Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[TexasEd 8067]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Im a couple days late catching up on this thread, so maybe it's mentioned in the next couple pages I haven't read yet, but I don't think the public/magadom gives a fuck about his financial ruination. They'll simply point to it as proof of the "deep state" coming to ruin him for fighting for the common man. What I do think is possible, is that the financial ruin gives this motherfucker a heart attack. 

What would be amazing is if they sized some of his buildings and turned them into underserved housing. That would fucking kill the slumlord/racist in him. 

 

[Sawbonz 27580]

Any update on Meadows being removed to federal court? Also is there a chance DOJ also wants it moved because he is a cooperating witness, and they don’t want the state of Georgia’s case fucking any of that up?

[The Dog 44073]

 

[YGIFS 19452]

Smith knew he'd walk into the trap.  Trump knew he'd walk into the trap.  Trump knew Smith knew he'd walk into the trap.  And Smith knew Trump knew that Smith knew he'd walk into the trap.  

Trump is Inception for Morons.  

[TwiceHorn 31514]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Any update on Meadows being removed to federal court? Also is there a chance DOJ also wants it moved because he is a cooperating witness, and they don’t want the state of Georgia’s case fucking any of that up?

Meadows wanted it decided by arraignment day, which is tomorrow, so he could skip all that.  Judge said he'd hurry, but also show up for your arraignment.  So, no.

I doubt the feds care, but just because it's in federal court doesn't mean "the feds" have any say.  This is still between Meadows and his lawyers and the People of The State of Georgia, represented by the District Attorney of Fulton County, Georgia.

The Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith has no say in this, unless you want to believe some conspiratorial shit about them controlling all federal district judges nationwide.

Edited September 5, 2023 by TwiceHorn
My spelling has been horrendous lately

[TwiceHorn 31514]

51 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

So, some additional drama here.  

Apparently, this motion was filed under seal.  And the government didn't confer with Trumpco prior to seeking leave to file under seal, so Trumpco moved to respond to the motion to file under seal.  That almost never happens.

Chutkan granted their motion, so now Trump has six days to respond to the motion to file under seal and Chutkan has a new standing order about filing under seal.

A dilatory tactic, I'm sure, but I'm also not sure very effective.  Also an attempt to kick dirt on the government for not conferring.

[Rimbo 26022]

54 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Smith knew he'd walk into the trap.  Trump knew he'd walk into the trap.  Trump knew Smith knew he'd walk into the trap.  And Smith knew Trump knew that Smith knew he'd walk into the trap.  

Trump is Inception for Morons.  

 

[Stilicho 1397]

3 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Yeah, being poor might be what actually kills this motherfucker.

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

On 9/3/2023 at 9:38 AM, GhostOfTomJoad said:

His "VERY LITTLE DEBT" claim has got to be the most outrageous lie he's told in the last 15 minutes. Wasn't it shown a few years ago that many of his properties are currently financed with interest only loans and the bills are all coming due in the next 12-36 months?

Quote

“I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me,” Trump told Norah O’Donnell in an interview that aired on “CBS This Morning.” “I’ve made a fortune by using debt, and if things don’t work out I renegotiate the debt. I mean, that’s a smart thing, not a stupid thing.”

“How do you renegotiate the debt?” O’Donnell followed up.

“You go back and you say, hey guess what, the economy crashed,” Trump replied. “I’m going to give you back half.”

*better than I

(https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-king-of-debt-224642)

Full interview, cued to his “I’m the king of debt” quote. Of course he wound up not doing anything he said he would do. He’s completely full of shit.

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, some additional drama here.  

Apparently, this motion was filed under seal.  And the government didn't confer with Trumpco prior to seeking leave to file under seal, so Trumpco moved to respond to the motion to file under seal.  That almost never happens.

Chutkan granted their motion, so now Trump has six days to respond to the motion to file under seal and Chutkan has a new standing order about filing under seal.

A dilatory tactic, I'm sure, but I'm also not sure very effective.  Also an attempt to kick dirt on the government for not conferring.

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

So, since Jerry Lewis did it on Labor Day weekend for decades, Steve Bannon  figured he might as well give it a shot:

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Francisco 2.0

[The Dog 44073]

MOAR????

 

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

I think this dumbfuck was at least half assed trying to stay on planet earth with his fraud until the Mueller investigation let him totally off.  In hindsight, it's hilarious that whatever restraint he had (very little), seems to have gone out the the window and now he's 1000x as fucked as if he would have been stopped back then.  God damn, what a shame. 

[TeeDubya 3362]

Live view of the codefendants....  

[jimmyjazz 46001]

Apparently Jack Smith is not fucking around, but he is finding out.

[TeeDubya 3362]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, since Jerry Lewis did it on Labor Day weekend for decades, Steve Bannon  figured he might as well give it a shot:

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by TeeDubya

[Hermanator 7124]

5 hours ago, The Dog said:

MOAR????

 

What am I missing here? I clicked through every link on those tweets and they're all for articles that are months old. The picture also says BBC News but there's nothing I can find from the BBC on any of that. I don't see any mention of investigations for bribes for pardons. 

Can you please start vetting this shit before dumping it here?

[TwiceHorn 31514]

11 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

What we're seeing is a lot of petty fights in Florida and DC about filing things under seal.  When something is filed under seal, the public can't see it, but the court can and the lawyers for each party can see it.

Things are filed under seal because they contain reference to confidential material, whether that be classified information, grand jury information, trade secrets, or sensitive financial information.  Although the general rule is that filings are public, filing under seal is fairly routine.

You rarely see fights break out between the parties over filing under seal, and if it happens, it's usually because someone filed something not under seal that should have been under seal; for example, containing the other party's sensitive information.

So, we have seen that Cannon is kind of a dumbass about filing under seal, unsealing or declining to accept under seal filings referencing grand jury material (we should all know by now that grand jury evidence and proceedings are super secret squirrel until the court presiding over the grand jury says otherwise).  Chutkan seems to be pretty sensible about it.

Also, the issue of Trump's extrajudicial statements may not be, apparently, teed up for consideration.  It is mentioned in passing in the government's response to Lauro's latest whinge.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/49/united-states-v-trump/

[wildcat09 29360]

10 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I think this dumbfuck was at least half assed trying to stay on planet earth with his fraud until the Mueller investigation let him totally off.  In hindsight, it's hilarious that whatever restraint he had (very little), seems to have gone out the the window and now he's 1000x as fucked as if he would have been stopped back then.  God damn, what a shame. 

He shook down the Qatari government for a billion dollar bailout for Jared long before he buried the Mueller investigation.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

49 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He shook down the Qatari government for a billion dollar bailout for Jared long before he buried the Mueller investigation.

Yep.  He wasn’t using the same clowns to pull all that off.  Rudy and that crazy lady pulled in when even Jared and his idiot daughter were like this is too much.  

Also, to the point above, look how sloppy.  There’s not emails, texts, etc etc constantly pouring out about his Qatari bullshit.  Say what you will but dumbfuck Jared seems to be a bit more buttoned up than Rudy and crew.  

Edited September 6, 2023 by ChiTownDoc

[gernblansten 3197]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, the issue of Trump's extrajudicial statements may not be, apparently, teed up for consideration.  It is mentioned in passing in the government's response to Lauro's latest whinge.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/49/united-states-v-trump/

Yeah, that's what's frustrating about a lot of twitter posts. You read that tweet and think the Court will be hearing a motion that Trump is violating the protective order, and then you see the actual pleading and it's a throwaway line in a slap fight about sealed filing procedure.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

12 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Yeah, that's what's frustrating about a lot of twitter posts. You read that tweet and think the Court will be hearing a motion that Trump is violating the protective order, and then you see the actual pleading and it's a throwaway line in a slap fight about sealed filing procedure.

It's possible that the sealed motion actually deals with that but we can't tell because sealed. 

[The Dog 44073]

 

[South Austin 52523]

A fresh batch of donation requests are about to be sent to MAGA nation.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

Trump has the hat trick right in his crosshairs. 

[The Dog 44073]

 

[Red Five 40877]

17 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

"Cheung added that Trump "offered full cooperation with DOJ, and told the key DOJ official, in person, 'Anything you need from us, just let us know.'""

Full cooperation. UH HUH.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

Ok, so the big "surreply" filed by Stan Woodward in the Florida case on the Nauta/Taveras conflict issue is available.

More whiny shit.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/144/united-states-v-trump/

He is definitely doubling down on the exclusion of Yuscil Taveras as a witness against Nauta (and then ostensibly Trump).  

One curiosity is that he argues that proceeding before the DC Grand Jury as the government did diminishes the authority of Cannon over the proceeding.  Well, that's fucking bullshit, because she doesn't preside over the grand jury in Florida.  The Chief Judge does.  Doesn't matter if the GJ is in Florida, DC, or fucking Jackson Hole, she has no control over it.  He does not make a persuasive argument that the government did anything wrong.

So, although this is a highly collateral matter, a complete sideshow, this is Aileen Cannon's first big opportunity to fuck up the case by excluding Taveras' testimony.

Edited September 6, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29360]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ok, so the big "surreply" filed by Stan Woodward in the Florida case on the Nauta/Taveras conflict issue is available.

More whiny shit.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/144/united-states-v-trump/

He is definitely doubling down on the exclusion of Yuscil Taveras as a witness against Nauta (and then ostensibly Trump).  

One curiosity is that he argues that proceeding before the DC Grand Jury as the government did diminishes the authority of Cannon over the proceeding.  Well, that's fucking bullshit, because she doesn't preside over the grand jury in Florida.  The Chief Judge does.  Doesn't matter if the GJ is in Florida, DC, or fucking Jackson Hole, she has no control over it.  He does not make a persuasive argument that the government did anything wrong.

So, although this is a highly collateral matter, a complete sideshow, this is Aileen Cannon's first big opportunity to fuck up the case by excluding Taveras' testimony.

Is someone taking bets on this? I know which side I'd take.

[TexasEd 8067]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ok, so the big "surreply" filed by Stan Woodward in the Florida case on the Nauta/Taveras conflict issue is available.

More whiny shit.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/144/united-states-v-trump/

He is definitely doubling down on the exclusion of Yuscil Taveras as a witness against Nauta (and then ostensibly Trump).  

One curiosity is that he argues that proceeding before the DC Grand Jury as the government did diminishes the authority of Cannon over the proceeding.  Well, that's fucking bullshit, because she doesn't preside over the grand jury in Florida.  The Chief Judge does.  Doesn't matter if the GJ is in Florida, DC, or fucking Jackson Hole, she has no control over it.  He does not make a persuasive argument that the government did anything wrong.

So, although this is a highly collateral matter, a complete sideshow, this is Aileen Cannon's first big opportunity to fuck up the case by excluding Taveras' testimony.

 

But is the potential fuckup appealable to the 11th?  And would another "you're a moron" ruling be likely to come back down?

[Neonmoon 38130]

Are we taking bets on 10 years from now finding out Cannon was communicating with Trumps' team behind the scenes?

[Goredho 17413]

4 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

[The Dog 44073]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Is someone taking bets on this? I know which side I'd take.

tbh she's equally likely to screw Trump as help him whether she intends to or not. she's dumb as a rock.

[Pato del Muerto 52536]

5 minutes ago, The Dog said:

tbh she's equally likely to screw Trump as help him whether she intends to or not. she's dumb as a rock.

Trump and his damn dei appointments amirite 

[TexasHooch 5122]

Ruh Roh

[TwiceHorn 31514]

5 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Ruh Roh

That's not new information.  That happened before and is the raison d'etre for the superseding indictment.

We knew he changed his testimony to implicate Trump and De Oliveira, which would avoid prosecution for perjury.  What we didn't know was that the government gave him a Non-Prosecution Agreement to enable that.

[SydneyCarton 48134]

8 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Ruh Roh

With what rule or standing could Woodward succesfully argue that Taveras not be allowed to testify against Turmp and/or Nauta?

[Beau Vine 54322]

11 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Ruh Roh

[YGIFS 19452]

So Trump's first calls to 'Lock Her Up' regarding Hillary were about her private server in her NY home bathroom?  Now he's being flipped on by an IT guy who set up equipment and document storage in his Mar-a-Lago villa's bathroom after acquiring a penchant for supposedly flushing other classified documents down myriad White House bathroom toilets.  And the co-conspirator about to turn state's evidence shares the same name as the band that sang the song Trump danced with Ivanka to at her wedding reception "Heaven Must be Missing an Angel"-Tavares.  

You people of reasoned logic and letters---regale me again with lore of how we think, therefore we are.  Because we are 0's and 1's inside a simulation.  

[TwiceHorn 31514]

2 hours ago, TexasEd said:

 

But is the potential fuckup appealable to the 11th?  And would another "you're a moron" ruling be likely to come back down?

Eventually, yes, as in after conviction or acquittal.  This would seem to lead directly to acquittal for DeOliveira and Trump on the surveillance tape obstruction because, as far as I know, it is the only direct evidence they've got.

But I don't believe there is any opportunity for an immediate/interlocutory appeal.   

[DixonHur 11344]

@TwiceHorn, can you give a primer on how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment factors into all of this, if at all?

Quote

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof

While perhaps implied, I didn't see the word "convicted" in the Amendment, so I was wondering if he could already be legally be barred from running.  I'm particularly interested in the "giving aid or comfort" aspect since he is actively working in the interests of those already convicted for Jan. 6th.

Thanks

[Gatorubet 30274]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But I don't believe there is any opportunity for an immediate/interlocutory appeal.   

i’m not saying you’re wrong, but that would be odd. If it were a civil matter they’d just say, fuck it - retry the thing.   But an acquittal due to a ruling preventing a prosecution witness from providing key evidence crucial to the conviction would seem like something that would need to be addressed prior to acquittal and double jeopardy concerns. 

Edit: To be clear, once a jury is empaneled the judge is making all kinds of evidentiary rulings on the fly, and it falls however it falls. This would seem more like a criminal version of a pretrial motion in limine.   You would think procedurally that you could get relief from an appellate court before they teed it up.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Gatorubet

[TwiceHorn 31514]

43 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

With what rule or standing could Woodward succesfully argue that Taveras not be allowed to testify against Turmp and/or Nauta?

The argument is this.  There's a conflict of interest because Woodward currently represents Nauta and formerly represented Taveras.  The conflict is that Woodward might not be able to or want to do what he should for one of them because of his duty to the other.

Now that he doesn't represent Taveras anymore, the potential conflict is mostly moot.  Where the conflict gets active again is when Taveras takes the stand and says Nauta and Trump wanted me to delete the surveillance video and they're lying if they say otherwise.

As Nauta's lawyer, Woodward would presumably cross-examine Taveras and attempt to prove he was lying or otherwise not credible.  Woodward can't do that because he can't act that adversely to a former client.  Moreover, he might know privileged information about Taveras from his prior representation that would either cause him to soft-pedal the cross, or violate Taveras' privilege.

So, there's multiple ways to solve this problem.  One would be to disqualify Woodward from representing Nauta.  The government doesn't seriously argue that because it's drastic and deprives Nauta of his (free, Trump-approved) counsel of choice. Another would be to have Woodward's co-counsel handle cross of Taveras.  She never represented him, but would have to basically state that she has not discussed Taveras or any privileged information with Woodward for that to be ok.

The most extreme way to deal with the conflict is to exclude Taveras entirely:  no testimony, no cross, no conflict.  Also no case for the government.

That would not normally be on anyone's radar except for this red-herring about grand jury misconduct.  The conflict is, if anyone's, Woodward's fault and secondarily Trump's for not getting each affiliated defendant a separate lawyer.  It sure as fuck isn't the government's fault.

So Woodward makes this half-ass argument that what the government did with the grand jury in DC was shady and that the conflict should be resolved and the government punished by excluding Taveras as a witness.

It's a bold argument.  It's also bullshit.

I'm glad I'm not a criminal defense attorney.  Making sketchy arguments like this tends to come with the territory of zealous representation.

21 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

@TwiceHorn, can you give a primer on how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment factors into all of this, if at all?

While perhaps implied, I didn't see the word "convicted" in the Amendment, so I was wondering if he could already be legally be barred from running.  I'm particularly interested in the "giving aid or comfort" aspect since he is actively working in the interests of those already convicted for Jan. 6th.

Thanks

No one knows.  It's never been used before.

[SydneyCarton 48134]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The argument is this.  There's a conflict of interest because Woodward currently represents Nauta and formerly represented Taveras.  The conflict is that Woodward might not be able to or want to do what he should for one of them because of his duty to the other.

Now that he doesn't represent Taveras anymore, the potential conflict is mostly moot.  Where the conflict gets active again is when Taveras takes the stand and says Nauta and Trump wanted me to delete the surveillance video and they're lying if they say otherwise.

As Nauta's lawyer, Woodward would presumably cross-examine Taveras and attempt to prove he was lying or otherwise not credible.  Woodward can't do that because he can't act that adversely to a former client.  Moreover, he might know privileged information about Taveras from his prior representation that would either cause him to soft-pedal the cross, or violate Taveras' privilege.

So, there's multiple ways to solve this problem.  One would be to disqualify Woodward from representing Nauta.  The government doesn't seriously argue that because it's drastic and deprives Nauta of his (free, Trump-approved) counsel of choice. Another would be to have Woodward's co-counsel handle cross of Taveras.  She never represented him, but would have to basically state that she has not discussed Taveras or any privileged information with Woodward for that to be ok.

The most extreme way to deal with the conflict is to exclude Taveras entirely:  no testimony, no cross, no conflict.  Also no case for the government.

That would not normally be on anyone's radar except for this red-herring about grand jury misconduct.  The conflict is, if anyone's, Woodward's fault and secondarily Trump's for not getting each affiliated defendant a separate lawyer.  It sure as fuck isn't the government's fault.

So Woodward makes this half-ass argument that what the government did with the grand jury in DC was shady and that the conflict should be resolved and the government punished by excluding Taveras as a witness.

It's a bold argument.  It's also bullshit.

I'm glad I'm not a criminal defense attorney.  Making sketchy arguments like this tends to come with the territory of zealous representation.

No one knows.  It's never been used before.

Thanks for the explanation. After reading your summary, and considering Cannon, I assume it's more than even money that Taveras will be prevented from testifying. In fact, I don't see any other likely option. Disqualifying Woodward from representing Nauta actually seems more extreme than not allowing Taveras to testify, and if you're Woodward and his co-council, you have every incentive to not allow the co-council to cross Nauta. And I'm assuming even if she did, this would open things up to further appeals. 

[TwiceHorn 31514]

22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

i’m not saying you’re wrong, but that would be odd. If it were a civil matter they’d just say, fuck it - retry the thing.   But an acquittal due to a ruling preventing a prosecution witness from providing key evidence crucial to the conviction would seem like something that would need to be addressed prior to acquittal and double jeopardy concerns. 

Edit: To be clear, once a jury is empaneled the judge is making all kinds of evidentiary rulings on the fly, and it falls however it falls. This would seem more like a criminal version of a pretrial motion in limine.   You would think procedurally that you could get relief from an appellate court before they teed it up.

As far as I know, with the exception of CIPA, there's no statute equivalent to 28 USC 1292 authorizing interlocutory appeals or certification of issues for appeal in criminal cases. 

The collateral order doctrine in criminal cases is limited to  orders denying a Double Jeopardy Clause challenge, orders denying a Speech or Debate Clause challenge, orders denying a motion to reduce bail, and orders allowing for the forced medication of criminal defendants. 

The only thing the government might have is a writ of mandamus.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Thanks for the explanation. After reading your summary, and considering Cannon, I assume it's more than even money that Taveras will be prevented from testifying. In fact, I don't see any other likely option. Disqualifying Woodward from representing Nauta actually seems more extreme than not allowing Taveras to testify, and if you're Woodward and his co-council, you have every incentive to not allow the co-council to cross Nauta. And I'm assuming even if she did, this would open things up to further appeals. 

Letting co-counsel, so long as she hasnt' been tainted by communication with Woodward, cross Taveras is the "school solution" and the most reasonable outcome.  If Woodward deliberately tainted her by communicating all the Taveras privileged info, he's setting himself up for complete disqualification.

It should be noted that the DC Court found that Woodward did not do anything wrong or attempt to taint Taveras' testimony.  Even Taveras new Federal Public Defender said so.

[locodos 5387]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No one knows.  It's never been used before.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Trump and his damn dei appointments amirite 

Ironically, I think she is more lil Marco's appointment than Trump's.  She checks many of the boxes academically and ABA rated her qualified, which seems something of a stretch.

But most importantly, she's a lil brown Colombiana/Cubana with a few right wing creds.  She's a pequena Tia Tomasa, or Tia Ruckus if you will.

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Letting co-counsel, so long as she hasnt' been tainted by communication with Woodward, cross Taveras is the "school solution" and the most reasonable outcome.  If Woodward deliberately tainted her by communicating all the Taveras privileged info, he's setting himself up for complete disqualification.

It should be noted that the DC Court found that Woodward did not do anything wrong or attempt to taint Taveras' testimony.  Even Taveras new Federal Public Defender said so.

It’s insane, this guy‘s taint!

[YGIFS 19452]

25 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It’s insane, this guy‘s taint!

I'll never not think of this sketch: