Here is another thing I am interested in from a legal perspective. Cannon set that hearing to get proposed Trial dates, they had that hearing and said she would rule within 30 days. We are now at 7 weeks?
I understand most judges would set the trial date AT THAT HEARING! To me, this screams that she is fully aiding Trump's efforts to delay. Like a huge admission of bias on her part.
Prosecution SCOTUS brief in the Fake Electors case. They did the really smart thing and addressed (which the district court judge did not) what happens if the SCOTUS finds some limited immunity. The prosecution argues that none of what Trump is alleged to have done is within that outer limit. "No valid claim of blanket immunity should attach to a non-immune conspiracy committed with private actors through private conduct to obtain a private end simply because a former President also used official powers to further the conspiracy."
Prosecution also argues that none of Trump's statements that he considers official acts (e.g., interactions with the Vice President) should be precluded from evidence at trial because they can be admitted to show Trump's knowledge of the falsity of his claims and his intent and motive for the conspiracy.
I don't see Trump winning this. Maybe Alito will make up some crazy stuff in dissent, but no way are 5 SCOTUS judges going to say you have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution just because you are president. This is going back to the trial court. Trump can make appeals on evidentiary issues and the "outer limit" if he gets acquitted.
After reading this thread, I have decided to vote for Joe.
Sweaty ole Steve wrote:
Yesterday Donald's lawyer Sadow argued to GA Judge McAfee that Donald's statements/actions regarding fake elector scheme were made in his capacity as a private citizen campaigning for office. Claiming Free Speech! BUT Donnie's lawyers have already argued to the USSC that Donnie was on the clock when making those statements because he was trying to stop the fictional steal. Outer limit of Work-related! OOPS. Both arguments suck big donkey dongs, but OOPS.
I think this huge contradiction and inconsistency was pointed out by the prosecution in the SCOTUS brief in the Fake Electors case. They pointed out that he can't avail himself of the First Amendment at the same time he's claiming everything he said was in his capacity as a government official. Trump looks really bad here and many of his lawyers are just idiots.
Supreme Court in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck case: "The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment constrains governmental actors and protects private actors."
Prosecution: "petitioner's assertion of private First Amendment rights speaks volumes about the private character of the charged offenses."
trump is a stain wrote:
I would be interested in a lawyers opinion on this aspect of Smith's report. He spends considerably time asserting that this is an AD-HOC legal position that was crafted 2 years after the fact and is much different than Trump's other defenses that he has used in court filings and in his public statements. Essentially Tom Fitton talked him into this Presidential Records ACT defense and he is running with it.
Is this problematic from a legal perspective? Don't defendants often come up with new defenses as the trial approaches? Does it imply guilt when the craft a brand new defense for what he did?
I think it depends when a defendant comes up with a new defense. Trump has a right to pursue this PRA in some fashion now, but the real problem is Judge Cannon's refusal to deal with it. She denied his motion for dismissal on PRA, but then STILL and rather deliberately left open that she may craft jury instructions with PRA in them. According to her, the fool's errand she ordered the parties to do (drafting hypothetical jury instructions on competing scenarios of PRA) is just her trying to "better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impressions." Yeah, that's what legal briefs are for. Cannon is either admitting she's a confused judge or she's planning some crazy ambush at trial. I'd hate to think she's that beholden to Trump. Anyway, I can't see it working -- the prosecution specifically mentioned writ of mandamus in a recent filing on this issue. They are watching and don't trust her. I don't blame them. She's been nuts throughout.
On the eve of the Hush Porn trial, and not knowing much of what it is about, I decided to read up a bit. I came across this detailed and hilarious FBI search warrant.
From pages 38 to 57 is the heart of it, if you are interested. I don't know how much of all that crazy activity is illegal, but it just screams illegal to me. Fake shell companies (for "real estate consulting" no less), fake wire transfers, and endless panicked texts, calls and emails between Cohen (Trump's lawyer) Keith Davidson (Stormy Daniels' lawyer), Dylan Howard (National Enquirer boss who was working with Trump to BURY news - not report it) AND Trump himself (and even his staff, like Hope Hicks). Who does crazy stuff like this except criminals?
It will be incredible if Trump takes the stand to get cross-examined on all this. He'd have to be batshift nuts to do so. I don't think he can still deny he had (extra-marital) sex with both Stormy Daniels and the other porn star at this point, so he will have to admit on cross-examination that he had sex and the whole charade orchestrated by Cohen at Trump's direction actually happened and that it was to shut up the porn stars with $$$$$. I think his only defense will be that Cohen told him it was all legal. I don't know how strong "advice of counsel" defenses are, but I'm sure Cohen is going to say that they ALL knew what they were doing was illegal, which is why they conjured up all the fake shell companies and fake wire transfers and fake cover documents and fake public statements. Even the "settlement agreement" between Trump and Stormy Daniels was with fake names (Trump is "David Dennison" and Stormy Daniels is "Peggy Peterson"). What a sham clusterfock. It's hilarious stuff.
^^^ Yes will be very interesting. I don't think a defendant can use 'advice of counsel' defense unless they notify the judge and prosecutor well in advance, because it would mean that attorney-client privilege goes out the window and the prosecutor would get to see all relevant communication between the defendant and the attorney. So I've heard.
Cohen did over a year at Rikers Island for his part in this scheme. And Donald's lead role in this is all very well documented. Election interference. IIRC Donald could be facing 4 years.
In the Hush Porn trial, Judge Merchan ruled that the infamous Access Hollywood video of Romeo Trump discussing his seduction techniques cannot be put in evidence at trial. Merchan held the video was too prejudicial to Trump. Kind of undercuts Trump's statements about the judge already being out to get him (although it won't stop Trump from continuing to yell that).
Proceedings have begun. Historic trial! Too bad it's this one starting instead of the Bathroom or Fake Electors trials. The Bathroom trial was filed last June. It's absurd that a case so relatively simple hasn't had a trial yet (doesn't even have a trial date!). Judge Cannon is an incompetent judge incapable of moving a docket forward.
Anyway, should be lots of crazy stuff in this Hush Porn trial. I'm guessing Trump won't have the balls to testify, so he's going to have to backtrack on that announcement.
Sweaty ole Steve wrote:
because it would mean that attorney-client privilege goes out the window and the prosecutor would get to see all relevant communication between the defendant
Correct. He can't say he was following his lawyer's advice, because that privilege will be no more and ALL communication between Trump and his lawyers would have to be presented in court. Can you imagine what's in that communication? Jack Smith is hoping Trump is dumb enough to use the "my lawyer told me it was fine" defense.
I should have read up on the case more. It looks like Trump has already decided he won't use "advice of counsel" defense.
But article also says Trump has reserved the right to argue he lacked intent because there were lawyers involved. That seems like an end-around of the "advice of counsel" defense. How does that work? Judge Merchan will have to watch out for this kind of stuff and make some tough rulings on the fly about how far Trump can go with this.
HAHA! Trump asked the trial to be halted so he can attend his son's high school graduation. "Of course, counsel. No problem. I routinely adjourn a trial for the day when a criminal defendant has something better to do. High school graduation, bowling league, neighborhood block party, company happy hour, cable company coming over. Just let me know when you want some time off for stuff, okay?"
Commode Flusher wrote:
HAHA! Trump asked the trial to be halted so he can attend his son's high school graduation. "Of course, counsel. No problem. I routinely adjourn a trial for the day when a criminal defendant has something better to do. High school graduation, bowling league, neighborhood block party, company happy hour, cable company coming over. Just let me know when you want some time off for stuff, okay?"
Isn't that the same son that Trump had an affair with while Melania was still nursing their newborn infant?
Let's see, Stormy Daniels affair 2006. That was 18 years ago!
Cha-ching! The POS can't stay home with his newborn son and wife, but has to sneak off to have an affair with a Porn Star, and now want's time off from a criminal prosecution to spend time with him.
Precious! You can't make this stuff up.
Judge follow standard procedures by reading the Parker warning to the defendant.
Elise Stefanik posts on X that the words uttered clearly indicate a “corrupt” judge presiding over a “show trial.” Uh, no. That’s just the law for every defendant.
It’s a clear example of following the law and providing equal treatment under the law.
But everyone who circles the wagons around DJT has already decided that every possible scenario automatically triggers the script.
it’s almost like they’re following a guy who has spent a lifetime blustering about the only two possibilities for Every. Single. Situation. Ever.: He is absolutely the greatest, and undeniable, winner, or he was horribly wronged.
This case is pure and total garbage and everyone knows it.
Only corrupt Democrats would try to turn a minor misdemeanor into a federal felony to try to influence a national election.
Why do facts not care about their feelings. wrote:
Judge follow standard procedures by reading the Parker warning to the defendant.
Elise Stefanik posts on X that the words uttered clearly indicate a “corrupt” judge presiding over a “show trial.” Uh, no. That’s just the law for every defendant.
It’s a clear example of following the law and providing equal treatment under the law.
But everyone who circles the wagons around DJT has already decided that every possible scenario automatically triggers the script.
it’s almost like they’re following a guy who has spent a lifetime blustering about the only two possibilities for Every. Single. Situation. Ever.: He is absolutely the greatest, and undeniable, winner, or he was horribly wronged.
It's weird how the mind of a MAG@ works. They take their own ignorance and naivete of how basic things works in America to be evidence that anything that they learn of for the first time must be some new rule or procedure designed by their enemies on the fly just to fvck with them. There are drugs that can be prescribed for these feelings, guys!
Back in reality wrote:
This case is pure and total garbage and everyone knows it.
Only corrupt Democrats would try to turn a minor misdemeanor into a federal felony to try to influence a national election.
^^^^^^^
Exhibit A
We will watch two things take place at the exact same time.
1.The trial will take place based on applicable law, evidence and testimony from Trumpworld itself.
2. Right wing will produce spin and a nightly fictional narrative entirely made up and having nothing to do with reality, law and evidence.
But the good thing is #1 will rule the day. #2 will have no effect on the case.
4 More Years Biden - Harris wrote:
Isn't that the same son that Trump had an affair with while Melania was still nursing their newborn infant?
Let's see, Stormy Daniels affair 2006. That was 18 years ago!
Cha-ching! The POS can't stay home with his newborn son and wife, but has to sneak off to have an affair with a Porn Star, and now want's time off from a criminal prosecution to spend time with him.
Precious! You can't make this stuff up.
Trump had an affair with his own son?!?
Jeez, I knew he was a disgusting excuse for a human being but that tops everything!
Back in reality wrote:
This case is pure and total garbage and everyone knows it.
Only corrupt Democrats would try to turn a minor misdemeanor into a federal felony to try to influence a national election.
Here you go, Nancy Drew. Read pages 38 to 57, and point out to us what corroborated evidence recited in those pages is "total garbage" and why YOU think it's legal to get together with 3-4 other people to funnel money around fake companies with fake documents for purposes of (ironically, given your post) influencing a national election.
I dares ya! I double dog dares ya!
Back in reality wrote:
This case is pure and total garbage and everyone knows it.
Only corrupt Democrats would try to turn a minor misdemeanor into a federal felony to try to influence a national election.
You are going to love the part where they produce evidence of Trump saying to delay the hush money payments as long as possible because after the election it won’t matter and they can stiff her.
Donnie nicely elevated his misdemeanor crimes to felonies for the prosecution.
