Trump: Set to declare 2024 presidential bid tonight; will indictments follow soon?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post

    Don't forget open borders, protecting criminals at the expense of the law abiding, lawfare against their political opponents, hatred against the Jews, and the collapse of western civilization. These are also policies of the left and in the case of the recently defeated Jamal Bowman pulling fire alarms in Congress without any significant consequences.
    ....
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    I didn't forgot these, they are simply not policy positions for Sanders or AOC, nor any of the Democrats, nor anyone on "the left". I suppose it is possible some lunatic on the fringe actually supports these, but these "policies" are really just fear mongering from "the right". I certainly would not support these "policies". ....
    Seriously, Vlad...you sound like Neil Frarey when you write crap like the above. I'm surprised you didn't end each of your sentences with "ha!"
    "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
    "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
    "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post



      Seriously, Vlad...you sound like Neil Frarey when you write crap like the above. I'm surprised you didn't end each of your sentences with "ha!"
      Ah yes Peter, your same old same old personal attacks, ha!

      When you got nothing 'left', you go to your 'extreme left', ha!



      ..
      Last edited by Neil Frarey; Saturday, 6th July, 2024, 02:22 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

        I didn't forgot these, they are simply not policy positions for Sanders or AOC, nor any of the Democrats, nor anyone on "the left". I suppose it is possible some lunatic on the fringe actually supports these, but these "policies" are really just fear mongering from "the right". I certainly would not support these "policies".

        The overwhelming majority of Americans did not want a Trump Biden repeat. But both parties somehow stumbled into it. Biden has had a week now to convince us all he still has the stuff, but has failed in my opinion. Hopefully he can be convinced to step aside and Dems can mount a mini leadership campaign and pick somebody new at the August convention.
        I saw AOC bouncing around the stage and Bernie Sanders uselessly coming to the support of Jamal Bowman who pulled the fire alarm to obstruct an official proceeding of Congress without consequence. Members of the squad have denied the reality of the October 7th attacks in Israel. Memo to future terrorists: Don't videotape your atrocities and stream to social media if you wan't to plausibly deny it later. I have nothing but contempt for these socialists who are seeking to accelerate the collapse of the U.S.

        Regardless of what people want or don't want, that is how they voted in primaries and that is what the choices are. I heard Biden say that the only way he steps down is if the "Good Lord" comes down and tells him to drop out. It is too profitable for the Biden family if he stays. Do you think anyone will pay big money for Hunter's paintings if Joe is not president? The only way to remove Biden is if he consents to it or if he is removed via the 25th amendment which should present an entertaining spectacle.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post

          I saw AOC bouncing around the stage and Bernie Sanders uselessly coming to the support of Jamal Bowman who pulled the fire alarm to obstruct an official proceeding of Congress without consequence. Members of the squad have denied the reality of the October 7th attacks in Israel. Memo to future terrorists: Don't videotape your atrocities and stream to social media if you wan't to plausibly deny it later. I have nothing but contempt for these socialists who are seeking to accelerate the collapse of the U.S.

          Regardless of what people want or don't want, that is how they voted in primaries and that is what the choices are. I heard Biden say that the only way he steps down is if the "Good Lord" comes down and tells him to drop out. It is too profitable for the Biden family if he stays. Do you think anyone will pay big money for Hunter's paintings if Joe is not president? The only way to remove Biden is if he consents to it or if he is removed via the 25th amendment which should present an entertaining spectacle.
          All politicians are in it for solely their own benefit, and they don't give two hoots about 'policies' for the citizens (probably they are smart enough to realize that whatever policies they hand down from their high pedestals could only make matters worse for all). The sad part of all this is that we as fools pin our hopes on them to salvage us! Let us change this rotten system by adopting Libertarianism!!
          Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 7th July, 2024, 08:57 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

            All politicians are in it for solely their own benefit, and they care two hoots about 'policies' for the citizens (probably they are smart enough to realize that whatever policies they hand down from their high pedestals could only make matters worse for all). The sad part of all this is that we as fools pin our hopes on them to salvage us! Let us change this rotten system by adopting Libertarianism!!
            Are the ministers of Liberalism also politicians?

            We don't elect problem solvers, we elect politicians!

            Trump is a better problem solving politician than most of his generation. Biden is the worst ... by far, ha! Just look his wanting to buy votes ... including the forgiving of all that student debt ... something like 150B worth?


            .
            Last edited by Neil Frarey; Saturday, 6th July, 2024, 04:20 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post

              Are the ministers of Liberalism also politicians?


              .
              I guess you meant Libertarianism (not Liberalism), Neil. In Libertarianism, there will be no 'ministers creating stupid, complicated and self-contradicting laws to enable their bribers to make undeserved money and to keep their voting blocs happy at the expense of the society as a whole', and the few who choose 'public service' will be paid a reasonable salary only to ensure that Natural Law is enforced by the Judges and the Police... (most of 'problem solving' which you allude to, will be done by the circles (remember the circles within circles set-up?) where the problem belongs, and the rest would be solved by enforcement of the Natural Law).

              Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 6th July, 2024, 05:44 PM.

              Comment


              • Trump's Legal Problems - Criminal Case # 3 (Of 4) – Falsifying Corp. Docs # 1 (Hush Money)

                Click image for larger version

Name:	TrumpDonald(2021).jpg
Views:	59
Size:	24.2 KB
ID:	234764

                Prosecutor: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, under New York Attorney General, Letitia James. Senior Counsel to the DA is Matthew Colangelo, with Ms. Susan Hoffinger.

                Manhattan Criminal Court Charge: Falsifying corporate documents # 1

                34 counts of falsification of New York business records in an attempt to cover up hush-money payments to Stephanie A. Gregory Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, an American pornographic film actress, director and former stripper. Stephanie claims she had an extramarital affair with Trump, which he vehemently denies.
                Mr. Bragg further accuses Mr. Trump of trying to hide “damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election". Public disclosure of this could have derailed Trump's stunning victory in the 2016 presidential election.

                Note: Mr. Bragg seeks a "felony" conviction for what would normally be a "misdemeanor". He argues that the intent to commit or conceal another crime (By making the illegal hush money payment), including breaking “state and federal election laws,” raises the charge to a felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, under New York law.

                Interim Motions & Decisions (prior to trial): See Post # 231 (24/4/12)

                Start of Trial (Mon. 24/4/15) - Trial Judge Juan Manuel Merchan

                This is the first criminal prosecution and conviction of a former American president. It may be the only one of the 4 current criminal cases against Trump where the trial gets started in 2024.

                Trial Opening Statement - Prosecutor

                “This is a case about a criminal conspiracy,” Mr. Colangelo told the jury. “The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

                Mr. Colangelo then began to unfold, step by step, how Mr. Trump and Mr. David Pecker, [National Enquirer former CEO, then good friend of Trump] using the Enquirer, conceived a scheme “to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information” about Mr. Trump with the help of his former personal lawyer [and now current nemesis], Michael Cohen. The prosecutor called him Mr. Trump’s “former fixer.”

                The three men met in August 2015 at Trump Tower and cooked up a three-point plan to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, the prosecution alleged. The Enquirer would run “headline after headline that extolled the defendant’s virtues,” Mr. Colangelo argued.

                Trial Summary

                Here are five things we learned during the trial:

                1. The head of the National Enquirer described a partnership with Trump aimed at boosting his presidential bid
                1. Hope Hicks said Trump was worried about the Stormy Daniels story coming out before the 2016 election.
                2. Stormy Daniels described being pressured into sex with Trump
                3. A handwritten note described Michael Cohen being reimbursed $130,000
                4. Michael Cohen admitted he stole from the Trump Organization.

                Closing Argument of Prosecutor: Donald Trump engaged in “a conspiracy and a cover-up”.

                Closing Argument of Defense: The star witness, lawyer Michael Cohen, is the “greatest liar of all time”; the jury should render an across-the-board acquittal.

                Jury Verdict: Guilty – He did falsify business records as alleged.

                Pre-Sentencing Report (Being prepared):

                Monday, June 10: Probation Officer had a video interview with Donald Trump.
                The officer is preparing a “Sentencing Report” for Trial Judge Marchan.

                Expert Sentencing Opinions
                - a typical defendant convicted of the charges at hand would be very unlikely to face prison
                - however, none of them would speculate about what this would mean for President Trump, since it is in many ways a precedent-setting case.

                Gag Order – March 2024 – before the trial started - on application by Bragg, Judge Merchan had issued an order that prohibited Trump from speaking about jurors, witnesses, prosecutors, court staff or members of their family. But It does not bar Trump from speaking about Marchan or Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

                Fine - During the trial, Trump was fined $10,000 and held in criminal contempt for violating the gag order 10 times. Merchan also warned that he would have to jail Trump if he continued to do so.

                Trumps Appeal of Gag Order – 24/6/18 - The New York Court of Appeals - declined to hear Trump's appeal, dismissing his effort to fight the gag order "without costs" and "upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved."

                Trump has 30 days to file a motion for leave to appeal. Once he does so, the court will decide whether or not to hear the case again.

                Bragg Application to Extend the Gag Order – 24/6/21 – Bragg applied to Judge Juan Merchan to extend major elements of the gag order, citing dozens of death threats that have been made to Bragg and others. Bragg and Merchan are not covered under the gag order. An affidavit provided to the court says that the New York Police Department has logged 56 “actionable threats” against the DA, his family and his staff members since the beginning of April.

                Update 24/7/2

                Possible Questioning of Conviction/Application to Delay Sentencing
                Manhattan prosecutors agreed to delay Donald Trump’s criminal sentencing to weigh whether the recent immunity ruling may imperil his conviction.
                Although the Manhattan case does not center on Trump’s presidency or official acts, but rather personal activity during his campaign, his lawyers argued that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House.
                https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/n...d396a4debfd6ce

                Bob A

                Comment


                • Trump's Legal Problems – Criminal # 4 (Of 4) – Mishandling Presidential Government Docs

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DiscussionPaper.jpg
Views:	58
Size:	10.6 KB
ID:	234766

                  Charge: 32 charges under the Espionage Act - Illegal handling of Presidential documents (At his Florida Home, Mar-a-Lago).The Espionage Act was passed in 1917.

                  Prosecutor: Special Counsel, Jack Smith

                  Trial Judge: US District Judge Aileen Cannon

                  Application for Summary Dismissal (Thurs., March 14, 2024) - President Trump contended that the Espionage Act under which he is criminally charged is fatally flawed, an argument that, if vindicated, could mean the end of the case against him. He argued that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional as applied to former presidents.

                  Judgment: Reserved

                  Appeal Prospects: It could lead to the Supreme Court weighing the law under which whistle-blowers Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden were prosecuted, and a communist couple, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were put to death.

                  Cannon's Trial Date Ruling (24/5/7) – 5 pages
                  • canceled the May 20 trial date, postponing it indefinitely; no new date set.
                  • “it would be “imprudent” to finalize a new trial date now.”
                  • reasons -
                  • 1. still-unresolved issues in the case;
                  • 2. Trump is currently on trial in a separate case in Manhattan charging him in connection with hush money payments during the 2016 presidential election. This case involves several of the same lawyers representing him in the federal case in Florida.
                  Update (24/7/6)

                  Judge Aileen Cannon Paperless Order (24/7/6) - granting a partial pause in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial after his legal team made the request on grounds that they should be allowed to argue the merits of the U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity decision before the trial moves forward.

                  By this, she granted a temporary stay of three pending deadlines in the case, giving Trump attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith’s team more time to file additional briefs on how the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity should factor into the case.

                  The paused deadlines are expert disclosures that were to be provided by Trump attorneys on July 8, reciprocal discovery due from Trump counsel on July 10, and the special counsel’s CIPA submission that was due on July 10.

                  https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/jud...tent=us-news-2

                  Note: federal prosecutors’ will now be unable to bring Trump to trial before the November presidential election.


                  Bob A

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                    Trump's Legal Problems – Criminal # 4 (Of 4) – Mishandling Presidential Government Docs

                    Click image for larger version  Name:	DiscussionPaper.jpg Views:	0 Size:	10.6 KB ID:	234766

                    Charge: 32 charges under the Espionage Act - Illegal handling of Presidential documents (At his Florida Home, Mar-a-Lago).The Espionage Act was passed in 1917.

                    Prosecutor: Special Counsel, Jack Smith

                    Trial Judge: US District Judge Aileen Cannon

                    Application for Summary Dismissal (Thurs., March 14, 2024) - President Trump contended that the Espionage Act under which he is criminally charged is fatally flawed, an argument that, if vindicated, could mean the end of the case against him. He argued that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional as applied to former presidents.

                    Judgment: Reserved

                    Appeal Prospects: It could lead to the Supreme Court weighing the law under which whistle-blowers Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden were prosecuted, and a communist couple, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were put to death.

                    Cannon's Trial Date Ruling (24/5/7) – 5 pages
                    • canceled the May 20 trial date, postponing it indefinitely; no new date set.
                    • “it would be “imprudent” to finalize a new trial date now.”
                    • reasons -
                    • 1. still-unresolved issues in the case;
                    • 2. Trump is currently on trial in a separate case in Manhattan charging him in connection with hush money payments during the 2016 presidential election. This case involves several of the same lawyers representing him in the federal case in Florida.
                    Update (24/7/6)

                    Judge Aileen Cannon Paperless Order (24/7/6) - granting a partial pause in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial after his legal team made the request on grounds that they should be allowed to argue the merits of the U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity decision before the trial moves forward.

                    By this, she granted a temporary stay of three pending deadlines in the case, giving Trump attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith’s team more time to file additional briefs on how the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity should factor into the case.

                    The paused deadlines are expert disclosures that were to be provided by Trump attorneys on July 8, reciprocal discovery due from Trump counsel on July 10, and the special counsel’s CIPA submission that was due on July 10.

                    https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/jud...tent=us-news-2

                    Note: federal prosecutors’ will now be unable to bring Trump to trial before the November presidential election.


                    Bob A
                    The ideal would be to have all of such documents, along with similar documents held by Xi, Putin, Kim Jong, etc. etc. released to the public by Assange...
                    Who the hell allows 'public servants' to withhold information from their 'masters'? Wars take place because the public does not know what their criminally-inclined politicians are up to!
                    So why the hell are Bob A and Jack Smith wasting their own and everybody else's time about it?
                    Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 7th July, 2024, 10:02 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                      Trump's Legal Problems - Criminal Case # 3 (Of 4) – Falsifying Corp. Docs # 1 (Hush Money)

                      Click image for larger version  Name:	TrumpDonald(2021).jpg Views:	0 Size:	24.2 KB ID:	234764

                      Prosecutor: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, under New York Attorney General, Letitia James. Senior Counsel to the DA is Matthew Colangelo, with Ms. Susan Hoffinger.

                      Manhattan Criminal Court Charge: Falsifying corporate documents # 1

                      34 counts of falsification of New York business records in an attempt to cover up hush-money payments to Stephanie A. Gregory Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, an American pornographic film actress, director and former stripper. Stephanie claims she had an extramarital affair with Trump, which he vehemently denies.
                      Mr. Bragg further accuses Mr. Trump of trying to hide “damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election". Public disclosure of this could have derailed Trump's stunning victory in the 2016 presidential election.

                      Note: Mr. Bragg seeks a "felony" conviction for what would normally be a "misdemeanor". He argues that the intent to commit or conceal another crime (By making the illegal hush money payment), including breaking “state and federal election laws,” raises the charge to a felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, under New York law.

                      Interim Motions & Decisions (prior to trial): See Post # 231 (24/4/12)

                      Start of Trial (Mon. 24/4/15) - Trial Judge Juan Manuel Merchan

                      This is the first criminal prosecution and conviction of a former American president. It may be the only one of the 4 current criminal cases against Trump where the trial gets started in 2024.

                      Trial Opening Statement - Prosecutor

                      “This is a case about a criminal conspiracy,” Mr. Colangelo told the jury. “The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

                      Mr. Colangelo then began to unfold, step by step, how Mr. Trump and Mr. David Pecker, [National Enquirer former CEO, then good friend of Trump] using the Enquirer, conceived a scheme “to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information” about Mr. Trump with the help of his former personal lawyer [and now current nemesis], Michael Cohen. The prosecutor called him Mr. Trump’s “former fixer.”

                      The three men met in August 2015 at Trump Tower and cooked up a three-point plan to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, the prosecution alleged. The Enquirer would run “headline after headline that extolled the defendant’s virtues,” Mr. Colangelo argued.

                      Trial Summary

                      Here are five things we learned during the trial:

                      1. The head of the National Enquirer described a partnership with Trump aimed at boosting his presidential bid
                      1. Hope Hicks said Trump was worried about the Stormy Daniels story coming out before the 2016 election.
                      2. Stormy Daniels described being pressured into sex with Trump
                      3. A handwritten note described Michael Cohen being reimbursed $130,000
                      4. Michael Cohen admitted he stole from the Trump Organization.

                      Closing Argument of Prosecutor: Donald Trump engaged in “a conspiracy and a cover-up”.

                      Closing Argument of Defense: The star witness, lawyer Michael Cohen, is the “greatest liar of all time”; the jury should render an across-the-board acquittal.

                      Jury Verdict: Guilty – He did falsify business records as alleged.

                      Pre-Sentencing Report (Being prepared):

                      Monday, June 10: Probation Officer had a video interview with Donald Trump.
                      The officer is preparing a “Sentencing Report” for Trial Judge Marchan.

                      Expert Sentencing Opinions
                      - a typical defendant convicted of the charges at hand would be very unlikely to face prison
                      - however, none of them would speculate about what this would mean for President Trump, since it is in many ways a precedent-setting case.

                      Gag Order – March 2024 – before the trial started - on application by Bragg, Judge Merchan had issued an order that prohibited Trump from speaking about jurors, witnesses, prosecutors, court staff or members of their family. But It does not bar Trump from speaking about Marchan or Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

                      Fine - During the trial, Trump was fined $10,000 and held in criminal contempt for violating the gag order 10 times. Merchan also warned that he would have to jail Trump if he continued to do so.

                      Trumps Appeal of Gag Order – 24/6/18 - The New York Court of Appeals - declined to hear Trump's appeal, dismissing his effort to fight the gag order "without costs" and "upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved."

                      Trump has 30 days to file a motion for leave to appeal. Once he does so, the court will decide whether or not to hear the case again.

                      Bragg Application to Extend the Gag Order – 24/6/21 – Bragg applied to Judge Juan Merchan to extend major elements of the gag order, citing dozens of death threats that have been made to Bragg and others. Bragg and Merchan are not covered under the gag order. An affidavit provided to the court says that the New York Police Department has logged 56 “actionable threats” against the DA, his family and his staff members since the beginning of April.

                      Update 24/7/2

                      Possible Questioning of Conviction/Application to Delay Sentencing
                      Manhattan prosecutors agreed to delay Donald Trump’s criminal sentencing to weigh whether the recent immunity ruling may imperil his conviction.
                      Although the Manhattan case does not center on Trump’s presidency or official acts, but rather personal activity during his campaign, his lawyers argued that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House.
                      https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/n...d396a4debfd6ce

                      Bob A
                      A guy gives a lot of money to a porn-star, and his wife does not mind it...
                      Instead of paying out of his personal income, he paid from the corporation, which was a misdemeanor, not a felony. For prosecution to insist that it was a felony because payment was due from his campaign funds instead of his personal funds, is self-contradicting the law that personal expenses cannot be paid from campaign funds to save personal money and tax... It seems Trump lost the case as he did not want to admit to even the misdemeanor to be able to say politically that he never broke any law, despite it being time-barred, as he knew that once he wins the presidency, the case will get thrown out by hook or by crook and till the election takes place, the supreme court will help to delay the penalty...
                      So, Bob A, all this is only rotten politics between Alvin Bragg and Donny boy... nothing in it is for the betterment of society.
                      Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Monday, 8th July, 2024, 12:28 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Libertarianism's (Dilip's Version) enforcement of the "Natural Law" gives me much concern.

                        Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                          Libertarianism's (Dilip's Version) enforcement of the "Natural Law" gives me much concern.

                          Bob A (Democratic Marxist)
                          If Peter harms Paul (outside of fair competition), should not Peter be forced to compensate Paul for the harm done?
                          Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 7th July, 2024, 11:36 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                            [TR]
                            [TD="width: 665"]Although the Manhattan case does not center on Trump’s presidency or official acts, but rather personal activity during his campaign, his lawyers argued that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House.[/TD]
                            [/TR]
                            [/TABLE]

                            https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/n...d396a4debfd6ce

                            Bob A
                            Yes but they used testimony from people who worked for Trump in the White House which they are not allowed to do. Retrial. Not to mention the many reversible errors that the judge and prosecutor made all of which are grounds for appeal. The whole lawfare exercise contributed to Trump's campaign to the point that it could be considered a campaign contribution. The gag order forced him to be quiet and Biden was not and look where it got him. He is facing a mutiny in the House and perhaps the Senate and among the donors. Biden's campaign is on life support but the Biden family do not want to tell Joe.

                            Comment


                            • Trump's Legal Problems - Criminal # 1 (Of 4) – Insurrection

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	Flag USA.jpg
Views:	37
Size:	16.2 KB
ID:	234779

                              Charge: “Criminal Enterprise” to foment insurrection and to overturn the 2020 election result.

                              Court: U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia

                              Trial Judge: Judge Tanya Chutkan

                              Defence: as to illegal actions that are "official acts" while President, a President has "immunity" from being charged "in perpetuity".

                              Trial Judgment - Trump has no "immunity".


                              Update 24/7/7

                              When Judge Chutkan rejected the motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity in 2023, the appeals court fast-tracked the appeal, rejected the motion, and also fast-tracked the appeal process to the Supreme Court.

                              Appeal in the Supreme Court of USA (Trial paused since Dec./23)- it decided to hear Trump's Appeal from the lower court decision that Trump has no "immunity".

                              SCOTUS Judgment (24/7/1): Presidents and former presidents enjoy “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for “conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” So, there is immunity for “official” acts, but not “private” acts, by a President. Case returned to Judge Chutkan for further analysis/judgment.

                              Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Clarence Thomas adding his own concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barret concurred in part, noting several lines of legal disagreement with the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who also penned a separate dissent.

                              The court has now set guidelines for which acts in former President Donald Trump’s federal election case can remain in the indictment. But this leaves large amounts of litigation for the district court.


                              https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#in...BsjrglGxprrVzp

                              End of Update


                              Substantive Trial Issues


                              # 1 – Which acts of then President Trump were “official” and which acts were “private”? To which acts does immunity apply?

                              Central to Trump’s immunity argument is the claim that only a former president who was impeached and convicted by the Senate can be criminally prosecuted. Trump was impeached over his efforts to undo the election in the run-up to the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But he was acquitted, not convicted, by the Senate in 2021.

                              # 2 - The Sarbanes-Oxley Law

                              Different Relevant Current Case Before the USA Supreme Court: USA vs Fischer


                              Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, decided to charge more than 350 January 6 defendants with violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was signed into law in 2002 in the wake of the implosions of Enron and WorldCom. The law is intended to punish crooks for “corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding.”

                              The Nine [members of the USASC] mulled whether a law that punishes anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record” is applicable to those who rioted at the Capitol, like Joseph Fischer, a police officer by trade. He pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, but contends that the Sarbanes-Oxley charges are instances of unlawful prosecutorial overreach. As his lawyer, Frederick William Ulrich, put it, that statute is “Enron-driven.”

                              The high court appeared open to that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas telegraphed that the government could be acting selectively, observing that “there have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests?” To that, Solicitor General Prelogar claimed that there has never been anything like January 6.

                              Justice Samuel Alito allowed that “what happened on Jan. 6 was very, very serious” but told General Prelogar that “we need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.” The solicitor general called one of the words at issue, “otherwise,” a “classic catchall.” Fischer’s counsel, though, finds it to be more of a “dragnet.” "

                              Relevance to Trump Case

                              USA S.C. Argument by Jack Smith, Special Prosecutor, against Trump

                              "Even if the Nine dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley charges against the January 6 defendants, Mr. Smith is likely to argue that they should stick against Mr. Trump, who did not himself set foot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Instead, the special counsel argues, he engaged in the kind of obstruction contemplated by the statute. Two of the four charges Mr. Trump faces are based on Sarbanes-Oxley.

                              The relevant subsection mandates that someone is criminally culpable if “he alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” The special counsel argues that the certification of the results of the 2020 election were such a proceeding.

                              Mr. Smith’s accusation that Mr. Trump pursued a “conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified” could insulate the special counsel’s case from any Supreme Court ruling in the Fischer, or other, case, that upends the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the other defendants similarly charged."

                              Sentence: The 45th president could ...be sent to jail for as much as 20 years under this draconian law known as Sarbanes-Oxley.

                              https://www.nysun.com/article/suprem...0%202024-04-16

                              Bob A

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                                Libertarianism's (Dilip's Version) enforcement of the "Natural Law" gives me much concern.

                                Bob A (Democratic Marxist)
                                The DM disciple seems to be panicking upon seeing a viable alternative!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X