Page 18 of 26 FirstFirst ... 81011121314151617181920212223242526 LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 644
  1. #426
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271


    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…..




    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."

    _________



    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.
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  2. #427
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271


    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.

  3. #428
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    87,485
    “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.


  4. #429
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    87,485
    Legal Charges Against Trump-jd220719-jpg

  5. #430
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    87,485
    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.



  6. #431
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    87,485
    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.

  7. #432
    Thailand Expat
    aging one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    21,480
    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

  8. #433
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271
    ^yeah but

    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.

  9. #434
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    87,485
    FFS if they haven't nailed him by 2024 they might as well just give up now.

  10. #435
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    25-09-2022 @ 02:30 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    32,955
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    FFS if they haven't nailed him by 2024 they might as well just give up now.
    Say what?

  11. #436
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    87,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Cujo View Post
    Say what?
    With which of those really long words do you require assistance?

  12. #437
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    25-09-2022 @ 02:30 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    32,955
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    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.

  13. #438
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    87,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Cujo View Post
    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.

  14. #439
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271


    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


  15. #440
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271
    Fat boy and Friends




    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

    ____________




    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

    ___________




    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



    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.’”

  16. #441
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271
    Good as any place to put this because the fat boy will certainly lose




    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

  17. #442
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271


    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.”

  18. #443
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271


    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


  19. #444
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271


    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.

    ____________




    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

  20. #445
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,607
    ...FBI raids Mar-a-Lago looking for purloined Fed papers for the National Archive...right wing bellowing in outrage...

  21. #446
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    87,485
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...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".

  22. #447
    Custom Title Changer
    Topper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:32 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    .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.

  23. #448
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,607
    ...Fox News seemed prepared for this just like the BBC has the plan for when the Queen dies...

  24. #449
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    10,271
    • 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

  25. #450
    I am not a cat
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,741
    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.

Page 18 of 26 FirstFirst ... 81011121314151617181920212223242526 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •