1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324

    There has actually been a pretty funny development that could get Judge Cannon removed.

    All the legal experts and especially ex prosecutors where saying what the fuck? Where the hell did that come from? First Cannon revealed just profound ignorance of the law and especially grand juries. Having grand juries in different jurisdictions is really common in federal cases. It happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with that.

    But then the other what the fuck where did that come from was why she would even issue an order like that. No one and especially Trump's legal team had even questioned it. Cannon just did it all on her own out of the blue. But why?

    So some of the ex prosecutors got to looking around and found an ex Trump lawyer appearing on Fox News saying he questioned why they still had a grand jury in DC on the documents case. And low and behold Cannon's order is almost verbatim of what that lawyer was saying.

    They don't know if Jack Smith is ready to make a move to the court of appeals to have Cannon removed from the case. But most agree if Smith does Cannon is gone for that stunt alone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    1. View previous comments...
    2. stumbler
      I suspect she is getting coached by Trump. If not directly then indirectly because part of Trump's MO is to get his lawyers to go on TV to spread his lies and she could be getting her clues from there.

      And I think Smith is giving her enough rope to hang herself with. That last one was just a really stupid and ignorant stunt and most ex prosecutors say enough to get her off the case. But he might be waiting for even more before going to the court of appeals.

      The documents case obviously isn't Smith's primary goal right now. He's shooting for getting Trump tried and convicted on trying to overthrow the election before the next election.
       
      stumbler, Aug 9, 2023
      Distant Lover and toniter like this.
    3. anon_de_plume
      I've read one opinion that says this might be an impeachable act, and if so, they'd be getting rid of a very inexperienced jurist who has no business being there in the first place.
       
      anon_de_plume, Aug 9, 2023
      stumbler and toniter like this.
    4. stumbler
      I predicted what we are seeing now. The Federalist Society was picking judges for Trump to nominate. And what most all of them had in common was they were young so they would be on the bench a long time, religious zealots, and unqualified.

      And I said at the time they were going to fuck up our judicial system up beyond repair. Because they would be making terrible decisions in all kinds of cases. And then those decisions would have to be appealed sometimes all the way to the Supreme Court. Which is just an incredible waste of time money and scarce resources.
       
      stumbler, Aug 10, 2023
      anon_de_plume likes this.
  2. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    This is interesting. I wonder what Jack Smith is looking for. But something that happened a few times when Trump was president was he would tweet something obviously illegal. And it would very quickly get deleted or altered. And maybe Smith is looking for those deleted and altered tweets.


    Revealed: Jack Smith got search warrant for Trump's Twitter account

    Brad Reed
    August 9, 2023, 1:23 PM ET


    [​IMG]
    Special Counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks on a recently unsealed indictment including four felony counts against former U.S. President Donald Trump on August 1, 2023 in Washington, DC. Trump was indicted on four felony counts for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


    Special counsel Jack Smith earlier this year sought and then received a search warrant for former President Donald Trump's Twitter account.

    Politico reports that the warrant, which has not been previously disclosed, was initially met with resistance by Twitter, which resulted in the social media network being held in contempt of court and fine $350,000.

    Twitter subsequently appealed the fine, which has now been upheld by the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C.

    "At issue was prosecutors’ decision to serve the warrant along with a 'nondisclosure order' to prohibit Twitter from notifying Trump about the warrant’s existence," writes Politico. "Twitter complained that the order violated the First Amendment and that the federal judge overseeing the matter at the time — U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell — should have blocked enforcement of the search warrant until the objection was resolved."

    IN OTHER NEWS: Attorney suspended by DeSantis attacks governor: 'A smokescreen for a flailing and disastrous campaign'

    It is unclear at this time why Smith was seeking access to Trump's account, although in order to get a warrant for it, he would have had to convinced a judge that there was probably cause to believe it contained evidence of criminal activity.

    Trump's Twitter account was suspended in January 2021 shortly after he incited his supporters to march to the United States Capitol, where they then launched a deadly riot with the intention of blocking the certification of President Joe Biden's victory.

    CEO Elon Musk would subsequently restore access to Trump's account, although Trump has yet to use it since his suspension and has instead preferred to use his own Truth Social network.



    https://www.rawstory.com/trump-twitter-account/
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,572
    We can always tell when a story hits a nerve with despicables.

    They start twirling and stamping their feet and running their mouths.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    50,169
    When did it become despicable?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. silkythighs

    silkythighs Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2019
    Messages:
    37,539
    And when will the GOP hold its own investigations into the widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election?

    Enlighten us :O_o:
     
    • Like Like x 1
    1. shootersa
      Dismissed
       
      shootersa, Aug 10, 2023
  6. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    All Trump has ever done since he first came down the escalator is campaign. That's all he really did for all his four years in office keep campaigning and keep those donations coming in. And his Big Lies was his most profitable scam. But one thing that jumped out is in what world is it legal to solicit donations for a fund that did not even exist? And it looks like Jack Smith is zeroing in on that. And ht would be inedible if Smith seized Trump's funds because that is his most powerful weapon.


    [​IMG]
    "Might have to give those millions back": Legal experts say Jack Smith could "seize" Trump PAC cash
    Gabriella Ferrigine
    Wed, August 9, 2023 at 8:48 AM MDT·3 min read
    2.2k


    [​IMG]
    Donald Trump Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images


    Special counsel Jack Smith appears to be far from wrapping up his investigation into former President Donald Trump's post-2020 election scheme and his team has held at least one interview this week related to the finances of the ex-president's political action committee, according to Politico.

    Smith's team on Monday interviewed Bernie Keris, a former New York City police commissioner and longtime associate of former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, according to the report. Prosecutors questioned Kerik in a "closed-door" interview about how the Save America PAC raked in huge amounts of cash between Election Day and the deadly Capitol insurrection. Kerik's lawyer, Tim Parlatore, told Politico that prosecutors were shining a "laser focus from Election Day to Jan. 6."

    Parlatore also shared that prosecutors asked several questions about Boris Epshteyn, an attorney who currently works on Trump's campaign and as his in-house counsel, as well as Justin Clark, who was the deputy campaign manager of Trump's re-election.

    Though Trump's election subversion indictment did not include any financial crimes, Politico reported that the interview with Kerik demonstrates, at the very least, "the clearest indication of Smith's focus" since the special counsel handed down the indictment against Trump.


    Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that Save America's funds were dwindling after Trump was forced to pay out numerous lawyers amid his seemingly-unending indictments and court cases — the PAC reported less than $4 million in its account after starting last year with more than $105 million. The floundering PAC was even forced to request a whopping $60 million dollar refund from pro-Trump super PAC, Make America Great Again Inc., with the New York Times reporting that the refund was issued to Save America in installments seemingly timed to Trump's various legal woes.

    "I don't know that calling it a refund changes the fundamental illegality," Adav Noti, a former lawyer for the Federal Election Commission's litigation division and leader of watchdog group, Campaign Legal Center, told The Times. As the report noted, "the pro-Trump super PAC and Trump-controlled PAC must be independent entities and are barred from any coordination on strategy."

    "So for the super PAC and the Trump PAC to be sending tens of millions of dollars back and forth depending upon who needs the money more strongly suggests unlawful financial coordination," Noti added.

    The New York Times also noted that, in the months after Trump left the White House, allies of Giuliani encouraged him to use Save America's money to pay Giuliani for legal services following the election. Various legal experts have identified the former New York City mayor as one of six co-conspirators listed in Smith's indictment of Trump.

    "This isn't over yet," tweeted Frank Figliuzzi, a former senior FBI official. "When you raise millions based on a fraudulent claim, you've committed a crime. And, you just might have to give those millions back."



    Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller's team, wrote that he is watching "for a criminal case about the Trump PAC and forfeiture allegations/seizures."

    He added that the case would "not need to go all the way up to Trump before Jack charges folks and seizes assets."


    NPR reported last year that, per the House Jan. 6 committee's findings, "the Trump campaign took $250 million in donations from supporters that it said would go to an election defense fund to pay for legal fees to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. But the fund was never actually created, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., one of the committee members, said … in the panel's second public hearing."

    "Instead, the money went to the Save America political action committee."


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/might-those-millions-back-legal-144827339.html
     
    1. anon_de_plume
      Didn't he file to run for the 2020 election just after he took office in 2017?

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign

       
      anon_de_plume, Aug 10, 2023
      stumbler likes this.
    2. stumbler
      Treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans constantly screamed their heads about President Obama campaigning. But when Trump kicks off his 2020 campaign as soon as he was sworn in that was genius.
       
      stumbler, Aug 10, 2023
    3. darkride
      Ohgod if Trump had those funds seized, I'll get the marshmallows out to roast cos I'm sure we'll feel his fury from here in Australia :)
       
      darkride, Aug 12, 2023
      anon_de_plume likes this.
  7. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    [​IMG]
    Indictment shows White House lawyers struggling for control as Trump fought to overturn election
    FARNOUSH AMIRI
    Wed, August 9, 2023 at 10:05 PM MDT·6 min read
    875


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    1 / 3
    Trump Capitol Riot Lawyers
    FILE - Patrick Philbin, former Deputy White House counsel under President Donald Trump, leaves the federal courthouse in Washington, Sept. 2, 2022. The latest federal indictment against Donald Trump vividly illustrates the extent to which the former president's final weeks in office were consumed by a struggle over the law, with two determined groups of attorneys fighting it out as the future of American democracy hung in the balance. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
    ASSOCIATED PRESS

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A few hours after rioters laid siege to the Capitol, overpowering police in a violent attack on the seat of American democracy on Jan. 6, 2021, the White House’s top lawyer, Pat Cipollone, called his boss with an urgent message.

    It’s time to end your objections to the 2020 election, Cipollone told Donald Trump, and allow Congress to certify Joe Biden as the next president. Trump refused.

    Trump was no longer listening to his White House counsel, the elite team of attorneys who take an oath to serve the office of the president. But by all accounts, he hadn’t been listening to them for some time.

    The extraordinary moment — fully detailed for the first time in the latest federal indictment against Trump unsealed last week — vividly illustrates the extent to which the former president's final weeks in office were consumed by a struggle over the law, with two determined groups of attorneys fighting it out as the future of American democracy hung in the balance.


    Trump’s attempts to remain in power, according to the indictment and evidence compiled in congressional investigations, were firmly rejected by Cipollone and his top deputy, Pat Philbin. So Trump turned to outside allies including Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro, among other legal advisers, to launch what federal prosecutors have called a “criminal scheme” to fraudulently overturn the election.

    Cipollone and Philbin had been heard from before, as both testified to the House Jan. 6 committee under subpoena. But they were unable to disclose to Congress their interactions with Trump, citing the executive privilege that customarily shields their work in the White House.

    Special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the indictment against Trump, faced no such barrier. A federal judge ruled the lawyers had to testify about their interactions with Trump in the chaotic weeks before the Jan. 6 insurrection.

    As a result, prosecutors were able to obtain extraordinary new details that were used in the indictment of the former president. And Cipollone and Philbin seem likely to become important witnesses in Trump's upcoming trial.

    Requests for comment from them were not returned.

    The breakdown of the relationship between Trump and his White House counsel — a lawyer-president arrangement that dates back to Franklin D. Roosevelt — began in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election. Cipollone and Philbin at the time were providing “candid” advice to Trump that there was no evidence of fraud that could change the results of the election.

    Despite this advice, Trump began to parade outside advisers into the White House for a series of long, contentious and at times nasty meetings about steps he could take to challenge the election.

    In a now infamous Dec. 18, 2020 session in the Oval Office, Trump allies including Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, proposed ordering the military to seize voting machines in crucial states Trump had lost.

    Cipollone was blindsided by the meeting, having learned of it just as he was about to leave the White House for the night. He recalled in testimony to the Jan. 6 committee that Trump's advisers “forcefully” verbally attacked him and other White House lawyers when they shot down the idea of seizing voting machines.

    "It was being brought to the president by people who I don’t believe had his best interest in mind," Cipollone told lawmakers in June 2022. “They were doing the country and the president, both in his capacity as president and his personal capacity, a disservice.”

    Attorneys who have served as White House counsel said they were dumbfounded by what they read in the Trump indictment, calling the situation “unbelievable" and unlike anything they experienced in office.

    “You cannot be effective as a lawyer, not just as White House Counsel, as a lawyer to any client, if you cannot have candid conversations about legal requirements," said Alberto Gonzales, who served as President George W. Bush’s White House counsel. "In the case of the presidency, to protect them from engaging in conduct, that while it may not turn out to be criminal, will have serious political consequences.”

    And that is exactly what prosecutors say White House lawyers attempted to do. By January, when it was clear that they could not get Trump to listen, the lawyers began warning others about the grave consequences of continuing to deny the results of the election.

    Three days before Jan. 6, Philbin told Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department lawyer, that if Trump remained in office despite no evidence of fraud there would be “riots in every major city in the United States.”

    To which Clark, according to prosecutors, responded: “That’s why there’s an Insurrection Act," referring to the specific statute that gives the president the power, in rare circumstances, to use military force inside the United States.

    In a meeting that evening, Trump met with leadership at the Justice Department as well as Cipollone and Philbin to express his frustration that the Justice Department was “failing to do anything to overturn the election results,” the indictment stated.

    Clark, a low-level Justice Department attorney who had positioned himself as an eager advocate for election fraud claims in the weeks after the election, was in attendance. He was pushing to send a letter to key state legislatures stating falsely that the Justice Department had identified problems in the election results.

    In that contentious Jan. 3 Oval Office meeting, Trump toyed with replacing acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Clark but backed down after he was told that it would result in mass resignations at the Justice Department and his own White House counsel's office. Cipollone scathingly called Clark's draft letter a “murder-suicide pact.”

    “There is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House on January 20th,” Philbin told Trump that day, according to the indictment.

    By Jan. 4, Trump, tired of hearing no from his White House lawyers, began to convene meetings behind their backs, according to the indictment.

    Kathryn Ruemmler, who served as Barack Obama's White House counsel, said that if she had ever been “intentionally excluded” from meetings where the president was being given contrary legal advice, she would have resigned.

    “You really can’t operate at all under those circumstances and conditions,” she said.

    That day Trump also met with then-Vice President Mike Pence and his chief of staff and legal counsel. The point of the meeting was for Trump — who at that point had lost numerous lawsuits and failed to identify evidence of widescale fraud — to convince Pence to use his ceremonial role overseeing the counting of the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6 to prevent Biden from becoming president.

    Pence, both in that meeting and days later on Jan. 6, refused to do so. Since the indictment, he has said Trump was led astray by a group of “crackpot lawyers” who wanted to violate the Constitution.

    But even in the hours after the Jan. 6 riot, as police struggled to clear the Capitol, Trump wasn't done trying to stop the certification of the election.

    Trump and Giuliani began to make calls to Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate after the riot, according to the indictment, seeking to “exploit” the violence of the day to convince them they should delay naming Biden the winner.

    Amid it all, Cipollone made his own final plea to Trump in a phone call at 7:01 p.m. asking him to withdraw his objections and allow the certification to move forward.

    “I expressed what I needed to express,” Cipollone told lawmakers last year, when describing the call. He declined at the time to reveal what was said.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/indictment-shows-white-house-lawyers-040522726.html
     
  8. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Six Things We Learned From the New Trump Indictment
    Matt Fuller, Sam Brodey
    August 1, 2023·6 min read
    7.3k


    [​IMG]
    Reuters/Jim Bourg
    The new charges against Donald Trump may not be the first indictment against the former president, but they almost certainly include the most serious charges.

    The indictment itself—a 45-page document laying out Trump’s scheme to subvert democracy and remain in power after he lost the 2020 election—includes a number of new revelations.

    Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, as well as his actions on Jan. 6, have been well documented. Congress dedicated an entire special committee to showing how Trump acted inappropriately—or didn’t act at all—as rioters attacked the Capitol. But DOJ special prosecutor Jack Smith was still able to unearth new details that have never been previously disclosed.

    Here are the top six revelations contained within Tuesday’s indictment:

    Trump Was Trying to Delay Election Certification During the Jan. 6 Attack
    The indictment notes that after it became clear Vice President Mike Pence “would not fraudulently alter the election results,” the attack on the U.S. Capitol halted the Electoral certification. “As violence ensued,” the indictment claims, “the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.”


    If true, that means Trump wasn’t just sitting on his hands during the Jan. 6 Capitol attack; he was actually pushing harder to delay the certification in his overall goal of overturning the election.

    That evidence could show Trump’s intentions and highlight the former president’s slow action to deploy National Guard troops at the Capitol.

    During and After Violence at the Capitol, Trump and Giuliani Kept Pressuring GOP Lawmakers to Delay Certification
    It has been known that Trump personally called Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) on the afternoon of Jan. 6, though he apparently dialed Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) by accident first.

    But the indictment reveals for the first time the extent of Trump and Giuliani’s efforts to continue pushing lawmakers to delay the certification process, during and after the worst of the violence at the Capitol. None of these lawmakers were named in the indictment.

    At 6:01 p.m., Trump finally urged rioters to “go home in love & peace.” According to the indictment, at 6:00 p.m., Trump—through aides—attempted to reach two senators on the phone.

    An hour later, Giuliani placed calls to five congressmen and one senator. At the same time, Co-conspirator Number 6 was attempting to track down phone numbers for six more senators that Trump had directed Giuliani to contact.

    Giuliani left a voicemail for a senator in which he said: “We need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you. And I know they’re reconvening at eight tonight but the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow—ideally until the end of tomorrow.”

    In another voicemail, Giuliani repeated false claims about 2020 election fraud, said Pence’s actions were surprising, and asked the senator to “object to every state and kind of spread this out a little bit like a filibuster.”

    Trump Loyalists Welcomed Possibility of Widespread Violence and Suggested Martial Law
    During a meeting on Jan. 3, Co-conspirator Number 4 spoke to Patrick Philbin, the Deputy White House Counsel, who warned that “there would be riots in every major city in the United States” if Trump remained in office. Co-Conspirator Number 4 replied to Philbin, “that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.” That law, enacted in 1807, empowers the president to deploy federal troops within the United States to suppress civil disorder.

    Then, on Jan. 4, a Trump Senior Adviser told Co-Conspirator Number 2 that their plan to overturn the election would cause “riots in the streets.” At that point, according to the indictment, Co-Conspirator Number 2 said that there had been points in American history when violence was necessary to preserve the country.

    Trump Personally Reinserted Language Attacking Pence Into His Jan. 6 Speech
    The indictment claims that, at 11:15 a.m., Trump called Pence once again and “pressured him to fraudulently reject or return Biden' legitimate electoral votes.” Pence once again refused.

    “Immediately after the call, the Defendant decided to single out the Vice President in public remarks he would make within the hour, reinserting language that he had personally drafted earlier that morning falsely claiming that the Vice President had authority to send electoral votes to the states but that advisers had previously successfully advocated be removed.”

    We knew Trump had inserted language going after Pence into his Jan. 6 speech. But we didn’t know that aides had removed that language—only to have Trump reinsert the language again.

    Trump Privately Said He’d “Give” a National Security Crisis “To The Next Guy”
    On Jan. 3, Trump indicated he knew he was imminently leaving office during a meeting with top national security officials. According to the indictment, Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed Trump on an unspecified “overseas national security issue”—which had previously come up in December—and presented options for Trump to address it.

    When Milley and another official advised Trump against acting on the situation so close to the transfer of power, the president agreed. “Yeah, you’re right, it’s too late for us,” Trump said. “We’re going to give that to the next guy.”

    Mike Pence Took ‘Contemporaneous Notes’ of a Damning Meeting With Trump
    The indictment notes that Pence took “contemporaneous notes” during one meeting with Trump and alleged co-conspirator John Eastman. The indictment alleges that Trump “knowingly false claims of election fraud” during that meeting.

    “Bottom line won every state by 100,000s of votes," Trump said, according to Pence’s notes. The president claimed he “won every state” and asked about a claim that senior Justice Department officials had previously had told him was false—the alleged claim that there were 205,000 more votes than voters in Pennsylvania.

    According to Pence’s notes, Eastman asked Pence to either unilaterally reject the legitimate electors from seven states that Trump wanted to dispute, or to at least send the question of which slate of electors was legitimate back to state legislatures.

    Pence purportedly challenged Eastman on whether he was allowed to do that. "Well, nobody's tested it before,” Eastman said, according to Pence’s notes.

    Pence apparently seized on that to challenge Trump. "Did you hear that? Even your own counsel is not saying I have that authority," he allegedly said. Trump then told Pence that was OK because he preferred the first option—Pence just unilaterally rejecting the legitimate electors—anyway.


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/six-things-learned-trump-indictment-234653236.html
     
  9. silkythighs

    silkythighs Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2019
    Messages:
    37,539
    "The constitution is hanging by a thread. I always thought it would be the other guys. And it's my side. That just rips at my heart: that we would be the people who would surrender the constitution in order to win an election. That just blows my mind." Rusty Bowers (Former Arizona GOP House Speaker)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Jack Smith is right. We the people of the United States of America have a right to a speedy trial of Trump.

    [​IMG]
    Special Counsel Jack Smith adds more charges against Trump, requests trial date
    Gitanjali Poonia
    Thu, August 10, 2023 at 8:21 PM MDT·2 min read
    2.8k


    [​IMG]
    Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media about an indictment of former President Donald Trump on Aug. 1, 2023, in Washington. Smith requested the U.S. district judge set a Jan. 2, 2024, trial date for the indictment dealing with Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. | J. Scott Applewhite, Associated Press


    Former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty Thursday along with his aide, Walt Nauta, over new charges related to Trump’s handling of classified documents.

    ABC News reported that his plea was entered by his attorney Todd Blanche. Trump did not enter his plea in person.

    In the original indictment, he was charged with 37 counts, to which he pled not guilty. Nauta, who was also charged, pled not guilty.

    Special Counsel Jack Smith brought additional charges against Trump, Nauta and Mar-a-Lago estate’s property manager, Carlos De Oliveira, last month for allegedly conspiring to delete security footage at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, where the classified documents were stored, and for allegedly obstructing the federal investigation.


    Related

    This news comes as Smith requested a Jan. 2 trial date for the indictment against dealing with Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, as The Associated Press reported.

    Trump, the frontrunner in Republican primary polls, pled not guilty to the four charges in the 2020 election case, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official preceding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

    If approved, the date would be two weeks before voting begins in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15, which is the first event in the 2024 presidential race.

    “A January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial — an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes,” Smith wrote in the court filing.


    Trump took to TruthSocial Wednesday and said the indictments weren’t “legit.”

    “They were all thrown up at me, quickly (and) haphazardly, including the local ones, by my political opponent,” he said. “It’s not like the State or Country is coming down on me. It’s a dishonest politician and his gang of thugs breaking the law in order to get re-elected.”

    Meanwhile, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is also expected to indict Trump and his allies for their alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. This indictment would be Trump’s fourth.


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/special-counsel-jack-smith-adds-022136894.html
     
  11. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Judge Chutkan 'not amused' as Trump lawyer keeps bringing up 2024 presidential campaign: reporter

    Brad Reed
    August 11, 2023, 10:57 AM ET


    [​IMG]
    Judge Tanya Chutkan (Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit)


    Judge Tanya Chutkan does not want former President Donald Trump's lawyers to make his impending trial about the 2024 presidential election.

    The Independent's Andrew Feinberg reports that Chutkan repeatedly emphasized to Trump lawyer John Lauro that "the existence of a political campaign is not going to have any bearing on my decision," and then she added that "I intend to keep politics out of this."

    According to Feinberg, Lauro brought up the 2024 campaign multiple times on Friday's hearing to determine whether Trump will be hit with a protective order on what information he can share publicly ahead of his trial.

    "Judge not amused," commented Feinberg.

    IN OTHER NEWS: 'It's not a minority!': Morning Joe snaps at evangelical blowing off far-right Christian extremism

    Trump was recently indicted for allegedly defrauding the United States and depriving Americans of their rights to have their votes counted over his efforts to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

    Trump has not only publicly lashed out at special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution in the case, but has also attacked Judge Chutkan for being an appointee of former President Barack Obama and for being Smith's purported "dream" judge.



    https://www.rawstory.com/judge-tanya-chutkan/
     
  12. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,572
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Nest to using lies, false propaganda, and psychological projection the next biggest strategy and method of operation for treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans is to ALWAYS be the poor poor, pitiful me, eternally wounded little snowflake victims.

    And those little snowflake victims of course will never admit that Judge Chutkan actually gave Trump a lot of leeway to use the case in his campaign but forbid the release f sensitive material and witness intimidation. Which of course Trump will not be able to abide by.

    Judge Chutkan serves notice to Trump she will be 'scrutinizing' his every word

    Matthew Chapman
    August 11, 2023, 11:04 AM ET


    [​IMG]
    Drew Angerer/Getty Images


    During a hearing on whether to set a protective order on evidence sharing in the 2020 election fraud case, Judge Tanya Chutkan made clear to former President Donald Trump's legal team that "I will be scrutinizing" everything the former president says in public in the leadup to the trial.

    Chutkan asked hard questions of both the defense and prosecution as they tried to get the most favorable conditions possible ahead of trial, as POLITICO's Kyle Cheney documented.

    However, Chutkan did not go so far as the prosecution wanted in issuing a strict order that limits the discussion of "non-sensitive" documents, concerned that this would conflict with Trump's free speech rights.

    "At this point, I'm not persuaded that the government has shown good cause to subject to the protective order all the information in this case," she said.

    RELATED: Judge Chutkan 'not amused' as Trump lawyer keeps bringing up 2024 presidential campaign: reporter

    While Chutkan was deferential to Trump's free speech rights, she also made clear that she would not let any consideration of Trump's presidential campaign, and whether the trial and its rules would help or hurt it, factor into her decisions. “I cannot and will not factor into my decision” any impact on the campaign, "for either side," she said, adding, "The existence of a political campaign is not going to factor into my decision. I intend to keep politics out of this.”

    Chutkan also said she is "not comfortable" with the Trump team's demand to allow "volunteer attorneys" and people Trump or his campaign haven't retained to review discovery information, saying under their proposed language, "It allows just about anybody — I live in Washington. Anyone is a consultant."

    She added it would give unindicted co-conspirators a way to see the documents.

    Many other details of the trial still have to be worked out, including a date, although the prosecution is pushing for early January.



    Judge Chutkan serves notice to Trump she will be 'scrutinizing' his every word

    Matthew Chapman
    August 11, 2023, 11:04 AM ET


    [​IMG]
    Drew Angerer/Getty Images


    During a hearing on whether to set a protective order on evidence sharing in the 2020 election fraud case, Judge Tanya Chutkan made clear to former President Donald Trump's legal team that "I will be scrutinizing" everything the former president says in public in the leadup to the trial.

    Chutkan asked hard questions of both the defense and prosecution as they tried to get the most favorable conditions possible ahead of trial, as POLITICO's Kyle Cheney documented.

    However, Chutkan did not go so far as the prosecution wanted in issuing a strict order that limits the discussion of "non-sensitive" documents, concerned that this would conflict with Trump's free speech rights.

    "At this point, I'm not persuaded that the government has shown good cause to subject to the protective order all the information in this case," she said.

    RELATED: Judge Chutkan 'not amused' as Trump lawyer keeps bringing up 2024 presidential campaign: reporter

    While Chutkan was deferential to Trump's free speech rights, she also made clear that she would not let any consideration of Trump's presidential campaign, and whether the trial and its rules would help or hurt it, factor into her decisions. “I cannot and will not factor into my decision” any impact on the campaign, "for either side," she said, adding, "The existence of a political campaign is not going to factor into my decision. I intend to keep politics out of this.”

    Chutkan also said she is "not comfortable" with the Trump team's demand to allow "volunteer attorneys" and people Trump or his campaign haven't retained to review discovery information, saying under their proposed language, "It allows just about anybody — I live in Washington. Anyone is a consultant."

    She added it would give unindicted co-conspirators a way to see the documents.

    Many other details of the trial still have to be worked out, including a date, although the prosecution is pushing for early January.

    https://www.rawstory.com/judge-tanya-chutkan-trump/
     
  14. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    [​IMG]
    Trump Allies Deliver ‘Incriminating’ Info on Conspiracy-Peddling Sidney Powell
    Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley
    Fri, August 11, 2023 at 9:24 AM MDT·5 min read
    591


    [​IMG]

    Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation appears to be zeroing in on Sidney Powell, a conspiracy-theory-obsessed lawyer who was a key figure in Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

    Four sources with knowledge of the matter, several witnesses, and Trump allies who’ve appeared before the special counsel — including at least one in the past few days — team seem to agree: Powell should be preparing now for Smith to bring criminal charges.

    On Monday, Bernie Kerik — a longtime Rudy Giuliani associate and a Trump ally who worked on the Giuliani-led legal team challenging Trump’s 2020 defeat — sat with special counsel investigators for a roughly four-and-a-half-hour interview, according to his lawyer Tim Parlatore. (Parlatore previously served as a top attorney to Trump, advising the ex-president on Special Counsel Smith’s probes.)


    “Based on the contents of their questions, and my understanding of criminal law, the main individual who was discussed who Mr. Kerik gave any information that could be incriminating would be Sidney,” Parlatore tells Rolling Stone on Thursday. Parlatore added that what Kerik told investigators included: “That there was no back-up for anything she said, that when she was asked to provide proof she didn’t produce anything, and when she was cut loose [from the official Trump legal team], how she kept trying to push her way in.”

    Powell has already been identified by numerous news outlets as one of the six unnamed — and so far unindicted — alleged Trump co-conspirators enumerated in the indictment. In the special counsel indictment, Smith described her — though did not name her — as “an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud [Trump] privately acknowledged to others sounded ‘crazy.’ ”

    Trump, prosecutors claim, used Powell to launder talking points “critical of a certain voting machine company” to use in her lawsuits alleging massive fraud. Those suits were subsequently dismissed and a federal judge subsequently sanctioned Powell over the bogus evidence included in the filings.

    Kerik, a former New York police commissioner, is one of the individuals who recently described to federal investigators — among other topics — details regarding Powell’s private behavior as she aided Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election outcome. According to Parlatore, the ex-commissioner did not mince words: “During Bernie Kerik’s interview with the special counsel’s office, the issue of a possible mental health break and change in her demeanor and personality was discussed,” the attorney says.

    Parlatore adds that during the investigators’ multi-hour interview with his client, the word “lunatic” was indeed used to describe Powell.

    Neither Powell nor her attorneys responded to a request for comment. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on this story.

    In the course of the wide-ranging investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and Trump and his associates’ efforts to nullify the 2020 election, Powell has become a frequent topic of the federal law enforcement’s interest. This probe has already resulted in Trump’s third indictment and arraignment earlier this month.

    And prosecutors have shown a particular, keen interest in Powell’s work and conduct in recent days and weeks, the sources with knowledge of the situation say.

    Multiple witnesses have been grilled about what they thought of Powell as a person, as well as her actions during then-President Trump’s months-long crusade to cling to power. Witnesses were asked if Powell ever showed them actual proof of her bizarre claims of an election-fraud conspiracy, and if Powell herself ever privately expressed any signs of doubt about any of the theories.

    Some were asked if they had knowledge of Powell’s contacts with any members of Congress during the weeks following Trump’s 2020 loss to Joe Biden, and about rambling documents she had sent the Trump White House detailing her supposed “evidence.” (In documents obtained during Dominion Voting Systems’s defamation lawsuit against Fox News, attorneys for the company discovered that Powell had relayed “far-fetched” claims about the 2020 election to Fox host Maria Bartiromo based on an eccentric “source” who claiming that “The Wind tells me I’m a ghost” and that “I was internally decapitated, and yet, I live.”)

    Powell is hardly the only one of Trump’s alleged co-conspirators who could find themselves hit with criminal charges soon. Trump and his close associates have also long sought to point the finger at possible scapegoats and fall guys in their coup attempt, despite the fact that these people were only acting on Trump’s behalf or doing what he told them to do.

    However, the intense nature of the recent line of federal questioning has led various witnesses, lawyers, and others intimately familiar with the situation to the conclusion that Powell likely has a heavy amount of legal exposure in the current stage of Smith’s probe.

    Or, as one source who’s been in the room recently with federal investigators succinctly puts it: “Sidney’s fucked.”

    Asked to comment on the source’s two-word characterization, Parlatore simply replied with his own two-word statement: “I agree.”

    In the end, however, Powell likely won’t be alone. For months, Trumpland has actively feared that prosecutors in Georgia are soon “coming for everyone.” And if recent activity is any indication, Special Counsel Smith’s office may not be far behind the Fulton County district attorney.

    In the past several weeks — including in the days since Trump was criminally charged in the Jan. 6 probe — federal investigators have been asking witnesses a series of specific, exhaustive questions focusing on alleged and unnamed co-conspirators referenced in the former president’s indictment, the sources with knowledge of the situation tell Rolling Stone. Of particular interest lately have been Trump-aligned lawyers Powell, Giuliani, Kenneth Chesebro, and John Eastman, among others.



    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-allies-deliver-incriminating-conspiracy-152454750.html
     
  15. darkride

    darkride Porn Star

    Joined:
    May 12, 2021
    Messages:
    3,785
    Surely anyone who has been involved with Trump for the past 6-odd years would have been well advised to seek independent legal advice, and so long as they were reasonable lawyers, I'm sure they'd all be getting told to roll over on the Big Orange Troll rather than face potential jail time themselves...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    I have seen this many times myself with drug rings. They start out telling each other they won't tell the cops anything. But then it looks like the cops are coming after them. So they get suspicious and paranoid. What is everyone else telling the cops. I am not going to take the fall for this if they are turning on me. And they start talking. And usually there is enough talking to take everyone down.



    [​IMG]
    Trump’s ‘Co-Conspirators’ Are Already Starting to Turn on Each Other
    Adam Rawnsley and Asawin Suebsaeng
    Sun, August 13, 2023 at 6:07 PM MDT·6 min read
    2.8k


    [​IMG]

    Jack Smith’s latest indictment of Donald Trump isn’t yet two weeks old, but the alleged “co-conspirators” it identifies are already beginning to turn on each other — and some of them aren’t even being subtle about it.

    A number of the ex-president’s chief lieutenants and alleged co-conspirators in the plot to overturn the election, such as conservative attorney John Eastman, have insisted the effort was perfectly legal and based on sound evidence. Others, however, have recently sought to distance themselves from the efforts of others, implicitly heaping the blame for any potential criminal conduct onto fellow participants in Trump’s attempted coup.

    “It is the ‘please don’t put me in jail, put that other guy in jail’ strategy that was sure to come up at some point or another,” says one attorney working in Trump’s legal orbit.


    Attorneys for veterans of Trump’s post-election activities like Rudy Giuliani and Kenneth Chesebro — both of whom have been identified as among the six unnamed “co-conspirators” in the most recent federal indictment of Trump — are now casting blame towards others on the campaign’s legal team or people close to the then-president. Giuliani and his lawyer are now openly trashing and blaming the “crackpot” alleged activities of Sidney Powell, another lawyer who worked on Trump’s post-election efforts. On top of that, Chesebro, the key architect of Trump’s fake-electors ploy, is now trying to downplay his involvement in the effort, spreading the possible blame and criminal exposure elsewhere.

    And in recent weeks, Trump and his own lawyers have made abundantly clear that part of their legal defense will lean heavily on “advice of counsel” arguments — in other words, it will involve scapegoating attorneys who were only doing what Trump instructed them to do, or wanted them to do.

    Prosecutors appear to be only too happy to seize on these divisions. Sources who’ve been in the room with special counsel staff tell Rolling Stone that in the past several weeks, the special counsel’s office has signaled that they intend to put pressure on the half dozen “co-conspirators” listed in the Trump indictment. Representatives of the special counsel’s office also appear unusually well-briefed on the existing fissures between members of the Trump post-election endeavors, according to those who have spoken with the office.

    The feud between Giuliani and Sidney Powell — another attorney and alleged Trump co-conspirators — is among those probed by prosecutors, sources with knowledge of the situation say. Recent witnesses have offered up details on the behind-the-scenes animosity between the two attorneys. They’ve also told investigators their accounts of the former New York mayor’s private antics during the months following Election Day 2020.

    Adding to the intra-MAGAland tensions overflowing into public view, Robert Costello, Giuliani’s lawyer, attempted to put as much space as possible between his client and some of Powell’s work to keep Trump in power. emphatically telling CNN: “Rudy Giuliani had nothing to do with this,” and, “you can’t attach Rudy Giuliani to Sidney Powell’s crackpot idea.”

    Powell in particular has been a major focus of the special counsel’s office, as recently as within the past several days, as Rolling Stone reported last week, with certain Trump allies already providing the Justice Department with what they view as incriminating evidence against Powell.

    “If I were the feds, and I wanted to build cases against the [so far unindicted] ‘co-conspirators’ to apply maximum pressure to them, to see what they’d…have to say about the [former] president, this is exactly how I’d do it,” says one person intimately familiar with recent questioning.

    It’s “highly probable that several others will be charged,” the person says. “Jack Smith is not slowing down.”

    The possibility that one of Trump’s former advisers could turn state’s witness and testify against either him or his aides or close associates is already apparent to the twice-impeached former president.

    This summer, Trump has asked some of his political and legal advisers to name who — especially among those investigated or questioned by the special counsel’s office — they believe to be the most “vulnerable” and likely to crack under pressure from prosecutors, according to two people who’ve heard him ask about this.

    Last week, longtime Giulian associate and Trump ally Bernie Kerik sat for a nearly five-hour, voluntary interview with special counsel staffers, and his attorney pointed the finger for over-the-top election fraud claims at Trumpist diehard Powell. Kerik is not among the six unindicted alleged co-conspirators, but was asked by federal investigators to offer his accounts relating to multiple alleged Trump co-conspirators and other topics.

    “Sidney Powell’s conduct stands in stark contrast to that of Rudy Giuliani and President Trump, who were looking to only make claims that could be backed up by evidence,” Tim Parlatore, Kerik’s lawyer, argues to Rolling Stone. Parlatore previously served as one of Trump’s top attorneys who were handling the Jack Smith probes.

    Kerik’s lawyer continues: “Having Sidney Powell in the same courtroom would also significantly undermine [Jack Smith’s] case against the president, because the president and his lawyers could easily point at Sidney and say: Over there is the evidence of making knowingly false claims, not here. And President Trump rejected Ms. Powell’s efforts.”

    This is a sentiment shared by Giuliani, and also by various senior members of Trump’s own team who would be thrilled if Powell ended up as one of the people who take the fall for the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and the efforts leading up to it, sources close to Giuliani and the former president say.

    As for Chesebro — the attorney accused of being an architect of the Trump team’s bogus-electors scheme — he too has hinted that he may be trying to distance himself from the campaign’s effort to swap in slates of fake electors. That is, now that the fake-elector plans have become a central focus of the Department of Justice’s sprawing criminal investigation.

    In a statement sent last week to Rolling Stone, Chesebro’s attorney drew a distinction between the memos his client authored for the campaign and how the campaign acted on them. “Whether the campaign relied upon that advice as Mr. Chesebro intended,” attorney Scott Grubman wrote, “will have to remain a question to be resolved in court.”

    Conspicuously, Chesebro’s lawyer added: “We hope that the Fulton D.A. and the Special Counsel fully recognize these issues before deciding who, if anyone, to charge.”

    Unlike other prominent Trump-aligned attorneys, Chesebro lacks an extensive pedigree in the conservative movement. At Harvard Law School, he studied under the liberal constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe and attended a fundraiser for another Tribe law student — Barack Obama — back in 2004.

    The statement, first released to Rolling Stone late last week by Chesebro’s lawyer, prompted some more raised eyebrows and speculation among the upper echelons of Trumpland.

    According to two people with direct knowledge of the situation, the statement, along with other chatter about Chesebro’s recent moves, has led some of Trump’s lawyers and several members of the ex-president’s inner orbit to wonder if the architect of the fake-electors plot was trying to shovel all blame and potential criminal liability for that very plot on to Trump and his loyalists.

    “These concerns have been shared with the [former] president,” one of these sources says.

    On Sunday, Chesebro’s attorney declined to comment on this matter.



    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-co-conspirators-already-starting-000743609.html
     
  17. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,572
    "I have seen this many times myself with drug rings. They start out telling each other they won't tell the cops anything. But then it looks like the cops are coming after them. So they get suspicious and paranoid. What is everyone else telling the cops. I am not going to take the fall for this if they are turning on me. And they start talking. And usually there is enough talking to take everyone down."

    :p
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  18. paulavettbrothers

    paulavettbrothers Xnxx lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2021
    Messages:
    7,272
    The Rolling Stone? Lol. Just quote the DNC already.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. silkythighs

    silkythighs Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2019
    Messages:
    37,539
    “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” and that “a mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.”

    - Mitch McConnell Jan 6, 2023
     
    • Like Like x 1
    1. paulavettbrothers
      You must be able to take huge dildos up your ass due to you obviously stretching out your rectum with your own mindless head. Sheesh! Ignore the part where he said peacefully make your voice heard. Hell, Ray Epps was much more responsible than Trump.
       
      Last edited: Aug 15, 2023
      paulavettbrothers, Aug 15, 2023
  20. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Just another fake phony lying "Christian."



    [​IMG]
    Mike Pence Says He Doesn’t Recall if He Was Told About Election Scheme Before Jan. 6
    Mike Roe
    Sun, August 13, 2023 at 5:25 PM MDT·2 min read
    96


    [​IMG]
    NBC News


    NBC “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd asked former vice president and 2024 Republican presidential contender Mike Pence whether anyone in the White House had told him about potential additional electors before Jan. 6.

    “I don’t recall that, I just remember hearing it in the public,” Pence said.

    Todd noted earlier in the interview that Pence previously told NBC News that he didn’t know “a lot” about efforts to use unofficial electors on Jan. 6 in an effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
    As Todd asked the question, Pence shrugged, shook his head and said “No.”

    Todd cited a section in Pence’s book, “So Help Me God,” where he wrote that he met with the Senate’s parliamentarian on Jan. 3 and asked “Are there any alternate electors from any state?”


    Pence goes on to write that he told Pence that there were not and that he then responded that he “had heard that some alternate electors had been sent from several of the disputed states.”


    “I’d just heard what was being talked about in the press at the time, but I thought it was important,” Pence said.

    Pence said that they had challenged what he described as irregularities in some states and rules that were changed “in the name of COVID.” But once courts reviewed those and states certified the results from these states, Pence said, he wanted to “make sure that we were operating on Jan. 6 in a way that was consistent with the Constitution, consistent with the laws of the country.”

    The former vice president underlined that he was supportive of fellow Republicans, stating, “I was determined to hear the objections that Republicans were planning to bring, Chuck, and many did bring.”

    Pence also pointed to Democrats raising objections to electoral college votes in three of the last four elections which resulted in victories by Republican presidential contenders. Todd noted that those objections by Democrats were done under the law.


    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mike-pence-says-doesn-t-232558264.html