Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[DaveXA]

The Florida federal judge who dismissed the special counsel classified documents case against Donald Trump failed to properly disclose her attendance at a 2023 banquet funded by a conservative law school.

The May 5, 2023, event at George Mason University was held in honor of the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and included attendees from the conservative legal group the Federalist Society and right-leaning judges from across the country.

One of the attendees included William H. Pryor Jr., chief judge of the 11th Circuit, which is currently hearing an appeal of Cannon’s decision in the documents case.

Cannon failed to follow a 2006 rule requiring judges to disclose within 30 days their attendance at paid seminars that could pose or suggest the appearance of a conflict of interest, according to reporting from ProPublica.

“Judges administer the law, and we have a right to expect every judge to comply with the law,” Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told the outlet.

Cannon’s annual disclosure form for last year was due in May but hasn’t been posted, according to ProPublica.

The Independent has contacted Cannon’s chambers for comment.

Cannon has been flagged for past disclosure issues, not publishing disclosures about 2021 and 2021 trips to a luxury Montana lodge for a series of George Mason events until asked about them by NPR reporters.............

Judge in Trump classified documents case didn’t disclose right-wing banquet

Trump-appointed federal judge Aileen Cannon tossed classified documents case against former president in July

www.the-independent.com

I mean, Thomas and Cannon are cut from thr same cloth.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Special counsel Jack Smith can file an oversized, 180-page motion on presidential immunity in Donald Trump’s Washington DC federal court election interference case, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Tanya S Chutkan’s decision stems from prosecutors’ 21 September request to exceed the typical 45-page limit for opening motions and oppositions. Smith’s motion must be filed by Thursday and will include both legal arguments and evidence and could provide additional insight into Trump’s efforts to throw out election results, though it is unclear when the public might be able to see the material given that it will initially be filed under seal.

Trump faces four felony counts over his effort to subvert the 2020 election, though a July US supreme court ruling on presidential immunitythrew the case into near disarray.


The supreme court held that Trump and other presidents enjoy immunity for official acts, but not unofficial ones, undermining charges related to his alleged pressure campaign on justice department officials.

The supreme court remanded the case back to Chutkan, who must decide which claims in Smith’s case are official acts, and which are not official. Smith filed a new indictment against Trump in August, which does not dramatically change this criminal case, but revamps some parts to stress that Trump was not acting in an official capacity in his attempt to overturn election results………

Special counsel can file oversized motion in Trump election-interference case

Judge Tanya Chutkan grants Jack Smith’s request to file 180-page motion on presidential immunity in federal case

www.theguardian.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

it may be more then trump's lawyers can read.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump’s legal team and state prosecutors will go head-to-head in a New York appeals court on Thursday over his ongoing effort to throw out an approximately $450m civil fraud judgmentagainst him.

The former US president is disputing Manhattan supreme court judge Arthur Engoron’s 16 February decision after finding that Trump lied to financial institutions and insurers about his wealth. Trump’s case was litigated during a months-long civil trial in Manhattan in fall 2023.

His defense claimed in July appeals papers that New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, wanted to punish “highly successful” dealings between him and “highly sophisticated” Wall Street institutions, which “left all parties deeply satisfied and had no impact on the public interest”.


Trump’s lawyers also railed that the case was an “unauthorized, unprecedented power-grab” and should have been tossed, arguing James’s claims extended beyond the statute of limitations. They also turned to a well-worn page in their playbook – accusing James, a Democrat, of targeting Trump for partisan purposes.

If upheld, the decision would give James “limitless power to target anyone she desires, including her self-described political opponents”, they said in court papers. “Based on the ruling in this case, no company will want to come to New York to do business, and many businesses are fleeing.”

In their response to Trump’s appeal, James’s office reiterated that his namesake company and its top executives plotted to boost his net worth by as much as $2.2bn annually, using puffed-up financial statements to secure plum deals with banks and insurance companies.……

Appeals court hears arguments over Trump’s $454m civil fraud judgment

Ex-president’s defense claims New York attorney general wanted to punish his ‘highly successful’ Wall Street dealings

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

NEW YORK — Appeals court judges appeared to question the legitimacy of the civil fraud case against Donald Trump as the former president urged the court Thursday to overturn a judgment against him that has ballooned, with interest, to more than $478 million.

In February, a Manhattan trial judge found that Trump and other defendants — including his adult sons, Don Jr. and Eric, along with several business associates — fraudulently inflated his net worth and the value of his real estate properties to obtain favorable rates from banks and insurers.

The nearly half-billion-dollar penalty ordered by the trial judge initially threatened to trigger a financial crisis for Trump. But a New York appeals court sharply reduced the amount of the bond he had to post to avoid immediate enforcement of the verdict. Trump is now asking that same court to toss out the verdict entirely.

During oral arguments on Thursday, some members of the five-judge appeals court panel suggested that New York Attorney General Tish James had overstepped by using the particular New York fraud statute she used to bring the case against Trump. As soon as Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale, arguing for James, began her opening remarks, she was cut off by Associate Justice David Friedman, who questioned whether her office had ever before used the statute “to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners.”

Associate Justice Llinet Rosado chimed in once Friedman finished to add, “and little to no impact on the public marketplace.”

The justices’ questions echoed one of Trump’s central lines of defense: He has argued that no one was harmed by the inflated valuations.

Vale disputed that suggestion, saying “there was absolutely a public impact and a public interest here,” but she continued to field similar questions from other judges.

“I think you hear underneath all these questions, the question of mission creep,” Associate Justice Peter Moulton said. “Has 6312” — the statute in question — “morphed into something that it was not meant to do?”

“I will stress, your honor, that this does have harm to the public and to the markets,” Vale said in response.

Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, also fielded questions about his arguments as the former president seeks to eliminate one of his most serious financial burdens as he heads into the final stretch of the presidential race..............

MSN

 

[MT15]

Just shameless.

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump “resorted to crimes” after losing the 2020 election, federal prosecutors said in a court filing unsealed Wednesday that argues that the former president disregarded the advice of his vice president and other aides and is not entitled to immunity from prosecution over his failed bid to remain in power.

The filing was submitted by special counsel Jack Smith’s team following a Supreme Court opinion that conferred broad immunity on former presidents for official acts they take in office, narrowing the scope of the prosecution charging Trump with conspiring to overturn the results of the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

The purpose of the brief is to convince U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that the offenses charged in the indictment are private, rather than official, acts and can therefore remain part of the indictment as the case moves forward.

“Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one,” Smith’s team said, adding, “When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office.”

Those include efforts to persuade former Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the counting of the electoral votes on the afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021.

The filing includes details of conversations between Trump and Pence, including a private lunch the two had on Nov. 12, 2020, in which Pence “reiterated a face-saving option” for Trump, telling him, “don’t concede but recognize the process is over,” according to prosecutors.

In another private lunch days later, Pence urged Trump to accept the results of the election and run again in 2024.

“I don’t know, 2024 is so far off,” Trump told him, according to the filing.

But Trump “disregarded” Pence “in the same way he disregarded dozens of court decisions that unanimously rejected his and his allies’ legal claims, and that he disregarded officials in the targeted states — including those in his own party — who stated publicly that he had lost and that his specific fraud allegations were false,” prosecutors wrote.…….

Prosecutors: Trump 'resorted to crimes' after losing 2020 election in failed bid to cling to power

Federal prosecutors say in a newly unsealed court filing that Donald Trump “resorted to crimes” in a failed bid to cling to power after losing the 2020 election.

apnews.com

 

[efil4]

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I mean... lock him up?

 

[MT15]

Someone compiled a list of redacted numbers and apparent names that go with them. I don’t know how accurate it is however.

 

[MT15]

Since it cut off:

 

[MT15]

Updated list

Revised and updated list:

CC1- Rudy Giuliani
CC2- John Eastman
CC3- Sidney Powell
CC4- Jeffrey Clark
CC5- Ken Chesebro
CC6- Boris Epshteyn

P1- Steve Bannon
P2- Bill Stepien
P3- Justin Clark
P4- Jason Miller
P5- Mike Roman
P6- Roger Stone
P7- (Hope Hicks?) female Assistant to the President, Campaign Volunteer
P8- Marc Short
P9- Eric Hershmann
P10- Joe DiGenova
P11- Victoria Toensing
P12- Jenna Ellis
P13- Jared Kuschner
P14- Ivanka Trump
P15- Nicholas Luna
P16- AZ Gov. Doug Ducey
P17- GA Gov. Brian Kemp
P18- Rusty Bowers
P19- Christina Bobb
P20- Kory Langhofer
P21- Mark Meadows
P22- Eric Christman? male campaign attorney
P23- Trump private attorney
P24- maybe Jacki Pick
P25- Gabriel Sterling
P26- Chris Carr
P27- David Perdue
P28- Kelly Loeffler
P29- Shaye Moss
P30- Ruby Freeman
P31- Kurt Hilbert
P32- Cleta Mitchell
P33- Brad Raffensberger
P34- Geoff Duncan / Ryan Germany?
P35- Gabriel Sterling / Alex Kaufman?
P36- Robert Cheeley
P37- Mike Shirkey
P38- Lee Chatfield
P39- Ronna McDaniel
P40-
P41- Scott Gragson
P42- Molly Michael
P43- Justin Riemer
P44- Sophia Lai
P45- Dan Scavino
P46- Lawrence Tabas
P47- Al Schmidt
P48- Bernie Kerik / Mike Coudrey?
P49- WI SC Justice Brian Hagedorn
P50- Chris Krebs
P51- Tucker Carlson
P52- Bill Barr
P53- James Troupis / Kelli Ward?
P54- Hannah Salem
P55- Boris Epshteyn
P56-
P57- Bill McSwain
P58- Greg Jacob
P59- Pat Cipollone
P60- Kayleigh McEnany
P61- Karen Fann
P62- Ken Paxton
P63- Eric Schmitt
P64- Caroline Wren
P65- Julie Fancelli
P66- Dustin Stockton
P67- Shealah Craighead
P68- Raheem Kassam
P69- Peter Navarro
P70- Ivan Raiklin
P71- Patrick Philbin
P72- Pam Bondi
P73-
P74- Bee Nguyen
P75- Managing Director of ?
P76-
P77 – handled ethics issues in WH

 

[Optimus Prime]

I mean... lock him up?

Quiet on the set! Now filming “Is this the thing that takes down Donald Trump?”: Take 4832. And action!

 

[J-DONK]

I mean... lock him up?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump said on Thursday he would order the immediate firing of the special counsel Jack Smith if he were re-elected in the November election in the clearest expression of his intent to shut down the two criminal cases brought against him.

The remarks from Trump, who remains in a tight race for the presidency against Kamala Harris with 12 days until the election, came in a conversation with the conservative podcast host Hugh Hewitt, who asked whether Trump would pardon himself or fire the special counsel.

“Oh, it’s so easy. It’s so easy ... I would fire him within two seconds,” Trump said of Smith, who last year charged the former president in Florida over his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club, and in Washington over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.


Trump also said in the interview that he had been given immunity from the US supreme court, a reference to its ruling earlier this year that found former presidents are immune from prosecution for official actions related to the office of the presidency.

The power to fire the special counsel formally rests with the attorney general, but Trump has made no secret of his intention to appoint a loyalist as attorney general who would agree to withdraw the justice department from the two pending criminal cases.

Trump has previously tried to fire prosecutors who have investigated him personally. During his first term, he repeatedly tried to fire the special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated Trump’s ties to Russian interference in the 2020 election.……

Trump says he would fire Jack Smith ‘within two seconds’ of becoming president

Ex-president makes clearest expression yet of intent to shut down two criminal cases brought against him by special counsel

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

since that ruling, at lot of people don't understand what Trump will do if he is elected. he will do some things that are unspeakable. and the people who voted for him will cheer him on because honestly, they want an authoritarian Trump govt.
this is something that needs to be pushed more in the media

 

[MT15]

He has now doubled down and said he would expel Jack Smith from the US.

 

[faceman]

since that ruling, at lot of people don't understand what Trump will do if he is elected. he will do some things that are unspeakable. and the people who voted for him will cheer him on because honestly, they want an authoritarian Trump govt.
this is something that needs to be pushed more in the media

I was glad to see this bill passed. Congress was worried about a second Trump term. Maga's don't realize what
would happen if we withdrew from NATO. That thought should scare every American regardless of party affiliation.

Congress approves bill barring presidents from unilaterally exiting NATO | U.S. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia

Congress this week approved a measure aimed at preventing any U.S. president from unilaterally withdrawing the United States from NATO without...

www.kaine.senate.gov