Thread: Legal Charges Against Trump

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

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.

Originally Posted by Topper

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.

Originally Posted by beachbound

But, Trump wasn’t elected. He was chosen by God.

Interesting

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

^
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

Originally Posted by S Landreth

"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.

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by panama hat

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.

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."

Originally Posted by Loy Toy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

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.

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

trump 2024 - in prison

I'd love to see Trump under oath, because he's incapable of telling the truth.

Originally Posted by baldrick

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Cujo

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!

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.”

A small suit, but it will tweak him!

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.

• 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

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.

^at the very least,.........term limits