This is why you animals sat idly by while your leftist governments killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th century.
Doesn't matter. It's way too late to demand a jury trial. That demand should have been made by Trump's lawyers during the initial phases of the case - Answering the Complaint is the typical place to demand a jury trial. Otherwise, it is waived. You can't ask for jury trial during the middle of a bench trial. That's just basic stuff.
If Trump truly feels aggrieved here, the proper place is to sue his lawyers for malpractice and/or file a disciplinary complaint against them with the New York bar. He may have a decent case, because Alina Said Mohammed Habba and that Florida guy Kise seem really incompetent here (as evidenced in part by the sanctions order). They suck bad.
That's nonsense. The lawyers just made a mistake and checked the wrong box and so waived a jury trial? Not credible. Further, they would be allowed to correct this mistake.
The first big witness is likely to be Allan Weisselberg, former chief financial officer at the Trump Organization. He is a defendant in the case and fairly high up on the list to testify. e Earlier this year Weisselberg was sentenced to five months in prison for financial crimes he committed while working there. Last year he pleaded guilty to 15 counts including grand larceny tax fraud and falsifying business records.
Like what does any of this even mean?
It means Allen Weisselberg may testify in the New York civil case. He is a top notch fraudster for the Trump Organization. Possible confidential informant for Mossad. Wears bow ties, even on Saturday. Adjudicated felon. Did some yard time at Rikers recently.
Doesn't matter. It's way too late to demand a jury trial. That demand should have been made by Trump's lawyers during the initial phases of the case - Answering the Complaint is the typical place to demand a jury trial. Otherwise, it is waived. You can't ask for jury trial during the middle of a bench trial. That's just basic stuff.
If Trump truly feels aggrieved here, the proper place is to sue his lawyers for malpractice and/or file a disciplinary complaint against them with the New York bar. He may have a decent case, because Alina Said Mohammed Habba and that Florida guy Kise seem really incompetent here (as evidenced in part by the sanctions order). They suck bad.
That's nonsense. The lawyers just made a mistake and checked the wrong box and so waived a jury trial? Not credible. Further, they would be allowed to correct this mistake.
No. It's not a matter of checking the wrong box. There was no box checked. Furthermore, a demand for a jury trial was never recited by Trump et al. in any pleadings, including the Answer that every litigator in America knows is the place to boldy set forth "JURY TRIAL DEMANDED" near the caption and "A jury trial is demanded on all issues so triable" in the enumerated averments. It is FAR too late to demand a jury trial for the first time during the bench trial you agreed to. It is unheard of to do so. WAIVED.
Wait ... he used money for what? I thought he didn't do it. I thought there wasn't payment and that if there was payment, it was Michael Cohen's money, and Michael Cohen was the lying crook (formerly known as key member of the set "the best people") who skirted campaign finance laws, and that the defendant didn't even know or meet the porn star, and that if for some reason he ever met the porn star, it was very brief and he wouldn't be able to distinguish her from Adam, Eve, E. Jean Carroll, or Marla Maples (the latter two of whom he clearly cannot tell apart).
It's believable that he paid the wh*re for a fling.
You would know better about all that stuff, but today Trump filed a motion to dismiss the Fake Electors case. He basically argues that he has Presidential immunity for everything he is alleged to have done.
It seems pretty well written. Low on hysterics and hyperbole. Trump's lawyers say it's a case of first impression, which it probably is, and then argue that the scope of Presidential immunity for criminal acts will be the same as, or even large than, the scope of Presidential immunity for civil acts (which is clear in the law). I can't see how they are wrong there.
Where Trump's lawyers get a bit conclusory is in characterizing what Trump did and labeling it all as his within his broad responsibilities as President. For example, with respect to Trump's marching orders to the fake electors, they argue "Without contingent slates of electors, there would be no alternative option for the Vice President to certify, rendering futile the President’s entirely legitimate efforts to urge Congress and the states to reconsider evidence of fraud and irregularities. Organization of the slates of electors, in other words, advances two core Presidential functions—protecting the integrity of federal elections, and urging Members of Congress to act in a manner consistent with the President’s view of the public good." That's some high level BS for two reasons: (1) its BS, and (2) Presidents have nothing to do with electors and certifications. The Constitution doesn't give power to sitting incumbent presidents to count ballots or electors or certify presidential elections. That would be nuts. All that stuff seems way outside a President's responsibilities.
Anyway, Trump's lawyers looked competent for once and set this critical issue up well for further appeals. He may win on this.
You would know better about all that stuff, but today Trump filed a motion to dismiss the Fake Electors case. He basically argues that he has Presidential immunity for everything he is alleged to have done.
It seems pretty well written. Low on hysterics and hyperbole. Trump's lawyers say it's a case of first impression, which it probably is, and then argue that the scope of Presidential immunity for criminal acts will be the same as, or even large than, the scope of Presidential immunity for civil acts (which is clear in the law). I can't see how they are wrong there.
Where Trump's lawyers get a bit conclusory is in characterizing what Trump did and labeling it all as his within his broad responsibilities as President. For example, with respect to Trump's marching orders to the fake electors, they argue "Without contingent slates of electors, there would be no alternative option for the Vice President to certify, rendering futile the President’s entirely legitimate efforts to urge Congress and the states to reconsider evidence of fraud and irregularities. Organization of the slates of electors, in other words, advances two core Presidential functions—protecting the integrity of federal elections, and urging Members of Congress to act in a manner consistent with the President’s view of the public good." That's some high level BS for two reasons: (1) its BS, and (2) Presidents have nothing to do with electors and certifications. The Constitution doesn't give power to sitting incumbent presidents to count ballots or electors or certify presidential elections. That would be nuts. All that stuff seems way outside a President's responsibilities.
Anyway, Trump's lawyers looked competent for once and set this critical issue up well for further appeals. He may win on this.
Doesn't matter. It's way too late to demand a jury trial. That demand should have been made by Trump's lawyers during the initial phases of the case - Answering the Complaint is the typical place to demand a jury trial. Otherwise, it is waived. You can't ask for jury trial during the middle of a bench trial. That's just basic stuff.
If Trump truly feels aggrieved here, the proper place is to sue his lawyers for malpractice and/or file a disciplinary complaint against them with the New York bar. He may have a decent case, because Alina Said Mohammed Habba and that Florida guy Kise seem really incompetent here (as evidenced in part by the sanctions order). They suck bad.
That's nonsense. The lawyers just made a mistake and checked the wrong box and so waived a jury trial? Not credible. Further, they would be allowed to correct this mistake.
He doesn't want to correct the "mistake".
0
0
Tacopina Joe and his throbbing Temple vein of Doom
You would know better about all that stuff, but today Trump filed a motion to dismiss the Fake Electors case. He basically argues that he has Presidential immunity for everything he is alleged to have done.
It seems pretty well written. Low on hysterics and hyperbole. Trump's lawyers say it's a case of first impression, which it probably is, and then argue that the scope of Presidential immunity for criminal acts will be the same as, or even large than, the scope of Presidential immunity for civil acts (which is clear in the law). I can't see how they are wrong there.
Where Trump's lawyers get a bit conclusory is in characterizing what Trump did and labeling it all as his within his broad responsibilities as President. For example, with respect to Trump's marching orders to the fake electors, they argue "Without contingent slates of electors, there would be no alternative option for the Vice President to certify, rendering futile the President’s entirely legitimate efforts to urge Congress and the states to reconsider evidence of fraud and irregularities. Organization of the slates of electors, in other words, advances two core Presidential functions—protecting the integrity of federal elections, and urging Members of Congress to act in a manner consistent with the President’s view of the public good." That's some high level BS for two reasons: (1) its BS, and (2) Presidents have nothing to do with electors and certifications. The Constitution doesn't give power to sitting incumbent presidents to count ballots or electors or certify presidential elections. That would be nuts. All that stuff seems way outside a President's responsibilities.
Anyway, Trump's lawyers looked competent for once and set this critical issue up well for further appeals. He may win on this.
Of COURSE that is wrong. For example a president cannot steal, assault people, commit treason while in office and get away with it. Even if some people argue there is some 'presidential immunity' (not a thing in the constitution) for the sake of 'getting the job done' while in office, they can and should be prosecuted AFTER leaving office. NO MFing KINGS.
You would know better about all that stuff, but today Trump filed a motion to dismiss the Fake Electors case. He basically argues that he has Presidential immunity for everything he is alleged to have done.
It seems pretty well written. Low on hysterics and hyperbole. Trump's lawyers say it's a case of first impression, which it probably is, and then argue that the scope of Presidential immunity for criminal acts will be the same as, or even large than, the scope of Presidential immunity for civil acts (which is clear in the law). I can't see how they are wrong there.
Where Trump's lawyers get a bit conclusory is in characterizing what Trump did and labeling it all as his within his broad responsibilities as President. For example, with respect to Trump's marching orders to the fake electors, they argue "Without contingent slates of electors, there would be no alternative option for the Vice President to certify, rendering futile the President’s entirely legitimate efforts to urge Congress and the states to reconsider evidence of fraud and irregularities. Organization of the slates of electors, in other words, advances two core Presidential functions—protecting the integrity of federal elections, and urging Members of Congress to act in a manner consistent with the President’s view of the public good." That's some high level BS for two reasons: (1) its BS, and (2) Presidents have nothing to do with electors and certifications. The Constitution doesn't give power to sitting incumbent presidents to count ballots or electors or certify presidential elections. That would be nuts. All that stuff seems way outside a President's responsibilities.
Anyway, Trump's lawyers looked competent for once and set this critical issue up well for further appeals. He may win on this.
Of COURSE that is wrong. For example a president cannot steal, assault people, commit treason while in office and get away with it. Even if some people argue there is some 'presidential immunity' (not a thing in the constitution) for the sake of 'getting the job done' while in office, they can and should be prosecuted AFTER leaving office. NO MFing KINGS.
It's not that simple to just say a President can't assault people. I believe Trump argued that presidential immunity only covers acts that are responsibilities of the president and that covers a wide range of actions. Then it kind of comes down to what labels you put on certain actions. Trump argues that everything alleged in the Complaint was Trump communicating his beliefs and acting to preserve election integrity which he undoubtedly can do. But like I said, I think he gets tripped up on the fake electors scheme - presidents have nothing to do with electors and electoral certificates.
Also, presidential immunity is a real thing, and courts have found it in the Constitution. That is not subject to dispute. It does exist and it will be one of Trump's strongest legal arguments.
Your post also reminds me that another thing Trump argued (I think) was that impeachment is the only recourse for alleged crimes committed while in office (or at least for crimes committed pursuant to presidential responsibilities). I think Trump argued that only after an impeachment conviction in the Senate (which did not happen here) could a president be indicted elsewhere. I can't tell how strong that is. We shall see how the prosecution responds.
^^ Immunity while in office, not extending beyond office for crimes they did while in office. That just makes sense following the bigger picture of the constitution. No kings. No-one above the law. Donald's lawyers can make arguments, and maybe there is no precedent for this stuff because no previous president did this stuff. Except for maybe Nixon, and it sure looks like he made a deal to resign to let Ford be prez in exchange for a pardon of his federal (not state) crimes. But Donald's lawyers' arguments suck big donkey dongs.
Trump is panicking & seeking an emergency halt to his NY fraud trial less than 24 hrs after being ordered to disclose 3rd party co-owners, equity partners & lenders for ALL of their businesses & 500 LLCs. It's a futile attempt to stop the doom reveal of who really owns Trump Org.
Trump is panicking & seeking an emergency halt to his NY fraud trial less than 24 hrs after being ordered to disclose 3rd party co-owners, equity partners & lenders for ALL of their businesses & 500 LLCs. It's a futile attempt to stop the doom reveal of who really owns Trump Org.
^^ Immunity while in office, not extending beyond office for crimes they did while in office. That just makes sense following the bigger picture of the constitution. No kings. No-one above the law. Donald's lawyers can make arguments, and maybe there is no precedent for this stuff because no previous president did this stuff. Except for maybe Nixon, and it sure looks like he made a deal to resign to let Ford be prez in exchange for a pardon of his federal (not state) crimes. But Donald's lawyers' arguments suck big donkey dongs.
Trump's lawyers are largely incompetent and have done a lot of donkey donging (e.g., Trump declassified documents in his head; square footage is a subjective measurement; attorney general has no standing on a case that only the attorney general can file), but presidential immunity is not a donk donger. Dong. It's the real deal, and Trump has a real shot at getting this dismissed (more likely at the appellate level). Dong. Just my unsophisticated opinion.
Trump is panicking & seeking an emergency halt to his NY fraud trial less than 24 hrs after being ordered to disclose 3rd party co-owners, equity partners & lenders for ALL of their businesses & 500 LLCs. It's a futile attempt to stop the doom reveal of who really owns Trump Org.
Gonna be long list of Russians
”I said, ‘Eric, who’s funding? I know no banks — because of the recession, the Great Recession — have touched a golf course. You know, no one’s funding any kind of golf construction. It’s dead in the water the last four or five years,’” the writers told WBUR. “And this is what he said. He said, ‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’ I said, ‘Really?’ And he said, ‘Oh, yeah. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.’”
Eric bragged about it.
It's Russia, Russia, Russia, and it might be about to all come out.
Trump is panicking & seeking an emergency halt to his NY fraud trial less than 24 hrs after being ordered to disclose 3rd party co-owners, equity partners & lenders for ALL of their businesses & 500 LLCs. It's a futile attempt to stop the doom reveal of who really owns Trump Org.
Like that is a donkey dong argument. Seeking to stop a trial mid-stream. You can ask for a stay of any award or relief that gets ordered at the end of trial while you appeal - courts grant that all that time. But stopping a trial while its ongoing? You need a 9/11 type event to do that. Dong.
”I said, ‘Eric, who’s funding? I know no banks — because of the recession, the Great Recession — have touched a golf course. You know, no one’s funding any kind of golf construction. It’s dead in the water the last four or five years,’” the writers told WBUR. “And this is what he said. He said, ‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’ I said, ‘Really?’ And he said, ‘Oh, yeah. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.’”
Eric bragged about it.
It's Russia, Russia, Russia, and it might be about to all come out.
I won’t say it’s game over for Trump because he is a survivor for sure. But if all the stakeholders in all of Trumps LLCs and properties become known it will definitively confirm that Trump the billionaire was the biggest con job ever perpetuated on the gullible people that believed.
But worse than that we will see how Trumps decisions and actions in office were driven by his debt to others.
Regarding immunity, and how long it lasts: Mitch McConnell said Donald did the Jan 6 crime, but did not convict Donald in the Senate (impeachment) and noted that Donald could still be prosecuted by the criminal justice system. And now that Donkey is coming home to roast, dong end first.
In remarks following the 57-43 vote to acquit former President Trump, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) calls his actions on January 6 "disgraceful" and says that he is "practically…
Linked below is the infamous "gag" order on Trump in the Fake Electors case. It's obviously not as diabolical and oppressive as some have made it out to be. And for you real tin-foil head Trumpers, if you read the short 3 page order you will see that no one invented this gag order just to persecute Trump -- they are common orders.
Trump can still say all kinds of crazy conspiracy bullsh!t and trash talk on 99.9999999999% of his enemies, just not a select few. We shall see if he complies, or if he defies his lawyers and calls Chutkan's bluff. She would be in a tough spot then as to how to sanction Trump to force compliance. But some large $$$$$$$ would surely be in play.
OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part and denying in part the government's 57 Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings; and denying as moot the government's sealed...
^^ Yes indeed, this gag order is long overdue. Anyone else would have already been locked up for the witness intimidation (calling treason charge for witness General Milley) and for the rants about the prosecutor and judge. No kings. We need to defend our country's judicial system and ensure a fair trial by sticking a sock in that big mouth, even if it means locking him up to achieve that. His run for Republican nomination is not a get-out-of-justice card.
Doesn't matter. It's way too late to demand a jury trial. That demand should have been made by Trump's lawyers during the initial phases of the case - Answering the Complaint is the typical place to demand a jury trial. Otherwise, it is waived. You can't ask for jury trial during the middle of a bench trial. That's just basic stuff.
If Trump truly feels aggrieved here, the proper place is to sue his lawyers for malpractice and/or file a disciplinary complaint against them with the New York bar. He may have a decent case, because Alina Said Mohammed Habba and that Florida guy Kise seem really incompetent here (as evidenced in part by the sanctions order). They suck bad.
That's nonsense. The lawyers just made a mistake and checked the wrong box and so waived a jury trial? Not credible. Further, they would be allowed to correct this mistake.
