EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

[Mr._Clark]

Well here's to hoping Mary is wildly off in her prediction. It's probably the most disturbing thought of any I can recall in Trump's era.

I'm not sure I understand? Which prediction? That Ivanka will tell the truth and throw her dad under the bus, or that dad will throw his own kids under the bus?

From the article:

>>>Mary Trump and co-host Jong-Fast both agreed they think Ivanka will “tell the truth and throw him under the bus.”<<<

If Ivanka tells the truth, I don't find that disturbing regardless of the outcome, even if it does mean Donald is effectively thrown under the bus (personally, don't consider telling the truth to be throwing someone under the bus).

Trump throwing his kids under the bus (if it were to happen) would be a bit odd (by normal people standards), but I don't find it all that disturbing. As far as I can tell, Trump and his spawn (with the possible exception of Ivanka) view court proceedings as a business transactions or poker games of sorts. Their mutual goal is to save the business, so they all just say whatever they think will collectively give them the best odds, regardless of how it looks to the outside world. It's a civil trial, so the odds of anyone getting locked up are low, provided no one goes too crazy with blatant perjury.

On the other hand, I may ave missed your point?

 

[Dude#1279435]

I'm not sure I understand? Which prediction? That Ivanka will tell the truth and throw her dad under the bus, or that dad will throw his own kids under the bus?

From the article:

>>>Mary Trump and co-host Jong-Fast both agreed they think Ivanka will “tell the truth and throw him under the bus.”<<<

If Ivanka tells the truth, I don't find that disturbing regardless of the outcome, even if it does mean Donald is effectively thrown under the bus (personally, don't consider telling the truth to be throwing someone under the bus).

Trump throwing his kids under the bus (if it were to happen) would be a bit odd (by normal people standards), but I don't find it all that disturbing. As far as I can tell, Trump and his spawn (with the possible exception of Ivanka) view court proceedings as a business transactions or poker games of sorts. Their mutual goal is to save the business, so they all just say whatever they think will collectively give them the best odds, regardless of how it looks to the outside world. It's a civil trial, so the odds of anyone getting locked up are low, provided no one goes too crazy with blatant perjury.

On the other hand, I may ave missed your point?

I interpreted it as Ivanka is the best of the bunch (for whatever it's worth). Dad would throw his kids under the bus if it meant avoiding prison. But if this is about protecting the family business then I was reading far too much into it.

 

[Mikado463]

from what I saw on the news tonite the 'bus' never showed up ?

 

[Trell]

>>>A federal appeals court on Friday temporarily froze the limited gag order issued against Donald Trump in the former president’s election subversion criminal case in Washington, DC, allowing him to again speak freely with criticism of possible witnesses in the case.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel at the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals said they were pausing the gag order issued by District Judge Tanya Chutkan to give them more time to consider Trump’s request to pause the order while his appeal plays out before the court.

The appellate judges – Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, both Barack Obama appointees, and Brad Garcia, a Joe Biden appointee – said they would fast-track Trump’s appeal of the gag order and hear arguments in the matter on November 20. …<<<

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/03/politics/chutkan-trump-gag-order-freeze/index.html

 

[GO-NAD!]

Donald Trump defiant as he testifies about his business empire in New York civil trial | CBC News

Judge Arthur Engoron sought to keep Trump's testimony on track.

"Mr. Kise, can you control your client? This is not a political rally. This is a courtroom," Engoron asked Trump's lawyer, Christopher Kise.

 

[Mr._Clark]

A judge just ruled against Trump and refused to toss the Colorado case:

>>>DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to keep him off the state ballot, ruling that his objections on free-speech grounds did not apply. . . . The Colorado case will focus in part on the meaning of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment, whether it applies only to waging war on the U.S. or can apply to Trump’s goading of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to halt the certification of President Joe Biden’s win. . . . The trial to determine Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot is scheduled to start Oct. 30. <<<

Colorado judge strikes down Trump's attempt to toss a lawsuit seeking to bar him from the ballot

A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to keep him off the state ballot. The lawsuit claims the U.S.

apnews.com

It's really hard to say what the outcome of the various 14th Amendment cases will be.

The 14th Amendment case in Michigan was tossed by the judge, but it will undoubtedly be appealed. The Minnesota case was tossed as it relates to the primary, but I'd expect another lawsuit there if Trump is the Republican nominee.

The Colorado case should be decided shortly, but I'd expect an appeal of that case regardless of the outcome/.

>>>DETROIT (AP) — A Michigan judge ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump will remain on the state’s primary ballot, dealing a blow to the effort to stop Trump’s candidacy with a Civil War-era Constitutional clause.

It marks the second time in a week that a state court declined to remove Trump from a primary ballot under the insurrection provision of the 14th Amendment. . . .
Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court sidestepped the issue by ruling that Trump could stay on that state’s primary ballot because the election is a party-run contest during which constitutional eligibility isn’t an issue. It left the door open to another lawsuit to keep Trump off the state’s general election ballot.

A Colorado judge is expected to rule on a similar lawsuit there by Friday. Closing arguments in that case are scheduled for Wednesday.<<<

Michigan judge says Trump can stay on primary ballot, rejecting challenge under insurrection clause

DETROIT (AP) — A Michigan judge ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump will remain on the state’s primary ballot, dealing a blow to the effort to stop Trump’s candidacy with a Civil War-e…

thehill.com

So far, state courts have shown little enthusiasm for barring Trump from office.

 

[lovinthehd]

The 14th Amendment case in Michigan was tossed by the judge, but it will undoubtedly be appealed. The Minnesota case was tossed as it relates to the primary, but I'd expect another lawsuit there if Trump is the Republican nominee.

The Colorado case should be decided shortly, but I'd expect an appeal of that case regardless of the outcome/.

>>>DETROIT (AP) — A Michigan judge ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump will remain on the state’s primary ballot, dealing a blow to the effort to stop Trump’s candidacy with a Civil War-era Constitutional clause.

It marks the second time in a week that a state court declined to remove Trump from a primary ballot under the insurrection provision of the 14th Amendment. . . .
Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court sidestepped the issue by ruling that Trump could stay on that state’s primary ballot because the election is a party-run contest during which constitutional eligibility isn’t an issue. It left the door open to another lawsuit to keep Trump off the state’s general election ballot.

A Colorado judge is expected to rule on a similar lawsuit there by Friday. Closing arguments in that case are scheduled for Wednesday.<<<

Michigan judge says Trump can stay on primary ballot, rejecting challenge under insurrection clause

DETROIT (AP) — A Michigan judge ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump will remain on the state’s primary ballot, dealing a blow to the effort to stop Trump’s candidacy with a Civil War-e…

thehill.com

So far, state courts have shown little enthusiasm for barring Trump from office.

It's just one big reality show now....just as twisted as The Apprentice. It's so sad how dumbed down the US has become....

 

[Mr._Clark]

Another day, another episode of "As the Trump Gag World Turns."

>>>An appeals court has temporarily lifted the gag order barring former President Trump and his attorneys from talking about the trial judge’s staff in his New York civil fraud case.<<<

Trump gag order in NY fraud case temporarily lifted by appeals court

An appeals court has temporarily lifted the gag order barring former President Trump and his attorneys from talking about the trial judge’s staff in his New York civil fraud case. The order f…

thehill.com

This is a temporary order so it's hard to say how the appeals court will ultimately rule.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Another day, another episode of "As the Trump Gag World Turns."

>>>An appeals court has temporarily lifted the gag order barring former President Trump and his attorneys from talking about the trial judge’s staff in his New York civil fraud case.<<<
...

This is a temporary order so it's hard to say how the appeals court will ultimately rule.

And in the meantime, their mouths can run at speed of light.

 

[Mr._Clark]

A judge just ruled against Trump and refused to toss the Colorado case:

>>>DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to keep him off the state ballot, ruling that his objections on free-speech grounds did not apply. . . . The Colorado case will focus in part on the meaning of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment, whether it applies only to waging war on the U.S. or can apply to Trump’s goading of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to halt the certification of President Joe Biden’s win. . . . The trial to determine Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot is scheduled to start Oct. 30. <<<

Colorado judge strikes down Trump's attempt to toss a lawsuit seeking to bar him from the ballot

A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to keep him off the state ballot. The lawsuit claims the U.S.

apnews.com

It's really hard to say what the outcome of the various 14th Amendment cases will be.

Even though the judge in Colorado initially refused to toss the case, she now ruled on the merits that the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidents.

>>>A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6, 2021, insurrection. . . . Wallace said she was keeping the former president on the ballot because the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” does not apply to presidents, though she found that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.”<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

Many observers (including me) had thought the weakness in the 14th Amendment challenges was whether or not Trump's actions constituted insurrection.

If the view of this judge is upheld by by other courts, it would mean that no president can ever be banned from future office even if he drives a tank into the Capital building and opens fire to prevent certification of an election.

To my mind this decision is nuts.

And that's my huge opinion.

 

[lovinthehd]

I'm going to start practicing my goosestepping to blend in with the republicans.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Madness to the nTh degree.

 

[Mr._Clark]

. . . In short, I'm not so sure the jury instructions will require the jury to find that Trump "actually believed there was fraud."

I still think a belief in fraud is a possible motivation, not a mens rea element that needs to be proven for each and every act alleged in the indictment.

Trump's argument that "If I really believed the big lie I'm innocent" will be decided by the court shortly.

>>>Special counsel prosecutors said Monday they plan to show at trial that Donald Trump lied repeatedly about the results of the 2020 election as part of a conspiracy to subvert the legitimate results. But they also said they don’t need to prove whether Trump believed he lost the race. . . .

Legal experts have debated the importance of Trump’s state of mind in his federal election subversion case in D.C., with some arguing that to win a conviction the government must pin down the true beliefs of a politician who amassed a long record of making false or misleading claims while president. . . . <<<

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/06/trump-defense-big-lie-jan-6/

The government's position on this seems reasonable to me. Of course, as I've previously posted, I don't agree with those who say the government must prove Trump knew he lost the election. This does not mean the courts will agree.

It's hard to see how Trump could get the case tossed on this issue at this stage. Even if the court were to accept Trump's arguments, the result would be that the DOJ would need to prove to a jury at trial that Trump knew he lost the election.

In theory, the court could conclude that the DOJ needs to prove specific intent involving very specific acts, and then hold that the indictment doesn't even allege such acts, but this strikes me as unlikely.

 

[Mr._Clark]

FWIW, here's a snip from a blog post from August on the subject of intent. The gist of it is that the author believes the government can probably convince a jury that Trump knew he lost the election, even if a court decides that the government must prove this.

>>>Many critics . . . contend that the crimes charged actually can, in fact, be proved even if Trump subjectively believed that an imagined election victory was stolen from him. See, for instance, here, here, here, and here. Though the precise criminal intent, or mens rea, required for each of the four counts varies slightly, the argument goes, in essence, that prosecutors need prove only that Trump understood that his legal remedies—through recounts and litigation—had been exhausted. When he intentionally resorted to illicit conduct to hold onto power anyway, he knew he was acting wrongfully—outside lawful channels—and, therefore, committed crimes.

My aim in this post is different. My point is that, given the accusations of the indictment, these nuanced legal arguments will likely be unnecessary. If the government can prove just a fraction of the factual allegations that the indictment charges, jurors should have no trouble concluding that Trump knew he had lost the election and was acting in bad faith.<<<

Why I Doubt Trump’s ‘Sincere Belief’ Defense Will Fly Before a Jury

While Trump's refusal to face facts may be unusual for an ex-president, it's not unusual for a white-collar criminal defendant.

www.lawfaremedia.org

This blog post seems to be well written, but Trump's mental state (beliefs) regarding the election results might be a moot point (i.e. to win on this Trump needs to 1) convince the court that his belief in the election results should go to the jury, and 2) he then needs to convince the jury that he really believed the election was stolen*).

*The following lyrics came to mind as I was typing:

Na na na na, hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye

 

[Mr._Clark]

If the view of this judge is upheld by by other courts, it would mean that no president can ever be banned from future office even if he drives a tank into the Capital building and opens fire to prevent certification of an election.

To my mind this decision is nuts.

And that's my huge opinion.

Luttig and Tribe weighed in on the court decision:

>>>Judge J. Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe . . . believe the ruling is “incorrect as a matter of constitutional law.” “The whole rule of law would be shredded if we said that the president is above the law because his oath, because of its wording, exempts him from the most fundamental requirement of law: that when your term is up you leave. It's only dictators who stay as long,” Tribe explains. “That's why the fate of the United States and democracies around the world is at stake in whether Donald Trump is allowed ever again to take the oath to support the constitution.. He’s clearly not going to mean it. That's the scary part.”<<<

https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/-simply-incorrect-judge-luttig-and-laurence-tribe-react-to-colorado-judge-s-decision-to-reject-trump-14th-amendment-challenge-198217285610

Obviously, I agree with Luttig and Tribe on this issue.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Another day, another episode of "As the Trump Gag World Turns."

>>>An appeals court has temporarily lifted the gag order barring former President Trump and his attorneys from talking about the trial judge’s staff in his New York civil fraud case.<<<

Trump gag order in NY fraud case temporarily lifted by appeals court

An appeals court has temporarily lifted the gag order barring former President Trump and his attorneys from talking about the trial judge’s staff in his New York civil fraud case. The order f…

thehill.com

This is a temporary order so it's hard to say how the appeals court will ultimately rule.

Today's episode of "As the Trump Gag World Turns" is brought to you courtesy of the NY Court of Appeals*.

>>>A gag order barring former President Trump and his counsel from speaking about the staff of the New York judge overseeing his ongoing business fraud trial was reinstated Thursday by an appeals court.

In a terse decision, an appeals panel denied Trump’s request to lift the order hampering his attacks on the principal law clerk. . . .

The appeals panel also ended its pause on the gag order, meaning the former president can no longer rail against Engoron’s clerk without potentially facing consequences.<<<

Trump gag order reinstated in New York civil fraud trial

A gag order barring former President Trump and his counsel from speaking about the staff of the New York judge overseeing his ongoing business fraud trial was reinstated Thursday by an appeals cour…

thehill.com

"Terse" may be an understatement. Here's the court order in it's entirety:

>>>A petition having been filed with this Court on November 15, 2023, seeking to
annul and vacate pursuant to CPLR 7803(2) and (3): (1) orders of the Supreme Court,
New York County, entered on or about October 20, 2023 and on or about October 26,
2023 constituting summary findings of contempt against petitioner Donald J. Trump;
(2) a “gag order” of the same court and justice entered on the record on or about
October 03, 2023, and so-ordered on or about October 26, 2023, and a “supplemental
limited gag order” of the same court and justice entered on or about November 03,
2023,

And petitioners having moved to stay enforcement of the aforesaid gag order and
supplemental limited gag order pending hearing and determination of the instant
petition,

Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due
deliberation having been had thereon,

It is ordered that the motion is denied; the interim relief granted by order of a
Justice of this Court, dated November 16, 2023, is hereby vacated.
ENTERED: November 30, 2023<<<

Reading between the lines, the appeals court seems to be saying to Trump: "Don't waste our time with this frivolous $hit."

*Full name of the court: "Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department"

 

[Dude#1279435]

Today's episode of "As the Trump Gag World Turns" is brought to you courtesy of the NY Court of Appeals*.

>>>A gag order barring former President Trump and his counsel from speaking about the staff of the New York judge overseeing his ongoing business fraud trial was reinstated Thursday by an appeals court.

In a terse decision, an appeals panel denied Trump’s request to lift the order hampering his attacks on the principal law clerk. . . .

The appeals panel also ended its pause on the gag order, meaning the former president can no longer rail against Engoron’s clerk without potentially facing consequences.<<<

Trump gag order reinstated in New York civil fraud trial

A gag order barring former President Trump and his counsel from speaking about the staff of the New York judge overseeing his ongoing business fraud trial was reinstated Thursday by an appeals cour…

thehill.com

"Terse" may be an understatement. Here's the court order in it's entirety:

>>>A petition having been filed with this Court on November 15, 2023, seeking to
annul and vacate pursuant to CPLR 7803(2) and (3): (1) orders of the Supreme Court,
New York County, entered on or about October 20, 2023 and on or about October 26,
2023 constituting summary findings of contempt against petitioner Donald J. Trump;
(2) a “gag order” of the same court and justice entered on the record on or about
October 03, 2023, and so-ordered on or about October 26, 2023, and a “supplemental
limited gag order” of the same court and justice entered on or about November 03,
2023,

And petitioners having moved to stay enforcement of the aforesaid gag order and
supplemental limited gag order pending hearing and determination of the instant
petition,

Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due
deliberation having been had thereon,

It is ordered that the motion is denied; the interim relief granted by order of a
Justice of this Court, dated November 16, 2023, is hereby vacated.
ENTERED: November 30, 2023<<<

Reading between the lines, the appeals court seems to be saying to Trump: "Don't waste our time with this frivolous $hit."

*Full name of the court: "Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department"

Has Trump made any violent threats against anyone yet during these court hearings? Sure it seems likely he has, but thus far all I can recall is verbal or posting info publicly. The latter is sort of doing that, but he's great at sitting in the middle. I recall Trump saying along the lines of 'If you prosecute me you're going to have a lot of angry voters.' But again he's touching the boundaries w/o crossing.

 

[davidscott]

Donald Trump defiant as he testifies about his business empire in New York civil trial | CBC News

 

[davidscott]

Nobody can control Donald J including himself.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Has Trump made any violent threats against anyone yet during these court hearings?

I'm not sure about Trump, but that's not the point of the gag order.

>>>Specifically, the Government refers the Court to Exhibit E to the attached affidavit, which is a sworn affirmation by an employee of the New York State Unified Court System, assigned to the Judicial Threats Assessment Unit, discussing the defendant’s October 3, 2023 social media post, which “resulted in hundreds of threatening and harassing voicemail messages that have been transcribed into over 275 single spaced pages."<<<

Special Counsel Letter - Nov 23 2023 | PDF | United States Courts Of Appeals | Courtroom

Special Counsel Letter - Nov 23 2023

www.scribd.com

Trump has an army of idiots that respond to his idiotic social media posts.