The Trump Criminal Case MEGATHREAD.

[Jersey Girl]

This popped up in my YouTube feed today. I am sure that I've seen it before but have mercy, LOOK at what he could have said in light of what he chose to say. Just look at this will ya? Lest we forget...

Jan. 6 panel releases never-before-seen footage of Trump recording message to Capitol rioters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJuNHI2KP5w

[Jersey Girl]

In other news...Giuliani drifts further up the creek absent his paddle.

Excerpt:

CNN
—
A Washington, DC, jury has ordered Rudy Giuliani to pay nearly $150 million to two Georgia election workers for the harm caused by defamatory statements he made about them following the 2020 election.

Ruby Freeman was awarded $16,171,000 for defamation and $20 million for emotional distress. Shaye Moss, Freeman’s daughter, was awarded $16,998,000 for defamation and $20 million for emotional distress. The jury also awarded $75 million in punitive damages to both plaintiffs.

Giuliani watched intently as the verdict was read, using a stylus on a touch-screen device, apparently taking down notes on the figures he’d been ordered to pay. After leaving the courtroom, the former New York mayor and onetime attorney to former President Donald Trump vowed to appeal.

After the proceedings ended, Freeman and Moss hugged each other tightly and then every member of their legal team. There was a feeling of jubilation among the plaintiffs in the courtroom after Giuliani left, and Freeman looked especially relieved after the jury forewoman read the numbers, spinning around slightly in her chair and closing her eyes briefly.

“Today is a good day. A jury stood witness to what Rudy Giuliani did to me and my daughter and held him accountable, and for that I’m thankful. Today is not the end of the road. We still have work to do,” Freeman said outside the courthouse Friday.

Moss told reporters, “I spent 10 years as an election worker in Fulton County, Georgia. The lies Rudy Giuliani told about me and my mommy after the 2020 presidential election have changed our lives and the past few years has been devastating.”

“The flame that Giuliani lit with those lies and passed to so many others to keep that flame blazing changed every aspect of our lives, our homes, our family, our work, our sense of safety, our mental health, and we’re still working to rebuild,” Moss said. “As we move forward and continue to seek justice, our greatest wish is that no one, no election worker or voter or school board member or anyone else ever experiences anything like what we went through. You all matter and you are all important. We hope no one ever has to fight so hard just to get your name back.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/15/politics ... index.html

Oh and this little nugget from the above link:

How much money does Giuliani have?

During the trial, Giuliani repeatedly highlighted how he doesn’t have funds to pay his various debts or to respond to the case, with Sibley claiming Freeman and Moss are asking for “the civil equivalent of the death penalty.”

“They’re trying to end Mr. Giuliani,” Sibley said.

Oh wait. They're trying to end Giuliani who tried to end the democratic process. Right. Got it.

[Jersey Girl]

This. man. is. nuts. and. dangerous.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... tu-vpx.cnn

[Gunnar]

Youtube short from MSNBC. Former RNC Chair on Trump. Cuts right to the chase.

Amen, Michael, Amen!!!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G0szEuHgzOc

Amen indeed! That conclusion would not even be controversial if applied to anyone other than Trump who was accused even of much less serious offenses than Trump has been indicted for!

[Gunnar]

Man, it's nice to be rich. Or to have lots of devoted fans who will give you money. Trump has filed yet another appeal in the January 6th case with the D.C. Circuit. The subjects: presidential immunity and double jeopardy (based on his impeachment). The trial judge denied his motion to dismiss in a 40-page opinion last week. https://www.washingtonpost.com/document ... e_manual_8 And, as long as it's other people's money, why not just spend it?

Because the motion deals with immunity from prosecution, the D.C. Circuit will likely take it up now as opposed to making Trump wait until the end of trial. The D.C. Circuit can be very fast and painfully slow, so no clue as to whether this will delay the trial. Expect a motion to stay to be filed with the trial judge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... tion=alert

The stupidest claim that Trump and his lawyers have made so far (in my opinion) is that he, or any other President, is entitled to be absolutely immune from indictment or prosecution for the rest of his life no matter what crime he might have committed while in office -- even assassinating his political opponents in order to win reelection for a second term!

Coup-murder bombshell: Trump Lawyer says President may order ‘SEAL Team 6’ to kill American citizens

See MSNBC’s Ari Melber lead coverage of the explosive appeals arguments in U.S. v Trump, the Jack Smith prosecution of Trump over Jan. 6. This extended coverage includes a special report on how Trump’s lawyer argued there is a legal power for a President to assassinate rivals in America (unless the Senate convicted a president for it after impeachment); and Melber reports on the actual law and precedent; and also interviews a range of experts, including former Head of the DOJ’s criminal division Leslie Caldwell, New York Times legal writer Emily Bazelon and former Trump White House lawyer Jim Schultz.

I hope no one here is both irrational and immoral enough to defend that point of view! I'm sure no MAGA conservative would even begin to claim that if a Democrat ex-President did any such thing!

[Chap]

The stupidest claim that Trump and his lawyers have made so far (in my opinion) is that he, or any other President, is entitled to be absolutely immune from indictment or prosecution for the rest of his life no matter what crime he might have committed while in office -- even assassinating his political opponents in order to win reelection for a second term!

I hope no one here is both irrational and immoral enough to defend that point of view! I'm sure no MAGA conservative would even begin to claim that if a Democrat ex-President did any such thing!

So: ajax18, do you think that a President who uses his office to have an American political opponent killed (simply because he is a political opponent) should be immune from prosecution?

And please - this is not about Hunter Biden, OK?

[Res Ipsa]

Man, it's nice to be rich. Or to have lots of devoted fans who will give you money. Trump has filed yet another appeal in the January 6th case with the D.C. Circuit. The subjects: presidential immunity and double jeopardy (based on his impeachment). The trial judge denied his motion to dismiss in a 40-page opinion last week. https://www.washingtonpost.com/document ... e_manual_8 And, as long as it's other people's money, why not just spend it?

Because the motion deals with immunity from prosecution, the D.C. Circuit will likely take it up now as opposed to making Trump wait until the end of trial. The D.C. Circuit can be very fast and painfully slow, so no clue as to whether this will delay the trial. Expect a motion to stay to be filed with the trial judge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... tion=alert

The stupidest claim that Trump and his lawyers have made so far (in my opinion) is that he, or any other President, is entitled to be absolutely immune from indictment or prosecution for the rest of his life no matter what crime he might have committed while in office -- even assassinating his political opponents in order to win reelection for a second term!

Coup-murder bombshell: Trump Lawyer says the President may order ‘SEAL Team 6’ to kill American citizens

See MSNBC’s Ari Melber lead coverage of the explosive appeals arguments in U.S. v Trump, the Jack Smith prosecution of Trump over Jan. 6. This extended coverage includes a special report on how Trump’s lawyer argued there is a legal power for a President to assassinate rivals in America (unless the Senate convicted a president for it after impeachment); and Melber reports on the actual law and precedent; and also interviews a range of experts, including former Head of the DOJ’s criminal division Leslie Caldwell, New York Times legal writer Emily Bazelon and former Trump White House lawyer Jim Schultz.

I hope no one here is both irrational and immoral enough to defend that point of view! I'm sure no MAGA conservative would even begin to claim that if a Democrat ex-President did any such thing!

I listened to the oral argument yesterday. I was always taught that, when a judge asks a question, you answer it. You can then argue about the implications of the answer for the appeal, but answer the question first. No dodging. No getting cute.

One of the judges spent several minutes trying to get Trump's attorney to give a straightforward answer to a hypothetical scenario: If the president committed a crime while in office and was not impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, could he ever be criminally tried. According to Trump's argument, the answer is clearly "no." But the lawyer kept insisting the answer was a "qualified yes." The qualification: if the president were impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. But that clearly contradicted the express terms of the judge's hypothetical. The lawyer wasted his argument time and tried the judge's patience by dancing around the point instead of giving a straightforward answer to a simple question. Doing that annoys the judges and is a tell that one has a weak argument.

The argument Trump's lawyers are trying to make is this: as long as what the President did could be characterized as part of his official duties, his motives for the specific action are irrelevant. For example, meeting with foreign heads of state is part of the president's duties. Therefore, he is immune from criminal prosecution from whatever happened during a meeting with a head of another state. Bribery? Immune. Extortion? Immune. Selling state secrets? Immune. Arranging for the assassination of a political rival? Immune. The only way he could lose that immunity is by being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. This would be a blank check for out and out corruption by the President as long as his political party has his back. Or, in other words, it would actively encourage and protect corruption by the party that holds the presidency. This is banana republic stuff.

Ironically, Trump argued the exact opposite point during his second impeachment trial. He persuade senators not to vote for impeachment because, if he had done anything illegal, he could always be criminally prosecuted.

Predicting rulings based on the judges' questions and statements during oral argument is always a gamble. But to me, they sounded very hostile to Trump's position. There are several ways they could rule. The narrowest would be that the appeal is not a proper interlocutory appeal and must wait until after trial. Unless the Court of Appeals reverses and dismisses the case, expect Trump to seek immediate relief from the Supreme Court. Given the Supreme Court's recent actions, I expect they will take it up for an accelerated review. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Justices stay the trial while they consider the merits of Trump's immunity claim.

[Gunnar]

Predicting rulings based on the judges' questions and statements during oral argument is always a gamble. But to me, they sounded very hostile to Trump's position. There are several ways they could rule. The narrowest would be that the appeal is not a proper interlocutory appeal and must wait until after trial. Unless the Court of Appeals reverses and dismisses the case, expect Trump to seek immediate relief from the Supreme Court. Given the Supreme Court's recent actions, I expect they will take it up for an accelerated review. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Justices stay the trial while they consider the merits of Trump's immunity claim.

Thanks RI. I already fully understood the issues as you explained them clear up to your last paragraph quoted above. That last paragraph further clarified and enlightened my understanding, and I thank you for that. I hope you're right that the Supreme Court will take it up for an accelerated review and that they dismiss Trump and his lawyers' absolute immunity claim for the nonsense it clearly is! If they don't, I don't consider them significantly any less irrational and/or corrupt than Trump himself.

[Gunnar]

This video demonstrates just how insanely hypocritical MAGA republicans are:

Liberal Redneck - Donald Trump Argues He Should Be Immune to All Consequences

It's ridiculous how MAGA Republicans insist that Trump must be absolutely immune to any indictments or prosecution for any crime he committed while President, no matter how unequivocal the evidence against him, while Biden must be relentlessly prosecuted and criminalized for any nebulous accusation of wrongdoing no matter how weak or nonexistent the evidence against him. Either they are too stupid to recognize what hypocrisy is, or they just don't see anything wrong with hypocrisy when they are the ones guilty of it and it enables them to win.

I admire what Chris Christie said during his speech announcing his withdrawal from running for President. He said he would rather lose because he told the truth, than win because he lied. That is a rare quality among politicians today, most especially among Republicans. It seems that determination to tell the truth has become the surest way to disqualify oneself from becoming the Republican nominee in a primary election.

[Gunnar]

The stupidest claim that Trump and his lawyers have made so far (in my opinion) is that he, or any other President, is entitled to be absolutely immune from indictment or prosecution for the rest of his life no matter what crime he might have committed while in office -- even assassinating his political opponents in order to win reelection for a second term!

I hope no one here is both irrational and immoral enough to defend that point of view! I'm sure no MAGA conservative would even begin to claim that if a Democrat ex-President did any such thing!

So: ajax18, do you think that a President who uses his office to have an American political opponent killed (simply because he is a political opponent) should be immune from prosecution?

And if a sitting President could do that, he could just as easily prevent even the occurrence of the precondition that he must first be impeached and convicted before he can be indicted by arranging for the death of any and all likely to be involved in impeaching and convicting him.