Former President Trump News/Discussion....

[DTravel]

"The fight is fixed": Legal expert calls out Judge Cannon as "MAGA activist in a black robe"
Salon

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...c701358&ei=100

Donald Trump took classified documents with him after he left the White House, refused to give them back and after two-plus years of lying about what he possessed – military secrets, including battle plans and the details of certain “nuclear programs” – a grand jury finally indicted him last June.

The classified documents case could have been history by now. With the facts already made public, including Trump on tape talking about a document he should not have possessed with people who should not have been told about it, it is likely the once-and-future Republican nominee would already have been the first former president ever convicted of a crime after leaving office.

“This case could and should have been ready for trial in December [2023] or January,” according to Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney. But Trump was fortunate: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon won the lottery to hear the case, making an appointee of the defendant the one to decide if or when the case goes before jurors.

Last week, Cannon formally decided that Trump’s trial will be held maybe never: She threw out the May 20 start date that at least existed on paper, saying it would be “imprudent” to set another time, for now. The reason, Cannon said, is that she there are still “myriad and interconnected” issues that the judge herself must rule on.

In other words: the trial cannot begin because Cannon has not finished the work that she imposed on herself – on questions raised by the Trump defense team that, per Vance, would be “routinely denied” hearings by anyone else.

As Vance noted in a post on her website, the trial could have been held already had Cannon “been working on the motions and [setting] realistic deadlines all along.” Instead, she has given Trump “what he wanted all along,” which is perpetual delay, potentially pushing a trial back to 2025 at the earliest, when a Trump-led Department of Justice could kill it off altogether.

“She has made bad decisions that have no relationship to what the law is in this case,” former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks said in an interview on MSNBC over the weekend. “She has refused to make decisions that should have been made months ago."

Instead of a trial, Cannon will be using the next month to hold hearings on motions that most legal experts say would not get a hearing in almost any other federal court, including the defense’s claim that it should receive discovery material not just from prosecutors, but potentially the White House, part of its claim that Trump is being persecuted by President Joe Biden; that issue alone will be discussed for three days in June.

Cannon has also repeatedly pushed back deadlines of her own making, recently giving Trump’s legal team more time to say what classified information it intends to present at trial. That is truly a complex issue, governed by the Classified Information Procedures Act, that will ultimately require Cannon to decide what redactions are permissible – that is, it’s an issue that most judges would have tried to resolve last year.

“She is not dumb,” Wine-Banks said, “but she is really not doing her job.”

Or, as others see it, Cannon is indeed doing exactly what is expected of her.

“When people say the fight is fixed, this is the type of stuff they are talking about,” former Justice Department spokesperson Anthony Coley said on MSNBC. “You have a woman here who intentionally appears to be dragging her feet,” he observed, arguing Cannon is less an objective judge and more someone who appears to be “a MAGA activist in a black robe.”

It’s not just liberals on MSNBC who see Cannon as hopelessly biased against special counsel Jack Smith.

“My favorite member of the Trump campaign,” an ally of the former president joked to Rolling Stone; “a godsend,” said another.

[Baxter49]

The NY Times poll was great for Trump but clearly they have a lot of pro-Trump bias as Olbermann makes very clear how bad their reporting has become and how they missed a lot along with not challenging his lies or his real crowd size in New Jersey.

And how bad Trump screwed up in New Jersey with his endless gaffes.

Plus he had a registered sex offender on stage with him.

https://omny.fm/shows/countdown-with...m-the-new-york

[foxbat1]

Trump praises fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter during rally speech

Trump praises fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter during rally speech
Ex-president calls Hopkins’s cannibalistic Lecter ‘late, great’ while condemning ‘people who are being released into our country’

Edward Helmore
Sun 12 May 2024 20.02 BST
Share
Donald Trump on Saturday praised the fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter “as a wonderful man” before segueing into comments disparaging people who have immigrated into the US without permission.

The former president’s remarks to political rally-goers in Wildwood, New Jersey, as he challenges Joe Biden’s re-election in November were a not-so-subtle rhetorical bridge exalting Anthony Hopkins’s cannibalistic Lecter in Silence of the Lambs as “late [and] great” while simultaneously condemning “people who are being released into our country that we don’t want”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...annibal-lecter

In his defence I think this is the dementia talking.

[Baxter49]

CNN Live link:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-24/index.html

Mike Johnson, and several republican's in a growing list are going to kiss the ring on the taxpayers dime.

Court closed Wednesday and Friday, my guess would be the prosecution will wrap before lunch, and then the defense goes.
******************************
Trump says payments were legal expenses, again disparages judge, complains about court "icebox"
From CNN's Maureen Chowdhury

Donald Trump aired his grievances about the hush money trial and brought up campaign talking points before entering the Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday.

In multiple instances, Trump said that the gag order implemented by Judge Juan Merchan is unfair to him and should be lifted. "You ask me questions I'm not allowed to respond," Trump told reporters. He later added, "The gag order has to come off."

Trump also read support written by allies. He called Merchan "crooked" and then went on to claim that what he did regarding the hush money payment was legal.

"I paid a lawyer a certain amount of money we marked it down as legal expenses. So I had a legal expense and I marked it down as a legal expense. I didn't mark it down as a construction of wall, construction of a building, I didn't mark it down as electricity," Trump said.

"There's no crime," Trump said. "I've been here for almost four weeks in an icebox, they call it the icebox, listening to a judge who totally corrupt and conflicted."
*********************************
Prosecution shows April check signed by Trump as Cohen testifies about how he received Daniels reimbursement

The March check from the revocable trust was signed by Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg, Cohen says.

Looking at a signed check for $35,000 to Cohen in April, Hoffinger asked, "Whose signature is it?"

"Donald J. Trump," Cohen said.

"Were any of those checks in fact for work during the months described in those check stubs?" Hoffinger asks Cohen.

"No ma’am," Cohen replied.

Jurors first saw these checks during testimony from Jeff McConney and Trump Org. employee Deborah Tarasoff. McConney testified that he would forward the invoices to Tarasoff, who handles accounts payable for the checks to be cut to Cohen.

GUILTY
*******************************
Trump's gag order appeal is denied

Donald Trump’s latest attempt to end the gag order against him in the hush money criminal trial was denied by a New York appeals court on Tuesday.

"We find that Justice Merchan properly weighed petitioner’s First Amendment Rights against the court’s historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases, and the right of persons related or tangentially related to the criminal proceedings from being free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm," according to the order.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by Baxter49

The NY Times poll was great for Trump but clearly they have a lot of pro-Trump bias as Olbermann makes very clear how bad their reporting has become and how they missed a lot along with not challenging his lies or his real crowd size in New Jersey.

And how bad Trump screwed up in New Jersey with his endless gaffes.

Plus he had a registered sex offender on stage with him.

https://omny.fm/shows/countdown-with...m-the-new-york

The sex offender demographic is a big supporter of Trump and MAGA.

[Baxter49]

Prosecution is done with Cohen break for lunch (eight hours so far) then defense will be hammering away, seemed as transparent as he could be so no surprises from the defense. Cohen's been tired and exhaling as he finishes for breaks, this is not easy for him. Good strategy for prosecution to let defense have him for afternoon, then get a day off before he gets a full grilling on Thursday, unless defense does not have much.

I think prosecution got ahead of the defense with a ton of admissions of his lies, crimes.

Republicans in congress were outside court attacking judges daughter for Trump. It's a like a banana republican party just horrible for the future of this county. You would think Cohen would be a cautionary tale for them.

[SexObjex]

Originally Posted by Priapus

Everything in the law is a technicality. Do I think there are too many meaningless process crime statutes?

Fairly said, point taken. This goes to something else I often say, which is that we can make the law say anything we want it to say (it just takes willpower and the consensus of lawmakers, look at all manner of incredibly bureaucratic actions, especially the tax code, in postwar America).

As an argumentative question however, I really, really have to ask why this is being brought before a state court. Everyone is breathlessly saying that this payoff was engineered to influence an election -- that means, at least to me, that the Federal Election Committee or the Justice Department should be involved. If we really are talking about unlawful election interference.

The FEC is a eunuch organization, by design, and the Justice Department always has about 977 reasons why it can't or won't prosecute a person either in or seeking a political office such as Trump. Those are your technicalities and that's why he's going to walk. New York State brought a case that the feds should have brought, and they're going to lose it because it isn't New York State's case to bring.

[Baxter49]

Originally Posted by SexObjex

Fairly said, point taken. This goes to something else I often say, which is that we can make the law say anything we want it to say (it just takes willpower and the consensus of lawmakers, look at all manner of incredibly bureaucratic actions, especially the tax code, in postwar America).

As an argumentative question however, I really, really have to ask why this is being brought before a state court. Everyone is breathlessly saying that this payoff was engineered to influence an election -- that means, at least to me, that the Federal Election Committee or the Justice Department should be involved. If we really are talking about unlawful election interference.

The FEC is a eunuch organization, by design, and the Justice Department always has about 977 reasons why it can't or won't prosecute a person either in or seeking a political office such as Trump. Those are your technicalities and that's why he's going to walk. New York State brought a case that the feds should have brought, and they're going to lose it because it isn't New York State's case to bring.

Personally I like where your going with this, and your other post (you are against Trump) but giving your views why Trump might win, and it only takes one in that jury.

According to this Trump broke a state statute.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-election-law/

And in Georgia it's a tangle also but considered a state matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-federal-court

Reportedly Trump is not happy with his attorney Todd Blanche who's starting with profanity in Cohen's e-mails, and did months preparing his cross, and starting strong to get Cohen rattled.

35 minutes surfaced of video of Trump's Sat rally (just a few thousand) of many walking away or walking out while he was talking. I think it was in an amusement park but large portions were walking away as he was speaking in the background or not there for him.

Trump's having bigly problems staying awake.

[Priapus]

Originally Posted by SexObjex

Fairly said, point taken. This goes to something else I often say, which is that we can make the law say anything we want it to say (it just takes willpower and the consensus of lawmakers, look at all manner of incredibly bureaucratic actions, especially the tax code, in postwar America).

As an argumentative question however, I really, really have to ask why this is being brought before a state court. Everyone is breathlessly saying that this payoff was engineered to influence an election -- that means, at least to me, that the Federal Election Committee or the Justice Department should be involved. If we really are talking about unlawful election interference.

The FEC is a eunuch organization, by design, and the Justice Department always has about 977 reasons why it can't or won't prosecute a person either in or seeking a political office such as Trump. Those are your technicalities and that's why he's going to walk. New York State brought a case that the feds should have brought, and they're going to lose it because it isn't New York State's case to bring.

Your point about the law is very accurate. I won't even start listing the examples.

As to why this wasn't brought in federal court with regard to the federal election laws, similar instances like Hillary Clinton's accounting error with regard to mislabeling payments to Fusion GPS or a nearly identical case with John Edwards are usually just issued fines. I think Trump might have been fined too, but regardless, I don't think mislabeling or misreporting $300k (or whatever the number might be) in campaigns where hundreds of millions of dollars are spent is really worthy of anything more than a fine. I am more worried about mislabeling or misreporting where the money came from.

As to this state court case, I've really struggled to understand the prosecution's theory of this case. Ok, he falsified business records, but the statute of limitations had passed and that's just a misdemeanor. But, it was to cover up a crime of criminal conspiracy to influence the outcome of an election, so we can bring the charges... Leaving all that aside, and taking the prosecution's allegations as uncontested fact, I still don't understand why they would take this to trial instead of just offering a BS misdemeanor plea deal with a fine. The amount of time, effort, and money that has gone into this case over victimless process crime is astounding. Even if they do win, I don't see this not getting overturned.

Let me be clear, I am not saying because I like Trump he should be given carte blanche to crap on any process law. My point is that prosecutors have finite resources and New York has no shortage of violent offenders that could use some. Or, major financial crimes. This isn't a major financial crime.

[HugoHackenbush]

Originally Posted by Priapus

As to why this wasn't brought in federal court with regard to the federal election laws, similar instances like…a nearly identical case with John Edwards are usually just issued fines.

Leaving all that aside, and taking the prosecution's allegations as uncontested fact, I still don't understand why they would take this to trial instead of just offering a BS misdemeanor plea deal with a fine. The amount of time, effort, and money that has gone into this case over victimless process crime is astounding.

Your memory is not very sound. Edwards was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on six counts of campaign finance violations related to his covering up his adulterous affairs. He went to trial. The jury acquitted on one count and hung on the rest, resulting in a mistrial. DoJ declined to retry him.

As to Trump you forget that Trump never EVER admits he has done anything wrong. To take a plea a deal to a misdemeanor would require him to admit he broke the law. Not going to happen.