TRUMP CONVICTED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
"Take that Smith, I ain't afraid of you."
Trump says he’ll attend immunity hearing on Tuesday in DC
Former President Trump will attend a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday over whether he can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump confirmed on Truth Social that he plans to attend the hearing in person as he and his legal team push the argument that he has absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

In the post, Trump made the case that he should not be prosecuted for his attempts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

“Of course I was entitled, as President of the United States and Commander in Chief, to Immunity. I wasn’t campaigning, the Election was long over,” Trump wrote. “I was looking for voter fraud, and finding it, which is my obligation to do, and otherwise running running our Country.”

Trump went on to suggest President Biden could be vulnerable to criminal charges if the courts rule that Trump is not immune.

Trump has called for the courts to dismiss the charges against him in Washington, D.C., where the former president was indicted in August over his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court to weigh Trump’s efforts to toss his election interference prosecution, but the high court declined to take up the case.

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.

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.

Trump and his team have repeatedly tried to delay the criminal cases against him in Washington, D.C., Florida, Georgia and New York, essentially hoping to punt them beyond the 2024 election in hopes that the former president will return to the White House at that point.
I thought only lawyers appeared at those things. What is he going to do, glower at the judges, maybe set his army of morons upon them outside the court on TV when he loses. Every legal pundit I've seen says the amicus brief filed with the appeals court will fuck him and send him back to the tender mercies of Chutkan, before Jack even says a word.
 
Last edited:

CCGNZ

Well-Known Member
I think what Trump did and said during the insurrection will have the biggest impact on the jury, what he said while he was watching J6 on TV and what he didn't do, his duty to the constitution.

Understand the entire federal government was inside the capitol that day, the VP, the house and the senate, if they killed them all just Trump would remain as the only federal government, the one who murdered them all. What would have happened then? At the time we did not know how it would end or how deep the conspiracies ran. If Trump could have murdered the lot of them, he probably would have, if it meant power and getting away with his many crimes. I doubt the SCOTUS would do anything, at least until he came after them and by then it would be too late.


ABC News reveals new evidence about Trump's inaction on Jan. 6

ABC News reports that special counsel Jack Smith has obtained new evidence about Trump's inaction on Jan. 6. Former Trump White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham discusses the reporting.
In hindsight the fact that 2016-2020 and the concurrent 3 yrs. of unparalleled litigation resulting should have been of no surprise when considering the source. The mind numbing marathon of lies,twisted words,distortion of history all woven together to buckle the knees of the rule of law is unprecedented in politics, The depths of sediment this guy will probe to obscure the truth is from a dimension previously unseen or even anticipated in this country's political history. Just yesterday he put out another "vague" meaning statement of the "trouble' our country will be in if SCOTUS rules against him, another remark akin to his Jan. 6 "fight like hell" comment. Seems that no semblance of common sense/patriotism/humility exists to deter his seeming quest to see the US further torn w/violence/strife that he gleefully seemed to enjoy on Jan 6.. 2024 is shaping up to be a bizarre out of body exp.in which I'm watching the country march toward a cliff not knowing if/when the off-ramp comes into sight,hoping beyond hope that sanity can prevail in the absence of bloodshed/chaos and we can emerge from the slumber of a 8 yr. nightmare.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

New amicus brief adds wrinkle to Trump's immunity appeal

Donald Trump is in court next week to defend his immunity claims and explain why he should not be held criminally responsible for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. George Conway joins Katie Phang to discuss why he, and 15 other conservative Republicans, filed an amicus brief rebuking Trump's "outrageous" claims to immunity.
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
Looks like John Sauer just his ass handed to him from Judge Pan....lol

Judge Pan: Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to a criminal prosecution?

John Sauer: If he were impeached and convicted first.

Pan: So, your answer is no?

Sauer: My answer is qualified yes.

yeah she saw right through that...lol........

at the end:

Jack's attorney said this to Sauer:::

Attorney Joe Gallina challenges Trump’s attorneys with the following question: “If a president really had absolute immunity — and couldn’t be convicted or prosecuted after they left office — why did Richard Nixon need a pardon after he resigned?”

idk how they will rule, but my guess would be this immunity claim just went:
balloon-flying-balloon.gif
 

printer

Well-Known Member
It does not appear to be going very well for Trump in the appeals court today!


LIVE: Trump APPEAL before DC Circuit FULL ORAL ARGUMENT


Judges appear skeptical of Trump immunity argument
Why did no one bring up "In the closing days of a presidency (heck, it could be up to a year), the president can do as he likes and not get criminally prosecuted because there is not enough time to go through impeachment in the House and Senate."

Another thought, Trump's lawyer is right in that for a criminal prosecution to take place there needs to be the conviction in the House and Senate 'while the president is in power'. The impeachment and conviction removes his presidential immunity right. But once out of office he no longer has the right and can be tried.
 
Last edited:

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Silence is complicity and if he loses, he will attack the 3 female judges who will send him to legal Hell with Chutkan as his tormentor and she is both female and black, import stuff to Donald and his fans... Donald has been crying HAVOC, call out the dogs of war, for a while now with little response other than barking of threats to judges, lawyers, prosecutors, victims, public officials and witnesses.

 

printer

Well-Known Member
Trump: Georgia case ‘totally compromised’ after allegations against Fani Willis
Former President Trump on Tuesday insisted the case against him and several others in Georgia over efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 election results should be dropped after another defendant filed a motion accusing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) of improper behavior.

“You had a very big event yesterday as you saw in Georgia where the district attorney is totally compromised. The case has to be dropped,” Trump said after a hearing in Washington, D.C., over presidential immunity arguments in a separate, federal 2020 election interference case against him. “They went after 18 or 20 people. … She was out of her mind. Now it turns out that case is totally compromised.”

“It’s illegal. What she did is illegal. So we’ll let the state handle that, but what a sad situation it is,” Trump added.

Mike Roman, a Philadelphia-based political operative who served as Trump’s director of Election Day operations on his 2020 campaign and faces seven criminal charges, claimed in court filings Monday that Willis and a top prosecutor in the case are engaged in an “improper” romantic relationship, making the indictment “fatally defective.”

Roman did not provide any hard evidence of the accusations. His lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, claimed in court papers that “sources close” to both Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade indicated the pair are involved in an “ongoing, personal and romantic relationship.”

The Hill has reached out to the district attorney’s office and Roman’s lawyer for comment.

Trump and his campaign have for months attacked Willis, painting her as a radical political operative and accusing her of interfering in the 2024 election by bringing charges against the former president.

Trump was indicted in August and charged with 13 counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. He is facing a separate, federal criminal case in D.C. over his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

The former president appeared in court in the nation’s capital Tuesday as his team argued he has presidential immunity and therefore cannot be prosecuted on charges related to the 2020 election.
thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4397766-trump-georgia-case-totally-compromised-after-allegations-against-fani-willis/

So (not saying the allegations are true) two people getting romantically involved should be grounds for Trump's case to be thrown out?
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Trump After D.C. Hearing: 'A President Has to Have Immunity'
After a historic hearing Tuesday in Washington, D.C., former President Donald Trump warned about the danger of special counsel Jack Smith and President Joe Biden's Justice Department seeking to unwind U.S. precedent of presidential immunity.

"I think most people understand it, and we feel very confident that eventually — hopefully at this level, but eventually we want: The president has to have immunity," Trump said outside the court room, calling it a "momentus" day, hailing prosecutors making "two major" concessions in Tuesday's Federal Appeals Court hearing.

"It's very unfair when a political opponent is prosecuted by the DOJ, by Biden's DOJ," Trump added. "So they're losing in every poll. They are losing in almost every demographic. "Numbers came out today that are really very mindboggling if you happen to be Joe Biden, and I think they feel this is the way they're going to try and win, and that's not the way it goes. "That'll be bedlam in the country. It's a very bad thing."

The Washington appeals court judges questioned the former president's claim he is immune from criminal charges for spreading doubt on the integrity of the 2020 election. Trump and his lawyer D. John Sauer hailed having received some concessions from Smith's prosecutors in the hearing Tuesday, acknowledging there is a need for presidential immunity on actions taken by presidents.

"They conceded two major points," Trump said. "If it weren't me, that would be the end of this case. But sometimes they look at me differently than they look upon others, and that's very bad for our country."

One of the concessions made was admitted former President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden could not be criminally prosecuted for a mistaken drone strike.

"You can't have a president without immunity," Trump said outside the courtroom. "You have to have, as a president, you have to be able to do your job."

The second "major concession," according to Trump and his lawyer, is Trump's actions were during the time of the presidency.

"We found tremendous voter fraud, determinative voter fraud, but we worked on that – that's what I was doing," Trump said. "And they were talking about after. "Well, nothing has to do with after I left. It was during the time, and that was what they really focused on today during the appeal. "And they can see that and everybody concedes that, and if it's during the time, you have absolute immunity. "So we'll see how it all works out. We have a great argument."

Trump's lawyers faced a skeptical reception as they sought to convince appeals-court judges that former presidents should not be prosecuted for actions they took in office. Trump is due to go to trial in March on federal charges of election subversion.

"You're saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could tell SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?" Judge Florence Pan asked Sauer. Sauer said a former president could be charged for such conduct only if first impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate.

Trump did not address the court. He did, however, confer quietly with his attorneys several times during the hearing. With the Republican state-by-state presidential nominating contest due to kick off next week, Trump used the hearing as an opportunity to claim he is the victim of political persecution. If the case is allowed to go forward, Trump said, he could prosecute Democrat President Joe Biden if he wins the November presidential election.

"If I don't get immunity then crooked Joe Biden doesn't get immunity," Trump said in a video posted on social media ahead of the hearing. "Joe would be ripe for indictment."

Trump, who lost to Biden in the 2020 election, has opened up a commanding lead over his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination since the first criminal charge against him was announced last March. He is expected to easily win Monday's contest in Iowa. The Justice Department has long held that presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office for doing their official duties. Trump, the first former president to be criminally prosecuted, faces 91 criminal counts in four separate cases.

Sauer, Trump's lawyer, told a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that allowing prosecution to go forward would lead to a cycle of retribution after each election and "open a Pandora's Box from which that nation may never recover."

"It's the opening of a Pandora's box and it's a very sad thing that's happened with this whole situation," Trump added outside the courtroom Tuesday. "When they talk about threat to democracy, that's your real threat to democracy. "And I feel that as a president, you have to have immunity. Very simple. And if you don't — as an example, if this case were lost on immunity, and I did nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong and working for the country — and I worked on very hard on voter fraud because we have to have free elections. We have to have strong borders. We have to have free elections. Those two things almost above all."

In court, Sauer argued presidents must first be impeached and removed from office by Congress before he could be prosecuted. Trump was impeached twice but the Senate failed to convict him. Some Republican senators declined to convict him after he was impeached for trying to overturn the 2020 election, on the grounds that he could be held accountable in court.

U.S. prosecutors argue Trump was acting as a candidate, not a president, when he pressured officials to overturn the election results and encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The case against Trump reflects the unprecedented nature of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and granting him immunity for those actions would give future presidents license to commit crimes, Justice Department lawyer James Pearce told the panel. "The president has a unique constitutional role, but he is not above the law," he said.

Both the legal outcome and timing of the appeals court's ruling will play a pivotal role in determining whether Trump faces trial ahead of the Nov. 5, 2024, election.

Smith has accused Trump of a multi-pronged conspiracy to hinder the counting and certification of his 2020 defeat, culminating in the Jan. 6 attack. Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges including defrauding the government and obstructing Congress. The case is one of four criminal prosecutions Trump faces this year as he campaigns to win back the White House.

Trump's immunity claim has already been rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case. But it could take several weeks or months to be resolved on appeal. Any ruling from the appeals court is almost certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last month denied a request from Smith to immediately decide the issue. Activity in the case has been halted in the meantime, which could delay the trial's scheduled March 4 start.
 
Top