topcat
Well-Known Member
He didn't fail to plug his book. He has as much credibility as John Eastman. He's on the Epstein list.
TRUMP CONVICTED
- Thread starter jimihendrix1
- Start date
printer
Well-Known Member
"OMG, I really am FUCKED."
Trump requests delay in E. Jean Carroll civil trial to consider other legal options
Former President Trump has requested a delay of trial proceedings in a defamation lawsuit against him by writer E. Jean Carroll.
The former president asked for a 90-day delay in the case in a motion Thursday, according to court records obtained by CNN. Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump cannot assert immunity in the case.
Trump’s legal team argued in a Thursday motion that the delay is necessary to allow the former president to consider appellate options, including an appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
“The requested stays are necessary and appropriate to give President Trump an opportunity to fully litigate his entitlement to present an immunity defense in the underlying proceedings, including pursuing the appeal in the Supreme Court if necessary,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “The denial of this right would upend the longstanding rule that lower courts are divested of jurisdiction for the pendency of an immunity-related appeal.”
Not granting Trump this time would be a “form of prejudice,” the former president’s team argued.
“Forcing President Trump to stand trial absent a final determination as to whether his presidential immunity defense is viable would be the ‘quintessential form of prejudice’ and would deprive the immunity of its intended effect,” the motion states.
“A stay of district court proceedings is mandated under the longstanding rule that a lower court is divested of jurisdiction throughout the pendency of an immunity-related appeal,” Trump’s team also argued in the court documents.
thehill.com
"I may get hit with a Rudy ruling."
Trump requests delay in E. Jean Carroll civil trial to consider other legal options
Former President Trump has requested a delay of trial proceedings in a defamation lawsuit against him by writer E. Jean Carroll.
The former president asked for a 90-day delay in the case in a motion Thursday, according to court records obtained by CNN. Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump cannot assert immunity in the case.
Trump’s legal team argued in a Thursday motion that the delay is necessary to allow the former president to consider appellate options, including an appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
“The requested stays are necessary and appropriate to give President Trump an opportunity to fully litigate his entitlement to present an immunity defense in the underlying proceedings, including pursuing the appeal in the Supreme Court if necessary,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “The denial of this right would upend the longstanding rule that lower courts are divested of jurisdiction for the pendency of an immunity-related appeal.”
Not granting Trump this time would be a “form of prejudice,” the former president’s team argued.
“Forcing President Trump to stand trial absent a final determination as to whether his presidential immunity defense is viable would be the ‘quintessential form of prejudice’ and would deprive the immunity of its intended effect,” the motion states.
“A stay of district court proceedings is mandated under the longstanding rule that a lower court is divested of jurisdiction throughout the pendency of an immunity-related appeal,” Trump’s team also argued in the court documents.
Trump requests delay in E. Jean Carroll civil trial to consider other legal options
Former President Trump has requested a delay of trial proceedings in a defamation lawsuit against him by writer E. Jean Carroll. The former president asked for a 90-day delay in the case in a motio…
thehill.com
"I may get hit with a Rudy ruling."
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
wait what, another recorded phone call......oh say it isn't so.......
Attorney Joe Gallina discusses Trump’s BLOCKBUSTER phone recording that he calls a “smoking gun.”
Here are ALL the facts you need to know:
Donald Trump was allegedly recorded in a phone call pressuring Wayne County election officials NOT to certify the results.
LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS:
Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump with 4 charges but the first is relevant here: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States - this charge relates to Donald Trump’s pressure on state officials to change Electoral College votes and by interfering with the counting of votes in Congress.
THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE:
We all know about Trump’s Georgia phone call pressuring Brad Rassenberger to find votes but tonight’s recording is a horse of a different color.
Previous evidence involved Donald Trump speaking to state officials at the top — but the fact that he called Wayne County canvassers, a group WAY down on the totem pole, shows the GREAT lengths Donald went to overturn the election. This is prime NEW evidence that paints a very different picture of Trump’s personal involvement.
IT’S PERFECT EVIDENCE
There is NOTHING more persuasive in a court of law than a recording of a criminal defendant…COMMITTING A CRIME.
And Ronna McDaniel could find herself with Conspiracy charges as well
"Please keep in mind, Jack does have the phone records, twitter records etc etc"
Attorney Joe Gallina discusses Trump’s BLOCKBUSTER phone recording that he calls a “smoking gun.”
Here are ALL the facts you need to know:
Donald Trump was allegedly recorded in a phone call pressuring Wayne County election officials NOT to certify the results.
LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS:
Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump with 4 charges but the first is relevant here: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States - this charge relates to Donald Trump’s pressure on state officials to change Electoral College votes and by interfering with the counting of votes in Congress.
THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE:
We all know about Trump’s Georgia phone call pressuring Brad Rassenberger to find votes but tonight’s recording is a horse of a different color.
Previous evidence involved Donald Trump speaking to state officials at the top — but the fact that he called Wayne County canvassers, a group WAY down on the totem pole, shows the GREAT lengths Donald went to overturn the election. This is prime NEW evidence that paints a very different picture of Trump’s personal involvement.
IT’S PERFECT EVIDENCE
There is NOTHING more persuasive in a court of law than a recording of a criminal defendant…COMMITTING A CRIME.
And Ronna McDaniel could find herself with Conspiracy charges as well
"Please keep in mind, Jack does have the phone records, twitter records etc etc"
topcat
Well-Known Member
It's been mentioned months ago, but Jack Smith has a trove of evidence we haven't heard of, yet. As James Brown said, I feel good.
topcat
Well-Known Member
Dear Santa; I've been good all year. I want indictments of the traitors listed above.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
As of July 7, 2023, the investigation led by Smith had spent $9M. I'd rather we not have had to spend it that way but like spending to repair a dam, it was necessary to prevent larger losses in the future.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
here goes Cali........
BREAKING: California's Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis boldly urges California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to "explore every legal option to remove" to remove Donald Trump from the state's 2024 presidential ballot — just like Colorado did.
This is sending MAGA into a screeching tailspin...
The bombshell decision by Colorado's Supreme Court to ban Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment for his involvement in the insurrection has sent shockwaves through the political landscape.
"Based on the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling … I urge you to explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot," Kounalakis wrote Weber.
"This decision is about honoring the rule of law in our country and protecting the fundamental pillars of democracy," she continued.
Given that Trump not only attempted a coup against our democracy but also refuses to repent for his crimes, this is a perfectly reasonable course of action.
Our elected officials MUST defend against the rising wave of MAGA fascism. If an insurrectionist like Donald Trump is allowed to seize the White House we might never have elections again.
BREAKING: California's Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis boldly urges California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to "explore every legal option to remove" to remove Donald Trump from the state's 2024 presidential ballot — just like Colorado did.
This is sending MAGA into a screeching tailspin...
The bombshell decision by Colorado's Supreme Court to ban Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment for his involvement in the insurrection has sent shockwaves through the political landscape.
"Based on the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling … I urge you to explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot," Kounalakis wrote Weber.
"This decision is about honoring the rule of law in our country and protecting the fundamental pillars of democracy," she continued.
Given that Trump not only attempted a coup against our democracy but also refuses to repent for his crimes, this is a perfectly reasonable course of action.
Our elected officials MUST defend against the rising wave of MAGA fascism. If an insurrectionist like Donald Trump is allowed to seize the White House we might never have elections again.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Legal actions in Arizona are proceeding along a similar line to the one that is taking Rudy into bankruptcy. It only follows that Trump will be drawn into these actions and I hope sooner than later.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
i caught her crying in a taped interview somewhere "they're gonna take everything away from me" boo efin whoo......buh bye
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
add “Cancun” Cruz and “Mr. Freeze” Abbott to the karmic roster.
(edit) just looked at the date of the post I quoted. I was led there by an alert.
topcat
Well-Known Member
And Chuck Grassley and Kelli Ward
Alert?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Curiouser and curiouser. An unfamiliar user gave me a like to an old post near that, and appears to have undone it. I fell for it, and I can’t even remember the username. ~expressive shrug~
printer
Well-Known Member
So much for a little bit of hope.
Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now
The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as the former president seeks to toss the case.
The refusal, which had no noted dissents, comes as an appeals court weighs a motion from Trump to dismiss the case; he argues he has absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s gambit to skip over an intermediate appeals court and bring the issue directly before the Supreme Court was aimed at keeping the schedule of the trial — the first of Trump’s four criminal proceedings — on track.
While the Supreme Court agreed to expedited briefing over whether to formally take up the matter, the justices ultimately sided with Trump, who argued the case should first be considered by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, which scheduled a Jan. 9 hearing.
The justices’ one-sentence order was unsigned and included no explanation.
Though a setback for Smith, the D.C. Circuit’s timeline is particularly speedy. In anticipation of the approaching hearing, Trump is due to submit his written brief tomorrow, and prosecutors are due to respond just before the new year.
In making his case to the Supreme Court, however, Smith noted there was no guarantee when the appeals court may rule on the matter.
And with lower court proceedings stayed while the appeals court weighs Trump’s immunity claims, any delay could mean kicking back a trial otherwise set for March 4 — a dynamic the judge overseeing the matter acknowledged as she paused the case.
“If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will — consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties — consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024,” U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote earlier this month.
Trump’s attorneys argued there was no reason for the Supreme Court to take the case before the appeals court weighed in, arguing speed would undercut consideration in a historic case that requires “more careful deliberation, not less.”
“The Special Counsel identifies no compelling reason for the extraordinary haste he proposes. Instead, he vaguely asserts that the ‘public interest’ favors resolution on a dramatically accelerated timetable, to ensure that President Trump may be brought to trial in the next few months,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing.
“In doing so, he confuses the ‘public interest’ with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a months-long criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration.”
Trump’s team similarly opposed any swift consideration of the matter before the appeals court as well, fighting a motion from Smith to expedite the matter.
Beyond the immunity issue, the appeals court will also weigh Trump’s other defense that could tie up the trial schedule: whether the prosecution amounts to unconstitutional double jeopardy.
Trump is charged in the case with four felonies for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty.
The case is one of four criminal indictments he faces. The former president’s attorney in Georgia, where Trump is also charged over his post-election efforts, has previewed that Trump will also make an immunity argument there.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s D.C. case, declined to dismiss the case based on Trump’s arguments.
“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, Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote in her early December ruling.
thehill.com
Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now
The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as the former president seeks to toss the case.
The refusal, which had no noted dissents, comes as an appeals court weighs a motion from Trump to dismiss the case; he argues he has absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s gambit to skip over an intermediate appeals court and bring the issue directly before the Supreme Court was aimed at keeping the schedule of the trial — the first of Trump’s four criminal proceedings — on track.
While the Supreme Court agreed to expedited briefing over whether to formally take up the matter, the justices ultimately sided with Trump, who argued the case should first be considered by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, which scheduled a Jan. 9 hearing.
The justices’ one-sentence order was unsigned and included no explanation.
Though a setback for Smith, the D.C. Circuit’s timeline is particularly speedy. In anticipation of the approaching hearing, Trump is due to submit his written brief tomorrow, and prosecutors are due to respond just before the new year.
In making his case to the Supreme Court, however, Smith noted there was no guarantee when the appeals court may rule on the matter.
And with lower court proceedings stayed while the appeals court weighs Trump’s immunity claims, any delay could mean kicking back a trial otherwise set for March 4 — a dynamic the judge overseeing the matter acknowledged as she paused the case.
“If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will — consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties — consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024,” U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote earlier this month.
Trump’s attorneys argued there was no reason for the Supreme Court to take the case before the appeals court weighed in, arguing speed would undercut consideration in a historic case that requires “more careful deliberation, not less.”
“The Special Counsel identifies no compelling reason for the extraordinary haste he proposes. Instead, he vaguely asserts that the ‘public interest’ favors resolution on a dramatically accelerated timetable, to ensure that President Trump may be brought to trial in the next few months,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing.
“In doing so, he confuses the ‘public interest’ with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a months-long criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration.”
Trump’s team similarly opposed any swift consideration of the matter before the appeals court as well, fighting a motion from Smith to expedite the matter.
Beyond the immunity issue, the appeals court will also weigh Trump’s other defense that could tie up the trial schedule: whether the prosecution amounts to unconstitutional double jeopardy.
Trump is charged in the case with four felonies for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty.
The case is one of four criminal indictments he faces. The former president’s attorney in Georgia, where Trump is also charged over his post-election efforts, has previewed that Trump will also make an immunity argument there.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s D.C. case, declined to dismiss the case based on Trump’s arguments.
“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, Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote in her early December ruling.
Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now
The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as…
thehill.com
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Oh well, we'll just have to plod through the mud while Trump's lawyers crow about "winning" a delay of the date where Jack Smith will slaughter their defense arguments.So much for a little bit of hope.
Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now
The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as the former president seeks to toss the case.
The refusal, which had no noted dissents, comes as an appeals court weighs a motion from Trump to dismiss the case; he argues he has absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s gambit to skip over an intermediate appeals court and bring the issue directly before the Supreme Court was aimed at keeping the schedule of the trial — the first of Trump’s four criminal proceedings — on track.
While the Supreme Court agreed to expedited briefing over whether to formally take up the matter, the justices ultimately sided with Trump, who argued the case should first be considered by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, which scheduled a Jan. 9 hearing.
The justices’ one-sentence order was unsigned and included no explanation.
Though a setback for Smith, the D.C. Circuit’s timeline is particularly speedy. In anticipation of the approaching hearing, Trump is due to submit his written brief tomorrow, and prosecutors are due to respond just before the new year.
In making his case to the Supreme Court, however, Smith noted there was no guarantee when the appeals court may rule on the matter.
And with lower court proceedings stayed while the appeals court weighs Trump’s immunity claims, any delay could mean kicking back a trial otherwise set for March 4 — a dynamic the judge overseeing the matter acknowledged as she paused the case.
“If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will — consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties — consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024,” U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote earlier this month.
Trump’s attorneys argued there was no reason for the Supreme Court to take the case before the appeals court weighed in, arguing speed would undercut consideration in a historic case that requires “more careful deliberation, not less.”
“The Special Counsel identifies no compelling reason for the extraordinary haste he proposes. Instead, he vaguely asserts that the ‘public interest’ favors resolution on a dramatically accelerated timetable, to ensure that President Trump may be brought to trial in the next few months,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing.
“In doing so, he confuses the ‘public interest’ with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a months-long criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration.”
Trump’s team similarly opposed any swift consideration of the matter before the appeals court as well, fighting a motion from Smith to expedite the matter.
Beyond the immunity issue, the appeals court will also weigh Trump’s other defense that could tie up the trial schedule: whether the prosecution amounts to unconstitutional double jeopardy.
Trump is charged in the case with four felonies for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty.
The case is one of four criminal indictments he faces. The former president’s attorney in Georgia, where Trump is also charged over his post-election efforts, has previewed that Trump will also make an immunity argument there.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s D.C. case, declined to dismiss the case based on Trump’s arguments.
“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, Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote in her early December ruling.
Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now
The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as…
it's not all bad.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
It’s probably because we’re paying them sweatshop wages.
printer
Well-Known Member
Everybody needs a bath at some time.
H G Griffin
Well-Known Member
That is a great picture of the old monster.
I'm so looking forward to seeing the first photos of him after he's in custody and doesn't have access to his hair and makeup team. It should be hilarious.
topcat
Well-Known Member
"Lordy, I hope there are tapes."
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Here Are the Other States Where Trump’s Ballot Eligibility Faces a Challenge
At least 16 states beyond Colorado currently have open legal challenges to the former president’s eligibility for office — but what happens next depends on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Eleven lawsuits — in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New York, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming — have been filed in federal district courts.
TEXAS -- You can do this