Trump GA Indictment (2 Viewers)

GrandAdmiral said:

So they mentioned this briefly earlier, but they were discussing how Trump has an argument to move this to federal court seeing that he was a sitting president when this occurred.

Click to expand...

Did you catch the authority?

The only one I know of is the federal officer removal statute - but that only applies to state charges against federal officials for conduct "relating to any act under color of such office".


I don't see how that's applicable here - he wasn't acting as president, he was acting as losing candidate for president. Getting re-elected is not an official act of the President - there's good case law on that (under the Hatch Act).

Lol

superchuck500 said:

Did you catch the authority?

The only one I know of is the federal officer removal statute - but that only applies to state charges against federal officials for conduct "relating to any act under color of such office".

28 U.S. Code § 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

www.law.cornell.edu

I don't see how that's applicable here - he wasn't acting as president, he was acting as losing candidate for president. Getting re-elected is not an official act of the President - there's good case law on that (under the Hatch Act).

Click to expand...

I did not, but they said it was the same one he tried to use in Bragg's indictment.

superchuck500 said:

Did you catch the authority?

The only one I know of is the federal officer removal statute - but that only applies to state charges against federal officials for conduct "relating to any act under color of such office".

28 U.S. Code § 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

www.law.cornell.edu

I don't see how that's applicable here - he wasn't acting as president, he was acting as losing candidate for president. Getting re-elected is not an official act of the President - there's good case law on that (under the Hatch Act).

Click to expand...

It was bald head dude, Republican strategist

Parlatore, old Trump attny, mentioned that Willis may have overstepped her boundaries (unless given instruction by GA AG) with respect to anything dealing with GA house or senate issues.

Yo arse needs to be on CNN brah!

here for the mug shots.

I also saw there are 30 unindicted co-conspirators

GrandAdmiral said:

I did not, but they said it was the same one he tried to use in Bragg's indictment.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I hadn't read that before - it's hilarious.


Yes, it is 28 USC 1442 and Trump argues that paying hush money to Daniels through Cohen was under the "color of the office of the president" because his being president required him to have separate private counsel, i.e. Cohen.

The junk these guys come up with just hoping to get a bite from a stupid or partisan judge is quite something.

efil4 said:

It was bald head dude, Republican strategist

Parlatore, old Trump attny, mentioned that Willis may have overstepped her boundaries (unless given instruction by GA AG) with respect to anything dealing with GA house or senate issues.

Yo arse needs to be on CNN brah!

Click to expand...

It was another Georgia attorney as well who they had on video.

MT15 said:

Sidney Powell as well. And Jenna Ellis.

40 count indictment, I’m hearing.

Click to expand...

"Your Honor, Defendant Ellis offers to attend three safe-driving seminars in exchange for the court's leniency."

Neal katyal pointed out act 90 that there may be someone who flipped. That unindicted coconspirator was in the room when they discussed possibly appointing Powell as sc. she can then seize voting machines.

Man, the RWNJ Twitter Mafia are going to have their hands full this week with the amount of criminal counts and defendants in this case.

superchuck500 said:

Thanks, I hadn't read that before - it's hilarious.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Yes, it is 28 USC 1442 and Trump argues that paying hush money to Daniels through Cohen was under the "color of the office of the president" because his being president required him to have separate private counsel, i.e. Cohen.

The junk these guys come up with just hoping to get a bite from a stupid or partisan judge is quite something.

Click to expand...

Here's the ruling that motion - basically "nah", having your private attorney pay hush money to a porn star to avoid embarrassment is not under the color of the office of the president.

A bit more clarity on who the defendants are:

@superchuck500's quoting and responding to himself... he's loving the shirt out of this.