EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

[Mr._Clark]

If everyone is supposed to be guaranteed a fair trial, how does making the charges public not poison the jury. OTOH, I don't know how they're going to find an impartial jury- maybe they could go to the jungles of Borneo.

Prosecutor- "Have you ever seen this guy?"
Native form Borneo- "LOOK AT HIS HAIR!"

Here's the Sixth Amendment:

>>>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

There have been a few Supreme Court decisions that overturned a conviction when there was "a trial atmosphere that [was] utterly corrupted by press coverage” but complete ignorance is not required for a jury to be impartial as noted in the Skilling case:

>>>Prominence does not necessarily produce prejudice, and juror impartiality, we have reiterated, does not require ignorance. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 722 (1961) (Jurors are not required to be “totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved”; “scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case.”); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 155–156 (1879) (“[E]very case of public interest is almost, as a matter of necessity, brought to the attention of all the intelligent people in the vicinity, and scarcely any one can be found among those best fitted for jurors who has not read or heard of it, and who has not some impression or some opinion in respect to its merits.”). A presumption of prejudice, our decisions indicate, attends only the extreme case.<<<

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/358/

The Boston marathon bomber (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) lost his pretrial publicity argument at the Supreme Court:

>>>On April 15, 2013, brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev planted and detonated two homemade pressure-cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding hundreds. Three days later, as investigators began to close in, the brothers fled. In the process, they murdered a Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus police officer, carjacked a graduate student, and fought a street battle with police during which Dzhokhar inadvertently ran over and killed Tamerlan. Dzhokhar eventually abandoned the vehicle and hid in a covered boat being stored in a nearby backyard. He was arrested the following day. . . .

The Court of Appeals vacated Dzhokhar’s capital sentences on two grounds. First, the court held that the District Court abused its discretion during jury selection by declining to ask about the kind and degree of each prospective juror’s media exposure, as required by that court’s decision in Patriarca v. United States, 402 F. 2d 314. Second, the court held that the District Court abused its discretion during sentencing when it excluded evidence concerning Tamerlan’s possible involvement in the Waltham murders.

Held: The Court of Appeals improperly vacated Dzhokhar’s capital sentences.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed heinous crimes. The Sixth Amendment nonetheless guaranteed him a fair trial before an impartial jury. He received one. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.<<<

United States v. Tsarnaev

www.law.cornell.edu

I have no doubt Trump will make this type of an argument if he's convicted, but it it's extremely difficult to get a conviction overturned on a pretrial publicity argument.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Thats a shame, you're a lib too.
Trump colluded with the russians.
The wuhan flu came from a bat in the wuhan wet market
You can't get the wuhan flu if your vaccinated.
This inflation is transitory.
The border is closed.
I never met my sons business partners.
I never spoke to my son about his business.
I never did business with my sons business partner.
We don't know where that coke came from.
I didn't know I had top secret documents in my garage.
I didn't know I had top secret documents in my office at the Penn Center.
That chinese surveilance balloon didn't collect any data
I generated 12 million jobs
I graduated in the top half of my class
We have plans to build a railroad across the pacific ocean...wtf??? idiot

Thats off the top of my head. Don't be such a lib. All proven lies told by the libs.

Hey where'd ya go??
I'll give you the Biden's and Pelosi for Trump. As a special thank you I will even throw in a box of Voodoo dolls and needle pins for 'a 1000 years of torture' I'm sure you will enjoy. All I ask in return is give me Trump on house arrest, and no social media or golf. That should be punishment enough.

Deal, or no deal?

 

[isolar8001]

This is banana republic tactics in action here....deplorable.

Trump supporters post names and addresses of Georgia grand jurors online

A fringe website featured the purported names and addresses of the Fulton County grand jury that indicted Trump and 18 other people for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[mtrycrafts]

The brain dead, those that cannot think for themselves usually are. ...

Nor will they accept any help so they can understand reality.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hey where'd ya go??
I'll give you the Biden's and Pelosi for Trump. As a special thank you I will even throw in a box of Voodoo dolls and needle pins for 'a 1000 years of torture' I'm sure you will enjoy. All I ask in return is give me Trump on house arrest, and no social media or golf. That should be punishment enough.

Deal, or no deal?

Hey, you forgot the Trump family, less current wife and youngest son.

 

[Mr._Clark]

The NYT has an article about Trump's lawyers and how much they've been paid.

His legal expenses will skyrocket over the next year. He's already spending more on legal bills than he's taking in via contributions. He will undoubtedly resort to even more shrill rhetoric as he desperately attempts to whip his congregation into a frenzy of campaign contributions.

Epshteyn is probably the most overpaid on the list. He has negative value. His mission is apparently to give Trump the worst possible advice and isolate him from competent legal counsel so that Trump will continue making the worst possible decisions.

Corcoran would probably be pretty decent if he had a halfway normal client (e.g. a Mafia boss) who actually listened, but Trump's antics make him look like a fool for agreeing to represent Trump in the first place.*

Kise and Lauro are probably two of the better ones on the list. Having said that, Trump seems to have a legal death wish and no one can save him from himself.

Todd Blanche
Fees: $353,000 paid to his firm from April to June 2023

Boris Epshteyn
Fees: $195,000 paid in 2022

Christopher M. Kise
Fees: $5.8 million in 2022 and the first six months of 2023

M. Evan Corcoran
Fees: $3.4 million in 2022 and the first half of 2023

Joe Tacopina
Fees: $1.7 million in the first half of 2023

Susan Necheles
Fees: $465,000 in the first half of 2023

Lindsey Halligan
Fees: $212,000 in 2022 and the first half of 2023

John Lauro
Fees: $288,000 in 2022 and the first half of 2023

Drew Findling
Fees: $816,000 in 2022 and the first half of 2023

Jennifer Little
Fees: $100,000

All the (Former) President’s Lawyers (Published 2023)

Donald Trump’s PACs have spent millions of dollars on a small army of lawyers to defend him in four separate federal and state criminal cases.

www.nytimes.com

*Corcoran is likely to be one the key witnesses against Trump in the Florida Documents/Obstruction case:

>>>Mr. Corcoran’s notes, first recorded into an iPhone and then transcribed on paper, essentially gave prosecutors a road map to building their case. Mr. Trump, according to the indictment, pressured Mr. Corcoran to thwart investigators from reclaiming reams of classified material and even suggested to him that it might be better to lie to investigators and withhold the documents altogether. . . . When the indictment of Mr. Trump was unsealed on Friday, it became abruptly clear that the notes by Mr. Corcoran — identified as “Trump Attorney 1” — were far more extensive, and far more damaging, than previously known.

“What happens if we just don’t respond at all or don’t play ball with them?” Mr. Corcoran quotes Mr. Trump as saying at one point, referring to government officials seeking to enforce a subpoena demanding the return of the documents.<<<

Trump Indictment Shows Critical Evidence Came From One of His Own Lawyers (Published 2023)

M. Evan Corcoran, who was hired to represent the former president after the Justice Department issued a subpoena for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, could be a key witness in the trial.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Swerd]

@Mr._Clark

Consistent with your post about Trump's past lawyers are these two stories about Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. They might be broke because Trump has stiffed them, or they might be greedy liars. With them, I can't tell the difference.

 

[Dude#1279435]

The NYT has an article about Trump's lawyers and how much they've been paid.

His legal expenses will skyrocket over the next year. He's already spending more on legal bills than he's taking in via contributions. He will undoubtedly resort to even more shrill rhetoric as he desperately attempts to whip his congregation into a frenzy of campaign contributions.

Epshteyn is probably the most overpaid on the list. He has negative value. His mission is apparently to give Trump the worst possible advice and isolate him from competent legal counsel so that Trump will continue making the worst possible decisions.

Corcoran would probably be pretty decent if he had a halfway normal client (e.g. a Mafia boss) who actually listened, but Trump's antics make him look like a fool for agreeing to represent Trump in the first place.*

Kise and Lauro are probably two of the better ones on the list. Having said that, Trump seems to have a legal death wish and no one can save him from himself.

Todd Blanche
Fees: $353,000 paid to his firm from April to June 2023

Boris Epshteyn
Fees: $195,000 paid in 2022

Christopher M. Kise
Fees: $5.8 million in 2022 and the first six months of 2023

M. Evan Corcoran
Fees: $3.4 million in 2022 and the first half of 2023

Joe Tacopina
Fees: $1.7 million in the first half of 2023

Susan Necheles
Fees: $465,000 in the first half of 2023

Lindsey Halligan
Fees: $212,000 in 2022 and the first half of 2023

John Lauro
Fees: $288,000 in 2022 and the first half of 2023

Drew Findling
Fees: $816,000 in 2022 and the first half of 2023

Jennifer Little
Fees: $100,000

All the (Former) President’s Lawyers (Published 2023)

Donald Trump’s PACs have spent millions of dollars on a small army of lawyers to defend him in four separate federal and state criminal cases.

www.nytimes.com

*Corcoran is likely to be one the key witnesses against Trump in the Florida Documents/Obstruction case:

>>>Mr. Corcoran’s notes, first recorded into an iPhone and then transcribed on paper, essentially gave prosecutors a road map to building their case. Mr. Trump, according to the indictment, pressured Mr. Corcoran to thwart investigators from reclaiming reams of classified material and even suggested to him that it might be better to lie to investigators and withhold the documents altogether. . . . When the indictment of Mr. Trump was unsealed on Friday, it became abruptly clear that the notes by Mr. Corcoran — identified as “Trump Attorney 1” — were far more extensive, and far more damaging, than previously known.

“What happens if we just don’t respond at all or don’t play ball with them?” Mr. Corcoran quotes Mr. Trump as saying at one point, referring to government officials seeking to enforce a subpoena demanding the return of the documents.<<<

Trump Indictment Shows Critical Evidence Came From One of His Own Lawyers (Published 2023)

M. Evan Corcoran, who was hired to represent the former president after the Justice Department issued a subpoena for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, could be a key witness in the trial.

www.nytimes.com

I wonder how the PAC works legally? Because some Trump supporters I'm guessing are conscious they are funding his legal defenses vs making political contributions towards his campaign.

 

[isolar8001]

 

[Mr._Clark]

I wonder how the PAC works legally? Because some Trump supporters I'm guessing are conscious they are funding his legal defenses vs making political contributions towards his campaign.

The NYT ran an article about this today.

>>>A campaign committee cannot pay for things that benefit a candidate personally, including legal bills that are unrelated to government matters.

There is no such restriction on leadership PACs. While these organizations, which are controlled by the candidate, cannot spend money directly on the campaign, they can pay for legal fees.

“Under prevailing F.E.C. interpretation, this whole discussion is moot,” said Saurav Ghosh, a former lawyer at the Federal Election Commission who is now the director of federal campaign finance reform for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group. “He can pay all the lawyers, for all the matters, and according to the F.E.C., these rules don’t even matter.”<<<

How Trump Uses Supporters’ Donations to Pay His Legal Bills

Facing a wide array of criminal charges, the former president is using money from small donors to defend himself legally — a practice that raises ethical questions.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

Mark Meadows filed to move the Georgia case to federal court. He might succeed, but the court would still be trying states law charges (other than a federal defense). Basically, state courts do not have jurisdiction to decide issues of federal law, but federal courts have jurisdiction to decide both federal and state law, provided there is a federal law that gives the federal court jurisdiction in a particular situation.

Here's an interesting quote attributed to a former senior Trump campaign staffer:

>>>“Not a surprise Meadows and Trump are trying to move to federal courts,” said a former senior Trump campaign staffer, speculating Trump will likely do the same.

“Friendlier audiences. They say when you’re in a hole, stop digging. But people in the Trump sphere just buy bigger diggers—Meadows included. They’re guilty as hell and they know it.”<<<

‘Inevitable’: Meadows gets swept up in Trump’s legal troubles

Mark Meadows has always prided himself on navigating the complexities of Washington’s power circles, but his central role in former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election could pre…

thehill.com

 

[highfigh]

In fact I think that's their game plan. If they could go after the Biden's, I'm guessing they wouldn't and sell the narrative of injustice to lift Trump back into office.

Why are you replying to your own posts?

 

[highfigh]

Here's the Sixth Amendment:

>>>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

Have you been called for jury duty, and did you make the finals? Even in minor cases, someone wants to hang the accused. The first time I was called, one of the jurors was like a yapping dog, saying "Yeah, he did it!" before any discussion had begun. The accused actually admitted to one charge, so that was a no-brainer but the others weren't as cut & dried for some. This one is for someone who is hated by so many that I think it will be hard to find people who won't be polar opposites in their thinking.

As an example, I was on my friend's boat yesterday to discuss taking mine out on Saturday and at one point, the conversation turned to the upcoming GOP debates next week. The third guy said that he wants someone to shoot Trump. I let that go because it was so thoughtless. Do we need someone to shoot a former POTUS? He clearly hasn't thought about the aftermath of an act like that.

For anyone who thinks Democrats don't like guns, let me know and I can arrange a meeting- he may be 'all hat, no cattle', but some of the things he says make me wonder if he might go off.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Why are you replying to your own posts?

Beer, an extension of my earlier thought, or beer.

 

[Swerd]

I wonder how the PAC works legally? Because some Trump supporters I'm guessing are conscious they are funding his legal defenses vs making political contributions towards his campaign.

You aren't the only one who wonders how PACs work. While reading recent news about Trump's fundraising, I realized there are PACs, leadership PACs, and Super PACs. Any distinctions are confusing. Apparently, Trump has drained money from a Super PAC (that he does not directly control) by having it pay money into a PAC (that he does directly control). He has used at least $54 million of those political contributions to pay his legal expenses. And now the Super PAC wants that money back.

The details about all these PAC types are well beyond my pay grade. However, I can easily imagine Trump believing all that money is his to spend as he pleases.

Apparently other politicians tolerate all this PAC complexity, organizing their own just to avoid being left behind. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is now so toothless as to completely avoid any attempt at enforcing laws about political fund raising. This seems beyond ugly.

However, the real problem started in 2010 when the US Supreme Court (Citizen's United vs. FEC) rendered the FEC toothless by opening the floodgates to unlimited contributions from unidentified contributors (aka dark money). Maybe that's when Trump decided to go into politics. Living off of that tax-free dark money raised by all those PACs seems like an easier and more lucrative business model than running golf resorts, hotels, and gambling casinos.

 

[chrysler82000]

as maui burns

creepy quid pro quo dementia joe relaxes on the beach

 

[ben_]

The whataboutism is so tiring...

 

[GO-NAD!]

as maui burnsView attachment 62930

creepy quid pro quo dementia joe relaxes on the beach
View attachment 62931

This thread is about Trump and his cronies' self-inflicted legal woes. If you want to discuss any Biden inadequacies and/or misdeeds, why don't you create a separate thread? A word of advice though - come up with something better than the inanities you've posted so far.

 

[chrysler82000]

This thread is about Trump and his cronies' self-inflicted legal woes. If you want to discuss any Biden inadequacies and/or misdeeds, why don't you create a separate thread? A word of advice though - come up with something better than the inanities you've posted so far.

what exactly would be the point posting in an echo chamber? It's the libs who need to open there eyes. Libs been brainwahed to beleive there eyes lie

 

[John Parks]

Curiouser and curiouser...

Timing of Trump indictments, Hunter Biden revelations raises eyebrows: 'Is this a coincidence?' | Fox News Video

'Fox & Friends' co-host Ainsley Earhardt compares the timeline of former President Trump's four indictments and key developments in the Hunter Biden probe.

www.foxnews.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691811053003293101

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691475546214199296

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1692040044113244252