document sealed. He directed officials to give him a version of the document redacting the information it wants to keep secret.



https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...rrant-00053724

----------


## S Landreth

Judge Orders Redacted Version Of Mar-A-Lago Search Affidavit Released By Friday

The federal judge who signed off on the FBI search for classified documents at former President Donald Trumps Florida home has ordered a redacted version of the affidavit justifying it to be released by noon Friday.

Prosecutors had argued against releasing the document because doing so would likely hurt the criminal investigation they continue to pursue. It is not clear if the Department of Justice will appeal the order, which would likely delay any release.

In his two-page order filed at the federal courthouse in West Palm Beach, Florida, Thursday afternoon, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said he accepts the redactions that prosecutors have made to the warrant as narrowly tailored to serve the governments legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire affidavit.

Trumps staff did not immediately respond to HuffPosts request for comment, and Trump himself had not, by late afternoon, posted anything on his social media platform about Reinharts decision.

The former president has publicly demanded the release of the unredacted affidavit but did not make that request in court.

FBI agents searched Trumps tennis and social club in Palm Beach on Aug. 8 and took away boxes of material, including 11 packets of classified documents. Among that set was a batch labeled with the highest classification markings, meant for review only in secure government facilities.

Trump, who had already been attacking the FBI and prosecutors for investigating his actions on and leading up to his Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt, has ramped up criticism of law enforcement since then.

His followers have responded by threatening FBI agents and the Department of Justice, and one Trump supporter was already killed in a shootout with police after he tried to attack the FBI field office in Cincinnati.

In addition to the federal criminal investigations, a Georgia prosecutor is separately investigating Trump and his allies attempts to coerce state officials into falsely declaring him the winner in that state.

Trump, despite losing the election by 7 million votes nationally and 306-232 in the Electoral College, became the first president in more than two centuries of elections to refuse to hand over power peacefully. His incitement of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol  his last-ditch attempt to remain in office ― killed five, including one police officer, injured another 140 officers and led to four police suicides.

Nevertheless, Trump remains the dominant figure in the Republican Party and is openly speaking about running for the presidency again in 2024.

In statements on his personal social media platform, Trump has continued to lie about the election and the Jan. 6 committees work, calling it a hoax similar to previous investigations into his 2016 campaigns acceptance of Russian assistance and his attempted extortion of Ukraine into helping his 2020 campaign.

_____________

*Extra*


Its unclear whether Reinharts ruling will be the final say on what, if anything, gets released. The Justice Department and any of the entities asking for public release of the affidavit could appeal his decision to a District Court judge and to the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Reinhart suggested at the hearing last week that he would not release anything until any potential appeals were resolved.

----------


## S Landreth

Judge Allows Evan Corcoran, James Trusty to Appear for Trump

Judge Finally Gives Trump Lawyers Permission to Appear in Mar-a-Lago Warrant Dispute After Days of Failed Attempts

A federal judge in Florida has approved the appearances of two out-of-state Donald Trump attorneys in a court skirmish connected to a search warrant executed on Aug. 8 at the ex-presidents palatial Mar-a-Lago club and residence.

U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee to the Southern District of Florida, issued the approval order late Wednesday after several days of wrangling by two Trump attorneys. Those attorneys, James M. Trusty of Washington, D.C. and M. Evan Corcoran of Baltimore, Maryland, sought to appear in Cannons Florida courtroom for Trumps case only  a process known as pro hac vice admission. As a general rule, lawyers can apply for pro hac admission in connection with a specific proceeding  the phrase means for this occasion only  if theyre members in good standing of their own local bar, if they agree to work through local counsel (someone who is licensed in the forum jurisdiction), and with the permission of the court. However, attorneys admitted pro hac become subject to the ethics rules of the forum jurisdiction, as Judge Cannon rather sternly noted up front in a Wednesday order:

_PAPERLESS ORDER granting . . . the Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consents to Designation, and Requests to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Attorneys James M. Trusty and M. Evan Corcoran. The Court reserves the power to withdraw permission for special appearance at any time. Failure to abide by any court order or failure to appear at any scheduled matter may result in immediate revocation of counsels pro hac vice status. Local counsel must be ready to adequately represent the party at any time. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 8/24/2022._

Trusty and Corcoran are joined by attorney Lindsey Halligan of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as local counsel.

Both mens initial pro hac applications on Mon., Aug. 22 were flagged as deficient by the court clerk; the judge then summarily denied the applications because the documents were not filed correctly.

The pro hac filing fee is $200 (or $400 in total, since two attorneys have requested admission). However, the same receipt number is noted under both sets of pro hac filings, suggesting that the men filed twice but were not double billed.

The trio of Trump attorneys on Monday filed a motion to challenge parts of the Mar-a-Lago warrant that resulted in the seizure of hundreds of pages of documents  many of them marked with the nations highest degree of classification. The document does not directly seek to quash the warrant itself, Law&Crime has noted from the inception of the case.

Judge Cannon has asked Trumps lawyers to explain several questions before she moves forward with the matter, including questions about whether she has the jurisdiction to hear the claims.

Trump has asserted various claims of privilege over the materials, but the National Archives and Records Administration seems to be of the position that Trump cannot assert executive privilege against the administration of Joe Biden, the current executive. In other words, a theory floated in a recently revealed NARA letter, the executive branch needs to have access to the documents of the executive branch no matter who is the executive.

----------


## S Landreth

Was looking how Fox News was reporting the judge’s decision to unseal redacted Trump Mar-a-Lago affidavit.

_Sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News Digital that the FBI also seized boxes containing records covered by attorney-client privilege and potentially executive privilege during its raid._

_Trump and his legal team have filed a motion requesting the appointment of a special master to review those records covered by attorney-client privilege._ 

_But Fox News has learned that a Department of Justice "taint" or "filter" team has been reviewing documents seized by the FBI since Aug. 8._

_The Justice Department’s use of a "taint" or "filter" team, while standard procedure, could complicate Trump’s legal team’s efforts for the appointment of an independent special master to examine the seized records, as it is likely they have already been inspected by DOJ officials._

Who would have guessed? After taking inventory of documents collected, copy everything for the case that will be filed at a later date.

----------


## nidhogg

> Both mens initial pro hac applications on Mon., Aug. 22 were flagged as deficient by the court clerk; the judge then summarily denied the applications because the documents were not filed correctly.
> .


 :rofl: 

Not a great start by the hired guns.....

----------


## panama hat

> Not a great start by the hired guns.....


"The best people, only the best.." Donald J Trump


"Be Best"  Svetlana T., page 37 third advertisement from left.

----------


## S Landreth

Read The Redacted Trump Mar-A-Lago Search Affidavit

More than two weeks after the FBI launched its surprise raid on former President Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago resort, the Department of Justice has unsealed a version of the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant on the property.

Over the departments strong objections, a federal judge in South Florida ordered officials to redact portions of the document that could impact their investigation, and release the rest to the public.

The warrant was issued on Aug. 5 based on claims made in the affidavit, which is a sworn statement often made by an investigator. The document could potentially shine a little more light on why a storm of FBI agents descended on Trumps golf club, where he now lives, to seize a trove of government documents on Aug. 8.

Trump is believed to have taken more than 700 pages of highly classified documents with him to Mar-a-Lago, according to The New York Times, maintaining the state secrets in a padlocked storage space. But little has been made public about their precise contents, or the potential consequences should they be leaked.

The unsealed version is heavily redacted. As the Justice Department argued in a different court filing, the full document is replete with further details that would provide a roadmap for anyone intent on obstructing the investigation.

Mar-A-Lago Search Affidavit: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...6178541021.pdf






Heavily redacted affidavit says 184 classified docs found at Trump residence

A redacted FBI affidavit used to convince a judge for a search warrant for former President Trumps Florida home noted that authorities found 184 classified documents in their initial review of boxes recovered from the home in an effort that began just a few months after he left office. 

The 28-page affidavit contains numerous redactions but indicates authorities believed evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed would be found at Mar-a-Lago.

In a separate filing explaining the rationale behind its redactions, DOJ said it had to protect a broad range of civilian witnesses, warning they would likely face intimidation. 

The release of the redact affidavit follows the disclosure of the warrant that allowed for the search of Trumps home, indicating that storing documents there may have violated the Espionage Act, as well as two other statutes.

One bars concealing, removing and mutilating government documents, and the other prohibits similar actions when done with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence [an] investigation.

An inventory released alongside the warrant indicated the FBI recovered 11 different sets of classified documents during the search, along with information about the president of France and Trumps pardon of his ally Roger Stone.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Learned something new today.




> The PRA is the Presidential Records Act, passed by Congress in the aftermath of Richard Nixon’s failed attempt to take presidential documents with him out of the White House after Watergate.

----------


## S Landreth

Five takeaways from the Mar-a-Lago search affidavit

Agents believed Mar-a-Lago housed more classified documents, evidence of obstruction

Extensive redactions leave DOJs probable cause basis largely unknown

Trump mischaracterized level of cooperation with federal officials

The affidavit offers new details on classified records previously recovered from Trump

Why Trump held on to classified materials a mystery

____________


The stain.

Soon to be amongst the ranks of other third world countries

Former leaders have been jailed or charged all over the world

----------


## Topper

I was just reading the affidavit and there's this part:

18 USC 2071 (bottom of page 5 on to page 6)




> a. Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> b. Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and *shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States*. As used in this subsection, the term office does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


There's several ways to skin a cat it seems.

----------


## Takeovers

> Why Trump held on to classified materials a mystery


Indeed. 

My guess, it is in his personality. He thought he can, the law does not apply to him.

----------


## Cujo

> Indeed. 
> 
> My guess, it is in his personality. He thought he can, the law does not apply to him.


It has been suggested that he stole those documents and insists they're his because there is evidence of a crime in there somewhere.

----------


## S Landreth

> I was just reading the affidavit and there's this part:
> 
> 18 USC 2071 (bottom of page 5 on to page 6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _a. Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> ...


Im still looking for a sedition charge, but concealing, destruction or alteration of records in Federal investigations would suit me fine.

I dont think theres much doubt that this fat loser is going to jail

 
AFFIDAVIT: OBSTRUCTION EVIDENCE SUSPECTED  SPY DOCS AT MAR-A-LAGO


Mar-A-Lago Search Affidavit: Trump Was Insecurely Storing Most Sensitive Intel At Club

The sworn affidavit that prosecutors used to persuade a federal judge to let them search Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago home earlier this month says that classified documents would likely be found there as well as evidence of obstruction, according to a redacted version released Friday.

There is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the PREMISES. There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the PREMISES, the heavily redacted, 38-page affidavit reads.

NDI refers to National Defense Information ― a category of documents considered highly sensitive.

The Department of Justices proposed redactions, and reasons for those redactions, were also released.

The affidavit, filed by an FBI agent from the Washington, D.C., office with training in counterintelligence and espionage investigations, says that the agency was brought in to investigate by the National Archives after officials there found that 15 boxes retrieved from Mar-a-Lago earlier this year included highly classified material.

Of most significant concern was that highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise unproperly [sic] identified, the FBI agent wrote.

The FBI did a preliminary review of the material in those boxes and found documents with classification markings in 14 out of the 15, the special agent wrote, describing the documents using a string of acronyms referring to classified material and FPOTUS for former President Trump:

A preliminary triage of the documents with classification markings revealed the following approximate numbers: 184 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET. Further, the FBI agents observed markings reflecting the following compartments/dissemination controls: HCS, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN, and SI. Based on my training and experience, I know that documents classified at these levels typically contain NDI. Several of the documents also contained what appears to be FPOTUSs handwritten notes.

The categories include HSC, which refers to intelligence information derived from clandestine human sources, and NOFORN, which means that material is not to be released to any foreign governments or nationals.

The agent then quotes from a June 8 letter from the Department of Justice to Trumps lawyers that said the classified material was not being securely controlled.

They have not been handled in an appropriate manner or stored in an appropriate location. Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until further notice, the letter read.

Much of text of the affidavit is entirely blacked out to protect the names of investigators, witnesses and investigative techniques. The entirety of Pages 24 through 28 is just black lines, except for paragraph numbers and a subheading: There is probable cause to believe that documents containing classified NDI and presidential records remain at the premises.

DOJ prosecutors filed the redacted affidavit at the federal courthouse in West Palm Beach, Florida, late Friday morning after Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart ruled on Thursday that he had accepted the redactions prosecutors proposed to the affidavit as narrowly tailored to serve the governments legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire affidavit.

An hour after the release of the affidavit, Trump posted another message on his social media network attacking the FBI, the Justice Department and the judge in the case.

Affidavit heavily redacted!!! Nothing mentioned on Nuclear, a total public relations subterfuge by the FBI & DOJ, or our close working relationship regarding document turnover - WE GAVE THEM MUCH. Judge Bruce Reinhart should NEVER have allowed the Break-In of my home, he wrote on Truth Social.

The former president has publicly demanded the release of the unredacted affidavit but did not make that request in court.

FBI agents searched Trumps tennis and social club in Palm Beach on Aug. 8 and took away boxes of material, including 11 packets of classified documents. Among that set was a batch labeled with the highest classification markings, meant for review only in secure government facilities.

Trump, who had already been attacking the FBI and prosecutors for investigating his actions on and leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection has ramped up criticism of law enforcement since then.

His followers have responded by threatening FBI agents and the Department of Justice, and one Trump supporter was killed in a shootout with police after he tried to attack the FBIs Cincinnati field office.

In addition to the federal criminal investigations, a Georgia prosecutor is separately investigating Trump and his allies attempts to coerce state officials into falsely declaring him the winner in that state.

Trump, despite losing the election by 7 million votes nationally and 306-232 in the Electoral College, became the first president in more than two centuries of elections to refuse to hand over power peacefully. His incitement of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol  his last-ditch attempt to remain in office ― killed five, including one police officer, injured another 140 officers and led to four police suicides.

Nevertheless, Trump remains the dominant figure in the Republican Party and is openly speaking about running for the presidency again in 2024.

In statements on his personal social media platform, Trump has continued to lie about the election and the House Jan. 6 committees work, calling it a hoax similar to previous investigations into his 2016 campaigns acceptance of Russian assistance and his attempted extortion of Ukraine into helping his 2020 campaign.

----------


## thailazer

Crazy to think those documents may have been totally insecure in contracted moving trucks between the White House and Florida.   Anyone could have had at them.

*The move to Mar-a-Lago begins.*Two days before Trump is to leave office, at least two moving trucks are spotted at Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida.
Trump leaves the White House for Mar-a-Lago on Jan. 20. Photographs show boxes of material leaving with him, although those boxes are only a portion of what ultimately made it there.

----------


## DrWilly

> Crazy to think those documents may have been totally insecure in contracted moving trucks between the White House and Florida. Anyone could have had at them.


They may not be complete. Somebody also could also have a bunch already.

----------


## S Landreth

Judge signals she's likely to back Trump request for Mar-a-Lago special master

A federal judge said Saturday shes inclined to grant Donald Trumps request to bring in an outsider to oversee the review of more than two dozen boxes of materials the FBI seized from the former presidents Florida estate earlier this month.

In her brief order, which she emphasized was not a final decision, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon also directed the Justice Department to produce by Tuesday a more detailed list of items seized from Trumps residence on Aug. 8 as well as the status of the governments ongoing review of those materials, which includes the use of a filter team to screen for attorney-client privileged records.

The FBI executed a search warrant of the Mar-a-Lago estate aimed at recovering what a magistrate judge said were highly classified documents in Trumps possession. The search was part of a criminal investigation into alleged willful retention of classified information, theft of government records and obstruction of justice.

Cannon, who was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate about a week after his defeat in 2020, said she plans to hold a hearing Thursday in West Palm Beach on the former presidents request for a special master. She typically convenes court in Fort Pierce, Fla., about an hours drive north of there.

The judges two-page order giving notice of [her] preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case came less than a day after Trumps attorneys late Friday made a pitch for an independent review of the materials seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate and before prosecutors filed any reply.

Cannon gave no indication how she viewed Trumps claims that the search was unnecessary and extreme. Instead, she asked Trump to file a brief responding to the Justice Departments produced list of seized materials. She also asked both sides to describe specifically the role they envision for a special master. And she asked DOJ to reveal the status of its filter review, and whether any investigators outside of the review team had seen the seized materials.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the ruling.

Appointments of special masters to oversee the handling of evidence seized in federal criminal investigations are unusual, but typically have occurred when prosecutors seize records from an attorneys office. Judges in Manhattan used the mechanism in recent years in connection with investigations into two Trump attorneys: Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani.

___________

Enough evidence to indict Donald Trump


___________

Another soon to be trump litmus test this Republican clearly failed.


GOP senator: Trump should have turned over all documents

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Sunday defended former President Trump in the wake of an FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property but noted Trump should have turned over all of the classified documents authorities said he kept after he left the White House.

I understand he turned over a lot of documents. He should have turned over all of them. I imagine he knows that very well now as well, Blunt said on ABCs This Week With George Stephanopoulos.

----------


## S Landreth

It should be at least obstruction.

Trumps narrative takes big hit with affidavits release

One of former President Trumps main claims about the FBIs search of Mar-a-Lago is being undermined by Fridays release of a key affidavit.

Trump has pushed the narrative that he and his lawyers were cooperating with the Department of Justices (DOJ) inquiries about documents from his time in the White House. This, he claims, means that the Aug. 8 raid on his Florida estate was gratuitous.

But the affidavit that persuaded a judge to grant the search warrant tells a different story.

Even in heavily redacted form, the affidavit points out that there was a prolonged process lasting around seven months in 2021 before Trumps team coughed up any documents at all.

It gives a far less friendly account than Team Trump has done of events in June of this year.

The former president and his allies have, for instance, described an affable visit to Mar-a-Lago by a senior DOJ official, Jay Bratt, and three FBI agents on June 3. According to a Trump legal filing earlier this week, one of the FBI agents, having been shown the storage room in which some documents were held, purportedly said, Now it all makes sense.

The same Trump filing refers to a June 8 letter in which the DOJ requested, in pertinent part, that the storage room be secured  a request that is implied to have been met when Trump told staff to put a second lock on the door.

By contrast, the DOJs affidavit quotes a letter on the same date  presumably the same letter  reiterating to a Trump lawyer that there was no secure location authorized for the storage of classified information anywhere at the resort.

The letter makes clear that the DOJs request was not some generalized security check-up but a demand for the preservation of the storage room in its current condition until further notice  phrasing that is far more redolent of an investigation of a possible crime scene than a friendly chat about padlocks.

The filing also includes, as an exhibit, a May 2022 letter from Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran to Bratt, the head of the counterintelligence section of the DOJs national security division.

In the letter, Corcoran argues that presidents have absolute authority to declassify documents and that, in any event, no president can be prosecuted for actions involving classified documents.

Those claims are contentious and, again, strike a different tone than the one Trump and his allies have sought to portray.

Put it all together and the effect on Trumps preferred narrative of the investigation seems stark.

It blows it to smithereens, Harry Litman told this column.

Litman, a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, focused on the various delays by the Trump side as the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and then the DOJ sought missing documents.

The affidavit seeking the search warrant, Litman said, is at the end of an exasperating, very prolonged dallying by them that would never be put up with from any other citizen.

The argument that Trump may simply have declassified all the relevant documents also drew the sharpest comment yet from President Biden, who had previously sought to keep his distance from the investigation.

Ive declassified everything in the world. Im president, I can do it all! Biden sarcastically told reporters at the White House Friday soon after the affidavit became public. Cmon!

Meanwhile, a footnote in the affidavit made clear that the classification status of the documents in question would not have a make-or-break bearing on at least one of the possible crimes being investigated.

Trump, characteristically, is pressing on full-bore with his allegations that he is being mistreated for political reasons over the raid.

He argued in a Truth Social post Friday that the judge in the case, Bruce Reinhart, should NEVER have allowed the Break-In of my home.

He further alleged that Reinhart bore animosity and hatred toward him.

Yet even while deploying his usual combative rhetoric, Trump still insisted that his side had enjoyed a close working relationship regarding document turnover.

Its impossible to square that claim with the FBIs assertion in the affidavit that investigators had probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found in a Mar-a-Lago search.

The bureaus reasons for this assertion remain mysterious, however, given the extensive redactions to the 32-page affidavit.

In a related document also released on Friday, the DOJ contended that the redactions were necessary because of the imperative to protect the safety of multiple civilian witnesses in the burgeoning case.

The department further argued that the government has well-founded concerns that steps may be taken to frustrate or otherwise interfere with this investigation if facts in the affidavit were prematurely disclosed.

Still, information that was disclosed brought a new level of granular detail into the public domain.

In particular, it revealed that of the 15 boxes that had been retrieved from Mar-a-Lago roughly one year after Trump left office, 14 contained information that had classified markings.

In total, the affidavit said, there were 184 such documents, 67 of which were marked as confidential, 92 of which were marked as secret and 25 of which were marked as top secret.

Those details alone disconcert experts in the field.

While we dont know what that information pertains to, by its very definition it could conceivably threaten individuals lives, said Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in national security matters.

Zaid emphasized that it is not yet clear that Trump himself is the target of the criminal investigation, only that investigators believe evidence of a crime could be found at Mar-a-Lago.

Even so, he warned, I do think, based on the affidavit, that the jeopardy faced by one or more people continues to rise.

I dont know who the one or more people are, he added. It could be Mar-a-Lago staff, it could be the president, it could be his lawyers.

____________

Trump had been stonewalling the National Archives since May 2021.

Trump turned over 15 boxes of material to the National Archives in January, which hes used to portray himself as cooperating in the case. But the affidavit kneecaps that defense, noting that the archives had been asking for the material since way back in May 2021.

And as the search earlier this month made abundantly clear, Trump held on to highly sensitive documents even after claiming theyd all been relinquished in January ― and even as his legal representatives formally declared it had been returned.

____________

In other news..


DOJ says only a "limited" number of Trump documents may be privileged

Only a "limited set" of the documents seized by the FBI from former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home may be protected by attorney-client privilege, the Department of Justice said in a court filing Monday.

*Driving the news:* The filing comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Trump last week seeking the appointment of a special master to review the materials seized and prevent the FBI from examining the seized documents until the special master is in place.


A special master, usually a third party like a retired judge, would review the material and determine whether it is protected by attorney-client privilege or other legal doctrines.On Saturday federal judge in Florida signaled her willingness to grant the request for a special master and ordered the DOJ to file a public response to Trump's request as well as file, under seal, a more detailed list of the materials seized from Mar-a-Lago and the status of the review of the materials by Tuesday.

*State of play:* The court filing on Monday acknowledged the judge's order and noted that a more detailed public response, as well as a sealed supplemental filing on the requested list of materials and their status, is forthcoming.


The DOJ revealed in the court filing that its own privilege review team identified a limited set of materials that potentially contain attorney-client privileged information and completed its review of those materials.It is now following procedures set out in the search affidavit for the handling of privileged material, it added.The DOJ is also working with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to conduct a "classification review" of the materials seized in the search, while the ODNI also conducts its own assessment of the natural security risks of the top secret documents obtained.

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/29/don...ited-privilege

Little more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...a-lago-search/

----------


## DrWilly

What a fucking bozo!

----------


## panama hat

Why take all the papers with him in the first place . . . it boggles the mind

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Why take all the papers with him in the first place . . . it boggles the mind


Money.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Mar-a-Lago raid: DOJ opposes special master request

Trump has no right to have special master review seized Mar-a-Lago records, DOJ says

The Department of Justice on Tuesday night urged a federal judge to oppose a request to appoint a special master to review documents seized from the Florida residence of former President Donald Trump earlier this month.

Trump had sued to block the Justice Department from further investigating any materials taken in the raid until a court-appointed special watchdog is able to analyze them.

As an initial matter, the former President lacks standing to seek judicial relief or oversight as to Presidential records because those records do not belong to him, the DOJ wrote in U.S. District Court in southern Florida.

The response came one day after the DOJ revealed to a federal judge that its review of the seized materials was complete.

A law enforcement team identified a limited set of materials that may be protected by attorney-client privilege, the DOJ told the court on Monday. That privilege often refers to the legal doctrine that protects the confidentiality of communications between an attorney and their client.

The so-called Privilege Review Team  which is separate from the investigation that led the FBI to search Trumps residence earlier this month  is following a process to address potential privilege disputes, if any, the DOJ wrote.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, is also leading an intelligence community assessment of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of these materials, according to the filing.

Before the DOJ posted its late-night response, a group of former government officials asked the judge to let them file a brief as amici curiae  Latin for friends of the court  arguing against Trumps requests.

The group included six former federal prosecutors who served in Republican administrations, as well as former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who governed as a Republican but backed President Joe Biden over Trump in 2020.

Trump team likely sought to conceal classified docs at Mar-a-Lago, DOJ tells judge - POLITICO

Prosecutors Fire Back at Trumps Special Master Request

Feds Point Judge to Photo of Secret Documents on the Floor at Mar-a-Lago, Say Trumps Complaints About Search Warrant Are Meritless
 
 
Attachment F: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-8-30-2022.pdf


The Department of Justice said in its filing that it has "evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the governments investigation." DOJ: Classified papers at Mar-a-Lago "likely concealed and removed"

____________


Trump hires former Florida solicitor general in criminal probe of Mar-a-Lago documents

Chris Kise, Floridas former solicitor general who served on Gov. Ron DeSantis transition team, inked a contract to represent Donald Trump in the criminal case that resulted in the FBI search of the former presidents home in Mar-a-Lago, according to two sources with knowledge of the discussions.

Kise, who declined to comment, began negotiations with Trump shortly after the FBIs search of his Palm Beach estate Aug. 8. Numerous other criminal defense attorneys have said they couldnt represent the former president in the Southern District of Florida, citing the all-consuming job of representing Trump or his reputation as a penny-pinching problematic client with a history of having rival advisers who backstab one another, according to five people with knowledge of the legal effort.

Other attorneys declined because their firms wanted to avoid the political blowback of representing such a divisive figure, according to those in Trumps orbit who say that Kise is leaving the firm of Foley & Lardner  where he had briefly represented Venezuelas government two years ago when hostilities with the United States ran high  to take the job. After this story published, the firm removed Kise from its webpage listing its lawyers. Kise now lists his bio on his own website.

Kise has won four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous ones before the Florida Supreme Court, and he also has a reputation as a skilled political knife fighter. In the waning days of the 2018 governors race, Kise widely publicized damaging information about Democrat Andrew Gillum secretly accepting free tickets to the Broadway show "Hamilton" from undercover FBI agents, in contravention of Florida's ethics laws. Gillum, who denied wrongdoing, went on to narrowly lose to DeSantis and was indicted earlier this year following the FBI investigation.

"Chris is a 360-degree lawyer: appellate, civil, criminal, state and federal  he can do it all," said former Florida Sen. George LeMieux, who was the chief of staff to then-Republican Attorney General Charlie Crist in 2003 when the office appointed Kise as state solicitor general.

Brian Ballard, a top lobbyist and fundraiser for Trump and DeSantis, told NBC News that "Chris is not only my friend, he is one of the finest lawyers I have ever met. His unique experience is perfectly suited to assist [former] President Trump.
Ballard also was a top fundraiser in 2006 for DeSantis' current political opponent, Crist, who is now in the Democratic Party and is a member of the U.S. House. After Crist left the governor's mansion, Kise went on to advise the transition team for his Republican gubernatorial successor, Rick Scott, and advised DeSantis' transition after he succeeded Scott.

Kise's hire comes at a crucial time for Trump. His legal representation has been widely derided in recent weeks for suggesting baseless conspiracy theories that the FBI planted evidence during the search to the late and unconventional way it drafted a legal filing for a special master to review some documents that were seized in the search.

But despite the mockery, a Trump-appointed federal judge agreed to hear the special master issue Thursday, when Kise is expected to appear in West Palm Beach federal court for the first time as Trumps attorney.

I wish nothing but the best for Kise, but hope is not a strategy when it comes to working for Trump. I hope he has a good contract, said one attorney who has represented the former president but did not want to speak on record because of the political consequences of crossing him.

Kises exact title is unclear. Boris Epshteyn continues to serve as a top legal adviser to Trump and de facto in-house counsel who helped hire attorneys Jim Trusty and Evan Corcoran.

Over the course of a year, the case that began as a records dispute with the National Archives metastasized into a full-blown criminal investigation that led to the FBIs unprecedented search and seizure of numerous classified documents and secret records. Trump maintains the search was unjustified and he was legally in possession of the documents, a defense many legal experts dispute.

Trusty and Corcoran, who do not live in Florida, are expected to stay on the team for now, but those who understand prosecutions involving classified and sensitive records say Trump might need specialized counsel familiar with criminal cases involving classified documents if hes indicted




> if


 :Smile:

----------


## panama hat

> Money.


I don't believe that is the main factor.  He's got money, whether millions or billions and he can always raise more from the great unwashed and uneducated.  I'd think it's more a matter of knowing he was so powerful, his narcissism drives his every thought

----------


## Topper

The DOJ just responded to the former president's request for a special master, trump got his ass reamed.  

CNN's Coverage


From the DOJ's response

----------


## S Landreth

Trump tells court that classified material should have been expected in presidential records found at Mar-a-Lago

Former President Donald Trump argued in a court filing Wednesday that the National Archives should have expected to find classified material among the 15 boxes Trump turned over in January from Mar-a-Lago because they were presidential records.

The filing acknowledged that classified material was found at Mar-a-Lago, but argued that it should not have been cause for alarm -- and should not have led to the search of Trump's Florida residence earlier this month.

Trump's new filing on Wednesday is his platform to formally respond to prosecutors' assertions that members of his legal team engaged in "obstructive conduct" by concealing documents at his Florida resort and by providing untrue information to investigators about how many classified documents remained on site.

The Justice Department had said in court filings that the search was undertaken after the FBI developed evidence that Trump's team had concealed materials after claiming that all classified materials had been turned over in June.

"The purported justification for the initiation of this criminal probe was the alleged discovery of sensitive information contained within the 15 boxes of Presidential records," Trump's lawyers wrote. "But this 'discovery' was to be fully anticipated given the very nature of Presidential records. Simply put, the notion that Presidential records would contain sensitive information should have never been cause for alarm."

Trump's lawyers argue that under the Presidential Records Act, the Archives should have followed up with a good faith effort to secure recovery of presidential records, rather than referring a criminal probe to the Justice Department.

Trump's new filing

Trump team makes its 11th hour plea for independent review


______________


Five of the biggest takeaways from FBI’s Trump, Mar-a-Lago filing

Alleged obstruction moves into sharper focus

A picture tells a thousand words - The most dramatic element comes on the very last page — a photo, described as a “redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the ’45 office,’” referring to Trump’s office at Mar-a-Lago.

Intrigue builds about secret sources

Scathing response to claims of privilege - But right off the bat, the government asserted that Trump lacks standing to ask for the return of presidential records “because those records do not belong to him.” It quotes the Presidential Records Act as saying that such documents are the property of the government.

Trump fires back, but with few specifics

DOJ details path of obstruction culminating in search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago

______________


What the DOJ’s Footnotes Reveal About the Mar-a-Lago Probe

Four footnotes later, the Justice Department emphasizes Trump made no claims of executive privilege at all when returning the batch of documents months before his home was searched.

“Notably, however, the former President never interposed any executive privilege objection to returning the set of classified documents that was provided by his custodian of records on June 3,” that footnote reads.

Moss was blunt about the significance of this pair of notations.

“They’re sticking the knife into his legal team for not doing this properly, assuming there even was a plausible legal argument to make (there was not),” he told Law&Crime in a message.

For Epner, Trump’s failure to raise the issue in June highlights another problem with his litigation position.

“It makes it clear to any educated person reading this — and [presiding U.S. District] Judge [Aileen] Cannon certainly that — that this was a litigation-created afterthought, not something that was contemporaneously believed,” he said.

Judge Cannon is scheduled to hold a hearing inside the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida on Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.

https://lawandcrime.com/trump/not-si...-a-lago-probe/

_____________


One attachment to its blockbuster filing from Tuesday night appeared to show one of Trump’s attorneys falsely certifying that the former president returned all of the subpoenaed documents to the federal government. Though that attorney’s name is redacted in the certification letter, the New York Times identified her as Christina Bobb, a former TV personality for the right-wing network One America News. https://lawandcrime.com/trump/she-ap...rumps-lawyers/

----------


## panama hat

> Former President Donald Trump argued in a court filing Wednesday that the National Archives should have expected to find classified material among the 15 boxes Trump turned over in January from Mar-a-Lago because they were presidential records.


That is simply brilliant reasoning.  :Smile:   (For a four-year old)

----------


## nidhogg

DOJ has so far been fairly sure footed.  Every time Trump makes a move - it releases more information that is not good for him.

I do wonder if there is a big cherry coming to top it off.  It seems unlikely that he just grabbed documents at random, so I wonder if some of the documents show his involvement with Russia.  That espionage charge might be a bit more motivated than it seems at the moment....

----------


## Shutree

> the National Archives should have expected to find _classified material_ among the 15 boxes Trump turned over in January from Mar-a-Lago because they were presidential records.


Which he was not legally entitled to possess.
How has he deceived so many for so long?

----------


## Topper

> I do wonder if there is a big cherry coming to top it off.


Probably not until after the midterms.

----------


## thailazer

> Probably not until after the midterms.


The DOJ is still protecting the working investigation that is ongoing.   It does make one wonder what the golden ring is in all of this.

----------


## Topper

> The DOJ is still protecting the working investigation that is ongoing. It does make one wonder what the golden ring is in all of this.


I'm guessing any indictments won't be until after the midterms.  I'm guessing the lawyer that signed the statement saying everything was turned over will be the first to get an invitation to plead their guilt or the lack of mid November.  Then, after getting her testimony, they'll do the orangutan.

----------


## S Landreth

^
Christina Bobb


Trump lawyers could be witnesses  or targets  in DOJ obstruction probe

Christina Bobb and Evan Corcoran, two of former President Donald Trump's lawyers, are facing scrutiny for their interactions with the Justice Department over classified material, and legal experts told The Guardian they could soon be witnesses or targets of the obstruction investigation.

For several months, the government has been working to recover classified material and other records that Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, his home and club in Florida, with Bobb and Corcoran speaking to officials on behalf of Trump. On Tuesday, the Justice Department submitted a court filing in response to Trump's request for an independent review of the material removed from Mar-a-Lago earlier this month, and wrote in the document that on June 3, Bobb and Corcoran made claims to the DOJ that were false.

The filing states that the Justice Department's chief of counterintelligence, Jay Bratt, and three FBI agents went to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve material that had been subpoenaed. Bobb and Corcoran turned the documents over in an envelope, and Bobb also produced and signed a letter confirming all of the subpoenaed documents were there. Corcoran went on to indicate that the material had been in one storage room, the filing said. However, the Justice Department said it received evidence from several sources showing classified material from the White House remained at Mar-a-Lago, which was proven this month when FBI agents executed a search warrant and found hundreds of classified documents.

The Justice Department said it is "likely" that on June 3, the lawyers were attempting to conceal presidential and classified documents from the government, and it "raises the prospect that both Bobb and Corcoran could become witnesses in the obstruction investigation," The Guardian writes. Legal experts say federal prosecutors must decide whether Bobb and Corcoran deliberately misled the Justice Department, making them targets of the probe, or they gave false information because they were deceived by Trump. Bobb and Corcoran have not commented on the matter.

Trump's lawyers may become witnesses or targets in FBI documents investigation

"If the Justice Department is going to pursue criminal charges, any prosecutor is going to want to have on the record the full picture of what happened, which will require the testimony of all the witnesses with the relevant knowledge  and that certainly includes lawyers here," said Samuel Buell, a Duke University professor of criminal law and former prosecutor.

Any attempt to subpoena the two lawyers for testimony and written communications about their discussions with Trump about the matter would immediately set off a legal fight over attorney-client privilege, legal specialists said.

----------


## S Landreth

Delay denied for now


Judge withholds ruling on special master in Trump, DOJ battle

A federal judge on Thursday declined to issue an immediate decision in a case brought by former President Trump whose attorneys asked the court to appoint a third party legal expert to review evidence seized by the FBI when they searched his Florida home.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon said she will issue a ruling at some point on whether to appoint a so-called special master to review the evidence and temporarily block the Justice Department’s investigation into the mishandling of classified records due to their storage at Mar-a-Lago. She did not specify a timeline for when she might issue that decision.

Cannon last Saturday wrote that it was her “preliminary intent” to appoint a special master, but that was before each side made its case during Thursday’s hearing.

The Miami Herald reported that during Thursday’s hearing, it was revealed that more than 300 classified documents had been obtained by federal authorities since Trump left office. Those documents were either turned over by Trump or seized during the search at Mar-a-Lago, the news outlet reported.

The hearing came after the Justice Department filed a lengthy brief asking the court to reject Trump’s request, arguing investigators not assigned to the case have already reviewed the evidence to scan for personal property as well as any materials that might be covered by attorney-client privilege.

Trump’s legal team has argued that a special master would help shield the government from obtaining any information that should not have been swept up in the search. But they’ve also argued Trump had a right to retain presidential records due to executive privilege.

The government has flatly rejected that argument, noting that presidential records are property of the government and must be managed by the National Archives.

The department has also expressed concerns that the appointment could delay the investigation, in part because a special master probably would need to obtain a security clearance to review the records and special authorization from intelligence agencies.

From the Miami Herald link above: Cannon, who was nominated as a federal judge by Trump, said Thursday that, rather than rule from the bench, she would issue a written order. She did not give a time frame for when she would make her decision.

Little more: Judge Doesn't Immediately Rule on Trump-Special Master Issue

Judge considers temporary limit on DOJ access to Trump documents

----------


## Topper

The list of shite that the former president stole has been released....

The Stuff Trump Took

----------


## S Landreth

^took and some misplaced


Unsealed Mar-a-Lago inventory details items recovered from Trump’s office

Justice Department records unsealed on Friday offer new details about the volume of documents former President Trump stored in his personal office at Mar-a-Lago, as well as other items seized during the search of his Florida home.

The filing underscores just how many presidential records Trump was storing at his home and offers a breakdown of the more than 100 classified documents the Department of Justice (DOJ) says it recovered from Mar-a-Lago.

FBI agents found 43 empty folders with classified banners in Trump’s personal office as well as another 28 empty folders that were labeled “return to staff secretary/military aide,” according to the inventory.

The records were unsealed Friday by order of a federal judge who is reviewing a request from Trump to appoint a third-party special master to review the evidence seized, including a motion to block the FBI’s investigation during that review.

The inventory offers few new details about the classified materials themselves stored at Mar-a-Lago, but it does shed light on the extent classified materials were intermixed with Trump’s personal belongings.

A brief filed by the government just before midnight Tuesday indicated they found three classified records within Trump’s very own desk.
 
But the Friday inventory details in broad strokes the others that were found within his office: three documents marked confidential, 17 documents marked secret and seven documents marked top-secret.

Their location in Trump’s office could be significant to the Justice Department’s investigation, particularly after it alleged earlier this week that items were “likely concealed and removed.”

Storage in Trump’s personal office, rather than the storage room at Mar-a-Lago, could undercut potential claims that staff were unaware of the extent classified materials were stored on the property.

Earlier review of items seized indicates some of the items recovered were stored alongside Trump’s passports.

In a filing accompanying the latest inventory, the Justice Department noted that “all evidence — including the nature and manner in which they were stored” — will inform their investigation.

An FBI affidavit the DOJ used to request the warrant that allowed for the search indicated the storage of such documents at Mar-a-Lago could constitute a violation of the Espionage Act.

And the Tuesday filing from DOJ also expanded on the government’s rationale for including an obstruction statute on its warrant, breaking down numerous efforts to recover documents and indicating Trump’s team failed to turn over some documents even after receiving a subpoena.

The filing also breaks down the staggering number of government documents Trump was storing at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump retained nearly 10,000 of what the Justice Department calls “US government documents/photographs without classification markings.”

Of those, 1,463 records were kept in Trump’s office with another 8,141 kept in the storage room at Mar-a-Lago.

Though the documents weren’t classified, it’s another important detail in the case. While DOJ’s investigation has primarily been focused on the tranche of classified records in Trump’s home, they’ve also duked it out with Trump’s team over what they say are presidential records that must be returned.

Part of Trump’s argument for a special master is that documents taken from his home could be protected by attorney-client as well as executive privileges.

But DOJ said Trump may have violated the Presidential Records Act by keeping presidential records that former executives have always turned over to the National Archives.

The Justice Department said Tuesday that Trump’s claim that some of the materials may be covered by executive privilege only strengthen their case that he improperly took records that are government property and should be managed by Archives.

“Any Presidential records seized pursuant to the search warrant belong to the United States, not to the former President,” DOJ wrote.

“Plaintiff’s Motion, in fact, asserts that ‘the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022 . . . were created during his term as President.’ These are precisely the types of documents that likely constitute Presidential records.”

inventory list: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-inventory.pdf

____________

*Extra*


Barr defends DOJ in Trump investigation: ‘They probably have pretty good evidence’

Former Attorney General William Barr suggested the Department of Justice (DOJ) likely has a strong case that former President Trump improperly took classified documents from the White House when he left office amid an ongoing investigation into the matter.

----------


## Cujo

> The list of shite that the former president stole has been released....
> 
> The Stuff Trump Took


A lot of EMPTY folders marked classified.

----------


## panama hat

Let's just close our eyes and replace the name Trump with Joao Figueroas, Salvador Balledes, Mandouga, N'Doubila, Somchai Papatnapong, Fan Ling Pin . . . we'd be laughing about the banana republic-like goings-on.  

This is at that level

----------


## harrybarracuda



----------


## Topper

Here's what happens to a regular person who messed up with classified info....




> A former civilian employee of the Defense Department was sentenced Thursday to three months in prison after admitting to taking materials containing classified information to her hotel room and to her personal residence. The ex-employee's sentencing coincidentally came the same week of revelations that the National Archives had raised concerns about government documents found at the Florida residence of former President Donald Trump in recent months. The Archives asked the Justice Department to investigate the matter, prompting questions of whether the handling of classified information and government documents could lead to a criminal probe.
> 
> The declassification authorities Trump held as president could limit his criminal liability and questions remain whether he had declassified any of the documents that had been found at Mar-a-Lago.
> 
> The ex-Defense Department employee sentenced Thursday, Asia Janay Lavarello, was on a temporary assignment at the US Embassy in Manilla when she took classified documents from the embassy to her hotel room, according to court filings. She hosted a dinner party at her hotel on the day she removed the documents, March 20, 2020, and an embassy co-worker in attendance found the documents, which had classified markings on them, according to the court filings.
> 
> Lavarello was working on a classified thesis at the time, her lawyer Birney Bervar told CNN. She had been encouraged to pursue the thesis and been working on it at the embassy's secure information facility until Covid-19 shut things down earlier that year, her lawyer said. The documents she took home were three other classified theses, her lawyer told CNN, and she had no intention of transmitting the classified information or of harming the United States.
> 
> Lavarello was confronted about the documents that night, according to her plea agreement, but she did not take steps that night to return them to the embassy's secure information facility. With the help of one of the dinner party guests, she returned the documents to a safe in the embassy two days later, the court filings said, but she did not return the documents to the secure information facility as she had said at the time that she would do.
> ...


3 months for 3 classified theses.  Based on that ratio, the former president will be gone a long time, if he's held to the same standard as an average citizen.

----------


## S Landreth

Scrutiny builds over FBIs discovery of empty folders at Mar-a-Lago

Among the material allegedly seized from former President Trumps home were numerous empty folders that once contained classified information or intel designated to be returned to the military, renewing questions over fallout from the potential mishandling of records and if they have since been recovered.

In an inventory from the Justice Department unsealed by a judge Friday, the government detailed that interspersed with Trumps personal belongings were 48 empty folders with classified banners as well as another 42 empty folders that were labeled return to staff secretary/military aide, according to the filing.

The majority were found in Trumps office, rather than the storage room at Mar-a-Lago.

Its not clear if the materials the folders once housed are elsewhere in the boxes of recovered evidence, but experts say the suite of questions the detail raises argues in favor of allowing the Justice Department to continue its investigation, even as Trump seeks to stall its progress.

The ideal scenario that would describe this is that the empty folders are actually for the records that are somewhere else in the boxes  that someone just didnt keep them in the folder in the way they were supposed to, so theyre not actually out there in the wild somewhere, said Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors, a nonprofit law firm specializing in national security law.

The least optimistic scenario is that they are nowhere to be found because they are already with someone else.

The inventory list was given to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon shortly before she heard arguments from Trumps legal team asking to stall the FBI investigation so that a third-party special master could review the evidence to protect what they claim could be privileged material. The DOJ has argued such a move is unnecessary as its own team of staff not assigned to the case has already reviewed the evidence for privileged material.

Beyond the empty folders, the Friday inventory details in broad strokes the other types of documents that were found within Trumps office among the tranche of more than 100 recovered classified records: three documents marked confidential, 17 documents marked secret and seven documents marked top-secret.

Larry Pfeiffer, who previously served as senior director of the White House Situation Room and was chief of staff at the CIA, said the system for tracking classified documents should allow investigators to account for what information should be in the folders and determine if it is still on site.

But he expressed concern that the fact that they even ended up at Mar-a-Lago could mean proper record-keeping  even with career national security staffers on hand at the White House  may not have been taken seriously.

To me, it sounds like there was either a horrific systemic breakdown in those processes, No. 1., or those people just felt completely intimidated by Trump and the people around him. Or there were people who were completely operating around the system  that documents were flowing in and out of the Oval and up into the residence without ever going through this tracking process, Pfeiffer told The Hill.

I think its possible it was a mistake. I think its possible they were folders that were holding the documents that were already found. But I worry it could have been folders that had other documents in them and now the mystery is where are the other documents? And thats the scary part.

That includes the materials that expressly directed they be returned to the military.

Anything that was in the folder should have been returned. The folder being there suggests it wasnt, Pfeiffer said.

Little more to the article. Good read

_____________

*Some older news I never got around to posting but this might be a good time.*


Intel officials will assess risk to national security from documents found at Trumps Mar-a-Lago

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said her office will lead a damage assessment of the documents that were removed from former President Donald Trump Mar-a-Lago home, in a letter to congressional lawmakers, obtained by NBC News Saturday.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or DNI, which oversees the CIA, the National Security Agency and 16 other agencies, will lead an Intelligence Community assessment of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of the relevant documents, Haines wrote in the letter, dated Friday.

The DNI and Department of Justice are "working together to facilitate a classification review of relevant materials, including those recovered during the search," Haines wrote, adding that both teams will coordinate closely to ensure the assessment doesnt interfere with the Justice Department's ongoing criminal investigation.

The letter was addressed to House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and House Oversight Committee chair Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who had both asked for a security damage assessment days after the FBI searched Trump's Florida club on Aug. 8. The Senate intelligence committee has also asked for a damage assessment as well as further details about the substances of the documents but is yet to receive any details.

I suspect that the Biden administration is being super careful right now not to appear to be involved beyond the independent FBI and Justice Department, a former senior intelligence official told NBC News earlier this month.

In a statement Saturday, a spokesperson from Haines office said the assessment we are leading is consistent with the bipartisan request from the Senate intelligence committee.

A redacted copy of the FBI affidavit used to justify the search, unsealed Friday, said that agents had conducted a preliminary review in mid-May of the contents of 15 boxes of documents that Trump returned to the National Archives from his Florida property in January, and identified documents with classification markings in fourteen of the FIFTEEN BOXES.

Agents found 184 unique documents that had classification markings, the affidavit said, with 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET, 67 documents marked as confidential and 92 marked secret.

Agents removed 11 additional sets of classified documents, including some labeled secret and top secret, during the Mar-a-Lago search, according to the property receipt of items that were recovered. There were also papers described as SCI documents, which stands for highly classified sensitive compartmented information.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart approved the warrant that allowed federal agents to search Trumps Florida property after determining that the affidavit provided probable cause. He ruled Thursday that the document could be unsealed after the Justice Department submitted proposed redactions.

In a joint statement Saturday, Maloney and Schiff said, We are pleased that in response to our inquiry, Director Haines has confirmed that the Intelligence Community and Department of Justice are assessing the damage caused by the improper storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago."

The redacted affidavit, they said, "affirms our grave concern that among the documents stored at Mar-a-Lago were those that could endanger human sources. It is critical that the [intel community] move swiftly to assess and, if necessary, to mitigate the damage done  a process that should proceed in parallel with DOJs criminal investigation.

Intel officials to assess national security fallout from Trumps Mar-a-Lago documents

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ: Trump required to comply with subpoena even if he'd declassified documents

Former President Trump was required to return all documents marked as classified as part of a grand jury subpoena issued in May, regardless of whether the former president believed he'd declassified the documents, the Department of Justice wrote in an Aug. 29 court filing made public Friday.

*The big picture:* Trump has put forth a number of reasons to justify why troves of documents, including some with "top secret" and "confidential" markings, were at his Mar-a-Lago residence.


Trump and his team have claimed he had a "standing order" dictating that documents taken from the Oval Office to his residence were deemed declassified upon their removal, Axios' Shawna Chen writes.Former national security adviser John Bolton and former Attorney General Bill Barr have both thrown doubt on the claim.Trump and his team have made public comments alluding to the documents being declassified by Trump but have been careful to not to actually assert the claim in legal proceedings, the Washington Post reported.

*What they're saying:* As part of the grand jury investigation into Trump's handling of records, the grand jury issued a subpoena on May 11 requesting all documents "bearing classification markings," the court filing stated.


As part of an "exchange of correspondence" in which Trump's team sought a deadline extension to respond to the subpoena, they asked the Justice Department to "consider a few 'principles,' including the claim that a President has absolute authority to declassify documents (although counsel did not actually assert that FPOTUS had done so)," the filing added.The government notes that the subpoena sought documents bearing classification markings, and therefore a complete response would not turn on whether or not responsive documents had been purportedly declassified, the Justice Department claimed in the court filing.

*Worth noting:* Even if Trump had declassified the documents, they still would have needed to go to the National Archives, per Bloomberg.

https://www.axios.com/2022/09/04/doj...ified-document

___________

*Just for fun*

Trump suggests the Mar-a-Lago documents were bound for his library. But advisers say he's rarely talked about it. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...y-ta-rcna46129

Barb McQuade - For obvious reasons, top-secret documents cannot be displayed in a library.

This is the 6th story hes used as a defense:

(1) I dont have any
(2) If only youd asked
(3) FBI planted them
(4) Theyre mine
(5) DECLASSIFIED!
(6) displayed in a library

Kind of a tell that youre just making it up as you go. https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/stat...48381333061633

----------


## S Landreth

Judge grants Trump request for special master to review Mar-a-Lago docs

A federal judge on Monday accepted former President Trump's bid for a special master to review evidence seized by the FBI in the search at his Mar-a-Lago residence last month.

*Driving the news:* Judge Aileen Cannon ruled for a special master to be appointed "to review the seized property for personal items and documents and potentially privileged material subject to claims of attorney-client and/or executive privilege," per the filing.


Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge, in the order also "temporarily enjoins the government from reviewing and using the seized materials for investigative purposes pending completion of the special masters review or further Court order."

*Between the lines: "*This order shall not impede the classification review and/or intelligence assessment," Cannon wrote.

*The big picture:* In a filing last week, Trump's legal team accused the Department of Justice of "criminalizing" his possession of presidential records.


"Left unchecked, the DOJ will impugn, leak, and publicize selective aspects of their investigation with no recourse for [Trump] but to somehow trust the self-restraint of currently unchecked investigators," per the court filing.

*The DOJ has opposed Trump's request* for the third-party attorney, citing "national security interests."


The DOJ also rebuked Trump's claims that the documents are shielded by attorney-client and executive privileges. The Justice Department has argued that the records belong to the government, not Trump.

*What to watch:* Cannon gave the DOJ and Trump's legal team until Sept. 9 to submit a filing that includes a list of proposed special master candidates.


https://www.axios.com/2022/09/05/tru...ter-fbi-ruling - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ster-order.pdf

----------


## harrybarracuda

"That KFC menu is mine!"

"Yes, but you wrote the nuclear codes on it, you fat orange wanker".

----------


## David48atTD

James Trusty, a lawyer for Mr Trump, compared the former president  keeping classified documents to hanging on to an "overdue library book".

----------


## harrybarracuda

> James Trusty, a lawyer for Mr Trump, compared the former president  keeping classified documents to hanging on to an "overdue library book".


Yes, if you borrowed "Top Secret Nuclear Launch Codes by P. Entagon" from the non-fiction section.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Lawyers Missed Deadline in Clinton RICO Case

Judge Reminds Donald Trumps Attorneys of Missed Deadline for Claims Involving Adam Schiff and Rod Rosenstein in Hillary Clinton RICO Lawsuit

A federal judge on Friday reminded Donald Trumps lawyers that they missed an important filing deadline regarding government efforts to dismiss itself as a substitute defendant for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif. 28) and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in RICO civil lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and a number of the ex-presidents perceived political foes.

Accordingly, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks took matters into his own hands by giving Trumps lawyers one more chance to keep their case alive against the U.S. government as a substituted party for the congressman and the ex-Department of Justice official.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte, Middlebrooks wrote in a two-page order on Friday.  On August 18, 2022, the United States filed a Motion to Substitute and Dismiss as to Defendants Adam Schiff and Rod Rosenstein. That same date, I granted the United States motion in part, and entered an Order substituting the United States as Defendant for Mr. Schiff and Mr. Rosenstein. In the same Order, I expressly deferred ruling on the United States dismissal arguments.

Middlebrooks noted that he was waiting for a response on that final issue but that none was forthcoming by the ordered deadline:

Plaintiffs response to the United States motion was due on September 1, 2022. The record does not reflect that Plaintiff has filed a response, nor has Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to do so. In the interest of rendering a fully informed ruling on the issues raised in the United States motion, I will accept a late-filed substantive response, if Plaintiff chooses to submit one. To this end, I will extend the filing deadline to September 6, 2022.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...4-9-2-2022.pdf 


_____________

*Just for fun.*

Hillary Clinton - I cant believe were still talking about this, but my emails

As Trumps problems continue to mount, the right is trying to make this about me again. Theres even a Clinton Standard."

The fact is that I had zero emails that were classified. https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/s...64268172173315

----------


## S Landreth

WaPo: Material on foreign nations nuclear capabilities seized at Trumps Mar-a-Lago

Some seized documents were so closely held, only the president, a Cabinet-level or near-Cabinet level official could authorize others to know

A document describing a foreign governments military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, was found by FBI agents who searched former president Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence and private club last month, according to people familiar with the matter, underscoring concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about classified material stashed in the Florida property.

Some of the seized documents detail top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them. Only the president, some members of his Cabinet or a near-Cabinet level official could authorize other government officials to know details of these special access programs, according to people familiar with the search, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive details of an ongoing investigation.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...00631836205057

The revelation severely undercuts Mr Trumps defence  that the documents are harmless or meant for a future presidential library or other projects.

__________


Material on foreign nations nuclear capabilities seized at Trumps Mar-a-Lago

A document describing a foreign governments military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, was found by FBI agents who searched former president Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence and private club last month, according to people familiar with the matter, underscoring concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about classified material stashed in the Florida property.

Some of the seized documents detail top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them. Only the president, some members of his Cabinet or a near-Cabinet level official could authorize other government officials to know details of these special access programs, according to people familiar with the search, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive details of an ongoing investigation.

Documents about such highly classified operations require special clearances on a need-to-know basis, not just top-secret clearance. Some special-access programs can have as few as a couple dozen government personnel authorized to know of an operations existence. Records that deal with such programs are kept under lock and key, almost always in a secure compartmented information facility, with a designated control officer to keep careful tabs on their location.

But such documents were stored at Mar-a-Lago, with uncertain security, more than 18 months after Trump left the White House.

After months of trying, according to government court filings, the FBI has recovered more than 300 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago this year: 184 in a set of 15 boxes sent to the National Archives and Records Administration in January, 38 more handed over by a Trump lawyer to investigators in June, and more than 100 additional documents unearthed in a court-approved search on Aug. 8.

It was in this last batch of government secrets, the people familiar with the matter said, that the information about a foreign governments nuclear-defense readiness was found. These people did not identify the foreign government in question, say where at Mar-a-Lago the document was found or offer additional details about one of the Justice Departments most sensitive national security investigations.
A Trump spokesman did not immediately comment. Spokespeople for the Justice Department and FBI declined to comment.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is conducting a risk assessment, to determine how much potential harm was posed by the removal from government custody of hundreds of classified documents.

The Washington Post previously reported that FBI agents who searched Trumps home were looking, in part, for any classified documents relating to nuclear weapons. After that story published, Trump compared it on social media to a host of previous government investigations into his conduct. Nuclear weapons issue is a Hoax, just like Russia, Russia, Russia was a Hoax, two Impeachments were a Hoax, the Mueller investigation was a Hoax, and much more. Same sleazy people involved, he wrote, going on to suggest that FBI agents might have planted evidence against him.

A grand jury subpoena issued May 11 demanded the return of all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings, including Top Secret, and the lesser categories of Secret and Confidential.

The subpoena, issued to Trumps custodian of records, then listed more than two dozen sub-classifications of documents, including S/FRD, an acronym for Formerly Restricted Data, which is reserved for information that relates primarily to the military use of nuclear weapons. Despite the formerly in the title, the term does not mean the information is no longer classified.

One person familiar with the Mar-a-Lago search said the goal of the comprehensive list was to ensure recovery of all classified records on the property, and not just those that investigators had reason to believe might be there.

Investigators grew alarmed, according to one person familiar with the search, as they began to review documents retrieved from the clubs storage closet, Trumps residence and his office in August. The team soon came upon records that are extremely restricted, so much so that even some of the senior-most national security officials in the Biden administration werent authorized to review them. One government filing alluded to this information when it noted that counterintelligence FBI agents and prosecutors investigating the Mar-a-Lago documents were not authorized at first to review some of the material seized.

Among the 100-plus classified documents taken in August, some were marked HCS, a category of highly classified government information that refers to HUMINT Control Systems, which are systems used to protect intelligence gathered from secret human sources, according to a court filing. A partially unsealed affidavit said documents found in the boxes that were sent to the National Archives in January related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. There was also material that was never meant to be shared with foreign nations.

The investigation into possible mishandling of classified information, as well as possible hiding, tampering or destruction of government records, grew even more complex Monday when a federal judge in Florida granted Trumps request to appoint a special master to review the material seized in the Aug. 8 search and weed out documents that may be covered by executive privilege  a legal standard that, as applied to former presidents, is poorly defined.

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon ruled the special master also will sift through all of the nearly 13,000 documents and items the FBI took to identify any that might be protected by attorney-client privilege, even though Justice Department lawyers have said a filter team has already completed that task.

Cannons ruling could slow down and complicate the governments criminal probe, particularly if the Justice Department decides to appeal over the unsettled and tricky questions of what executive privilege a former president may have. The judge ruled that investigators cannot use the seized material in their investigation until the special master concludes his or her examination.

A special master has yet to be appointed; Cannon has asked Trump and the Justice Department to agree on a list of qualified candidates by Friday. Legal experts noted that the Justice Department can still interview witnesses, use other evidence and present information to a grand jury while the special master examines the seized material.

In her order, Cannon said the appointment of a special master was necessary to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances presented.

She also reasoned that a special master could mitigate potential harm to Trump by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public, suggesting that knowledge or details of the case were harmful to the former president, and could be lessened by inserting a special master into the document-review process.

As a function of Plaintiffs former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own, Cannon wrote. A future indictment, based to any degree on property that ought to be returned, would result in reputational harm of a decidedly different order of magnitude.

While the FBI search has drawn strong condemnation from Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the Justice Department of acting with political malice against a past president who may seek the office again in 2024, some Republicans have said the action might have been necessary.

In an interview that aired Friday, former Trump attorney general William P. Barr said there is no reason classified documents should have been at Mar-a-Lago after Trump was out of office.

People say this was unprecedented, Barr told Fox News. But its also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club, okay?

WaPo no paywall site. https://archive.ph/2022.09.06-235953/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/06/trump-nuclear-documents/#selection-1055.0-1127.125

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ has until Friday

What others are saying about the ruling, which will not save trump.


DOJ Considers Whether to Appeal Judge's Special Master Order

Experts Pan Ruling Appointing Special Master for Mar-a-Lago Docs as Far Out of the Mainstream, But View Possible DOJ Appeal as Risky

Appealing a federal judges order appointing a special master to review thousands of files seized from former President Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence could spell delays and an uncertain outcome.

Im sure [the DOJ is] puzzling over it now, noted CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York.

They obviously made clear to the judge that they wanted her to craft an order in such a way that it would allow them to appeal, Rodgers continued. So what theyre gonna have to think about is: What is the makeup of the 11th Circuit? Whats the likelihood that theyre gonna get a ruling that they like or not? How much damage does this actually do to their case?

Trump appointed six judges to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, a conservative jurisdiction thats the first destination for any appeal. Rodgers predicted the actual fallout of the ruling on the governments investigation would be limited.

So did attorney Bradley Moss, a prominent national security lawyer.

If youre the DOJ in this circumstance, you have to take into consideration the possibility that this ruling will be essentially a one-off  that no other criminal suspects will ever warrant the particular consideration and factual analysis that applies here to a former president, Moss told Law&Crime. And so you have to take into consideration: Is it worth it to spend the time and effort and the delay to potentially get this overturned, recognizing that nothings guaranteed, or do you plow ahead with the special master, confident that youve got the law on your side at that stage  and secure enough in the idea that whatever damage comes from this ruling going forward, itll be minimal, if anything.

Rodgers opined that the ruling was wrong on the law  and lends unfortunate credence to Trumps broadsides against the government without any basis for that whatsoever. Still, she believed that the ruling would have limited fallout for the governments probe.

I just think at the end of the day, outside of maybe four or five weeks of delay, I dont think its a huge impediment to DOJ investigation, she said in a phone interview.

For now, the Justice Department has not announced whether it will appeal the ruling, telling reporters only that it is reviewing the ruling and considering appropriate next steps. It will need to make a decision quickly: Cannon ordered the parties to provide a list of special master candidates by Friday, Sept. 9.

----------


## David48atTD

Trump faces a slew of investigations and lawsuits —  and they’re heating up as he weighs White House run



*Key Points*
As  Donald Trump considers whether to make a third run for the White House,  the former president faces a raft of official investigations and civil  lawsuits.The investigations are focused on efforts to overturn  Trump’s 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden, the removal of White  House records to Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago and the Jan. 6 Capitol  riot.The FBI raided Mar-a-Lago this week and removed about a dozen boxes, a lawyer for Trump said. 


*Federal criminal investigation into White House records removal*

The records probe on Monday vaulted to being potentially the biggest legal threat to Trump, after his stunning revelation that a team of FBI agents was raiding his residence at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.



*Georgia criminal investigation of Trump for interference in state’s 2020 presidential election*

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’  office is presenting evidence and testimony to a special grand jury in  Atlanta impaneled to investigate Trump and a number of his allies in  connection with their attempts to get officials in Georgia to undo  President Joe Biden’s election win there.

Before Monday’s  Mar-a-Lago raid by the FBI, some legal observers considered the Fulton  County probe to be the most pressing threat of criminal prosecution to  Trump. It still may be.

Willis, a Democrat, in particular is  eyeing a Jan. 2, 2021, call Trump placed to Georgia Secretary of State  Brad Raffensperger. 
During that conversation, the then-president asked  Raffensperger to “find” Trump more than 11,700 votes to reverse his  margin of defeat by Biden.

The DA also is investigating contacts  Trump allies had with the state’s attorney general, and the top federal  prosecutor for the Northern District of Georgia.

Trump faces investigations, lawsuits as he weighs White House run

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ appeals special master ruling in Trump documents probe

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday filed a notice of intent to appeal a ruling by a judge granting former President Trumps request for a special master, asking the judge to partially stay a ruling blocking them from accessing the classified materials seized during a search of his home.

Without a stay, the government and public also will suffer irreparable harm from the undue delay to the criminal investigation, the DOJ writes in its filing.

Any delay poses significant concerns in the context of an investigation into the mishandling of classified records.

The motion for a partial stay would allow the government to continue its review of the classified records recovered from Trumps home, removing from review by a yet-to-be-appointed third-party special master some 100 documents of roughly 10,000 taken in the Aug. 8 search.

The appeal itself will continue to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes six Trump appointees on the bench.

The filing digs into District Judge Aileen Cannons logic on a number of areas, pointing to many of the same issues in a ruling legal scholars largely panned as troubling.

But the bulk of the argument for a partial stay of her ruling granting a special master relies on the impact her decision could have on national security.

Cannon allowed an intelligence community-led review of the documents to continue so that national security leaders could work to mitigate any fallout from the mishandling of records.


But the DOJs brief argues the intelligence communitys damage assessment and its own criminal investigation are inextricably intertwined.

The ongoing Intelligence Community (IC) classification review and assessment are closely interconnected withand cannot be readily separated fromareas of inquiry of DOJs and the FBIs ongoing criminal investigation, they write, taking pains to note that the FBI itself is a part of the intelligence community.

The intelligence community has had access to an earlier tranche of records turned over by Trump since May, after the National Archives recovered 184 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago in January.

Before the Courts Order, the same personnel from the FBI involved in the criminal investigation were coordinating appropriately with the IC in its review and assessment, DOJ wrote, adding that the order frustrate[s] the governments ability to conduct an effective national security risk assessment and classification review and could preclude the government from taking necessary remedial steps in light of that reviewrisking irreparable harm to our national security and intelligence interests.

DOJ even specifically points to the 48 empty folders with classified banners as well as another 42 empty folders that were labeled return to staff secretary/military aide that were recovered during the search of Mar-a-Lago.

It is the FBI, they say, that would typically carry out an investigation into such a matter.

Within the United States, the FBI would pursue any allegation or lead indicating that the classified records may have been accessed, retained, or disseminated in violation of the law, including by using the tools and authorities of a criminal investigation, the filing states.

If, for example, another department or agency in the IC were to obtain intelligence indicating that a classified document in the seized materials might have been compromised, the FBI would be responsible for taking some of the necessary steps to evaluate that risk.

The filing includes a declaration from Alan Kohler, assistant director for the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI, backing DOJs argument and calling the two investigations inextricably linked.

DOJs filing comes ahead of a Friday deadline to work with Trumps legal team to propose a list of candidates to serve as the special master responsible for reviewing the documents.

Elsewhere in the motion for a stay, DOJ picks apart the argument that Trump would have any executive privilege claims to classified records.

The classification markings establish on the face of the documents that they are government records, not Plaintiffs personal records. The governments review of those records does not raise any plausible attorney-client privilege claims because such classified records do not contain communications between Plaintiff and his private attorneys. And for several reasons, no potential assertion of executive privilege could justify restricting the Executive Branchs review and use of the classified records at issue here, DOJ argued.

There is no valid purpose to be served by a special masters review of classified materials.

DOJ also noted that Trumps legal team never raised the concept of being able to claim executive privilege over any classified records after Trumps custodian of records was subpoenaed in May and asked to turn over any remaining documents.

To the extent that Plaintiff believed that any such records could be subject to a valid assertion of executive privilege, he should have advised the government of such a claim at that time and could have attempted to pursue such a claim through a motion to quash. But despite having several weeks to respond to the subpoena, plaintiff did not do so, DOJ wrote.

Trump mocked the appeal on his social media platform, saying that DOJ was going to spend Millions of Dollars, & vast amounts of Time & Energy, to appeal the Order on the Raid of Mar-a-Lago Document Hoax, by a brilliant and courageous Judge whose words of wisdom rang true throughout our Nation.

DOJs appeal of the ruling came after many legal experts said they had but little choice to fight the decision, even if additional litigation could also drag out its ability to reinitiate review of classified records in a crucial step for its investigation.

Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney, said if the Justice Departments primary goal is to indict Trump, an appeal could slow that process. But if DOJ decides the main goal is to protect executive privilege and its limitations from the potential precedent set by Cannons ruling, then a challenge makes more sense.

They may need to appeal even if it means adverse impact on this particular case, she told The Hill prior to DOJs filing.

As DOJ officials wrestled with the question of how to proceed, they even got a huge nudge from Bill Barr, Trumps former attorney general, who came out sharply against Cannons ruling and urged the Justice Department to appeal it.

The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it. Its deeply flawed in a number of ways, Barr said during an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday.

Her decision is premature. And the dispute isnt over whether this document is potentially executive privilege and this one isnt. Thats not the dispute. The dispute is whether the president  even if it is executive privilege  can the president bar DOJ from reviewing the documents? And the answer to that I think is clearly no.

Whatever the outcome of the DOJs challenge, some legal experts said the delay brought about by Cannons decision is already benefiting the former president.

Delay is sweet for a prospective criminal defendant, especially a prospective criminal defendant who doesnt seem to have any defense, Jeff Robbins, a former federal prosecutor and congressional investigative counsel, told The Hill.

___________



https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...763.68.0_2.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

Little more.......

As with previous filings, the notice of appeal bore the signatures of two top Justice Department officials: U.S. Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez and senior DOJ attorney Jay Bratt, the chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of National Security Division.

Shortly after submitting the notice, the Justice Department filed a motion for a stay signaling a broad attack on the ruling by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee.

----------


## panama hat

> James Trusty, a lawyer for Mr Trump, compared the former president keeping classified documents to hanging on to an "overdue library book".


This is simply to make it look reasonable to Trumps MAGA-fuckwits

----------


## S Landreth

Little more……

In addition to its appeal, the Justice Department asked US District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who ordered the special master, to let it continue the review of documents being done for the FBI's criminal probe -- a review the judge put on hold. The prosecutors argued that the criminal probe could not be decoupled from the intelligence community's review.

"The application of the injunction to classified records would thus frustrate the government's ability to conduct an effective national security risk assessment and classification review and could preclude the government from taking necessary remedial steps in light of that review -- risking irreparable harm to our national security and intelligence interests," the DOJ wrote in it's request for a stay.

The Justice Department had vigorously opposed the appointment of a special master, which is a third-party attorney tasked with reviewing evidence and filtering out privileged documents. The department argued to Cannon the independent review wasn't necessary, given the internal DOJ filter practices that had been used in the search.

 
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...763.69.0_1.pdf

----------


## Topper

This finally happened ...... 




> A federal grand jury in Washington is examining the formation of — and spending by — a fund-raising operation created by Donald J. Trump after his loss in the 2020 election as he was soliciting millions of dollars by baselessly asserting that the results had been marred by widespread voting fraud.
> 
> According to subpoenas issued by the grand jury, the contents of which were described to The New York Times, the Justice Department is interested in the inner workings of Save America PAC, Mr. Trump’s main fund-raising vehicle after the election. Several similar subpoenas were sent on Wednesday to junior and midlevel aides who worked in the White House and for Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.
> 
> The fact that federal prosecutors are now seeking information about the fund-raising operation is a significant new turn in an already sprawling criminal investigation into the roles that Mr. Trump and some of his allies played in trying to overturn the election, an array of efforts that culminated with the mob attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
> 
> The expanded Jan. 6 inquiry is playing out even as Mr. Trump is also under federal investigation on an entirely different front: his decision to hold onto hundreds of government documents marked as classified when he left office and his failure to comply with efforts by the National Archives and the Justice Department to compel their return.


Raising money by telling people lies is called "fraud".

----------


## panama hat

^ Yet nothing concrete ever seems to happen . . . it's like sludge

----------


## S Landreth

^patience

^^I have the same story but related the to the Jan 6th committee that Ill post in the Right-wing domestic terrorists thread.

Until then.


Judge throws out Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

A U.S. judge has thrown out former President Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, saying the former president "is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him."

*Driving the news:* "And this Court is not the appropriate forum," Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida wrote.


Middlebrooks said Trump exceeded the legal statute of limitations and that "many of the statements that Plaintiff characterizes as injurious falsehoods qualify as speech plainly protected by the First Amendment.""At its core, the problem with Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," Middlebrooks wrote.

*Catch up quick:* Trump in March accused Clinton and dozens of other Democrats in a 108-page lawsuit of working together to accuse him of colluding with Russia during the 2016 presidential election.


Trump's suit said Clinton, her campaign, the DNC, former FBI Director James Comey and others "maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative."

*What they're saying: "*We vehemently disagree with the opinion issued by the court today," Trump attorney Alina Habba said in a statement.


"Not only is it rife with erroneous applications of the law, but it also disregards the numerous independent governmental investigations which substantiate our claim that the defendants conspired to falsely implicate our client and undermine the 2016 Presidential election.""We will immediately move to appeal this decision," Habba said.  :Smile: 

Top 13 Benchslaps in a Federal Judges Dismissal of Donald Trumps RICO Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

In Florida (where the case above was heard) we have a law that permits a winning party of a lawsuit to receive reasonable attorneys fees. The defendant has to offer (the plaintiff) a sum of money (typically about 250.00/filing fee) to drop the case before it goes to court. I know, Ive won a few.

trump will be responsible to pay all the attorney fees for each one of the defendants below.  :Smile: 

 
Alina Habba  :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

Judge allows Manhattan DA case against Trump Org, former CFO to move forward

A judge on Friday ruled the Manhattan district attorneys case against the Trump Organization and its former Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg can go to trial.

New York prosecutors allege Weisselberg avoided paying close to $2 million in taxes over a span of more than a decade by receiving indirect compensation from the business, and had been a part of a scheme to enrich Trump Organization executives and himself without reporting the financial gains.

Prosecutors also allege the Trump business did not report the indirect compensation to the federal government despite keeping track of it.

Lawyers for Weisselberg and the Trump Organization earlier this year asked for the fraud and conspiracy charges against them to be dismissed. Judge Juan Merchan dropped one count against the Trump Organization and allowed the rest to proceed.

An attorney representing Weisselberg declined to comment. The Hill has reached out to the Trump Organization and an attorney representing the business for comment.

Both parties have pleaded not guilty.

Trump also remains embroiled in a number of other legal matters, including an FBI search of his Florida Mar-a-Lago residence. The Wall Street Journal reported that officials were looking for classified documents pertaining to nuclear weapons.

Jury selection in the case is scheduled to start Oct. 24.

----------


## S Landreth

The Justice Department and former President Donald Trump's lawyers face a Friday midnight deadline for submitting proposals for how the special master review of the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago -- including classified documents -- should work.

With the Friday submission, the Justice Department and the Trump team will also be addressing questions about the review's logistics that are wonky, but stand to carry significance over how quickly the review will move and how much it will hinder the criminal investigation into the handling of documents from Trump's White House.

*Governments Proposed Candidates
*
The Honorable Barbara S. Jones (ret.)  retired judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, partner in Bracewell LLP, and special master in In re: in the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 28, 2021 and In the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 9, 2018.

The Honorable Thomas B. Griffith (ret.)  retired Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, special counsel in Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.

*Plaintiffs Proposed Candidates*

The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie (ret.)  former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, formerly the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Paul Huck, Jr.founder, The Huck Law Firm, former Jones Day partner, former General Counsel to the Governor, former Deputy Attorney General for the State of Florida.

____________

Edit:

*Barbara Sue Jones*
Born: 1947 (age 75 years), Inglewood, California, United States
Education: Temple University, Mount St. Mary's University, Beasley School of Law, Mount Saint Mary's University Los Angeles
Appointed by: Bill Clinton

*Thomas Beall Griffith*
Born: July 5, 1954 (age 68 years), Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Education: Brigham Young University, University of Virginia, University of Virginia School of Law
Appointed by: George W. Bush

*Raymond J. Dearie*
Born: June 4, 1944 (age 78), Rockville Centre, New York
Education: Fairfield University (B.A.), St. Johns University School of Law (J.D.)
* Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Appointed by: Ronald Reagan

*Paul Huck, Jr.*
Born: July 22, 1940 (age 82), Covington, Kentucky
Education: University of Florida (BA), Fredric G. Levin College of Law (JD)
Appointed by: Bill Clinton

----------


## S Landreth

I'll start with this first from the NYT…..


National security attorney Bradley Moss wrote, "With yet another court filing, it is increasingly clear there is no evidence of Trump's alleged 'standing declassification order,' and no evidence that these particular classified records were ever declassified."

Former Pentagon special counsel Ryan Goodman wrote, "Gosh, I wonder why President Trump's side did not claim he declassified MAL documents, and instead just said this milquetoast line. Easy bet: Because they do not want to be caught in a false statement to a court - subject to sanctions and 18 USC 1001."

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1568419811067330560

_________

The rest of the story from politico…….


Trump, DOJ tangle over '''special master''' to review seized Mar-a-Lago documents

The Justice Department and former President Donald Trump presented dueling visions Friday night of the process and personnel for an outside review of documents seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate last month as part of an FBI investigation into alleged illegal possession of classified documents.

Prosecutors and lawyers for Trump each presented two options for potential “special master” candidates to U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who declared in an order Monday that she plans to appoint a third-party to sift through the seized records and decide what information investigators are entitled to keep.


The Justice Department proposed Barbara Jones, a former federal judge and Bill Clinton nominee who has filled the same special master role in three of the most politically sensitive investigations in recent years, including probes into Trump lawyers Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani.


Prosecutors also offered up former federal appeals court judge Thomas Griffith, a George H.W. Bush appointee who retired in 2020 from the powerful D.C. Circuit.

Trump, on the other hand, proposed Raymond Dearie, a retired chief federal judge and Ronald Reagan appointee in the Eastern District of New York who also served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Dearie, who most notably presided over the corruption cases against FIFA officials, also signed one of the warrants the FBI used to surveil 2016 Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Trump’s lawyers also nominated Paul Huck Jr., who appears to have significant ties to figures in Trump’s orbit. The former Jones Day attorney advised Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in 2007-2008, serving in his administration at the same time Trump’s current attorney, Chris Kise, was also advising Crist, who was then a Republican but is now a Democrat. Huck is married to Barbara Lagoa, a federal appeals court judge Trump also considered for the Supreme Court. Lagoa is one of 11 judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel is soon expected to consider DOJ’s appeal of Cannon’s special master order.

Another disagreement emerged over the timeline of the special master review. DOJ proposed that the review be completed by Oct. 17, while Trump’s attorneys argued that it would take more than twice as long, requesting 90 days for the process to play out.

Cannon will now consider the proposals, as well as the Justice Department’s broader objections to the special master review before deciding next steps.

Prosecutors have said if she does not act by Thursday on their request to essentially carve-out the potentially classified documents from the special master review, they plan to take their request to the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit. The Justice Department has also asked Cannon to lift the portion of her Monday order that temporarily bars investigators from reviewing documents that contain potential national-security secrets.

So far, neither side appears to have formally rejected the other side’s special master candidates, but prosecutors told Cannon that they’d only gotten Trump’s names “shortly after” 6 p.m. Friday.

The main sticking point in the special master plans laid out by both sides seems to be the set of roughly 100 documents with classification markings, such as “Top Secret.” In connection with their appeal filed Thursday, prosecutors are asking that the potentially classified records be excluded from the review process the special master would undertake.

Trump’s attorneys say that material should also be subject to assessment by the special master and they argue that Trump has the right to see and potentially assert executive privilege over any classified records that qualify as presidential records under federal law.

Notably, in the Friday night filing, Trump’s attorneys once again did not echo Trump’s claim that he had declassified any of the materials he possessed at Mar-a-Lago.

Another point of disagreement: the special master’s bill. Prosecutors say Trump should bear the entire cost, since he is the one who requested the independent arbiter. Trump’s team wants to go dutch, with each side paying half the bill.  :Smile: 

The next action in the legal fight is expected Monday morning, when Trump’s attorneys face a deadline to respond to the Justice Department’s request that Cannon exempt the records with classification markings from the special master review. Trump’s lawyers signaled Friday that they plan to oppose such a carve-out.

----------


## S Landreth

Former Trump White House lawyer says chance of him being indicted very high

Ty Cobb, who represented the White House during former special counsel Robert Muellers investigation into Trumps 2016 campaigns contacts with Russia, told CBS Newss The Takeout podcast that he believes the former president is likely to face legal consequences for actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

I think the president is in serious legal water, Cobb said in the podcast, released on Friday. Not so much because of the [Mar-a-Lago] search, but because of the obstructive activity he took in connection with the Jan. 6 proceeding and the attempts to interfere in the election count in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and perhaps Michigan.

Cobb also told CBS News that he suspects the FBIs search of Mar-a-Lago last month  during which the agency says it recovered numerous classified documents  is related to the Justice Departments larger investigation into Trumps actions related to the Jan. 6 attack.

It is about the bigger picture, the Jan. 6 issues, the fake electors, the whole scam with regard to the big lie and the attempts to  cling to the presidency in a desperate fashion, Cobb said.

_____________

More trouble.

Now, just over a month after FBI agents served a legal search warrant at Mar-A-Lago to retrieve boxes of classified documents Trump took from the White House, legal experts and others are calling for a similar search of the Bedminster residence after a new video was released that shows Trump's staff loading boxes onto a private plane in Palm Beach, Florida on May 9th.

Christopher Webb🇺🇸 - Check this out for clarity on how many cartons are seen being transported with Trump from Mar-a-Lago/Florida to Bedminster/New Jersey  allegedly. https://twitter.com/cwebbonline/stat...94279538503681

----------


## S Landreth

Senate Intelligence chair says briefing on Trump classified documents on hold

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) said on Sunday that a congressional briefing to get a damage assessment of the classified documents potentially mishandled by former President Trump is on hold since a judge allowed a special master to review what was seized.

My understanding is there is some question because of the special master appointment by the judge in Florida whether they can brief at this point, Warner told CBS Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan. We need clarification on that from that judge as quickly as possible because it is essential that the intelligence community, leadership at least, get a briefing of the damage assessment.

Warner, along with the committees vice chairman, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), have requested more information on the classified documents obtained during an FBI search of Trumps Mar-a-Lago property in August, seeking both the documents seized and an assessment of any national security threats posed by potential mishandling of the information.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trumps request last week to appoint an independent special master to review materials seized by the FBI after he raised concerns that some of the information obtained as part of the Justice Departments investigation into the former president was protected under attorney-client and executive privileges.

Warner said the congressional request in no way sought to hinder the DOJs ongoing investigation and sidestepped questions by Brennan about information shared with Congress being more likely to leak to the public.

I believe that its our congressional duty to have that oversight, Warner said. Remember whats at stake here is the fact that if some of these documents involved human intelligence and that information got out, people will die, noting that years of work could be destroyed.

Warner said the Senate Intelligence Committee, which he called the last functioning bipartisan committee, I believe, in the whole Congress had an obligation to review any potential security dangers to the country and its intelligence gathering capabilities.

I do want the damage assessment of what would happen to our ability to protect the nation, Warner said, adding that the request by the intelligence leaders sought to assess whether theres been damage done to our intelligence collection and maintenance of secrets capacity.

___________

*Extra.*

Republicans Want Donald Trump for 2024, Even if He's Indicted

----------


## S Landreth

Trump presses court to keep blocking DOJ access to records

Former President Trump is fighting a request from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to allow its review of classified materials taken from Mar-a-Lago to continue, with Trump’s legal team arguing the investigation is “at its core is a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control.”

The filing continues to assert the former president has broad power to control his records even after he leaves office, even the classified records that the Justice Department argued Trump can have no possible claim to, and thus do not require review by a third-party special master.

In the filing, Trump’s legal team pushed back against the idea that there was any possible damage from the mishandling of records

“There is no indication any purported ‘classified records’ were disclosed to anyone. Indeed, it appears such ‘classified records,’ along with the other seized materials, were principally located in storage boxes in a locked room at Mar-a-Lago, a secure, controlled access compound utilized regularly to conduct the official business of the United States during the Trump Presidency, which to this day is monitored by the United States Secret Service,” they wrote.

The response from Trump’s team came after the Justice Department last Thursday indicated it planned to appeal a federal district court judge’s ruling green-lighting a special master, also asking her to approve a partial stay that would exclude some 300 classified records from their review.

“The classification markings establish on the face of the documents that they are government records, not Plaintiff’s personal records, DOJ wrote.

“And for several reasons, no potential assertion of executive privilege could justify restricting the executive branch’s review and use of the classified records at issue here.”

But Trump’s team claimed Monday that classification status matters little within the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and that Trump’s document issues should be sorted with the National Archives, or NARA.

“Of course, classified or declassified, the documents remain either presidential records or personal records under the PRA,” they wrote.

“At best, the government might ultimately be able to establish certain presidential records should be returned to NARA. What is clear regarding all of the seized materials is that they belong with either President Trump…or with NARA, but not with the Department of Justice.”

Trump fights back against DOJ in dispute over classified records

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...18763.84.0.pdf

----------


## Topper

Team Orange has filed this in response to the DOJ latest filing.  Apparently, they're finally arguing that the former president declassified everything.  

Since the former president declassified the documents, they're available from he FOIA.

----------


## S Landreth

^But still no solid proof was shown


Justice Dept. Issues 40 Subpoenas in Widening Jan. 6 Inquiry; Over the last week, it also seized the phones of two top Trump advisers, a sign of an escalating investigation two months before the midterm elections.

The Justice Department has issued about 40 subpoenas over the past week seeking information about the actions of former President Donald J. Trump and his associates related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to people familiar with the situation.

Two top Trump advisers, Boris Epshteyn and Mike Roman, had their phones seized as evidence, those people said.

The departments actions represent a substantial escalation of a slow-simmer investigation two months before the midterm elections, coinciding with a separate inquiry into Mr. Trumps hoarding of sensitive documents at his residence in Florida, Mar-a-Lago.

Among those the department has contacted since Wednesday are people who are close to the former president and have played significant roles in his post-White House life.

The Justice Department also executed search warrants to seize electronic devices from people involved in the so-called fake electors effort in swing states, including Mr. Epshteyn, a longtime Trump adviser, and Mr. Roman, a campaign strategist, according to people familiar with the events. Federal agents made the seizures last week, the people said.

The subpoenas seek information in connection with the plan to submit slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump from swing states that were won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the 2020 election. Mr. Trump and his allies promoted the idea that competing slates of electors would justify blocking or delaying certification of Mr. Bidens Electoral College victory during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

Some of the subpoenas also seek information into the activities of the Save America political action committee, the main political fund-raising conduit for Mr. Trump since he left office, a new line of inquiry.

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ signals agreement to Trump's choice for special master

The Department of Justice signaled in a filing Monday that it would accept a special master candidate proposed by former President Trump's legal team for overseeing a review of the documents the FBI retrieved from Mar-a-Lago.

*Why it matters:* The selection of a special master has been a point of contention between Trump and the DOJ.


If Judge Aileen Cannon approves the pick, Judge Raymond Dearie would be charged with determining which documents should be shielded from the federal prosecutors who are investigating potential mishandling of classified material.

*What they're saying:* The DOJ wrote in its filing that Dearie, along with its two original nominees, has "substantial judicial experience, during which they have presided over federal criminal and civil cases, including federal cases involving national security and privilege concern."


"In selecting among the three candidates, the government respectfully requests that the Court consider and select the candidate best positioned to timely perform the special masters assigned responsibilities."

*Background:* The Reagan-appointed Dearie has served as a federal judge in New York since the 1980s and now serves as a senior judge on the circuit after retiring in 2011.


He previously served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and was one of the judges who signed off on an FBI and DOJ request for FISA warrants to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page for an investigation into potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.

*The big picture:* Trump has asked Cannon to reject the DOJ's request for a stay of her ruling to let a special master review evidence seized from Mar-a-Lago.


Cannon's ruling temporarily blocked the DOJ from reviewing the documents, which the agency has said will cause "irreparable harm" to the government and the public.It's unclear whether Cannon would lift that restriction once a special master is appointed and approved.

That was an easy prediction....




> *Raymond J. Dearie*
> Born: June 4, 1944 (age 78), Rockville Centre, New York
> Education: Fairfield University (B.A.), St. Johns University School of Law (J.D.)
> * Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
> Appointed by: Ronald Reagan

----------


## thailazer

I wonder what legal charges were driving the golf course meeting yesterday?  Maybe those 40 subpoenas got into his head or there is something else lurking.    At any rate, he had some high power folks there including McCarthy and Nunes.  Hannity might also have been there.   Interesting to see that the paranoia is now so deep that they have to find secure locations for their plotting.

----------


## S Landreth

^No.   trump was (scheduling dates and time/s) taking bids on who gets his old hooker wife while hes in jail.

Threesomes were going for a premium


 
_____________

DOJ Seeks Stay of Special Master Ruling, Warns of Harms

Prosecutors Insist on Staying Special Master Ruling in Trump Case, Warn Unauthorized Disclosure of Docs Would Jeopardize National Security

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a motion arguing in support of temporarily scuttling the judge-ordered special master process over allegedly classified records seized from the Florida home of ex-President Donald Trump in early August. Unauthorized disclosure of those records could cause exceptionally grave damage, the DOJ said in an effort to underscore the sensitivity of the matter.

In the reply supporting their motion for a stay pending appeal, prosecutors frame their request as limited but critical relief, arguing that the court should not lightly require review of documents whose disclosure would jeopardize national security.

_These records are at the core of the governments investigation, and the governments inability to review and use them significantly constrains its investigation. The compelled disclosure of records marked as classified to a special master further harms the Executive Branchs interest in limiting access to such materials absent any valid purpose served by their review. See United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1952) (courts should be cautious before requiring judicial review, even ex parte and in camera, of documents whose disclosure would jeopardize national security)._

Largely a response to a Monday filing by Trumps attorneys arguing against the stay request, the DOJs filing clarifies that they are not attempting to keep the entire special master process from playing out, but rather, are seeking a stay only as to a discrete set of just over 100 records marked as classifiedthat is, records that were specifically sought by a prior grand jury subpoena, whose unauthorized retention may constitute a crime.

The government filing employs the language of the national security state to make its case, arguing the universe of documents in question contain markings signifying that their unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in damage to the national security.

A footnote on page one responds to Trumps efforts to minimize the nature of the dispute about the contents of those documents

_[Trump] has characterized the governments criminal investigation as a document storage dispute or an overdue library book scenario. In doing so, [Trump] has not addressed the potential harms that could result from mishandling classified information or the strict requirements imposed by law for handling such materials._




> document storage dispute or an overdue library book scenario.


 :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I wonder what legal charges were driving the golf course meeting yesterday?


He might be trying to sell it to pay his upcoming legal bills, as the GOP are getting a bit hesitant.

----------


## David48atTD

Former Pres. Trump is having trouble finding top-notch lawyers to represent him as he faces multiple investigations. 
Author David Enrich explains why and talks about his new book, “Servants of the Damned."

----------


## S Landreth

Judge Unseals Additional Portions Of Mar-A-Lago Affidavit

A federal judge Tuesday unsealed additional portions of an FBI affidavit laying out the basis for a search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida home, showing that agents earlier obtained a hard drive after issuing a subpoena for surveillance footage recorded inside Mar-a-Lago.

A heavily redacted version of the affidavit was made public last month, but the Justice Department requested permission to show more of it after lawyers for Trump revealed the existence of a June grand jury subpoena that sought video footage from cameras in the vicinity of the Mar-a-Lago storage room.

“Because those aspects of the grand jury’s investigation have now been publicly revealed, there is no longer any reason to keep them sealed (i.e. redacted) in the filings in this matter,” department lawyers wrote.

The newly visible portions of the FBI agent’s affidavit show that the FBI on June 24 subpoenaed for the footage after a visit weeks earlier to Mar-a-Lago in which agents observed 50 to 55 boxes of records in the storage room at the property. The Trump Organization provided a hard drive on July 6 in response to the subpoena, the affidavit says.

The footage could be an important piece of the investigation, including as agents evaluate whether anyone has sought to obstruct the probe. The Justice Department has said in a separate filing that it has “developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.”

The Justice Department has been investigating the holding of top-secret information and other classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House. FBI agents during their Aug. 8 search of the home and club said they recovered more than 11,000 documents and 1,800 other items, including roughly 100 with classification markings.

Separately Tuesday, the Justice Department again urged U.S. District Aileen Cannon to lift her hold on core aspects of the investigation. Cannon last week granted the Trump team’s request for an independent arbiter to review the seized documents and weed out from the investigation any records that may be covered by claims of executive or attorney-client privilege.

She also ordered the department to halt its review of the records pending any further court order or the completion of a review by the yet-to-be-named special master. The department urged Cannon last week to put her order on hold and told the judge Tuesday that its investigation would be harmed by a continued delay of its ability to scrutinize the classified documents.

“The government and the public unquestionably have an interest in the timely enforcement of criminal laws, particularly those involving the protection of highly sensitive information, and especially where, as here, there may have been efforts to obstruct its investigation,” the lawyers wrote.

The Trump team on Monday urged the judge to leave her order in place. His lawyers raised questions about the documents’ current classification status and noted that a president has absolute authority to declassify information, though they pointedly did not say that Trump had actually declassified anything.

----------


## S Landreth

Judge appoints special master, denying DOJ access to classified records

A federal judge on Thursday denied the Justice Department’s (DOJ) motion to access the classified records stored at Mar-a-Lago and installed a recently retired judge to serve as the special master former President Trump requested.

The duo of orders from federal district Judge Aileen Cannon will ignite a Justice Department appeal to the 11th Circuit and also taps Judge Raymond Dearie to serve as the special master — the one candidate both the DOJ and Trump’s legal team could agree on.

The order requires Dearie to complete his review by Nov. 30 — a slightly shorter deadline than the 90-day window Trump requested, but one that punts the determination past the midterms. In a rare instance of siding with the DOJ, Cannon required Trump to pay for the full cost associated with a special master.

Cannon’s decision came after the DOJ asked for a partial stay of the judge’s motion, arguing they should be able to review the more than 100 classified documents taken during the search and arguing Trump could have no possible claim to the records as either personal property or under executive privilege.

“If the court were willing to accept the government’s representations that select portions of the seized materials are—without exception—government property not subject to any privileges, and did not think a special master would serve a meaningful purpose, the court would have denied plaintiff’s special master request,” Cannon wrote.

“The court does not find it appropriate to accept the government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion.”

Dearie only announced his full retirement in late August from the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York after working as a senior judge since 2011.

A Reagan appointee, Dearie has worked as a judge since 1986, including a seven-year stint on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA court.

During that time Dearie was among the judges to approve the 2016 warrant to surveil Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page as the Justice Department investigated Russian interference in the presidential election.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY PENDING APPEAL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...18763.89.0.pdf

----------


## thailazer

^ So now we have a federal judge keeping the DOJ from investigating matters of national security.

----------


## S Landreth

^Hopefully the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will grant the DOJ an emergency stay

___________


Letitia James Rejected Settlement Offer from Trump: Report

New York Attorney General Considers Suing Donald Trump and at Least One of His Adult Children After Rejecting Settlement Offer

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) rejected a settlement offer from Donald Trump’s attorneys and is considering filing a lawsuit against the former president for fraud — along with at least one of his adult children, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

Such a lawsuit would mark a culmination of a yearslong investigation that began in early 2019, after Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress that his former boss inflated or deflated assets to obtain tax benefits. That testimony sparked both civil and criminal investigations against Trump and his self-named business. The Trump Organization, which was charged criminally by former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance (D), faces trial in October, following the guilty plea of its former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg.

The civil investigation has been looking into several properties, including Trump’s 212-acre Westchester estate known as Seven Springs, Trump International Golf Club Scotland, Trump National Golf Club Westchester, Trump Park Avenue, and 40 Wall Street. In court filings, James previously alleged that Trump inflated the size of his Trump Tower triplex by nearly three times, and the company valued rent stabilized units 66 times higher than an outside appraiser did.

With the civil and criminal investigations running parallel to each other, Trump and his adult children Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. — who are senior executives in his business — faced high-stakes questioning in their depositions. Eric Trump asserted his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in response to more than 500 questions, and his father reportedly did the same more than 400 times.

----------


## harrybarracuda

It's absurd to block access when he could have (and probably has) compromised national security in all kinds of ways.

Peoples' lives could be at stake.

----------


## Topper

It's the last bit in the "judge's" ruling that should scare the shit out of Americans....the "judge" is giving trump special consideration due to his former position, thus breaking the rule that all are equal under the law.  I can promise you, that piece of whale dung ain't no more special than me when it comes to the law.  Who's next to get this special consideration?  A famous retired celebrity?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> It's the last bit in the "judge's" ruling that should scare the shit out of Americans....the "judge" is giving trump special consideration due to his former position, thus breaking the rule that all are equal under the law.  I can promise you, that piece of whale dung ain't no more special than me when it comes to the law.  Who's next to get this special consideration?  A famous retired celebrity?


Unfortunately "all" did not have Executive Privilege for four years. But I would still expect national security to be a more important issue.

A special master could still review the documents and determine which ones could not be used in future litigation.

It's a stalling tactic with the judge's complicity.

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ appeals to block part of judge's ruling in Mar-a-Lago search

The Department of Justice on Friday appealed part a federal judge's ruling that halted the ongoing review of documents seized at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

*Driving the news:* "The district court has entered an unprecedented order enjoining the Executive Branchs use of its own highly classified records in a criminal investigation with direct implications for national security," the department wrote in the Friday evening filing.


DOJ asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to "stay only the portions of the order causing the most serious and immediate harm to the government and the public by (1) restricting the governments review and use of records bearing classification markings and (2) requiring the government to disclose those records for a special-master review process."

*The big picture:* The appeal comes a day after U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon appointed Judge Raymond Dearie to review the evidence seized at Trump's Florida residence.


Cannon on Thursday also rejected the DOJ's request to resume its criminal investigation into the classified documents seized at Mar-a-Lago.The Justice Department has argued that the criminal investigation cannot be separated from the intelligence community's review.

Justice Department asks appeals court to block Trump judge's Mar-a-Lago ruling

READ: Justice Department's filing with a federal appeals court in Mar-a-Lago case: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-lago-case.pdf

someone is going to jail  :Smile: 









____________


Trump, DOJ lawyers to convene for first conference with special master

The newly appointed special master who will review the documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago on Friday directed lawyers for former President Trump and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to meet with him in New York on Tuesday for their first conference.

Judge Raymond Dearie, who was appointed as special master in the case on Thursday, called for a meeting and invited the two parties to suggest items for discussion, according to a court filing. https://thehill.com/regulation/court...pecial-master/

----------


## S Landreth

Trump attorneys given until Tuesday for response to DOJ motion on classified docs

An appeals court is giving former President Donald Trumps attorneys until Tuesday afternoon to respond to a Department of Justice request to continue to use classified documents seized from Mar-a-Lago.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals announced on Saturday evening it gave Trumps attorneys until noon on Tuesday to offer a response to the DOJs Friday evening filing. Tuesday is also the day Trumps attorneys and the DOJ were called to New York to appear before special master Raymond Dearie.

DOJ attorneys on Friday evening petitioned the court for a partial stay, allowing them to continue to use documents seized from Trumps Mar-a-Lago property in a raid last month. Prosecutors are currently blocked from using them to continue to conduct a criminal investigation into the former president while Dearie begins reviewing the classified documents.

 
https://mobile.twitter.com/kyledchen...75620062986240

----------


## S Landreth

About a day before team trump responds to the DOJ, so………


Trump's Former Accounting Firm Now Turning Over His Financial Records To Congress

Donald Trump’s former longtime accounting firm has begun turning over financial records to Congress as part of lawmakers’ investigation into the former president’s business practices, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Mazars USA cut ties with Trump and his businesses in February after the firm said it could no longer stand behind financial information that had been provided by Trump and his operations. Consequently, financial statements Mazars prepared for Trump from mid-2011 to mid-2020 “should no longer be relied upon,” the company warned.

The House Oversight Committee has received a first batch of documents from Mazars following a legal settlement regarding various financial information from 2014 to 2018, the Times reported.

More documents are expected to be provided in the near future, according to the newspaper.

“They have sent us a number of documents. We’re reviewing them,” committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) told the Times Saturday. “Mazars is being very cooperative,” she added.

The lawmaker declined to offer any other specifics.

The committee will use the information in its investigation of allegations of conflict of interest when Trump was in office, and any possible violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. The clause prohibits federal officials from receiving payments or significantly valuable gifts from foreign governments.

Financial records that must be turned over to Congress under the settlement include any document that indicates false or undisclosed information about Trump or his companies’ assets, income or liabilities.

______________

Trump faces new legal problem in DOJ pressure allegations

Former President Trump is facing a new political quagmire as Senate Democrats open an investigation into allegations he pressured the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate his political opponents. Former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman wrote in a new book that the Justice Department under Trump pushed his office to pursue criminal cases against former Secretary of State John Kerry and others viewed as political opponents of Trump.

Democrats, who have been happy to elevate Trump and his conduct in the wake of an FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago estate, will look into the matter, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) announced Monday night.

“I welcome the investigation,” Berman said Tuesday morning on MSNBC. “The conduct that occurred was so outrageous and unprecedented. A light needs to be shined on it.”

Berman, who served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) from 2018 until he was forced to resign in 2020, alleges in his new book that his office was pursuing charges stemming from a guilty plea by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. 

He also cited an investigation into former Trump White House official Stephen Bannon, who was eventually charged and later pardoned before Trump left office.

In another instance, Berman said the DOJ referred a criminal case targeting Kerry to his office days after Trump sent two tweets attacking Kerry for communicating with Iranian officials about the Iran nuclear deal.

The Justice Department suggested the SDNY cite Kerry using a statute from 1799 that had never been successfully prosecuted, Berman said Tuesday morning.

The allegations levied by Berman, who ultimately left his post after then-Attorney General William Barr told him he had been fired at Trump’s request, present the latest headache for Trump as he preps for a 2024 presidential campaign. 

While Trump has not made an announcement, he is viewed as more likely than not to jump into the race.

With that political backdrop, Democrats have seized on opportunities to elevate the former president’s conduct, which has made him unpopular with many independent voters. They’ve sought to tie him to GOP candidates for the House and Senate — a not terribly challenging task given Trump’s efforts to hold power over the GOP through primary endorsements. 

President Biden earlier this month delivered a speech decrying Trump and “MAGA Republicans” who are aligned with him as an urgent threat to democracy, framing the midterms as a matter of protecting democratic values.

Democrats have been happy to discuss Trump’s handling of classified materials, which is at the center of a DOJ investigation into dozens of documents the former president took with him to his Mar-a-Lago home upon leaving office. The FBI searched the property last month after it was unable to get the materials back from Trump.

Trump’s conduct around the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol will likely be brought back into the public eye in the weeks before the midterms as a House panel focused on Jan. 6 plans to resume its work.

Trump allies are a focus of an investigation in Georgia into a scheme to send alternate electors to Congress who would back Trump over Biden in 2020, despite Biden winning the state.

Berman’s claims in his new book are the latest Trump-centric controversy that Democrats have said they will look into.

Durbin wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday night, as first reported by The New York Times, asking the Justice Department to provide documents related to Berman’s claims, specifically the cases related to Cohen and Kerry.

“The claims made by former U.S. Attorney Berman indicate astonishing & unacceptable deviations from DOJ’s mission to pursue impartial justice—and compound the already serious concerns raised by then-AG Barr’s 2020 efforts to replace Mr. Berman and install a Trump loyalist at SDNY,” Durbin said in a statement. 

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said Berman’s allegations could pose legal trouble for Trump down the line if the Justice Department decides to open an investigation based on Durbin’s findings.

Tobias downplayed any imminent probe involving Barr, noting that the former attorney general is likely more useful as an ally in Democratic investigations into Trump than as a target of one. Barr has appeared before the House Jan. 6 committee, and he has in recent weeks appeared on Fox News to undercut Trump’s defenses against the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate.

“It will at least be another political headache for Trump as the allegations continue to multiply,” Tobias said.

 
___________

*Extra*


Judge refuses Lindell motion to dismiss suit brought by voting machine company

A Minnesota District Court judge on Monday denied MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s motion to throw out a lawsuit brought by a voting technology company that claims he defamed it by pushing the false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen.

Smartmatic, a company that provided election technology and services to Los Angeles in the 2020 election, alleges in the complaint that both Lindell and MyPillow defamed the voting tech company by falsely promoting the theory that its machines had been hacked or rigged in favor of President Joe Biden. Lindell is a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump and has falsely maintained since 2020 that Trump won the election over Biden.

Smartmatic also alleges that Lindell, who has advertised promo codes for MyPillow products to viewers and listeners during TV and radio segments where he pushed the false narrative that voting technology was rigged in the 2020 election, used deceptive trade practices.

The complaint is one of a flurry of cases filed after the 2020 election by Smartmatic and Dominion, another voting technology company, against Trump allies and media outlets who have spread false allegations about the companies’ voting systems.

Lindell moved to dismiss Smartmatic’s complaint, arguing that the company failed to adequately plea the defamation claim, and that the deceptive trade practices claim fails because Lindell was acting in a personal, not professional, capacity when making statements about the 2020 election. MyPillow separately moved to dismiss Smartmatic’s complaint, arguing that it is shielded by the First Amendment and that it did not make any statements about Smartmatic. The company also argued that Lindell’s statements can’t be imputed to MyPillow.

U.S. District Judge Wilhelmina Wright on Monday denied both Lindell’s and MyPillow’s motions to dismiss the complaint. The court concluded that Smartmatic has alleged sufficient facts to support its defamation claim, including its claims that Lindell’s statements were false, that his defamatory statements were communicated to outside parties, that he knew or should have known his statements were false and that he acted with actual malice in promoting them.

____________

*Little more*

Tom Barrack: Trump ally goes on trial for 'espionage lite' and obstruction

Jury selection begins Monday in the trial of a former Donald Trump adviser whom authorities allege was involved in a two-year effort to try to influence the policy decisions of the Trump campaign and administration to benefit the United Arab Emirates.

Tom Barrack, a wealthy businessman who served as the chair of Trump's Presidential Inaugural Committee and an adviser to his campaign, was indicted last year along with his assistant Matthew Grimes and an Emirati official for allegedly acting as a secret backchannel for the Gulf nation.

Barrack and Grimes allegedly conspired to capitalize on Barrack's close relationship to Trump by promoting the UAE's interests through media interviews, advocating for a candidate preferred by the UAE to serve as US ambassador to the country, helping UAE officials in their dealings with the White House, and by pushing back against a proposed summit at Camp David to resolve a dispute involving Qatar and Gulf states. The summit never happened.

----------


## S Landreth

Another credible witness

Trump Was Warned Late Last Year of Potential Legal Peril Over Documents

A former White House lawyer sought to impress on him the need to return material he had taken with him upon leaving office.

A onetime White House lawyer under President Donald J. Trump warned him late last year that Mr. Trump could face legal liability if he did not return government materials he had taken with him when he left office, three people familiar with the matter said.

The lawyer, Eric Herschmann, sought to impress upon Mr. Trump the seriousness of the issue and the potential for investigations and legal exposure if he did not return the documents, particularly any classified material, the people said.

The account of the conversation is the latest evidence that Mr. Trump had been informed of the legal perils of holding onto material that is now at the heart of a Justice Department criminal investigation into his handling of the documents and the possibility that he or his aides engaged in obstruction.

In January, not long after the discussion with Mr. Herschmann, Mr. Trump turned over to the National Archives 15 boxes of material he had taken with him from the White House. Those boxes turned out to contain 184 classified documents, the Justice Department has said.

But Mr. Trump continued to hold onto a considerable cache of other documents, including some with the highest security classification, until returning some under subpoena in June and having even more seized in a court-authorized search of his Mar-a-Lago residence and private club by F.B.I. agents last month.

----------


## S Landreth

Special Master expresses skepticism with Trump teams assertions

The senior federal judge tasked with reviewing the materials seized by the FBI from Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago estate sharply questioned the former presidents attorneys Tuesday during their first hearing before his courtroom.

Judge Raymond Dearie pushed Trumps lawyers repeatedly for refusing to back up the former presidents claim that he declassified the highly sensitive national security-related records discovered in his residence.

You cant have your cake and eat it, said Dearie, the special master picked by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon to vet Trumps effort to reclaim the materials taken by federal investigators.

Trump has argued that the 11,000 documents taken from Mar-a-Lago were rightfully in his possession, including about 100 bearing classification markings that suggest they contain some of the nations most closely guarded intelligence.

But Dearie bristled at the effort by Trumps lawyers to resist his request for proof that Trump actually attempted to declassify any of the 100 documents that the Justice Department recovered from his estate. Without evidence from Trump, Dearie said his only basis to judge the classification level of the records was the fact that they all bear markings designating them as highly sensitive national security secrets  including some that indicate they contain intelligence derived from human sources and foreign intercepts.

The early tension between Dearie and Trumps legal team was an ominous sign for the former president, who demanded the special master review the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago and who proposed Dearie  a 1986 appointee of Ronald Reagan  to perform the task. Prosecutors had offered two other names, but acceded to Trumps choice of Dearie.

Trumps legal team entered the Brooklyn courthouse about a half hour before the hearing, braving jeers from a smattering of protesters, including one shouting, Indict Trump!

A more subdued atmosphere prevailed inside Dearies courtroom. Members of the press were seated in the jury box, prompting one of Trumps attorneys to joke before the session got underway that the former presidents team had not agreed to this set of jurors.

Dearie, 78, engaged succinctly with the parties during the 40-minute session. He noted that the current litigation filed by Trump is civil in nature, since no criminal charges have been filed, so the burden of proof is on Trump to back up any assertion of privilege or other protected interest in the documents.

Trumps lawyers asked Dearie to set in motion the process of getting security clearances so they can review the allegedly classified documents.

But prosecutor Julie Edelstein told the judge that some of the records involved are so sensitive that members of the governments investigative team still havent been approved to the documents.

Whether any of the records seized from Trumps home are classified may ultimately be a side issue. The Justice Department has emphasized that the three potential crimes it is investigating dont hinge on whether the material held at Mar-a-Lago was classified.

Still, Dearies comments on classification of the records were particularly notable in light of a separate court filing by Trump, who is urging a federal appeals court to keep in place Cannons order blocking the Justice Department from advancing its criminal investigation into the seized records.

In that filing, Trumps attorneys argued that it was the Justice Department  not Trump  that bore the burden of showing the documents seized last month were classified. Dearie rejected that argument in his courtroom, saying that all that mattered were the markings on the documents.

----------


## S Landreth

It was nice of Judge Dearie.

Maycie - #SpecialMaster Judge Dearie invites everyone to join in and listen to the hearing!!! Open to the public!!! Share!


 
https://twitter.com/hashtag/SpecialMaster

----------


## S Landreth

Little more

Judge Presses Trump's Lawyers in Special Master Hearing

As Far as Im Concerned, Thats the End of It: Skeptical Special Master Presses Trumps Lawyers on Declassification Evasions at Hearing

After the FBI found highly classified documents inside his Mar-a-Lago home, former President Donald Trump sought review of the materials by a special master. Now that his choice for that position has been appointed, Trumps attorneys struggled in their efforts to have the review process play out in the way they prefer.

On Tuesday, a skeptical Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie pressed Trumps lawyers repeatedly on their refusal to disclose whether he declassified any of the documents he brought to Mar-a-Lago  and if so, which ones.

The government gives me prima facie evidence that these are classified documents, Dearie said, referring to the plain markings on the records. As far as Im concerned, thats the end of it.

Dearie gave Trumps lawyer James Trusty ample opportunity to explain why his consideration shouldnt end there.

On the eve of the hearing, Trumps lawyers had filed a four-page letter urging Dearie to back off from his demand that they disclose declassification arguments.

We respectfully submit that the time and place for affidavits or declarations would be in connection with a Rule 41 motion that specifically alleges declassification as a component of its argument for return of property, Trusty wrote in the filing. Otherwise, the Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment without such a requirement being evident in the District Courts order.

Dearie said he agreed that Trumps lawyers have the right to assert that position, but he suggested that they would have to live with the consequences of that course of action.

You cant have your cake and eat it, the judge said.

Throughout the litigation, top Justice Department officials  including Jay Bratt, the chief of Counterintelligence and Export Control Section in National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez  have noted that Trumps legal team has danced around the declassification issues. Their legal briefs have not said that Trump declassified any of the documents, which were marked Top Secret and above. The lawyers only said that Trump may have declassified them. 

During Tuesdays hearing, the judge needled Trumps lawyers on what hes supposed to do in light of the fact that the government provided prima facie evidence of classification, such as the markings on the documents.

As far as Im concerned, thats the end of it, Dearie said.

When Dearie spoke offhandedly of lawyers litigation strategy, Trusty played down the notion that he was engaged in gamesmanship. Trusty denied the implication.

Under the terms of the order of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, the special masters review should be completed some time after Thanksgiving. Trumps attorneys have asked Dearie to extend the deadline.

Dearie appeared to recognize that he is on a time crunch  and seemed unlikely to budge from it.

Im going to do the best I can with the time available to us, Dearie said.




> The lawyers only said that Trump may have declassified them.


  :Smile:

----------


## beachbound

*New York attorney Sues Trump 

*Live updates: Trump faces fraud lawsuit from NY attorney general

----------


## Topper

^ And right now, the former president is going "I'm a former King!!!  "They can't do this to me!"  

I'm guessing though that Ivanka will be the sexiest woman ever to wear handcuffs.

----------


## beachbound

^
 :Smile: 

Perhaps he can arrange conjugal visits, with Ivanka, at Rikers island.

----------


## S Landreth

New York AG refers Trump family to federal prosecutors and IRS

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit Wednesday accusing former President Trump and members of his family of financial fraud and referring them to federal prosecutors and the IRS for criminal investigation.

*Why it matters:* Trump now faces legal peril in at least three distinct cases, one in New York, one in Georgia and one regarding classified materials  right ahead of midterms and his decision on whether to announce a 2024 presidential campaign. 


James, a Democrat up for re-election in November, signaled she would sue after rejecting a settlement offer from Trump's lawyers earlier this month.

*What to watch:* If brought to trial in James' civil lawsuit, the Trump Organization could face severe financial penalties and restrictions on its ability to operate in New York State.


There was no immediate indication Wednesday whether the Southern District of New York or the IRS had agreed to open a criminal investigation after James' referral.

*The big picture:* Trump's business practices and finances have come under intense scrutiny at the federal, state and congressional levels in the seven years since he entered the political scene.


Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg struck a plea deal with the Manhattan district attorney last month in which he admitted to running a years-long tax fraud scheme in coordination with the former presidents business.Weisselberg is expected to testify against the company  which as an entity was also charged by the DA last year  when the case goes to trial next month.But the DA's investigation has thus far failed to ensnare Trump himself, and Weisselberg is not expected to implicate the former president in his testimony.

*Between the lines:* Trump has denied wrongdoing in any of the investigations that prosecutors or members of Congress have pursued over the last seven years, using the allegations to whip up his base and cast himself as the victim of a long-running partisan "witch hunt."


Trump has had an especially combative relationship with James, who called him an "illegitimate president" and pledged to aggressively investigate his business during her 2018 campaign for attorney general.

Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during an hours-long, court-ordered deposition with James' office last month.

*What they're saying:* "Another Witch Hunt by a racist Attorney General, Letitia James, who failed in her run for Governor, getting almost zero support from the public, and now is doing poorly against Law & Order A.G. candidate," Trump wrote on Truth, his social media platform.


"She is a fraud who campaigned on a 'get Trump' platform, despite the fact that the city is one of the crime and murder disasters of the world under her watch!" he added.

*Zoom out:* While the New York AG's lawsuit and criminal referral have opened up a serious new front in Trump's legal battles, the more serious and imminent threats he faces stem from the federal investigations into his handling of classified documents and role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.





__________

Key takeaways from New York AGs lawsuit against Trump

James accused Trump of misrepresenting his net worth numerous times

Trump's financial statements were also misleading in "presentation," per the lawsuit

Trump's financial statements violated generally accepted accounting principles, James said

James outlines misconduct by Trump Organization across more than 23 different properties and assets

https://www.axios.com/2022/09/21/tru...torney-general

____________

All 222 pages: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...s-children.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

Appeals court says DOJ can resume criminal probe of classified documents from Mar-a-Lago

A federal appeals court is allowing the Justice Department to continue looking at documents marked as classified that were seized from former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort and home, upending a trial judge's order over those documents that had blocked federal investigators' work on them.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...mar-a-lago.pdf





Federal appeals court grants DOJ classified records request in Trump case

A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday granted the Justice Department's request to resume reviewing classified documents that the FBI seized from former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence for its ongoing criminal investigation.

*What they're saying:* The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said in its ruling granting a partial stay that Trump "has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. Nor has he established that the current administration has waived that requirement for these documents."

----------


## harrybarracuda

This is more like it.

Of course he can appeal the hell out of the civil suit, but federal charges for Banking and Tax fraud....

Bring it!

 :bananaman:

----------


## S Landreth

Little more to my last post..

Two of the three judges on the panel, Andrew Brasher and Britt Grant, were appointed to the court by Trump. The third, Robin Rosenbaum, was appointed by President Barack Obama.

 :Smile: 

____________

*Just for fun.*

"There doesn't have to be a process, as I understand it," Trump replied. "You know, there's different people, say different things."

"If you're the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying, 'it's declassified'  even by thinking about it," Trump claimed.  :Smile:

----------


## David48atTD

Michael Cohen says the New York Attorney General’s lawsuit against Trump is “going to ultimately terminate the Trump Organization, Donald, Don Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Weisselberg, McConney, and the rest of them. This is going to put an end to the entire con.”

----------


## David48atTD

I haven't seen this confirmed through other sources, but this is sweet!

If true ... it's bye bye to the special master over-viewing the documents the FBI seizes from Trumps bungalow.

----------


## S Landreth

Judge Aileen Cannon Trims Special Master Order After Stay

Judge Overseeing Trump-Mar-a-Lago Case Trims Special Master Ruling Within Hours of 11th Circuit Order

The morning after the 11th Circuits blistering order unbounded a key component of the Justice Departments criminal investigation of former President Donald Trump, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon struck portions of her special master ruling.

The judge previously ordered the government to disclose  and temporarily refrain from using  classified documents seized from Mar-a-Lago. On Wednesday night, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit  two of whom were appointed by Trump  stayed and skewered Cannons findings that the former president may have a claim to the more than 100 documents with classified labels, including those marked Top Secret and above.

For our part, we cannot discern why Plaintiff would have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred documents with classification markings, the three-judge panel unanimously wrote in a per curiam opinion. Classified documents are marked to show they are classified, for instance, with their classification level.

U.S. Circuit Judges Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher were appointed by Trump, and U.S. Circuit Judge Robin Stacie Rosenbaum was appointed by Barack Obama.

All three quickly dispensed with Trumps claim that he may have declassified the documents as unsupported and ultimately, irrelevant.

In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal, the 11th Circuits opinion states. So even if we assumed that Plaintiff did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them.

None of the statutes listed on the FBIs affidavit supporting agents August search of Mar-a-Lago turn on the issue of classification: the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice and removal or destruction of records.

Under the Espionage Act, the classification does not matter, former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner, a partner at Rottenberg Lipman Rich PC, noted in a phone interview with Law&Crime. The reason we know for certain that the classification does not matter is the Espionage Act was enacted long before there was a classification system.

Though the appellate panel described their findings as limited, the rulings marked a wholesale victory for the government and a strong rebuke of Cannon. The 11th Circuit granted all of the relief the government requested, which prosecutors limited to the roughly 100 documents at issue. Along the way, the panel overturned all key findings favoring Trump in Cannons order, including regarding the public interest.

It is self-evident that the public has a strong interest in ensuring that the storage of the classified records did not result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security,' they wrote.

Earlier this week, Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie  the special master sought by Trump for the task  pressed the former presidents lawyers on their refusal to disclose whether they claim their client declassified the documents. He is expected to issue an order limiting the scope of his review in light of the 11th Circuits ruling.

On Thursday morning, Judge Cannon issued an order stating that Dearie will review the seized material, except the approximately one-hundred documents bearing classification markings. She also struck portions of her earlier order preventing the Justice Department from probing the classified documents during the review and ordering them to disclose those materials to Dearie.

Asked about that order, Epner told Law&Crime: That was appropriately quick.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...cannon-922.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

Special master in Mar-a-Lago probe sets timeline to review documents

The special master hired to sift through the documents seized from former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence has outlined his plan to review the materials.

*Driving the news:* Judge Raymond Dearie in a Thursday filing said Trump's lawyers have until the end of the month to "raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory" involving materials retrieved from the Florida property.


Trump’s lawyers must state whether they believe FBI agents actually lied about what was seized."For any document that Plaintiff designates as privileged and/or personal, Plaintiff shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the designation," Dearie wrote.The next conference on the matter is scheduled for Oct. 6, 2022. Both Trump and the DOJ must submit their "final and complete log of disputed designations" to Dearie by Oct. 21.James Orenstein, a retired judge who served in the Eastern District of New York, will also assist in the special master's duties, per the filing.

*Worth noting:* On Wednesday, a federal appeals court panel granted the DOJ's request to resume reviewing classified documents for its ongoing criminal investigation.


In the ruling, the judges noted that there's no record of Trump declassifying documents while he was president despite his claims.Trump insisted in a pre-recorded Fox News interview broadcast Wednesday night that he declassified government documents before taking them to his Mar-a-Lago residence.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...63.106.0_1.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

Special master asks Trump team to back up claim FBI planted evidence

The special master assigned to review the documents taken during the August search of Mar-a-Lago is asking former President Trump to back up his claim that the FBI planted evidence on his Florida property.

Judge Raymond Dearie, the special master selected after being out forth by Trump, told his attorneys they would need to submit a sworn declaration that details a list of any specific items set forth in the [FBIs] detailed property inventory that plaintiff asserts were not seized from the premises.

Trump made the insinuation just two days after his home was searched.

Everyone was asked to leave the premises, they wanted to be alone, he wrote in a post on his social media platform, without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, planting.

Trump asserted as recently as Wednesday evening during an interview with Fox Newss Sean Hannity that the FBI may have planted evidence during the search.

The problem that you have is they go into rooms  they wont let anybody near  they wouldnt even let them in the same building. Did they drop anything on those piles? Or did they do it later? he said.

Neither Trump nor his attorneys have supplied any evidence to back such claims.

The plan from Dearie also asked for the attorneys to list a description of contents or location within the premises where the item was found is incorrect as well as to break down any property they say was taken during the search but not listed among the FBIs inventory.

The request marks the second time Dearie has asked the Trump legal team to back its claims.  :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

I was one of the ones wondering why they were taking so damned long to take any action over baldy orange cunto's financial malfeasance, but when you see the scale of it, it's staggering.

I'm sure he's going to try and bury the civil case in red tape for as long as possible, but the criminal charges for defrauding banks and the IRS no longer need to wait.

----------


## S Landreth

A minor suit. But not to Mr. Dolan


Charles Halliday Dolan Jr. Seeks Sanctions in Trump Case

Man Seeks Sanctions Because Trumps Failed Hillary Clinton RICO Lawsuit Wrongly Called Him Ex-DNC Chairman: My Resume Is Available Online

One of the many defendants named in Donald Trumps racketeering lawsuit against Hillary Clinton has moved for sanctions against Trump and his attorneys in connection with the botched litigation.

Trump claimed Clinton and others, including Charles Halliday Dolan Jr., illegally conspired against his 2016 election campaign by engaging in a plot which alleged that Trump had colluded with Russia. Among the many named defendants were the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Partys law firm Perkins Coie, that firms former partner Michael Sussmann, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla. 23), Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorneys Lisa Page and Kevin Clinesmith, and former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe.

U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks dismissed the case in its entirety after the myriad defendants asked him to rubbish the proceeding. Middlebrooks concluded that a federal statute of limitations had long since closed on claims related to the 2016 election and because the case had little to no merit.

Dolans name appeared in Trumps original complaint as an alleged employee of the public relations firm Kglobal and as a longtime participant in Democratic politics, having previously served as chairman of the DNC, state chairman of former President Bill Clintons 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, adviser to Clintons 2008 presidential campaign, and having been appointed by Clinton to two four-year terms on an advisory commission at the U.S. State Department.

With respect to the 2016 Clinton campaign, Dolan actively campaigned and participated in calls and events as a volunteer on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, Trumps attorneys asserted.

In a Wednesday memorandum in support of a motion for sanctions, Dolan said some of those facts were flat-out false.

Defendant Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr has been dragged into this lawsuit via speculation, rumor and innuendo, the filing suggests.  Large and small matters are falsely and cavalierly presented in Plaintiffs pleadings; any one of these false statements is grounds for sanction.

Snip

Dolans counsel then suggested that Trumps sprawling RICO lawsuit was little more than an attempt to settle political scores via the judicial system by offering conjecture and speculation to concoct various causes of actions.

But Plaintiff admits that his injury was political, Dolans attorneys wrote, citing page 118 of Trumps amended complaint. Dealing with political issues is part and parcel of running for President and being President in the United States. Plaintiff does not get to sue for the rigors of a job he campaigned for.

Due to the aforementioned errors, Dolans counsel is asking Judge Middlebrooks to award sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A separate document called a praecipe indicates the Rule 11 issue is ripe for adjudication. Additionally, Dolans attorneys say they may join a future request for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

The praecipe says Dolan has paid $2,045 on a total bill of $16,274.23.  Most of that time was furnished at the rate of $100 per hour by a group of highly seasoned attorneys. The rate is described in the document as a low bono rate. Thats a play on the phrase pro bono, which describes the provision of legal services for free.

The praecipe adds that the lawsuit prevented Dolan from obtaining credit and led to a significant loss of consulting business.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...et-268-269.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

NARA withholding Mar-a-Lago search records to protect DOJ's "ongoing work"

The National Archives and Records Administration says the Department of Justice has asked the agency to not share information related to the Mar-a-Lago probe "to protect the integrity of DOJs ongoing work."

*Driving the news:* In a letter dated Thursday, acting archivist Debra Steidel Wall responded to questions from Republicans on the House Oversight Committee about the agency's previous refusal to turn over records to the lawmakers.


"As a general matter, the Department of Justice has requested that NARA not share or otherwise disclose to others information related to this matter at this time in order to protect the integrity of DOJs ongoing work," Steidel Wall wrote."I also let you know that 'NARA is preserving all records related to this matter'."In an email to Axios, NARA said it released the letter publicly as "a proactive disclosure."

*The big picture:* In the wake of the FBI's search at former president Donald Trump's Florida residence, House Republicans demanded additional information on the lead-up to the search and the materials found at the residence.


Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and other Republicans on the panel sent a letter at the end of last month seeking to clarify NARA's role in the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago "and reiterate the request for a briefing and all related documents and communications," per a statement.In Thursday's letter, Wall didn't rule out handing over records in the future. "To the extent that we are able to release any additional records responsive to your request in the future, we will make them available to you," she said.

*Go deeper:* Top Republicans press DOJ for answers on Mar-a-Lago search

----------


## S Landreth

E. Jean Carroll to sue Trump for battery under new sexual misconduct law

E. Jean Carroll, the author who alleges that former President Trump raped her in the mid-1990s, plans to sue him for battery under a new state law, according to court filings made public Tuesday.

*Why it matters:* Carroll, who is in the middle of a high-profile defamation suit against Trump, had been unable to pursue legal action for the actual alleged assault due to the state's statute of limitations. Now the Adult Survivors Act, which gives adult survivors of sexual misconduct a one-year window to sue their abusers regardless of when the incident occurred, could give her another chance against her alleged abuser.

*Driving the news:* Carroll's lawyer Roberta A. Kaplan wrote in an August letter to a New York federal judge that she will sue Trump for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress "on the earliest possible date," which is Nov. 24.


Carroll's team has requested a deposition to question Trump under oath. He "remains unwilling to produce" any court-mandated evidence, Kaplan said.Kaplan has asked to consolidate Carroll's defamation case with her expected suit under the Adult Survivors Act.

*Trump's lawyer* Alina Habba responded by asking the judge to reject the request, which she said would be "extraordinarily prejudicial" to Trump.


She also denied that Trump has failed to produce evidence and defended his use of "executive privilege"  a recurring tactic of his  to avoid handing over documents related to his verbal attacks on her character while he was president.

*The big picture:* The former president has maintained that he did not rape Carroll, who sued him for defamation in 2019 after he branded her a liar.


Trump, who faced a litany of sexual misconduct allegations during his campaign run in 2016, lost his bid to countersue earlier this year.Representatives for Carroll and Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

----------


## S Landreth

A trash update

On both the criminal and civil litigation fronts, former President Donald Trump faces a bevy of lawsuits and investigations, with more cases likely to follow.

*CIVIL CASES* 
E. Jean Carroll Defamation Suit

Update-9: On Sept. 20, 2022, Carroll notified the court that she planned to file a second lawsuit against Trump over the 1990s rape allegation.

______

Summer Zervos Defamation Suit (CASE CLOSED)

Update-2: On Oct. 4, 2021, the trial court ruled that Zervos could depose Trump before Dec. 23, 2021.

Update-3: On Nov. 12, 2021, Zervos announced she is dropping the lawsuit.

______

Mary Trump Fraud Litigation

______

Panama Hotel Fraud and Tax Litigation (CASE CLOSED)

Update: The parties filed a series of sealed letters in July and August 2021. On Sept. 15, 2021, the parties voluntarily agreed to end the suit.

______

Doe v. The Trump Corporation Class Action

Update-2: On March 25, CNN reported that former President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump all agreed to be deposed. Their depositions will take place in May and June.

______

DC Civil Suit over Misuse of 2017 Inauguration Funds (CASE CLOSED)

Update-4: On May, 3, 2022, the Trump Organization and Trumps inaugural committee agreed to pay a total of $750,000 to settle the suit. Under the deal, the Trump Organization will pay $400,000 and the committee will pay the remaining $350,000.

______

Karen Bass et al. Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack

Update-5: Trump filed his appeal brief on July 27, 2022. He challenged only the district courts ruling that he lacked absolute presidential immunity, arguing that his speech surrounding Jan. 6 fell within his official presidential duties.

______

Eric Swalwell Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Riots

Update-8: Trump filed his appeal brief on July 27, 2022. He challenged only the district courts ruling that he lacked absolute presidential immunity, arguing that his speech surrounding Jan. 6 fell within his official presidential duties.

______

Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots

Update-5: Trump filed his appeal brief on July 27, 2022. He challenged only the district courts ruling that he lacked absolute presidential immunity, arguing that his speech surrounding Jan. 6 fell within his official presidential duties.

______

Second Capitol Police Suit over the Jan. 6 Riots

Update-3: Trump filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 31, 2022. He once again argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim and that Trumps speech was protected by absolute immunity and the First Amendment.

______

Third Capitol Police Suit over the Jan. 6 Riots

Case Status: The officer filed his suit in DC District Court on January 4, 2022.

______

Metropolitan Police Suits over the Jan. 6. Riots

Case Status: The officers filed their suit on January 4, 2022.

______

NAACPs Legal Defense Fund Voting Rights Case

Update-2: On June 16, the plaintiffs requested permission to file a second amended complaint with new factual allegations that could remedy the standing issues on the VRA claim.

______

NY Civil Suit over Fraudulent Real Estate Practices

Update-17: On Sept. 21, 2022, the NY AG sued the Trumps in NY state court.

______

Scotland Unexplained Wealth Orders

Update: On Nov. 25, 2021, in a victory for the defendants, Lord Sandison ruled that only the Lord Advocate General of Scotland may issue a UWO, not the Scottish ministers. Advocates are now asking for the Lord Advocate to take action.

_______

Trump Tower Assault Suit

Update-2: On Apr. 26, 2022, a court filing revealed fifty pages of testimony from Trumps deposition. Trump testified that he did not send his security staff after the protestors or direct them to grab their signs.

______

#17

Michael Cohen Retaliatory Imprisonment Suit

Update-2: On Aug. 2, 2022, the court heard oral argument on the defendants motion to dismiss.

______
*
CRIMINAL CASES* 
Criminal Investigations into Trumps Finances

Update-12: On Aug. 18, 2022, Allen Weisselberg pled guilty to fifteen financial felonies including tax fraud and grand larceny. As part of the deal, Weisselberg agreed to testify if the Trump Organization ever goes to trial on the tax fraud charges.

______

DC Attorney General Incitement Investigation for Attack on U.S. Capitol

Update: As of August 2022, there are no public signs that the DC AG is still investigating Trump.

______

Fulton County, Georgia Criminal Election Influence Investigation

Update-12: Senator Graham appealed the order requiring him to testify to the Eleventh Circuit, which then directed the district court to consider whether Grahams testimony should be limited based on his legislative immunity claim. The district court ultimately ordered Graham to testify but also held that Graham could refuse to answer questions about his investigatory fact-finding  related to his decision to certify  the 2020 presidential election because those inquiries would fall under his immunized legislative duties.

______

Westchester, New York Criminal Investigation of Trump Organization Golf Course

Case Status: The full scope of the investigation is unknown but the office has subpoenaed records from the course.

_______

#22 (the one case thatll put it in jail)

National Archives Referral for Mishandled Classified Materials

Update-12: On Sept. 21, the Eleventh Circuit granted the DOJs motion for a stay, meaning that the DOJ can use the classified documents in its investigation and that the DOJ need not submit those documents to the special master for review. The appeals court agreed with the DOJ that Trump could not assert a personal interest in classified records, and also noted that Trump had so far refused to advance any actual evidence that the records had been declassified.

__________

*Just for fun.*  :Smile: 

'Fox News Sunday' panel discusses Trump legal problems

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ asks judge to compel Navarro to return Trump White House emails

The Department of Justice filed a motion Monday asking a judge to order former White House adviser Peter Navarro to return government email communications he allegedly handled through a private account while serving in the Trump administration.

*Driving the news:* "While serving as a presidential advisor, [Navarro] used at least one non-official email account, namely a ProtonMail account, to send and receive messages in the course of discharging his official duties," the DOJ said in its filing to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.


"There is no genuine dispute of fact that Dr. Navarro used at least one unofficial email account to conduct official business, that those records are the property of the United States, and that Dr. Navarro has refused to return the records to the United States," the Justice Department said."Indeed, his counsel has expressly admitted as much. Because Dr. Navarro remains in possession of property that belongs to the United States, this Court should issue a writ of replevin requiring Dr. Navarro to return what he wrongfully continues to possess."

*The other side:* Representatives for Navarro did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment, but his lawyers told The Hill when the DOJ filed the lawsuit last month that he "never refused to provide records to the government" and he had "instructed his lawyers to preserve all such records."

____________

*Just for fun.*


Michael Flynn's Relatives May Have 'Destroyed' Files

CNN Wants to Know Whether Michael Flynns Relatives Deleted or Destroyed Documents Relevant to Defamation Lawsuit

The family of pro-Donald Trump retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has not turned over evidence relevant to their defamation lawsuit against CNN, prompting the news network to suggest that the relatives may have deleted or destroyed original documents, a new filing alleges.

Flynns relatives sued CNN repeatedly in New York and Florida over broadcasts tying them to QAnon, after the relatives recorded themselves reciting Where we go one, we go all, a phrase appropriated by believers in the conspiracy theory. The first to sue over the broadcasts were Flynns brother John Jack Flynn and that siblings wife Leslie Flynn. Sister-in-law Valerie Flynn later followed suit. The Flynn family claims that the phrase, now a well-known QAnon slogan abbreviated under the hashtag #WWG1WGA, was merely a statement in support of each other.

CNN has sought to test those denials in discovery, and their attorneys claim in a letter to the judge that Flynns relatives have not turned over responsive evidence.

For its part, CNN is not merely speculating that additional responsive documents exist that have not been produced; rather, CNN actually knows this to be true. For example, on September 15, 2022, nearly two months after the first meet and confer, Plaintiffs counsel produced a single text message conversation between Leslie Flynn and Valerie Flynn discussing the CNN Report at-issue, the networks lawyer Katherine M. Bolger wrote in a three-page letter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave.

According to a footnote, counsel for the Flynns designated the text message conversation as Highly Confidential.

This message is clearly responsive to numerous CNN [requests for production], and plaintiffs failure to originally produce it, only underscores that Plaintiffs counsel cannot rely on his clients representations that they have provided all responsive documents and communications to him, the letter states.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-cnn-92622.pdf

----------


## harrybarracuda

Calls the LGBTQ+ community paedophiles.
Fiddles with kids.

Yep, sounds like a Republican to me.

----------


## S Landreth

Chris Kise: Newest addition to Trump's legal team sidelined in Mar-a-Lago search case

The newest addition to former President Donald Trumps legal team, Chris Kise, has been sidelined from the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation less than a month after he was brought on to represent Trump in the matter, two sources familiar with the move tell CNN.

Kise is expected to remain on Trumps legal team but is not leading the work related to the federal governments investigation into how the former President handled 11,000 documents seized from his Florida home in August following a lengthy effort by the government to retrieve them. The reason for the shift in Kises role remains unclear and he may instead focus his efforts on the other investigations Trump is facing, which range from his business practices to the January 6 insurrection.

The move is notable given Kise, the former solicitor general for Florida, was brought on to the team after a weeks-long search and struggle to find someone willing to take on the case who was also experienced in Florida law. The legal strategy for fighting the Justice Department following the August seizure of over 100 documents marked as classified was also in disarray.

Kises hiring came with an unusual price tag of $3 million, paid for by Trumps outside spending arm. The retainer fee, paid upfront, raised eyebrows among other lawyers on Trumps team, given the former President has a developed a reputation for not paying his legal fees.

His sidelining will likely be read as another setback for Trump as he faces multiple investigations.

Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich said: Chris Kises role as an important member of President Trumps legal team remains unchanged, and any suggestion otherwise is untrue.

__________


DOJ: No Vendors Want to Work With Trump to Digitize Mar-a-Lago Docs

The DOJ is having such a hard time finding document digitization vendors willing to work with Trump that it requested more time for the special master review

A special master set to review tens of thousands of documents in the Department of Justice's probe of Donald Trump may have to wait a bit longer as several middlemen have blown off Trump.

According to new court documents filed Tuesday, the DOJ is asking special master Raymond Dearie for an additional day to turn over non-classified documents in the investigation. Federal prosecutors said they needed until September 28 because none of the five vendors they suggested to digitize the cache of documents "were willing to be engaged by Plaintiff."

"Plaintiff informed us this morning that none of the five document-review vendors proposed by the government before last Tuesday's preliminary conference were willing to be engaged by Plaintiff," DOJ lawyers said in a filing on Tuesday. "To avoid further delay in the vendor's scanning and processing of the Seized Materials (defined to exclude "documents bearing classification markings"), the government issued a request for a task order this afternoon with a deadline of tomorrow (Wednesday, September 28, 2022) at noon."

Prosecutors said that they'd be willing to engage the vendors, adding, "the government is highly confident at least one vendor will respond."

They also said that Trump should be expected to pay for the process, and that they estimated that between the selection of a vendor and scanning of the files, the turnover could be concluded by October 7.

Recently, Dearie has appointed an aide who Trump will pay $500 an hour and has asked the Trump team to provide proof that the FBI planted evidence during their search of Mar-a-Lago, which Trump has claimed. In its latest filing, the DOJ also prodded Trump's team to submit an inventory list of the materials seized by the FBI.

"The Special Master needs to know that that he is reviewing all of the materials seized from Mar- a-Lago on August 8, 2022  and no additional materials  before he categorizes the seized documents and adjudicates privilege claims," Prosecutors said.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8763.121.0.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

Trumps Impeachment Lawyers to Rep Trump-Owned Business

Trumps Jan. 6 Impeachment Lawyers Will Represent Trump-Owned Corporation as New York Investigations Intensify

Michael van der Veen, onetime Pennsylvania Attorney General Bruce Castor (who works at van der Veens law firm), and William Brennan (of Brennan Law Offices) worked alongside other lawyers to secure the 45th presidents acquittal before the U.S. Senate on one count of incitement of insurrection over the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol Complex.

Now, the trio will test their mettle with the Manhattan District Attorneys Office in another marquee case involving Trump.

It will be like bringing the old band back together again, van der Veen told The Legal Intelligencers Justin Henry earlier this week. As a criminal defense lawyer, you want to be involved in cases that are of significance and are professionally challenging. This is certainly one of those cases. This will be one of the most important cases in our country this year. Its an opportunity to try a case on stage in Manhattan and an opportunity that I couldnt pass up.

Van der Veen and Brennan have been working for the Trump family businesses since the summer of last year in relation to Manhattan DA Alvin Braggs (D) criminal probe  as well as on a defense team handling a related civil investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D). It is unclear whether Castor has also joined that specific effort viz. the James civil suit.

Now, with a real trial looming, the reconstituted legal team have acknowledged their reunion tour might be a somewhat harder show.

The case is a real uphill battle, van der Veen told the legal publication. What you read in that paper says they [in the Trump Organization] dont have a chance because the CFO entered a guilty plea on all counts. But we really intend to distinguish the individual actors from corporate entities.

Weve been in tough battles before, Brennan added. But sometimes the only option is to go into the courtroom, pick the jury and defend the client to the best of your ability. And thats what we intend to do. We dont guarantee results, we just guarantee well put up one hell of a fight.

__________

*Just for fun.
*

Judge tosses Sidney Powells countersuit against Dominion Voting Systems

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday agreed to dismiss a lawsuit that pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell filed against Dominion Voting Systems as the voting machine company pursues a $1.3 billion defamation claim against her.

In a three-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols granted Dominions request to toss the case after finding Powell failed to show that Dominions defamation suit against her constituted an abuse of justice.

Powells complaint fails to link her abuse-of-process claim to any act that Dominion has taken other than filing and pursuing its lawsuit, wrote Nichols, who was appointed to the federal district court in D.C. by former President Trump. She has thus failed to state a claim for abuse of process.

----------


## harrybarracuda

I didn't realise Sidney Powell was one of the lawyers that defended Arthur Andersen et all for their Enron "efforts".
Accused the prosecutors of "overreach"!

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## S Landreth

Judge says Trump can hold off on affirming accuracy of FBIs Mar-a-Lago inventory

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon brushed aside an order from the special master in the Mar-a-Lago case requiring former President Trump to back his claims the FBI planted evidence in his home in an order that also extends the deadline for completing the review.

The order from Cannon comes after Trumps legal team penned a letter to Judge Raymond Dearie, the special master, complaining his management plan exceeds the grant of authority from the district court on this issue.

In Thursdays order, Cannon agreed with Trumps team, saying his attorneys would not be required to affirm the accuracy of the FBIs inventory from Mar-a-Lago before getting a chance to review the records themselves.

There shall be no separate requirement on Plaintiff at this stage, prior to the review of any of the seized materials.  The Courts Appointment Order did not contemplate that obligation, Cannon wrote.

Her order also extends the timeline to review the roughly 200,000 pages Trump stored at his home from Nov. 30 until Dec. 16.

The shuffling of deadlines also allows other key filings from the Trump team to land after the midterms.

Cannon sided with a requirement from Dearie for the Trump team to be more specific about what types of executive privilege he wishes to assert over the documents.

Trumps team must now label each document to claim whether it could be covered by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege, as well as which presidential records he argues are his personal property.

But his team is not required to make those claims until shortly after the midterm elections. Dearie had required Trumps team to make those claims on a rolling basis.

The order from Cannon comes after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Justice Department, ruling the district court judge erred by failing to siphon off classified documents from the special master process so DOJ could continue with its national security review.

But that same ruling also indicated they believed Cannon largely erred in appointing the special master to begin with.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-9-29-2022.pdf

----------


## harrybarracuda

So obviously partisan it's painful to watch.

----------


## S Landreth

Feds seek to fast-track appeal in Trump Mar-a-Lago documents fight

The Justice Department moved to quickly dismantle the independent review of documents seized from Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago estate, contending that the review  ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon  is impeding its criminal investigation.

In a 15-page filing asking a federal appeals court to speed its consideration of the issue, prosecutors complained the special master review prevents DOJ from accessing thousands of non-classified records recovered from the former presidents estate.

While those documents dont present the same urgent national security concerns as the smaller volume of classified materials DOJ successfully fought to regain access to earlier this month, Justice Department officials said the continued blockade on non-classified materials had slowed investigators efforts to determine how some of the classified records were transferred to Mar-a-Lago and whether any of them were improperly accessed.

The government is  unable to examine records that were commingled with materials bearing classification markings, including records that may shed light on, for example, how the materials bearing classification markings were transferred to Plaintiffs residence, how they were stored, and who may have accessed them, DOJ officials, including counterintelligence chief Jay Bratt, wrote in the filing with the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The records not marked as classified may also constitute evidence of potential [obstruction] and [concealment or removal of government records].

Can we explain Trumps reaction to the DOJ probe in 2 minutes? A POLITICO reporter tries (and fails, again)

The Justice Department is seeking an expedited review of its appeal of Cannons order establishing the special master review. Though legal briefing in the appeal was slated to carry through mid-December or longer, DOJs proposed expedited schedule would conclude that process by mid-November and have oral arguments set soon thereafter.

The filing also hints at prosecutors irritation with Cannon, a Trump appointee confirmed days after his defeat in the 2020 election. The Justice Department noted that she has repeatedly overruled decisions made by the special master she appointed at Trumps suggestion, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Raymond Dearie. Those rulings could significantly delay Dearies review, prosecutors indicated.

Based on the district courts orders thus far, the government is barred from accessing all of the materials except those with classification markings recovered in August pursuant to a lawful search warrant  and it may continue to be barred from doing so until mid-December or later, the officials wrote as they asked the appeals court to weigh in promptly on the legal issues, including Trumps claims of executive privilege.

Absent such resolution by this Court, the special master proceedings could result in prolonged litigation, including through seriatim appeals to the district court from reports and recommendations and other rulings issued by the special master, the prosecutors wrote.

The Justice Departments motion also seeks to capitalize on a ruling earlier this month from an 11th Circuit panel which unanimously granted the governments request to exclude about 100 documents with classification markings from the special master review. Prosecutors suggest that decision may have created a precedent that undermines Cannons essential rationale for the review.

Despite press reports that one member of Trumps legal team, attorney Christopher Kise, has stepped back from involvement in the special master litigation, the governments new filing says Kise was the lawyer prosecutors consulted about Trumps position regarding the governments request to expedite the appeal. Kise said Trumps side plans to oppose it, according to the filing.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...7-b7be49d40000

__________


Trump deposition in rape accusers defamation suit scheduled for Oct. 19

Former President Trump is scheduled to give testimony on Oct. 19 in a deposition for the defamation suit filed against him by a woman who has accused him of rape.

A letter filed in court Friday from the attorney of E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s, revealed the scheduling. Trumps legal team had argued that a deposition was a more practical way for Carroll to obtain the information she is seeking instead of providing documents.

The filing comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Tuesday that Trump has legal protection through a federal law that provides broad immunity to government employees. The ruling was a partial victory for Trump, but the court asked the D.C. Court of Appeals to weigh in on whether Trump was acting outside the scope of his office when he allegedly defamed Carroll.

Trump has denied Carrolls allegation that he raped her and has accused her of lying. He has also attacked her physical appearance.

Carrolls lawyer argued that the Second Circuit courts ruling did not impact the main question of whether the United States should be substituted in for Trump in the lawsuit since he was the president when he made his comments.

Trumps attorney had asked a federal judge to deny Carrolls request that Trump sit for a deposition, but Carrolls attorney said Trump should not be able to avoid the deposition just because the question of substitution is still unsettled.

The Justice Department, under Attorneys General William Barr and Merrick Garland, has argued that Trumps comments were made in the context of his responsibilities so the U.S. should be substituted in. Carrolls attorneys have said that she plans to file a separate civil suit against Trump for sexual assault.

----------


## S Landreth

National Archives says it is still missing some Trump administration records

The National Archives and Records Administration said on Friday that it is still missing some records from the Trump administration.

While there is no easy way to establish absolute accountability, we do know that we do not have custody of everything we should, Archivist Debra Steidel Wall said in a letter to the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

The National Archives does not have some messages that members of the Trump administration sent and received in unofficial accounts while conducting official business for the president, Wall said.

While the Archives has been able to recover these types of records from some former Trump officials, Wall said they are still missing messages from others who have not yet handed them over.

Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro has refused to turn over the messages from his unofficial account without a grant of immunity. The Justice Department sued Navarro for the documents in August, noting that he does not deny that he had the unofficial account or that the messages are the property of the U.S. government.

Wall did not provide an update in Fridays letter about the records held by former President Trump himself, instead referring the committee to the Justice Departments investigation.

The National Archives, with the help of the Justice Department and FBI, has recovered hundreds of presidential records from Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence over the last year, including dozens of classified documents.

Disputes over the status of the Mar-a-Lago documents has resulted in an ongoing legal battle between the DOJ and Trump. Following Judge Aileen Cannons recent decision to extend the timeline of the case, it is now expected to drag into 2023.

----------


## panama hat

> Calls the LGBTQ+ community paedophiles.
> Fiddles with kids.
> 
> Yep, sounds like a Republican to me.


Uncanny . . . fits them quite nicely

----------


## Cujo

> Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro has refused to turn over the messages from his unofficial account without a grant of immunity. The Justice Department sued Navarro for the documents in August, noting that he does not deny that he had the unofficial account or that the messages are the property of the U.S. government.


Why are these people getting away with this shit?
Why aren't they being arrested for what is obvious and flagrant lawbreaking?

----------


## qwerty

But remember Hilary's emails!  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  

Now that the shoe is on the other foot the blatant hypocrisy of Trump and his gang is just astounding.

----------


## S Landreth

Supreme Court declines to hear case on DOJ filter teams used in Trump search

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case about whether the Justice Department (DOJ) can use filter teams, such as the one enlisted by the DOJ to begin a review of evidence collected at former President Trumps home in Mar-a-Lago to determine whether they are privileged.

The Justices denied a writ of certiorari in Korf v. United States, which questioned the legality of filter team protocols that allow teams of federal prosecutors and agents not assigned to a given case to review seized documents claimed to be privileged before the privilege question has been resolved.

The DOJ used a filter team to begin a review of the evidence collected during the execution of a search warrant at Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence before Trump successfully pushed for a special master to review the documents he said were privileged. 

FBI agents at the Palm Beach, Fla., resort recovered classified documents taken from the White House and kept past the end of Trumps time in office.

The former presidents defenses for how and why the documents ended up at Mar-a-Lago has shifted, but one of his claims stymying DOJ review of the materials is that the documents contain privileged information.

In Korf, a filter team of DOJ attorneys reviewed materials seized during an investigation before a court had responded to claims of privilege on those documents.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit allowed the protocols to proceed without requiring the filter team to show that an exception to privilege may have applied to the documents. 

____________

National Archives asked Trump's lawyers for Kim Jong-Un correspondence in May 2021

The National Archives asked former President Trump's lawyers to account for correspondence with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in May 2021 as part of a bid to locate boxes of presidential records, according to email correspondence released Monday.

Why it matters: Exactly eight weeks since the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago, the former president and his legal team have still not explained why he took more than 11,000 government documents and refused to return them on request.

The National Archives said it released email correspondence in response to more than 50 freedom of information requests related to the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago this summer.
Details: On May 6, 2021, National Archives General Counsel Gary Stern asked Trump's lawyers for their "immediate assistance to ensure that NARA receives all Presidential records as required by the Presidential Records Act."

"For example, the original correspondence between President Trump and North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un were not transferred to us; it is our understanding that in January 2021, just prior to the end of the Administration, the originals were put in a binder for the President, but were never returned to the Office of Records Management for transfer to NARA."

"It is essential that these original records be transferred to NARA as soon as possible," wrote Stern, who also pointed to a missing letter from former President Obama.

"We know things were very chaotic, as they always are in the course of a one-term transition ... But it is absolutely necessary that we obtain and account for all original Presidential records."

Other requests released Monday referenced deleted Trump tweets that weren't properly archived.

The big picture: Under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records must be immediately transferred to the national archivist as soon as a president leaves office. Some of the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago during the FBI's search were classified, according to the Justice Department.

Trump has claimed he had a "standing order" dictating that documents taken from the Oval Office to his residence were "deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them."

Former Attorney General Bill Barr and former national security adviser John Bolton, who both worked in the Trump administration, have disputed the claim.

Now embroiled in a legal battle with the DOJ, Trump faces a special master who appears deeply skeptical of the arguments put forth by his legal team.

___________

*Extra*


Supreme Court rejects Trump ally Mike Lindell's appeal in 2020 election lawsuit

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected MyPillow CEO Mike Lindells bid to fend off a defamation lawsuit the voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems filed over his far-fetched claims about the 2020 presidential election.

The justices decision not to hear the case means a federal judges ruling in August 2021 that allowed the lawsuit to move forward remains in place.

______________

*Little more*  :Smile: 


Trump attorney lawyers up  and says shes willing to cooperate with DOJ in Mar-a-Lago case

At least one member of former President Donald Trump's legal team has hired her own attorney  and allies are urging another to follow suit, according to The Washington Post.

Trump attorneys Christina Bobb and Evan Corcoran affirmed to the Justice Department that Trump had handed over all classified records from his Mar-a-Lago residence in response to a May subpoena. But prosecutors said their response was "incomplete" after the FBI searched and found more documents at Mar-a-Lago and cited evidence of "obstructive conduct" in response to the subpoena.

Bobb has since hired her own lawyer, Florida-based former prosecutor John Lauro, and "made it known to Trump allies that she is willing to cooperate and be interviewed by the Justice Department," according to the Post. And colleagues have similarly urged Corcoran to hire a criminal defense lawyer because of his response to the subpoena, according to the report, but he has insisted it is not necessary.

Asked if she was negotiating to sit for an interview with the DOJ, Bobb told the outlet, "I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about it."

Bobb signed a document affirming that Trump handed over "all documents that are responsive to the subpoena" after a "diligent search." Corcoran then met with DOJ officials and made a similar statement. Investigators ultimately found more evidence that there were additional documents at Mar-a-Lago and secured a warrant to search the premises in August.

Bobb, a former OAN host who helped push Trump's legal challenges following the 2020 election, has insisted to Trump allies that she believes the document she signed was accurate, according to the Post. But she also told the pro-Trump Right Side Broadcasting Network that she was not acting as Trump's attorney while serving as a custodian of records when responding to the subpoena, according to the report, meaning that the DOJ could compel her testimony more easily than if she were acting as Trump's lawyer at the time.

"Christina Bobb and Evan Corcoran need their own criminal lawyers," former DOJ inspector general Michael Bromwich tweeted, citing their "multiple misrepresentations" to the DOJ.

https://www.salon.com/2022/10/03/att...o-case-report/

___________

*Something desperate* 


Trump sues CNN for defamation

Former President Trump has sued CNN in federal court in Florida for defamation.

In the lawsuit filed Monday, Trumps attorneys claim CNN has sought to use its massive influence  purportedly as a trusted news source  to defame the Plaintiff in the minds of its viewers and readers for the purpose of defeating him politically, culminating in CNN claiming credit for [getting] Trump out in the 2020 presidential election.

The former president is seeking $475 million in punitive damages, according to the lawsuit.

Trump announced his intent to sue the network earlier this summer, saying in a statement he would also be commencing actions against other media outlets who have defamed me and defrauded the public regarding the overwhelming evidence of fraud throughout the 2020 Election.

The former presidents attorneys allege in the filing that CNN has undertaken a smear campaign to malign the Plaintiff with a barrage of negative associations and innuendos, broadcasting commentary that he is like a cult leader, a Russian lackey, a dog whistler to white supremacists, and a racist.

It also cited anchors, personalities and pundits on CNN using the term Big Lie to refer to Trumps repeated false statements about the 2020 election and voter fraud as evidence of the outlet attempting to associate him with Adolf Hitler.

In order to prove defamation, public officials and other public figures must prove journalists acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth in their reporting, a high legal bar to clear given First Amendment protections granted to the free press under the Constitution. The New York Times, for example, has not lost a defamation case in more than 50 years.

CNN is a frequent foil of Trump, his followers and allies, as well as conservatives more generally.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...or-defamation/

----------


## S Landreth

Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in legal fight over special master

President Trump’s legal team on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in its legal battle to have a third party review the thousands of pages of government records he stored at his Florida home.

The filing from the Trump team asks the high court to lift a stay granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit that allowed the Justice Department to review more than 100 classified records taken from Mar-a-Lago during its August search.

Trump’s lawyers, in court papers, argued that the federal appeals court erred by allowing the Justice Department to appeal a move that was procedural in nature.

“Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit granted a stay of the Special Master Order, effectively compromising the integrity of the well-established policy against piecemeal appellate review and ignoring the District Court’s broad discretion without justification,” they wrote. “This unwarranted stay should be vacated as it impairs substantially the ongoing, time-sensitive work of the Special Master.”

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...s-petition.pdf
__________


Lawyer refused Trump instruction to tell Archives all records were returned

Soon after former President Donald Trump returned 15 boxes of presidential records to the National Archives and Records Administration earlier this year, he instructed one of his lawyers to tell the agency that all of the materials the Archives had requested had been returned from his Mar-a-Lago estate, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The former Trump Organization attorney, Alex Cannon, had been working with Archives representatives since 2021 to facilitate the return of records that had been taken to Trump’s Florida residence and resort at the end of his presidency. Because Cannon was based in New York and had been assisting with the records matter from afar, he was unsure whether the Archives had received everything in Trump’s possession and thus refused the former President’s request, said people familiar with the matter. Trump told Cannon not to involve himself further, the sources said.

The relationship between the two men had already become tense after months of stonewalling by Trump and his questioning why he needed to return items in the first place.

“My understanding is it was a mutual decision for Alex to no longer deal with Archives,” said one of the people familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations.

National Archives alerted lawyers for Trump about missing letters with North Korean leader in May 2021, records show
Unfazed by Cannon’s refusal, Trump dictated a statement to aides in February declaring that all records had been returned to NARA and decrying reporting that his relationship with the agency had become fraught as “fake news.” Two people familiar with the statement, which was never released, said it inexplicably went on to mention German pipelines. The statement was circulated to several Trump aides for approval, including his spokesman Taylor Budowich, who was among several advisers who cautioned the former President to consult his attorneys before releasing it.

Ultimately, a version of the statement was released that did not reference giving all documents over but said the papers were returned “on a very friendly basis.”

___________


Tillerson testifies he wasn't aware of indicted Trump ally's foreign policy advice

Former President Donald Trump’s first secretary of State took the stand Monday in the foreign agent trial of Trump’s longtime friend, testifying that he was unaware that real estate investor Tom Barrack was relaying nonpublic information about the Trump administration’s discussions to officials from a foreign government or that he was otherwise involved in Trump’s foreign policy deliberations.

Rex Tillerson, who served as the Trump administration’s top diplomat for a little over a year before being fired by tweet, is the first member of Trump’s administration to testify in Barrack’s trial, which began last month in federal court in Brooklyn.

Barrack, along with his former aide Matthew Grimes, were charged last year with acting as foreign agents of the United Arab Emirates without notifying the attorney general as prosecutors contend they should have. Barrack is also accused of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI. Both men have pleaded not guilty.

Defense attorneys for Barrack have sought to argue that officials within the U.S. government, and potentially the president himself, were aware that their client was backchanneling with the Emiratis, and during the trial they have asserted that Barrack was under the direction or control of no one but himself.

But Tillerson, who was called as a witness by federal prosecutors, testified that he was unaware that Barrack was privy to what he said were “sensitive” internal discussions, nor did he ever request that Barrack serve as a conduit between Washington and Abu Dhabi.

“You don’t want outside parties to have that information and try to use it to their advantage,” Tillerson said of such deliberations.

----------


## S Landreth

Court grants DOJ motion to expedite appeal in special master case

An appeals court on Wednesday granted a motion from the Department of Justice to fast-track its appeal in the special master case involving documents seized in the FBI's search at Mar-a-Lago.

*Driving the news:* "Having consulted with the Chief Judge, the appeal will be assigned to a special merits panel from the classified appeals log randomly selected by the Clerk," per the filing.


The 11th Circuit in the Wednesday filing also set the deadline for all briefs to be submitted to the court by Nov. 17.

*The big picture:* The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the DOJ last month and granted the department's request to resume reviewing classified documents from Mar-a-Lago.


The DOJ on Friday asked the 11th Circuit to expedite its ruling on the special masters appointment, contending that its inability to review non-classified documents was impeding its investigation, Reuters reports.Trump on Monday opposed the DOJ's request to speed up its appeal, saying "the government has not and cannot possibly articulate any real risk of loss or harm resulting from a more deliberative process."

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ted-appeal.pdf

 
____________


Kyle Cheney - JUST IN: DOJ says they and Trump have finally contracted with third-party vendors to process and share the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/stat...62267499831296

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8763.137.0.pdf



____________
*
Extra*


Steve Bannon's fraud trial expected in November 2023

A judge said Tuesday that former Trump adviser Steve Bannon's trial for allegedly defrauding donors to build a southern border wall is expected late next year, the AP reports.

Driving the news: Bannon has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include two counts of money laundering stemming from his work with Trump's "We Build the Wall" campaign, as well as fraud and conspiracy charges.

Prosecutors in New York accused Bannon of defrauding donors by diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars to third parties.

Judge Juan Manuel Merchan said Bannons legal team has until February to go over evidence and submit any pretrial motions, AP reports.

Prosecutors said there are four terabytes worth of evidence, which translates to millions of written pages or hundreds of hours of video, per AP.

Background: The case, filed in New York, mirrors a federal case that was dismissed in 2021 after a presidential pardon from Trump.

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/04/ste...all-trial-2023

----------


## S Landreth

Raymond Dearie Agrees to Send Mar-a-Lago Docs to 'Case Team'

Special Master Agrees to Send Cache of Mar-a-Lago Documents to DOJ Case Team Assigned to Investigate Possible Crimes

The special master tapped to oversee a review of documents from Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago home and resort has agreed to ship a tranche of the seized material to a U.S. Department of Justice or FBI case team. That move came after the former presidents attorneys failed to assert several forms of privilege over the subset of paperwork in question.

The case team is made up of law enforcement personnel conducting this investigation, earlier documents indicate; in essence, it is tasked with reviewing whether any violations of law occurred. Before it can review all of the material seized from Mar-a-Lago, a separate privilege team was tasked with reviewing the documents. The goal of that process is to ensure that criminal investigators wont see any material they are legally not permitted to examine or to use should a criminal case be filed.

In an order issued Friday, Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie, appointed as special master to oversee the process, said the DOJ and Trumps lawyers filed a Log of Disputes for Filter Materials, also known as a Filter Log, under seal.

The Special Master has reviewed the Filter Log and has confirmed that Plaintiff is not asserting attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine for the above-listed documents, Dearie wrote after listing 37 documents by page number. Pursuant to the parties agreement, the Privilege Review Team is directed to furnish the above-listed documents to the Case Team on or before October 10, 2022.

From there, Dearie directed the case team to confer with Trumps lawyers in an attempt to resolve or narrow the disputes regarding claims of executive privilege and designations pursuant to the Presidential Records Act.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...22-ecf-138.pdf

____________

*Extra.*


Giuliani threatened with jail over missing divorce paperwork

The tough-talking former mayor who made his name putting lawbreakers in jail ran up against a tough-talking judge whos ready to do the same  to him.

Rudy Giuliani has been warned: either produce the records of payments he says he made to his ex-wife or expect a deputy to haul him away.

I mean, the sheriff is on notice to come at a moments notice, Manhattan Civil Court Judge Michael Katz said Friday. This is a very serious matter.

Katz had already ordered the former mayor and presidential adviser to pay ex-wife Judith Nathan $235,000 as part of their 2019 divorce settlement.

Giuliani, who missed a recent court date, claims the amount is a gross exaggeration, and that he has the paperwork to prove it. Only, he hasnt produced all of it yet, and the judge is getting tired of waiting.

I dont understand why it takes two months to get checks from Citibank, Katz said. "I could get my bank records from entering my passcode on a computer. Nonetheless, he has now presented them. I have no desire to remand someone in custody until I am assured that he has truly not fulfilled his obligations.

_____________

*Little more*

Mike Lindell Seeks to Fast-Track Review of Cell Phone Case

Mike Lindell Says DOJ Improperly Obtained and Executed Cell Phone Search Warrant, Asks Judge to Fast-Track Document Request

A federal magistrate judge in Minnesota on Wednesday ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to file a swift reply to Mike Lindells demand for an expedited review of a request for copies of search warrant materials the government used to justify seizing Lindells cell phone.

According to the court docket, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright told the DOJ to respond to Lindells request for an expedited review by 9 a.m. on Thursday. The reply will reveal how quickly the DOJ wishes to move forward on the matter, but it will likely not directly or immediately resolve the question of whether or not Lindell will immediately obtain copies of the paperwork in question.

The order for a DOJ response is limited to the issue of the speed of the timeline at play. Still, it came after Lindells attorneys filed a collection of court papers which together seek access to the documents and in an expedited fashion  namely, a copy of the affidavit the FBI used to secure the search warrant.

The affidavit should explain in particularity the probable cause developed by federal authorities to convince a magistrate to sign off on the warrant.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...through-42.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

As the Justice Department's investigation into the classified documents found at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property continues, new questions have arisen about whether all of the sensitive materials taken from the White House have been returned. Neal Katyal, former acting U.S. Solicitor General, joins Geoff Bennett to discuss the latest developments.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump lawyer Christina Bobb speaks to federal investigators in Mar-a-Lago case

Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed a letter certifying that all sensitive records in former President Donald Trump's possession had been returned to the government, spoke to federal investigators Friday and named two other Trump attorneys involved with the case, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

The certification statement, signed June 3 by Bobb, indicated that Trump was in compliance with a May grand jury subpoena and no longer had possession of a host of documents with classification markings at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, according to the three sources who do not want to comment publicly because of the sensitive nature of the sprawling federal investigation.

Their accounts correspond with federal court records, though the Justice Department did not name her as the attorney who signed the statement, or identify any others involved, in its filings.

After Justice Department officials were given the statement, the FBI subsequently determined the substance of the certification was untrue and, on Aug. 8, agents executed a search warrant and seized more 103 more records with classification markings, court documents show.

Bobb, who was Trumps custodian of record at the time, did not draft the statement, according to the three sources who do not want to comment publicly because of the sensitive nature of the sprawling federal investigation.

Instead, Trumps lead lawyer in the case at the time, Evan Corcoran, drafted it and told her to sign it, Bobb told investigators according to the sources. Bobb also spoke to investigators about Trump legal adviser Boris Epshteyn, who she said did not help draft the statement but was minimally involved in discussions about the records, according to the sources.

Epshteyns cellphone was seized last month by the FBI, according to a New York Times report, citing sources familiar with the matter. Two sources confirmed to NBC News that his phone was seized.

Bobb did not return messages seeking comment, nor did Corcoran. The Justice Department did not comment.

Before Bobb signed the document, she insisted it be rewritten with a disclaimer that said she was certifying Trump had no more records based upon the information that has been provided to me, the sources said of what she told investigators. Bobb identified the person who gave her that information as Corcoran, the sources said.

She had to insist on that disclaimer twice before she signed it, said one source who spoke with Bobb about what she told investigators.

The source said she spoke freely without an immunity deal.

She is not criminally liable," the source said. "She is not going to be charged. She is not pointing fingers. She is simply a witness for the truth.

___________


Cassidy Hutchinson to cooperate with Atlanta-area probe of Trump

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson is reportedly cooperating with an Atlanta district attorneys investigation into former President Trump, his allies and their efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

CNN, citing sources familiar with the matter, reported on Monday that Hutchinson  who served as a special assistant to former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows  is cooperating with the inquiry led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D).

Hutchinson was a key witness for the House select committees investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, relaying information about what occurred at the White House in the lead up to and on the day of the riot. She testified with the panel behind closed doors and during a public hearing, where she delivered a number of explosive accounts.

Multiple news outlets reported in July that Hutchinson was cooperating with the Justice Departments probe of Jan. 6.

The Hill has reached out to Hutchinsons attorney and the Fulton County District Attorneys Office for comment.

News of Hutchinsons reported cooperation in the Peach State comes after Willis in August filed petitions for Meadows to testify before a special grand jury. The prosecutor also requested testimony from pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell and James Phil Waldron, who met with Meadows.

The Fulton County district attorneys investigation into Trump and his allies was sparked by the January 2021 call that the then-president placed to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger asking that he find the number of votes needed to give Trump a win in the state.

Meadows was present on the call.

The probe, however, has since grown in scope, including baseless claims of election fraud, fake elector plots, attempts by individuals to get a hold of voting machines in a county in the state and threatening remarks targeting election workers, according to CNN.

Meadows visited Cobb County, Ga., in December 2020 when a review of absentee ballots was underway. Hutchinson spoke about the trip with the House committee behind closed doors.

The primary purpose of this trip was to visit family. His son lives in Georgia, and they went down to see his son for Christmas. Conveniently, his son lives in close proximity to Cobb County, and Mr. Meadows had discussed at length coordinating any visits with Georgia State officials during this trip, she said.

Now, there was a point where I was going to go with him because he was going to conduct a few more meetings, but then it was decided that he would make it a little bit more informal and casual, which is when he decided to go watch the ballots being counted, she added.

CNN reported last week that Willis is looking to conclude her investigation after the November midterm elections and could start indicting individuals in December, according to sources familiar with the situation.

She has said the probe will enter a quiet period this month to steer clear of the impression that the investigation is attempting to sway the midterms, according to CNN.

----------


## TizMe

I always wondered why an attorney would sign such a declaration.
Why wasn't Trump's signature on it?

----------


## panama hat

Lawyers act on a client's behalf

----------


## Topper

> I always wondered why an attorney would sign such a declaration.
> Why wasn't Trump's signature on it?


Once trump signs a declaration like that he becomes personally responsible for the accuracy of the document.  When his lawyer signs it, the lawyer is responsible for its accuracy.

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ to SCOTUS: Steer clear of Trumps Mar-a-Lago case appeal

The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to turn down former President Donald Trumps bid to get a set of about 100 documents marked as classified back into the hands of an independent special master reviewing materials seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in a brief filed Tuesday afternoon that theres no reason for the high court to step into the dispute over what role the court system should play, if any, in overseeing investigators access to the records the FBI recovered from Trumps Florida home.

Trump is seeking to get the records with classified markings back into the special master review in what appears to be an attempt to raise arguments that he declassified the records while he was president or that he declared them to be personal files not subject to the Presidential Records Act.

Applicant has never represented in any of his multiple legal filings in multiple courts that he in fact declassified any documents  much less supported such a representation with competent evidence, Prelogar wrote in the 32-page brief.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...f-f8fe05290000

 
_____________


Archives pushes back on Trump claims that other presidents mishandled records

The National Archives, without naming former President Trump, pushed back Tuesday on claims he made over the weekend that other past presidents had mishandled their White House records with the help of the agency.

Trump had previously claimed his predecessor, former President Obama, had mishandled his own records, but expanded that claim during rallies in Arizona and New Mexico to include several prior presidents, including Republicans.

At one point Trump even claimed, without evidence, that records from President George H.W. Bushs administration were stored in a Chinese restaurant and a bowling alley with no security and a broken front door.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) said Tuesday that while records are transported to presidents libraries, any temporary storage has met strict archival and security standards, and have been managed and staffed exclusively by NARA employees. It added that any insinuations that records were stored in substandard conditions are false and misleading.

----------


## Topper

Hey, the former president can afford to keep trying to delay things....he's got his super PAC with millions to pay for lawyers.

----------


## S Landreth

^trying. Itll catch up to him maybe sooner than later


A Mar-a-Lago witness told the FBI that the crates were moved on Trump's orders

A Trump staffer has told federal agents about moving boxes of documents at Mar-a-Lago at the former presidents specific direction, according to people familiar with the investigation, who say the witness statement  along with security camera footage  offers a key clue. evidence of Donald Trumps behavior when investigators requested the return of classified material.

A witness account and footage described to The Washington Post provide the most direct insight yet into Trumps actions and instructions that led to the Aug. 8 FBI search of a Florida residence and private club in which agents searched for evidence. potential crimes, including obstructing, destroying government records, or misusing classified information.

People familiar with the investigation said agents have taken witness statements that suggest that after Trumps advisers received a subpoena in May about classified documents left at Mar-a-Lago, Trump ordered people to take the boxes to his residence. This account of events was corroborated by security camera footage that showed people moving boxes, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation.

Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the FBI declined to comment.

Trumps spokeswoman, Taylor Budowich, declined to answer detailed questions for this article. The Biden administration has weaponized law enforcement and engineered document fraud in a desperate bid to maintain political power, Budowich said in a statement. Every other president has been given the time and respect to manage records because the president has the ultimate authority to categorize records and what material should be classified.

Budowich accused the Justice Department of a sustained effort to leak misleading and false information to partisan allies in fake news and said it is nothing short of dangerous political interference and unequal justice. Simply put, its un-American.

Classified documents were routinely mishandled in the Trump White House, former aides say

The employee who worked at Mar-a-Lago is cooperating with the Justice Department and has been interviewed multiple times by federal agents, who declined to identify the employee, according to people familiar with the situation.

In the first interview, these people said the witness denied handling sensitive documents or boxes that might contain such documents. As evidence gathered, agents decided to re-interview the witness, and the witness story changed dramatically, these people said. In another interview, a witness described moving the boxes at Trumps request.

The witness is now considered a key part of the Mar-a-Lago investigation, these people said, providing details about the former presidents alleged activities and providing instructions to subordinates that may have been an attempt to thwart federal officials demands for the return of classified information. and government documents.

Several witnesses have told the FBI they tried to get Trump to cooperate with the National Archives and Records Administration and the Justice Department as those agencies requested for months to get back sensitive or historic government documents, people familiar with the situation said.

But pleas from advisers and lawyers to push the documents back on Trump fell on deaf ears, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. Trump became angry this spring after launching an investigation by the House Oversight Committee, telling aides that they had messed up the situation, according to people who heard his comments. These are my documents, Trump said, according to an aide who spoke to him.

Details shared with the Post reveal two key parts of the criminal investigation that have been shrouded in secrecy: the report of a witness who worked for and received instructions from Trump, and the way Mar-a-Lago security footage was made. played an important role in supporting witness statements.

Together, the evidence helped convince the FBI and Justice Department to seek a warrant to search Trumps residence, office and storage room at Mar-a-Lago, which led to the seizure of 103 documents marked classified that had not been turned over to the government in response to a May subpoena. Some of the documents describe top-secret US operations that are so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are unaware of them. The August 8 search also yielded about 11,000 documents that were not classified.

The failure or possible refusal to return classified documents in response to a subpoena is at the center of the Justice Departments Mar-a-Lago investigation, one of several high-profile, ongoing investigations into Trump. The former president remains the most influential figure in the Republican Party and is openly talking about running for the White House in 2024.

Trump has been in orbit for months with accusations and theories about who might be working with the federal government. Some of the former presidents closest aides have continued to work with Trump even after seeing FBI agents show up at their homes to question them and serve subpoenas.

Status of major investigations into Donald Trump

The witness account has been kept under wraps at the Justice Department and FBI as agents continue to gather evidence in a high-stakes investigation. In addition to wanting to keep the information gathered so far under wraps, people familiar with the situation said, authorities are also concerned that if or when the identity of the witness eventually becomes public, that person could be harassed or threatened by Trump supporters.

In the application submitted to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers referred to witness statements and video footage. when they wrote, The FBI discovered evidence that the response to the grand jury subpoena was incomplete, that additional classified documents likely remained at Mar-a-Lago, and that there was likely an effort to obstruct the investigation.

Since the Aug. 8 search, Trump has offered several public defenses about why the classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago, saying he deleted the classified documents, suggesting the FBI planted evidence during the search, and suggesting that the former the president may have had the right to keep classified documents. National security law experts have largely rejected such claims, saying they range from far-fetched to nonsensical.

Among the items seized at Mar-a-Lago: a document on a foreign governments nuclear capabilities

Officials at the National Archives began requesting the return of the documents last year after that began to believe that some of the Trump administrations presidential documents  such as North Korean leader Kim Jong Uns letters  were unaccounted for and may have been in Trumps possession.

After months of back-and-forth, Trump agreed to turn over 15 boxes of material in January. Archivists found 184 classified documents, including 25 documents marked as top secret. they are scattered in boxes, in a specific order, according to court filings.

The discovery suggested to authorities that Trump had not turned over all the classified documents in his possession. In May, a grand jury subpoena demanded the return of classified documents under many different designations, including a category used for nuclear weapons secrets.

In response to that subpoena, Trump advisers met with government agents and prosecutors at Mar-a-Lago in early June, handing over a sealed envelope containing 38 more classified documents, including 17 top secret, according to court documents. According to government documents, Trump representatives claimed at the meeting that the club was thoroughly searched for all classified documents.

That meeting, which included a visit to a storage room where Trump advisers say boxes of relevant documents were kept, did not satisfy investigators, who were not allowed to view the boxes they saw in the storage room, according to government lawsuits.

Trumps team initially said the Mar-a-Lago boxes were just news clippings

Five days later, a senior Justice Department official, Jay Bratt, wrote to Trumps lawyers to remind them that Mar-a-Lago does not contain a secure location authorized to store classified information. Bratt wrote that the classified documents appear not to have been properly handled or stored in an appropriate location.

Therefore, we are asking that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents were stored be secured and that all boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with everything else in that room) be stored in that room in their current condition until further notice.

Agents continued to gather evidence that Trump apparently failed to comply with either the governments requests or the subpoena. After careful consideration, aware that it would be highly unusual for federal agents to search the former presidents home, they decided to seek a judges approval to do so.

The Aug. 8 search turned up 103 classified documents within hours, including 18 top secret ones, according to court papers. The equipment included at least one document that described a foreign countrys military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities.

_____________


Trump files to delay defamation case by rape accuser

Former President Trumps attorney is pushing to delay proceedings, including Trumps upcoming deposition, in a defamation case brought by a woman who accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s.

A federal appeals court handed Trump a partial victory last week by ruling that presidents are covered by a law granting broad legal immunity to government employees, but the panel asked the top local court in Washington to rule on whether Trump was acting outside the scope of his presidency under D.C. employment law when he made the allegedly defamatory statements casting doubt on the accusers credibility and demeaning her personal appearance.

Attorneys for E. Jean Carroll, Trumps accuser, revealed in a Friday filing they are slated to depose Trump on Oct. 19.

But with the verdict now hinging upon the local D.C. courts opinion, Trumps attorney is asking the court to stay the proceedings.

The D.C. Court of Appeals forthcoming ruling will be case-dispositive and, therefore, it would be highly prejudicial and inequitable for Defendant to engage in time consuming and expensive pre-trial preparation  much less proceed to trial  until this issue has been conclusively resolved, wrote Trump attorney Alina Habba.

Carrolls attorneys pushed back on Habbas argument, saying the requests amounted to a delay tactic, also noting Carroll plans to sue Trump next month for the alleged sexual assault itself under a new New York law set to take effect in November.

___________


Judges ruling could trigger Trump deposition in suit over rape claim

A federal judge issued a ruling Wednesday that could lead to former President Donald Trump testifying as soon as next week in a lawsuit stemming from his response to a New York writers claim that Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.

U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan turned down Trumps request to halt fact-finding in the libel case, brought three years ago by E. Jean Carroll after Trump repeatedly denied her rape allegations and crudely described her as not my type.

----------


## S Landreth

Could hardly wait to post this up.

The conservative Supreme Court just told trump to go fvck himself

 

SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Trump's Mar-a-Lago Intervention Case

SCOTUS Shows Trump the Door Just Nine Days After Former President Asked Justice Thomas to Take Up Mar-a-Lago Docs Case

Siding with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday refused to accept an application by former president Donald Trump to vacate a circuit court ruling connected to a search executed at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump filed the application with Justice Clarence Thomas on Oct. 4. The U.S. Department of Justice, via Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, asked the Court not to take the case.

On Thursday, the Court agreed with Prelogar and the U.S. Government.

Trump filed the petition before Thomas because he is the justice who handles incoming matters from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Within that circuit sits Mar-a-Lago and the lower court case in question.

Justice Thomas referred Trump’s application to the full Court for consideration on Thursday, the Court’s docket indicates.

“Application (22A283) to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on September 21, 2022, presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied,” the Supreme Court’s docket reads.

There were no noted dissents.  :Smile: 

At issue are documents seized by the FBI from the former president’s palatial home and resort facility on Aug. 8 pursuant to a search warrant signed by a federal magistrate judge in Florida. The U.S. Department of Justice has characterized some of the material as both classified and secret — to varying levels of severity.  Specifically, the DOJ told the Court that “the search recovered roughly 100 records bearing classification markings, including markings reflecting the highest levels of classification and extremely restricted distribution.”

The DOJ has characterized the dispute about the material, which Trump took to Florida after he vacated the White House, as a criminal investigation under the Espionage Act. No criminal charges have been filed over the matter. Trump and his attorneys have countered by suggesting that the locus of the dispute is the Presidential Records Act, which they say affords Trump broad powers when it comes to the material in question from his administration.

Federal prosecutors say FBI agents seized these materials from Mar-a-Lago. The contents of the documents were redacted with white squares. (Image via an Aug. 31, 2022 federal court filing.)

Trump filed a concomitant lawsuit against the U.S. Government to assert various forms of privilege and other protections surrounding the documents. U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon ordered a special master — Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie — to review the material and to ferret out any claims of privilege.

One of the privileges asserted by Trump is executive privilege. The DOJ has long averred that Trump, as a former executive, cannot assert that type of privilege against the administration of Joe Biden, the current executive, because the privilege belongs to the branch of government itself and not to the specific individual who from time to time may be the elected president.

In asking the Supreme Court to hear the matter, Trump’s attorneys suggested that federal prosecutors were trying to “pin some offense on him” through a scurrilous charade of “political judicial theater.”

Trump wanted the Supreme Court to vacate the stay issued by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The circuit court’s stay had in turn paused the implementation of an order by District Judge Cannon.

To explain, it’s necessary to unwind the clock.

Cannon stopped federal prosecutors from engaging in a criminal review of the Mar-a-Lago documents until the special master — an independent third party — had vetted Trump’s assertions that some of the materials were enshrouded in various protective cloaks of privilege. Judge Cannon also wanted the special master to ascertain whether some of the material seized from Mar-a-Lago was actually classified.

The DOJ appealed on a limited basis, and the 11th Circuit allowed the DOJ to continue its criminal review of the matter — which already involved various internal filter teams. A panel of appellate judges on the 11th Circuit determined that the public interest favored examining security breaches that could hypothetically result in “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”

Trump’s attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate “to a limited extent” the 11th Circuit’s stay of Judge Cannon’s ruling. They argued that the 11th Circuit had no power to issue its stay because Cannon’s order was procedural and therefore “simply not appealable on an interlocutory basis.”

Trump’s legal team also argued that Trump was special and therefore deserved special protection: “The unprecedented circumstances presented by this case — an investigation of the Forty-Fifth President of the United States by the administration of his political rival and successor — compelled the District Court to acknowledge the significant need for enhanced vigilance and to order the appointment of a Special Master to ensure fairness, transparency, and maintenance of the public trust.”

The DOJ’s response to the Supreme Court said the executive branch must have “broad discretion” to “determine who may have access to” classified information and that Trump has no personal property interest in the government documents seized.

“In this Court, applicant [Trump] does not challenge the stay insofar as it reinstates the government’s authority to use the documents bearing classification markings in its ongoing criminal investigation,” the DOJ told the Supreme Court.  “Applicant instead seeks to partially vacate the stay to the extent it precludes dissemination and review of those documents in the special-master proceedings. Applicant is not entitled to that relief for multiple independent reasons.”

The DOJ noted that Trump “abandoned” his claim that he could assert executive privilege over the materials by the time the case wound its way to Justice Thomas. It also noted that Trump “never represented in any of his multiple legal filings in multiple courts that he in fact declassified any documents — much less supported such a representation with competent evidence.”

The latter appeared to be a reference to multiple Trump statements — including ones to Fox News opinion host Sean Hannity — that he could have declassified some of the material merely “by thinking about it.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...322zr_2d8f.pdf

your days are numbered

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ asks appeals court to end outside review of Trump Mar-a-Lago documents

An outside review of documents the FBI seized from President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate should be halted because it interferes with prosecutors’ authority and is legally unjustified, the Justice Department said in a filing with a federal appeals court Friday afternoon.

Prosecutors said Aileen Cannon, the judge who ordered the “special master” review last month at Trump’s request, erred in her ruling because there was no indication of malfeasance or infringement of Trump’s rights in connection with the search a magistrate judge ordered.

“The uncontested record demonstrates that the search was conducted in full accordance with a judicially authorized warrant, and there has been no violation of Plaintiff’s rights—let alone a ‘callous disregard’ for them,” Justice Department attorney Jay Bratt and other prosecutors wrote in the brief filed Friday with the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If the DOJ wins this round in federal court, it would represent another legal setback for Trump, who has lost one ruling after another in recent weeks related to the Mar-a-Lago document seizures.

Bratt also argued that Trump hasn’t shown the requisite need for the special master process, which is very rarely used in federal investigations.

“Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in establishing any need for the seized records—indeed, a substantial number of them are not even his—or in establishing any irreparable injury in their absence, and Plaintiff does not lack an adequate alternative remedy at law,” the Justice Department lawyers wrote.

Trump’s attorneys have argued that the special master process was needed in order to protect his right to claim attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. The former president’s attorneys have also fought to use the process to assert that seized records bearing classification markings like “Top Secret,” may have been declassified by Trump before he left office.

DOJ attorneys continued to emphasize that Trump has never actually asserted in court that he declassified any of the records stored at his estate, nor has he claimed executive privilege or asserted attorney-client privilege over any of them. Rather, Trump’s lawyers have floated those possibilities hypothetically, even as Trump has publicly claimed to have declassified all sensitive documents found at his estate.

In any event, the classification issue appears to be off the table for now due to a ruling from an 11th Circuit panel last month which effectively carved out the roughly 100 documents with classification markings from the broader review. Trump asked the Supreme Court to put those records back into the process, but the high court turned that down Thursday.

In the new filing, the Justice Department emphasized that investigators need access to the 11,000 unclassified records also found at his estate as part of its investigation. Under the rules Cannon set, those documents were put off limits to prosecutors and criminal investigators until Trump’s side has a chance to raise objections and the special master, New York federal judge Raymond Dearie, resolves them.

“The dates on unclassified records may prove highly probative in the government’s investigation,” DOJ contended, adding, “For example, if any records comingled with the records bearing classification markings post-date Plaintiff’s term of office, that could establish that these materials continued to be accessed after Plaintiff left the White House … The government may need to use unclassified records to conduct witness interviews and corroborate information.”

Prosecutors said Trump’s claims of executive privilege are illogical in the current context, because the Justice Department, the FBI and others involved in analyzing the records are also in the executive branch.

“Neither Plaintiff nor the district court has cited any instance in which executive privilege was successfully invoked to prohibit the sharing of records or information within the Executive Branch itself,” the Justice Department brief says.

Trump’s brief to the appeals court is due Nov. 10. A court panel could hear arguments on the matter in late November or December.

However, the bulk of the special master review could be completed by that time, so a ruling that it was unnecessary might have limited impact.


 
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ca11101422.pdf
______________


Trump Organization assets should be frozen, New York attorney general asks court

Attorney General Tish James asked a state court Thursday to freeze the Trump Organization’s New York assets and install an independent monitor in her civil suit targeting the former president and his real estate business.

James alleged last month a years-long scheme to fraudulently overvalue the Trump Organization’s portfolio by billions of dollars. And on Thursday, she warned the state Supreme Court that Trump might be shifting his holdings outside of New York — and the reach of its courts.

“Since we filed this sweeping lawsuit last month, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization have continued those same fraudulent practices and taken measures to evade responsibility,” she said in a statement. “Today, we are seeking an immediate stop to these actions because Mr. Trump should not get to play by different rules.”

The allegations are the latest new strand in Trump’s expanding web of legal woes, which stretches nationwide as he tangles with lawsuits and probes related to classified presidential documents in Florida, the ramifications of the Jan. 6 riots in Washington and fallout from his election denial in several states. It also ratchets up an long-running battle between New York’s top lawyer and the ex-president.

In the new court papers, James says Trump incorporated a new “Trump Organization LLC” in Delaware on Sept. 15, then registered the company with New York as “Trump Organization II LLC” on the day her lawsuit was filed on Sept. 21.

James’ suit seeks monetary penalties up to $250 million and an order blocking Trump from real estate transactions in New York for five years — moves that could doom his unraveling empire. But she now says his lawyers won’t assure her that Trump’s not moving assets out of state in advance.

Trump attorney Alina Habba called James’ filing “a thinly-veiled attempt” at keeping the case in front of Justice Arthur Engoron — who previously held Trump in contempt for not complying with an attorney general probe — and out of the state court’s commercial division.

“We have repeatedly provided assurance, in writing, that the Trump Organization has no intention of doing anything improper. This is simply another stunt which Ms. James hopes will aid her failing political campaign,” Habba said in a statement, repeating a common line of attack against James, who is fundraising off her legal fights.

James, who is is asking for an October 2023 trial date, wants the court to prohibit the Trump Organization from transferring material assets to anyone not a party to her lawsuit, or otherwise disposing of property without the court’s blessing.

She also wants an independent monitor to oversee the company’s forthcoming 2022 financial statements and to ensure he does not employ the same accounting tricks alleged in her complaint last month. For instance, James contended that Trump continues to count $93 million held in a Vornado partnership as his own cash, even though he shouldn’t.

Engoron will consider James’ requests at an Oct. 31 hearing, according to an order entered later Thursday.

_____________


Trump’s Executive Privilege Push Is Collapsing

The Washington Post reported on Friday that a judge overruled the former president's effort to prevent a former White House aide (Marc Short) from testifying in the Jan. 6 investigation

Yada, yada

He’s also tried to use executive privilege to prevent a federal grand jury from hearing testimony regarding an investigation into his alleged role in the events of Jan. 6. The Washington Post reported on Friday, however, that a judge overruled Trump’s objections, and that Marc Short, a former aide to former Vice President Mike Pence, could sit for questioning. He did so on Thursday.

Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell’s ruling signals that “attempts by Trump to invoke executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of presidential decision-making were not likely to prevail,” according to the Post.

Short reportedly already testified before the grand jury in July, but didn’t answer some questions after his lawyer, Emmet Flood, argued they were protected. The Post reports that the DOJ asked Howell to force him to cooperate. She did, but Trump appealed, delaying Short’s testimony until Howell said enough was enough this week.

The Post notes the ruling could impact other witnesses, as well, including former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy, Pat Philbin, who appeared before the grand jury last month but may still have questions to answer. Regardless, the walls are continuing to close in around the former president as he desperately tries to fend off multiple investigations into a smorgasbord of potentially illegal activity. The only thing that could truly protect him is returning to the White House, a fact Rolling Stone has reported Trump is well aware of as he mulls whether to declare his candidacy.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ng-1234611501/

----------


## S Landreth

_Here and before the district court, the government has referred to evidence developed in its investigation to inform the courts of the relevant facts. Where possible, the government refers to portions of the affidavit accompanying its search warrant application that have been unsealed or to other information in the public record. See MJ-DE.125. Of necessity, however, the government cannot publicly disclose all the sources of its evidence, particularly while the investigation remains ongoing._

 :Smile: 
__________


DOJ reveals it has additional evidence against Trump that has not been presented in court filings

The Department of Justice has additional evidence against Donald Trump that it has not publicly revealed, according to a new court filing.

On Friday, the DOJ officially appealed Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon's controversial appointment of Special Master Raymond Dearie to oversee the documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago. The document was filed with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

"In a 53-page brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, the Justice Department broadly challenged the legal legitimacy of orders last month by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who blocked investigators from using the materials and appointed an independent arbiter to sift them for any that are potentially privileged or Mr. Trumps personal property," The New York Times reported. "The Justice Department already succeeded in persuading a panel of the Atlanta-based court to exempt about 100 documents marked classified from Judge Cannons move  a decision the Supreme Court declined to overturn this week."

In a footnote on page six of the appeal, DOJ explained it has additional evidence that Trump had classified documents at his Florida resort.

"Here and before the district court, the government has referred to evidence developed in its investigation to inform the courts of the relevant facts," DOJ wrote. "Where possible, the government refers to portions of the affidavit accompanying its search warrant application that have been unsealed or to other information in the public record."

"Of necessity, however, the government cannot publicly disclose all the sources of its evidence, particularly while the investigation remains ongoing," DOJ noted.

 
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ca11101422.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Finally Gets Served With NY's $250 Million Fraud Suit

Donald Trump finally gets served $250 million NY fraud lawsuit after 3 weeks  and a court order

Donald Trump has lost the first legal skirmish in his battle against New York's attorney general, Letitia James, and her $250 million fraud case against him: After three weeks and a court order, he's been officially served with the 220-page lawsuit.

Trump was finally served through his attorney, Alina Habba, "by sending in electronic mail a message containing a secure cloud link to pdf attachments of all the documents," James said in a court filing Thursday.

The lawsuit accuses the Trump Organization of a decadelong pattern of fraudulently exaggerating the company's worth; it seeks a quarter-billion dollars in penalties and to bar the Trumps from doing business in New York.

Representatives for Trump and his son Eric, an executive vice president at his father's company, had evaded service of the lawsuit ever since it was filed three weeks ago, on September 21.

Habba and a lawyer for Eric Trump, Clifford Robert, never replied to emails sent by the attorney general that same day requesting confirmation that they were the appropriate persons to accept service, her office complained in a court filing last week.

Lawyers for all of the suit's other defendants, including Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., had meanwhile quickly accepted service.

The silent treatment from Donald and Eric Trump came despite Habba and Robert having submitted notices to the court in late September  called "notices of appearance"  declaring themselves to be attorneys of record for the case.

The apparent runaround led James' office to accuse Trump's side of "gamesmanship." Last week, she sought a court order that allowed her to simply email the papers to Habba and Robert and be done with it.

The Manhattan judge handling the case quickly agreed, ruling Thursday that emailing the papers to the two lawyers would suffice as service to both Trumps. James fired off those emails the same day, their Monday filing said.

Habba and Robert have not responded to Insider's requests for comment on the delay in service of the lawsuit.

The judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, set October 31 as the date for oral arguments in the lawsuit's next dispute.

The sides will argue over the attorney general's claim that the Trump Organization is so rife with ongoing fraud that it's in immediate need of an independent financial monitor to be appointed and overseen by the judge.

Another early dispute is simmering concerning Engoron himself, the same judge who in April found Trump in contempt of court for not fully complying with the attorney general's subpoenas in the two-year run-up to her filing suit.

Habba has asked that the lawsuit be transferred out of Engoron's courtroom to be handled instead by any judge in Manhattan's commercial division, which is tasked with complex business disputes.

----------


## S Landreth

Its a little perplexing as I go through the logs, Dearie explained. Wheres the beef? I need to see some beef.

Dearie said

The special master tapped to oversee privilege disputes between Donald Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice said during a telephone conference on Monday that he wants attorneys to provide him with plenty of facts when  and preferably some sort of warning before  he is asked to rule on each disputed document starting on Nov. 12.

Much more in the links

Special master Dearie unhappy with Mar-a-Lago document progress

__________


Donald Trump Deposed In Defamation Suit Filed By E. Jean Carroll

Former President Donald Trump answered questions under oath Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll, a magazine columnist who says the Republican raped her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room.

The deposition gave Carrolls lawyers a chance to interrogate Trump about the assault allegations as well as statements he made in 2019 when she told her story publicly for the first time.

Details on how the deposition went werent immediately disclosed.

Were pleased that on behalf of our client, E. Jean Carroll, we were able to take Donald Trumps deposition today. We are not able to comment further, said a spokesperson for the law firm representing her, Kaplan Hecker & Fink.

Trump has said Carrolls rape allegation is a hoax and a lie.

His legal team worked for years to delay his deposition in the lawsuit, which was filed when he was still president. A federal judge last week rejected Trumps request for another delay, saying he couldnt run the clock out on plaintiffs attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong.

Carroll was to have been questioned by Trumps lawyers last Friday. Neither her attorneys and nor Trumps have responded to questions about how that deposition went.

Anything Trump said during his deposition could potentially be used as evidence in an upcoming civil trial. He hasnt faced any criminal charges related to Carrolls allegations and any prosecution is unlikely. The deadline for criminal charges over sexual assaults that occurred in the 1990s has long expired.

____________


Trump Loses Bid to Move Fraud Lawsuit to a New Court

Trump Fails to Move New York AGs Fraud Lawsuit to a Court Other Than the One That Held Him in Contempt

Donald Trump and two of his adult children failed on Wednesday in their efforts to transfer New York Attorney General Letitia Jamess (D) lawsuit accusing them of fraudulent practices with the family business to a different court.

The bid effectively would have moved the case out of the courtroom of a judge who held the former president in contempt during a related investigation.

On Sept. 21, James sued former Trump; his adult children Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump; and several other people and entities.

The attorney general alleged that Trump, his family, and his businesses showed such a pervasive pattern of inflating and deflating assets to obtain tax benefits that dramatic action was required  including barring the Trumps from ever serving against as an officer or director of a New York corporation.

On Wednesday, New York County Supreme Court Administrative Judge Adam Silvera issued a brief order denying the transfer  and keeping the case before Engoron.

Consistent with court procedure, the General Clerks Office appropriately assigned this action to Judge Engoron, on grounds that plaintiff identified it as related to the Special Proceeding, the ruling states. In the event Judge Engoron deems this action un-related to the Special Proceeding, pursuant to Section 202.70 (e) of the Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, Judge Engoron may make a request to transfer this action to the Commercial Division. Contrary to Counsels assertion, the Special Proceeding is still pending before Judge Engoron and has not been marked disposed.

DocumentCloud

 
____________

*Extra*


Primary source for Trump-Russia dossier acquitted, handing special counsel Durham another trial loss

Igor Danchenko, the primary source for the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, was acquitted Tuesday of four counts of lying to the FBI in an embarrassing defeat for special counsel John Durham.

Durham has taken two cases to trial, and both have ended in acquittals. After more than three years looking for misconduct in the FBIs Trump-Russia probe, Durham has only secured one conviction: the guilty plea of a low-level FBI lawyer, who got probation.

The jury returned not guilty verdicts on all charges against Danchenko, a Russian expat and think tank analyst who provided the bulk of the material for the anti-Trump dossier. Durham initially charged Danchenko with five counts of lying to the FBI, but a judge threw out one of the charges on Friday.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/18/p...ial/index.html

----------


## harrybarracuda

So if Danchenko isn't lying, obviously baldy orange cunto is.

----------


## Topper

Here's another one that is surely going to fook up trump's day....




> A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the release of emails from John Eastman, a former attorney, to House investigators, saying the communications were made in furtherance of a crime related to Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election.
> 
> “*The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public*,” Judge David O. Carter wrote.
> *“The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States,*” he added.
> 
> Carter, who sits on the federal district court in central California, already released many of Eastman’s emails from around January 2021 to theHouse select committee[/URL] investigating the US Capitol attack[/URL], but the two sides were still arguing over 562 additional documents from Eastman’s Chapman University email account.
> 
> For eight of the 500-plus Eastman documents the judge was examining, the judge said that the materials could be released because they fit in the so-called crime-fraud exception, which allows disclosure of otherwise privileged materials if the communications were related to or in furtherance of illegal or fraudulent conduct.
> 
> ...

----------


## S Landreth

^it’s catching up to him

----------


## S Landreth

Trump officially subpoenaed by Jan. 6 committee

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Friday formally issued a subpoena to former President Trump.

Why it matters: Trump is the highest-ranking individual targeted for testimony by the panel, which has been building a case that the ex-president was the primary instigator of the deadly riot.

Driving the news: Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the chair and vice chair of the panel, are requesting Trump turn over documents by Nov. 4 and appear for a deposition on Nov. 14.

____________

Emails reveal warning to Trump team about fraud claims


 
A senior White House lawyer expressed concerns to President Trump's advisers and attorneys about the president signing a sworn court statement verifying inaccurate evidence of voter fraud, according to emails from December 2020 obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: The emails shed new light on a federal judge's explosive finding Wednesday that Trump knew specific instances of voter fraud in Georgia had been debunked, but continued to tout them both in public and under oath.

___________


DOJ Disputes Every One of Trump's Executive Privilege Claims

DOJ Skewers Trump for Trying to Declare Executive Privilege over Personal Docs Found at Mar-a-Lago: He Cannot Logically Do That

Former President Donald Trump tried to claim executive privilege over some personal records that the FBI found at Mar-a-Lago, but he cannot logically do that, the Department of Justice said on Thursday.

Only official records are subject to assertions of Executive Privilege, prosecutors wrote in a filing apprising a court-appointed special master about the disputes.

Since the FBI seized classified and other documents from Mar-a-Lago, Trump has made expansive claims in public about executive privilege. A letter to Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie, the special master presiding over the review of the documents, reveals that Trump only claimed executive privilege over four documents in a batch of 15 currently at issue. The Justice Department disputes all of Trumps assertions, but it called claiming executive privilege over the two that the parties agree to be personal documents is particularly illogical.

The records referenced in the Thursday filing are a subset of materials known as Filter A documents. Those documents obtained their name after being washed through an internal DOJ filter team. Another set of documents is known as Filter B material. The separate tranches were set aside by a privilege review team within the DOJ that operates separately from the actual case team that is investigating whether any crimes occurred surrounding the documents. Not all of the material seized at Mar-a-Lago was separated because no privilege or Presidential Records Act assertions apply to it.

Portions of a few of the documents were withheld from the case team because Trump asserted another type of privilege  attorney-client privilege and work product immunity  over a few pages of the material in question.

According to previous filings, the Filter A materials include items such as a draft immigration initiative, a letter to Robert Mueller, documents surrounding Rod Blagojevichs clemency petition, letters from the National Archives and Records Administration, and document which contains handwritten names, numbers and notes involving The Presidents Calls, including a so-called Message from Rudy. A total of 21 items are contained within the Filter A set of documents. The statuses of several of those papers were previously agreed upon or settled by the parties.

The Thursday letter details the remaining 15 of those 21 documents and adds that four more are entirely undisputed between Trump and the government.

The DOJ said Trumps arguments were incorrect for four distinct reasons.

First, prosecutors said that Trump is trying to claim executive privilege over a few documents he claims are personal (not presidential) records  a position the DOJ said was internally inconsistent: Only official records are subject to assertions of Executive Privilege.

Second, prosecutors said the now-former president simply cannot assert the deliberative-process component of Executive Privilege.

Third, prosecutors said Trump cannot assert executive privilege against a subsequent administration because the privilege belongs to the branch of government and not to the individual president.

Fourth, prosecutors said the DOJ has a demonstrated, specific need for the evidence due to an ongoing criminal investigation. A demonstrated, specific need for evidence creates an exception to executive privilege as elucidated in United States v. Nixon, a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case.

The DOJ has said that its probe centers around the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, and and concealment and removal of government records.  In one past filing, the DOJ said the matter was a criminal investigation with direct implications for national security.

DocumentCloud

___________


Appeals court denies Graham bid to block testimony in Georgia election probe

A federal appeals court on Thursday denied a request by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to be shielded from testifying in an investigation into former President Trumps alleged interference in the 2020 election in Georgia.

The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit comes after the senator earlier this month urged the court to find that constitutional protections for lawmakers bar his testimony before a Fulton County, Ga., special grand jury.

The panels decision hands a partial victory to District Attorney Fani Willis (D), who has expressed particular interest in hearing from Graham about calls he made to Georgias top election official following the 2020 election as part of her probe.

Graham has attempted to block Williss subpoena for months, arguing the Constitutions Speech and Debate Clause prohibits his testimony about the calls and merits the complete blocking of his appearance.

Senator Graham has failed to demonstrate that this approach will violate his rights under the Speech and Debate Clause, the appeals court ruled on Thursday.

___________


Cipollone, Loeffler testify before Georgia grand jury

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone and former Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) have testified before the Georgia grand jury probing efforts by former President Trump and his allies to overturn the states 2020 presidential election results, according to a new CNN report. 

The outlet reported that Cipollone and Loeffler both testified before the grand jury in recent months. 

The pair join a number of figures in Trumps orbit subpoenaed by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) as part of a sweeping investigation into potential election interference in Georgia and attempts to keep the former president in power.

Former top White House counsel Cipollone was separately subpoenaed earlier this year by both the Justice Department and the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot, sought after for his insight on key meetings with Trump and his allies. The attorney was reportedly privy to discussions on the Trump camps efforts to push its voter fraud claims.

Loeffler, who lost last years runoff race in Georgia to Sen. Raphael Warnock (D), notably turned away from Trump in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6. Initially planning to certify Georgias election results against then-candidate Biden, Loeffler said she could not in good conscience object to Bidens victory after the riotous violence.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...d-jury-report/

----------


## S Landreth

What to watch ahead of Trump Organization tax fraud trial this week

The Manhattan District Attorney’s long-awaited trial against the Trump Organization begins on Monday, coming three years after authorities began investigating the business for alleged tax fraud.

The Trump Organization is accused of helping top executives avoid income taxes on compensation and luxury perks. Former President Trump is not personally accused of any crime in this case.

Jury selection begins on Monday and the trial could last more than a month.

Here’s what you need to know about the trial beginning this week at the New York State Supreme Court.

Longtime Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg will testify as a star witness in the Manhattan trial in return for a reduced sentence.

He was charged with tax fraud last year and pleaded guilty this August to 15 counts related to tax evasion.

Prosecutors said Weisselberg earned nearly $2 million in off the books compensation over a decade from the Trump Organization, including perks like a Mercedes-Benz for him and his wife.

Weisselberg has intimate knowledge of the company’s financial dealings.

The company’s corporate leadership — consisting of the Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corp. — allegedly orchestrating a scheme from 2005 to June 2021 to assist executives in avoiding paying taxes on perks like fancy cars and luxurious, rent-free apartments, according to the indictment.

The Trump Organization’s senior vice president and controller, Jeffrey McConney, was given limited immunity to testify last year and could also appear at the trial.

*Trump will not attend or testify*

The Trump Organization controls the former president’s real estate properties, golf courses and even his media and television pursuits.

While Trump himself signed off on some checks in question, he is not on trial. He also will not be testifying or even attending the trial.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) has said the investigation is ongoing and Trump could still face criminal charges.

Trump has called the case a witch hunt, while the Trump Organization has denied the allegations and said it looked forward to having its day in court.

*Organization faces fine of more than $1 million*

The Trump Organization faces a maximum fine of $1.7 million if the business is found guilty of the charges, according to the New York Times.

But that’s likely to be a slap on the wrist compared to the company’s annual profits.

The Trump Organization consists of around 500 entities but is privately owned, meaning it does not risk a falling stock price from a guilty verdict.

Trump is unlikely to suffer serious political damage regardless of the outcome, but a guilty verdict could hamper his company’s ability to get loans and make deals. New York City, for one, could use the legal cloud as new justification for seeking to oust the company from running a city-owned golf course.

*First trial involving Trump since he left office*

This is the first trial involving Trump since he left the White House last January.

Trump faces several other cases, including two separate Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations: one probing whether he violated any laws by stashing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and another related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

A Fulton County, Ga., grand jury is also investigating Trump’s efforts to sway the 2020 election results in the state.

New York Attorney General Letitia James also filed a separate lawsuit seeking to stop the Trump Organization from doing business in the state.

That case, slated to begin Oct. 31, accuses the business of inflating and deflating property valuations for financial gain.

----------


## S Landreth

All you need to know.......yada, yada, yada. Skip to *The bottom line*

The top DOJ prosecutor taking on Trumpa

The classified documents case against former President Trump is the biggest test yet for a prosecutor who has built his career going after convicted spies, Blackwater guards, Chinese companies and some of Trumps close associates.

*Why it matters:* Jay Bratt, who leads the Justice Departments counterintelligence division, keeps a low profile. But hes at the center of an unprecedented investigation into a former  and potentially future  president.


"You're talking about sitting on top of a volcano, said David Laufman, a partner at Wiggin and Dana who used to be chief of DOJ's counterintelligence divisionand Bratts boss.

*The big picture:* Lawyers who have worked with Bratt over the course of his decades-long career emphasize his rare combination of litigation and leadership expertise at the intersection of national security, espionage, technology, sanctions, foreign governments, free speech and politics.


Bratt is the chief of the Justice Department's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, or CES. It enforces laws regarding export controls and sanctions, national security, cybersecurity and espionage.At the beginning of the special master review, Bratt traveled to Florida to lead the governments rebuttal to Trump's legal team, detailing how DOJ uncovered evidence suggesting violations of the Espionage Act, illegal retention of government records and obstruction of a federal investigation.

*"These cases don't happen* that frequently," Brandon Van Grack, a former attorney in the national security division at the Justice Department, told Axios.


He noted that Bratt has handled similar cases not just as a national security division attorney or supervisor, but also directly as a prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Those experiences are different and complementary. There are very few people who can say that."*Bratt declined to comment* for this story.

*Details:* Laufman, who hired Bratt as his deputy while he was leading CES, said Bratt provided valuable counsel in deciding to require two of Trump's former aides, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, to obtain "foreign agent" registrations.


"Those cases seem like child's play compared to the maelstrom of political controversy surrounding the Mar-a-Lago case," Laufman said.Previously, Bratt oversaw the prosecution of Blackwater guards who killed 14 Iraqi civilians and wounded 17 others.

*also handled* or supervised several cases involving the Espionage Act, one of the laws that Trump is accused of violating.


Bratt prosecuted James Hitselberger, a sailor charged with unauthorized retention of national defense information while serving in Bahrain.Bratt represented the U.S. government in the 2014 parole hearing for Jonathan Pollard, a former U.S. Navy analyst convicted of spying for Israel.He was involved in prosecuting Bryan Underwood, a former security guard at a U.S. consulate in Guangzhou, China who pleaded guilty in 2013 to trying to sell to photos and information about the compound to Chinese officials.He also worked on the case against Stephen J. Kim, a former State Department contractor who pleaded guilty in 2014 to leaking information from a highly classified report about North Korea to a Fox News reporter in 2009.

*Bratt also helped oversee* investigations of two Chinese telecommunications firms  Huawei for Iran sanctions violations, and ZTE for selling equipment containing items of U.S. origin to Iran and North Korea.

*The bottom line:* "Under remarkable pressures, they have played it straight up the middle," Laufman said of Bratt and his team's approach to the Trump case so far. "And every time they've been before a truly independent and neutral judicial arbiter they have prevailed."

----------


## S Landreth

DC court fast-tracks Trump appeal of rape accuser E. Jean Carrolls lawsuit

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals on Tuesday said it would expedite former President Trumps challenge of a defamation suit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of rape.

Carroll, a longtime columnist for Elle magazine, accused Trump of raping her in a New York City department store in the 1990s. She sued the former president for defamation three years ago after he dismissed her allegations against him and accused her of lying.

The D.C. Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 10, according to a new filing obtained by Axios, to answer the specific legal question of whether Trump made the allegedly libelous statements against Carroll within the scope of his role as president of the United States.

In the complex series of legal moves that followed Carrolls initial suit, Trumps legal team attempted to dismiss and delay the case, and eventually to countersue Carroll for bringing the lawsuit against him in the first place.

The Justice Department then moved to step in and argue that Trump could not be sued in his personal capacity, since he made the statements during his tenure in the White House, and that the Justice Department should be substituted as defendant in the case.

The former president sat for his deposition in the case earlier this month after his legal team repeatedly attempted to delay the proceedings.

All active judges on D.C.s highest court will hear the January arguments before the trial reportedly scheduled for February, according to the filing.

We are pleased that the DC Court of Appeals set an expedited schedule to determine the issue certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As weve said several times by now, we are eager to get to trial on all of E Jeans claims as soon as possible, Carrolls attorney Robbie Kaplan said in a statement.

DocumentCloud

____________


National Archives denies Trump referral to DOJ was connected to Dems

The National Archives is denying Republican accusations that its decision to refer Donald Trumps handling of classified records to the Justice Department had anything to do with an inquiry from a top House Democrat.

House Republicans have been raising questions over the timing of the referral, which occurred on Feb. 9  the same day House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote to the agency to raise questions about Trumps handling of sensitive documents that he retained at his Mar-a-Lago estate. But that timing is entirely coincidental, Acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote in a letter to congressional Republicans on Tuesday.

The Archives inspector general operates with complete independence from the broader agency, Wall said, and did not receive Maloneys letter, which was directed to the Archivist.

At no time and under no circumstances were NARA officials pressured or influenced by Committee Democrats or anyone else, Wall wrote.

Wall directed congressional inquiries about the ongoing investigation to DOJ, which is spearheading the probe into Trumps handling of documents. DOJ had requested NARA not share or otherwise disclose to others information related to NARAs recovery of the 15 boxes at this time in order to protect the integrity of DOJs ongoing work, Wall wrote.

https://www.archives.gov/files/foia/...ames-comer.pdf

______________


Trump, children may be called to testify in companys fraud trial, judge says

Former President Trump and his adult children may be called to testify in the Trump Organizations fraud trial in New York, the presiding judge said on Monday, according to multiple outlets.

As jury selection got underway, Judge Juan Merchan said Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump could be called to testify in the fraud trial. Michael Cohen, the presidents former personal lawyer, may also be called to testify, Merchan said.

The company was indicted in July 2021 for allegedly compensating its executives through high-end perks to evade taxes. The former president himself is not charged in the case.

The Trump Organizations former Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg is set to testify in the trial as part of plea deal announced in August. Weisselberg faces a five-month jail sentence given that he provides truthful testimony in the trial. He must also repay nearly $2 million to tax authorities.

Trump turned to his social media platform Truth Social on Monday to decry the trial as part of a Democrat Witch Hunt and suggested that the timing  just two weeks before the midterm elections  was politically motivated.

The Trump Organizations criminal fraud trial is separate from a civil lawsuit brought against the former president and his three adult children last month. New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) announced in late September that her office was suing the members of the Trump family for allegedly manipulating property values to enrich themselves.

----------


## panama hat

So many articles when there is only one I'd love to see:

Trump convicted of xxxx and sentenced to xx years in a federal/state penitentiary after all appeals exhausted.  He will join several of his former fellow accused and convicted, including Bannon, Giuliani, Price, Kelly, Mnuchin, Jordan, Gaetz, Collins,  Nunez, Kushner, Trump, Trump, Trump Jnr, Huckabee-Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Flynn, Miller, deVos, Pence, Graham, Pompeo and McConnell.  This is not a complete list

----------


## S Landreth

> This is not a complete list


No it isnt. All of his supporters who broke the law should be included. Ill update the Right-wing domestic terrorist thread later today.

A preview.........

Jail time 7 ½ years and a different supporter 2 years in prison

_______________________


Trump loses latest bid to shield tax returns from House committee

A federal court cleared the way Thursday for a Democratic-led House committee to review former President Trumps tax returns, although the Supreme Court could still block the action.

Judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that courts wont stand in the way of the Houses chief tax committee seeing Trumps financial documents, denying a petition by the former president to reconsider a previous ruling.

Democrats on the committee were quick to show their approval of the ruling.

The law has always been on our side, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement. Former President Trump has tried to delay the inevitable, but once again, the Court has affirmed the strength of our position. Weve waited long enoughwe must begin our oversight of the IRSs mandatory presidential audit program as soon as possible.

Ways and Means oversight subcommittee Chairman Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Trumps tax records should be seen by the public.

___________


Fulton County DA urges Supreme Court to let Graham face questioning in Georgia election probe

Atlanta-area prosecutors on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to face questioning before a grand jury as part of an investigation into 2020 election interference in Georgia.

In court papers, the Fulton County District Attorneys Office urged the court to turn away Grahams request that he be allowed to avoid testifying while he continues to contest his subpoena.

Should the Senators application be granted, the Grand Jurys work will be delayed indefinitely, ensuring that information which could either clear the innocent of suspicion or increase scrutiny on the guilty will continue to lie beyond the Grand Jurys grasp, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) wrote in the court filing.

Graham filed his application last week to Justice Clarence Thomas, who handles emergency matters arising from Georgia and who agreed earlier this week to temporarily halt the legal proceedings until further notice.

Graham is one of several high-profile Trump allies who Willis has pursued as part of an investigation into the potentially criminal effort to disrupt the 2020 election in Georgia in favor of former President Trump.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump's Got A New Huge Problem As Top National Security Prosecutor Joins Classified Docs Probe

Prosecutors have gathered evidence that could result in charges against Trump and now one of the nations top national security prosecutors has joined the investigation.

National security law experts interviewed by The Washington Post say prosecutors appear to have amassed evidence in the case that would meet some of the criteria for bringing charges against the former president  an unprecedented action that they said likely would only happen if the Justice Department believes it has an extremely strong case.

David Raskin,who served for many years as a senior federal prosecutor in New York City, and more recently has worked as a prosecutor in Kansas City, Mo., has been quietly assisting in the investigation into Trump and his aides, according to the people familiar with the matter, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Raskin is considered one of the most accomplished terrorism prosecutors of his generation.

The DOJ isnt messing around. They are seriously looking at charging Donald Trump. The Justice Department would not bring in one of its top national security prosecutors if they were not looking at building a case against the failed former president.

The Justice Department doesnt bring weak cases or cases that they might lose, so if they charge Trump, it will be because they have an airtight case against him.

Trump wont have the resources to go toe to toe with the United States government in a potential trial.

Other news has leapfrogged ahead of it, but the investigation into Donald Trumps theft of classified documents is rolling along and getting more serious.

__________


John Eastman Asks Judge to Reconsider Georgia Fraud Findings

John Eastman Asks Federal Judge to Reconsider Crime-Fraud Findings on Trumps Knowledge About Wrong Voter Fraud Claims

Judge Carter rejected Eastmans request on Friday, and Eastman filed a notice of his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shortly after. In his six-page order, the judge said Eastman does not carry his burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits, because the contents of the affidavit do not alter the Courts conclusion.

Eastmans affidavit presents no evidence that the Court manifestly failed to consider when ruling that the crime-fraud exception applies, the judge wrote.

Eastmans motion was filed eight days after Carter ordered 33 documents from Eastmans Chapman University account to be released to the Jan. 6 Committee. The emails were among 562 Carter reviewed at the committees request, and theyre to be the final batch of Eastmans Chapman emails the judge will review since the unusual case opened in January.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...40.377.0_1.pdf

 
*History*

Former President Donald Trumps election lawyer John Eastman is asking a California federal judge to reconsider his ruling that Trump knowingly filed false numbers regarding voter fraud, submitting a sealed email record that he says clearly shows that the Presidents lawyers took great care to ensure all court filings were accurate.

In a 10-page motion filed Thursday, Eastmans lawyer *Charles Burnham* asks U.S. District Judge *David O. Carter* to reconsider his Oct. 19 order that the crime-fraud exception applies to several privileged emails because Trump knew numbers regarding voters fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and in the public. Carter also concluded that some emails make clear that President Trump filed certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the January 6 congressional proceedings through the courts, which Burnhams filing said is not true.

____________


Full D.C. Circuit Rejects Donald Trumps Bid to Reconsider Ruling Turning Over Tax Records to Congress

The full bench of the D.C. Circuit unanimously declined to rehear former President Donald Trumps bid to block the release of his tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee.

A three-judge panel of the court previously rejected Trumps request in August, rejecting the argument that upholding the subpoena would impose burdens on all former presidents.

While it is possible that Congress may attempt to threaten the sitting President with an invasive request after leaving office, every President takes office knowing that he will be subject to the same laws as all other citizens upon leaving office, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote on Aug. 9. This is a feature of our democratic republic, not a bug.

Despite the 3-0 ruling against him, Trump decided to seek further review before the full 11-member bench. Each judge on it  including three appointed by Trump  joined the single-page order denying him a hearing.

Upon consideration of appellants petition for rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied, the order read in its entirety. Among the names on the per curium order were Trump-appointed U.S. Circuit Judges Gregory G. Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Justin R. Walker.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...40.377.0_1.pdf - https://lawandcrime.com/trump/full-d...s-to-congress/

 
____________

Lindsey Graham Once Again Urges SCOTUS to Throw a Wrench in Fulton County DAs Election Probe, Claims He Shall Not Be Questioned

Attorneys for U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Friday submitted a reply brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case which seeks to excuse him from testifying about his telephone calls surrounding the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

The importance of this case comes not so much in the underlying events  Senator Grahams phone-call investigation into Georgias election process in the leadup to his vote under the Electoral Count Act certifying President Bidens election, the reply begins. The importance comes instead in the separation-of-powers, federalism, and institutional interests that will be harmed without adjudication if the District Attorneys state-court inquisition goes forward without the chance for full appellate review.

The 23-page reply is the final document necessary for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the matter.

Graham filed the emergency application for a stay and injunction on Oct. 21. The matter is an appeal of two prior rulings:  a federal district court refused to pause Grahams testimony in a probe by Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis (D) into attempts to subvert Georgias 2020 election result, and a federal appeals court gave what Grahams attorneys called a cursory acquiescence to that district court ruling.

Without a stay, Senator Lindsey Graham will soon be questioned by a local Georgia prosecutor and her ad hoc investigative body about his protected Speech or Debate related to the 2020 election, the original Oct. 21 application reads. This will occur despite the Constitutions command that Senators shall not be questioned about any Speech or Debate. U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, cl. 1. It will occur in state court, without the consent of the federal government. And it will undisputedly center on Senator Grahams official acts  phone calls he made in the course of his official work, in the leadup to the critical vote under the Electoral Count Act.

In the reply brief, Graham reiterated the argument that he shall not be questioned

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-cour...be-questioned/

----------


## S Landreth

GOP bracing for Trump indictment soon after Election Day

Republican aides and strategists privately expect Attorney General Merrick Garland to pursue an indictment of former President Trump within 60 to 90 days after Election Day, predicting the window for prosecuting Trump will close once the 2024 presidential campaign gains momentum. 

____________


Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of his taxes to House

Former President Trump filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court Monday after a lower court declined to reverse its ruling mandating that he turn over his tax records to the House Ways and Means Committee.

Trump on Thursday lost his latest bid to block the panel from accessing his records after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reconsider a unanimous August ruling from one of the courts three-judge panels ordering their release.

___________


Trump Org. CFO will spill tax fraud to New York jury, prosecutors say

Convicted ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg will give the inside story of how the company allegedly used years-long tax fraud scheme to boost executive pay, Manhattan prosecutors said Monday.

The teaser came during opening remarks in the firms long-awaited New York Supreme Court criminal trial  one case in an increasingly complex web of legal woes for former President Donald Trump. The former president is not involved in the case, but the charges could lead to financial penalties for the Trump Organization if a jury finds it engaged in a 15-year scheme to pay Weisselberg off the books.

This case is about greed and cheating, cheating on taxes, Susan Hoffinger, the chief of investigations for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, told the court on Monday. The scheme was conducted, directed and authorized at the highest level of the accounting department. Weisselbergs testimony will give you the inside story of how he conducted this tax scheme.

In opening statements, Hoffinger detailed allegations that Trump personally paid private school tuition for Weisselbergs grandchildren and signed a lease for the top lieutenants Upper West Side apartment overlooking the Hudson River, because he wanted him to live in Manhattan rather than commuting from Long Island.

Trump Corp. attorney Susan Necheles, meanwhile, tried to insulate the former president and urged the jury not to let their opinions of Trump cloud their judgment.

You must not consider this case to be a referendum on President Trump or his politics, she said. It started and it ended with Allen Weisselberg. Allen Weisselberg did this.

Weisselberg pleaded guilty in August to all 15 counts he faced, including tax fraud and larceny. Now hell play star witness in the expected month-long trial, where prosecutors must convince a jury that Trump Org. units  the Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corporation  share responsibility for concealing $1.76 million in compensation.

_____________


Hillary Clinton Motions for Sanctions in Trump RICO Case

A Reasonable Attorney Would Never Have Filed This Suit: Hillary Clinton Seeks Sanctions Against Trump and His Lawyers for Factually and Legally Defective RICO Case

Former secretary of state and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton filed her motion for sanctions against Donald Trump and his lawyers for filing a factually and legally defective suit, calling the former presidents failed RICO case a political stunt.

The 32-page motion was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of John Podesta, Robbie Mook, the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr. (who previously filed his own motion for sanctions), Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Igor Danchenko, and Rodney Joffe. Though Trump alleged each figured in some way into an alleged racketeering plot against his 2016 campaign and presidency, the case went nowhere.

Despite the allegations of a grand conspiracy, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks dismissed the case in its entirety after the various defendants sought that very outcome. Middlebrooks concluded that a federal statute of limitations passed on claims related to the 2016 election and that the case had little to no merit.

Middlebrooks also retained jurisdiction in the event that the defendants sought sanctions. That time has come.

The sanctions filing began by urging Middlebrooks not to waste an opportunity to make Trump and his lawyers pay fees and costs, and be subject to other relief the Court finds just for filing a lawsuit that was unwarranted on the facts, unsupported by the law, and imposed substantial burdens both on Defendants and this Court.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-sanctions.pdf

___________


Judge Allows Poll Workers Entire Defamation Case Against Rudy Giuliani Over False Election Fraud Claims to Move Forward to the Discovery Phase

Two election workers in Georgia won a victory in federal court on Monday as a judge declined to dismiss their defamation lawsuit filed against former New York City mayor and Donald Trumps longtime friend and erstwhile election attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Filed in December 2021, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Shaye Moss allege that the man once known as Americas mayor defamed them when he falsely claimed they had engaged in election fraud as ballot-counters at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia.

As election workers across the state worked long hours carefully ensuring the accuracy of the election, the Trump Campaign and its allies, including Giuliani, engaged in a media offensive that at best questioned, and at worse condemned, their work, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell wrote in a 25-page opinion accompanying the order denying the motion to dismiss.

The opinion takes stock of the allegedly defamatory actions and Giulianis role in spreading that information around:

_On December 3 [2020], plaintiffswho had been counting absentee ballots and participating in the recount in Fulton County at the State Farm Arenawere drawn into this offensive, when Trump Campaign surrogates testified before the Georgia Senate, alleging that fraud and misconduct had occurred during Georgias November 2020 election. In support of their allegations, a lawyer assisting the Trump Campaign played snippets, of a State Farm Arena security camera video showing grainy images of two women, later identified as plaintiffs, counting ballots. The Trump Campaign witnesses alleged that after Republican observers had been asked to leave the arena[,] in contravention of Georgia law, the women in the video clip and other election workers [had] produced and counted 18,000 hidden, fraudulent ballots. The witness referred to suitcases of ballots [stored] under a table, under a tablecloth and stated that one of the women in the video clip had the name Ruby across her shirt somewhere, but did not otherwise identify the women by name. The same day, the Trump Campaign repeated the same allegations on Twitter, sharing the Edited Video and tweet[ing] that it showed suitcases filled with ballots pulled from under a table AFTER supervisors told poll workers to leave room and 4 people stayed behind to keep counting votes. Giuliani shared the Trump Campaign tweet repeatedly . . . on his own Twitter account on December 3 and 4, repeating the same caption._

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...38720.31.0.pdf https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...scovery-phase/
 ___________



*Fun.*


Ninth Circuit Fast Tracks John Eastmans Stay Request Over Judges Email Order, But Jan. 6 Committee Got the Emails Over the Weekend Anyway

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals could act this week on John Eastmans appeal of a California federal judges order that orders him to disclose more Chapman University emails to the Jan. 6 Committee, emails which the judge ruled show a criminal effort to obstruct election proceedings and defraud the United States through false voter fraud information in the battleground state of Georgia.

A clerk on Saturday gave the committee until Tuesday to respond to a request from Eastmans lawyers to stay U.S. District Judge David O. Carters Oct. 19 order while the court considers the full appeal, which Eastman said also will challenge the judges two previous crime-fraud findings from March and June.

But the landscape changed drastically Sunday night when Eastman filed a motion with the 9th Circuit that the committee has already accessed the disputed emails, with his lawyer Anthony Caso writing that the committee accessed them through a link hed requested not be accessed until the 9th Circuit decided the stay request.

Instead of honoring that request, counsel for the Select Committee notified Dr. Eastmans counsel at 6:26 pm PDT and 6:40 pm PDT that the Select Committee had downloaded and examined the disputed documents, falsely asserting that there was no motion for stay pending before the Ninth Circuit at the time, according to the nine-page motion.

As a consequence of their having already downloaded and examined the eight disputed documents, the Select Committee has asserted that the dispute is now moot, according to the motion. Dr. Eastman disagrees. If, on appeal, this Court holds that the district courts crime-fraud ruling was erroneous, those privileged documents should not have been ordered produced to, and examined by, the Select Committee.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electio...eekend-anyway/

----------


## S Landreth

Chief Justice Roberts temporarily shields Trump tax records from House

The Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily halted a House panel from accessing the tax records of former President Trump ahead of their expected release.

The move, which comes in response to an emergency request Trump filed on Monday, was ordered by Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency matters arising in the District of Columbia. Roberts requested a response by Nov. 10.

The latest development comes after a lower court cleared the way for the House Ways and Means Committee to obtain the records of Trump and his businesses from the Treasury Department as part of a long-running legal battle.

During Trumps presidency, the department resisted the committees request, but later agreed to comply after the Biden administration entered office.

Federal law mandates that tax returns are generally confidential unless an exception applies, one of which includes a written request by the House Ways and Means Committee. The issue in Trumps litigation in large part turns on whether this exception is constitutional.

___________


Judge dismisses Meadows lawsuit against Jan. 6 committee

A federal judge has thrown out Mark Meadows year-old lawsuit over subpoenas from the Houses Jan. 6 select committee, concluding that the former White House chief of staff was constitutionally barred from bringing it in the first place.

In a 27-page ruling issued Monday night, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols said that the Constitutions speech or debate clause  which prohibits lawsuits against lawmakers for anything associated with their legislative work  applied in the case of the committees subpoenas to Meadows issued in the fall of 2021.

The record makes clear that the challenged subpoenas are protected legislative acts, Nichols wrote in the decision.


Meadows is likely to appeal the ruling, effectively putting his testimony out of reach for the Jan. 6 select committee, which is slated to dissolve at the end of the year. Meadows attorney, George Terwilliger, said: We will review the decision carefully and consider any further steps that may be appropriate.'

The ruling, however could have implications for many of the other suits filed against the Jan. 6 committee by Trump allies  many of which have similarly landed in Nichols court.

__________


Supreme Court clears way for Graham to face questioning in Georgia election probe

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to face questioning before a grand jury investigating 2020 election interference in Georgia, while emphasizing that the inquiry must abide by constitutional safeguards for lawmakers.

The courts move was a legal setback for Graham, one of several high-profile allies of former President Trump whom Atlanta-area prosecutors have pursued as part of a probe into the potentially criminal effort to disrupt the 2020 election in Georgia.

The development came in an unsigned, two-paragraph order. Justice Clarence Thomas, who briefly paused the case last week in his capacity as the justice responsible for handling the emergency application, referred the matter to the full court. There were no noted dissents from Tuesdays order.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) obtained a subpoena for Grahams testimony in July, before her efforts quickly became ensnared in legal wrangling.

Willis has indicated her interest in two phone calls Graham made in the weeks after the 2020 election to Georgias Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and members of his staff, as well as any possibly related coordination that may have occurred between Graham and the Trump campaign.

___________


Court chaos continues as right-wing True the Vote leaders are thrown in jail

The two leaders of the far-right group True the Vote have been hauled off to jail as of Monday afternoon, according to Votebeat Texas

Gregg Philips and Catherine Engelbrecht were told that until they follow a federal judge's order to identify the man they say is an FBI informant in a defamation case they must remain in jail.

The case involves a right-wing conspiracy theory about misconduct by the technology company Konnech, which has since sued True The Vote for defamation. They allege that the group is targeting their company in a viral social media campaign that is damaging their business and it has resulted in a barrage of threats against the CEO and his family.

Philips and Engelbrecht claimed that an unidentified man, allegedly an FBI agent, helped investigate the company for they say giving poll worker information to China. In fact, they're misconstruing an actual case in which the CEO, Eugene Yu is accused of compromising a very small amount of county employee voter data to China.

"Of course, that criminal case does not show anything resembling the election fraud True the Vote has falsely claimed went down in the U.S." said Votebeat Texas.

The group is the same one behind the 2,000 mules movie that alleges a slew of unfounded election conspiracies.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump aide offered immunity to testify before grand jury about Mar-a-Lago docs

The Justice Department has offered Trump aide Kash Patel an immunity deal to testify before a grand jury probing former President Donald Trump's mishandling of documents marked as classified found at Mar-a-Lago, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

Patel appeared before a grand jury probing the handling of the documents last month and repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment.

The immunity deal for Patel wouldn't necessarily shield him from prosecution and wouldn't protect him from any information investigators receive independent of his testimony.

But experts argue the extension of an immunity offer, nonetheless, could signal the advanced stage the investigation is currently in and how investigators are increasingly zeroing in on Trump's attempts to hold on to documents that were among the most highly protected government intelligence.

Patel didn't immediately respond to a text message seeking comment, and it's not clear how he or his team will respond to the DOJ's offer. A lawyer representing Patel declined to comment. Department of Justice officials declined to comment.

On Aug. 9, the day after FBI agents raided Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate and found scores of documents marked classified, Patel issued a statement calling the raid "unlawful" and saying "corrupt government gangsters" had engaged in "the blatant weaponization of our government for political gain."

On Monday, Patel appeared on "The Benny Show," a right-wing podcast, and said, "I'm all in with the boss, and you know that." Patel was responding to a question about whether he would accept the FBI director post if Trump were to be reelected in 2024.

"First I tell people, let's win the midterms," Patel said. "And then let's see what he does and, you know, you and I think I know what he's going to do. And then it's a two-year lift and you know what, they're going to come after us."

*___________*


Trump, company settle with protesters who allege they were assaulted by security

Former President Trump reached a settlement on Wednesday with several protesters who accused his security team of assaulting them outside Trump Tower in 2015.

Just days after jury selection got underway, Trumps lawyer Alina Habba and the four protesters signed a joint statement agreeing to settle the case. The statement noted that both parties agree that all people have a right to engage in a peaceful protest on public sidewalks.

The group of protesters were demonstrating outside of Trump Tower in September 2015 over then-presidential candidate Trumps derogatory comments about Mexican immigrants when they claim they were assaulted by Trumps security team.

One protester, Efrain Galicia, accused Trumps former head of security Keith Schiller of hitting him in the head as Schiller tried to take away a cardboard sign. Galicia and several other protesters sued Trump, his campaign, his company, Schiller and other security guards over the incident.

The protesters attorney Benjamin Dictor said in statement on Wednesday that his clients were proud to have settled the case and received written recognition from Trump of their right to protest on the sidewalk.

Powerful men may put their names on buildings, but the sidewalk will always belong to the people, Dictor said.

Habba, Trumps lawyer, said in a statement that they were happy to finally put this matter to rest once and for all with Wednesdays settlement.

____________

Trump lawyers saw Thomas as "key" to disrupting 2020 election count

Emails that emerged Wednesday underscore the extent to which former President Trump's top legal advisers zeroed in on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as "being key" in their bid to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

*Driving the news:* "We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt," Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in an email on Dec. 31, 2020, to John Eastman and other members of Trump's legal team.


Thomas could "end up being the key," Chesebro also said in the newly disclosed emails, which were released by Eastman's attorneys last week to the Jan. 6 committee and obtained by Politico.He added that Thomas would be "our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress.""I think I agree with this," Eastman wrote later that morning.

*Between the lines:* Chesebro in another email on Dec. 31 laid out his strategy to disrupt the election certification process.


"[I]f we can just get this case pending before the Supreme Court by Jan. 5, ideally with something positive written by a judge or justice, hopefully Thomas, I think its our best shot at holding up the count of a state in Congress," he wrote.

*The big picture:* Eastman, a central figure in Trump's attempts to subvert election results, is the conservative legal scholar who championed the theory, along with Trump, that the vice president could unilaterally reject electors.


The messages were part of eight emails that Eastman sought to shield from the Jan. 6 select committee, but a judge ordered that the emails be released, Politico reports.Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, has also emerged as a central player in the Jan. 6 select committee's investigation, as she was in touch with Trump advisers about schemes to overturn the 2020 election.In September, Ginni Thomas sat for a closed-door interview with the Jan. 6 committee.

----------


## david44

> Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, has also emerged as a central player in the Jan. 6 select committee's investigation, as she was in touch with Trump advisers about schemes to overturn the 2020 election.


Oh Dear

----------


## S Landreth

Judge says hell appoint monitor for Donald Trumps company 

A Manhattan judge said Thursday he will appoint an independent monitor for former President Donald Trumps real estate empire, restricting his companys ability to freely make deals, sell assets and change its corporate structure.

Judge Arthur Engoron ordered the outside watchdog for the Trump Organization as he presides over a lawsuit in which New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges Trump and the company routinely misled banks and others about the value of prized assets, including golf courses and hotels bearing his name.

James office says the Trump Organization is continuing to engage in fraud and has taken steps to dodge potential penalties from the lawsuit, such as incorporating a new entity in Delaware named Trump Organization LLC  almost identical to the original companys name  in September, just before the lawsuit was filed.

Engoron, in an 11-page order, barred the Trump Organization from selling or transferring any noncash assets without giving the court and James office 14 days notice. The to-be-named monitor will be charged with ensuring the companys compliance and will immediately report any violations to the court and lawyers for both sides.

The Trump Organization must also grant the monitor access to its financial statements, asset valuations and other disclosures, must provide a full and accurate description of the companys structure and must give the monitor at least 30 days notice of any potential restructuring, refinancing or asset sales, Engoron said.

The company must also pay for the monitor, he said.

Engorons decision to appoint a monitor is just the latest ruling hes made against Trump or his interest. While presiding over disputes over subpoenas issued in James investigation, the judge, a Democrat, held Trump in contempt and fined him $110,000 after he was slow to turn over documents, and he forced him to sit for a deposition. In that testimony, Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination more than 400 times.

James, a Democrat, is seeking $250 million and a permanent ban on Trump, a Republican, doing business in the state. In the interim, she wants an independent monitor to review and sign off on some of the companys core business decisions, including any asset sales or transfers and potential corporate restructuring.

Our goal in doing this is not to impact the day-to-day operations of the Trump Organization, said James senior enforcement counsel, Kevin Wallace. He said the desired oversight would be limited and wouldnt involve intricacies, such as how many rounds of golf or hotel rooms they were booking in a given year.

The Trump Organization has a persistent record of not complying with existing court orders, Wallace said. It should not be incumbent on the court or the attorney general to spend the next year looking over their shoulder, making sure assets arent sold or the company restructured.

Trump sued James in Florida on Wednesday, seeking to block her from having any oversight over the family trust that controls his company. Trumps 35-page complaint rehashed some claims from his previously dismissed lawsuit against James in federal court in New York, including that her investigation of him is a political witch hunt.

___________


Jan. 6 committee extends subpoena deadline after Trump doesn't hand over documents

The House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol gave former President Donald Trump an extra week to provide requested documents after lawmakers said Friday that they did not receive any records from a subpoena issued last month in connection with the Jan. 6 riot.

The initial subpoena deadline was 10 a.m. ET Friday for any communications Trump may have had regarding extremist groups involved in the riot and any attempts in the past year to contact witnesses testifying before the Jan. 6 committee.

The Oct. 21 subpoena also called for Trump to provide testimony at the Capitol or by videoconference on Nov. 14.

In a joint statement Friday, the committee's chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said that while they were allowing additional time for the documents, they were not changing the date for Trump's deposition.

We have received correspondence from the former President and his counsel in connection with the Select Committees subpoena," they said. "We have informed the former Presidents counsel that he must begin producing records no later than next week and he remains under subpoena for deposition testimony starting on November 14th."

____________


Judge shoots down Mike Lindell's bid to reclaim seized phone, access warrant affidavit

A federal judge on Thursday sharply rejected an effort by Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO, to reclaim a cellphone seized by the FBI in September.

U.S. District Court Judge Eric Tostrud ruled that the Justice Department had easily justified the seizure of Lindells phone in connection with an investigation into a breach of Colorado voting systems after the 2020 election.

Lindell has been a longtime ally in former President Donald Trumps effort to subvert the election and lodge discredited claims of widespread fraud. He has not been charged with any crimes connected to the effort.

Tostrud, a Trump appointee based in St. Paul, Minn., also denied an effort by Lindell to access the affidavit justifying the seizure.

He described the affidavit as extensive, totaling 80 pages, and said it included identities of confidential informants and cooperating witnesses, as well as details of recorded communications.

The judge said the exposure of sensitive details in the sealed submissions could interfere with the probe being conducted by Washington-based prosecutors and the FBI.

Premature disclosure of these materials would significantly undermine the Governments ongoing criminal investigation, giving Plaintiffs (and potentially, other targets of the investigation) a window into the Governments investigation that could compromise the investigation as a whole, Tostrud wrote in his 36-page order.

The judge also said there would be no practical way to provide a redacted version to Lindell.

Lindell disclosed the seizure of his phone shortly after it occurred, confirming that agents confronted him at a Hardees drive-through in Mankato, Minn. He subsequently disclosed the details of the search warrant, which agents furnished to him after seizing his phone and questioning him.

----------


## S Landreth

Special Master Sets Schedule in Mar-a-Lago Documents Case

Special Master Sets Aggressive Schedule as Mar-a-Lago Document Dispute Between Trump and DOJ Heads for December Clash

The special master overseeing former President Donald Trump’s dispute with the federal government over a cache of marked-as-classified documents has just established a timetable for how and when the case will move forward in the coming days and weeks.

In a brief scheduling order posted on the federal docket late Monday evening, Special Master Raymond J. Dearie announced that he was planning to consult the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration later this month in order to ascertain the agency’s “practices and guidance documents concerning the categorization of materials under the Presidential Records Act.”

Dearie’s inquiry is premised on a section of the court order establishing his power to oversee the ongoing document dispute between the 45th president and the U.S. Department of Justice.

The order by U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, notes, in relevant part:

In categorizing Seized Materials as personal items/documents or Presidential Records, the Special Master may consult with the National Archives and Records Administration…

In advance of the NARA consultation, Dearie asked for Trump and DOJ attorneys, if they wish to be heard, to submit a letter of no more than three pages by this coming Thursday, Nov. 10, 2022.

Trump successfully petitioned the reviewing court to appoint the special master after claiming that some of the documents seized by FBI agents from his Mar-a-Lago home in August actually belonged to him personally – and may touch upon attorney-client privilege issues.

The appointment of the special master confounded legal experts. The DOJ has expressed severe reservations with the state of affairs – even going so far as to warn about potential national security concerns – and has appealed the order granting Dearie authority over the matter.

The process, so far, has been slow-moving and time-consuming. In a conference call with attorneys for both sides last month, the special master expressed doubt about the ex-president’s privilege claims.

“It’s a little perplexing as I go through the log,” Dearie reportedly said. “What’s the expression — ‘Where’s the beef?’ I need some beef.”

After that light dressing down, attorneys for Trump and the DOJ reached a compromise on two distinct document categories. That resolution was catalogued in a late October letter from the DOJ.

The large collection of documents culled from the FBI raid has been spit into several batches for review by an internal DOJ filter team referred to as “Filter A,” “Filter B,” and “Filter C” materials.

“[Trump] withdraws his initial claims of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine with respect to the following Filter A and C Materials,” the DOJ letter says, nothing, that in regard to the documents in those filter groups, “[Trump] previously did not assert attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine.”

In the Monday order, Dearie also scheduled a status hearing for Dec. 1, 2022. That hearing, the special master notes, “will be an opportunity for the parties to elaborate upon their respective positions.”

The arguments advanced during that hearing are likely to be high-stakes. Dearie anticipates an aggressive schedule immediately thereafter – his report and recommendations are currently slated to be released on Dec. 16, 2022.

_____________

Trump’s company appeals judge’s decision to appoint monitor

Former President Donald Trump’s company is appealing a judge’s decision to appoint an independent monitor to oversee its business dealings while it is being sued for fraud by New York’s attorney general.

Lawyers for the Trump Organization filed paperwork Monday seeking to challenge Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron’s decision, issued last Thursday, in a mid-level state appellate court. They are also seeking a stay to prevent Engoron’s ruling from taking effect while the appeal is pending.

In court papers, the company’s lawyers argued that Engoron overstepped his bounds by requiring an outside watchdog keep tabs on the Trump Organization for the duration of Attorney General Letitia James’ civil case.

Engoron’s ruling, the lawyers said, essentially handcuffed the company — restricting its ability to freely make deals, sell assets and change its corporate structure, and putting “immediate and unlawful prejudgment restraint” on what they said was nearly $5 billion in assets.

A message seeking comment was left with James’ office.

James’ lawsuit, the product of a three-year investigation, alleges Trump and the Trump Organization misled banks and others about the value of prized assets, including golf courses and hotels bearing his name.

James, a Democrat, is seeking $250 million and a permanent ban on Trump, a Republican, doing business in the state.

____________

Trump Loses Bid to Stay Court Monitor Pending Appeal

Trump Fails to Pause a Ruling Putting His Business Under Court-Appointed Monitor as Fast-Tracked Appeal Rages on

Former President Donald Trump cannot pause a ruling imposing a court-appointed monitor pending appeal, a Manhattan judge ruled on Wednesday.

“The application for an interim stay is denied pending determination of the motion by a full bench,” Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli wrote in a handwritten ruling for New York’s Appellate Division, First Department.

The denial falls one day after Trump filed a notice of appeal seeking to overturn a preliminary injunction that his attorney Alina Habba described as “overly broad, overreaching, and unenforceable on its face.”

____________

Trump-Appointed Judge Advances Dominion's OAN Lawsuit

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. will allow a defamation lawsuit brought by a voting machine company against a right-wing network to proceed, rejecting the network’s claims that a defamation case in Colorado involving some of the same parties would address the same issues raised in the D.C. action.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols rejected a motion Monday in the lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against One America News, the conservative media organization owned and run by Robert Herring and his son Charles Herring.

OAN had moved to dismiss the case entirely or, alternatively, have a stay issued pending resolution of a Colorado state case involving a one-time Dominion employee. In the alternative, the defendants argued, the case should be moved to Colorado, where Dominion is headquartered, and argued that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia didn’t have jurisdiction over them.

In its motion, Dominion relied heavily on a legal concept known as the Colorado River doctrine, so named for a a 1976 Supreme Court case that held that a federal court may “stay or dismiss a federal action in favor of a concurrent action in state court under ‘exceptional circumstances.'”

OAN argued that a Colorado state case against Donald Trump by Eric Coomer, a former Dominion executive, is a “parallel” case that addresses the same issues that Dominion raises in its own lawsuit. In Coomer’s case, the now-former Dominion employee sued Trump, Rudy Giuliani, “Kraken” attorney Sidney Powell, OAN, Newsmax, the Gateway Pundit and other right-wing commentators over repeated assertions that that Coomer bragged on a conference call — dubbed by the conspiracists as the “Antifa conference call” — that voting machines were rigged in Biden’s favor.

OAN argued that because the Coomer case involves the same parties and the same alleged defamatory statements, Dominion’s D.C.-based lawsuit shouldn’t proceed at all, or at least until the Colorado case was resolved.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found these arguments unpersuasive.

“Coomer no longer works for Dominion, and Dominion is not a party to the Colorado suit,” Nichols wrote.

Nichols, a Trump appointee, agreed with Dominion that the cases are not parallel.

The ruling marks the latest failure by a conservative media network and other pro-Trump defendants to scuttle defamation lawsuits brought by Dominion, Smartmatic, and others who say that they were damaged by false claims of election interference.

“We are pleased to see this process moving forward to hold OAN accountable,” a spokesperson for Dominion told Law&Crime in an emailed statement. OAN did not immediately respond to Law&Crime’s request for comment.

_____________


Rudy Giuliani Dealt Another Setback in Multi-Billion Dollar Legal Brawl with Smartmatic, as Judge Revives Once-Dismissed Count

Rudy Giuliani has been dealt another setback on Wednesday in a multi-billion dollar legal battle accusing him of defaming the Smartmatic voting machine company to propagate 2020 election conspiracy theories.

In March, a Manhattan judge advanced Smartmatic’s lawsuit against the Fox Corporation, Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, and Giuliani, who succeeded in dismissing only some of the counts against him. Jeanine Pirro and Sidney Powell were able to scuttle the lawsuit against them entirely.

On Wednesday, the judge agreed to revive one of the counts that Giuliani had successfully dismissed. That count alleged that Giuliani defamed the company by claiming that their “election technology was designed and used to fix, rig and steal elections.”

“Since such a defamatory statement impugns the basic integrity of SUSA’s business, ‘an action for defamation lies and injury is conclusively presumed,'” Manhattan Supreme Court Justice David Cohen wrote in a seven-page ruling.

Smartmatic filed its $2.7 billion lawsuit in February 2021, accusing Fox of engaging in a “disinformation campaign, which has damaged democracy worldwide and irreparably harmed Smartmatic and other stakeholders who contribute to modern elections.

Rudy Giuliani Dealt Setback in Smartmatic Defamation Case

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Lawyers Must Pay Thousands for Clinton RICO Lawsuit

Judge Sanctions Trumps Lawyers for Shotgun RICO Suit Over Russia Probe, Suggests Bar and Disciplinary Authorities Might Be Needed

A federal judge in Florida sanctioned lawyers for former President Donald Trump who represented him in his failed lawsuit against Hillary Clinton over the 2016 presidential election.

Further sanctions could be on the way. Thursdays order against four attorneys and two law firms does not resolve a separate motion filed by Clinton, who was one of 31 defendants in a sprawling lawsuit characterizing the Russia investigation as a massive racketeering plot.

U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks slapped the attorneys with hefty fines  and suggested that Bar and disciplinary authorities may want to step in for further action.

The rule of law is undermined by the toxic combination of political fundraising with legal fees paid by political action committees, reckless and factually untrue statements by lawyers at rallies and in the media, and efforts to advance a political narrative through lawsuits without factual basis or any cognizable legal theory, Middlebrooks wrote in a blistering ruling. Lawyers are enabling this behavior and I am pessimistic that Rule 11 alone can effectively stem this abuse. Aspects may be beyond the purview of the judiciary, requiring attention of the Bar and disciplinary authorities. Additional sanctions may be appropriate.

Earlier this year, Trump sued Clinton  and dozens of other people and organizations who often serve as fodder for right-wing outrage, including the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party law firm Perkins Coie, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele  in March, accusing the defendants of engaging in a racketeering plot against him in the 2016 presidential election, which he won.

Judge Middlebrooks, a Bill Clinton appointee, dismissed the case in September, finding that it was an attempt at settling of scores and grievances and lacked legal merit. But Thursdays sanctions order came from a motion by a lesser known defendant.

Charles Dolan, a Virginia resident with business connections to another defendant, Igor Danchenko, was also named in the suit. The Trump team described Dolan as a longtime participant in Democratic politics, having previously served as chairman of the DNC, state chairman of former President Bill Clintons 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, adviser to Clintons 2008 presidential campaign, and having been appointed by Clinton to two four-year terms on an advisory commission at the U.S. State Department.

In reality, Dolans involvement with Clintons campaign was simply volunteering to knock on doors in New Hampshire in the last week before the 2016 election.

In his ruling Thursday, Middlebrooks sided firmly with Dolan and against Trumps lawyers  Alina Habba and Michael T. Madaio, from the firm Habba Madaio & Associates, and their co-counsel Peter Ticktin and Jamie Alan Sasson, from The Ticktin Law Group.

When Suing Someone It Helps to Know Where They Live.

Writing at times in the first person, Middlebrooks, a Bill Clinton appointee, implied that Dolan would have succeed on any one of the three possible grounds for a sanctions motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 11 sanctions are properly assessed (1) when a party files a pleading that has no reasonable factual basis; (2) when the party files a pleading that is based on a legal theory that has no reasonable chance of success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to change existing law; or (3) when the party files a pleading in bad faith for an improper purpose, Middlebrooks wrote (citations omitted). Here, all three are true.

Middlebrooks was not pleased.

While alone not of great significance, this response reflects the cavalier attitude towards facts demonstrated throughout the case, the judge wrote in his ruling Thursday, adding that Trumps narrative remained unchanged despite multiple credible corrections from Dolan and his lawyers.

Middlebrooks also dismantled Trumps claims that nearly all of the allegations against Dolan came directly from the federal indictment against Danchenko by special counsel John Durham, who led the investigation into the Clinton campaigns allegations of collusion between Russia the 2016 Trump campaign.

But this is simply not so, Middlebrooks wrote. As was the practice throughout the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff cherry-picked portions which supported his narrative while ignoring those that undermined or contradicted it. Mr. Trumps lawyers persisted in this misrepresentation after being warned by the sanctions motion, and they doubled down on this falsehood in their response to the motion.

In addition to the baseless RICO claim, the judge wrote, Trumps team pushed an allegation that Dolan committed conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood.

The judge also noted that despite Trumps claim that the defendants, including Dolan, conspired to maliciously prosecute him, he was not actually prosecuted.

Questioning whether Rule 11 sanctions were enough to deter such conduct, Middlebrooks fired a shot across the bow to disciplinary authorities and in the meanwhile, imposed fines. He ordered Trumps lawyers to pay $50,000 in sanctions and $16,274.73 in Dolans attorneys fees and costs.

DocumentCloud

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ Wants Trump to Swear to Mar-a-Lago Inventory

In Just-Unsealed Filing, DOJ Asks Mar-a-Lago Special Master to Force Trump to Confirm Seized Files Are Authentic in a Sworn Affidavit

In a just-unsealed filing, the Department of Justice asked the special master reviewing thousands of documents seized from Mar-a-Lago for attorney-client and other privileges to force former President Donald Trump to verify the inventory through a sworn affidavit.

Such an order would compel Trump to affirm or dispute the authenticity of the records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago in August on the record and under penalty of perjury. It would also make the former president provide evidence to his insinuations that documents may have been planted.

The Special Master has received an affidavit of accuracy from the government. Since the Court appointed the Special Master to ensure fairness, integrity, and even-handedness in the review process [], Plaintiff should be required to verify or correct the property inventory just as the government has done, the Justice Departments National Security Division chief Jay I. Bratt wrote in a 20-page filing.

Filed under seal on Nov. 8 and released publicly on Monday, the document summarizes the governments arguments as to the legal issues before Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie, the special master recommended by Trump and appointed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to preside over the privilege review.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8763.173.0.pdf

*___________*


Trump Fights to Keep Special Master in Mar-a-Lago Case

Trump Fights to Keep Special Master Review of Files the FBI Seized from Mar-a-Lago, Calls Search of His Home an Invasion

Former President Donald Trumps attorneys filed a motion on Thursday asking an appellate court to maintain a system to have a special master review the thousands of files the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago without classification markings.

The unprecedented nature of this investigation  an invasion into President Trumps home by the administration of his political rival  demands not only fairness, but the perception of fairness, Trumps attorneys Christopher Kise and James Trusty wrote in an 82-page legal brief. The perception of fairness is not the only reason to question the Government in protecting President Trumps rights.

Despite the fact that it was executed pursuant to a court-authorized warrant, Trumps claimed their client was subjected to an unlawful search and seizure.

Every judge who examined the case to date has affirmed its lawfulness. Even Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who appointed a special master to review the case, found that there has not been a compelling showing of callous disregard for [Trump]s constitutional rights.

The first words of the summary of Trumps brief sets the tone for the remainder  an attack on the legitimacy of the Justice Departments investigation.

This investigation of President Trump by the administration of his political rival is both unprecedented and misguided, the brief states. In what at its core is a document dispute that has spiraled out of control, the Government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th President of his own Presidential and personal records.

The conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering the fate of the special master, has shown deep skepticism about Trumps arguments.

In September, the courts three-judge panel blocked two key facets of a lower court judges order appointing a special master to review the files seized from Mar-a-Lago: the inspection of the classified files and the injunction preventing the Department of Justice from using them in their ongoing criminal investigation. Trump appointed two of the judges behind that ruling.

The Justice Department initially only sought relief as to the more than 100 documents with marked up to top secret and above, a small portion of the more than 11,000 other files.

Now, the Justice Department seeks broader relief that would overturn Judge Cannons order in its entirety, including for the apparently unclassified files. Such an order would end the work of Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie.

Trumps attorneys argued that Dearie should be able to finish that work.

The Justice Departments reply is now due on Nov. 17.

Read Trumps legal brief here.

___________


Trump sues to block Jan. 6 committee subpoena

Former President Trump sued to block a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack on Friday night, as deadlines approach for him to produce documents and sit for a deposition.

The committee unanimously voted to subpoena the former president during its public hearing last month.

After Trump missed a deadline to produce documents last week, the Jan. 6 committee agreed to provide a one-week extension. The subpoena also requested that the former president appear for a deposition next Monday.

However, Fridays filing argued that the subpoena was invalid, claiming that Trump has absolute immunity from being compelled to testify before Congress as a former president. Trump also argued that the subpoena was an unwarranted intrusion on the institution of the Presidency and that it sought information protected by executive privilege.

As a result of the Committees self-described unprecedented action, President Trump has been put in the untenable position of choosing between preserving his rights and the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive Branch, or risking enforcement of the Subpoena issued to him, the filing claimed.

Trump was widely expected to fight the subpoena from the beginning given his hostility toward the committee, which he has frequently called a witch hunt.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...ttee-subpoena/

___________


Supreme Court clears way for Jan. 6 panel to access records of Arizona GOP chair

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection to access phone records belonging to the Arizona Republican Partys chairwoman.

The brief order was unsigned, but conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would have granted the request for relief filed by Kelli Ward, the GOP chairwoman, and her husband.

The Jan. 6 panel  which has subpoenaed T-Mobile, Wards phone carrier  has expressed interest in her role as a phony pro-Trump elector following his loss in Arizona during the 2020 election.

Ward and her husband, Michael Ward, were among a group of 11 Arizonans who signed a fake election certificate purporting to show that former President Trump won the state.

The couple sought emergency relief in the Supreme Court after lower courts denied their bid to shield the records that congressional investigators are pursuing as part of their probe of last years pro-Trump riot at the Capitol.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...ona-gop-chair/

____________


Justice Dept.: Navarro contempt trial should be timed to aid Jan. 6 committee

The Justice Department on Thursday urged a federal judge to expedite the criminal trial of Peter Navarro, a former Trump White House aide charged with defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee.

Speed is important, assistant U.S. attorney Raymond Hulser said, because it might force Navarro to cooperate with the select committee before it dissolves at the end of the year.

Im here to express that strong desire by the U.S. attorney to try the case, if possible, while the committee is in existence, Hulser said, calling the trial a catalyst for Navarros cooperation.

As we all know, the trial of matters makes things very pointed, Hulser said. If there is any possibility that a person can be convinced by the pressing nature of a criminal trial to say, OK, I will go and I will answer questions. I will provide documents, we would like to be a catalyst.

Hulser added that such cooperation wouldnt negate the criminal charges against Navarro.

But U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta bristled at the suggestion that criminal proceedings could be a tool to aid the select committees investigation.

I dont want these proceedings to be a lever in the way the U.S. attorneys suggested it might be, Mehta said.

Navarro was indicted earlier this year for refusing to comply with a select committee subpoena for documents and testimony related to his involvement with efforts to help Donald Trump subvert the results of the 2020 election. The panel wants to interview him about his involvement in strategizing with Republican members of Congress to lodge challenges to the electoral votes of numerous states won by Joe Biden. Navarro claimed he couldnt testify because his conversations with Trump were subject to executive privilege  a prospect the House rejected when it voted to hold him in contempt of Congress in the spring.

DOJs suggestion that the contempt trial could be a tool to coerce Navarros testimony to the select committee was unusual. Typically, Congress has viewed criminal contempt referrals as purely punitive  meant to punish those who defy its will, not to ultimately obtain their testimony or records. When lawmakers want to coerce testimony from a recalcitrant witness, theyve traditionally filed a civil lawsuit.

Prosecutors have already secured the conviction for another witness who refused to testify to the Jan. 6 committee: Steve Bannon. A jury found the former Trump aide guilty in July, and U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols recently sentenced Bannon to four months in prison. Bannon is appealing his conviction and Nichols agreed to delay his sentence while his appeal is pending.

Mehta ultimately rejected the governments proposed timeframe for Navarros proceedings and set trial to begin Jan. 11, a week after the committees authorization is set to expire.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/1...ittee-00066363

----------


## S Landreth

Hunter Biden, Galileo Cited in Trump's Twitter Suit Appeal

Trumps Lawyers Cite Galileo and Hunter Bidens Laptop in 9th Circuit Appeal of Twitter Lawsuit Dismissal

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are asking the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reinstate Trumps lawsuit over alleged Democratic-induced censorship at Twitter, saying the case presents the most important Free Speech issue of our day.

A 96-page opening brief says government officials suppress speech by colluding with social media platforms to remove ideas from the public square, referencing Galileos house arrest plight for spreading heretical ideas.

Thousands of dissidents today are arrested or killed by despotic governments eager to suppress ideas they disapprove of, according to the brief. But this is not the American way. We believe the path to truth is forged by exposing all ideas to opposition, debate, and discussion.

The brief says government officials use social media platforms as cats paws to suppress opinions and information about matters that Americans consider of vital interestincluding those that turn out to be correct or at least debatable, such as that the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic, the COVID virus leaked from a laboratory, COVID vaccines provide weak protection that does not outweigh the risk of vaccine injury, and the 2020 election was stolen.

A 96-page opening brief says government officials suppress speech by colluding with social media platforms to remove ideas from the public square, referencing Galileos house arrest plight for spreading heretical ideas.

Thousands of dissidents today are arrested or killed by despotic governments eager to suppress ideas they disapprove of, according to the brief. But this is not the American way. We believe the path to truth is forged by exposing all ideas to opposition, debate, and discussion.

The brief says government officials use social media platforms as cats paws to suppress opinions and information about matters that Americans consider of vital interestincluding those that turn out to be correct or at least debatable, such as that the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic, the COVID virus leaked from a laboratory, COVID vaccines provide weak protection that does not outweigh the risk of vaccine injury, and the 2020 election was stolen.

____________

Former White House aide Hutchinson will testify Wednesday before Atlanta-area grand jury

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson will testify Wednesday before an Atlanta-area special grand jury probing efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

Hutchinson, a former top aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, previously cooperated with investigations by the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, and the Justice Department.

CNN reported last month that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had secured Hutchinsons cooperation in the investigation.

Hutchinson could offer Georgia prosecutors insights about what she witnessed in the West Wing, as well as specific steps her former boss took related to Georgia. In public testimony before the January 6 committee this summer, she revealed how Trump and his inner circle were warned about the potential for violence on January 6, and how the former president wanted to join the throngs of his supporters at the Capitol.

___________

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to testify in Trump election probe on Tuesday

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) will testify in the Fulton County probe into former President Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election on Tuesday.

*Why it matters:* Kemp is the highest profile Georgia official to be subpoenaed to testify before the district attorney's special grand jury, which conclude with criminal charges against Trump if they find he violated state law by seeking to overturn the election, per Axios' Emma Hurt.

*The big picture:* Kemp had initially agreed to testify, but his attorneys sought to quash it following a disagreement with the district attorney's office.


Kemp's lawyers said the order to testify in person had political motivations and had "devolved into its own mechanism of election interference" by seeking to influence the midterm elections.A judge ruled in August that Kemp must testify, but delayed his testimony until after the gubernatorial election.The Atlanta Constitution-Journal first reported the news that the governor will testify on Tuesday and Axios has confirmed it.

*Worth noting:* Kemp became a Trump target after resisting his request to help overturn the 2020 election results and defeated former U.S. Sen. David Perdue in the GOP primary before going on to win re-election.

----------


## S Landreth

Michael Flynn must testify in Georgia election interference investigation, judge says

A Florida judge on Tuesday ordered former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn to testify in a Georgia grand jurys probe into the 2020 presidential election.

Sarasota County Circuit Judge Charles Roberts found that Flynn was a material and necessary witness in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Williss (D) investigation into interference in Georgias 2020 election and ordered him to appear before a special grand jury on Nov. 22.

As Flynn is a resident of Florida, Willis needed approval from a Florida judge to compel the former national security advisers testimony in the Georgia probe.

Flynn sought to avoid the subpoena, claiming he was not a necessary or material witness and that the probe generally could not subpoena Florida witnesses as a civil inquiry.

However, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney has previously declared the Fulton County investigation to be a criminal proceeding, a decision that Roberts honored.

Several major GOP figures, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), have unsuccessfully attempted to avoid testifying in the Fulton County probe.

After hearing from Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) on Tuesday, the special grand jury is set to hear from former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson and former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows on Wednesday and Graham on Thursday, according to CNN.

___________


Despite Setbacks, Mary Trump Will Keep Suing Her Uncle

Donald Trumps Niece Files Notice of Appeal After New York Court Dismisses Inheritance Fraud Lawsuit Against Trump Family

Mary L. Trump, the niece of former president Donald Trump, filed a notice that she intends to appeal a recent court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit filed against her uncle and other members of the family.

While the notice of appeal is largely a procedural filing, Mary Trumps lawyer Roberta Kaplan included an outline of the reasons for the appeal.

It reads, in full:

_The Supreme Court erred in multiple respects in granting Defendants motions to dismiss. First, the Supreme Court erred by misstating and/or misapplying the applicable legal standard requiring that a release have been knowingly and fairly made in order to later be enforced with respect to claims that were unknown at the time of the release, including fraud claims. Second, the Supreme Court erred by failing to address in its analysis Plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations that (1) Defendants threatened to bankrupt her and her interests, and leave her paying taxes on money she did not have, for the rest of her life if she did not comply with Defendants demands, (2) Defendants terminated the health insurance keeping her infant nephew alive, as well as Plaintiffs own health insurance, in order to pressure Plaintiff to accede to their demands, and (3) Plaintiffs legal counsel at the time was arranged by a trustee loyal to Defendants, and as a result, counsel did not provide Plaintiff with adequate and proper representation. Third, the Supreme Court erred by misconstruing the terms of the releases, including the structure of the related contracts in which they are found, and the context and circumstances in which they were executed. Finally, the Supreme Court erred by failing to address or decide the other grounds on which Defendants sought dismissal, including with respect to the statute of limitations and application of the fraud discovery rule._

In 2020, Mary Trump sued the ex-president, her late uncle Robert S. Trump, and ex-federal judge Maryanne Trump Barry on allegations that the trio of siblings defrauded her out of millions of dollars from an inheritance she received from her father, Fred C. Trump Jr., who died in 1981.

That substantial inheritance included 70 acres of land in New York City with more than 50 buildings and a shopping center, interest in buildings that held hundreds of apartments, and part of a 153-acre development. Additionally, she was named the beneficiary of a trust established by her fathers father Fred C. Trump Sr. in 1976.

While valued at several million dollars, Mary Trumps interests were still a minority stake in the family real estate business. Her aunt and uncles were the fiduciaries who kept watch over her interests at the time she inherited them in 1981  when she was 16 years old.

Rather than protect Marys interests, they designed and carried out a complex scheme to siphon funds away from her interests, conceal their grift, and deceive her about the true value of what she had inherited, the lawsuit alleged.

On Tuesday, a New York Supreme Court Justice Robert R. Reed dismissed the lawsuit. In the ruling, the low-level court held that Mary Trump had forfeited all rights to her inheritance  including the right to sue for alleged fraud  when she signed a settlement agreement in a breach of contract case against her family in 2001.

___________

*Just for fun. You never know*


Can Trump Be Disqualified from Being President Again?

Legal Efforts to Disqualify Trump from Holding Office Again Intensify After He Announces 2024 Presidential Campaign

Within hours of Donald Trumps official announcement that he was entering the 2024 presidential race, legal efforts to prevent the former president from seeking reelection kicked into gear.

Democratic members of Congress are considering whether to back a plan to adopt a federal law that would disqualify Trump from holding office, while advocacy groups are urging state officials to bar Trump in their own capacity. Additionally, groups that have already sued the former president multiple times in the past (such as CREW), have vowed to challenge Trumps candidacy in court.

Democratic Congressman from Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline circulated a dear colleague letter on Tuesday urging his fellow representatives to support legislation that would bar former President Trump from ever holding federal office in the future.

The legislation is grounded in the principle that the Fourteenth Amendment expressly disqualifies individuals who took part in an insurrection from holding office.

The Congressman went on to argue that the Constitution clearly intended to bar insurrectionists from holding high office in the United States which appears to be a fair reading of the language itself.

Less clear, however, is whether Trump sufficiently engaged in insurrection or rebellion to the extent that his actions would trigger this prohibition. Cicilline made the argument that the January 6th Committee Hearings, the 2021 impeachment trial, and other reporting have proved that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th with the intention of overturning the lawful 2020 election results.

----------


## S Landreth

Judge: Monitor Must Report Trump Org's 'Suspicious' Activity

Judge Instructs Court Monitor Overseeing Trump Organization: Immediately Report Unusual, Suspicious or Fraudulent Activity

The independent monitor appointed to oversee the Trump Organization as the New York attorney generals fraud lawsuit unfolds must report any unusual, suspicious or fraudulent activity, a Manhattan judge instructed on Thursday.

Earlier this month on Nov. 3, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron granted New York Attorney General Letitia Jamess request to put former President Donald Trumps business empire under a monitors watchful eye during the litigation.

For now, the court monitoring remains in force, and Engoron provided more detailed instructions regarding its operation on Thursday.

Within five days of any request by the monitor, the Trump family or business must provide any statement of financial condition, other asset valuation disclosure, or other financial disclosure to any persons or entities, including, without limitation, lenders, insurers, other financial institutions, or taxing authorities.

They must also provide, within that time, any non-privileged document, book, record, or other information bearing on any of the foregoing, or reasonably necessary to assess the accuracy of any representation.

By Nov. 30, the Trump Organization must disclose a full and accurate corporate structure.

Defendants are hereby ordered to provide the Monitor, at least 30 days in advance, information about any planned or anticipated restructuring of the Trump Organization, its subsidiaries, and all other affiliates, including trusts, or of any plans for disposing, refinancing, or dissipating any significant Trump Organization assets, the supplemental order states. In the absence of any such activity , Defendants shall provide the Monitor with a sworn statement on a monthly basis that no such activities have been undertaken.

Should Judge Jones discover anything amiss, the supplemental order instructs her to take quick action.

The Monitor shall immediately report to this Court and the parties any unusual and/or suspicious and/or suspected or actual fraudulent activity, the order states.

___________


Writer Who Accused Trump Of Rape To Sue Him For Battery

A New York writer who accused Donald Trump of raping her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s will sue him next week for battery under a new state law, according to a court document filed Thursday.

Attorneys for E. Jean Carroll filed a copy of the lawsuit they plan to bring against Trump in federal court in Manhattan on Nov. 24. Thats the day the new law  The Adult Survivors Act  goes into effect. The law temporarily lifts the statute of limitations for a year on civil claims for sexual offenses.

Carroll already has a defamation suit against Trump for publicly denying and denigrating her rape allegation against him.

The new suit is yet another major legal complication for Trump just days after he announced a third run for the White House.

Trump committed battery against Carroll when he forcibly raped and groped her, states a copy of the complaint. Trump intentionally, and without her consent, attacked Carroll in order to satisfy his own sexual desires, it adds.

His physical contact with Carroll was offensive and wrongful under all the circumstances, the complaint states. Trump continued to attack and rape Carroll despite her attempts to fight against him.

_____________


Mark Meadows Can't Pause Ruling Favoring Jan. 6 Committee

Mark Meadows Loses Effort to Pause a Federal Judges Ruling in Favor of the Jan. 6th Committee

Former President Donald Trumps chief of staff Mark Meadows cannot pause a ruling allowing the Jan. 6th Committee to enforce its subpoena for documents and testimony, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

In late October, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, found that he did not have subject matter jurisdiction to weigh into the dispute between Meadows and the Committee. Meadows asked the judge to reconsider that decision and stay his prior ruling in order to maintain the status quo.

But Nichols found that putting a hold on his October opinion would not affect the stay of play.

Because the Congressional Defendants (for whatever reason) did not pursue affirmative claims against Meadows, the Courts dismissal of Meadowss claims does not obligate him to take any action, Nichols wrote. And because Meadows never sought (and thus the Court never granted) preliminary injunctive relief against the Congressional Defendants, the dismissal of his claims does not allow those Defendants to take any action that they were prevented from taking by Court order.

The Committee sought Meadowss testimony, documents, and cell phone records, which were being held by Verizon.

As for Verizon, it has never been a party to this litigation, and thus the Court has never ordered Verizon to take or refrain from taking any action, Thursdays ruling states.

On Sept. 23, 2021, the Jan. 6th Committee issued a subpoena to Meadows, telling him the panel found credible evidence of your involvement in events within the scope of the Select Committees inquiry.

It appears that you were with or in the vicinity of President Trump on January 6, had communications with the President and others on January 6 regarding events at the Capitol, and are a witness regarding activities of that day, the committees chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), wrote at the time. Moreover, it has been reported that you were engaged in multiple elements of the planning and preparation of efforts to contest the presidential election and delay the counting of electoral votes. In addition, according to documents provided by the Department of Justice, while you were the Presidents Chief of Staff, you directly communicated with the highest officials at the Department of Justice requesting investigations into election fraud matters in several states.

Citing reporting by Reuters and ProPublica, the Committee added: We understand that in the weeks after the November 2020 election, you contacted several state officials to encourage investigation of allegations of election fraud, even after such allegations had been dismissed by state and federal courts, and after the Electoral College had met and voted on December 14, 2020.

Moreover, at least one press report indicates you were in communication with organizers of the January 6 rally, including Amy Kremer of Women for America First, it continued, referring to the longtime tea party operative.

----------


## S Landreth

nice way to start a weekend  :Smile: 


Garland Names Special Counsel To Lead Trump-Related Probes

Attorney General Merrick Garland named a special counsel on Friday to oversee the Justice Departments investigation into the presence of classified documents at former President Donald Trumps Florida estate as well as key aspects of a separate probe involving the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and efforts to undo the 2020 election.

The move, being announced just three days after Trump formally launched his 2024 candidacy, is a recognition of the unmistakable political implications of two investigations that involve not only a former president but also a current White House hopeful.

Garland said Friday that Trumps announcement of his presidential candidacy and President Joe Bidens likely 2024 run were factors in his decision to appoint a special counsel. Garland said the appointment would allow prosecutors to continue their work indisputably guided only by the facts and the law.

Though the appointment installs a new supervisor atop the probes  both of which are expected to accelerate now that the midterm elections are over  the special counsel will still report to Garland, who has ultimate say of whether to bring charges.

The role will be filled by Jack Smith, a veteran prosecutor who led the Justice Departments public integrity section in Washington and who later served as the acting chief federal prosecutor in Nashville, Tennessee, during the Obama administration. More recently, he has been the chief prosecutor for the special court in the Hague that is tasked with investigating international war crimes.

The Justice Department described Smith as a registered independent, an effort to blunt any attack of perceived political bias.

The extraordinary circumstances here demand it, Garland said of the appointment.

The special counsels probe will combine the investigation into whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election and the investigation into the classified documents at Trumps Mar-a-Lago estate.

Representatives for Trump, a Republican, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

There was no immediate reason provided for the decision or for its timing. Garland has spoken repeatedly of his singular focus on the facts, the evidence and the law in the Justice Departments decision-making and of his determination to restore political independence to the agency following the tumultuous years of the Trump administration.

And there does not seem to be an obvious conflict like the one that prompted the last appointment of a special counsel to handle Trump-related investigations. The Trump Justice Department named former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation into potential coordination between Russia and the Trump 2016 presidential campaign.

----------


## Norton

> nice way to start a weekend


As expected the lying kunt responds.

"EXCLUSIVE: Former President Donald Trump blasted the Justice Department's appointment of a special counsel to take over investigations related to presidential records and Jan. 6, telling Fox News he "wont partake in it" and calling it "the worst politicization of justice in our country," while urging the Republican Party to take action.

"I have been going through this for six years  for six years I have been going through this, and I am not going to go through it anymore," Trump told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview Friday shortly after the announcement. "And I hope the Republicans have the courage to fight this."

Trump says he '''won'''t partake''' in special counsel investigation, slams as '''worst politicization of justice''' | Fox News

----------


## S Landreth

^should be fun. Can't wait to see him in orange

Laurence Tribe - If a special counsel was to be appointed, I can think of no-one better suited than Jack Smith. Vast experience prosecuting public corruption cases, treacherous national security violations, and crimes against humanity. Absorbs complex facts instantly. Perfect for Donald Trump. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1593702646984196096

----------


## bsnub

> nice way to start a weekend


Indeed! Great news! Lock him up! 

 :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

Interestingly, the GOP said last month they would not pay baldy orange cunto's legal bills if he ran again.

They've been paying out millions.

----------


## harrybarracuda

A former war crimes prosecutor has been appointed as special counsel to oversee investigations into former US president Donald Trump.

Jack Smith, a career prosecutor, will look into allegations around the mishandling of classified documents at Trump's Florida home and his role leading up to the January 6th assault on the Capitol.

Former war crimes prosecutor appointed to investigate Donald Trump | US News | Sky News

----------


## Loy Toy

Trump is the dumb fuck son of a corrupt very smart scammer and he inherited funds derived from shady deals instigated by his father mostly allowed by corrupt American politicians along the way.

I'm not American but it must be clear to most people that American policies are not formed in favour of the American taxpayer but in favour of the select few that dont give a tinkers cuss about anyone else but themselves and their own pockets.

The most evil so called democracy in the world and not one American can put their hand up and call these criminals for the injustices they perform.

And they still claim to be Worlds police retaining law and order globally.

What a fucking joke.

----------


## S Landreth

Little more about Smith


What to Know About Trump Special Counsel Jack Smith

Special Counsel Tapped by Merrick Garland to Investigate Trump Formerly Prosecuted Top Democrats and Republicans

Jack Smith, who was tapped on Friday as special prosecutor to probe the conduct of former President Donald Trump, has a history of prosecuting both Democrats and Republicans for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Smith was head of the DOJs Public Integrity Section in Washington, D.C., for five years, according to a 2017 press release that contained a biographical sketch. That press release was issued when Smith, by then the acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, announced plans to step down in August 2017.

The _Tenneseean_ reported at the time that Smith, while in the D.C.-based corruption unit, oversaw the corruption cases against former Virginia Gov. *Bob McDonnell*, former Arizona U.S. Rep. *Rick Renzi* and New York Assembly Speaker *Sheldon Silver*. Additionally, while in Tennessee, Smith prosecuted former Nashville General Sessions Judge *Cason Casey Moreland* on obstruction of justice charges, the newspaper indicated.

Silver, who died earlier this year, was a longtime New York Democrat who held considerable power over the Empire States political winds and financial coffers. Moreland is also a Democrat. Renzi and McDonnell are both Republicans.

Moreland pleaded guilty, according to a DOJ press release from 2018. The McDonnell and Silver convictions were later overturned, the _Tennessean_ noted.

The press release announcing Smiths departure from the Middle District of Tennessee listed him as a 16-year DOJ veteran who moved to Nashville, Tennessee, to serve as First Assistant U.S. Attorney in 2015. He became the Acting U.S. Attorney when *David Rivera* resigned in March 2017.  Smith took over at that time, announced plans to leave in August 2017, and was planned to remain in office until early September 2017 when his replacement, *Donald Q. Cochran*, assumed office.

Though not looking to leave the Department of Justice, Smith said he had been offered an incredible opportunity and after much consideration, he had decided to leave the DOJ, the press release said.

This was one of the most difficult professional decisions that I have ever been faced with, Smith said at the time in a prepared statement. I truly love representing the American people and seeking justice on their behalf. I will profoundly miss the close relationships I have developed with the exceptional public servants in our office, as well as the consummate professionals of our law enforcement community. While I am leaving the Department of Justice, I remain committed to our serving our community here in Nashville in other ways in the coming years.

An even earlier press release  which claims to have been updated in 2015 but which also appears to have been amended concomitant to Smiths duties in the Middle District of Tennessee  provided more details about Smiths background:

_Jack Smith was appointed First Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee in February of 2015. Prior to his appointment, from 2010 to 2015 Mr. Smith served as Chief of the Public Integrity Section of the United States Department of Justice, supervising the litigation of complex public corruption cases across the country. From 2008 to 2010, Jack served as Investigation Coordinator in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, Netherlands. In that capacity, he supervised sensitive investigations of foreign government officials and militia for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Mr. Smith joined the ICC from the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of New York, where he served for 9 years in a number of supervisory positions, including Chief of Criminal Litigation and Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. As Chief of Criminal Litigation, Mr. Smith supervised approximately 100 criminal prosecutors across a range of program areas, such as public corruption, violent crime and gangs, and white collar and complex financial fraud. Before becoming an Assistant United States Attorney, Mr. Smith served for five years as an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorneys Office._

_Mr. Smith is the recipient of the Directors Award from the Department of Justice, the Attorney Generals Award for Distinguished Service, the Federal Bar Associations Younger Federal Attorney Award, the Eastern District Associations Charles Rose Award and the Henry L. Stimson Medal by New York County Bar Association. Mr. Smith is a cum graduate of Harvard Law School and a summa cum laude graduate of the State University of New York at Oneonta._

Another biography maintained by the Kosovo Specialist Chambers & Specialist Prosecutors Office, where Smith most recently worked, says he left the DOJ to work for as Head of Litigation for the Hospital Corporation of America, the largest non-governmental health-care provider in the United States in September 2017.  From there, he took office as Specialist Prosecutor on Sept. 11, 2018.

As Law&Crime previously reported on Friday, the special counsel investigation will be two-fold: Smith will determine (1) whether to charge Trump with offenses related to his handling of classified materials, and (2) whether Trump engaged in crimes surrounding his alleged efforts to disrupt the lawful transfer of power.

According to Business Insider, Smith is registered to vote as an independent.

----------


## David48atTD

698,755 views  Nov 20, 2022         
@Glenn Kirschner joins to discuss the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Trump, whether it means an indictment is more likely, and what it means if Trump hold true to his threats not to participate.

----------


## S Landreth

Edit: summary of the article below – trump is going to jail 



For experts, the evidence in two probes compels charging Trump

Two reports analyzing two different criminal investigations into Donald Trump have reached a singular conclusion: there is enough evidence to bring charges against the former president.

Veteran prosecutors and top legal minds this week banded together to offer an assessment of two ongoing probes — one in Georgia examining Trump’s actions in the state leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, the other led by the Justice Department as it explores the mishandling of sensitive government documents at Mar-a-Lago.

In each, the attorneys found robust cases and significant legal risk for Trump, who is facing mounting trouble as he launches an early bid in the 2024 presidential race.

“Donald Trump is facing many more legal problems than just these two probes. But the Georgia investigation of whether his election denial slipped into criminality after the 2020 election and the federal investigation [into] whether his retention, classified, and other documents at Mar-a-Lago also crossed the criminal red line are the most threatening legal peril that he faces,” Norm Eisen, counsel for Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment and an author on both reports, told The Hill.

“They represent a one-two punch that has the potential to finally achieve the accountability that he has so often evaded in the past … I think that run is about to end, and these are the two cases that are most likely to do it.”

The nearly 500 pages of collective legal analysis finds a litany of state and federal crimes Trump may have committed, ranging from solicitation to commit election fraud, to state RICO Act violations, to the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.

“We conclude that Trump’s post-election conduct in Georgia leaves him at substantial risk of possible state charges predicated on multiple crimes,” a report from the Brookings Institution determined.

And in a report from Just Security, former prosecutors found additional statutes the Justice Department could weigh using as it noted any failure to charge Trump for the mishandling of records would represent treating Trump far differently than others who have faced similar charges.

“We determine there is strong precedent for the DOJ [Justice Department] to charge Trump. There are many felony cases that the DOJ pursued based on conduct that was significantly less egregious than the present set of facts in the Trump case,” they wrote. “In short, we conclude that if Trump were not charged, it would be a major deviation from how defendants are typically treated.”

The group, which includes prosecutors that worked on the Mueller report, noted that Trump’s intransigence in returning the documents — failing to fully comply with an initial request for return and a later subpoena, add to the seriousness of the case.

“Aggravating factors in Trump’s case include the length of time of his retention of government documents, the volume of government documents, the highly sensitive nature of the documents, the number of warnings he received, his obstructive conduct, and his involving other individuals in his scheme,” they wrote.

Following a relatively quiet period for the Justice Department in the weeks ahead of the midterms, Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday announced a major development in its probes, handing over two of its investigations to a special counsel.

Longtime prosecutor Jack Smith will oversee both the Mar-a-Lago investigation and the portion of the Jan. 6 investigation focused at the highest levels into “whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power,” Garland said.

Smith’s appointment will have no bearing on Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s probe.

The investigations — as well as scrutiny of the Justice Department — are sure to pick up in the months ahead as Smith embarks on his work and the department faces key court dates.

The Justice Department is engaged in a battle to recover more than 10,000 government documents still under the review of the special master assigned to Trump’s case. Oral arguments this Tuesday in the 11th Circuit could speed that process, if the appellate court sides with department in determining no third-party review of the documents is necessary and orders them returned to prosecutors.

Also expected before the end of the year is a report from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, a document likely to include criminal referrals to the Justice Department in a move sure to increase pressure on the department to seriously consider some charges.

The reports seek to assure prosecutors — whether that be Willis or those among the highest ranks at Justice Department — that they have a case.

In Georgia, attorneys see a sweeping set of statutes Trump may have violated with behavior including a call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger asking him to “find” 11,780 votes.

Beyond solicitation to commit election fraud, Trump may also have committed intentional interference with performance of election duties, while the campaign’s false elector scheme could engage a number of state statutes on the book dealing with fraud.

In total, the report finds at least 11 charges that could be brought resulting from Trump’s efforts in Georgia.

“Generally, in Georgia, a single set of facts may trigger criminal liability under multiple statutes based on the different elements of various crimes,” they write.

In the Mar-a-Lago report, experts found three additional statutes that could be implicated beyond the three first listed in the government’s warrant.

Two mainly deal with the resistance from Trump, including criminal contempt and lying to authorities.

But they also raise a statute that deals with conversion of government property, which carries penalties of up to 10 years in prison.

Prosecutors would need to demonstrate that the documents were property or a thing of value belonging to the government and that a defendant converted or retained the documents for their use.

For his part, Trump has denied any wrongdoing even as he has repeatedly lashed out at the Justice Department and the FBI. He did so in his speech this week announcing his candidacy, saying, no threat “is greater than the weaponization from the system, the FBI or the DOJ.”

The reports also walk through possible defenses from Trump — finding them largely wanting.

The Mar-a-Lago report devotes over 20 pages to potential defenses from Trump, reading like a deep dive of many of the issues already presented by Justice Department in court. One by one, the report dismisses claims from Trump that he declassified the records — something his attorneys have failed to fully assert in court and which matters little for charges that involved taking “national defense information” regardless of its classification status. It also dismisses defenses based on Trump’s claims the records are either his personal property or protected by executive privilege or that the government in any way acted improperly during its search.

“None of these potential defenses would provide a complete or effective defense,” the Just Security report concludes.

In the Georgia report, the authors argue Trump enjoys no immunity for his conduct while president, and they also dismiss the concept that the former president can’t meet the intent element necessary for a successful prosecution because he genuinely believes that he had won the election.

“If prosecutors can prove that he did know that he lost the election—that it was not ‘stolen’ from him—that would go a long way toward clearing that criminal-intent hurdle. … The January 6 Committee has amassed evidence that Trump knew he had lost. Numerous Trump aides and lawyers have attested to this before the committee,” the report states.

“Even if, contrary to the overwhelming evidence, Trump genuinely believed that he had won, he still had no legal right to use forged electoral certificates, to pressure election officials in Georgia to ‘find 11,780 votes’ that did not exist, or to engage in other extralegal means to try to hold onto power.”

Eisen said in both probes, prosecutors are dealing with “pretty clear cut cases.”

“The theme that emerges from this is the power of the evidence,” he said. “Two sets of smoking gun on evidence, two sets of simple, very powerful legal cases. And one principle in common, and that is the principle that no one is above the law.”

----------


## Norton

> trump is going to jail


Nope. Wishful thinking bro.

----------


## S Landreth

^You might want to edit your post above.  :Smile:

----------


## Topper

> Nope. Wishful thinking bro.


Because Biden will pardon him for his federal crimes in sake of reuniting the country, after trump has been convicted.

----------


## panama hat

> Because Biden will pardon him for his federal crimes in sake of reuniting the country, after trump has been convicted.


He would be dumped quicker than last night's vindaloo if he did that

----------


## S Landreth

> Biden will pardon him for his federal crimes in sake of reuniting the country, after trump has been convicted.


That move would bring the country together  :Smile: 

___________


Former acting solicitor general expects Trump to be indicted by special counsel

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said he expects former President Trump to be indicted by a special counsel appointed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to oversee two federal investigations.

Katyal, who served in the Obama administration, told MSNBCs Morning Joe that the DOJ investigation into Trumps handling of classified material at Mar-a-Lago is an open and shut case.

Theres no doubt in my mind that if I did this, or you did this, wed be in jail right now, Katyal said. We certainly wouldnt get a special master or a special counsel or the like. It would be a very easy case.

Its just the identity of the person, Donald Trump, that makes it different, he added. But at the end of the day, I expect Trump will be indicted by this special counsel.

Attorney General Merrick Garland last week appointed the special counsel to oversee the Mar-a-Lago case and an investigation into whether any person or entity interfered with the peaceful transfer of power during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The special counsel is headed by Jack Smith, a longtime prosecutor who formerly served with the International Court of Justice to investigate war crimes.

Katyal said the more solid case is the Mar-a-Lago investigation, in which Trump is under investigation for taking thousands of documents from the White House, some of which were classified and could have held information about a foreign nations nuclear capabilities.

Trump has decried the investigation, calling it a political witch hunt and saying in a Fox News interview last week that he would not partake in this.

The last special counsel to investigate Trump was headed by Robert Mueller, who was appointed to determine if the Trump campaign team colluded with Russia to influence the results of the 2016 election.

While Muellers probe led to several charges against Trump officials, it did not find any evidence of collusion and did not charge Trump himself.

Katyal said the Mar-a-Lago case is different than the Mueller probe, noting the DOJ has already substantially investigated the case before it was turned over to the special counsel.

The fact that [high-level indictments] didnt happen in Mueller doesnt to me say anything about what would happen here, he said. They are very different animals.

----------


## Norton

> Because Biden will pardon him for his federal crimes in sake of reuniting the country, after trump has been convicted.


Might. Ford pardoning the Tricky Dick comes to mind but more likely Trump will die of old age in Maralago after years of appeals.

----------


## Switch

> Might. Ford pardoning the Tricky Dick comes to mind but more likely Trump will die of old age in Maralago after years of appeals.


A slight difference in that Nixon admitted the charges against him.

We can only hope that Trump serves time in prison before he dies, awaiting the results of frivolous appeals!

----------


## S Landreth

Biden is not the type of person to forgive the types of crimes trump committed.

Trump will spend some time in jail by the time the DOJ finishes with him.

___________


Prosecution rests in Trump Organizations tax fraud case 

Prosecutors in the Trump Organizations criminal tax fraud trial rested their case Monday earlier than expected, pinning hopes for convicting Donald Trumps company largely on the word of two top executives who cut deals before testifying they schemed to avoid taxes on company-paid perks.

Allen Weisselberg, the companys longtime finance chief, and Jeffrey McConney, a senior vice president and controller, testified for the bulk of the prosecutions eight-day case, bringing the drama of their own admitted wrongdoing to a trial heavy on numbers, spreadsheets, tax returns and payroll records.

Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty in August to dodging taxes on $1.7 million in extras, was required to testify as a prosecution witness as part of a plea deal in exchange for a promised sentence of five months in jail. McConney was granted immunity to testify.

The Trump Organizations lawyers are expected to start calling witnesses Monday afternoon, likely beginning with an accountant who handled years of tax returns and other financial matters for Trump, the Trump Organization and hundreds of Trump entities.

Prosecutors had considered calling the accountant, Mazars USA LLP partner Donald Bender, but decided not to. The defense indicated it would call him instead.

Prosecutors called just three other witnesses: the Trump Organizations accounts payable supervisor, a forensic accountant for the Manhattan district attorneys office, and a state tax auditor, on the witness stand Monday, who investigated Weisselbergs taxes.

Weisselberg, now a senior adviser at the company, testified last week that he conspired with McConney, his subordinate, to hide more than a decades worth of extras from his taxable income, but that neither Trump nor the family were involved.

McConney testified that Weisselberg and another executive, Michael Calamari Sr., leaned on him over the years to fudge payroll records to hide extras such as Manhattan apartments and Mercedes-Benz cars from their taxable income, in part by reducing their salaries by the cost of those perks and issuing falsified W-2 forms.

Manhattan prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization helped top executives avoid paying taxes on company-paid perks and that it is liable for Weisselbergs wrongdoing because he was a high managerial agent acting on its behalf.

The tax fraud case is the only trial to arise from the Manhattan district attorneys three-year investigation of Trump and his business practices. If convicted, the company could be fined more than $1 million and face difficulty making deals.

Trump blamed Bender and Mazars for the companys troubles, writing on his Truth Social platform last week: The highly paid accounting firm should have routinely picked these things up  we relied on them. VERY UNFAIR!

Mazars cut ties with Trump in February and said annual financial statements it prepared for him should no longer be relied upon after New York Attorney General Letitia James said they regularly misstated the value of assets.

James filed a lawsuit in September accusing Trump and his company of padding his net worth by billions of dollars and habitually misleading banks and others about the value of assets such as golf courses, hotels and his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Trumps financial statements are not a part of the criminal case.

----------


## Norton

> We can only hope that Trump serves time in prison before he dies, awaiting the results of frivolous appeals!


It is my hope as well. We will see. Income tax evasion might be his downfall. That's what finally got Capone.  :Wink:

----------


## helge

> A slight difference in that Nixon admitted the charges against him.


Did he ?

I'm not sure that he ever admitted to anything but "mistakes".

And then Ford pardoned him for everything.

Everything !

----------


## helge

> Income tax evasion might be his downfall. That's what finally got Capone.


Syphilis did, Norton

 :Smile: 



An american ex-president will never go to jail. Period


(I would love to be wrong though  :Smile:  )

----------


## harrybarracuda

> A slight difference in that Nixon admitted the charges against him.


He was never impeached, charged or convicted.

He resigned because he was told that would happen.

Then Ford pardoned him.

----------


## S Landreth

> An american ex-president will never go to jail. Period


trump is not special (see below)

__________


Supreme Court says Trump tax records can be given to Congress by IRS

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a bid by former President Donald Trump to prevent Congress from obtaining his federal income tax returns and those of related business entities from the IRS.

The decision sets the stage for the Democrat-controlled House Ways and Means Committee to obtain Trumps tax returns in the weeks before Republicans take majority control of the House.

GOP lawmakers have vowed to end the committees quest to obtain the records and a related probe into how the Internal Revenue Service audits the tax returns of sitting presidents.

The order Tuesday by the Supreme Court, which noted no dissent from any justice, comes more than three months after a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Ways and Means Committee had the right to obtain Trumps tax returns.

The entire appeals court on Oct. 27 denied Trumps request to have the full lineup of the judges on that court rehear his appeal.

Trump then asked the Supreme Court on Oct. 31 to block the committee from obtaining his tax returns.

In that filing, Trumps lawyers wrote, This case raises important questions about the separation of powers that will affect every future President.

The brief response Tuesday from the Supreme Court rejected Trumps request to stay the lower court rulings that had cleared the way for the committee to get his returns.

The Ways and Means Committee in April 2019 first asked the Treasury Department for the federal income tax returns of Trump and of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, along with those of seven limited liability companies connected to the ex-president, one of which does business as Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Trump was president at the time of that request.

Federal law mandates that the Treasury Department and IRS deliver income tax returns when Ways and Means, or two other congressional committees that have oversight over tax issues, request them.

But then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was appointed by Trump, refused to comply with the request for his tax returns, saying that the committee lacked a legitimate legislative purpose.

The committee then sued to force Treasury to turn over the returns.

After President Joe Biden, a Democrat, defeated Trump in the 2020 election, committee Chairman Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., renewed his request for the tax returns, with added detail about the reasons the panel wanted them. Neal said that the committee, in addition to reviewing how tax laws apply to presidents, also would review potential conflicts of interest by a president.

The Treasury Department in mid-2021 said it would release the returns, citing an opinion by the departments lawyers. They found that Neals request was valid, and that Treasury had a legal obligation to comply.

Trump then countersued to block the returns from being turned over, arguing that the request both violated the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government and that the request did not have a legitimate purpose.

On Dec. 14, Washington federal court Judge Trevor McFadden ruled against Trump, saying the committee had a right to the returns.

A long line of Supreme Court cases requires great deference two facially valid congressional inquiries. Even the special solicitude accorded former presidents does not alter the outcome, McFadden wrote.

The committee need only state a valid legislative purpose, McFadden wrote. It has done so.

----------


## panama hat

> trump is not special (see below)


We'll see . . .the US is like a tinpot 3rd world country in this regard

----------


## Switch

> He was never impeached, charged or convicted.
> 
> He resigned because he was told that would happen.
> 
> Then Ford pardoned him.


yes, exactly the opposite of what Trump is trying to do. Nixon went quietly when it was obvious he’d been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

----------


## helge

> yes, exactly the opposite of what Trump is trying to do. Nixon went quietly when it was obvious he’d been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.


 :Smile: 
Not what you posted up above






> A slight difference in that Nixon admitted the charges against him.


He didn't




> Nixon continued to proclaim his innocence until his death in 1994.



And Trump will do the same btw  :Smile:

----------


## Norton

> Syphilis did, Norton





> Nixon continued to proclaim his innocence until his death in 1994.
> 
> And Trump will do the same btw


Trump dying of Syphilis would certainly go viral in the cyber world.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Biden could refuse to pardon him and suggest voters could make the decision by picking a president who wants to forgive someone who tried to subvert democracy.

Would keep everyone happy, and I'm not sure there are enough trumpanzees left.

----------


## Switch

> Not what you posted up above
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> ...


Kindly refrain from pedantry, and the attempts at playing devils advocate. You not very good at either.  :Wink:

----------


## panama hat

> Trump dying of Syphilis would certainly go viral in the cyber world.


 . . . and be greeted with howls of laughter by hundreds of millions and waves of glee from Melania . . . the 47th presidential candidate

----------


## helge

> Kindly refrain from pedantry, and the attempts at playing devils advocate. You not very good at either.


Nothing to do with devil's advocate or pedantry.


You posted some half studied opinion, and can't admit that your "analysis" fell flat.


I am only testing if your love of the truth only applies in case that Cyrille is involved.

Seems so


Should I stalk you around the board untill you admit to your sacrilege ?

----------


## Switch

> Nothing to do with devil's advocate or pedantry.
> 
> 
> You posted some half studied opinion, and can't admit that your "analysis" fell flat.
> 
> 
> I am only testing if your love of the truth only applies in case that Cyrille is involved.
> 
> Seems so
> ...


You might not like it, but its still pedantry. I am not required to explain anything to anyone who deliberately chooses to misunderstand a point. Stop pretending to be stupid for effect.

----------


## helge

> I am not required to explain anything to anyone who deliberately chooses to misunderstand a point.


OK

I didn't misunderstand anything and understand your post.

Minor pedantry was however, that your argument was build on facts that you had wrong.

Peace

(and I do not pretend to be stupid  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): )

----------


## S Landreth

Accountant testifies Trump reported significant tax losses for a decade 

An accountant for former President Trump has testified that the former president reported major losses on his tax returns every year for a decade, including a $700 million loss in 2009.

The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Donald Bender, who has served as Trumps accountant and prepared Trumps personal tax returns for years, testified in the criminal tax fraud trial against the Trump Organization that Trump lost money in every year from 2009 to 2018.

The losses include net operating losses from some of the businesses he owns through the Trump Organization.

There are losses for all these years, Bender said.

Bender was granted immunity to testify at the trial.

The Trump Organization is facing dual probes from the Manhattan district attorney and New York attorney generals offices over potential financial misdeeds.

In Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Braggs (D) criminal probe, in which Bender testified, the Trump Organization has been charged with helping top executives avoid paying income taxes on the compensation they received on top of their salaries.

Former CFO Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty to 15 charges he faced for tax evasion in August. But has said that he came up with the plan alone, without Trump or his family knowing, the AP reported.

Benders testimony came on the same day that the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Trump to prevent the House Ways and Means Committee from obtaining his tax returns. House Democrats and Trump have been engaged in a battle over obtaining the returns for years.

Trump refused to publicly release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential election, as is normal for most major presidential candidates, saying that he was under audit. But IRS regulations do not prevent someone from releasing their returns while under audit.

House Democrats have said they need to investigate how the IRS conducts routine presidential audits, while Trumps lawyers have denounced their attempts as politically motivated.

Despite the legal victory for the committee, they might not have much time to review the documents, as Republicans will retake the majority in the House in January and are likely to withdraw the committees request to review the materials.

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is pursuing a civil suit against the Trump Organization, alleging that Trump inflated property values when working with potential investors and deflated them on federal tax forms.

Trump ripped the high courts ruling, calling it unprecedented and saying the institution has become nothing more than a political body.

____________


When Will Letitia James Take Trump Fraud Case to Trial?

Now We Know When the New York Attorney Generals Fraud Case Against Donald Trump Will Go to Trial

For nearly four years, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) gathered evidence in her pursuit of Donald Trump before actually filing her lawsuit accusing the former president, his family and his business empire of pervasive fraud. A Manhattan judge has decided that the road to trial will be much speedier than an investigation.

It has been tentatively scheduled to come to a head on Oct. 2, 2023, a little more than a year after the lawsuits filing.

_____________


Judges appear skeptical of Trump special master appointment

Federal appeals judges appeared skeptical Tuesday that former President Trump should have been awarded a third-party special master to review the documents stored in his Florida home as the Justice Department works to nullify the appointment.

Lawyers for the DOJ and Trump appeared before a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, the latest battleground as the Justice Department seeks to expedite its access to more than 22,000 pages of government documents stored at Mar-a-Lago.

The arguments did not seem to bode well for the Trump team, with one of the judges asking amid the arguments, What are we doing here?

On the bench were two Trump appointees  Judge Britt Grant and Judge Andrew Brasher  who previously sided with the Justice Department, granting its request to siphon off the classified materials from the special master review and allowing them to be turned over to investigators.

But the Justice Department hopes to more quickly gain access to the remaining documents in order to inform its investigation, potentially speeding ahead of likely ongoing legal challenges to the review by Judge Raymond Dearie, the special master.

Trump attorney James Trusty was almost immediately interrupted by Grant after he referred to the search of Trumps home as a raid, apologizing for using a loaded term after the judge inquired whether deeming it the execution of a search warrant would be more accurate.

And at another point, Chief Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, questioned why Trump should be entitled to a special review of the contents collected during the search at his home when few other criminal defendants  let alone those who have yet to be charged  are afforded a similar process.

Other than the fact that this involves the former president, everything else about this is indistinguishable from any pre-indictment search warrant, Pryor said.

And weve got to be concerned about the precedent that we would create that would allow any targets of a federal criminal investigation to go into a district court and to have a district court entertain this kind of petition  and interfere with the executive branchs ongoing investigation.

Trusty struggled to answer the judges questions about prior case law, noting the novel nature of the search of the home of a former president.

Its not special treatment. Its just basic facts of where we are. This is a situation where a political rival has been subjected to a search warrant [where] thousands of personal materials have been taken, he said.

But at another point, Pryor seemed irritated that Trusty had not demonstrated the ability to meet one of the key tests when seeking the return of seized property  that the government showed a callous disregard for a plaintiffs constitutional rights.

The entire premise of the exercise of this extraordinary kind of jurisdiction would be that the seizure itself is unlawful, he said.

And if you cant establish that, then what are we doing here?

The Justice Department on Tuesday pushed back against the use of a special master,

What he wants is not really the documents back. As I said, he already has them back, Sopan Joshi argued on behalf of the government.

What he wants is to prevent the government from using the documents, and Im not sure that that would ever be a valid justification, he added, noting such a move would usually come through a motion to suppress evidence at a later stage.

Joshi also argued that Trumps attorneys had laid out a dizzying list of supposed privileges to justify scheduling the records from prosecutors.

Trumps attorneys, Joshi said, initially raised attorney-client privilege issues only to later bring up executive privilege issues, then claimed some of the documents may have been declassified, then moving to claim some of the presidential records could be his personal property.

This just sort of emphasizes how anomalous and extraordinary what the district court did here was, he said.

The hearing was the latest development in the Mar-a-Lago case since Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the appointment of a special counsel, Jack Smith, to take over both the documents investigation and the DOJ investigation into the events of the Capitol riot.

In court, Trumps lawyers also argued their position was weakened as they have yet to gain access to an un-redacted copy of the warrant used to gain access to Trumps property.

Trumps team filed a motion to Florida District Court Judge Aileen Cannon  who first appointed the special master  to force DOJ to release the warrant, but its unclear if such a motion should be directed to Judge Bruce Reinhart, who first approved the document.

Dearie, the special master, is set to hold a status conference with the two sides next week, where Trusty said they will review some 930 remaining documents.

The big swaths of that will be decided with a legal ruling rather than kind of a one-by-one look at the document, he said.

_________


Graham testifies before Georgia grand jury in 2020 election probe 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday testified before a Fulton County, Ga., special grand jury probing 2020 election interference in the state after a months-long attempt to avoid appearing.

Graham, an ally of former President Trump, had cited constitutional arguments as he sought to block a subpoena from the Fulton County district attorney, but the Supreme Court earlier this month paved the way for Grahams testimony.

Today, Senator Graham appeared before the Fulton County Special Grand Jury for just over two hours and answered all questions, Grahams office said in a statement. The Senator feels he was treated with respect, professionalism and courtesy. Out of respect for the grand jury process he will not comment on the substance of the questions.

A judge in July approved the subpoena from District Attorney Fani Willis (D), who expressed interest in hearing from Graham about calls he made to Georgias top elections official, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), following the 2020 presidential election.

Raffensperger, who has also testified before the grand jury, claimed Graham suggested to him that he should discard some ballots during one of the calls. Graham has denied Raffenspergers account.

In a separate call, Trump pressed Raffensperger following the election to find the roughly 11,000 votes required to overturn President Bidens victory in the state, a request Raffensperger resisted as he voiced disagreement with Trumps unfounded claims of mass electoral fraud.

Graham looked to quash Williss subpoena, citing the Constitutions Speech and Debate Clause, which provides some protections for lawmakers in testifying, among other arguments.

A federal trial judge in September shielded Graham from testifying in fact-finding inquiries related to election procedures and allegations of voter fraud in the state, ruling it constituted protected legislative activity, but otherwise allowed his appearance to move forward.

Graham appealed the ruling to an Atlanta-based federal appeals court, but a panel affirmed the prior decision and indicated the South Carolina Republican could object to specific questions in the lower court.

Graham then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, but the justices rebuffed his request while indicating that constitutional guardrails should apply in his appearance.

His appearance on Tuesday marks the latest Trump ally to testify before the grand jury. Others include Rudy Giuliani, other pro-Trump attorneys and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Willis has previously indicated charges in the criminal probe may come before the end of the calendar year.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> Former CFO Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty to 15 charges he faced for tax evasion in August. But has said that he came up with the plan alone, without Trump or his family knowing,


Dont the fact that trump signed the tax returns defeat that argument?

----------


## S Landreth

Thanksgiving wishes from E. Jean Carroll

_________


E. Jean Carroll - Dearest friends, tonight, a few minutes after midnight, we filed the rape suit against the former president.

I give thanks to the greatest civil rights attorneys in the nation:

Robbie Kaplan! Matt Craig! Joshua Matz! Shawn Crowley! Rachel Tuchman! https://twitter.com/ejeancarroll/sta...58201047105537

__________

E. Jean Carroll files new lawsuit against Trump

E. Jean Carroll, a writer who has alleged former President Donald Trump raped her in the mid-1990s, filed an upgraded lawsuit against him on Thursday, the first day that a new state law in New York went into effect, AP reports.

*Catch up quick:* Carroll has been in the middle of a high-profile defamation suit against Trump, for which the former president sat for a deposition in October and a trial is set to begin next year.


Until now, however, Carroll had been unable to pursue legal action for the actual alleged assault due to the state's statute of limitations. But now, the Adult Survivors Act allows adult survivors of sexual violence to sue over attacks that occurred decades ago.

*The big picture:* Carroll filed the new lawsuit "minutes" after the new law entered into effect and she is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for psychological harms, dignity loss, pain and suffering, and reputation damage, AP reported.


It's possible the presiding judge in the defamation case will decide to include the new claims in the trial beginning next year, per AP.At least hundreds of lawsuits are expected to be lodged by sexual assault victims under the new Adult Survivors Act.

*What they're saying:* Carroll intends to hold Donald Trump accountable not only for defaming her, but also for sexually assaulting her, which he did years ago in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman," her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement, AP reported.


In a statement last week, Alina Habba, a lawyer for Trump, said the expected new filing was, "completely inappropriate and we will take up this issue with the court," the New York Times reported.

The Trump Organization and Kaplan did not immediately respond to an Axios' request for comment.

----------


## Norton

> Carroll “intends to hold Donald Trump accountable not only for defaming her, but also for sexually assaulting her, which he did years ago in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman


If true, very wierd. Trump sneaks into a female dressing room in a large department store and boffs her. All against her will?

----------


## Switch

> If true, very wierd. Trump sneaks into a female dressing room in a large department store and boffs her. All against her will?


As Jimmy Carr once said, ‘rapists are hard to identify, because women usually kiss with their eyes closed’. Not sure if Trump could use this fact as a defence?  :Wink:

----------


## S Landreth

> Dont the fact that trump signed the tax returns defeat that argument?


maybe not. look at 1-5.04 § 7206(2) and 2-4.04 [5] Intent https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/tax_crimes_handbook.pdf

and think...........




> CFO Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty to 15 charges he faced for tax evasion in August. But has said that he came up with the plan alone

----------


## S Landreth

Trump's new nemesis

Donald Trump and his allies have ramped up their war against newly appointed special counsel Jack Smith, reviving a playbook they hope will defang the latest unprecedented legal threat bearing down on the former president.

*Why it matters:* This isn't 2017. The political and legal conditions that allowed Trump to emerge virtually unscathed from Robert Mueller's Russia investigation no longer apply. No amount of mudslinging — or claims he "won't partake" in the investigation — will protect Trump from indictment if Smith determines he has the goods.


"I was described by Steve Bannon ... as a pit bull," former top Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissman tweeted. "Jack Smith makes me look like a golden retriever puppy.""Jack Smith came after me. If he goes after Donald Trump with the same unrelenting ferocity, Trump will be in trouble," Intercept journalist James Risen wrote in a column detailing Smith's role in a CIA leak prosecution.

*Driving the news:* Trump's allies on Capitol Hill and in conservative media have already accused Smith — who is still working remotely from Europe, where he was a war-crimes prosecutor at The Hague — of political bias, citing his wife's donations to Democrats.


Garland appointed Smith to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest after Trump declared his 2024 candidacy, but that hasn't stopped some Republicans from accusing the registered independent of being a secret liberal.Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are among those who have sought to discredit Smith's appointment, branding it as the latest example of DOJ "politicization" under President Biden.

*Catch up quick:* Smith, a widely respected veteran federal prosecutor, was tapped by Attorney General Merrick Garland to take over two of the most explosive investigations involving a former president in modern history.


The first is the Justice Department's sweeping probe into Trump's efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power after the 2020 election, including the scheme to certify false slates of electors on Jan. 6, 2021.The second is examining whether Trump illegally retained classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and obstructed the government's efforts to get them back.

*Between the lines:* At least three major factors distinguish the new special counsel from the challenges and constraints of the Mueller investigation:


*Protection:* Trump is no longer in office, meaning the Justice Department policy that barred Mueller from indicting a sitting president does not apply. The tools Trump wielded to discredit and jam up the investigation — threatening to fire DOJ officials, dangling pardons and using his bully pulpit — are no longer available to him. Nor is his loyalist Attorney General Bill Barr, who cushioned the blow of the final Mueller report by releasing a summary before making it public.*Timing:* Both Garland and Smith have stressed that the appointment will not slow the pace of either investigation. Smith is inheriting teams of prosecutors and agents that have already made significant headway, unlike Mueller, who had to "fly and build the plane simultaneously," as Weissman wrote in a recent N.Y. Times column.*Scope:* The sprawling Mueller probe involved both criminal and counterintelligence elements, with much of the key information buried in the bowels of a hostile foreign power. By comparison, the House Jan. 6 committee has already unearthed massive amounts of evidence expected to be referred to DOJ, while the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case is viewed by many legal experts as open-and-shut.

*The bottom line:* The lionization of Mueller by online liberals ended in disappointment and reinforced Trump's Teflon reputation.


Smith, like Mueller, is only human. But the similarities between the two special counsels' situations largely end with the title they share.In 2010, after being criticized for closing corruption cases into members of Congress, Smith told the N.Y. Times: "[I]f I were the sort of person who could be cowed — ‘I know we should bring this case, I know the person did it, but we could lose, and that will look bad,’ I would find another line of work."

----------


## pickel

Six fucking years of investigations and Trump has yet to be convicted of a crime. Do Americans even realize that non-Americans are looking at you and wondering what the delay is? Because it's pretty obvious he's a traitor and criminal to most of us. 

Better hurry up, or President DeSantis is just going to make it all go away. After 2 years and a dozen investigations into Hunter Biden, of course.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> Six fucking years of investigations and Trump has yet to be convicted of a crime. Do Americans even realize that non-Americans are looking at you and wondering what the delay is? Because it's pretty obvious he's a traitor and criminal to most of us. 
> 
> Better hurry up, or President DeSantis is just going to make it all go away. After 2 years and a dozen investigations into Hunter Biden, of course.


The delay was that he was the president with all the benefits that the office provides including the fact that you can't indict a 
sitting president. 
I dont know from what country you are from, but how many of your presidents have you indicted? or were all of the saints?

----------


## pickel

> I dont know from what country you are from, but how many of your presidents have you indicted? or were all of the saints?


Well, we don't have Presidents in Canada. But our current Prime Minister did show up at an inquiry today to testify on why he invoked the Emergencies Act (basically Martial Law to you Mercans) earlier this year. No refusals to testify, no appeals, no obfuscation by lawyers delaying proceedings. You know, like how it happens in civilized countries.

----------


## nidhogg

> Six fucking years of investigations and Trump has yet to be convicted of a crime. .


Certainly is strange looking on.  There are SO many cases against him, and none have been able to get traction.

The new special council looks like someone who does not fuck around though, and I get the feeling things might start to move very quickly.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> Well, we don't have Presidents in Canada.


Oh... a Canadian ehh. Its ok I won't hold that against you, you seem like a nice fella and it's not your fault you were born in 'anada
I guess someone has to do it.  :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

> The new special council looks like someone who does not fuck around though, and I get the feeling things might start to move very quickly.


something about the wheels of justice  :Smile: 

____________

Jack Smith: Rudy Giuliani Precedent Isn't Apt in Trump Probe

That Is Incorrect: Special Counsel Swats Down Claim by Donald Trumps Lawyers That Rudy Giuliani Case Empowers Judge in Mar-a-Lago Probe

After facing a brutal reception before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys for former President Donald Trump tried to salvage a lower courts ruling gumming up the Department of Justices criminal investigation of records seized at Mar-a-Lago by pointing to the case of his lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

The 11th Circuits three-judge panel, comprised of two Trump appointees and a George W. Bush appointee, asked Trump whether a court ever asserted equitable jurisdiction to block the government from reviewing seized records pending review by a special master. Trumps legal team claimed that the Giuliani case provided a precedent for that.

In a short but sharp reply on Thursday, special counsel Jack Smith replied that the comparison was inapt.

That is incorrect, the single-paragraph letter, signed by Smith and U.S. Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez, states in part.

In Giulianis case, the judge did not enjoin the government from reviewing records seized from the ex-New York City mayors apartment. Federal prosecutors themselves requested a special master because Giulianis status as a lawyer implicated attorney-client privilege concerns.

The government notes that is not the case with Trump.

Moreover, the records there were seized from an attorneys office, the review was conducted on a rolling basis, and the case did not involve a separate civil proceeding invoking a district courts anomalous jurisdiction, Smiths letter states.

None of those is true here in the Trump case, Smith added.

Federal prosecutors ultimately declined to recommend charges against Giuliani, but the investigation of Trump continues. The search warrant indicated that authorities suspect possible violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice and concealment and removal of government records.

As of press time, the 11th Circuit has not ruled on whether to allow the special master review currently pending before Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie to proceed. The three-judge panel appeared to leave little doubt earlier this week, however, that they believed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannons rulings stood on shaky jurisdictional ground. Cannons ruling conceded that Trump did not prove a callous disregard for his rights by the FBI, and Trumps attorneys agreed at the hearing that they had not proven that.

If you cant establish that, then what are we doing here? Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr., the sole George W. Bush appointee on the panel, bluntly asked Trumps attorney James Trusty.

The two other members of the panel, U.S. Circuit Judges Elizabeth Britt Cagle Grant and Andrew L. Brasher, are Trump appointees who ruled against the former president before when they reversed portions of Cannons ruling related to classified materials. The FBI found more than 100 documents marked classified up to Top Secret and above in Mar-a-Lago, and Cannon initially ordered the government to stop scrutinizing them for their investigation until a special master reviewed them.

Federal prosecutors have continued investigating those materials ever since the 11th Circuits ruling in September, and now, they are hoping the court will allow them unfettered access to the tens of thousands of other files without classification markings.

----------


## S Landreth

Mar-a-Lago Special Master Asks Lawyers for Written Answers

Special Master Throws Curveball to Trump and DOJ, Nixes Upcoming Hearing About Various Issues and Tells Both Sides to Instead Answer Questions in Writing

The special master overseeing former President Donald Trumps spat with federal investigators over an increasingly small collection of documents on Monday told attorneys on both sides of the matter to forget about appearing in court for a hearing he scheduled for next month.

Special Master Raymond J. Dearie made the announcement in a brief minute order posted directly to the federal docket.

The order notes that there are no matters requiring counsel to travel to Brooklyn for an in-person conference, and justifies the last-minute change in the proceedings on further review of the record.

Dearies latest order elides those issues in favor of direct questions about a very small number of documents. In lieu of arguing over various complaints and concerns, the special master wants the attorneys to explain if they do or dont agree about the categorization of certain records under the Presidential Records Act.

The minute order refers directly to those documents in question  in a sense  by identifying them via the Bates numbering system:

_In each case, the parties spreadsheet summarizing their respective categorizations and disputes reflects that the parties have a PRA dispute despite both sides categorizing the document as a personal record. a. Bates no. 156b. Bates nos. 476-79c. Bates nos. 3971-77d. Bates nos. 4017-18e. Bates nos. 12246-48f. Bates nos. 15167-68g. Bates nos. 17993-95h. Bates no. 179962. Do the parties dispute the PRA categorization of Bates no. 7017? The parties spreadsheet reflects differing categorizations but also lists the document as not being in dispute._

The special master also singles out some apparent discrepancies in previous filings entirely made by Trumps attorneys:

_Does Plaintiff assert executive privilege with respect to Bates no. A-054 and A-055 (documents 15 and 16 of the Filter Materials)? Compare ECF 160-1 at 2 (letter from Plaintiffs counsel noting that there is no further matter to resolve as to each) with ECF 187-1 at 4 (subsequent letter from government reporting that each document is disputed based on Plaintiffs assertion of executive privilege)._

The large collection of documents culled from the FBI raid has been spit into several batches for review by an internal DOJ filter team referred to as Filter A, Filter B, and Filter C materials.

[Trump] withdraws his initial claims of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine with respect to the following Filter A and C Materials, government attorneys noted in a late October filing after reaching a compromise on two distinct document categories, noting, that in regard to the documents in those filter groups, [Trump] previously did not assert attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine.

Mondays order suggests a very limited decision on the overall disagreement could be in the offing. Dearie previously said that he anticipates issuing his report and recommendations as to the state of the disputed documents on Dec. 16, 2022.

____________


Kellyanne Conway meets with Jan. 6 panel: reports

Former Trump White House counselor Kellyanne Conway met Monday with investigators from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to multiple reports.

Conway was seen entering the ONeill House Office Building, where the panel conducts its depositions and interviews.

Conway was not publicly subpoenaed by the committee and, according to NBC News, told reporters that Im here voluntarily when leaving the room during a break.

She was not in the Trump administration on Jan. 6, but, according to reporting from The Washington Post, Conway called an aide to the former president and urged him to call off his supporters who were storming the Capitol and noted that she had received a call from the Washington, D.C., mayors office seeking help in securing assistance from the National Guard.

Conways attorney and the Jan. 6 committee did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

_____________


CNN Moves to Toss Trump Defamation Case over Hitler Analogy

CNN Asks Judge to Toss Trump Defamation Lawsuit over Persistent Association to Adolf Hitler: Such Rhetorical Allusions to History Are Not Actionable

CNN has struck back at Donald Trump over the former presidents defamation complaint against the network.

In a motion filed Tuesday, CNN asked U.S. District Judge Anuraag Singhal to dismiss the Trumps lawsuit.

As Law&Crime previously reported, Trump claimed that the networks persistent association of Trump to Adolf Hitler and Hitlers Big Lie  that Jews were the source of Germanys problems  amounts to defamation.

CNN insists that the five CNN-published pieces at issue contain speech that is protected as both opinion and non-defamatory.

The Complaint seeks to silence any criticism of Plaintiffs debunked claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen,' the motion says. The lawsuit, though, does not even try to prove this claim is true, for the simple reason that evidence of material election fraud does not exist.

CNN says that Trumps claims are untenable and repugnant to a free press and open political debate and require dismissal under both Florida law and the First Amendment.

The supposed falsity (that Big Lie allegedly conveys that Plaintiff would be Hitler-like in any future political role and associates the Plaintiffs character with that of Adolf Hitler) is unverifiable political expression, the motion says. The Big Lie, a phrase widely used by not just CNN but many journalists and commentators to refer to Plaintiffs unfounded claims of election fraud, and any alleged association resulting therefrom are also rhetorical hyperbole and pure opinion under well-established principles of defamation law.

The 21-page motion also systematically takes aim at Trumps claims using what it describes as a roadmap to guide the court to the conclusion that the lawsuit must be dismissed.

Each [publication] is obviously opinion in label, tone, and content, CNN says in its motion (citations omitted). The Complaint does not identify any specific falsity in any cited passage.

As to Trumps claim that portions of a Jan. 25, 2021 op-ed piece by Prof. Ruth Ben-Ghait, a CNN contributor, is defamatory, CNN argues that her use of the phrase Big Lie is rhetorical hyperbole and does not refer to Hitler or Nazism.

Ben-Ghiats op-ed, CNN argues, does not state a literal fact that Plaintiff is Hitler or will literally implement policy programs from Nazi Germany.

Instead, Publication A uses Big Lie as an expression of contempt for Plaintiffs conduct, the motion continues. Thus, Big Lie is the same as the loose language or undefined slogans that are part of the conventional give-and-take in our economic and political controversies  like unfair or fascist  and is not a false statement of actual fact.

Such rhetorical allusions to history are not actionable, the motion adds.

----------


## S Landreth

House Democrats have access to Trump tax returns, Treasury confirms

The Treasury Department sent six years of former President Trump's federal tax returns to the Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee, a spokesperson confirmed to Axios Wednesday.

*The big picture:* House Democrats have been trying for years to obtain Trump's tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service as part of its investigation into the services presidential audit program, even as the former president fought for years to block its release.


The Supreme Court last week denied Trump's emergency application asking it to block the committee from obtaining his tax returns.

*Driving the news:* "Treasury has complied with last weeks court decision," a Treasury spokesperson told Axios.


CNN first reported the committee had access to the returns.The House Ways and Means Committee did not immediately provide comment to Axios.

*Background:* After the Treasury Department denied the committee's request to turn over the documents in 2019, committee chair Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) filed a lawsuit enforcing its inquiry.


Trump's lawyers argued the committee wanted to publish the records and didn't actually have a legitimate legislative purpose for them.The Department of Justice under the Biden administration argued in a 2021 opinion that the committee's request was legitimate and that the Trump-era Treasury Department had no valid reason to refuse it, Axios Jacob Knutson reports.

*Of note:* The tax returns are not expected to be released to the public any time soon, per CNN.

____________


Trump Not 'Absolutely Immune' from Jan. 6 Suit: Judge

Second Federal Judge Rejects Donald Trumps Claim Hes Absolutely Immune from Civil Suits for His Role in the Jan. 6th Attack

A second federal judge has rejected Donald Trumps claim of absolute immunity from civil liability in connection with the attack on the U.S. Capitol, giving advocacy groups another opportunity to hold the former president liable under the Voting Rights Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act.

In a subheading of his 23-page ruling, Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan declared flatly on Monday: Former President Trump is Not Absolutely Immune From Damages Liability.

The judge, who previously dismissed other Jan. 6-related claims against Trump and the Republican National Committee, explained that presidents defending against actions for damages can typically invoke absolute privilege when the conduct at issue relates to official duties.

However, immunity does not protect acts that former President Trump undertook outside the outer perimeter of his official duties, Sullivan noted.

After the 2020 election, the Detroit-based Michigan Welfare Rights Organization sued Trump and the RNC under the Voting Rights Act and the KKK Act, a Reconstruction-era law initially designed to protect the rights of newly freed enslaved people from white supremacists. Together with the NAACP and three Black voters from Detroit, the group noted that Trump and the RNC directed their election-subversion efforts in places with large populations of color.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...322.59.0_1.pdf

 
_____________


Mark Meadows ordered to testify in Trump investigation

South Carolinas Supreme Court has unanimously ordered former White House Chief of staff Mark Meadows to testify to an Atlanta-area grand jury investigating Donald Trumps effort to overturn the election in Georgia.

We have reviewed the arguments raised by [Meadows] and find them to be manifestly without merit, South Carolinas Supreme Court justices wrote in a brief opinion.

The decision affirmed a lower courts ruling requiring Meadows to testify to the Fulton County grand jury investigation led by District Attorney Fani Willis. Meadows was initially scheduled to appear for testimony on Nov. 30, and its unclear if that appearance is still on track.

Attorneys for Meadows and a spokeswoman for Willis did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The five-member courts decision was just three paragraphs long. It cited the exigent circumstances involved but did not go into detail about the dispute.

Willis sought Meadows testimony in September as part of her expansive investigation into efforts by Trump and his allies to disrupt the election process in Georgia, including his push for Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find enough votes to overturn Joe Bidens victory in the state

----------


## S Landreth

Appeals court halts special master review of Mar-a-Lago documents

An appeals court on Thursday ruled to scrap the appointment of a special master to review documents seized from former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

*Why it matters:* It's a major defeat for Trump and victory for the Department of Justice, which has pushed to end the special master review. The decision allows the department to continue its probe into the former president's handling of classified documents.

*What theyre saying:* The law is clear, the appeals court wrote. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.


Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required, it continued.To create a special exception here would defy our Nations foundational principle that our law applies to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.

*The big picture:* The ruling comes after a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last week seemed inclined to grant the DOJ's appeal of the special master's appointment during oral arguments.


The DOJ argued that a federal judge "erred in ordering a special-master review for claims of executive and attorney-client privilege and enjoining the governments use of the seized records in the meantime."Trump sought the special master, arguing that some of the records may be protected by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.

The 11th Circuit previously sided with the DOJ when it granted the department's request to resume reviewing classified documents from Mar-a-Lago as part of the department's criminal investigation.

*Worth noting:* The three-panel judge includes the circuits chief judge, Bush-appointed William Pryor, and two judges appointed by Trump.

*State of play:* The DOJ has appointed Jack Smith to oversee federal criminal investigations into Trump's handling of classified documents and efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.


Trump criticized the special counsel appointment, writing on his Truth Social platform that Smith is "compromised" and a "political hit man."

____________

DOJ subpoenas filmmaker for Jan. 6 footage

The Justice Department has subpoenaed a documentarian for footage he took of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Alex Holder was subpoenaed the same day newly appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith took over a Justice Department investigation into the effort to block the peaceful transition of power, as well as its investigation into the storage of government records at former President Trumps Florida home.

A spokesperson for Holder said, As we did with the other two subpoenas, we will 100 percent comply, with DOJs order.

Holder is ordered to appear before a grand jury on Jan. 30.

Holders miniseries, Unprecedented, was released in July.

When we began this project in September 2020 we never could have predicted that our work would one day be subpoenaed by Congress, Holder said in a statement shared on Twitter.

As a British filmmaker I had no agenda coming into this. We simply wanted to better understand who the Trumps were and what motivated them to hold onto power so desperately.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...jan-6-footage/

____________

Trumps company blames tax fraud on greedy Allen Weisselberg at NYC trial

Lawyers for former President Donald Trumps family real estate business asked a Manhattan jury Thursday not to hold the company responsible for financial fraud committed by its veteran money man.

In her closing argument, defense lawyer Susan Necheles said the Manhattan district attorneys criminal tax fraud case against the two Trump Organization entities  Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corporation  was about former Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselbergs false tax returns, which his employer was not responsible for.

We are here today for one reason and one reason only: the greed of Allen Weisselberg, said Trump Corp. lawyer Necheles. Along the way, he messed up. He got greedy. Once he got started, it was difficult for him to stop.

The former CFO, who described himself as Trumps eyes and ears from a financial standpoint in a 2015 deposition, will soon be sentenced to five months in jail after pleading guilty to the fraud in August. His deal was in exchange for testifying for the prosecution and a shorter prison sentence.

Weisselbergs deputy, company Controller Jeff McConney, 67, who handled the paperwork in question, spent days on the stand under immunity, which he received because he testified before the grand jury that signed off on the charges. He claimed he followed the bosss orders when he broke the law.

Both men admitted to omitting $1.7 million in luxury work expenses from Weisselberg and other executives taxable income, reducing the amount they owed in taxes for 15 years. Purchases on the Trump Organizations dime included rent on a Manhattan apartment, Mercedes-Benz car leases, furniture in Weisselbergs Florida home, and his grandkids private school tuition. The Trump Organizations chief operating officer, Matthew Calamari Sr., who is not charged, enjoyed many of the same benefits.

To find the entities guilty, the jury must find Weisselberg was a high-ranking managerial agent at the Trump-owned company when he devised and carried out the tax dodging scheme. The panel must also find the CFO was acting in the scope of his employment partially to benefit the company.

A full-time Trump Organization employee for decades, Weisselberg described receiving his yearly bonuses totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars as an independent contractor. That meant the business didnt owe payroll taxes. Weisselberg said he knew the fraud benefited the company.

By subtracting the cost of the lavish expenses from the executives hefty annual bonuses and salary  an illegal practice known as backing out  they paid the company back.

Over and over again, Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney testified that Allen Weisselberg committed these crimes solely to benefit himself, said Necheles. In other words, no intent to benefit the corporation.

Prosecutors say the fraud that Weisselberg got rich off was no secret and intended to benefited his employer as much as it benefited him. They were expected to deliver their summation later Thursday.

The Trump entities stand to shell out $1.7 million if convicted, considerably less than how much they owe in attorneys fees. Trump is not charged in the case, which hes called a witch hunt.

https://nordot.app/97111706827258265...22757532812385

____________

Second key Tina Peters deputy pleads guilty, agrees to testify against the indicted Mesa County clerk

A second key former deputy to indicted Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters pleaded guilty Wednesday to criminal charges stemming from a breach of the countys election system last year, agreeing as part of a deal with prosecutors to testify against Peters in her upcoming trial.

Sandra Brown, Mesa Countys former elections manager, pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to influence a public servant, a felony, and one misdemeanor count of official misconduct.

As part of the plea, Brown agreed to cooperate with authorities in their investigation into Peters. If she doesnt honor the cooperation agreement, the original charges against her  including conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, a felony  will be reinstated.

In exchange, Brown will avoid a prison sentence and can only be ordered jailed for a maximum of 30 days. She will be sentenced at a later date to a two-year deferred judgment, which means that as long as she doesnt break any laws during that time, she wont be subject to additional penalties.

A 15-page arrest warrant for Brown, who was arrested in July, alleged she misrepresented to the Colorado Secretary of States Office who would be attending a sensitive election system software update in May 2021. An email included in the document shows Brown messaging state elections officials to let them know that Gerald Wood would be attending the update, when in fact, according to authorities, he was never going to be there.

Investigators allege that Woods identity was stolen by Peters, a Republican, to surreptitiously get another man, Conan Hayes, a former pro surfer and election conspiracy theorist, into the Dominion Voting Systems software update.

https://coloradosun.com/2022/11/30/s...y-guilty-plea/

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> Why it matters: It's a major defeat for Trump and victory for the Department of Justice, which has pushed to end the special master review.


Nonsense !! 
it s another small win for trump. His special master gambit was simply another delaying tactic, to kick the can past the midterms in the hope of favorable results that would had afforded him more abstraction and delays.  And as such it worked as far as moving the needle past the midterms, unfortunately for him ,he did not get the desired results from the midterms.
But that's just another chapter in the "As the stomach turns" soap opera that is what  American politics has become.

----------


## S Landreth

^wrong

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> ^wrong


^ How?

----------


## S Landreth

My link says it all.........




> Appeals court halts special master review of Mar-a-Lago documents
> 
> An appeals court on Thursday ruled to scrap the appointment of a special master to review documents seized from former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.
> 
> *Why it matters:* It's a major defeat for Trump and victory for the Department of Justice, which has pushed to end the special master review. The decision allows the department to continue its probe into the former president's handling of classified documents.
> 
> *What they’re saying:* “The law is clear,” the appeals court wrote. “We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.”
> 
> 
> ...


You’re dead wrong

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> My link says it all.........
> 
> 
> 
> You’re dead wrong


Al that might be correct but it does not change the fact that he delayed the process until after the midterms

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Al that might be correct but it does not change the fact that he delayed the process until after the midterms


You're arguing with a cut and paste moron that lacks the capacity for original thought. And of course you're correct, just another baldy delaying tactic.

----------


## S Landreth

another one who's wrong

----------


## S Landreth

> ...I posted actual facts...


Nope. You run around teakdoor posting one-liners like a silly school girl.

----------


## S Landreth

> Nonsense !!
> it s another small win for trump. His special master gambit was simply another delaying tactic


wrong




> And of course you're correct, just another baldy delaying tactic.


Silly school girl is wrong also

___________

Theres nothing about a delay in the article below.......


11th Circuit Ends Trump Special Master in Mar-a-Lago Case

The Answer Is No: Conservative 11th Circuit Panel, Including Two Judges Trump Appointed, Puts a Stop to Special Masters Mar-a-Lago Review

Just like any other subject of a criminal investigation, former President Donald Trump does not have a right to have a special master determine whether the files seized by the FBI are privileged, the 11th Circuit ruled Thursday.

This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no, the per curiam opinion began.

The panel said it would not create a new rule for former presidents.

In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents, the opinion said. We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed.

The unanimous ruling came from about as friendly territory that Trump could have hoped for: All three of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents, including two whom he personally selected. The per curiam opinion means that they rendered their lacerating judgment in one voice, with no lead author.

All of them agreed that Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon did not have jurisdiction to hear Trumps case, let alone issue a sweeping ruling forbidding federal authorities from using thousands of seized files in an ongoing criminal investigation pending the completion of a special masters review. The 11th Circuits ruling voids the special master process in its entirely, relieving Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie of his duties.

From the 11th Circuit:

_The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required._

_The district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in this case. For that reason, we VACATE the September 5 order on appeal and REMAND with instructions for the district court to DISMISS the underlying civil action._

Another 11th Circuit panel previously reversed Cannons ruling temporarily barring the government from using the more than 100 documents with classified markings found at Mar-a-Lago for their criminal investigation. A warrant justifying the search said that federal authorities suspect possible violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, and concealment and removal of government records.

Trumps swift and decisive defeat before the 11th Circuit was expected after his attorney James Trusty faced bruising questioning during oral arguments. One of the panelists, U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Britt Cagle Grant, corrected Trusty when he referred to the court-authorized search of Mar-a-Lago as a raid.

Do you think that raid is the right term for execution of a warrant? she asked, pointedly.

Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr., the sole George W. Bush appointee on the panel, pushed back at Trustys characterization of the document authorizing the search as a general warrant.

You didnt establish that it was a general warrant, he said.

When Trusty acknowledged that Trump couldnt prove unlawful actions by the FBI during the raid, Pryor asked bluntly: If you cant establish that, then what are we doing here?

The other member of the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew L. Brasher, and Grant were Trump appointees.

For the panel, Trumps concession that no unlawful actions had been proven was crucial because federal courts only have equitable jurisdiction to hear such a challenge when there has been a showing of a callous disregard for constitutional rights.

Because the vast majority of subjects of a search warrant have not experienced a callous disregard of their constitutional rights, this factor ensures that equitable jurisdiction remains extraordinary, the opinion note. Otherwise, a flood of disruptive civil litigation would surely follow. [] This restraint guards against needless judicial intrusion into the course of criminal investigations  a sphere of power committed to the executive branch.

Every party, including Trump, the Justice Department, and Judge Cannon, agreed that there was not such a showing.

The callous disregard standard has not been met here, and no one argues otherwise, the ruling continues. The district courts entire reasoning about this factor was that it agrees with the Government that, at least based on the record to date, there has not been a compelling showing of callous disregard for Plaintiffs constitutional rights. None of Plaintiffs filings here or in the district court contest this finding.

At one part of the opinion, the panel even dinged Trumps alternative framing and arguments as a sideshow.

_Plaintiffs alternative framing of his grievance is that he needs a special master and an injunction to protect documents that he designated as personal under the Presidential Records Act. But as we have said, the status of a document as personal or presidential does not alter the authority of the government to seize it under a warrant supported by probable cause; search warrants authorize the seizure of personal records as a matter of course. The Department of Justice has the documents because they were seized with a search warrant, not because of their status under the Presidential Records Act. So Plaintiffs suggestion that whether the Government is entitled to retain some or all the seized documents has not been determined by any court is incorrect. The magistrate judge decided that issue when approving the warrant. To the extent that the categorization of these documents has legal relevance in future proceedings, the issue can be raised at that time._

_All these arguments are a sideshow. The real question that guides our analysis is thisadequate remedy for what? The answer is the same as it was in Chapman: No weight can be assigned to this factor because [Plaintiff] did not assert that any rights had been violated, i.e., that there has been a callous disregard for his constitutional rights or that a substantial interest in property is jeopardized. 559 F.2d at 407. If there has been no constitutional violationmuch less a serious onethen there is no harm to be remediated in the first place. This factor also weighs against exercising equitable jurisdiction._

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...h-c-vacate.pdf

----------


## harrybarracuda

Looks like they've borrowed Amber Heard's lawyers again...




> Closing arguments at the Trump Organisation’s criminal tax fraud trial got off to a rocky start as a lawyer for the company was caught showing jurors portions of witness evidence that had previously been struck from the official court record.
> Prosecutors objected to the display about an hour into lawyer Susan Necheles’ presentation, and Judge Juan Manuel Merchan admonished Ms Necheles and halted arguments so she could remove any other precluded evidence from a slideshow she was showing to jurors.
> Ms Necheles said she did not intend to show any evidence that had been struck out as a result of a sustained objection. Judge Merchan noted that the objections themselves had been removed from the excerpts Ms Necheles showed, but not the objectionable evidence.
> The lawyer resumed her closing argument after a half-hour break. Judge Merchan briefly discussed the transcript issue with jurors and Ms Necheles proceeded to show them the correct version, prefacing her remarks with a mea culpa: “Ladies and gentlemen, I apologise for that error.”
> 
> https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-41019623.html


Meanwhile baldy continues to bleat:




> The former US president Donald Trump “knew exactly what was going on” with top Trump Organisation executives who schemed for years to dodge taxes on company-paid perks, a prosecutor says, challenging defence claims that the former president was unaware of the plot at the heart of the company’s tax fraud case.
> Manhattan prosecutor Joshua Steinglass lobbed the bombshell allegation during closing arguments. He promised to share more details when he resumes tomorrow, buoyed by the judge’s decision to grant prosecutors permission to veer into territory that had been considered off-limits because Trump is not on trial.
> The tax fraud case is the only trial to arise from the three-year investigation of Trump and his business practices by the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Today’s closing arguments were the last chance for prosecutors and defence lawyers to sway jurors before they deliberate next week.
> Judge Juan Manuel Merchan, overruling a defence objection after the jury had left court, said the company’s lawyers opened the door by asserting in their closing arguments that Trump was ignorant of the scheme, hatched by his longtime finance chief just steps from his Trump Tower office.
> 
> “It was the defence who invoked the name Donald Trump numerous times,” Merchan said, setting up a potentially explosive final day of arguments before jurors deliberate next week.
> Prosecutors had given mixed signals about Trump’s importance to the case, telling a judge early on, “this case is not about Donald Trump”, but then repeatedly asking witnesses about him; showing a witness copies of Trump’s tax returns and, ultimately, seeking to connect the dots to him in closing arguments.
> Trump has denied any knowledge of the scheme, writing earlier this week on his Truth Social platform: “There was no gain for ‘Trump’, and we had no knowledge of it.”
> 
> Trump Organisation lawyer presents ruled-out evidence in tax fraud case


Of course he fucking knew about it, the lying baldy orange cunto.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> You're arguing with a cut and paste moron that lacks the capacity for original thought. And of course you're correct, just another baldy delaying tactic.


If not to stimulate discussion, May I ask the reason you you post these articles?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> If not to stimulate discussion, May I ask the reason you you post these articles?


Usually because they've caught my eye and I wish to comment on them.

This is, after all, Speakers. Otherwise I'd post them in a News thread without comment.

The facts, as you correctly state, are that baldy continually attempts to bury anything that might harm him in a legal morass, while simultaneously denying his involvement in anything illegal.

cf. Theft of classified documents, Tax fraud, Banking fraud, Insurrection, etc.

How the fuck this fat orange wanker is not already doing the perp walk is an indictment of the US legal system.

----------


## aging one

> How the fuck this fat orange wanker is not already doing the perp walk is an indictment of the US legal system.


No its not the case is being built and Trump is being caught out and losing more each day.  

*Appeals court halts special master review of documents seized at Mar-a-Lago in major defeat for Trump

*
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/01/politics/mar-a-lago-special-master/index.html

Harry you should use the acronym IMHO. As you so often dont know much about the American legal or political system. Google is not always your friend. 

Care is of the essence in getting this asshole and seeing his lying corrupt ass in jail. 

le

----------


## harrybarracuda

> No its not the case is being built and Trump is being caught out and losing more each day.  
> 
> *Appeals court halts special master review of documents seized at Mar-a-Lago in major defeat for Trump
> 
> *
> https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/01/politics/mar-a-lago-special-master/index.html
> 
> Harry you should use the acronym IMHO. As you so often dont know much about the American legal or political system. Google is not always your friend. 
> 
> ...


So Grandpa Smug, which one of these 56 criminal accusations do you think will lead to his incarceration (and they're only the ones since 2015):

President Trump's staggering record of uncharged crimes - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Note, since it might make it easier for you to get the point:




> The “deadline to file charges” column is colored according to the deadline status. Red means the deadline has passed or will likely pass soon.

----------


## S Landreth

> Harry you should use the acronym IMHO. As you so often dont know much about the American legal or political system. Google is not always your friend.


careful the silly school girl will place you on ignore and start posting articles that have already been covered with his one-liners just to draw attention away from his ignorance

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

My apologies ...
I meant to respond to Lardbreath with that reply and not to you.  :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

^You still upset for supporting some wacko and you not receiving your 1,000.00/month?

Biden won and will win again if he runs. Get over it




> Nonsense !! 
> it s another small win for trump. His special master gambit was simply another delaying tactic,.......


and by the way,.........you're dead wrong

----------


## aging one

> So Grandpa Smug,


Kind of rich coming from the Google King.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Kind of rich coming from the Google King.


Oh look, grandpa can't answer the question so posts what he thinks is an amusing picture.

Really showing you know your stuff, eh?

 :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> ^You still upset for supporting some wacko and you not receiving your 1,000.00/month?
> 
> Biden won and will win again if he runs. Get over it


I really like to know what you are smocking, I would like some !  :Smile: 
What wacko am i supporting? 



> and by the way,.........you're dead wrong


and by the way ,......you still have not told me how. 
I know you might not think so , but I got news for you, saying that I am wrong does not make it so, 
So....

----------


## harrybarracuda

> My apologies ...
> I meant to respond to Lardbreath with that reply and not to you.


It's a valid question. Not one he'd be able to answer mind you. He's a bit of a whiny little bitch.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> Oh look, grandpa can't answer the question so posts what he thinks is an amusing picture.
> 
> Really showing you know your stuff, eh?


And the funny thing is, that it's something he cut and pasted from Google 
 :smiley laughing: 
MY wife is making fun of me for the  faces I make while writing these replies. LOL
I'll tell you , I might not agree with you all ,all of the time ,  but I got to say, I do love you all.

----------


## S Landreth

> and by the way ,......you still have not told me how.
> I know you might not think so , but I got news for you, saying that I am wrong does not make it so,


No I know, as the first post on this page explains




> Just like any other subject of a criminal investigation, former President Donald Trump does not have a right to have a special master determine whether the files seized by the FBI are privileged, the 11th Circuit ruled Thursday.
> 
> The panel said it would not create a new rule for former presidents.


It’s nothing about a delay, it’s about nobody being above the law. And again,.........you’re dead wrong.




> What wacko am i supporting?


I shouldn’t come down on you too hard. You’re a bit slow. Open the link below




> You still upset for supporting some wacko and you not receiving your 1,000.00/month?

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> I shouldn’t come down on you too hard. You’re a bit slow. Open the link below


I am slow?
First I told you i disagree with the quote from your page I reacted to , and you say I am "wrong" , which I might very well be, but when I ask you how I am wrong you say that I should read the item I disagree with . 
I obviously i read it, otherwise how would I disagree with it? 
Then you say I support some wacko , and when I ask who and how, you told me to open some link.
Is your strategy to infect my computer with some viruses contained in that link? LOL
Be a men and own what you post rather than referring me to others to fight your battles will you?  :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

> you say I am "wrong" , which I might very well be,......


Might be?

No, you’re dead wrong. It’s crystal clear, the court’s decision/trump’s attempt to try to convince the court he had some type of special privilege has absolutely nothing to do with a delay.




> Just like any other subject of a criminal investigation, former President Donald Trump does not have a right to have a special master determine whether the files seized by the FBI are privileged, the 11th Circuit ruled Thursday.
> 
> The panel said it would not create a new rule for former presidents.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> Might be?
> 
> No, you’re dead wrong. It’s crystal clear, the court’s decision/trump’s attempt to try to convince the court he had some type of special privilege has absolutely nothing to do with a delay.


All that might very well be , but it does not change the fact that the investigation was delayed until after the  midterms , and you can tell me that trump did not want the investigation , if not go away, certainly delayed as long as possible, and at the very least until after  the midterms.   
Which it did a, and as such a small victory by him. 
Of course everyone would like to spin this in the way thar best supports their agenda, buy facts are facts 
and the fact that the investigation was delayed until after the did terms is undeniable.  
At this point I feel we are  :deadhorsebig: 
and will say no more on the subject, but feel free to call me names if it makes you fell better.

----------


## S Landreth

^again, you're dead wrong. Decision had nothing to do with a delay and had everything to do with trump wanting special treatment.

No one is above the law.

----------


## Norton

> No one is above the law.


“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
George Orwell

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> ^again, you're dead wrong. Decision had nothing to do with a delay and had everything to do with trump wanting special treatment.
> 
> No one is above the law.


Sure, sure..
but can you at least tell us what you are smoking?

----------


## S Landreth

I don’t smoke. Happy you’ve recognized your misunderstanding of the court’s ruling yesterday.

----------


## pickel

> The panel said it would not create a new rule for former presidents.


Any other person caught with classified documents illegaly in their possession would immediately be jailed without bail until a trial is held.

----------


## S Landreth

^so true

____________

This is a delay tactic (maybe a very short time, if it doesn't go to the full court)


Donald Trump Fights to Keep Mar-a-Lago Case Alive

After the 11th Circuits Beatdown, Donald Trump Fights to Keep Moribund Mar-a-Lago Case Alive Until Ruling Takes Effect Next Week

The 11th Circuits blistering ruling shutting down former President Donald Trumps lawsuit and special master review of files the FBI seized at Mar-a-Lago is set to officially take effect next week, but until that time, deadlines in the case remain looming.

On Friday, the Department of Justice asked the judge presiding over the moribund case to pause all proceedings until the case dies, but Trumps attorneys opposed that plan later in the day  without indicating whether they would lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Eleventh Circuit shortened the time to issue the mandate, thereby decreasing the already limited time available to President Trump to pursue legal options, Trumps lawyer Lindsey Halligan wrote. President Trump opposes modification of the current case management order at this time.

The federal appellate court plans to issue its mandate on Thursday, Dec. 8, meaning that  absent any stay from a higher court  Trumps lawsuit will breathe its last breath. So will Raymond Dearies special master review that Trump requested to inspect tens of thousands of documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago for attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.

Until that time, Trumps legal team wants to prolong the proceedings and keep up the current schedule. They asked U.S. District Aileen Cannon, at minimum, to grant hold a telephone conference two days before the drop dead date to discuss how to proceed.

Rebuking Trumps legal arguments as a sideshow, the 11th Circuit panel  comprised of two Trump appointees and one George W. Bush appointee  was equally lacerating toward Cannons rulings in the former presidents favor. The panel, speaking in one voice in a per curiam opinion, indirectly called Cannons ruling a radical rewriting of U.S. criminal law that would carve out a special exception for former presidents.

Former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner, now a partner at the firm Rottenberg Lipman Rich PC, predicted that Trumps luck before Cannon, one of his appointees, would likely run out.

I cannot imagine Judge Cannon forcing the parties to continue with the Special Master process while awaiting mandate to issue, Epner told Law&Crime. I am virtually certain that once the mandate issues, Judge Cannon will immediately dismiss.

Special Counsel Jack Smith reminded Cannon that the case meanwhile hangs in limbo.

Pending the issuance of the Eleventh Circuits mandate, the parties and Special Master have deadlines and work that will be rendered moot when the mandate issues, his filing states, noting that the governments deadline to a response to Trumps motion to unseal the search warrant application is due next Tuesday.

Trumps lawyers notably did not specify what, if any, plans they have to appeal, but experts like Epner note the former presidents habit of dragging out appeals.

I also am virtually certain the FPOTUS will seek discretionary review by the Supreme Court, Epner said, using the abbreviation for former President of the United States. I am highly confident it will be denied. My only real uncertainty is whether Justice Thomas (in his capacity receiving motions from the 11th Circuit) will unilaterally deny it or refer it to the full Court for consideration.

Clarence Thomas is the circuit justice for the 11th Circuit.

Trumps decision to seek Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuits decision affirm the release of his tax records to the House got him about two weeks of delay, Epner added.

----------


## harrybarracuda

You can't find decent bent judges any more, can you?

 :rofl: 




> Remember how liberals claimed that Donald Trumps judicial appointees would serve as legal bodyguards, shielding him in his post-Presidency? Sorry to disappoint.
> 
> On Thursday an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel dismissed Mr. Trumps objections to the FBIs Mar-a-Lago search and district Judge Aileen Cannons appointment of a special master to review seized documents. The panel included Chief Judge William Pryor, who was appointed by George W. Bush, and Trump-appointees Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher.
> 
> The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant, the panel wrote. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.
> 
> Trump Strikes Out Before His Judges  - WSJ

----------


## S Landreth

E. Jean Carroll Urges Appeals Court to Reject Trump Immunity

E. Jean Carroll Tells Appeals Court That Donald Trumps Attempt to Destroy and Discredit Her Wasnt Under the Scope of His Employment

Columnist E. Jean Carrolls attorneys urged an appellate court to reject the notion that former President Donald Trump undertook his efforts to discredit and destroy her under the scope of his employment.

In a 64-page legal brief, Carrolls attorney *Roberta Kaplan* told the the D.C. Court of Appeals to find that Trump had been acting for personal reasons when he told reporters that Carroll was not my type, in order to deny that he raped her inside a Bergdorf Goodmans in the mid-1990s.

In June 2019, E. Jean Carroll revealed that former President Donald J. Trump had sexually assaulted her decades earlier, Carrolls attorney *Roberta Kaplan* told the D.C. Court of Appeals on Thursday. Although Trump denied it, he did not stop there. He launched a series of vicious, personal attacks. He implied that she was too ugly to rape; that she had falsely accused other men of sexual assault; and that she had invented her story for money, or to sell books, or to advance a political plot. None of this was true. Trump knew who Carroll was when he attacked her, he knew who she was in 2019, and he knew what he was doing when he went on a rampage designed to punish and humiliate her for daring to reveal his decades-old crime.

Carroll filed her defamation lawsuit later that year, but before a jury could assess her case, the courts must resolve whether Trump has civil immunity for remarks he made during his presidency. That question now turns on whether Trump made those remarks to reporters as part of the duties of his office  or for his own reasons.

Both under Attorneys General *Bill Barr* and *Merrick Garland*, the Department of Justice argued that Trump should be immunized from Carrolls lawsuit because he spoke to reporters about a matter of public concern.

For Carrolls legal team, that position is far too sweeping.

This categorical position totally precludes any possibility that an elected federal official could act with purely (or decisively) personal motives while speaking publicly  no matter how private the subject matter, how unrelenting and incendiary the officials statements, how patently disconnected from any government business, or how plainly consistent with that officials prior personal conduct, the legal brief states. Trump and DOJ reason that public statements are always within an officials scope of employment because they may incidentally affect his perceived fitness to hold office. On that basis, Trump and DOJ ask this Court to announce a doctrine of categorical immunity for public officials, affording them _carte blanche_ to use the public platform inherent in their office to defame any private citizenanywhere, anytime, for any reason.

More than 25 women have accused former President Trump of sexual misconduct, and in his public denials of Carrolls accusations, her lawyers find the same modus operandi playing out in strikingly familiar style.

Simply put, Trumps attacks on Carroll did not reflect anything unique to his high office, nor did they arise from any distinctively presidential consideration, the brief states. Rather, they followed directly from a _modus operandi_ stretching back decades into his life as a private citizen.

For Trump, his remarks were not about defending his fitness for high office, Carroll argues.

However the D.C. Court of Appeals decides on the question of Trumps immunity for the 2019 defamation claims, Carrolls lawsuit against the former president almost certainly will see a jury next April, if the parties do not settle. On Thanksgiving, Carroll filed a new federal complaint leveling sexual assault claims against Trump under the New York Adult Survivors Act, which opened a one-year look-back window for claims otherwise barred by the statute of limitations.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-coa-12-1-2236

----------


## S Landreth

Good outline on trumps pending indictment


Trump loss ignites next steps for DOJ in Mar-a-Lago investigation

A federal appeals court decision has paved the way for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to use the remaining cache of unclassified records it seized at former President Trumps home, halting the special master process and lifting an important roadblock into its investigation of the potential mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals court issued a strong repudiation this week of arguments from Trump and the lower court judge who awarded his request for a third-party review of the evidence seized from his home.

It also frees up the Department of Justice to use 22,000 pages of seized government records  an important green light that will allow investigators to review every piece of evidence in hopes of building an airtight case.

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so, the judges wrote.

Its the latest sign that Trumps initial success in the case is diminishing, with the three-judge panel for the court rejecting a number of arguments his legal team has offered since the August 9 search and determining even the unclassified records may be used in the departments investigation.

The Department of Justice has made clear the classified records found at Mar-a-Lago represent the bulk of its potential case, which could include charges under the Espionage Act. 

But the thousands of records found at Mar-a-Lago that do not bear classification markings could also be important to the case.

One of the biggest challenges for the prosecutors in this case was always going to be establishing that Trump had personal knowledge of the fact that the classified documents were at Mar-a-Lago, and that he was personally involved in not returning them, which will go to obstruction, Brian Greer, a former CIA attorney, told The Hill. 

The fact that these classified documents were intermingled with unclassified documents that he was accessing, or would have been accessing, is potentially very valuable evidence demonstrating Trumps personal knowledge, he added. 

Previous court filings indicate that Trumps passports were found among the documents and that the search found government records not just in a storage room, but in Trumps personal office. 

Thursdays ruling notes that while other personal effects listed by Trumps team, like golf shirts and pictures of Celine Dion, may be his property, we do not see the need for their immediate return after seizure under a presumptively lawful search warrant.

Even if the items are not central for building the governments case, they could be useful in responding to possible Trump defenses.

Greer said that could be key, as the investigation differs from other cases dealing with mishandling of national security information given that Trump is a wealthy man whos not necessarily involved in packing his boxes.

If the classified documents were just in a storage room, in a box that wasnt being accessed, that would be a harder case. But we know some of the documents were found in Trumps personal office instead, and if DOJ can use the unclassified, intermingled records to show that Trump was accessing the classified documents, its case will be significantly stronger, Greer said.

The Department of Justice responded quickly to the 11th Circuit ruling, filing a motion in the Florida court where Trumps challenge to the warrant initiated, asking for an extension of deadlines before the special master, Judge Raymond Dearie, given that Trump has a week to appeal the ruling before it takes effect on Dec. 8.

While Trumps legal team opposed the governments motion, it did not indicate whether it plans to appeal the 11th Circuit ruling. 

Experts say it will take the government little time to parse the 22,000 pages but caution that the Department of Justice has just as much an institutional interest in winning the case as an investigative one.

The 11th Circuit was for the second time highly critical of the decision by federal district court Judge Aileen Cannons decision to award Trumps request for a special master, noting that keeping it in place would represent a dramatic and unwarranted use of the courts authority.

It set a really bad precedent, Judge Cannons order, said Ankush Khardori, a former DOJ trial attorney specializing in major financial fraud.

If they just had this out there, every defendant or prominent defendant would try to do something similar to Trump, he added.

Khardori agreed that the DOJ likely viewed retaining the unclassified documents as an essential step for proceeding with its investigation, but he warned it is hardly the last domino that needs to fall for bringing charges against Trump.

Following Trumps announcement of a new 2024 presidential bid, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to oversee the Mar-a-Lago case, as well as its investigation into efforts to block the transfer of power.

Much of the decision on charges in the Mar-a-Lago case will likely center on what sort of documents Trump was storing.

What is in these documents? How serious was the exposure? How significant was Trumps retention of this material? What was in the actual documents is key to understanding the seriousness of the underlying conduct, Khardori added.

Despite the classification markings, Khardori said its still unknown to the public whether Trump left office with serious national security secrets. 

Though he said its unlikely, Khardori said its possible the documents could include classified records that are meaningless in isolation, along with other presidential records Trump may view as momentos, including letters from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. 

While the case has excited many eager to see Trump prosecuted, Khardori warned that the DOJ could still decline to bring charges.

If it were not really terribly dangerous, then I think Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, theyre going to have to be thinking, Okay, is this the kind of case that should comprise the first ever prosecution of a former president? he said.

Greer said if the Department of Justice did decide not to bring charges, it would represent a double standard.

Its difficult to see DOJ walking away from this case. I just dont see them saying, No, we dont think this case is worth charging, when DOJ brings several prosecutions like this against ordinary government employees every year, he said.

The immediate next steps for prosecutors will likely be interviewing witnesses about the documents and gathering all possible details about the national security information Trump had on hand.

While Trumps status as a presidential candidate has shifted the investigation to some degree  including Smiths appointment  Khardori said the possibility of any activity coming amid an intensifying campaign season could actually slow the DOJs desire to bring charges.

They may be saying to themselves, Hes running. And he may very well be in the general election. So what we need to do is put together the strongest possible case  so that if there comes a point in time where hes charged, that the prosecution is as successful as possible, rather than, Lets put it together as quickly as possible, Khardori said.

__________


Trump's legal woes just keep piling up 

Two of Donald Trumps top White House lawyers appeared before at least one grand jury Friday, visiting the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. amid multiple criminal probes involving the former president.

Former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone exited the courthouse just before 2:30 p.m., spending about six hours behind closed doors. His former deputy, Pat Philbin, departed just after 4 p.m., spending about four hours with the grand jury.

Its unclear precisely which investigation the pair were testifying about. Cipollone and Philbin have insight about Trumps machinations ahead of Jan. 6, when he attempted to subvert his defeat in the 2020 election and seize a second term. But they were also both present in the final days of Trumps White House as boxes of documents  including highly sensitive national security secrets  were packed and shipped to Trumps Mar-a-Lago estate.

Both matters are the subject of criminal inquiries that are being considered by grand jurors in Washington D.C.

Cipollone declined to take questions as he departed without his lawyer, Michael Purpura, and entered a waiting SUV. Philbin, who exited with Purpura, also declined to take questions.

Cipollone says he believed that Trump should've conceded the election

For Trump, Cipollones appearance marks the latest setback in an extraordinary run of catastrophic legal and political developments.

It came a day after a federal appeals court panel threw out his lawsuit against the Justice Department following the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago estate. In recent days, Trump has seen top allies Lindsey Graham, Mark Meadows and Michael Flynn ordered to testify to an Atlanta-area grand jury investigating his efforts to overturn the election.

Last month, the Justice Department appointed former public corruption chief Jack Smith as special master to preside over the Trump-focused Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago probes.

On top of those legal woes, the Supreme Court cleared the way for House Democrats to obtain six years of Trumps tax returns.

And Trump-world has been reeling in recent days amid widespread condemnation from allies and adversaries alike for hosting white supremacist Nick Fuentes at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Trump has also been on the losing end of a secret court battle to prevent some of his top ex-advisers from testifying to the grand jury, which may have cleared the way for Cipollone and Philbin to appear Friday.

The appearance of Trumps White House lawyers underscores the acute legal threat hes facing. Several other former Trump White House advisers have appeared before the grand jury in recent weeks, including Trump social media aide Dan Scavino and two former aides to ex-vice president Mike Pence.

Cipollone was a key witness to Trumps frenzied final weeks in office, particularly as the outgoing president sought to undermine the transfer of power to Joe Biden. Cipollone testified to the Jan. 6 select committee after protracted negotiations but declined to discuss matters he viewed as covered by potential executive privilege.

If Cipollone was ordered to testify about those privileged matters to the grand jury, it would put prosecutors in possession of key evidence that lawmakers on the Jan. 6 panel were unable to obtain. Among the questions the select committee was unable to resolve, for example is why Cipollone did not attend a key final meeting about Trumps effort to persuade Pence to disrupt the Jan. 6 counting of electoral votes.

Cipollone told the select committee he had planned to attend but ultimately did not. The reason, he said, was protected by privilege.

The day before he left office, Trump also designated Cipollone and Philbin as two of seven representatives to the National Archives, authorized to facilitate access to and manage his presidential records.

While its unusual for White House lawyers to testify before a grand jury involving presidential misconduct, Cipollone and Philbin are far from the first White House lawyers to face legal questioning. Trumps first White Counsel Don McGahn was interviewed repeatedly by special counsel Robert Mueller and became a key witness to potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

Other top White House lawyers to have made appearances in the same courthouse include Bruce Lindsey, a longtime adviser to President Bill Clinton. Clintons White House fought an unsuccessful court battle to block Lindseys testimony in an independent counsel probe into alleged corruption at the Agriculture Department.

Lindsey was later called to testify before a grand jury overseen by another independent counsel, Ken Starr, as it looked into Clintons relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

A couple of decades earlier, White House counsel John Dean, testified to a grand jury investigating the Watergate scandal.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Organization found guilty in tax fraud case

The Trump Organization was convicted Tuesday over what prosecutors say was a 15-year scheme to defraud state and federal tax authorities, multiple outlets reported.

*Why it matters:* Former President Trump's company could face up to $1.6 million in fines, and the guilty verdict could hinder his ability to conduct business in New York City.

*The big picture:* Trump Organization and its Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg were charged in 2021 with tax-related offenses, including paying executives with "off the books" compensation, such as apartments and luxury cars.


The indictment said that the Trump Organization operated the yearslong scheme to allow some employees to "understate their compensation" so that their taxes "were significantly less than the amounts that should have been paid."Weisselberg pleaded guilty in August to all 15 counts in the indictment from the Manhattan district attorney's office. He was also required to testify as part of the plea deal.Trump has criticized the charges as politically motivated.

*Between the lines:* The former president and his family were not charged in the case.

*What they're saying:* "We can have no tolerance for individuals or organizations that violate our laws to line their pockets," New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said in a statement.


"I commend Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his team for their successful prosecution of the Trump Organization, and I was proud to assist in this important case," James said.

"This verdict sends a clear message that no one, and no organization, is above our laws."

*State of play:* The tax fraud case is just one of the several legal matters involving the former president, who last month announced his bid for president in 2024.


Trump also faces an investigation by the Department of Justice over efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and his handling of classified documents.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> Why it matters: Former President Trump's company could face up to $1.6 million in fines, and the guilty verdict could hinder his ability to conduct business in New York City.


How much did he gain from all these illegalities? I am willing to bet it was a lot more than $1.6 million. So all in all a profitable endeavour.

----------


## S Landreth

^ not if you consider reputation. Most Americans pay what they owe.

----------


## Loy Toy

I view Trump as a failed salesman who is an embarrassment to not only the American people but mankind in general.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I view Trump as a failed salesman who is an embarrassment to not only the American people but mankind in general.


In 2016, Marco Rubio said if baldy hadn't inherited a load of money, he would have been selling knock off Rolexes in Times Square. Bang on really.

By that time Baldy had pummelled him into submission, so it was too little, too late.

----------


## S Landreth

Justice Dept. subpoenas election officials in key states for Trump comms

Special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed local election officials in Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin for communication with former President Trump and his allies during the lead up to the 2020 election and its aftermath, the Washington Post reports.

*The big picture:* The subpoenas signal that Smith is extending the breadth of the investigation into Trump and his involvement with the Jan. 6 attack to include local officials and representatives, per the Post.


The subpoenas, which were sent to Dane County, Wis.; Maricopa County, Ariz.; Wayne County, Mich.; and Milwaukee, Wis., are among the first known requests for records by the newly appointed special counsel, the Post notes.The three states in focus were at the center of Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.Officials in Arizona and Wisconsin confirmed to Axios that they received subpoenas from Smith. Axios has also reached out to the Michigan secretary of state's office for confirmation.

*Between the lines:* The subpoena asks for communication with Trump and members of his close circle from June 1, 2020 through Jan. 20, 2021, per a copy of the request to the Dane County Clerk reviewed by Axios.

*Catch up quick:* Smith was appointed last month to oversee the federal criminal investigations into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and handling of classified documents.


The purpose of Smith's appointment was to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> ^ not if you consider reputation. Most Americans pay what they owe.


I think that ship has sailed a long time ago. LOL

----------


## helge

> I view Trump as a failed salesman who is an embarrassment to not only the American people but mankind in general.


No thank you

The US has exclusive rights to that fellow, as far as I am concerned  :Smile:

----------


## Loy Toy

We are all one in the big picture Helge as Martin Luther King advised us.

Best you take your responsibilities like the rest of us have to.  :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

Jan. 6 panel reaches general agreement on criminal referrals to DOJ

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol has come to a general agreement to forward some criminal referrals to the Justice Department, its chair told reporters Tuesday.

It was a confusing morning at the Capitol, with Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) walking back statements he made earlier in the day when he told reporters we will be making criminal referrals.

Were not there yet, Thompson said later, adding that the earlier gaggle [with reporters] was wrong.

The panel will meet later on Tuesday to discuss the issue, following a Friday presentation from a subcommittee of the committees four lawyers, who were tasked with tying up unfinished business, including how to address any recommendations to the Justice Department.

The Committee has determined that referrals to outside entities should be considered as a final part of its work. The committee will make decisions about specifics in the days ahead, a committee spokesperson said in a statement.

The chairman of that subcommittee, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told reporters they were still making progress on the topic, while Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), another member of that panel, said a formal announcement on referrals could come as soon as this week.

Were nearing the end of our work, she said.

____________


Items with classified markings found in Trump storage unit: reports

Former President Trumps legal team has found at least two documents with classified markings at a storage unit in West Palm Beach, Fla., in the wake of the FBIs August search of Mar-a-Lago, several outlets reported on Wednesday.

The documents were immediately turned over to the FBI, according to The Washington Post.

The storage unit, which is maintained by the General Services Administration, was one of several locations searched by an outside group hired by Trumps lawyers to look for any remaining classified materials.

The move comes after a federal judge asked the former presidents legal team to ensure they fully complied with a subpoena from earlier this year that asked Trump to turn over any remaining classified documents.

The National Archives has said it believes Trump retains possession of at least some White House records that should have been turned over at the end of his presidency.

The Post reported earlier in the day that the group had also in recent weeks searched Trump Tower in New York and the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., but had not found any classified materials.

The group also searched a storage closet at Mar-a-Lago, according to The New York Times.

The West Palm Beach storage unit where the classified documents were found reportedly stored items from a northern Virginia office used by Trump staffers after the president left office, according to the Post.

The latest discovery of misplaced classified documents comes nearly a year after the National Archives and Records Administration first discovered classified materials among several boxes of records recovered from Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence.

Trumps lawyers returned several more classified documents in June in response to the subpoena issued to the former president.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> No thank you
> 
> The US has exclusive rights to that fellow, as far as I am concerned


Yeah but no....




> Berlin — Police have arrested at least 25 people tied to an alleged right-wing extremist plot to overthrow Germany's government. The group targeted in about 130 raids across Germany was described by prosecutors as being influenced by QAnon conspiracy theories and espousing a doctrine similar to that of far-right groups in the U.S. and across Europe.
> 
> Germany arrests dozens as QAnon-inspired "Reichsburger" group accused of plotting to overthrow government - CBS News


Remember QAnon is all about baldy orange cunto rescuing us from a cabal of baby-eating paedophiles working out of a pizza restaurant basement.

----------


## S Landreth

Manhattan DA hires ex-senior DOJ official as office investigates Trump 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has hired a former senior Justice Department official to work on the offices most sensitive and high-profile white-collar investigations, which comes as the office investigates former President Trump.

Bragg announced on Monday that Matthew Colangelo, who acted as the Justice Departments No. 3 official last year and previously investigated the Trump Foundation, will serve as senior counsel.

The announcement does not specifically name the Trump investigation, although The New York Times reported that Colangelo is expected to join the probe.

Public safety requires economic stability, and all New Yorkers deserve to live and work without risk of harassment, wage theft or dangerous workplaces, Bragg said in a statement. Matthew Colangelo brings a wealth of economic justice experience combined with complex white-collar investigations, and he has the sound judgment and integrity needed to pursue justice against powerful people and institutions when they abuse their power.

Colangelo also served in New York Attorney General Letitia Jamess (D) office, where he worked on multiple investigations into the Trump administration as well as the former presidents private foundation.

I am honored to reunite with District Attorney Bragg, my former colleague and a deeply experienced prosecutor committed to public safety in his hometown, Colangelo said in a statement.

----------


## Topper

One of the best I've heard...

One of the youtube lawyer channels was talking about the resurrection of the Stormy case in relation to the president.  He said that most people thought the statue of limitations had run out on that case, but guess what, it hasn't.

Oh why you may ask? Why hasn't the statue of limitations run out in the NY state case?

The statue of limitations time clock only applies to NY state citizens, not out of state citizens.  Once the fookwit changed his residence from NY to FL, the statue of limitations clock stopped running.  It gave me a laugh when I heard that.

----------


## Switch

It is still prolonged and lengthy procedure to secure a worthwhile conviction against Trump. I can only hope that the DOJ wants any case against him to be watertight?

I hope they hang him. (eventually).

----------


## S Landreth

^yes. watertight


DOJ asks judge to hold Trump team in contempt as frustrations mount on records case

The Justice Department has asked a judge to hold former President Trump’s legal team in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena demanding the return of all classified records stored at Mar-a-Lago, according to reporting from The Washington Post.

The appeal to a federal judge in sealed court documents comes after the Trump team has still failed to designate a custodian of records and is the latest sign of tension between DOJ and the Trump team just days after another two classified documents were found at a South Florida storage unit housing other Trump records.

A U.S. District Court judge has yet to take action on the request, according to The Post.

The contempt request follows months of efforts to recover classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

After a May subpoena, the Trump team turned over 38 documents with classified markings, but resisted a request for a sworn statement certifying all classified material had been returned.

Instead, Trump attorney Christina Bobb offered a statement saying the former president’s team had returned all records “based upon the information that has been provided to me.”

After determining that more classified records may be found on the property, the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, finding another 103 documents with classified markings.

On Wednesday, a separate Washington Post report said at least two additional documents with classified markings had been found at a storage unit in West Palm Beach, Fl.

Representatives for Trump did not immediately respond to request for comment.

The sealed filing before U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell comes after the judge ordered the Trump team to conduct a search for records at other Trump properties.

Holding the legal team in contempt of court could prompt a fine for the legal team until Trump designates a custodian of records, a person who would be responsible for ascertaining to the Justice Department that no classified records remain on Trump property – something his lawyers have been hesitant to do.

Trump’s legal team has resisted the request from DOJ, arguing that they can only reasonably offer that a search of the properties has been conducted in good faith.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Just a quick check with our competent American posters:

Can you be prosecuted for committing perjury in front of a state grand jury? And if so, is that treated as a state or federal offence?




> 





> CNN — 
> Former national security adviser Michael Flynn is appearing Thursday before an Atlanta-area special grand jury probing efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.
> 
> CNN spotted Flynn, who was escorted by a small entourage, walk up the stairs of the Superior Court of Fulton County shortly before 1 p.m. on Thursday.
> 
> Last month, a judge in Florida ordered Flynn to testify, saying the former Trump administration official “is indeed material and necessary in the special grand jury proceeding in the state of Georgia.”
> 
> Flynn’s attorneys had argued that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is overseeing the investigation, “overstepped her authority,” so he should not be required to travel to Atlanta to testify because there is an “utter lack of facts” to support that Flynn is a necessary witness.
> 
> ...

----------


## thailazer

The Mar-A-Lego toy at the 5:45 mark or so is too good to pass up!

----------


## Topper

> is that treated as a state


State jury, state charges

----------


## S Landreth

clear some things up from yesterday.....


Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Lawsuit Officially Ends

11th Circuit Sounds Death Knell for Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago Suit, as Feds Reportedly Move to Hold Ex-Presidents Office in Contempt

Around the same time that the 11th Circuit officially terminated Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago lawsuit, the Department of Justice reportedly moved to hold the former president in contempt in that investigation.

The two events, reported in rapid succession late on Thursday, marks a dramatic escalation by newly unfettered federal prosecutors in an investigation over the handling of hundreds of documents marked classified. Trumps legal team did not appeal the 11th Circuits ruling savaging the ex-presidents lawsuit challenging the seizure of those records and thousands of others. Their Dec. 1 ruling ended the special master review, declining to carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents.

Given a Thursday deadline to try to stay the ruling, Trumps legal team waited until it was too late. The 11th Circuit issued a mandate formally ending that case.

It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the opinion issued on this date in this appeal is entered as the judgment of the court, the mandated stated with finality.

That line formally ends the service of two federal judges assigned to the Mar-a-Lago matter: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who issued orders preventing the FBI from using files in their criminal investigation, and Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie, whom Cannon selected as a special master to conduct a privilege review of those documents.

Finding that Cannon overstepped her power, the 11th Circuit overturned her orders and ordered her to close the case.

Now, multiple news outlets are reporting that the Justice Department has sought to hold Trump in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena from this past May ordering him to return all classified documents. The Washington Post first reported the development, attributing the request to sources familiar with the matter. CNN later matched the report. There is no public filing about the Justice Departments request, as grand jury matters are traditionally secret, and the filing is under seal. They reportedly made the request to Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who heads the federal court in Washington, D.C.

According to the Post, the most likely penalty against Trump if Judge Howell were to rule against him would be a fine, whose size would be up the discretion of the judge. Earlier this year, a Manhattan judge found Trump in contempt of court for non-compliance with a subpoena in an unrelated matter: New York Attorney General Letitia Jamess (D) civil investigation into alleged fraud. That judge, Arthur Engoron, imposed a fine, until Trumps lawyers left him satisfied that they performed a diligent search for responsive documents.

Neither the Post nor CNN report explicitly state that the request was made by special counsel Jack Smith, who is now in charge of the Mar-a-Lago investigation.

According to the search warrant materials made public earlier this year, federal authorities have been investigating Trump for suspected violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, and concealment and removal of government records.


Trumps push for a special master in Mar-a-Lago docs case comes to an end 

Former President Donald Trumps quest for outside supervision of the Justice Departments investigation into sensitive White House records seized at his Mar-a-Lago estate came to an end Thursday, after he failed to challenge an appeals court ruling rejecting such oversight.

Trump had a week to contest the issue before the full bench of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals or at the Supreme Court, but he did not. The appeals court formalized its ruling Thursday afternoon ending the so-called special master process a lower judge established in September.

The appeals courts order means the DOJ probe into potentially illegal retention of national security secrets, theft of government records and obstruction of justice can move forward without any external restrictions on prosecutors and investigators use of nearly 3,000 records the FBI seized from Trumps Florida home in August, pursuant to a search warrant.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> State jury, state charges


Excellent, so no pardon next time then.

 :Smile:

----------


## S Landreth

Supreme Court won't hear case brought by a group of voters against Dominion Voting Systems and Facebook 

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case brought against Dominion Voting Systems and Facebook after the 2020 election by a group of voters who claimed the companies illegally “influenced or interfered with” the contest.

Lower courts had previously rejected the case, ruling that the eight voters lacked the procedural threshold – known as standing – needed to bring the suit against parties including the Center for Tech and Civic Life, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.

“The court’s refusal to take up this case is no surprise; the lower courts threw it out because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, and, even if they did, their claims are frivolous,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

There is no evidence that Dominion Voting Machines, Smartmatic, or any other voting machine company switched any votes favoring former President Donald Trump to then-candidate Joe Biden. Several media entities and pro-Trump figures who falsely alleged otherwise have been sued for defamation, with Dominion and Smartmatic seeking billions in damages. Unlike the claims of the conspiracy theorists, Dominion and Smartmatic’s lawsuits survived dismissal.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Lawsuit Against Dominion

Rupert Murdoch to be deposed in Dominion’s 2020 lawsuit against Fox News

----------


## helge

> Excellent, so no pardon next time then.


I think governors can pardon and does....a lot in their last days in office

----------


## S Landreth

Jan. 6 Panel Mulls Criminal Referrals For Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Others: Reports

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol is weighing criminal referrals not only against former President Donald Trump, but at least four additional people connected to him and efforts to subvert the 2020 election, according to media reports.

Those include onetime White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, Trumps former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, attorney John Eastman and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.

The news was reported by CNN and by Bloomberg.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the panels chair, said it will hold a virtual meeting Sunday to reach a final decision. It is unclear what charges the committee is considering against the five individuals.

Thompson previously told reporters that the panel would publicly vote on criminal referrals on Dec. 21  the same day that its final report is set to be published.

He has also recently confirmed that at least one person would be referred to the Justice Department.

In its final public hearing in October, the committee voted to subpoena Trump, describing him as a key player in the insurrection, but the former president has not cooperated with the probe.

Meadows has been previously held in contempt of Congress over his decision to stop cooperating with the Jan. 6 committee. He had handed over thousands of text messages and emails after being subpoenaed in September 2021 but then stopped engaging with the panel, prompting the committee to act. The Justice Department ultimately decided against charging him.

Giuliani reportedly sat down for an interview with Jan. 6 members in May, complying with an earlier subpoena for his testimony and documents. The committee has said that Giuliani pushed debunked claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential race and tried to convince state legislators to take steps to overturn the election results. The subpoena also stated that Giuliani was in touch with Trump and congressional lawmakers to find a way to delay or stop the certification of the vote.

Eastman is considered one of the key architects of a fake electors scheme that called for using pro-Trump electors to replace ones for Joe Biden in key battleground states that the now-president won. He was also accused of pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the vote. Eastman was interviewed by the committee and also provided access to hundreds of his emails after a legal fight.

Clark, a former environmental lawyer in the Justice Departments Civil Division, was threatened with criminal contempt of Congress over his refusal to answer questions in an interview with the panel. Clark sat for another deposition in which he pleaded the Fifth Amendment to most of the questions posed to him. The subpoena sent to Clark said he attempted to involve the Department of Justice in efforts to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

----------


## helge

Seems that Trump's old "buddy", Michael Avenatti is going away for 14 years.

Rise and fall of Avenatti- A short story

----------


## S Landreth

After the holidays


Former US attorney predicts DOJ on a path to charge Trump

Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on Sunday predicted the Department of Justice (DOJ) is on a path to charge former President Trump.

In an interview with NBCs Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd, Bharara said a special counsel legal team formed to investigate two criminal cases against Trump includes very seasoned prosecutors who were recruited, in part, to determine if a case can be tried in court.

I dont think they wouldve left their former positions, both in government and private practice, unless there was a serious possibility that the Justice Department was on a path to charge, said Bharara. And I think itll happen in a month.

The DOJ last month named veteran prosecutor Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate a case against Trump involving his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The counsel is also probing the former presidents alleged mishandling of classified documents, including those found during a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate, which some experts have said is the most likely case to head to trial.

Bharara, who formerly worked with the U.S. attorneys office in the Southern District of New York, on Sunday said prosecutors generally do not proceed unless you have a great likelihood of success.

He said any criminal case against Trump would be heavily politicized and historic, so the DOJ has to have all your ducks in a row.

I think you want to have an exceptionally strong case, Bharara said. To show not just the jury in the case but the public at large that it was a righteous case, it was a meritorious case and you have the goods.

----------


## S Landreth

Katie S. Phang - Womp womp. https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/statu...15888715304961



Judge Aileen Cannon Dismisses Donald Trump Mar-a-Lago Case

Trump Lawsuit Seeking the Return of Files Seized from Mar-a-Lago Is Officially Dismissed by Judge Who First Came to Former Presidents Aid

Following a pair of brutal rulings from a federal appeals court, former President Donald Trumps lawsuit seeking the return of thousands of files seized from Mar-a-Lago officially has been dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannons single-page dismissal order has been inevitable since she received the 11th Circuits mandate to close the docket.

Earlier this month, a three-judge panel  comprised of two Trump appointees and one George W. Bush appointee  found that Cannon had no jurisdiction to hear the former presidents lawsuit. Trump sued after the FBI seized tens of thousands of documents from Mar-a-Lago, including more than 200 records marked classified up to Top Secret and above. Search warrant materials indicate that the authorities suspect possible violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, and concealment and removal of government records.

----------


## S Landreth

Special counsel subpoenas secretaries of state in Georgia, New Mexico 

Special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed the secretary of state's offices in Georgia and New Mexico for communications with or involving former President Donald Trump, his 2020 campaign aides, and a list of Trump allies involved in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

As ABC News has previously reported, Smith has also sent subpoenas to the secretary of state's offices in Michigan and Arizona and to local election officials in Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin -- battleground states targeted by Trump and his allies in their efforts to contest the election.

The subpoena sent to New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, which was obtained by ABC News, is dated November 22 and is also signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Burke.

Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, was the recipient of Trump's now-famous phone call in January 2021, in which has asked Raffensperger to "find" the exact number of votes he needed to win the state. Trump has repeatedly defended the call, calling it "perfect."

Smith, a longtime federal prosecutor and former head of the Justice Department's public integrity section, was tapped last month by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the DOJ's investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election and Trump's handling of classified materials after leaving office.

----------


## S Landreth

Rudy Giuliani Reportedly Failed To ‘Answer Basic Questions’ At His Misconduct Hearing

Rudy Giuliani allegedly lost his composure last week while appearing as the first witness in his own attorney-misconduct hearing. As reported by Business Insider, the former New York City mayor, 78, seemed unable to answer simple and straightforward questions from the opposing counsel, and frequently “veered off course.”

What Does The Ethics Case Entail?

The ethics case in question was brought by the Washington DC bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and focuses on the politician’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in Pennsylvania. This was when Giuliani was the personal attorney of then-President Donald Trump.

The office alleges that Giuliani filed a “frivolous” lawsuit and sought out to nullify Pennsylvania’s presidential-election results. Giuliani’s claims of widespread voter fraud, the office alleges, occurred despite “no factual or legal basis.”

Giuliani ultimately violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct by filing this lawsuit, according to the office, and he also “engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

Snip

And Fox wasn't alone, as Robert Bernius, a retired lawyer who presided over the hearings, also apparently "tried multiple times" to bring Giuliani back to the actual matter at hand. "Mr. Giuliani, I understand your frustration, but this is not the point at which you should argue your claims," he said. "Just answer the questions. Thank you."

Earlier in the day, Bernius also interrupted another "long-winded rant" from Giuliani to remind him yet again that his purpose for the day was to testify as a witness. Giuliani then said he had been "persecuted for three or more years" and that his actions were somehow taken out of context. "You've been a trial lawyer for a long time, and you understand how the process works," Bernius noted. "The process is regularized."

Rudy Giuliani D.C. Law-License Hearing: His 5 Worst Excuses

----------


## Loy Toy

He is just as bad as Trump.

Giuliani must go down as one of the most corrupt cretins in the history of American politics.

No wonder he and Trump gelled so well.

----------


## Norton

To my mind the prick far worse than Trump.

----------


## Loy Toy

He is a Rudy Bastard.  :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and special counsel Jack Smith have been asked to investigate attorneys for former President Donald Trump for a possible multi-state "plot" to copy voting machine data.

In a letter on Monday, over a dozen election experts told members of the DOJ that attorneys for Trump may have taken actions that "constitute federal crimes and be relevant to investigations into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election."

"Specifically, we are writing regarding the multi-state plan, directed and funded by attorneys for Donald Trumpincluding Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and Jesse Binnallto access voting systems and obtain and distribute copies of voting system software unlawfully," the letter said.

Trump attorneys implicated in multi-state 'plot' to copy voting machine data - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

----------


## S Landreth

Jan. 6 panel to release criminal referrals Monday

The committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold its final event on Monday, during which it will release publicly its list of criminal referrals and vote to publish its final report two days later.

Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters Tuesday that the committee has escalated its timeline for a public-facing event that will cap its more than yearlong investigation.

We looked at the schedule, and it appears we can complete our work a little bit before that. So why not get it to the public as quick as we can, he said.

Thompson said they have still not finalized the referrals but are considering five or six categories, with the committee flagging behavior for entities such as the Justice Department, the House Ethics Committee, and professional associations including different bar associations.

Some referrals go one place, some go another, he said.

While the committees final meeting was set to be Dec. 21, the panel will instead release its final report that day.

----------


## Norton

> While the committee’s final meeting was set to be Dec. 21, the panel will instead release its final report that day.


Yep. Make it public before the GOP gets control.

----------


## harrybarracuda

The orange turd is still desperately trying to stay relevant...




> Former President Donald Trump's mysterious "major announcement" is sparking speculation over what he may be preparing to publicize later this week.
> On Wednesday, Trump posted a video on his Truth Social account with the caption, "AMERICA NEEDS A SUPERHERO! I will be making a MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT tomorrow. Thank you!"

----------


## S Landreth

Kinzinger says Trump absolutely guilty of crimes ahead of Jan. 6

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said Wednesday that former President Trump is absolutely guilty of a crime surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

I think hes guilty of a crime. I mean, look, he knew what he did. Weve made that clear. He knew what was happening prior to January 6th. He pressured the Justice Department officials to say, Hey, just say the election was stolen and leave the rest to me. And then the Republicans all need to put the stamp of approval on it, Kinzinger told CNNs Jake Tapper on The Lead.

The outgoing Republican lawmaker, a member of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, highlighted the 187 minutes between the start of the riot and Trumps eventual attempt to diffuse tensions by telling rioters in a video to go home.

I think he is absolutely guilty. If he is not guilty of some kind of a crime, I mean, what weve basically said is presidents are above the law and they can do everything short of a coup as long as it doesnt succeed, Kinzinger said, though he gave the caveat that, even as a member of the Jan. 6 panel, he doesnt have the DOJs power to press charges.

Calling Trump indecisive to excuse his inactivity during that period would be probably complementary to him, Kinzinger said. 

He was actively resisting pressure from his family and from his staff to stop that from happening. And when he finally saw that law enforcement had turned the tide and that the occupation wasnt going to succeed, only then did he typically come out, he said.

As the next Congress approaches, the Jan. 6 committee is readying to release its much-anticipated final report, a culmination of the long investigation into the Capitol riots.

The panel is reportedly considering making criminal referrals for Trump and at least four others to the DOJ.

----------


## harrybarracuda

FFS

 :smiley laughing: 




> Former President Donald Trump declared on Wednesday that he would make a "MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT" the following day, but the big announcement on Thursday apparently turned out to be the sale of collectible digital trading cards.
> "AMERICA NEEDS A SUPERHERO! I will be making a MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT tomorrow. Thank you!" Trump had posted Wednesday on Truth Social — an accompanying video featured an animation of a muscular Trump figure with lasers coming out of his eyes.
> But after hyping the upcoming announcement, Trump revealed on Thursday that the big surprise is that people can purchase collectible digital cards for $99 each.
> "MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT! My official Donald Trump Digital Trading Card collection is here!" Trump declared in a post on Truth Social. "Collect all of your favorite Trump Digital Trading Cards, very much like a baseball card, but hopefully much more exciting," the post said. "Would make a great Christmas gift. Don’t Wait. They will be gone, I believe, very quickly!"


Even The Blaze sounds less than enthusiastic.

Trump pledged major announcement, revealed digital cards - TheBlaze

----------


## harrybarracuda

Christ on a fucking bike... The raffle prizes....

 :smiley laughing: 


CollectTrumpCards | Donald Trump Digital Trading Card NFTs

----------


## S Landreth

D.C. bar panel finds Giuliani violated attorney rules in bid to overturn 2020 election

A bar discipline committee in Washington, D.C., has concluded that Rudy Giuliani violated at least one professional rule in his efforts to help former President Donald Trump challenge the results of the 2020 election  a preliminary finding that could result in the suspension or loss of his law license.

The three-member disciplinary committee agreed that Giulianis handling of litigation in Pennsylvania crossed ethical lines. Their finding came after a week of testimony by Giuliani  who said Trump waived attorney-client privilege to permit him to testify  and some of his allies, including Trump advisers Bernie Kerik, Christina Bobb and Corey Lewandowski.

Mr. Giuliani has testified on several occasions that he believes there was a conspiracy, said D.C. Bar counsel Phil Fox, who investigated and argued the case for Giulianis punishment. There was a conspiracy, and he was the head of it.

Foxs case relied on Giulianis rushed effort to file lawsuits to throw out hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania votes without any direct evidence of election fraud. Giuliani testified about his hurried drive to Pennsylvania on Nov. 4 in a car with former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to challenge the Pennsylvania election results and to begin spreading discredited claims that the election had been stolen.

Fox said the panel should disbar Giuliani for his conduct.

I think the harm that was done is unprecedented, Fox said. The only sanction thats appropriate for this kind of misconduct is disbarment.

Fox and Giuliani will now submit written submissions that the committee will consider before issuing a final finding.

Giuliani contended that his efforts were extraordinarily rushed because of the narrow time frames required in litigating election challenges. He described efforts to obtain affidavits and evidence of election fraud.

After the presentations concluded, Giuliani launched into an extended and furious defense of his conduct, even as his lawyer tried to stop him from speaking.

It is a typical, unethical, cheap attack, Giuliani said of Foxs presentation, reiterating his contention that theres a legitimate case that the 2020 election was stolen. Ill put my work on democracy  up against Mr. Fox and anyone else. For that man to engage in that kind of a personal attack when there was no record of that, and for you to allow him to do that, I consider an outrage.

I dont know what has happened to the defense of lawyers who take on unpopular causes, Giuliani continued.

Giuliani and his lawyers raised repeated frustrations with their inability to respond to the specific charges against him because the committee didnt immediately reveal which professional rules it considers him to have violated.

How can we respond? wondered John Leventhal, Giulianis attorney, after the panel revealed its finding.

The disciplinary committee noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit imposes a six-part test for determining whether an attorney should be disbarred, and they noted that an attorney who sued a dry cleaner for $90 million over a lost pair of pants received a 90-day suspension of his law license.

But Fox said that case paled in comparison to Giulianis efforts to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.

I dont think that the comparison of an extremely frivolous complaint over a pair of pants against a dry cleaner compares with violating the basic oath we all take to support the constitution and to try to undermine the legitimacy of the election, Fox said.

Leventhal argued that Giulianis long history of service in the Justice Department and as New York City mayor during the 9/11 attacks and aftermath are worth factoring into his discipline.

Why not treat Mr. Giuliani like any other lawyer, Leventhal said.

----------


## S Landreth

Looking ahead to next week. Monday and Tuesday, could be a bad start for the failed former short-term occupant of the white house.

*Monday* –

January 6 panel considering Trump referral to justice department for obstruction of Congress 

The House January 6 select committee is considering a criminal referral to the justice department against Donald Trump for obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress and conspiracy to defraud the United States on the recommendation of a special subcommittee, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The recommendations on the former president – made by the subcommittee examining referrals – were based on renewed examinations of the evidence that indicated Trump’s attempts to impede the certification of the 2020 election results amounted to potential crimes.

*Tuesday* –

Trump Tax Returns May Be Released After House Panel Meets Tuesday

The House Ways and Means Committee scheduled a closed-door meeting for Tuesday at which lawmakers are likely to review former President Donald Trump’s tax returns and may vote to release some of them.

----------


## harrybarracuda

What a pointless exercise if all they can do is a bit of "urging".

As pointless as all those Benghazi investigations.




> The US House Select Committee investigating the Capitol riots is preparing to vote on urging the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against former President Donald Trump, according to US media reports.
> 
> 
> The charges proposed for Mr Trump include insurrection, Politico reported on Friday, citing two unidentified people familiar with the matter.
> 
> 
> House committee investigating Capitol riots to vote on recommending criminal charges be pursued against Donald Trump, reports | US News | Sky News

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Organization ‘willfully’ hindered probe, hit with secret contempt finding

Donald Trump’s company impeded a grand jury investigation last year by repeatedly failing to turn over evidence in a timely fashion, leading to a secret contempt finding and a $4,000 fine, according to court records made public Tuesday.

The Trump Organization was found to have been “willfully disobeying” four grand jury subpoenas and three court orders, to the detriment of Manhattan prosecutors who were left ill-prepared to question witnesses, Judge Juan Manuel Merchan ruled.

The subpoenas, issued in March, April, May and June 2021, preceded the Trump Organization’s July 2021 indictment on criminal tax fraud charges for helping executives avoid taxes on company-paid perks. The company was convicted this month and faces a fine of up to $1.6 million.

The $4,000 contempt fine was the maximum allowable by law.

It’s yet another kerfuffle involving Trump and allegations of mishandling or withholding records. In April, a judge held Trump in contempt and fined him $110,000 for being slow to respond to a civil subpoena issued by New York’s attorney general. The former president has also been under investigation for storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Merchan vaguely referenced the Trump Organization’s contempt proceeding while presiding over the company’s criminal trial, saying he would wait until after it was over to unseal records related to an unspecified proceeding held last year.

That proceeding turned out to be the Trump Organization’s closed-door contempt trial on Oct. 7, 2021 and Merchan’s partially redacted 28-page ruling finding the company in contempt, which he issued on Dec. 8, 2021.

While the company’s name was blacked out in the court record released Tuesday, the details in the decision and the manner in which it was unsealed by the judge made it clear who was involved.

Manhattan prosecutors, frustrated with the company’s lack of compliance, had sought “coercive sanctions” of $60,000 per day, Merchan said.

Trump Organization lawyers argued that the company had been providing a steady stream of records, at one point totaling more than 3.5 million pages of records, but Merchan said that was “just enough to fend off” the prosecution’s request for penalties “while never fully meeting any of the deadlines.”

“When challenged (the company) provided one excuse after another,” Merchan wrote. “At times it claimed it was impossible to meet deadlines because the demands were too voluminous, overbroad or vague. On other occasions, it blamed delays and omissions on human error” or technical issues.

In the recently concluded criminal tax fraud trial, two corporate entities at the Trump Organization were convicted Dec. 6 of charges including charges of conspiracy and falsifying business records. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 13.

----------


## Bonecollector

Didn't Rudy take on the mafia and clean up NY?

----------


## Topper

I think it's a very uncool thing to do to release trump's tax info just because they can unless there's heavy debt to Russia or the North Koreans.

----------


## thailazer

> Christ on a fucking bike... The raffle prizes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CollectTrumpCards | Donald Trump Digital Trading Card NFTs


He's short on brains, not on ego....

----------


## nidhogg

^^^^. $4,000 ? That will learn him.

Not.

----------


## S Landreth

^that was filler


Judge unseals new details of contacts among Rep. Perry, Trump-connected attorneys 

A federal judge revealed Friday that earlier this year she granted Justice Department investigators access to emails between three Trump-connected attorneys and Rep. Scott Perry as part of the federal investigation into election subversion efforts by the former president and others.

At the request of DOJ, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell unsealed a June opinion in which she determined that 37 emails sent among Trump-era Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, his aide Ken Klukowski and conservative attorney John Eastman and Perry (R-Pa.)  another top Donald Trump ally who chairs the House Freedom Caucus  were not protected by attorney-client privilege.

Notably, Howell indicated in her opinion that investigators had prioritized accessing any emails sent to or from Perrys account.

Howell also unsealed a second opinion, issued in September, in which she determined that 331 documents from Clark  whom Trump nearly installed as acting attorney general as part of his bid to seize a second term  were similarly not protected by attorney-client privilege.

The documents were largely versions of a potential autobiography Clark had outlined in mid-October 2021, writing that recounted a bizarre effort to have Trump install him as acting attorney general in order to get more traction to overturn Joe Bidens 2020 victory. The outline included a description of a pivotal Jan. 3, 2021, meeting between Trump and senior DOJ officials where almost the entire top echelon of the department threatened to resign if the then-president put Clark in charge.

Clarks legal team waded into the fight over the apparent book outline. But Howell seemed to disapprove of aspects of the approach Clarks lawyers took to the document dispute, describing their strategy at one point as throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

The information revealed in the opinions is the most significant insight yet into what prosecutors are doing with evidence they have obtained in their review of figures associated with Trumps quest to remain in power despite losing reelection.

FBI agents seized Eastmans phone in June, the same week they searched Clarks home. Perrys phone was also seized by FBI agents in August. Eastman lost a legal bid to reclaim his phone, and Perry, who mounted a similar effort, quickly dropped it.

The judges June order appears to have been issued without the involvement of Clark, Klukowski, Eastman or Perry and was based on filings from a filter team that DOJ set up to handle the potentially sensitive information.

Howells opinion indicated that the filter team, set up to vet any seized communications for potential attorney-client privilege, had reviewed 130,000 documents for attorney-client and attorney work-product privilege.

According to Howells opinion, the filter team flagged three exchanges between Eastman and Perry that occurred between Dec. 11 to Dec. 13, 2020. But she described them as nonsubstantive and said they merely referenced a phone call.

The filter team also flagged three emails between Klukowski and Perry as well  including one on Nov. 11, 2020, in which Klukowski attached a document titled Electors Clause/The Legislature option. The judge said the emails were non-substantive and did not implicate attorney-client privilege.

In addition, the filter team flagged 19 exchanges between Clark and Perry, including a batch that occurred between June and October 2020, a second batch that occurred just after Bidens 2021 inauguration and a third batch that came in February 2021.

Rachel Semmel, a spokeswoman for the Center for Renewing America, where Clark is the director of litigation, attacked the unexpected release of the grand jury materials.

Just to show how desperate they are, the Friday before Christmas when nobody is paying attention, they uncover an essay on how the communists are taking over  a foreshadowing of what the Justice Department and the J6 committee are doing now, and articles on how Bidens global warming plan is going to destroy the economy  its hard to take these guys seriously, she said.

----------


## S Landreth

> I think it's a very uncool thing to do to release trump's tax info just because they can unless there's heavy debt to Russia or the North Koreans.


Or maybe other tax fraud evidence?

----------


## S Landreth

Jan. 6 committee finalizes criminal referral plan for Trump

The House Jan. 6 committee met Sunday to finalize its plans to issue at least three criminal referrals for former President Donald Trump, NBC News has learned exclusively.

The committee, gathering publicly Monday, is expected to vote on referrals asking the Justice Department to pursue at least three criminal charges against Trump related to the Capitol riot: obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the government and inciting or assisting an insurrection.

Schiff: "Evidence is there" that Trump committed criminal offenses

----------


## Topper

> Or maybe other tax fraud evidence?


If there's tax fraud, you'd think by now the IRS would have caught it.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> If there's tax fraud, you'd think by now the IRS would have caught it.


They can't pin it on him because he's always got people to take the fall for him.

Probably a lesson he learned from daddy.

----------


## S Landreth

^says a school girl and the PB of speakers corner 




> If there's tax fraud, you'd think by now the IRS would have caught it.


There are only so many auditors.

You open those files to the general public (and tax accountants) somebody might find something that has been overlooked. Remember what he has said before about not paying taxes 'That makes me smart'.

___________


Letitia James: Trump Wants to 'End-Run' Fraud Suit in Fla.

New York Attorney General Asks Federal Judge in Florida to Dismiss Donald Trumps Attempt to End-Run New York Fraud Suit

New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a federal judge in Florida to reject former President Donald Trumps second attempt to end-run her fraud lawsuit against him in Manhattan.

This action is Mr. Trumps second improper attempt to collaterally attack and end-run around rulings that have been issued by the presiding judge in the New York proceedings, Justice Arthur Engoron, the AGs assistant wrote in a 23-page motion to dismiss.

Engoron, who once found Trump in contempt of court for defiance of a subpoena, presided over the years long fraud investigation and currently presides over the lawsuit it produced. James accuses Trump, his adult children and his business of having engaged in pervasive fraud, over the course of roughly a decade.

James notes that the Trump filed his first such attempt one year ago in a federal court in upstate New York, before the attorney general filed her lawsuit but during the height of her investigation. Trump claimed that the Democratic attorney generals probe was politically motivated, but a federal judge dismissed that case, finding no reason for a federal court to interfere with state proceedings.

This second attempt to evade the New York proceedings and Justice Engorons authority should meet the same fate for many, independent reasons, the motion states.

She argued that a federal judge in Florida has no jurisdiction over a New York attorney general.

Under the Supreme Courts Rooker-Feldman precedent, James says, Trump has no jurisdiction as a state-court loser seeking to collaterally attack the courts final, appealable orders.

Trumps claim that the fraud lawsuit was politically motivated repeatedly flopped in court, James noted.

A Manhattan jury recently convicted the Trump Organization of a 13-year tax fraud scheme, after hearing testimony by its former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty to the crime.

Jamess suit is civil in nature, and it seeks to bar Trump or his children from serving as an officer or director in any New York corporation. She says that effort should meet no resistance from a federal court in the Sunshine State.

Simply put, this case should be dismissed, with prejudice, the motion states.

Toward the conclusion, she adds that the court should impose  any other relief the Court deems necessary and appropriate beyond permanent dismissal.

DocumentCloud

----------


## Loy Toy

The ironic twist to all this ballyhoo is that Trump sees this as a game and without doubt enjoys it.

The sad twist is the American taxpayer is paying for this merry-go-round of accusations and denials with hundreds of highly paid people involved.

If all charges were dropped I expect Trump would be livid as all this free exposure to the American people would be lost.

----------


## S Landreth

Jan. 6 committee unveils criminal referrals against Trump

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol unveiled criminal referrals on Monday targeting former President Trump, recommending that the Department of Justice investigate the ex-president for inciting an insurrection, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement and obstruction of an official proceeding.

The referrals mark the culmination of the committee’s 18-month probe of the Jan. 6 attack and the role Trump played before, during and after the riot. They are a crescendo in the panel’s central case that Trump was at the center of a conspiracy to keep himself in power.

Investigators on the committee said they decided on criminal referrals against Trump based on sufficient evidence showing that he violated various statutes: inciting, assisting, or aiding and comforting an insurrection; obstructing an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and other conspiracy statutes.

The recommendations themselves, however, are largely symbolic, as the Department of Justice is not required to look into referrals from congressional committees. They also come as the agency is conducting its own investigation into the Capitol riot that was recently put under the purview of an independent special counsel.

Read: Jan. 6 panel report executive summary

_________





Another source.....

Jan. 6 panel refers Trump on criminal charges

The Jan. 6 panel voted Monday to refer former President Trump to the Department of Justice on at least four criminal charges, including insurrection and obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress.

*Why it matters:* In an unprecedented move, the congressional committee voted unanimously that the former president committed crimes for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

*Driving the news:* The panel referred Trump, who has announced he's running for president in 2024, on charges of obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make a false statement and "incite," "assist" or "aid or comfort" an insurrection.


"The committee has developed significant evidence that President Trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transition of power under our constitution," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said.The panel also announced Monday the referral of criminal charges against former Trump lawyer John Eastman for his efforts to disrupt the 2020 election.Eastman, with Trump, pushed a theory that Vice President Mike Pence could unilaterally reject electors."We believe that the evidence described by my colleagues today and assembled throughout our hearings warrants a criminal referral of former president Donald J. Trump, John Eastman and others," Raskin said.The referrals are non-binding and do not require the DOJ to take any additional action.

*The big picture:* The panel on Monday also voted to refer House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and three other House Republicans to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the panel's subpoenas.


A partial copy of the panel's report charges McCarthy, along with Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), with violating House rules requiring members to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."The panel also voted to approve its sprawling final report, which will include legislative recommendations and focus on additional evidence on Trump's role on Jan. 6.

*What they're saying:* When asked about the referrals during a news conference Monday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre didn't specifically comment but said President Biden believes our "democracy is still under threat" and called the Jan. 6 insurrection the "worst attack on our democracy since the civil war."


She reiterated that the committee "has been doing important bipartisan work to get to the truth of what happened" that day.

*Zoom out:* Monday's public meeting is likely the last public session for the committee, as it will dissolve at the end of the current Congressional session.


The panel over the last 18 months has reviewed droves of evidence and conducted hundreds of interviews to glean insight into what happened that deadly day.

Read the Introductory Material to the Final Report of the Select Committee below.: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-committee.pdf

----------


## Norton

> The referrals are non-binding and do not require the DOJ to take any additional action


Publication of this final report coupled with evidence the DOJ currently has may convince the DOJ to charge Trump but unless the DOJ is damn sure they have a winable case, no charges will come of this.

----------


## S Landreth

If it doesn’t convince the DOJ, which I think it will, it could convince/remind some voters what a fvckin’ danger trump is to the US

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

If no charges are brought up against this man . It would IMO be the final nail in the illusion we call American democracy.
Not only because it would make obvious to all,the different set of justice between the haves and have not.
But it would also signal to the rest of the "players' the shit they can get away with. 
If that is so, how long do you think it will be before another one of the gives it a try?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> If no charges are brought up against this man . It would IMO be the final nail in the illusion we call American democracy.
> Not only because it would make obvious to all,the different set of justice between the haves and have not.
> But it would also signal to the rest of the "players' the shit they can get away with. 
> If that is so, how long do you think it will be before another one of the gives it a try?


The problem is that they're frightened of agitating the trumpanzees.

There are a lot of armed, undiagnosed mental patients that hang on his every tweet, and only a few are in prison.

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> The problem is that they're frightened of agitating the trumpanzees
> 
> There are a lot of armed, undiagnosed mental patients that hang on his every tweet, and only a few are in prison.


Plenty of prisons, and last I checked the US goverment is better armed. 
The problem is that there will always be trumpazees. Perhaps by a different name , but just the same.
Unfortunately our leaders in DC have forgotten what a leader is.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Plenty of prisons, and last I checked the US goverment is better armed.


Yes, think that through though.

----------


## S Landreth

Today. Trump's tax returns to be discussed by congressional panel

The Democratic-controlled House Ways and Means Committee is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to publicly release years of Donald Trump's tax returns, which the former president has long tried to shield.

Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has kept a close hold on the panel's actions, including whether the panel will meet in a public or private session. And if lawmakers move forward with plans to release the returns, it's unclear how quickly that would happen.

But after a yearslong battle that ultimately resulted in the Supreme Court clearing the way last month for the Treasury Department to send the returns to Congress, Democrats are under pressure to act aggressively. The committee received six years of tax returns for Trump and some of his businesses. And with just two weeks left until Republicans formally take control of the House, Tuesday's meeting could be the last opportunity for Democrats to disclose whatever information they have gleaned.

_____________


Trump encourages supporters to dismiss news about his taxes

After a rant attacking Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), former President Donald Trump told his supporters that they should ignore news about his taxes.

It's been mere weeks since Trump's companies were found guilty of 17 counts of fraud, and his longtime accountant is headed to prison. Congress has fought for years to get ahold of Trump's business information as part of the House Reform and Oversight's investigation into any possible emoluments violations. They've been given documents from the Trump Org. hotel in Washington, D.C., that revealed some of the profits the president scored from foreign governments on and around major points in policy moves by the White House.

The tax information requested in this case, however, is part of a probe by the House Ways and Means Committee. In their Tuesday meeting, the committee will vote on whether to make the six years of tax records public, as an act of transparency.

Nearly four years ago, the Ways and Means Committee set out to fulfill our legislative and oversight responsibilities, and evaluate the Internal Revenue Services mandatory audit program, said Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) in a statement. As affirmed by the Supreme Court, the law was on our side, and on Tuesday, I will update the members of the committee.

Trump spent most of the 2016 campaign saying that he was under an audit by the IRS and thus couldn't turn over his taxes. Nothing in the IRS's law says that he couldn't reveal his financial information. All presidents in modern history have revealed their taxes to voters to demonstrate transparency. Trump refused, even after the audit was over.

Now that the former president has lost almost all of his appeals and his attempt at a "stay," the information is being sent to the House committee. It's unclear how swiftly the documents will be leaked, but Trump believes that they'll be publicly posted. He encouraged his supporters to dismiss the information because there wouldn't be that much information in them. After claiming they were no big deal he threatened that it was illegal to release them.

"You cant learn much from tax returns, but it is illegal to release them if they are not yours!" Trump wrote on his social media site.

 :Smile: 

____________

In other news........

Outrage after the January 6 committee announced criminal referrals against former President Donald. Trump responded to the referrals on Truth Social........

What doesn't kill me makes me stronger.

Wonder if the loser understands the difference between a kill shot and a vital organ shot.

----------


## S Landreth

House Committee votes to release Trump’s tax returns

 

House committee votes to release Donald Trump tax records

A congressional committee has voted to release Donald Trump’s previously confidential tax returns, in a move that could shed new light on the former president’s finances following a years-long legal stand-off.

The House ways and means committee made the move on Tuesday after meeting in closed session, just days before Republicans are due to regain control of the House of Representatives following the midterm elections.

Trump has long refused to publish his tax returns even though it has become a common practice for sitting presidents and presidential candidates. Democrats had sought to gain access to his tax records from the IRS since winning the majority in the House in 2018, but had been unable to do until late this year when the Supreme Court ruled that the committee could obtain them.

The public release of Trump’s tax returns comes after the House committee investigating the January 6 2021 attack on the US Capitol recommended to the Department of Justice that it should criminally charge him for aiding the insurrection, in another big blow to the former president.

----------


## S Landreth

After the vote last night, a house member was talking to reporters and he said 3 years of returns they had were never audited although they should have been. The IRS budget has been recently restored which should help with the cuts (20%) that were made over the prior years.

__________


House committee will release years of Trump's tax returns

The Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee voted Tuesday to publicly release six years of former President Trump's tax returns.

*Why it matters:* The returns will give new details on the former president's personal finances that he for years tried to block  and come as he seeks another White House bid and is entangled in a number of separate investigations.

*Driving the news:* It's not immediately clear how quickly the House committee might release the returns, which would provide details on some of his tax payments, financial obligations and donations to charity.


Republicans on the committee are expected to push back firmly against the Democrats' decision, raising concerns about what the release may mean for future politicians and other Americans, CNN reports.

*The big picture:* The vote came after a yearslong feud between the former president and Democratic lawmakers over the tax returns, which reached a fever pitch last month when the issue went to the Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court ruled against Trump, paving the way for the House committee to gain access to the tax returns after it denied Trump's emergency application.The committee has for years tried to gain access to the tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service as part of an investigation into the service's presidential audit program.House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.) asked for access to six years of Trump's tax returns and some of his businesses.

*What they're saying:* House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement committee's work "has revealed the urgent need for legislation to ensure the public can trust in real accountability and transparency during the audit of a sitting president's tax returns  not only in the case of President Trump, but for any president."

*Rep. Bill Pascrell* (D-N.J.), who chairs the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, said in a statement called the planned release "a triumph" for the idea that "no one person is above the law."


"For six long years we fought to release these documents because Americans deserve to know if their chief executive is compromised," Pascrell said.He said he "categorically" rejects GOP backlash, accusing Republican lawmakers of hypocrisy."Congress is the Article I branch. Our power to oversee the executive is broad. That power was illegally stymied by Trump and his adjutants for years," Pascrell said.

*The other side:* Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump, in a statement to Newsweek said the panel's actions represented an "unprecedented leak" that was "proof" that Democrats "are playing a political game they are losing."


"If they are so hell-bent on releasing President Trump's tax returns  which show he built a very successful business and created numerous lucrative assets throughout his career  they should release the tax returns of Nancy Pelosi," Cheung added.

*Meanwhile,* Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement to media outlets, "Democrats will open the door for partisans in Congress to have nearly unlimited power to target political enemies by obtaining and making public their private tax returns."

*Between the lines:* The Democratic-led committee was up against a deadline  the new Republican House majority could've thrown out the investigation in the next Congress.

*Zoom out:* The Jan. 6 select committee referred Trump on Monday to the Department of Justice on at least four criminal charges for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.


The Jan. 6 committee is expected Wednesday to release its sprawling report, which will include transcripts and additional evidence on Trump's role in the violence that day.

----------


## Norton

> The Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee voted Tuesday to publicly release six years of former President Trump's tax returns.


As much as I would like to see the lying prick in jail, I disagree re public release. The IRS has the power to audit and investigate through their Criminal Investigation Division. If they find criminal activity they pass on to DOJ to prosecute.

Let the system do it's job.

----------


## S Landreth

^did you miss this?  :Smile: 




> After the vote last night, a house member was talking to reporters and he said 3 years of returns they had were never audited although they should have been. The IRS budget has been recently restored which should help with the cuts (20%) that were made over the prior years.

----------


## Norton

> ^did you miss this?


No I didn't and this brings up a whole other issue. Did Trump use his position to influence auditors to leave his returns alone. Probably but not really a justification to publically release returns.

----------


## S Landreth

^While listening to reporters yesterday Trump could be on the hook for 110 million in penalties for just one year of returns. Later after the vote a house member explained there were not enough auditors of the caliber needed to go over the returns (thoroughly) as needed in the department.

I have no doubt that if the IRS had the personnel, some of trumps returns would have been flagged.

We have a right to know if we want to elect a tax cheat to the highest office in the states and why tax returns should be released if youre going to run for that office.

----------


## Norton

> We have a right to know if we want to elect a tax cheat to the highest office in the states and why tax returns should be released if you’re going to run for that office.


Agree and all modern presidents have volutarily released their tax returns as a common practice. Should be a law that requires all presidential candidates to release theirs.

I have a fundamental problem giving the government the power to publically release anyones tax returns.

----------


## Topper

> I have a fundamental problem giving the government the power to publically release anyones tax returns.


I concur, sir.

----------


## S Landreth

E. Jean Carroll Described Trump's Alleged Rape Of Her In A Court Deposition

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll revealed details of the moment Donald Trump allegedly raped her in a dressing room in the 1990s, saying in a pretrial deposition it initially left her so stunned she didn't know what to say.

"I was so shocked that I didn't speak. What I did was I laughed," Carroll, 79, said, describing how her disbelief left her at a loss for words.

Carroll first publicly accused Trump in 2019, alleging in her book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, that he'd raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1995 or 1996. The allegations first became public when an excerpt of the book was published on the Cut.

Trump not only denied Carroll's allegations but claimed he had "never met that person in my life," and suggested she was lying to boost sales of her book. He claimed she was also lying about being sexually assaulted by Les Moonves, the disgraced former CEO of CBS who was accused of sexual misconduct by more than a dozen women, and insinuated she wasn't attractive enough for the incident to have occurred, saying in an interview with the Hill "shes not my type."

Carroll is suing Trump for defamation in a federal court in Manhattan, arguing he "smeared her integrity, honesty, and dignity" in his denial of the allegations, the lawsuit states. She filed an additional lawsuit in November, suing Trump for the alleged assault under New York's Adult Survivors Act.

She was deposed by Trump's attorney Alina Habba in October, and her legal team released a portion of the transcript on Tuesday. Trump was also deposed in October, but that transcript has not been made public.

In her deposition, Carroll said she ran into Trump that day when she was leaving the Manhattan department store and he was walking in. He recognized her, she said, and asked for her help in picking out a gift for an unnamed woman.

"He said, 'Hey, you're that advice lady,'" Carroll said, "And then he said, 'Come help me buy a present.'"

She said she was "delighted" to help Trump, who she was aware of as a "real estate tycoon" and prominent figure in the "New York scene," and saw the task as her "duty" as an advice columnist.

The two perused handbags and hats at Carroll's suggestion, she said, but Trump was not interested in them. He then asked her age, she said, and she told him she was 52.

"He said, 'You're so old,'" she recalled Trump, then 49 or 50, replying. She could not remember how she responded, "but I hope it was something saucy," she said.

Then, Trump allegedly suggested they look at the lingerie section. The two took the escalator up several flights to get there and found the floor empty of any people besides themselves.

Trump picked up a lace bodysuit, Carroll said, and told her to try it on. "'You put it on, it's your color,'" she said she responded, initially thinking they were just joking around.

"He took my arm and he said, 'Let's go put this on,' and I started laughing because I'm thinking to myself, This is hilarious, I'm going to make him put it on over his pants," Carroll said. "That's my plan. And then after I make him put it on over his pants I'm going to have a story that I can tell my friends at dinner."

Trump gestured for her to step into the dressing room, she said, and then slammed the door closed, "lunged" at her, and "immediately pushed me up against the wall so hard that I banged my head."

Carroll was so shocked she could only laugh, a reaction she explained was her "trying to recapture the camaraderie we had" and "trying to reduce any eroticism" from the interaction.

It was at this point that the seriousness of the situation dawned on Carroll, she said, realizing she was being attacked by a man she estimated was 100 pounds heavier than her. Asked about Trump's demeanor at that moment, Carroll described it simply as "intent."

"Now I understood that ... this is a battle, and he pulled down my tights," Carroll said, saying she then "felt his fingers rummaging around my vagina."

"At one point I remember saying, This is Donald Trump, what the heck is going on?" she said. "And then I felt his penis inside of me."

The whole incident was "very brief," Carroll said, as she was quickly able to push him off of her and escape.

It was more than 20 years after the alleged incident that Carroll first spoke publicly about it, a choice she said came from knowing how sexual assault victims are often treated.

"Women who have been raped are looked at in this society as less, are looked at as spoiled goods, are looked at as rather dumb to let themselves get attacked," she said. "I mean, even you have to say, 'Did you scream?'"

Since that day, Carroll said she has not had sex, which she said might be due to "what happened at Bergdorf's." It felt as if "the light had gone out" of her, she said.

"In New York, [if] there's a taxi and if the light is on it means it's available, wants to meet people," she said. "I didn't have that. My light was gone."

Trump's smears of her have "totally affected" her life, she said. Months after making her allegations, she lost her job at Elle magazine, where she'd written a monthly column for 26 years. The magazine claimed it was a "business decision and had nothing to do with politics," but offered no further explanation.

"I'm looked at as a woman who's untrustworthy, looked at now as a woman who can't be believed," Carroll said in her deposition. "I'm looked at as a woman who was stupid and dumb enough to have happen to her what happened to her."

___________

*In other news.*


Trump lawyers target Adult Survivors Act in attempt to invalidate rape lawsuit

A lawyer for Donald Trump said Wednesday he will try to dismiss a lawsuit by a woman alleging the former president raped her in the 1990s by arguing New Yorks Adult Survivors Act is unconstitutional, but a judge suggested he is not inclined to throw out the case.

Lawyers appeared in federal court in Manhattan in a lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, a writer who says that Trump raped her in a Manhattan department store decades ago. She brought a new suit against Trump after New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, which gives victims of sexual assault two years to sue over past assaults that would previously have been barred by the statute of limitations.

Theres a serious question here as to whether the Adult Survivors Act is constitutional, said Trumps lawyer, Michael T. Madaio.

When the defense attorney mentioned a motion to get the case dismissed, Judge Lewis Kaplan responded, I wouldnt count on that.




> I wouldnt count on that.


  :Smile:

----------


## Buckaroo Banzai

> No I didn't and this brings up a whole other issue. Did Trump use his position to influence auditors to leave his returns alone. Probably but not really a justification to publically release returns.


Someone seems to have done.

" IRS was ‘asleep at the wheel’ for failing to audit Trump tax returns, Senate Finance chair says"

"“_The presidential audit program is broken,” Wyden said in a statement vowing to work to pass legislation to reform that decades-old program._
_His assessment came after the House Ways and Means Committee reported that the IRS had only started one mandatory audit of Trump’s personal income tax returns during his four years in the White House — even though the agency’s rules required annual audits of the president’s tax returns._ "
IRS should have audited Trump tax returns, Senate Finance chair says

----------


## harrybarracuda

Funny that since he always used the excuse of his taxes being under audit as the reason why he wouldn't release them....

----------


## S Landreth

Yes, school girl it was hilarious

----------


## S Landreth

Five things we’ve learned through the release of Trump’s tax records

*The IRS started auditing Trump on the same day that Neal asked for Trump’s tax returns*

Trump was selected for examination by the IRS on April 3, 2019, the same day that Neal wrote a letter to the then-commissioner of the IRS, Charles Rettig, asking for Trump’s tax returns.

That’s according to a letter from the IRS to Trump and his wife Melania, published online by Ways and Means Democrat Don Beyer (D-Va.) on Tuesday evening, parts of which were redacted.

“On April 3, 2019, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal wrote the IRS to request Trump’s tax returns as part of our Committee’s oversight of the IRS’ mandatory audit of presidential tax returns. On the same day, the IRS initiated its first audit of Donald Trump’s tax returns,” Beyer wrote.

Other Democrats raised the alarm on Tuesday about this.

“In the case of the Trump years, there was only one time when the mandatory audit was triggered and that was when Chairman Neal wrote a letter,” Ways and Means Democrat Judy Chu (Calif.) said during a press conference on Wednesday.

“There is something clearly wrong here,” Chu said.

_________


Trump’s IRS chief has made hundreds of thousands from Trump properties while in office

Charles Rettig, the Trump-appointed IRS Commissioner who has refused to release President Trump’s tax returns, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars renting out Trump properties while in office, according to documents obtained by CREW. Last year Rettig said it was his decision whether to turn over Trump’s tax returns to Congress, under the supervision of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

An analysis of Rettig’s personal financial disclosures for the last two years shows Rettig making $100,000 – $200,000 a year from two units at Trump International Waikiki. Trump made a detour to visit the property during a trip to Asia in his first year in office—a priceless promotional appearance for the business he still profits from as president. Rettig bought a 50% stake in the units in 2006, three years before the property opened, likely benefiting the future-president, whose company got 10% of total pre-sales.

Rettig isn’t exactly advertising his Trump-based profits. In fact, there’s no mention of Trump at all in the disclosures. The two properties are referred to only as “Residential Real Estate – Honolulu, Hawaii” and “Residential Real Estate (2) – Honolulu, Hawaii.” This isn’t new. When he was first nominated, he failed to disclose the properties were in a Trump-branded building. At his confirmation hearing, he did not directly answer concerns about the properties, only saying he would serve in an “impartial, unbiased” manner.

Trump is the first president elected since Richard Nixon to not release his tax returns. He’s fought hard to keep them secret, taking his fight all the way to the Supreme Court. There are all kinds of reasons he doesn’t want them made public—including the fact that they could point to potential criminal conduct. With Trump’s name removed from some buildings as it began to hurt property values, we can only imagine how toxic it would become if a bombshell in his tax returns were released. Which means the IRS Commissioner has a vested interest in the success of the Trump brand—and of preventing anything that could damage it.

__________


Charlie Savage - The House report on IRS not auditing Trump left unanswered whether the “mandatory” presidential audit program was generally broken or Trump got special treatment. Turns out Obama got audited all 8 years & Biden’s already been audited twice.: https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/s...26824624963585

IRS routinely audited Obama and Biden, raising questions over delays for Trump 

The IRS subjected President Donald Trump’s predecessor and his successor to annual audits of their tax returns once they took office, spokespeople for Barack Obama and President Joe Biden said Wednesday, intensifying questions about how Trump escaped such scrutiny until Democrats in the House started inquiring.

__________

Trump tax controversy fuels passage of presidential audits bill

Legislation that would require the IRS to audit presidents’ tax returns and make reports of the audits public passed the House largely along partisan lines on Thursday, echoing the divide over a bombshell report this week on former President Donald Trump’s tax returns.

Five Republicans voted for the legislation, even though GOP leaders said it was a sham designed to politically damage Trump, who has launched another bid for the White House. Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee released a report Tuesday that showed Trump paid little or no federal income tax while he was in office and that the IRS delayed auditing his returns despite its policy of auditing all presidents.

Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said the bill “will preserve the integrity of the executive and our system of tax and ensure that no one in the country is above the law.”

“Today’s legislation, I repeat, is not about a president, it is about the presidency,” he said.

----------


## S Landreth

Because the Guardian will ask you to register (most of the time) to see the full article, I posted the entire article below.


January 6 panel accuses Trump of ‘multi-part conspiracy’ in final report

House committee publishes report three days after recommending criminal charges against ex-president

The congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol has published its final report, accusing Donald Trump of a “multi-part conspiracy” to thwart the will of the people and subvert democracy.

Divided into eight chapters, the 845-page report includes findings, interview transcripts and legislative recommendations and represents one of the most damning official portraits of a president in American history.

Its release comes just three days after the select committee recommended criminal charges against Trump and follows media reports that it is cooperating and sharing crucial evidence with the justice department.

The panel, which will dissolve on 3 January when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, conducted more than 1,000 interviews, held 10 public hearings – some televised in prime time – and collected more than a million documents since forming in July last year.

Its report presents an in-depth and detailed account of Trump’s effort to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election and what the panel says was his culpability for a violent insurrection by his supporters.

It makes the case that Trump knew he lost but still pressured both state officials and Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election, then “was directly responsible for summoning what became a violent mob” and refused repeated entreaties from his aides to condemn the rioters or to encourage them to leave.

“The central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, who many others followed,” the document’s executive summary says. “None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him.”

In the two months between election and insurrection, the committee estimates, Trump or his inner circle engaged in at least 200 apparent acts of public or private outreach, pressure or condemnation targeting either state legislators or state or local election administrators. This included at least 68 meetings, phone calls or text messages, 18 instances of prominent public remarks and 125 social media posts by Trump or senior aides.

The report adds to political pressure already on the attorney general, Merrick Garland, and Jack Smith, the special counsel who is conducting an investigation into the insurrection and Trump’s actions.

The Punchbowl News website reported that the committee has begun “extensively cooperating” with the special counsel, sharing documents and transcripts including text messages sent by Mark Meadows, the then White House chief of staff.

On Monday, at its final public session, the panel unanimously made four criminal referrals to the justice department against Trump for his role in the insurrection that started with his false claims of a stolen election and ended in the mob siege of the US Capitol. It was the first time in American history that Congress had taken such action against a former president.

In unanimously adopting the report, the committee also recommended a congressional ethics investigations for the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, and other House members over defying congressional subpoenas for information about their interactions with Trump before, during and after the bloody assault.

The members “should be questioned in a public forum about their advance knowledge of and role in President Trump’s plan to prevent the peaceful transition of power”, the report contends.

While a criminal referral is mostly symbolic, with the justice department ultimately deciding whether to prosecute Trump or others, it was another blow to the former president’s already faltering 2024 election campaign.

The panel was formed in the summer of 2021 after Senate Republicans blocked the formation of what would have been a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the insurrection. When that effort failed, the Democratic-controlled House formed an investigative committee of its own, comprising seven Democrats and two Republicans: Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.

During an 18-month investigation, the panel laid out evidence that the January 6 attack at the US Capitol was not a spontaneous protest, but an orchestrated “scheme” by Trump to subvert democracy and overturn the election.

He urged supporters to come to Washington for a “big rally” on January 6. He whipped up supporters in a speech outside the White House. Knowing that some were armed, he sent the mob to the Capitol and encouraged them to “fight like hell” for his presidency as Congress was counting the vote. He tried to join them on Capitol Hill.

All the while Trump stoked theories from conservative lawyer John Eastman to create alternative slates of electors, switching certain states that voted for Biden to Trump, that could be presented to Congress for the tally. Eastman also faces criminal referral by the committee to the justice department.

Many of Trump’s former aides testified about his unprecedented pressure on states, on federal officials and Mike Pence to object to Biden’s win. The committee has also described how Trump riled up the crowd at a rally that morning and then did little to stop his supporters for several hours as he watched the violence unfold on television.

Once they were inside the building, the committee notes, Trump showed no concern when they chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” and for hours the then president resisted the pleas of advisers who told him to tell the rioters to disperse. “The final words of that tweet leave little doubt about President Trump’s sentiments toward those who invaded the Capitol: ‘Remember this day forever!’” the report states.

More than 800 people have been charged in relation to the attack. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four associates were convicted of am obstruction charge last month. Rhodes, who was also convicted of seditious conspiracy, did not go inside the Capitol but was accused of leading a violent plot to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

At Monday’s meeting, chairman Bennie Thompson said: “The committee is nearing the end of its work, but as a country we remain in strange and uncharted waters. Nearly two years later this is still a time of reflection and reckoning.”

He added: “We have every confidence that the work of this committee will help provide a roadmap to justice.”

Cheney, the vice-chairwoman of the committee, said in her opening remarks that every president in American history has defended the orderly transfer of power “except one”.

After that session, Trump remained defiant. “These folks don’t get it that when they come after me, people who love freedom rally around me,” he said in a statement. “It strengthens me. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.”

The report includes recommendations for legislative changes, including proposals for updating the 19th century Electoral Count Act that was strained by Trump’s attempt to challenge the way Congress tallies the votes.

In comments posted on his Truth Social network after the final report’s release, Trump called it “highly partisan” and a “witch hunt”. He said it failed to “study the reason for the [January 6] protest, election fraud”. Trump falsely claimed the report didn’t include his statement on 6 January that his supporters should protest “peacefully and patriotically”.

The committee’s report details Trump’s inaction as his loyalists were violently storming the building. Returning to the White House from his fiery speech, he asked an employee if they had seen his remarks on television.

“Sir, they cut it off because they’re rioting down at the Capitol,” the staffer said, according to the report.

A White House photographer snapped a picture of Trump at 1.21pm learning of the riot from the employee. “By that time, if not sooner, he had been made aware of the violent riot at the Capitol,” the report states.

The report describes efforts on 6 January by Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and senior adviser, to convince him to tell the protesters to go home peacefully.

“It has been reported that each time Ivanka Trump ‘thought she had made headway’ with her father, [chief of staff Mark] Meadows would call her ‘to say the [P]resident still needed more persuading’ – a cycle that repeated itself over ‘several hours’ that afternoon.”

The report states that even after Trump released a video message telling the rioters to go home, both he and his lawyer, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, continued trying to delay the joint session of Congress that would certify Biden’s victory.

Having spoken to Trump, Giuliani tried calling various members of Congress including Senators Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz.

The committee says: “We know definitively what Giuliani was up to because he left a voice message for Senator Tuberville – inadvertently on Senator Lee’s phone – recording his request. He wanted for ‘you, our Republican friends to try to just slow it down’, referring to the electoral count, and delay the joint session.”

In total, 187 minutes elapsed between the time Trump finished his speech at the Ellipse and his first effort to get the rioters to disperse, through an eventual video message in which he asked his supporters to go home even as he reassured them: “We love you, you’re very special.”

During those hours, dozens of staffers and associates pleaded with him to make a forceful statement. But he did not.

The committee quotes some of Trump’s most loyal supporters blaming him for the violence.

“We all look like domestic terrorists now,” longtime aide Hope Hicks texted Julie Radford, who served as Ivanka Trump’s chief of staff, in the aftermath.

Hicks also texted a White House lawyer: “I’m so upset. Everything we worked for wiped away.”

The president did not, by any account, express grief or regret for what happened at the Capitol. Neither did he appear to grasp the gravity of what he had set in motion.

In his last phone call of the night, Trump spoke with Johnny McEntee, his director of personnel.

“[T]his is a crazy day,” the president told him. McEntee said his tone was one of “[l]ike, wow, can you believe this shit … ?”

Did he express sadness over the violence visited upon the Capitol? “No,” McEntee said. “I mean, I think he was shocked by, you know, it getting a little out of control, but I don’t remember sadness, specifically.”

*Read: The full January 6 investigation report from the House select committee*: Jan 6 Select Committee Final Report  | PDF | Donald Trump | American Government

_______________

Other links:

Jan. 6 committee releases final report, says Trump should be barred from office

House Jan. 6 committee releases final report on Capitol attack 

Jan. 6 committee releases final report

____________

Some of the material released earlier........

Dec 21, 2022 - RELEASE OF SELECT COMMITTEE MATERIALS

Washington—Today, the Select Committee made public 34 transcripts of witness testimony that was gathered over the course of the Select Committee’s investigation into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

These 34 records can be found on the Select Committee’s website:

Christopher Barcenas 
Kathy Berden 
Alexander Bruesewitz 
Patrick Casey 
Dion Cini 
Jeffrey Clark Part 1, Part 2 
Jim DeGraffenreid 
Enrique De La Torre 
John Eastman 
Jenna Ellis 
Kimberly Fletcher 
Michael Flynn 
Nick Fuentes 
Julie Fancelli 
Bianca Gracia 
Alex Jones 
Ryan Kelley 
Charlie Kirk 
David Scott Kuntz 
Antonio LaMotta 
Philip Luelsdorff 
Robert Patrick Lewis 
Joshua Macias 
Shawna Martin 
John Matze 
Michael McDonald 
Stewart Rhodes 
Mayra Rodriguez 
Michael Roman 
Roger Stone 
Enrique Tarrio 
Phil Waldron 
Kelli Ward 
Garrett Ziegler 

Dec 22, 2022* -* RELEASE OF SELECT COMMITTEE MATERIALS

Washington—Today, the Select Committee made public additional transcripts of witness testimony that was gathered over the course of the Select Committee’s investigation into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol

These records can now be found on the Select Committee’s website:


Cassidy Hutchinson, September 14, 2022, September 15, 2022.

Dec 22, 2022

Washington—Today, the Select Committee made public additional transcripts of witness testimony that was gathered over the course of the Select Committee’s investigation into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

These records can now be found on the Select Committee’s website:


Chris KrebsStephen Ayres, Part 1, Part 2Mark EsperKen Klukowski, June 10, 2022Sarah Matthews

Select Committee’s website: https://january6th.house.gov/

----------


## helge

> the Guardian


Is that some "woke, hate the working class but love refugees and dogs" publication ?

What happened to the Independent ?

----------


## S Landreth

Jan. 6 panel releases transcripts for 46 additional witness testimonies

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection released transcripts from interviews with 46 additional witnesses on Friday after releasing its first round of transcripts on Wednesday. 

The witnesses from this round of transcripts released include former Attorney General William Barr, former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, former Trump 2020 campaign manager Bill Stepien, former acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump ally and attorney Sidney Powell. 

The witnesses also include Marc Short, who served as chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence, former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Ivanka Trump. 

Many of the most notable figures whose transcripts were released on Friday served in key positions in the Trump administration as the attack on the Capitol unfolded. 

The first round of transcripts released featured many Trump allies who pleaded their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to at least some of the committees questions. They included Trump campaign attorney John Eastman, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Jeffrey Clark. 

The committee also on Thursday released transcripts for a few additional witnesses, including former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, former Homeland Security official Chris Krebs and former a White House aide and assistant to the White House chief of staff, Cassidy Hutchinson. 

The Friday release came one day after the committee released its final report on the insurrection. The committee held its final public hearing to announce its conclusions on Monday. 

In the report, the committee made four criminal referrals for former President Trump to the Justice Department over his role in the lead-up to and during the days events. The referrals are for inciting, assisting or aiding and comforting an insurrection; obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to make a false statement. 

The committee also recommended that Eastman faced two charges  obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States. 

The Justice Department is conducting its own investigation into Trump over his role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including the insurrection, and the classified and sensitive documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate that should have been returned to government record-keepers at the end of his presidency. 

The committee is reportedly cooperating and sharing the evidence it has gathered with special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the Justice Department investigations.

Dec 23, 2022

*Washington*Today, the Select Committee made public additional transcripts of witness testimony that was gathered over the course of the Select Committees investigation into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

These records can now be found on the Select Committees website:


Pasquale Anthony Pat CipolloneKayleigh McEnanyElaine ChaoWilliam BarrAlex Cannon, 4/13/22; 8/18/22Mark RobinsonJustin ClarkWilliam (Bill) StepienCaroline Elizabeth EdwardsSidney PowellRichard Peter DonoghueJeffrey A. RosenHope HicksPaul IrvingGreg JacobMarc ShortIvanka TrumpJulie RadfordChad WolfKen Klukowski Part 1Benjamin WilliamsonMichael PompeoKeith Kellogg, Jr.Robert OBrienBrandon StrakaJanet West BuhlerCarla KrzywickiJames Rahm, IIIThomas Paul Conover, Jr.Zac MartinEric BarberDaniel J. HerendeenLawrence StackhouseJohn D. WrightJean LavinGreg RubenackerRyan KelleyJeremy BertinoLewis Easton CantwellFrank J. Scavo IIIFrancis ConnorGeorge Amos TenneySamuel ArmesLandon BentleyNicholas DeCarloDuston Thompson

----------


## S Landreth

Judge Rejects Trump's Request to Intrude in NYAG Lawsuit

Federal Judge in Florida Refuses Donald Trumps Request for Unprecedented Intrusion in New York AGs Fraud Case

A federal judge in Florida refused on Wednesday to grant former President Donald Trumps request to intrude upon New York Attorney General Letitia Jamess enforcement action in connection with her fraud case.

The Trump Organization has already been found guilty by a New-York jury of several counts of tax fraud, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks noted in an eight-page ruling. To now impede a civil Enforcement Action by the New York Attorney General would be unprecedented and contrary to the interests of the people of New York.

In November, Trump filed a lawsuit in a state court in Florida seeking to block James from requesting, demanding, possessing or disclosing amendments to his trust in connection with her fraud case. His original lawsuit was later transferred to federal court.

Shortly after the lawsuits original filing, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered a court-appointed monitor to watch over the Trump Organization pending a trial slated for next year. Jamess lawsuit against Trump, his adult children and his businesses alleges a years-long pattern of tax fraud. She also wants to bar the former president and the family members named in her suit from ever serving as an officer or director in any New York corporation.

In his lawsuit, Trump claimed James targeted him for a relentless, pernicious, public, and unapologetic crusade that preceded the Democratic AGs election.

James war of intimidation and harassment on President Trump, his family, his business interests, and his associates is longstanding and continuing, Trumps Nov. 2 lawsuit said. James campaigned for Attorney General on the promise of launching investigations of President Trump before even the pretext of a predicate existed. Since her election, she made good on those campaign promises and established within her office a policy of intimidating and harassing President Trump whenever possible.

Multiple courts have denied Trumps claims of political motivations, including Engoron, a New York appellate court, and a federal court in New York.

According to James, the actual pattern is Trump shopping around in various courts in an attempt to end-run other judges rulings and her own prosecutorial discretion.

This action is Mr. Trumps second improper attempt to collaterally attack and end-run around rulings that have been issued by the presiding judge in the New York proceedings, Justice Arthur Engoron, her assistant AG recently wrote.

Judge Middlebrooks rejected Trumps motion for a preliminary injunction late on Wednesday, finding the former presidents lawsuit would likely fail.

Defendant raises four reasons  all of which are likely correct  why Plaintiff has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits, wrote Middlebrooks, a Bill Clinton appointee. First, it is not at all clear that a federal court sitting in West Palm Beach, Florida, has personal jurisdiction over the Attorney General of New York. Second, this action is barred by New Yorks interstate sovereign immunity.

Middlebrooks also denied the request on the grounds of issue and claim preclusion, meaning the matter was already decided in a binding decision of another court.

The attorney general also argued that Trumps bid failed under the Supreme Courts Rooker-Feldman precedent. Under that doctrine, James noted, a state-court loser cannot seek to collaterally attack the courts final, appealable orders. Middlebrooks agreed.

In November, Middlebrooks wrote a blistering ruling sanctioning Trumps lawyers for filing a massive, frivolous and shotgun lawsuit accusing Hillary Clinton and dozens of other supposed political antagonists of a vast conspiracy to tar him with Russia collusion allegations. The judge found it amounted to little more than a political statement masquerading as a legal action.

The rule of law is undermined by the toxic combination of political fundraising with legal fees paid by political action committees, reckless and factually untrue statements by lawyers at rallies and in the media, and efforts to advance a political narrative through lawsuits without factual basis or any cognizable legal theory, Middlebrooks wrote in his Nov. 10 ruling. Lawyers are enabling this behavior and I am pessimistic that Rule 11 alone can effectively stem this abuse. Aspects may be beyond the purview of the judiciary, requiring attention of the Bar and disciplinary authorities. Additional sanctions may be appropriate.

DocumentCloud

----------


## S Landreth

Dec 27, 2022 - RELEASE OF SELECT COMMITTEE MATERIALS

*Washington*Today, the Select Committee made public additional transcripts of witness testimony that was gathered over the course of the Select Committees investigation into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

These records can now be found on the Select Committees website:

Ali AlexanderJudson P. DeereJamie FleetCassidy Hutchinson, May 17, 2022; June 20, 2022Bernard KerikAmy KremerKylie KremerJohn McEnteeMax MillerSteven MnuchinNick QuestedBrad RaffenspergerEugene ScaliaMichael ShirkeyWilliam Walker, Part 1; Part 2Caroline Wren

__________

*Little extra.*

Just Security - Worried that the January6thCommittee documents might someday disappear?

Don't be. Just Security has you covered.

We created permanent links (via @permacc) for all deposition transcripts.

Sorted by witnesses' affiliation, date of deposition and more. https://twitter.com/just_security/st...97512129941504

https://www.justsecurity.org/77022/j...clearinghouse/

----------


## S Landreth

Trump tax returns to be released by House panel on Friday

The House Ways and Means Committee will release former President Donald Trumps tax returns Friday morning, a source familiar confirmed to CNN.

The returns will be placed into the congressional record on Friday morning during a House pro forma session. That pro forma session will occur around 9 a.m. ET on Friday. There will also be a formal announcement Friday from the committee.

The highly anticipated release comes after the panel last week asserted that the IRS failed to properly audit the former presidents taxes while he was in office.

The committee released a report that detailed six years worth of the former presidents tax returns, including his claims of massive annual losses that significantly reduced his tax burden.

Chairman Richard Neal and fellow Democrats have said that the records they obtained showed that the presidential audit program failed to work as intended. Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat, charged that the complete required audit of Trumps taxes did not occur, as his returns were only subjected to the mandatory audit once, in 2019, after Democrats inquired.

The committee also released a supplemental report from the Joint Committee on Taxation that included details on Trumps tax returns from 2015 to 2020, ahead of the planned release of the returns themselves.

The release of Trumps tax returns marks the conclusion of a nearly four-year legal battle House Democrats waged against the former president after they took control of the House in 2019.

The audit program was important to Democrats because it was the justification they used to obtain the returns in the first place  but the Democratic pursuit was also tied in part to long-held suspicions about Trumps taxes after he bucked the norm and refused to release his returns as a candidate and while in office.

----------


## harrybarracuda



----------


## S Landreth

^comics from the silly school girl, again

----------


## S Landreth

Tomorrow

What to look for in Trump’s tax returns

Democrats released six years of former President Trump’s tax return information last week as part of reports into the presidential audit program, revealing that the former president wasn’t receiving regular audits from the IRS and that he was reporting big business losses every year.

On Friday, Trump’s actual tax returns from 2015 to 2020 are set to be released, after Democrats said they needed additional time to redact the documents and remove personal information.

Tax experts aren’t expecting huge revelations from the raw returns, which were summarized in reports from both the Democratic-controlled Ways and Means Committee and the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). But the more detailed documents could provide additional information on key areas of interest regarding Trump’s businesses and his professional associations.

*Were Trump’s losses refreshed in 2020?*

The JCT report on Trump’s taxes revealed that Trump was reporting large losses every year, usually in the tens of millions of dollars, offsetting his gains and reducing what he owed in taxes — and sometimes wiping out his tax liability altogether, as in 2020.

The losses from 2015 to 2018 were actually just pieces of a larger $105 million loss, which was itself part of a $700 million loss that was broken up and reported over different years.

These broken-up losses are common accounting strategies for people in the real estate development world, who are allowed to report regular depreciation expenses as losses.

In 2019, Trump reported positive income and paid taxes, but then reported he was again in the red in 2020, leading some experts to think that Trump’s losses in that year go beyond strategic accounting and represent genuinely ailing businesses.

“Trump’s 2020 losses were not from net operating losses carried over. Rather, I think Trump’s 2020 losses were real, largely resulting from business losses he suffered at the start of the COVID pandemic. And that is why he paid zero taxes in 2020,” Steve Rosenthal of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center wrote in an email to The Hill.

“Yes, Trump generated a lot of losses in 2009, including a $700 million loss from his ‘abandonment’ of a partnership interest, some of which he carried over to future years. And Trump, apparently, continued to carryover these losses through 2018. But, by 2019, Trump had used all his carryover losses — and Trump reported positive income,” he wrote.

More information on Trump’s 2020 tax return could be a window into whether he got out of paying taxes that year due to common accounting practices or failing businesses.

*Information on foreign entities and bank accounts*

Trump’s foreign entanglements were one of the dominant narratives of his presidency, particularly the FBI investigation into his relationship with Russia.

Any foreign bank accounts cited in Trump’s tax returns or payments made to foreign entities are sure to receive scrutiny and could provide further insight into Trump’s relationships abroad.

“I’m going to be looking for things like foreign ownership, foreign accounts, foreign ownership of Trump businesses, payments to foreigners,” Rosenthal said. “There’s bound to be some items that may yet pop out to external reviewers that [the JCT] missed.”

“Those of us who are interested in his relationship with Russia will be looking for any kind of confirmation of what Don [Trump] Jr. said in 2008 that Trump interests had received much of their money from Russian sources,” former CIA officer and journalist Frank Snepp said in an interview.

“Obviously we’re not going to see in the tax returns a line that says ‘Russian Assets,’ but a forensic analyst would be well advised to look for anything related to the emoluments clause,” he said.

Trump also oversaw some major changes of the status quo in the Middle East, including the Abraham Accords, whereby Israel normalized relations with several Arab nations.

“Everybody who is interested in whether or not he received any money from Saudi Arabia will be looking for indications of that kind of foreign input,” Snepp said.

*The profitability breakdown of Trump’s companies*

In addition to Trump’s individual tax returns, Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee also obtained the returns for eight of Trump’s businesses. While that’s only a small subset of Trump’s nearly 500 commercial entities, seeing which companies were most responsible for Trump’s losses will provide a clearer picture of his tax avoidance and general business practices.

The eight business returns fall into three categories, encompassing trademark LLCs, golf club businesses and two high-level holding companies.

“Those two upper-tier entities sit at the top of Trump’s LLC empire. The numbers all roll into those, and I’d like to see some aggregate numbers there,” Rosenthal said.

According to the JCT report, an IRS agent assigned to Trump’s 2018 business returns noted numerous suspicious losses claimed by Trump on his tax returns.

“With respect to 2018, the agent noted several ‘Large unusual questionable items’ (‘LUQs’) including a $12.1 million loss from the Trump Corporation … [and] $55.2 million loss for DJT Holdings,” The JCT report said.

The report also mentioned a “history of difficult negotiations between Mr. Trump’s counsel and IRS personnel.”

Unlike his real estate businesses, Trump’s trademark LLCs are expected to be profitable enterprises, bolstered by the publicity he gained during his reality television career on NBC’s “The Apprentice.”

----------


## Topper

I'll say it again, I think it's highly uncool to make someone's tax returns public.

----------


## Norton

> I'll say it again, I think it's highly uncool to make someone's tax returns public.


Uncool and illegal. I agree it is important a Presidential candidate make his taxes public so change the law to require they do.

----------


## helge

> I'll say it again, I think it's highly uncool to make someone's tax returns public.


I'd strongly disagree.

Can't be bad to have a candidate for high office vetted in the fraud department.


Trump couldn't be elected, or nominated even, with shoplifting on his CV, could he ?

But tax fraud seems to be OK.


Doesn't matter much when the rich commit crimes........or are "smarter" as Trump would call it.

----------


## Topper

> Can't be bad to have a candidate for high office vetted in the fraud department.


Wot Norton said





> I agree it is important a Presidential candidate make his taxes public so change the law to require they do.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> I'll say it again, I think it's highly uncool to make someone's tax returns public.


Not when most of his predecessors have done so without question, and he has lied about being under audit.

They shouldn't have had to do it. It is the result of a criminal investigation.

----------


## Topper

> It is the result of a criminal investigation.


It's not.  It's the result of trump not following the norms in releasing his taxes AND the IRS not doing their job.

----------


## S Landreth

Dec 30, 2022  Ways and Means Committee Votes to Release Investigation of the IRSs Mandatory Audit Program Under the Prior Administration

The Ways and Means Committee voted to publicly release the Committees investigation of the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) Mandatory Audit Program under the prior administration. The Committees investigation found the mandatory program was dormant, at best, with only one audit opened while the former President was in office, and none have been completed.

_Ways and Means is entrusted with great responsibilities. Today, the weight of our job is heavy. Congress serves as a check on the Executive Branch, and our Committee is entrusted with oversight of our revenue system. We all come to Ways and Means with the goal of creating a fairer tax code. Because at the root of it all, it is our federal tax system that funds the democracy we all cherish and love._

_Our voluntary collection relies on the public confidence that our tax laws are applied evenly and justly, regardless of position or power. For four years, the Committee has been reviewing how the IRS enforces the federal tax laws against, and ensures compliance by, a president._

_A president is no ordinary taxpayer. They hold power and influence unlike any other American. And with great power comes even greater responsibility._


Trump's federal tax returns are released: Here's what we know

The House Ways and Means Committee on Friday released redacted versions of six years worth of former President Donald Trump's federal tax returns, ending Trump's years-long effort to keep his returns from the public. 

The Democratic-led committee voted last week to make Trump's tax returns public, then released two reports, one from its members and another from the Joint Committee on Taxation, noting that the IRS did not audit Trump the first two years he was in office. The move to publicize the returns comes days before Republicans take control of Congress in January. 

The publicized returns offer a more detailed account of the former president's financial portrait in the years he was running for and in office. 

The report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, or JCT, said Trump paid no federal income tax in 2020, the final year of his presidency. The former president paid a net of only $750 in income taxes in 2017. He paid $1.1 million in net federal income taxes combined in 2018 and 2019. 

Full individual returns and documentation:

2015 (31 MB)2016 (24 MB)2017 (74 MB)2018 (11 MB)2019 (25 MB)2020 (25 MB)

Business entities:

DJT Holdings LLC - 2015-2020DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC - 2015-2020DTTM Operations LLCLFB Acquisition Member Corp.LFB Acquisition LLCDTTM Operations Managing Member Corp. LLC

----------


## harrybarracuda

> It's not.  It's the result of trump not following the norms in releasing his taxes AND the IRS not doing their job.


Perhaps you missed the first of several tax cases that Trump lost the other week in the Manhattan district court.

The IRS could only have shown that he didn't pay enough (or too much <yeah>) federal taxes.

The criminal investigations are to determine, for example, if he told one state body one thing, and another something different.

If he committed state fraud, either banking or tax, that's where he could be looking at jail time with no-one to pardon him.

It's a question of how much he can insulate himself by claiming someone else did the dirty work.

He was audited in 2019. No federal charges were filed as a result.

----------


## S Landreth

> It is the result of a criminal investigation.





> It's not.  It's the result of trump not following the norms in releasing his taxes AND the IRS not doing their job.


Correct.

The school girl has early stages of Alzheimer's.

April 3, 2019 - Richard Neal, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, is requesting six years of Trump's personal tax returns and the returns for some of his businesses for the years 2013-2018. Neal argues that Congress, and his committee in particular, need to conduct oversight of the IRS, including its policy of auditing the tax returns of sitting presidents.

----------


## S Landreth

Dec 30, 2022 - RELEASE OF SELECT COMMITTEE MATERIALS

Today, the Select Committee made public additional transcripts of witness testimony that was gathered over the course of the Select Committees investigation into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

These records can now be found on the Select Committees website:


Patrick ByrneKen CuccinelliSteven EngelMark FinchemRudy GiulianiDonnell HarvinEric HerschmannCassidy Hutchinson, February 23, 2022; March 7, 2022Jared KushnerNicholas LunaDerek LyonsDouglas MacgregorJason MillerCleta MitchellMick MulvaneyTimothy MurtaughAnthony OrnatoBJ PakMatthew PottingerKelly SoRelle, Part 1, Part 2Virginia Thomas

----------


## S Landreth

Jan 2, 2023 - RELEASE OF SELECT COMMITTEE MATERIALS

*Washington*—Today, the Select Committee made public additional transcripts of witness testimony that was gathered over the course of the Select Committee’s investigation into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

These records can now be found on the Select Committee’s website:


Mark Meadows, November 11, 2021; December 8, 2021Daniel J. Scavino, Jr.Robert PeedeRoss WorthingtonPeter K. NavarroMolly MichaelKatrina PiersonAlexandra PreateRonna McDanielJocelyn BensonShealah D. Craighead, June 8, 2022; June 29, 2022Russell BowersKenneth ChesebroKellyanne ConwayAll additional remaining public Select Committee transcripts and other information about witness testimony can be found here

___________

Inside the Jan. 6 committee’s massive new evidence trove

The Jan. 6 select committee has unloaded a vast database of its underlying evidence — emails between Trump attorneys, text messages among horrified White House aides and outside advisers, internal communications among security and intelligence officials — all coming to grips with then-President Donald Trump’s last-ditch effort to subvert the 2020 election and its disastrous consequences.

The panel posted thousands of pages of evidence late Sunday in a public database that provide the clearest glimpse yet at the well-coordinated effort by some Trump allies to help Trump seize a second term he didn’t win. Much of the evidence has never been seen before and, in some cases, adds extraordinary new elements to the case the select committee presented in public — from voluminous phone records to contemporaneous text messages and emails.

Yada, yada. What caught my attention…

“We all look like domestic terrorists now”

Trump aide Hope Hicks texted with Ivanka Trump’s chief of staff Julie Radford on the afternoon of Jan. 6, decrying Trump’s actions and lamenting that their careers were likely doomed.

“All of us that didn’t have jobs lined up will be perpetually unemployed. I’m so mad and upset,” Hicks wrote. “We all look like domestic terrorists now.”  :Smile: 

“Oh yes I’ve been crying for an hour,” Radford replied.

“Not being dramatic but looks like we are all fucked,” Hicks continued. “Alyssa looks like a genius.”

Hicks’ message was an apparent reference to Alyssa Farah, a former Trump White House aide who departed the administration weeks before Jan. 6.

Turning back to Trump, Hicks expressed outrage about his attack on Vice President Mike Pence in the midst of the violence. “Wtf is wrong with him?” she wrote.  :Smile: 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...dence-00076004

----------


## S Landreth

Estate of Capitol Police Officer Who Died After Jan. 6 Riot Sues Trump

The estate of the Capitol police officer who died after the Jan. 6 riot is suing Trump, alleging wrongful death

The partner and estate of a US Capitol police officer who died shortly after the January 6 riot is suing Donald Trump and two rioters in a civil lawsuit that was filed on Thursday.

Damages are being sought by the estate and longtime partner of Officer Brian Sicknick, who was injured in the line of duty at the Capitol building.

He died a day later due to "natural causes" after suffering two strokes, according to the District's chief medical examiner Francisco Diaz. In an interview with The Washington Post, Diaz said that the events from the day before "transpired played a role in his condition."

Two men, Julian Khater and George Tanios, were later charged and pled guilty to assaulting Capitol officers, including Sicknick, with a chemical irritant. The civil lawsuit names Khater and Tanios as defendants.

"In his factual proffer, Defendant Tanios admitted to accompanying Defendant Khater to the January 6th rally in D.C. and admitted to purchasing and carrying the bear spray Defendant Khater used on Officer Sicknick," the suit states.

The lawsuit also names Trump as a defendant, arguing that violence on January 6 was incited through the former president's rhetoric.

"If it were not for Donald Trump, the coup attempt on January 6th would never have occurred. This lawsuit is designed to further hold him accountable for that day and the events that led to the death of Officer Sicknick," Mark Zaid, an attorney for Sicknic's estate, said in a statement to Insider.

The suit seeks at least $10,000,000 in damages from each defendant. Any money received through the complaint will be donated to charity, Zaid said.


"Although civil lawsuits by their nature are for monetary remedies that does not mean that is the ultimate objective," Zaid told Insider. "Therefore, when accountability is achieved by Officer Sicknick's estate the recovery will be donated to charity."

Attorneys for Tanios and Khater did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

GARZA v. TRUMP

----------


## harrybarracuda

The whole trump tax returns jamboree has just disappeared from the headlines.

Can't imagine why.

 :rofl:

----------


## S Landreth

another one liner from TD's school girl, above

E. Jean Carroll Cites Prince Andrew in Trump Rape Lawsuit

E. Jean Carroll Deploys Prince Andrew Precedent to Advance Lawsuit Accusing Donald Trump of Raping Her

Hoping to fend off the former president’s motion to dismiss, writer E. Jean Carroll’s legal team cited a recent and high-profile precedent to advance her lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of rape: the Prince Andrew case that ended in a multi-million dollar settlement against the disgraced royal.

Just like the one against the prince, the lawsuit against the former president levels accusations of rape that would have been barred under the statute of limitations — had the New York legislature not taken action.

Carroll’s complaint, in particular, alleges that Trump raped her in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s.

In defending her claims, Carroll received help from a precedent established in a lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Epstein survivor Virginia Giuffre, who claimed that Andrew sexually abused her.

Before the reported $16 million deal, Prince Andrew’s legal team tried to argue that New York’s Child Victims Act unconstitutionally suspended the statute of limitations on sexual abuse claims. Trump’s lawyer argued something similar as to the Empire State’s similar Adult Survivors Act (ASA).

But as Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan noted in a legal brief on Wednesday, the prince’s arguments failed before the same federal judge who is hearing the case against the former president.

“Conceding that the claim has recently been revived by New York’s Adult Survivors Act (ASA), Trump insists that the ASA violates the Due Process Clause of the New York State Constitution,” Carroll’s legal brief states. “He is mistaken: the ASA is a reasonable measure passed by the New York legislature to remedy an identifiable injustice. Trump’s assertion that the ASA is unconstitutional because adult victims of sexual assault have only themselves to blame for not coming forward sooner is offensive and wrong. Indeed, Trump does not even cite this Court’s on-point opinion in Giuffre v. Andrew, 579 F. Supp. 3d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)—which the Court raised with his counsel at the status conference on December 21, 2022, and which fatally undercuts his attack on the ASA.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...90045.26.0.pdf

----------


## S Landreth

> The whole trump tax returns jamboree has just disappeared from the headlines.


maybe in your little world school girl

----------


## S Landreth

New York judge denies Trumps' motions to dismiss $250 million lawsuit

A New York state judge on Friday denied motions from former President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump to dismiss the New York attorney general’s $250 million lawsuit, finding some of the arguments “frivolous.”

Judge Arthur Engoron had previously rejected several of the Trumps’ legal arguments when he imposed a monitor on the Trump Organization last year.

On Friday, in a written order, he ruled that the Trumps’ repetition of the arguments was “frivolous.”

“Reading these arguments was, to quote the baseball sage Lawrence Peter (‘Yogi’) Berra, ‘Déjà vu all over again,’” the judge wrote.

Engoron had considered imposing sanctions on the Trumps’ lawyers but decided against it.

“Sophisticated defense counsel should have known better,” the judge wrote, adding, “In its discretion this Court will not impose sanctions, which the Court believes are unnecessary, having made its point.”

The judge also rejected the Trumps’ arguments that some of the alleged fraudulent conduct occurred beyond the statute of limitations allowed under the law.

Ivanka Trump, who left the business to go to the White House in 2017, argued that the claims against her were time-barred and that she didn’t personally falsify any business records. The judge said the attorney general’s office has alleged liability “sufficiently” on Trump to survive a motion to dismiss.

In a motion to dismiss the judge must give more favorable weight to the plaintiffs’ allegations.

New York Attorney General Letitia James initially filed the lawsuit in September, in which she alleged the Trumps have used fraudulent financial statements to obtain favorable rates of insurance and loans and tax benefits. The Trumps say the investigation is politically motivated.

In the months since, Donald Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, has tried to block James’ investigation through multiple legal channels.

In December, a federal judge in Florida rejected his request to block James’ office from obtaining records from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which he used to hold his companies upon becoming president in 2017.

Donald Trump filed the civil lawsuit in November, hours after a New York judge denied an effort to move James’ lawsuit into another division of New York state court.

Engoron set a trial date of Oct. 2, 2023, over the objections of the Trumps’ lawyers.

DocumentCloud

----------


## S Landreth

Georgia special grand jury investigating 2020 election finishes its work

The special grand grand jury in Atlanta that has been investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and his allies committed any crimes while trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia has finished its work.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, who was overseeing the panel, issued an order Monday dissolving the special grand jury. The order says the grand jurors completed a final report and that a majority of the county's superior court judges voted to dissolve the special grand jury.

"The Court thanks the grand jurors for their dedication, professionalism, and significant commitment of time and attention to this important matter," the order said. "It was no small sacrifice to serve."

The end of the special grand jury moves the investigation one step closer to possible criminal charges against Trump and others.

Over the course of about six months, the special grand jury has heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, including numerous close Trump associates and assorted high-ranking Georgia state officials. The case is among several around the country that threaten legal peril for the former president as he seeks a second term in 2024.

Special grand juries in Georgia cannot issue indictments but instead can issue a final report recommending actions to be taken. It is then up to the district attorney to decide whether to seek an indictment from a regular grand jury.

Georgia law says that grand juries are "authorized to recommend to the court the publication of the whole or any part of their general presentments and to prescribe the manner of publication" and that the judge must follow that recommendation. The special grand jury voted to recommend that its report be published, McBurney wrote in his order.

"Unresolved is the question of whether the special purpose grand jury's final report constitutes a presentment," the judge wrote, adding that he will hold a hearing on Jan. 24 on that issue. He said the district attorney's office and news outlets will be given a chance to make arguments at that hearing.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis opened the investigation in early 2021, shortly after a recording surfaced of a phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. During that call, the president suggested the state's top elections official could "find" the votes needed to overturn Trump's loss in the state.

Since then it has become clear that Willis is focusing on several different areas: phone calls made to Georgia officials by Trump and his allies; false statements made by Trump associates before Georgia legislative committees; a panel of 16 Republicans who signed a certificate falsely stating that Trump had won the state and that they were the state's "duly elected and qualified" electors; the abrupt resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta in January 2021; alleged attempts to pressure a Fulton County election worker; and breaches of election equipment in a rural south Georgia county.

Lawyers for Rudy Giuliani, former New York mayor and Trump attorney, confirmed before he was questioned by the special grand jury in August that they were told he faces possible criminal charges. The 16 Republican fake electors have also been told they are targets of the investigation, according to public court filings. It is possible that others have also been notified they are targets of the investigation.

Trump and his allies have consistently denied any wrongdoing, with the former president repeatedly describing his call with Raffensperger as "perfect" and dismissing Willis' investigation as a "strictly political Witch Hunt!"

Georgia Code SS 15-12-80 (2019) - Publication of general presentments :: 2019 Georgia Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

----------


## S Landreth

Allen Weisselberg Sentenced to 5 Months

Ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg Gets Five Months Behind Bars, as Judge Bemoans Sentence Couldnt Have Been Much Greater

*Allen Weisselberg,* the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, will be trading his office in the glitzy Trump Tower for a cell in one of the most scandal-beset prisons in the country after pleading guilty to a series of financial crimes in connection with his work for the former presidents real estate empire.

New York Judge Juan *Manuel Merchan* on Tuesday sentenced the 75-year-old Weisselberg to five months in prison to be served at Rikers Island immediately. He appeared to dress for that outcome, skipping his usual business suit in favor of a North Face fleece and navy sweatpants.

The judge said that Weisselbergs testimony at the Trump Organization criminal trial, over which he also presided, gave him pause about the lenient prison sentence he had agreed to hand down in the current case.

Were it not because I made that promise, I would not be imposing a five-month sentence. I would be imposing a much greater sentence, Merchan said in court. Most significantly was the $6,000 payroll payment to Mr. Weisselbergs wife and the reason I find that so offensive is that it was driven purely by greed.

Merchan explained how Weisselberg was earning upwards of seven figures and clearly did not need that money. However, he still found a way to make sure that his wife received sufficient payroll income so she could one day benefit from social security payments she was not entitled to.

The sentence was previously agreed to by Weisselberg and prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorneys Office in exchange for the longtime Trump executive pleading guilty to 15 separate criminal charges and testifying against the Trump Organization and Trump Payroll Corp, which were convicted last month on more than a dozen felony charges.

In addition to the time in prison, Judge Merchan also sentenced Weisselberg to five years of post-release probation and ordered him to make full repayment of taxes, penalties, and interest due to New York City and New York State tax authorities totaling $1,994,321.

Ex-Trump Org exec sentenced to 5 months in jail over tax fraud scheme

----------


## S Landreth

NY federal judge delays unsealing parts of Trump deposition in defamation lawsuit

A New York federal judge on Monday delayed the unsealing of a portion of former President Trumps deposition from a defamation lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in the mid-1990s.

Earlier Monday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan initially ordered the unsealing of 34 pages from the testimony Trump gave in October in the defamation case. Just hours later, Kaplan granted a request by Trumps team to delay the release for three more days to give them more time to file an objection to the unsealing of the deposition.

Kaplan said in his initial order that Trumps lawyers failed to respond to Carrolls lawyers within a three-day window on the question of whether the sealed pages should remain completely sealed or partially sealed. The question brought by Carrolls lawyers on whether the deposition could be unsealed was filed in mid-December.

Trumps attorneys said they did not file a formal objection to the unsealing because they misunderstood a previous order given by the judge. They said they had thought the burden to explain why the unsealing of the deposition was necessary fell on Carrolls team, not Trumps, and subsequently asked for three extra days to file a formal objection to the unsealing.

Carroll filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2019, alleging that he defamed her by casting doubts on her credibility and making comments about her appearance. Trump sat for the deposition last fall, after he repeatedly tried to delay the case.

In November, Carroll filed a second lawsuit against Trump for the alleged sexual assault that took place in either 1995 or 1996, after a new New York law was enacted. She alleged that Trump raped her in a Manhattan department store. Trump has denied this happened, including in a 2019 interview with The Hill in which Trump said Carroll was totally lying and not my type.

Under the new New Yorks Adult Survivors Act, survivors of sexual assault can file a legal claim within a one-year window, even if the statute of limitations has passed. Those who file a claim must have been over 18 years old when the alleged crime occurred.

Trumps lawyers argued to the top D.C. court Tuesday that his statements about the defamation case were a part of his role as president. If Trumps statements during his time as president are ruled to fall under the protection of law, the Carrolls defamation lawsuit will likely not succeed.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Campaign Officials Hit With New January 6 Subpoenas

A wide-ranging subpoena sent to Trump campaign officials last month shows that special counsel Jack Smiths Jan. 6 investigation is increasingly focused on new areas of interest, including fundraising efforts and potential efforts to influence witness testimony, according to _The Washington Post_.

The DOJ issued the four-page subpoena to multiple Trump campaign officials in early December, seeking more than two dozen categories of information, according to the report. One part of the subpoena asks Trump campaign officials if anyone paid for their legal representation and paperwork related to any such agreement.

The subpoena also seeks all documents and communications related to Trumps fundraising activities for a litany of groups outside of his Save America PAC, which has already come under scrutiny. The new subpoenas seek documents related to the Make America Great Again PAC, the Save America Joint Fundraising Committee and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, including documents related to the formation, funding and/or use of money of the groups.

The subpoena also seeks documents related to the creation of an Election Defense Fund, which Trump officials ostensibly formed created to raise money from grassroots donors after Trumps election loss. Officials later testified to the House Jan. 6 committee that the fund technically did not exist but was a way to raise money from people who bought into Trumps Big Lie.

Prosecutors interest in the payments comes after former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified to the Jan. 6 committee that she was initially represented by a Trump-linked lawyer who would not tell her who was paying his fees and said she did not need a formal written retention agreement.

I was like, I probably should sign an engagement letter. And he said, No, no, no. Were not doing that. Dont worry. We have you taken care of,' she told the panel, according to a transcript of the interview.

After her initial interview with the committee, the lawyer told Hutchinson that the people paying his fees would not want her to agree to additional interviews unless she is required to do so by a new subpoena, according to her testimony.

Trump world will not continue paying your legal bills if you dont have that second subpoena,' Hutchinson recalled him saying, after hiring a new lawyer.

At the heart of these subpoenas, in addition to previously reported investigation into fundraising fraud, there appears to be an inquiry into whether witness testimony was being improperly influenced. Its always about the obstruction, tweeted former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance.

The efforts to influence and/or even intimidate witnesses has always stuck out for me too, agreed MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin.

Along with information on the payments and fundraising, the subpoena also seeks campaign communications about Dominion and Smartmatic, two voting technology companies that faced a torrent of false allegations accusing them of election fraud.

It also asks for information related to the Trump campaigns fake elector scheme, which included more than 100 individuals in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico and Michigan.

The subpoena also asks for information related to any internal analysis of the former presidents fraud claims and documents related to the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse. The Jan. 6 committee found that numerous Trump officials found that there was no basis for his election fraud claims but he continued to push the lies on social media and at the rally preceding the deadly Capitol riot.

The report comes as the grand jury has accelerated its activities in recent weeks, bringing in a rapid-fire series of witnesses, both high and low level, according to the Post.

Some of the witnesses in recent weeks returned for their second appearance before the grand jury. One source familiar with one of the grand jury appearances told ABC News it was far more intense than round one.

----------


## S Landreth

Trump Organization sentenced to maximum fine following tax fraud conviction 

Former President Donald Trump's namesake family real estate firm was sentenced to the maximum allowable fine Friday in New York following its conviction on 17 counts, include a 13-year scheme to defraud.

The company will pay a fine of just over $1.6 million.

While a prosecutor, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass, conceded the amount is a fraction of the company's earnings, he called the scheme it was convicted of "far-reaching and brazen."

"The sheer magnitude of this fraud merits the largest financial sanction authorized by law," Steinglass said. "The defendants cultivated a pervasive culture of fraud."

Judge Juan Merchan imposed the maximum sentence and scolded the defense for continuing to blame the company's accountant for the fraud.

"It's not what the evidence has showed and it's not what the jury found," Merchan said.

He gave the company 14 days to pay.

The verdict, delivered Dec. 6, held the Trump Organization liable for the criminal conduct of some of its top executives, mainly Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer who was sent to jail on Rikers Island earlier this week for arranging nearly $2 million of his compensation off the books.

Trump himself was not charged and the company's defense attorneys said he did not know about the scheme. However, his name came up dozens of times, mainly on defense examination of witnesses.

Defense attorney Michael van der Veen said in his closing statement that jurors "heard no evidence in this case that Mr. Trump or any of his children were aware of anything improper."

Prosecutors said the former president sanctioned fraud. They showed the jury checks Trump signed and a memo he initialed

"This whole narrative that Donald Trump is blissfully ignorant is just not true," Steinglass said during his closing statement.

"I want to be very clear, we don't think that is enough" Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg told reporters of the fine after the sentencing. "Our laws in this state need to change in order to capture this type of decade-plus systemic and egregious fraud that was captured so well today by the ADA and laid bare for you and most importantly for the jury throughout this trial."

Prosecutors said the Trump Organization arranged for Weisselberg and other company executives to receive part of their compensation in perks, like private school tuition and car payments, to evade taxes. In doing so, prosecutors said the executives had some intent to help the company pay less in salaries, bonuses and payroll taxes.

The defense argued the executives never intended to benefit the company and said the scheme the executives hatched was motivated solely by personal greed.

The trial revealed potentially embarrassing details about Trump, including nearly $1 billion in operating losses Trump reported over a two-year period in 2009 and 2010.

Trump's outside accountant also testified that Trump reported losses each year for eight years from 2009 to 2018, some of the same years Trump was touting his business acumen on reality television and on the campaign trail.

"This was a case about greed and cheating. In Manhattan, no corporation is above the law," Bragg said at the time the verdict was announced last month. "For 13 years the Trump Corporation and the Trump Payroll Corporation got away with a scheme that awarded high-level executives with lavish perks and compensation while intentionally concealing the benefits from the taxing authorities to avoid paying taxes."

In addition to the fine, the Trump Organization faces potential collateral consequences that could be more severe if banks call in loans or business partners cancel contracts due to internal clauses that prohibit doing business with felons.

----------


## S Landreth

Donald Trump Can't Dismiss E. Jean Carroll's Rape Suit

Without Merit: Judge Rejects Trumps Demands to Dismiss E. Jean Carrolls Lawsuit Accusing Him of Rape

A trial is currently scheduled later this year in April.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...mtd-ruling.pdf

_________


Trump Deposition Unsealed Lashes Out at E. Jean Carroll

Donald Trump Deposition Unsealed: Lashes Out at Rape Accuser  I Think Shes Sick, Mentally Sick

I know nothing about her, Trump said of Carroll. I think shes sick, mentally sick.

Calling the famed columnist a nut job, Trump also doubled down on the same rape denials that inspired Carrolls defamation suit, saying once again shes not my type.

I will tell you I made that statement, and I said, while its politically incorrect, shes not my type, Trump said. And thats 100 percent true. Shes not my type.

All 48 pages: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...on-excerpt.pdf

___________

*A couple, just for fun.*


16 Michigan GOP electors sued over documents claiming Trump won 2020 election

A number of Michigan GOP electors were named in a lawsuit after they falsely declared in official documents that former President Trump won the 2020 presidential election.

In the lawsuit filed Wednesday in the Kent County Circuit Court, three Democratic presidential electors accused the 16 Republicans of submitting fraudulent election certificates in a scheme to steal the election and install the losing candidate as President. Michigans Democratic electorate had already filed their official documentation certifying President Bidens win.

The lawsuit alleges that the GOP electorates created a fake election certificate signed by the defendants and styled Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Michigan, which they offered as an official public record.

____________

Ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon seeks to change attorneys in fundraising fraud case

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has asked a judge to let him change lawyers as he defends himself against charges that he defrauded donors to the "We Build the Wall" campaign that was supposed to raise money for former President Donald Trump's signature domestic project.

Echoing his support of the pro-Trump crowd that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Bannon told reporters as he entered the courtroom Thursday that the recent election in Brazil was "stolen" from far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro and that protesters who stormed three government buildings in Brazil's capital on Sunday were "freedom fighters."

Bannon ignored questions from reporters asking if he was advising anyone in Brazil's protest movement.

Inside the courtroom, Bannon attorney David Schoen told Judge Juan Merchan that "irreconcilable differences have arisen" on Bannon's defense team.

"We certainly don't need to show good cause and we don't need to go into detail," Schoen said.

Merchan, however, was skeptical.

"With all due respect, I believe you're 100% wrong," the judge said. "The question is, is this being done to delay the proceedings?"

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-advi...ry?id=96390326

----------


## S Landreth

DOJ subpoenaed Wayne County for Trump-related records

DOJ's Wayne County subpoena asked for communications involving Trump, his campaign

The special counsel leading the U.S. Department of Justice investigation into interference in the 2020 presidential election subpoenaed Wayne County's election commission in late November to seek records involving former President Donald Trump and his campaign.

The grand jury subpoena dated Nov. 22 from Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by the Department of Justice, asked the Wayne County Election Commission to produce records from Trump and his aides covering communications from June 2020 through President Joe Biden's inauguration.

It mirrors a similar one from Smith seeking records from Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson asking for communications between her office and Trump campaign officials. Benson and the Wayne County Clerk's Office previously disclosed the existence of the subpoenas.

The Free Press obtained a copy of the subpoena through a public records request. The letter attached to the subpoena from Smith asked the commission not to disclose the subpoena but noted that it wasn't required to do so. "Any such disclosure could impede the investigation being conducted and thereby interfere with the enforcement of the law," reads the letter from Smith.

Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett, Wayne County Probate Court Chief Judge Freddie Burton Jr. and Wayne County Treasurer Eric Sabree sit on the commission responsible for providing ballots and election supplies to local election officials.

The subpoena asked for records involving more than a dozen Trump allies. The list includes Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, who testified before the state House Oversight Committee as part of House lawmakers investigation into the 2020 election. During the hearing, the pair urged lawmakers to take action that would have awarded the state's Electoral College votes to Trump despite his loss in the state by more than 154,000 votes.

The subpoena also asked the commission to produce documents containing communications with Sidney Powell, who led a legal effort in Michigan to overturn the results of the 2020 election. A federal judge sanctioned Powell and other lawyers involved in the so-called "Kraken" lawsuit in Michigan. In a blistering order blasting Powell and her team, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan Linda Parker accused the group of abusing the legal system to undermine voters' faith in the electoral process.

Powell and her team appealed the sanctions and await a ruling from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether they must pay more than $175,000 in fines.

Others named in the subpoena include prominent Trump allies, including those who fought the results of the 2020 election: Kenneth Chesebro, Justin Clark, Joe DiGenova, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Bernard Kerik, Bruce Marks, Cleta Mitchell, Matthew Morgan, Kurt Olsen, William Olson, Stefan Passantino, Bill Stepien, Victoria Toensing, James Troupis and L. Lin Wood Jr.

Trump targeted Michigan and other battleground states in his quest to thwart the will of voters following his 2020 election loss. Hundreds of audits, court rulings and post-election reviews have upheld the results of the election that year.
___________

*Couple extra.*

faces a maximum penalty of five years for each count

Wife of ex-congressional candidate charged with 52 counts of voter fraud

The wife of a northwestern Iowa county supervisor has been charged with 52 counts of voter fraud for her actions during her husbands failed bid to run for Congress in 2020, the Department of Justice said Thursday.

Driving the news: Kim Phuong Taylor, of Sioux City, Iowa, allegedly filled out and forced others to submit dozens of voter registrations, ballot request forms and absentee ballots that had false information as her husband sought the Republican nomination for the states 4th U.S. Congressional District, the DOJ said.

Taylor allegedly signed documents for voters without their permission and allegedly told voters that they could sign documents for relatives who werent present, according to the DOJ.

She faces 26 counts of providing false information in registering and voting, as well as three counts of registration fraud and 23 counts of fraudulent voting.

Taylor, if convicted, faces a maximum penalty of five years for each count, the DOJ said.

Context: Her husband, Jeremy Taylor, is a former Iowa House member who finished third in a race for the Republican nomination for Iowa's 4th U.S. Congressional District seat, the Associated Press reports. The winner, Randy Feenstra, was elected to Congress in November 2022.

___________

Florida judge rejects DeSantis' bid to toss out migrant flight lawsuit

A Florida judge on Friday refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) over his bid to transport migrants, per the Miami Herald.

*Driving the news:* Leon County Circuit Court Judge John C. Cooper set a Jan. 30 trial date to hear the case brought on by Florida state Sen. Jason Pizzo (D), who accused the governor of unlawfully using taxpayer money to fly nearly 50 undocumented migrants from Texas to Martha's Vineyard last September.


DeSantis lawyers attempted to get the case from Pizzo, who is suing as a private citizen, tossed out.The judge did, however, agree to drop the state's Chief Financial Officer, Jimmy Patronis, as a defendant.

*Catch up quick:* Pizzo sued DeSantis and other state officials over their effort to transport migrants, saying it violated the state program because the migrants were not in the country illegally and their flight did not originate in Florida.


At least two other lawsuits have been filed over the matter.

*By the numbers:* The state is facing a hefty price tag for the whole affair.


The Florida Department of Transportation paid the aviation company that conducted the migrant flights nearly $1.6 million.The state may also end up paying up to $1 million to defend itself in a class action filed by the migrants.

----------

