EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

[John Parks]

This must have hurt Alex to write...

Trump raised $7.1 million after Georgia booking, mugshot

The former president raised $4.18 million on Friday alone, the single-highest 24 hour period of his campaign to date.

www.politico.com

 

[Dude#1279435]

This must have hurt Alex to write...

Trump raised $7.1 million after Georgia booking, mugshot

The former president raised $4.18 million on Friday alone, the single-highest 24 hour period of his campaign to date.

www.politico.com

Speaks rather accurately of where Republicans are.

 

[Swerd]

None of that money will be spent on political campaigns. All of it will go to pay Trump's lawyers.

 

[Mr._Clark]

None of that money will be spent on political campaigns. All of it will go to pay Trump's lawyers.

In addition to paying Trump's lawyers, I suspect some of it could go to Hillary Clinton and her lawyers:

>>>A federal judge said Thursday that former President Donald Trump and his attorneys are liable for nearly $1 million in sanctions for a lawsuit Trump brought against Hillary Clinton, ex-top Justice Department officials and several others alleging they conspired against him in the 2016 campaign. . . . The latest decision, which ordered $937,989 in sanctions, stems from a request by several other defendants, including Clinton.<<<

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/politics/trump-sanctions-clinton-lawsuit/index.html

If I represented Clinton, I'd be sending Trump thank you notes.

 

[isolar8001]

Hillary could still press charges for "Stalking On Stage"

 

[isolar8001]

 

[lovinthehd]

....and the grift goes on.

 

[Mikado463]

View attachment 63074

ah no, those with money know full well how to accomplish their objective with other peoples money !

 

[Mr._Clark]

None of that money will be spent on political campaigns. All of it will go to pay Trump's lawyers.

I've wondered if some of the campaign donations might also go to Jean Carroll to cover the $5 million civil judgement against Trump.

>>>As Donald Trump's New York legal troubles began to mount this spring, his lawyers and political action committee sought the help of Sean Crowley, a local private eye. Save America, a PAC founded by the former president, paid $152,285.50 to Crowley's firm in April and May, according to federal campaign filings. He was paid for work related to Trump's Manhattan court cases. . . .

But the question of whether this is the kind of legal expense a political campaign should be covering is a "gray area," according to Columbia Law School professor Richard Briffault.

"The real question is how far does the idea of legal expense go? And that's something I think that election law really hasn't thought very much about," Briffault said.<<<

Trump PAC foots bill for private investigator in Manhattan criminal case, E. Jean Carroll trial

A Trump PAC, Save America, paid more than $152,000 for a private eye's "research" in the former president's New York criminal and civil cases.

www.cbsnews.com

I suspect using PAC money to pay Carroll is outside the bounds of what is allowed by election law, but I'm not sure. I doubt that the campaign donors would care. They apparently just give their money to Trump because they love him so much.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Trump and Eastman perhaps?

 

[Mr._Clark]

This lawyer opines that some of the Georgia counts against Trump will be difficult to prove because it requires showing knowledge of official's oath of office and intent to get the officials to violate their oaths of office.

>>>The state chose to charge this conduct in two ways. One of them is strong and simple: Team Trump lied to elected officials and tried to forge documents.

The other — that they were aware of the officials’ oaths of office and were hoping specifically to get them to violate it — is unusual and hard to prove. . . . Here’s the problem . . . the state must also prove that Mr. Trump knew this [the actions of the electors] would violate the electors’ oath of office. . . . to put it gently, Mr. Trump is plausibly ignorant on a variety of subjects, ranging from how hurricanes are formed to whether it’s a good idea to use or inject disinfectants as a possible Covid cure.<<<

Opinion | What Fani Willis Got Wrong in Her Trump Indictment

The costs of complexity.

www.nytimes.com

I'm not sure if the law in Georgia concerning specific intent (Trump's knowledge) is 100% clear in this situation (the judge will decide what the jury instructions say). Off hand, it seems plausible that the writer is correct.

This does not mean, of course, that the charges related to forging documents will be difficult to prove.

 

[chrysler82000]

I've wondered if some of the campaign donations might also go to Jean Carroll to cover the $5 million civil judgement against Trump.

>>>As Donald Trump's New York legal troubles began to mount this spring, his lawyers and political action committee sought the help of Sean Crowley, a local private eye. Save America, a PAC founded by the former president, paid $152,285.50 to Crowley's firm in April and May, according to federal campaign filings. He was paid for work related to Trump's Manhattan court cases. . . .

But the question of whether this is the kind of legal expense a political campaign should be covering is a "gray area," according to Columbia Law School professor Richard Briffault.

"The real question is how far does the idea of legal expense go? And that's something I think that election law really hasn't thought very much about," Briffault said.<<<

Trump PAC foots bill for private investigator in Manhattan criminal case, E. Jean Carroll trial

A Trump PAC, Save America, paid more than $152,000 for a private eye's "research" in the former president's New York criminal and civil cases.

www.cbsnews.com

I suspect using PAC money to pay Carroll is outside the bounds of what is allowed by election law, but I'm not sure. I doubt that the campaign donors would care. They apparently just give their money to Trump because they love him so much.

clueless libs

NBC News poll: Nearly 70% of GOP voters stand behind Trump amid indictment and investigations

But large majorities of Americans sour on a Trump v. Biden rematch in 2024.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Dude#1279435]

This does not mean, of course, that the charges related to forging documents will be difficult to prove.

Can you explain what happened?

 

[Swerd]

WASHINGTON, Aug 30 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's former lawyer Rudy Giuliani is liable for defaming two election workers in Georgia, a U.S. judge in Washington said on Wednesday. Judge Beryl Howell issued the order as a sanction against Giuliani for failing to turn over electronic records sought by the two election workers, Wandrea "Shaye" Moss and her mother Ruby Freeman, in the case.

The judge's order means Giuliani will have to pay damages for spreading false vote-rigging claims against the pair following the 2020 U.S. presidential election. He previously admitted that his statements were false and damaged Moss and Freeman's reputations.

Giuliani liable for defaming Georgia election workers, judge rules

Donald Trump's former lawyer Rudy Giuliani is liable for defaming two Georgia election workers who were the target of vote-rigging conspiracy accusations following the 2020 U.S. presidential election, a U.S. judge in Washington ruled on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

I have to ask: If Giuliani admits to making false statements about Moss & Freeman, what else has he lied about?

 

[Mr._Clark]

Can you explain what happened?

I don't think you need me to do that. Just read the indictment, it's public.

I have no first hand knowledge of any of the facts alleged in the indictment, so I don't really have anything to add with regards to the facts.

 

[Mr._Clark]

This lawyer opines that some of the Georgia counts against Trump will be difficult to prove because it requires showing knowledge of official's oath of office and intent to get the officials to violate their oaths of office.

>>>The state chose to charge this conduct in two ways. One of them is strong and simple: Team Trump lied to elected officials and tried to forge documents.

The other — that they were aware of the officials’ oaths of office and were hoping specifically to get them to violate it — is unusual and hard to prove. . . . Here’s the problem . . . the state must also prove that Mr. Trump knew this [the actions of the electors] would violate the electors’ oath of office. . . . to put it gently, Mr. Trump is plausibly ignorant on a variety of subjects, ranging from how hurricanes are formed to whether it’s a good idea to use or inject disinfectants as a possible Covid cure.<<<

Opinion | What Fani Willis Got Wrong in Her Trump Indictment

The costs of complexity.

www.nytimes.com

I'm not sure if the law in Georgia concerning specific intent (Trump's knowledge) is 100% clear in this situation (the judge will decide what the jury instructions say). Off hand, it seems plausible that the writer is correct.

This does not mean, of course, that the charges related to forging documents will be difficult to prove.

I took a (very) quick look at this. I believe the writer is referring to the following law listed in the indictment:

>>>2022 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 4 - Criminal Attempt, Conspiracy, and Solicitation
§ 16-4-7. Criminal Solicitation

Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-4-7 (2022)

1. A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct. . . .<<<

2022 Georgia Code :: Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses :: Chapter 4 - Criminal Attempt, Conspiracy, and Solicitation :: § 16-4-7. Criminal Solicitation

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

To my mind it's not entirely clear that the NYT opinion is correct in saying that the prosecutor would have to prove that "Trump knew this would violate the electors’ oath of office."

On the face of it, the law only requires "intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony." It does not say ""intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, with knowledge that such conduct would constitute a felony [or crime]."

The NYT item appears to be more of an argument about how he thinks the law should be construed rather than a statement of what the law is.

Assuming it gets to a jury, it will be interesting to see what the jury instructions are with regards to the intent element.

 

[chrysler82000]

Just a buch of sell out commies.

1. Your post in the thread EX-PRESIDENT INDICTEDwas deleted. Reason: Off topic. I deleted once and will again.
   53 minutes ago

 

[Mr._Clark]

Rudy Giuliani was held liable in a defamation Case brought by two election workers in Georgia:

>>>WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday held Rudy Giuliani liable in a defamation lawsuit brought by two Georgia election workers who say they were falsely accused of fraud, entering a default judgment against the former New York City mayor and ordering him to pay tens of thousands of dollars in lawyers’ fees.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said the punishment was necessary because Giuliani had ignored his duty as a defendant to turn over information requested by election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea’ ArShaye Moss, as part of their lawsuit.<<<

Judge holds Giuliani liable in Georgia election workers' defamation case for withholding information

A federal judge has held Rudy Giuliani liable in a defamation lawsuit brought by two Georgia election workers who say they were falsely accused of fraud.

apnews.com

This is not a final judgement, however.

 

[davidscott]

Lock him up!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Giuliani liable for defaming Georgia election workers, judge rules

Donald Trump's former lawyer Rudy Giuliani is liable for defaming two Georgia election workers who were the target of vote-rigging conspiracy accusations following the 2020 U.S. presidential election, a U.S. judge in Washington ruled on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

I have to ask: If Giuliani admits to making false statements about Moss & Freeman, what else has he lied about?

Almost as much as the trumpster himself.
Don't forget who pays the legal fees as well.