Greengunner wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 1:49 pm Chesebro just flipped in Georgia.

People criticized Fani Willis for bringing a sprawling unwieldy case with nineteen defendants, but by the time it goes to trial, it might be five or six defendants and a whole bunch of cooperating witnesses.

Trump campaign legal adviser Kenneth Chesebro struck a deal with prosecutors from the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney’s office in its 2020 election interference case on Friday. Chesebro, who was charged alongside Donald Trump and more than a dozen other co-defendants with attempting to delay the transfer of power after the 2020 election, was scheduled to stand trial this week. He accepted the offer as jury selection was underway on Friday, after 450 potential jurors had completed a lengthy questionnaire on what would be asked. He had rejected an earlier deal late last month.

Appearing before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, Chesebro pleaded guilty to a felony count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents and agreed to testify in the case as part of the deal. The Trump attorney faces five years probation, a $5,000 fine, 100 hours of community service, and must continue to provide documents and evidence to the state, according to the terms of the deal. Chesebro told the court that he had already written an apology letter, another term of the agreement. The deal was offered under Georgia’s First Offender Act, and roughly followed the contours of the plea offer that Chesebro rejected in late September.

Standing beside him was his attorney, Scott Grubman, who said in court that with good behavior, the probationary period could be shortened to three years.

Trump hit with fine after violating gag order

Donald Trump was hit with a $5,000 fine Friday after a judge discovered a social media post disparaging a court clerk on a campaign website days after a gag order was issued.

Judge Arthur Engoron had threatened to hold Trump in contempt and even jail him after the post was found. Instead, he issued the fine.

In a written ruling, Engoron said he was “way beyond the ‘warning’ stage,” but decided to issue just a fine because of Trump’s attorney’s claim that the post was inadvertent, the Associated Press reported.

He had earlier said the failure to delete the post was a “blatant violation” of the gag order issued on Oct. 3.

After Donald Trump was hit with a $5,000 fine for violating a court's gag order, he filed a motion asking a D.C. court to pause another gag order while he appeals it.

Trump, who was fined in his civil fraud case for leaving a post targeting a court staffer on his campaign website, is targeting the gag order imposed by Tanya Chutkan in the D.C. criminal case over alleged 2020 election subversion. His team argues in the filing that no court has ever imposed such a restrictive order on "a criminal defendant who is campaigning for public office—least of all, on the leading candidate for President of the United States."

"Given its extraordinary nature, one would expect an extraordinary and compelling justification for the Gag Order," Trump's legal team wrote in the Friday filing.

The brief continues on:"But that is conspicuously absent. Instead, the Court generically states it must enter the Gag Order to prevent supposed 'threats' and 'harassment.' This theory falters under even minimal scrutiny."

The filing relies upon the claims that Trump, who risks being jailed or hit with harsher financial penalties if he oversteps an order again, "has not unlawfully threatened or harassed anyone."

"Thus, unsurprisingly, the prosecution presents no witness who says they feel threatened or harassed by President Trump," according to the filing.

The motion argues that, "unable to justify the Gag Order based on President Trump’s actions, the prosecution pivots to third parties, alleging that unnamed others, outside of President Trump’s control."

"Such concerns cannot justify the Gag Order," Trump's lawyers argue in the brief seeking a stay of the order during appeal. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that citizens of this country cannot be censored based on a fear of what others might do."

The motion goes on to argue that "this violation of the First Amendment is egregious and intolerable."

The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case in Washington agreed Friday to temporarily lift her narrow gag order. The ruling gives Trump’s lawyers time to prove why the former president’s comments should not be restricted as the case heads toward trial. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the gag order would remain on hold — for now — while she considers Trump’s bid to speak freely about the case as he challenges the restrictions in higher courts.

The gag order Chutkan issued Monday barred him from making public statements targeting prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses. It’s the most serious restriction a court has placed on Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, which has become a centerpiece of his grievance-filled campaign to return to the White House.

Trump’s lawyers, who quickly appealed the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court, wrote in court papers Friday that the gag order should be lifted while his legal challenges play out, calling the restrictions “egregious and intolerable.” They argued neither the judge nor prosecutors have “come close” to justifying the order, adding that the former president “has not unlawfully threatened or harassed anyone.”

When Republicans gathered on Dec. 14, 2020, claiming to be legitimate electors casting the state’s 16 electoral votes for Donald Trump, they met at the Georgia Capitol in a room just upstairs from the building’s public entrance. A Trump campaign official asked for the electors’ “complete discretion,” telling them to say only that they were meeting with two state senators who were there.

“Your duties are imperative to ensure the end result — a win in Georgia for President Trump — but will be hampered unless we have complete secrecy and discretion,” Robert Sinners wrote in an email uncovered by investigators.

NonServiam wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 10:45 am Did anyone else catch the live stream of Powell's pleading? I did and there was a portion during which Willis was outlining the terms and conditions of Powell's probation, one of which was a prohibition on owning firearms. After a brief pause in the proceedings and the language was altered to say the probation "may affect" her ability to possess firearms. No final disposition was reached on that matter from what I saw.

Not a felony conviction or violent crime but she still may (temporarily) lose her 2A. I think this fugly psychopathic goblin is receiving far too much leniency.

After Sidney Powell, an attorney who vocally backed Trump's baseless election fraud conspiracies, last week pleaded guilty in the Fulton County, Georgia, election subversion case, Trump took to social media claiming that she was never his lawyer and went on to repeat false claims about the 2020 race.

"Despite the Fake News reports to the contrary, and without even reaching out to ask the Trump Campaign, MS. POWELL WAS NOT MY ATTORNEY, AND NEVER WAS," Trump posted on social media.

That post flies in the face of a November 2020 announcement from Trump in which he named Powell as an addition to his legal team, however. He tweeted on Nov. 14, 2020, that Powell was "added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives."

Chesebro guilty plea on count 15 of Georgia indictment is a huge blow to Trump

While "Kraken' attorney Sidney Powell's plea deal on Georgia state racketeering charges related to the 2020 presidential election is not good news for Donald Trump, Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro's subsequent plea deal on similar charges is considerably more perilous for the former president.

In an analysis of the surprise flipping by two close associates of Trump, the Guardian's Hugo Lowell noted that Powell pleaded out on misdemeanor charges while Chesebro's deal included pleading guilty to a felony charge.

More importantly, Lowell wrote, was Chesebro's guilty plea on count 15 in his indictment that directly ties Trump to election fraud.

"At issue for Trump is that Chesebro’s plea deal in Fulton County required him to admit guilt to count 15 in the indictment – that Trump and Chesebro and others violated the law in filing the fake electors certificate – and thereby affirm that the fake electors were indeed fraudulent," he wrote before adding, "The fact that Chesebro gave a statement means that if it were to be shared with the special counsel, federal prosecutors in Washington could use that to bolster their conspiracy to defraud case against Trump now, regardless of if and when Chesebro takes the stand in Georgia."

Lowell also noted that, even if Chesebro is called to the stand by Smith's team and pleads the 5th, DOJ officials still have the count 15 guilty plea and the tape to fall back on as evidence against the former president.

'There are no victims, except me': Trump flips out on Letitia James in midnight rant

Despite warnings from New York Judge Arthur Engoron to not attack court officials, Donald Trump went on an extended rant near midnight on Sunday, lashing out at the judge who has already fined him $5000, in addition to once again attacking New York Attorney General Letitia James.

In a post that complains about the court proceedings linked to the $250 million fraud lawsuit filed by James, the former president proclaimed that he is the only victim and the case should be "dropped immediately."

On Truth Social, Trump snarled, "In the Fake Biden Inspired Fraud Case against me, brought by the CORRUPT A.G., Letitia 'Peekaboo' James of New York State, a sadly Crime Infested Place, where people and businesses are fleeing to other States in record numbers, it is her and the highly partisan Judge, who has been overturned many times, who defrauded me and the public by valuing my assets at a fraction of what they are worth in order to try and convict me, without a trial or jury, of FRAUD."

He added, "She got him to Value Mar-a-Lago at $18,000,000, when it is worth 50 to 100 times that amount. My assets are worth MUCH MORE than listed on the 100% DISCLAIMED Financial Statements, and there are NO VICTIMS, EXCEPT ME."

With that, he once again claimed the trial is nothing more than an attempt to derail his re-election bid.

"We WON on Statute of Limitations, and other things, at the Appeals Court," he continued, "AND THIS RADICAL LEFT, TRUMP HATING JUDGE, REFUSES TO ACCEPT THEIR DECISION. THIS CASE SHOULD BE DROPPED, IMMEDIATELY. IT’S AMAZING! HE IS OUT OF CONTROL, AND TOTALLY AFRAID OF PEEKABOO. A COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE & ELECTION INTERFERENCE!"

Bisbee wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2023 12:04 pm Just why is it that some people become enamored with such insecure, narcissistic con-artists?

Trump to argue presidential immunity shields him from paying E. Jean Carroll damages
Former President Donald Trump is due in court Monday in the ongoing E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit, and he's apparently planning to argue his former job prevents him from being held accountable in civil court.

Judge Lewis Kaplan previously allowed Carroll's $10 million defamation lawsuit against Trump to move forward in June. On Monday, ABC News reported that Trump is now going to argue before a federal appellate court panel that because he was President of the United States in 2019 — when he allegedly defamed Carroll — that he should be immune from having to pay any damages to the former Elle magazine columnist.

"Defendant-Appellee's conduct is not properly the subject of a civil damages claim since his conduct is shielded by presidential immunity," Trump's legal team argued in a pre-hearing filing. "The District Court's rejection of this defense was clearly made in error; more importantly, this flawed decision will have wide-ranging implications which threaten to disrupt the separation of powers between the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch, and significantly diminish the latitude of protection afforded to all Presidents under the presidential immunity doctrine."

Trump has also used the presidential immunity argument to argue that he can't be held criminally accountable in Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the former president's role in the January 6 insurrection. Smith submitted a 54-page filing in US District Court last week countering that argument, citing previous prosecutions of presidents including Trump's 2021 impeachment trial, Bill Clinton's civil suit, and Richard Nixon's pardon.

Jack Smith just tore apart Trump’s 'startling' absolute immunity argument

Special Counsel Jack Smith eviscerated former President Donald Trump's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in a blistering 54-page filing on Thursday.

Smith and his team filed the document in US District Court on Thursday in response to the claim from Trump's legal team earlier this month that he should be immune from all criminal prosecution in relation to the January 6 insurrection, since he was acting within his duties as president at the time to safeguard federal elections. Politico reported that Jack Smith's filing countered Trump's immunity claim by citing multiple prosecutions of presidents including Trump's 2021 impeachment trial, the civil suit against former President Bill Clinton, the pardon of Richard Nixon, and even the prosecution of former Vice President Aaron Burr.

“The implications of the defendant’s unbounded immunity theory are startling,” the filing read. “It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member; a president who instructs his FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.”

Bisbee wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2023 12:04 pm I imagine the ranting a of Napoleon in prison sounded something similar to TOS’s posts. The little man who felt entitled to rule the world and set fire to it.
Just why is it that some people become enamored with such insecure, narcissistic con-artists?

https://medium.com/@LudoTotem/donald-tr ... 96fba60716

Napoleon Bonaparte wrote:PROTEST.
“I hereby solemnly protest in the face of heaven and mankind, against the violence that is done me; and the violation of my most sacred rights, in forcibly disposing of my person and liberty. I voluntarily came on board the Bellerophon—I am not the prisoner, I am the guest of England. I came at the instigation of the Captain himself, who said he had orders from the Government 44to receive and convey me to England, together with my suite, if agreeable to me. I came forward with confidence to place myself under the protection of the laws of England. When once on board the Bellerophon, I was entitled to the hospitality of the British people. If the Government, in giving the Captain of the Bellerophon orders to receive me and my followers, only wished to lay a snare, it has forfeited its honour and disgraced its flag.

“If this act be consummated it will be in vain for the English henceforth to talk of their sincerity, their laws, and liberties. British faith will have been lost in the hospitality of the Bellerophon.

“I appeal to history: it will say that an enemy who made war for twenty years against the English people came spontaneously, in the hour of misfortune, to seek an asylum under their laws. What more striking proof could he give of his esteem and confidence? But how did England reply to such an act of magnanimity? It pretended to hold out a hospitable hand to this enemy; and, on giving himself up with confidence, he was immolated!

(Signed) “Napoleon.”

Should he have returned to the interior, and placed himself at the head of mere bands, when he had renounced armies? or, ought he to have desperately encouraged a civil war which would lead to no beneficial result, but only serve to ruin the remaining pillars, the future hopes, of the country? In this state of affairs, he formed a most magnanimous resolution, worthy of his life, and a complete refutation of the calumnies that for twenty years had been so ridiculously accumulated on his head. But what will history say of those Ministers of a liberal nation, the guardians and depositaries of popular rights—ever ardent in encouraging a Coriolanus, having only chains for a Camillus?

On our leaving the Bellerophon in the morning to visit the (British warship) Superb, the Emperor (Bonaparte) stopped short in front of the guard drawn up on the quarter-deck to salute him. He made them perform several movements, giving the word of command himself; having desired them to charge bayonets, and perceiving that this motion was not performed altogether in the French manner, he advanced into the midst of the soldiers, put the weapons aside with his hands, and seized a musquet from one of the rear rank, with which he went through the exercise himself, according to our method. A sudden movement and change of countenance amongst the officers and others who were present, sufficiently expressed their astonishment at seeing the Emperor thus carelessly place himself amidst English bayonets, some of which came in contact with his person. This circumstance produced a most striking effect. On returning from the Superb, we were indirectly questioned on the subject, and asked whether the Emperor ever acted in the same way with his own soldiers; while the greatest surprise was expressed at his confidence. Not one amongst the officers had formed any idea of sovereigns who could thus explain and execute their own commands; it was therefore easy to perceive that they had no just conception of the personage now before them, notwithstanding his having been so marked an object of attention and curiosity for above twenty years.

“In exchange for her cooperation, Ellis pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings. The count stems from her testimony before a Georgia Senate subcommittee on Dec. 3, 2020. Along with co-defendants Rudy Giuliani and Ray Smith, Ellis ‘knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully’ made false statements about election fraud in Georgia.”