Former President Trump News/Discussion....

[Baxter49]

Very bad morning watching all the republican's defend anything Trump has said or done as they had their own meltdowns defending him or ignoring what they thought of him in the past.

Rubio really needs a job in the senate so bad he endorsed needing camps for 25 million or more people if Trump is re-elected today.

Does supporting a nominee mean going this low to defend anything they have said or done to the point they become as bad as him? Trump these days contradicts himself hourly, yet republicans mostly enable this who speak up, and go to his trial, even worse attack the judge and the legal system or go around a gag or order by a judge?

To say nothing or our SCOTUS member not named Thomas/wife hanging flags upside down because their candidate lost. How can people sworn to uphold the law not hold themselves to the same standards they judge others by?

[Baxter49]

Lot's of clips today of Trump saying he would testify in this case. One in the courthouse, one the day in Palm Beach, Mike Johnson, went to kiss the ring a while back.

If he testifies he has to tell the truth about sleeping with a porn star, and a playboy model and paying for their silence because he was trying to hide it before an election or it's a perjury charge, even if that's not the reason he's on trial or what he is being charged with.

Todd Blanche will be ignored with his legal advice by Trump, he won't come with receipts to prove his case, and the judge is not going to tolerate him knocking any witnesses.

Hope he testifies, whenever he does this he makes things worse for himself as he did twice already in his civil cases.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by Baxter49

How can people sworn to uphold the law not hold themselves to the same standards they judge others by?

"Because there is the law for them and the law for us."

[Baxter49]

Originally Posted by DTravel

"Because there is the law for them and the law for us."

Justice moves slowly but it does move for everyone equally sooner or later.
Trump is here because he broke the law, it's back to 2016, and another four years of paperwork and hearings but here we are, a jury will make a decision this week based on the law. Hopefully we have a jury who does not see two sets of law for them or us, but everyone.

I expect a guilty verdict, and a jail sentence from the judge.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by Baxter49

I expect a guilty verdict, and a jail sentence from the judge.

I'm not going to hazard a guess as to a verdict. If he is found guilty I don't expect he will get any jail time, let alone prison time.

[DTravel]

Judge Cannon says she's 'disappointed' in Special Counsel Jack Smith in new Trump filing
Raw Story

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...ce5948c0&ei=34

Judge Aileen Cannon, the jurist overseeing Donald Trump's criminal case over stashed documents in Florida, has some harsh words for the prosecutors in that case in a new filing Sunday.

Cannon, who has been criticized for purportedly slow-playing the federal case over the former president's alleged hoarding and refusal to return confidential documents from the White House, has become known for her rulings for Trump, and against Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the case. This weekend was no different.

Josh Gerstein, a senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, flagged the filing.

"JUST IN: Judge Cannon again dings Special Counsel Smith's office in Trump classified docs case," Gerstein wrote on Sunday. "Says she's 'disappointed' Smith asked her to keep info secret to protect grand jury secrecy and witness safety but ignored those concerns at other times."

The filing itself is an order directing the public docketing of "outstanding undocketed pre-trial motions." It also resolves related motions.

"In closing," the order reads, "the Court deems it necessary to express concern over the Special Counsel’s treatment of certain sealed materials in this case."

"In two separate filings related to sealing, the Special Counsel stated, without qualification, that he had no objection to full unsealing of previously sealed docket entries related to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct," the judge wrote. "In light of that repeated representation, and in the absence of any defense objection, the Court unsealed those materials consistent with the general presumption in favor of public access."

The filing continues:

"Subsequently, in the course of adjudicating continuing redaction disputes leading to this Order, the Court inquired about those now unsealed filings, which contain material as to which the Special Counsel has voiced (and continues to voice) objections to unsealing. In response to those inquiries, counsel explained that the Special Counsel took the position on unsealing in order to publicly and transparently refute defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct raised in pretrial motions."

Cannon further states that "nowhere in that explanation is there any basis to conclude that the Special Counsel could not have defended the integrity of his Office while simultaneously preserving the witness-safety and Rule6(e) concerns he has repeatedly told the Court, and maintains to this day, are of serious consequence, and which the Court has endeavored with diligence to accommodate in its multiple Orders on sealing/redaction."

"The Court is disappointed in these developments," she added.

My view. A bullshit response from a judge chastising a prosecutor for using their discretion like they are supposed to. She's trying to look tough and blame her own stalling on the prosecution.

[DTravel]

Trump hush money prosecutors have 'another legal card to play' as trial end nears: report
Raw Story

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce5948c0&ei=57

The hush money trial of former president Donald Trump could wrap up this coming week and, according to some legal experts, prosecutors working for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appear to have the upper hand based on the evidence laid out before the jurors.

While much of the focus of the trial has been placed upon former Trump lawyer and "fixer" Michael Cohen, according to a report from the New York Times, jurors have a wealth of documentation presented by the prosecution that should outweigh any misgivings they have about Cohen's history of misrepresenting the truth — in many situations to protect his client.

What is at stake for the former president is possible jail time in the 34-felony count trial based upon paying adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their affair just prior to the 2016 presidential election and allegedly disguising the payments on his company's books.

According to former Manhattan prosecutor Marc F. Scholl, "If the jury chooses to believe the government’s evidence, then a conviction is warranted. The jury does not have to believe all of what Cohen has to say, but they have to believe enough of it.”

Add to that, the report notes, the prosecution has another card up its sleeve to play during redirect with Cohen and in final arguments.

As the Times' Ben Protess and Jonah E. Bromwich wrote, " The law holds a defendant accountable even when he does not carry out the crime himself, so long as he 'intentionally aids' it. The issue was highlighted during jury selection, when a prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, asked prospective jurors whether they could accept the idea that a husband who hired a hitman to kill his wife was guilty of her murder. Many agreed they could."

Scholl backed that up, telling the Times, "Trump does not have to be the one who says, ‘Make that record false.’”

With the former prosecutor pointing out, "The judge’s instructions provide a road map to the jurors,” the report notes that Judge Juan Merchan will play a key role in which direction the jury might go.

"The case could hang on Justice Juan M. Merchan’s interpretation of these issues, several legal experts said. In the coming days, Justice Merchan — the judge overseeing the case — will distill the legalities into instructions for jurors that he will deliver after closing arguments as soon as this week," The Times is reporting.

[DTravel]

Trump's naps at trial are a 'middle finger' to the jury deciding his fate, lawyers say
Business Insider

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce5948c0&ei=83

Trump's been closing his eyes in court. Could his sleepy demeanor sway the verdict?
Legal experts said jurors take their jobs very seriously and this trial is unprecedented.
"That is a proverbial middle finger to the jury," one defense attorney told BI.

There's been a lot of talk about former President Donald Trump appearing to doze off during his hush-money trial.

But could his naps sway the jury?

Jurors will likely feel slighted by Trump's snoozing, legal experts told Business Insider.

And while closing your eyes during a criminal trial wouldn't result in a conviction in itself, Trump's naps aren't going to help if any of the jurors are on the fence.

In the opening days of his hush-money trial, Trump closed his eyes for minutes at a time before jolting back up.

Since then, it's been the same story: Trump's been spotted with his eyes closed, his head tilted, appearing to nod off during the trial.

Even during the testimony of prosecutors' key witness, Michael Cohen, Trump appeared to be napping in court.

The former President has denied falling asleep in the courtroom.

"I simply close my beautiful blue eyes, sometimes, listen intensely, and take it ALL in!!!" he explained on Truth Social earlier this month.

But he might be wise to keep them open in the future, legal experts told BI.

'They will hold that against him'

Gene Rossi, a former litigator with the Department of Justice, told Business Insider that in the 110 cases he's tried, all the jurors took their jobs very seriously.

"If they sense that the defendant is essentially blowing it off and not taking it seriously like an eighth grader, they will hold that against him," Rossi said. "End of story."

"That is a proverbial middle finger to the jury," agreed Jeremy Saland, a former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney and current defense lawyer, who said dozing off would be a "foolish, dangerous way to handle yourself in that courtroom."

For his part, Rossi said he advises clients to be engaged and respectful "like they are in church listening to a sermon by the Pope."

Jurors had to go through a rigorous selection process and are giving up weeks of their lives to hear testimony.

But these proceedings carry unprecedented weight, Saland said.

There's all the news coverage, not to mention the sheer magnitude of deciding the first criminal trial of a former US president — who could still become the next President if he wins this year.

Saland said Trump's demeanor shouldn't impact his verdict — which will ultimately boil down to the evidence. But it could be risky if deliberations get close, he said.

"You should think that the system is there and has enough accountability and integrity that they won't hold it against him," he said, "but it certainly will not favor him."

Lawyers for Trump and members of his campaign didn't respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

[DTravel]

Trump suggests he could be a 3-term president if he wins election
The Hill

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ce5948c0&ei=95

Former President Trump suggested Saturday that he could be considered a three-term president if he clinches a win next November.

Speaking to the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Saturday, Trump questioned whether he would be a two- or three-term president if he secures a win in the 2024 presidential election.

“You know, FDR 16 years, almost 16 years, he was four-term. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three term or two term?” he asked the crowd during the event Saturday.

“Are we three term or two term if we win?” he added.

Someone could be heard shouting “three” as he continued to speak.

Trump has previously said he would not pursue a third term in the White House if he wins November’s election. In an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press” last year, he said he would not pursue a third term in office if elected again.

Presidents are restricted to just two terms of office under the 22nd Amendment. Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms in office before the amendment was enacted but died early on during his fourth one.

In his interview with Time magazine published last month, Trump also said he would retire after his second term and not challenge the 22nd Amendment.

“I wouldn’t be in favor of a challenge. Not for me. I wouldn’t be in favor of it at all. I intend to serve four years and do a great job. And I want to bring our country back. I want to put it back on the right track,” he said.

“Our country is going down. We’re a failing nation right now. We’re a nation in turmoil,” he added.

[foxbat1]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Way down the list is Jan 6th

Doesn't that speak directly to what he is going to do for you today?

As in, if he gets back in, he will rig the electoral system as much as possible, and if he still loses the next one he will learn from his mistakes and make sure the next coup succeeds.

What he's going to do for you today is make himself dictator for life.