Smelly Squirrel
(Taylor's Version)
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,094
- Reaction score
- 19,329
DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024
- Thread starter sds71
- Start date
- Status
PommyMommy
#ShinelikeShanann
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 58,544
- Reaction score
- 462,842
AUG 3, 2023
www.newsweek.com
Former President Donald Trump's arraignment on January 6 charges featured some very "unusual" moments, according to former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann.
[...]
"Two things stood out to me as unusual," said Weissmann. "It is not unusual for the magistrate judge to have talked to the assigned district judge to find out what the next date is. What is unusual is ... to be so focused on the trial date."
"That to me, for people who are thinking that [District Judge Tanya Chutkan] is not focused on whether this case can go to trial before the general election, is the issue," he added.
Weissmann then said that the second unusual moment he noticed concerned the "standard condition" language that Upadhyaya delivered to Trump during the arraignment.
"The standard condition that a judge usually emphasizes to a defendant is that they have to show up at each court appearance," Weissmann said. "That is the most important thing."
"The standard condition and most important thing today [was] 'do not commit a crime' followed up by 'do not tamper with a juror,'" he continued. "I was a prosecutor for 21 years and I was a defense lawyer for five years. And I've never heard that."
[...]
Trump arraignment's "unusual" moments, according to ex-prosecutor
The ex-president's arraignment on Thursday included at least one moment that Andrew Weissmann said he had "never" witnessed in court.
www.newsweek.com
[...]
"Two things stood out to me as unusual," said Weissmann. "It is not unusual for the magistrate judge to have talked to the assigned district judge to find out what the next date is. What is unusual is ... to be so focused on the trial date."
"That to me, for people who are thinking that [District Judge Tanya Chutkan] is not focused on whether this case can go to trial before the general election, is the issue," he added.
Weissmann then said that the second unusual moment he noticed concerned the "standard condition" language that Upadhyaya delivered to Trump during the arraignment.
"The standard condition that a judge usually emphasizes to a defendant is that they have to show up at each court appearance," Weissmann said. "That is the most important thing."
"The standard condition and most important thing today [was] 'do not commit a crime' followed up by 'do not tamper with a juror,'" he continued. "I was a prosecutor for 21 years and I was a defense lawyer for five years. And I've never heard that."
[...]
Fairy1
VOTE!!!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 10,277
- Reaction score
- 3,426
It does sound humorous - until you realize what he's doing with this phrasing - "I'm being arrested for you!" "I'm being indicted for you!" He is likening himself to Jesus - who (as it's been said) died on the cross for our sins. Make no mistake, he knows exactly what he's doing.
Smelly Squirrel
(Taylor's Version)
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,094
- Reaction score
- 19,329
Trump’s new judge is a tough Jan. 6 sentencer — and has a history with him
Meet Tanya Chutkan, the Obama appointee who was randomly chosen to preside over Trump's newest case.
www.politico.com
It is authoritarianism at its worst! I was watching the live report on ABC today and was very surprised when a reporter said in a recent poll, 70% of Republicans still believe the election was "stolen." smh
JMO
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 69,787
Nhehz
Get this judge kicked off the case
The first thing the defense is going to do is try andTrump’s new judge is a tough Jan. 6 sentencer — and has a history with him
Meet Tanya Chutkan, the Obama appointee who was randomly chosen to preside over Trump's newest case.
Get this judge kicked off the case
imo, it sounds like several of the federal judges in D.C. have a low opinion of Trump about Jan. 6th. From the politico link:
Chutkan has avoided some of the most pointed criticisms of Trump that some of her colleagues on the federal bench in D.C. have delivered as they’ve sentenced defendants who participated in the Jan. 6 mob that attacked the Capitol as part of Trump’s bid to remain in power. Judge Reggie Walton has called Trump a “charlatan.” Judge Amit Mehta has said Jan. 6 defendants were “pawns” of Trump and his allies. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has chastised Republicans for refusing to level with Trump about the 2020 election.
IzzyBlanche
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 4,770
- Reaction score
- 20,273
I have a question for any legal professionals here.
Somewhere I heard or read that although Jack Smith can present circumstantial evidence that Trump knew there was no election fraud, his defense cannot present circumstantial evidence that he sincerely believed there was election fraud.
So the only way that the defense could present evidence that he sincerely believed there was election fraud would be to put him on the stand to testify to this in his own words.
Which, of course, would never happen.
My question is, is this correct?
Somewhere I heard or read that although Jack Smith can present circumstantial evidence that Trump knew there was no election fraud, his defense cannot present circumstantial evidence that he sincerely believed there was election fraud.
So the only way that the defense could present evidence that he sincerely believed there was election fraud would be to put him on the stand to testify to this in his own words.
Which, of course, would never happen.
My question is, is this correct?
IzzyBlanche
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 4,770
- Reaction score
- 20,273
Another legal question:
How strong is an "advice of counsel" defense if said counsel are your unindicted co-conspirators?
How strong is an "advice of counsel" defense if said counsel are your unindicted co-conspirators?
BayouBelle_LA
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Messages
- 4,441
- Reaction score
- 17,644
That’s worded like a CNN poll. Is it?
It was said during ABC's live coverage this afternoon, but I don't remember if they identified the pollster. Sorry. They also put on the screen that Trump vs. Biden both are polling at 43%.
JMO
TootsieFootsie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 13,741
- Reaction score
- 92,483
Trump Reportedly 'Irked' By 1 Word From Judge During Arraignment
CNN's Kaitlan Collins said she was told the former president was "particularly" bothered by this quick reference.
PommyMommy
#ShinelikeShanann
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 58,544
- Reaction score
- 462,842
AUG 3, 2023
[...]
None of the six were cited by name in the indictment, but USA TODAY has determined the identities of four: Giuliani; former Justice Department lawyer Jeffrey Clark; and attorneys John Eastman and Sidney Powell.
A fifth appears to be attorney Kenneth Chesebro. A sixth was identified only as “a political consultant ....
Former Trump White House special counsel Ty Cobb was one of several legal analysts who said one of the most likely reasons Smith didn’t seek indictment of the six is because he’s trying to pressure them into providing incriminating evidence against Trump – and to possibly testify against him at trial.
Cobb said the indictment, from what it says and doesn’t say, makes clear that the grand jury hearing evidence in the case is still working and looking at additional charges. And the fact that the six are listed as conspirators, and not unindicted co-conspirators, he said, suggests Smith intends to seek grand jury indictments of them “unless they work out some arrangement with the government."
[...]
Will they flip? Why the six people cited in Trump's indictment pose a threat to him
The Trump indictment lists six people who allegedly conspired with him to try to steal the 2020 election. Any of the six could deepen his legal jeopardy if they decide to flip.
www.usatoday.com
None of the six were cited by name in the indictment, but USA TODAY has determined the identities of four: Giuliani; former Justice Department lawyer Jeffrey Clark; and attorneys John Eastman and Sidney Powell.
A fifth appears to be attorney Kenneth Chesebro. A sixth was identified only as “a political consultant ....
Former Trump White House special counsel Ty Cobb was one of several legal analysts who said one of the most likely reasons Smith didn’t seek indictment of the six is because he’s trying to pressure them into providing incriminating evidence against Trump – and to possibly testify against him at trial.
Cobb said the indictment, from what it says and doesn’t say, makes clear that the grand jury hearing evidence in the case is still working and looking at additional charges. And the fact that the six are listed as conspirators, and not unindicted co-conspirators, he said, suggests Smith intends to seek grand jury indictments of them “unless they work out some arrangement with the government."
[...]
In Canada, CBC TV reporting is that Trump is leading by 30 points by relying on public sympathy for his persecution. He can be elected even if he is in prison. Upon election, he can pardon his criminal charges. Is that true?Forced to wait by the judge, Trump is out of his comfort zone
Reuters/Jane Rosenberg
Donald Trump is not a man used to waiting.
But at a court hearing in the nation's capital, the former US president found himself fidgeting in his seat while he waited 20 minutes for the judge to arrive.b
In the meantime, he also stole furtive glances at Special Counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutor who has now indicted him in two separate federal cases.
In recent days, Mr Trump has raged on social media against what he calls a continuing "witch hunt" led by a "deranged" and "wild" Mr Smith.
But in the courtroom, he had to stay silent.
[…]
Forced to wait by the judge, Trump is out of his comfort zone
The hearing was not broadcast to the world, but our reporter watched from inside the courthouse.www.bbc.com
"Ahead of this latest arraignment - his third in four months - he wrote to his supporters in an all-caps post on his Truth Social platform that his voluntary surrender was "a great honor, because I am being arrested for you".
...
In one moment, unprompted by the judge, he stood up to answer her question and was told he could sit back down.
...
Trump, and some of his Republican supporters in Congress, have given them that incentive by hinting that Trump should, and would, pardon such people if reelected president."
same link
Last edited:
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 25,639
- Reaction score
- 157,290
Trump's lawyer John Lauro seems to have admitted in tv interviews yesterday that Trump did indeed do what he is accused of doing.
He said on tv, "What President Trump said is, 'Let's go with option D,' Lauro said on Fox News' The Ingraham Angle. 'Let's just halt, let's just pause the voting and allow the state legislatures to take one last look and make a determination as to whether or not the elections were handled fairly. That's constitutional law. That's not an issue of criminal activity.'"
The lawyer said, in another tv interview yesterday, "And then at the end, he asked Mr. Pence to pause the voting for 10 days, allow the state legislatures to weigh in, and then they could make a determination to audit, or re-audit, or recertify."
Legal experts weigh in on those statements:
"Former Department of Justice lawyer Andrew Weissman said the remarks from Trump's attorney are 'an admission. Not a defense.'"
"Tristan Snell, a lawyer and former assistant attorney general for New York state, added: 'Did one of Trump's lawyers just ADMIT, on live TV, that Trump pushed Pence to delay the certification?!? John Lauro's statement is likely admissible in court—and he can now potentially be disqualified from representing Trump."
More at the link: Donald Trump lawyer appears to admit to one of Jack Smith's charges
Looks like they are doubling down on the first-amendment tactic. I don't think that is going to work. There is a difference between speaking and scheming. imo
jmo
He said on tv, "What President Trump said is, 'Let's go with option D,' Lauro said on Fox News' The Ingraham Angle. 'Let's just halt, let's just pause the voting and allow the state legislatures to take one last look and make a determination as to whether or not the elections were handled fairly. That's constitutional law. That's not an issue of criminal activity.'"
The lawyer said, in another tv interview yesterday, "And then at the end, he asked Mr. Pence to pause the voting for 10 days, allow the state legislatures to weigh in, and then they could make a determination to audit, or re-audit, or recertify."
Legal experts weigh in on those statements:
"Former Department of Justice lawyer Andrew Weissman said the remarks from Trump's attorney are 'an admission. Not a defense.'"
"Tristan Snell, a lawyer and former assistant attorney general for New York state, added: 'Did one of Trump's lawyers just ADMIT, on live TV, that Trump pushed Pence to delay the certification?!? John Lauro's statement is likely admissible in court—and he can now potentially be disqualified from representing Trump."
More at the link: Donald Trump lawyer appears to admit to one of Jack Smith's charges
Looks like they are doubling down on the first-amendment tactic. I don't think that is going to work. There is a difference between speaking and scheming. imo
jmo
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 25,639
- Reaction score
- 157,290
I always thought Mr. Lastname was the proper address, but to fact-check, I consulted Emily PostTrump Reportedly 'Irked' By 1 Word From Judge During Arraignment
CNN's Kaitlan Collins said she was told the former president was "particularly" bothered by this quick reference.www.huffpost.com
."When addressing a former President of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is 'Mr. LastName.' ('President LastName' or 'Mr. President' are terms reserved for the current head of state.)"
Addressing a Former President of the United States
When addressing a former President of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is “Mr. LastName.” (“President LastName” or “Mr. President” are terms reserved for the current head of state.) This is true for other ex-officials, as well.
emilypost.com
jmo
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 69,787
I don't believe that stat: i think it is more like 70% of his followers believe that--- In the last election most politicians who were backed by Trump lost, and politicians who believed the voter fraud theory lost as well, so that 70% stat does not make sense.
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 69,787
Oh dear, is Mr. Trump going to pout because he was not addressed as Mr. President. GMAFBI always thought Mr. Lastname was the proper address, but to fact-check, I consulted Emily Post
"When addressing a former President of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is 'Mr. LastName.' ('President LastName' or 'Mr. President' are terms reserved for the current head of state.)"
Addressing a Former President of the United States
When addressing a former President of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is “Mr. LastName.” (“President LastName” or “Mr. President” are terms reserved for the current head of state.) This is true for other ex-officials, as well.
jmo
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 86,829
- Reaction score
- 292,527
A couple of questions...
I watched BBC last night - and they mentioned that the hearing on 8/28 will start at 10am. Is that correct?
So - Judge Tanya Chutkan WILL be the Judge on this case?
TIA!
I watched BBC last night - and they mentioned that the hearing on 8/28 will start at 10am. Is that correct?
So - Judge Tanya Chutkan WILL be the Judge on this case?
TIA!
- Status