superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Trump and Eastman appear to be preparing to be indicted. It’s probably better to have a new, separate thread for this case.
Special Counsel January 6 conspiracy case against Trump in DC (Update: Trial set for March 4, 2024) (1 Viewer)
- Thread startersuperchuck500
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Large bolding mine. His out when actual violence occurs
==========
GOP Congressman Clay Higgins warned that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s "days are numbered" because he is bringing federal charges against Donald Trump.
Mr Smith is leading the charge in prosecuting Mr Trump both for his alleged retention and attempts to hide sensitive government documents at his Mar-a-Lago home after his presidency, and for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Higgins issued the ominous warning during an appearance on far-right media outlet Newsmax on Wednesday. He painted a recent court filing Mr Smith made to obtain a list of accounts that liked or retweeted Mr Trump's Twitter account as a back-door tactic for spying on regular Americans.
“So, let me say, regarding Jack Smith and his request for another list of American citizens under some alleged legitimate investigative effort,” Mr Higgins said. “I consider it a badge of honor to be on another one of Jack Smith’s lists. So, I’ll just say that his days are numbered and American patriots are not gonna stand idly by, good sir, and allow our republic to dissolve. We are prepared to fight legally and peacefully and within the parameters of the Constitution with every ounce of our might and focus.”……..
www.the-independent.com
==========
GOP Congressman Clay Higgins warned that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s "days are numbered" because he is bringing federal charges against Donald Trump.
Mr Smith is leading the charge in prosecuting Mr Trump both for his alleged retention and attempts to hide sensitive government documents at his Mar-a-Lago home after his presidency, and for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr Higgins issued the ominous warning during an appearance on far-right media outlet Newsmax on Wednesday. He painted a recent court filing Mr Smith made to obtain a list of accounts that liked or retweeted Mr Trump's Twitter account as a back-door tactic for spying on regular Americans.
“So, let me say, regarding Jack Smith and his request for another list of American citizens under some alleged legitimate investigative effort,” Mr Higgins said. “I consider it a badge of honor to be on another one of Jack Smith’s lists. So, I’ll just say that his days are numbered and American patriots are not gonna stand idly by, good sir, and allow our republic to dissolve. We are prepared to fight legally and peacefully and within the parameters of the Constitution with every ounce of our might and focus.”……..
GOP lawmaker makes not-so-veiled threat against Jack Smith
Mr Higgins previously threatened FBI Director Chris Wray, telling him ‘your day is coming’
www.the-independent.com- Thread starter
- #398
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Marc Elias (@marc.e.elias) on Threads
🚨BREAKING: D.C. Federal Court DENIES Donald Trump's motion to dismiss his criminal case.
www.threads.net
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on Friday issued a stunning rebuke to four-times indicted former president Donald Trump, rejecting his motion to dismiss his Jan. 6, 2021, charges on absolute immunity and other specious constitutional grounds. The ruling came just hours after an appellate court rejected Trump’s immunity claim in a parallel civil case.
Chutkan’s ruling might turn out to be the most consequential legal defeat yet for Trump and quite possibly a decisive turning point in the 2024 presidential election.
In dispensing with Trump’s criminal immunity claim, Chutkan held emphatically, “The Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support that contention. No court — or any other branch of government — has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold.”
She continued, “Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
She added, “Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”……..
Chutkan’s ruling might turn out to be the most consequential legal defeat yet for Trump and quite possibly a decisive turning point in the 2024 presidential election.
In dispensing with Trump’s criminal immunity claim, Chutkan held emphatically, “The Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support that contention. No court — or any other branch of government — has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold.”
She continued, “Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
She added, “Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”……..
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
CNN) — Special counsel Jack Smith plans to present evidence at Donald Trump’s trial next year that his continued support for US Capitol rioters helps to show he intended to inspire violence on January 6, 2021, as part of a conspiracy he led to overturn the 2020 election.
In a court filing made public Tuesday, prosecutors point to Trump endorsing the Proud Boys during a 2020 presidential debate, saying he would pardon January 6 rioters and playing a recording of the National Anthem from imprisoned January 6 defendants at a campaign rally.
Prosecutors say the fact that Trump has financially supported – and celebrated – January 6 rioters establishes his motive and intent to commit federal crimes.
“The Government plans to introduce evidence at trial showing that in the years since the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the defendant has openly and proudly supported individuals who criminally participated in obstructing the congressional certification that day, including by suggesting that he will pardon them if re-elected, even as he has conceded that he had the ability to influence their actions during the attack,” prosecutors wrote.
“The defendant nonetheless has financially supported and celebrated these offenders – many of whom assaulted law enforcement on January 6 – by promoting and playing their recording of the National Anthem at political rallies and calling them ‘hostages,’” prosecutors added………
www.cnn.com
In a court filing made public Tuesday, prosecutors point to Trump endorsing the Proud Boys during a 2020 presidential debate, saying he would pardon January 6 rioters and playing a recording of the National Anthem from imprisoned January 6 defendants at a campaign rally.
Prosecutors say the fact that Trump has financially supported – and celebrated – January 6 rioters establishes his motive and intent to commit federal crimes.
“The Government plans to introduce evidence at trial showing that in the years since the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the defendant has openly and proudly supported individuals who criminally participated in obstructing the congressional certification that day, including by suggesting that he will pardon them if re-elected, even as he has conceded that he had the ability to influence their actions during the attack,” prosecutors wrote.
“The defendant nonetheless has financially supported and celebrated these offenders – many of whom assaulted law enforcement on January 6 – by promoting and playing their recording of the National Anthem at political rallies and calling them ‘hostages,’” prosecutors added………
Special counsel to use Trump’s continued embrace of January 6 rioters against him at trial | CNN Politics
Special counsel Jack Smith plans to present evidence at Donald Trump’s trial next year that his continued support for US Capitol rioters helps to show he intended to inspire violence on January 6, 2021, as part of a conspiracy he led to overturn the 2020 election.
www.cnn.com
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
So much for Trump's tough on crime rhetoric. The self-proclaimed "law and order" presidential candidate doesn't seem to like law and order when it is applied to himself.
Over the weekend, Trump posted an article to Truth Social complaining about Prosecutor Jack Smith's new indictment outlining Trump's historical pattern of falsely claiming voter fraud.
Trump's article accuses Smith of telling a "blatant lie" and calls for Smith to be fired and prosecuted:
This type of rhetoric was the subject of a gag order, but now Trump is allowed to openly attack Smith again as an exception to the upheld gag order handed down by the appeals court. This attacks paints a veiled threat against Smith: If Trump's wins, expect a prosecution.............
MSN
www.msn.com
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
What did those idiots exempting Smith from the gag order think was going to happen? This isn't surprising in the least. Quite predictable really.
So much for Trump's tough on crime rhetoric. The self-proclaimed "law and order" presidential candidate doesn't seem to like law and order when it is applied to himself.
Over the weekend, Trump posted an article to Truth Social complaining about Prosecutor Jack Smith's new indictment outlining Trump's historical pattern of falsely claiming voter fraud.
Trump's article accuses Smith of telling a "blatant lie" and calls for Smith to be fired and prosecuted:
This type of rhetoric was the subject of a gag order, but now Trump is allowed to openly attack Smith again as an exception to the upheld gag order handed down by the appeals court. This attacks paints a veiled threat against Smith: If Trump's wins, expect a prosecution.............
MSN
www.msn.com
GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Case was going to SCOTUS anyway. Might as well get it out of the way...
www.cnn.com
Special counsel goes directly to Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump has immunity from prosecution | CNN Politics
Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.
www.cnn.com
GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
It's definitely a gamble, but like I said, it was going to get to them anyway.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
Yeah, definitely the smart move to get this out the way now.Case was going to SCOTUS anyway. Might as well get it out of the way...
Special counsel goes directly to Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump has immunity from prosecution | CNN Politics
Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.
Taurus
Well-known member
Offline
Provably untrue charges, Donald? Really?
So much for Trump's tough on crime rhetoric. The self-proclaimed "law and order" presidential candidate doesn't seem to like law and order when it is applied to himself.
Over the weekend, Trump posted an article to Truth Social complaining about Prosecutor Jack Smith's new indictment outlining Trump's historical pattern of falsely claiming voter fraud.
Trump's article accuses Smith of telling a "blatant lie" and calls for Smith to be fired and prosecuted:
This type of rhetoric was the subject of a gag order, but now Trump is allowed to openly attack Smith again as an exception to the upheld gag order handed down by the appeals court. This attacks paints a veiled threat against Smith: If Trump's wins, expect a prosecution.............
MSN
www.msn.com
Well, you're an allegedly rich man. So prove it. Bring a suit, win your case, be exonerated before the whole world.
But we know you won't do that. Coward.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Timing isn’t everything. But it certainly matters, and seldom more so than in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump.
The former US president intends to use timing – delay, delay, delay – to avoid punishment for trying to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, and for fomenting a violent coup.
Nope, said Smith this week. A tough guy who has prosecuted war crimes in the Hague, Smith clearly recognizes that putting off the case until after next fall’s presidential election could let Trump off the hook.
So the prosecutor made a bold legal maneuver. Smith moved to bypass the court of appeals, whose involvement could slow things down considerably, and to go directly to the US supreme court for a decision on a foundational issue.
He wants the US’s highest court to rule – immediately – on whether Trump, as he claims, is immune from criminal prosecution.
“Jack Smith wants to cut straight to the chase,” writes former US attorney Joyce Vance, noting that the supreme court has never decided this issue before.
Should the court rule in Trump’s favor on immunity, the case goes away. That looks like a gamble, but the case is headed to the supreme court anyway.
The key question is rather simple.
Is Trump above the law? Or, like every other US citizen, must he abide by it?
Smith’s maneuver was heralded by several prominent legal experts.
“A huge and possibly brilliant move, a game changer one way or the other,” Harry Litman, a former justice department official who teaches constitutional law, wrote on Twitter/X.
So far, the signs are encouraging. The court granted Smith’s request to speed up the question of whether to hear the case, asking for a quick response from Team Trump.
In other words, the court quickly agreed to decide whether to decide the case, an important first step.
Of course, this supreme court doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, given its terrible rulings on voting rights and abortion rights and the appalling ethical malfeasance of some of its members.
But even this tainted court probably doesn’t want to be associated for all time with the notion that a US president is above the law.……
www.theguardian.com
The former US president intends to use timing – delay, delay, delay – to avoid punishment for trying to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, and for fomenting a violent coup.
Nope, said Smith this week. A tough guy who has prosecuted war crimes in the Hague, Smith clearly recognizes that putting off the case until after next fall’s presidential election could let Trump off the hook.
So the prosecutor made a bold legal maneuver. Smith moved to bypass the court of appeals, whose involvement could slow things down considerably, and to go directly to the US supreme court for a decision on a foundational issue.
He wants the US’s highest court to rule – immediately – on whether Trump, as he claims, is immune from criminal prosecution.
“Jack Smith wants to cut straight to the chase,” writes former US attorney Joyce Vance, noting that the supreme court has never decided this issue before.
Should the court rule in Trump’s favor on immunity, the case goes away. That looks like a gamble, but the case is headed to the supreme court anyway.
The key question is rather simple.
Is Trump above the law? Or, like every other US citizen, must he abide by it?
Smith’s maneuver was heralded by several prominent legal experts.
“A huge and possibly brilliant move, a game changer one way or the other,” Harry Litman, a former justice department official who teaches constitutional law, wrote on Twitter/X.
So far, the signs are encouraging. The court granted Smith’s request to speed up the question of whether to hear the case, asking for a quick response from Team Trump.
In other words, the court quickly agreed to decide whether to decide the case, an important first step.
Of course, this supreme court doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, given its terrible rulings on voting rights and abortion rights and the appalling ethical malfeasance of some of its members.
But even this tainted court probably doesn’t want to be associated for all time with the notion that a US president is above the law.……
Jack Smith just made a gutsy, momentous decision in his prosecution of Trump | Margaret Sullivan
Smith has asked the supreme court to rule – urgently – on whether Trump has legal immunity, as the ex-president claims
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.