413 private links
Legal scholar, writer, and political commentator Jonathan Turley weighed in on the unprecedented issue in a Monday column. //
It all comes down to the following, as Turley wrote.
The Trump trials are troubling precisely because they are being handled differently because of who the defendant is. No one can seriously suggest that Judge Chutkan would be moving other cases or canceling trips in order to shoehorn them into the calendar this year, if it were not for the election and the name of the defendant. Such cases are, after all, notorious for taking years to work out complicated pre-trial matters. //
Dieter Schultz
14 hours ago edited
I like Jonathon Turley but, because his perspective is that of a law professor and not of a former US Attorney, I love ShipWreckedCrew's analyses of what's going on here. I think the legal 'battlespace', legalspace?, is not disposed to support the Dems' lawfare in this. He had this to say about the DC case.
...
Just as the DC case was going to occupy nearly the entirety of the period January to May for pretrial matters and the trial itself, the Florida case is likely to tie up the entirety of May to September — at least. Nothing in the DC case can be done while all the attorneys and Trump are occupied working on the Florida case.
THAT is the landscape for SCHEDULING the DC case whenever the Mandate is sent back to the District Court.
You can see all the moving pieces that are now almost beyond control in the lawfare that the Democrat establishment has put in place. Who decided to indict Trump in two different district courts on unrelated charges less than two months apart? Amateurish and idiotic.
Source: https://shipwreckedcrew.sub... //
Avatar
GBenton Dieter Schultz
14 hours ago
I see desperation. Sloppy execution and sequential slow motion train wreck that will do far more damage to the Dems when all of these cases either lose or get overturned, setting precedent that hampers their ability to do this in the future.
When someone behaves in a desperate and stupid manner with reckless disregard, it doesn't signal competence or 5D Chess (Silly Billy's wet dreams notwithstanding).
The walls have been closing in on Trump with nothing but failure save the 2020 election Steal for 7 years.
If the Dems were good at any of this, that wouldn't be the case.
They just have institutional power and broad corruption, but we have the Supreme court and 300+ Trump judges and a majority of red states, so their stupid schemes keep disintigrating on impact with reality.
I know that makes Never Trump eunuchs sad, but that's just a bonus. //
Dieter Schultz GBenton
14 hours ago
I don't see it.
My belief is that far, far, ... far too many people see chaos as the equivalent of a brilliant strategic and tactical mind but it isn't anything close to that.
In fact, it seems to me that both those that sow chaos and those that are captivated by it are easy targets for those people that can play... not 5D chess but... regular chess.
Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had ‘no evidence’ to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops. //
In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.
Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s first transcribed interview with the committee was conducted on January 28, 2022. In it, he told Cheney and her investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.
He also testified President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. Ornato also described White House frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.
Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. //
Cheney frequently points skeptics of her investigation to the Government Publishing Office website that posted, she said, “transcripts, documents, exhibits & our meticulously sourced 800+ page final report.” That website provides “supporting documents” to the claims made by Cheney and fellow anti-Trump enthusiasts.
However, transcripts of fewer than half of the 1,000 interviews the committee claims it conducted are posted on that site. It is unclear how many of the hidden transcripts include exonerating information suppressed by the committee. //
Ornato said White House concerns about January 6 were related to fears that left-wing groups would clash with Trump protesters and that no one in the White House anticipated a riot at the Capitol. Antifa and other left-wing groups were planning protests for the same day. Left-wing groups had been involved in violent assaults on Trump supporters following public protests. //
Once the Capitol was breached, the Trump White House pushed for immediate help from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and grew frustrated at the slow deployment of that help, according to the testimony. //
Days prior, Cheney had “secretly orchestrated” a pressure campaign to prevent the Defense Department from deploying resources on January 6, 2021. She organized an op-ed for the Washington Post from her father and other former secretaries of defense specifically to discourage Miller from taking action. //Cheney hid this testimony and instead asserted in her report that President Trump “never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6th or on any other day. Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist.” //
Because Ornato’s corroborating information had been suppressed from the public record by the January 6 committee, the Colorado Supreme Court improperly dismissed evidence.
Democrat Fani Willis’ legal troubles extend beyond recent revelations that she deceptively hired her otherwise under-qualified, secret, married lover to run the political prosecution of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Georgia. A new book from Mike Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman admits that a widely misunderstood phone call, on which Willis’ political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded. That means the entire prosecution could crumble with defendants having a new avenue to challenge Democrat lawfare. //
However, the person who recorded the phone call wasn’t in Fulton County or even in Georgia. That’s a problem. Jordan Fuchs, a political activist who serves as Raffensperger’s chief of staff, was in Florida, where it is illegal to record a call without all parties to the call consenting to the recording. She neither asked for nor received consent to record. //
Fuchs first gave The Washington Post fabricated quotes they later had to retract about a phone call President Trump had with someone in the elections office. Though Fuchs was not busted for her lie until March 2021, months after the fabricated quotes were used to impeach President Trump, the authors of the book say the embarrassment of being found out taught her the importance of recording phone calls such as the early January 2021 phone call that forms the basis of Willis’ investigation. They do not explain how this lesson worked in terms of the space-time continuum. //
Fuchs has never talked publicly about her taping of the phone call; she learned, after the fact, that Florida where she was at the time is one of fifteen states that requires two-party consent for the taping of phone calls. A lawyer for Raffensperger’s office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee’s lawyers assumed were due to her potential legal exposure. The committee agreed. But when she was called before a Fulton County special grand jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony. //
With Fani Willis repeatedly saying the entire investigation into Republicans was the result of a phone call that was illegally recorded, defendants might pursue legal recourse. It’s the latest challenge for Willis, even if the political ally judge reviewing whether she can continue prosecuting Georgia Republicans rules in her favor.
Fulton County DA Fani Willis used the phone call as the foundation for her RICO prosecution against Trump and his associates. According to a new book published by Michael Isikoff (who was an original pusher of the Russian collusion hoax), that call was illegally recorded by Jordan Fuchs.
Who is Fuchs? She is Raffensperger's Chief of Staff and has a very checkered history of political activism. Her hatred of Trump can be described as obsessive, and she was in Florida when she recorded the call in question. Why is that a problem? Because Florida is a two-party consent state. //
In other words, she broke the law because Trump did not give his consent to be recorded. In fact, according to Isikoff and his co-author, she didn't have Raffensperger's permission to record the call either. //
As Mollie Hemingway explains in her write-up on this revelation, this could put the entire case against Trump and his associates in jeopardy.
“Fruit of the poisonous trees is a doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained,” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. “As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential ‘tree’ is tainted, so is its ‘fruit.’ The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ was coined by Justice Frankfurter in his 1939 opinion in Nardone v. United States. The rule typically bars even testimonial evidence resulting from excludable evidence, such as a confession.” //
Rollin L
18 minutes ago
Not sure why this is a bombshell or revelation. When this call was leaked years ago, it was known then that it came from Raffensperger's office. This was a Presidential phone call which was by definition classified. It was illegal to leak even if it had been legally recorded. So the only news is the confirmation that the actual recording of the call was itself illegal. Federal charges should apply even if immunity was given from state charges. Jordan Fuchs should be charged, and Raffensperger for conspiracy to hide the crime. //
SD 6 24 minutes ago
If Fuchs was in Florida when she recorded the call… and Florida is a two party state… how can Willis give immunity for a crime that occurred in Florida? I think Florida would have standing in this case to prosecute Fuchs… not Georgia…
Did Donald Trump request National Guard troops to protect the Capitol Building on January 6th? That claim has been a point of contention for years, with figures like Liz Cheney steadfastly claiming no evidence exists to support it. Now, newly unearthed testimony, allegedly suppressed by the January 6th committee for years, is telling a different story.
As we've written many times on these pages, the only way this original investigative reporting could happen and can continue to happen is through the financial support of our readers. Clearly, we highlight corruption and malfeasance on the left, but sometimes those on the right need to be held to account too so conservatives can win hearts and minds - and elections. Much of the data we reported on with Ronna McDaniel was in publicly-available documents, but RedState was the first outlet to cover it, and still one of the only outlets to dive in. Why? Not only do we have investigative journalists who want to do the work; those journalists aren't constrained by corporate bean counters who are afraid of the ramifications. We go where the truth leads us.
Hannah Arendt once noted that Western intellectuals had adopted one of communism’s most effective tactics: making every debate about motive rather than the merits of an argument. This is the modus operandi of the modern leftist. You might be paid off by “dark money” or motivated by race (even unconsciously), but your arguments never really matter. Now the tactic is mainstreamed. When was the last time we had a real national debate on policy?
A responsible political media would treat allegations of Russian collusion as one does conspiracies about the moon landing or fluoride. Let’s face it, the biggest difference between Rachel Maddow and Alex Jones is aesthetics. Instead, no matter how many investigations disprove the conspiracy theory, no matter how many times its architects are caught lying, they keep being treated as good-faith political actors. The only way the media holds anyone accountable for the Russia collusion hoax, it seems, is to promote him. https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2024/02/13/natasha-bertrand-promoted-to-cnn-correspondent/
Engoron easily could have employed a non-fraudulent, apples-to-apples methodology. That method would calculate Trump’s purported “ill-gotten” interest “savings” by comparing the recourse loan rates that Trump actually received from the lenders with the recourse loan rates Trump would have received had he not allegedly overvalued his assets. But the problem for Engoron is that applying this proper economic analysis would result in $0 of “ill-gotten gains” for Trump. //
Unlike Trump’s purported “overvaluations,” Engoron’s financial manipulation has actual victims — Trump, his family, and the Trump organization. But the harm goes much deeper than that. Made in an election year against a front-running major party candidate, Engoron’s ruling is a financial fraud on America.
Under New York law, Trump cannot appeal this ruling without depositing the full amount, including interest, in a court account. Even for Trump, $455 million is hard to come by. Likewise, a bond would require a company to guarantee payment for a defendant who has been barred from doing business in New York and is facing the need to liquidate much of his portfolio. //
The judge's order also forbids Trump from borrowing from any financial institution chartered or registered in New York for three years, so he can't even borrow to pay any of it from any bank in New York, an additional unfair aspect.
So, who is going to issue a bond under such risky conditions? //
If the only protection in New York is the discretion of figures like James, few businesses would relish the future. The message is that you can expect blind and equal justice so long as you don’t run afoul of the Democrats in power.
GregInFla
2 hours ago
The law used by Carroll to sue Trump (which was limited to one year life) was passed for the sole purpose of suing Trump for the supposed rape, a rape that occurred so long ago that the victim cannot even say what year it occurred in. Carroll's lawyer was one who pushed the law in Albany. I think this travesty is a worse travesty for law than the King fraud case. Corrupt persecution at its finest.
anon-kje4 -> GregInFla
20 minutes ago
The New York law changing the statute of limitations for one year to get Trump is essentially a bill of attainder: "A bill of attainder is legislation that imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial." Such bills, or laws, are unconstitutional and the Supreme Court needs to swiftly knock it down in the interest of due process. How can anyone expect to gather evidence and witnesses 30 years after the fact, especially where, in this case, the charge was never brought to the defendants attention for years and years after the alleged incident.
TargaGTS | January 26, 2024 at 5:24 pm
Can someone explain how the NY legislature was allowed to essentially ”unexpire’ the statute of limitations that had LONG expired before they just changed the law a few years ago…almost certainly to allow this specific case to be litigated. I honestly don’t understand how that’s constitutional considering the limiting principles of the ex post facto clauses. //
DaveGinOly in reply to TargaGTS. | January 26, 2024 at 10:17 pm
The term “ex post facto” refers only to criminal laws. According to Madison, at least two important aspects of ex post facto laws were discussed. The first was if an explicit prohibition was necessary at all, because “everyone” knew such were not lawful (it was decided it would do no harm to make an explicit statement, and much help could be had from it). The second was a discussion of their nature, in which it was agreed that the term applied only to criminal law, and not to civil law. It was suggested the the prohibition should be extended to civil law, but the counter-argument that such a prohibition could be troublesome, for sometimes back-dated civil law is “unavoidable,” won the day. //
Olinser in reply to Olinser. | January 27, 2024 at 12:57 pm
Again, just a blatant lie. Here’s a list of what they were FORBIDDEN by the judge to present to the jury:
1) They were NOT ALLOWED to demonstrate that she had previously accused at least SIX different men of rape – from a random babysitter to Les Moonves – and that every single claim was provably false
2) They were NOT ALLOWED to present as evidence the coat she publicly claimed she wore during the alleged assault, when her own DNA report came back showing it had the DNA of multiple men…. but not Trump
3) They were NOT ALLOWED to present as evidence the Law and Order episode whose plot EXACTLY matched her alleged assault – the show that she had said multiple times she loved to ‘binge-watch’
4) they were NOT ALLOWED to present as evidence her multiple public statements that The Apprentice was her favorite show, the show starring her alleged rapist
...
8) They were NOT ALLOWED to present as evidence that the lawsuit was funded by Hoffman, who is also directly funding Trump’s political opponents
And that’s not even getting into that the was allowed to make an accusation without specifying the day, the month, or even the freaking YEAR that it happened, making it literally impossible for him to provide an alibi.
Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America President Dr. Kevin Roberts was invited to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, to appear on a panel about “What to Expect from a Possible Republican Administration” on Thursday.
In an op-ed penned ahead of the conference, Roberts wrote that he accepted the invitation to deliver the global elites a message. “Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits, and natural rights of nations, families, and individuals to govern themselves,” Roberts wrote, or “‘We, the People’” will “take matters into our own hands.”
Roberts certainly delivered that message. When asked about who will likely join a new Trump administration, Roberts said it will be those who wish to destroy “the grasp that political elites and unelected technocrats have over the average person.”
“The agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that’s ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum, and object to all of them wholesale,” he added. //
The Heritage Foundation president aptly pointed out that the WEF elites, “the media, the academy, government agencies, international organizations, corporations, and the arts,” don’t actually care about preserving “democracy.” They fear Trump because a Trump presidency poses an existential threat to their power — and Roberts did nothing to alleviate that fear. //
Roberts also condemned elites for scaring people into believing “so-called climate change” is an “existential” threat to humanity and pointed out that Davos’ “solutions” to the supposed climate crisis are killing people. “More than a billion people in the world have been lifted out of poverty in the last 35 years because of fossil fuels,” Roberts explained. Yet climate alarmists are shutting down energy production to replace it with insufficient green energy.
“China,” Roberts added, is “the No. 1 adversary not just to the United States, but to free people on planet Earth. Not only do we at Davos not say that, we give the Chinese Communist Party a platform.” //
“I think President Trump, if in fact he wins a second term, is going to be inspired by the wise words of Javier Milei, who said that he was in power not to guide sheep, but to awaken lions,” concluded the president of Heritage. “That’s what the average American and the average free person on planet Earth wants out of leaders.”
Simon Ateba @simonateba
·
BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon tells CNBC people are voting for Trump because he was right about the economy, immigration, and China, says people should be a bit more respectful of MAGA people. They know what they are doing. WATCH
10:57 AM · Jan 17, 2024
Vivek then listed some truths that were a battle cry:
"There are two genders...Fossil fuels are a requirement for human prosperity -- drill, frack, burn coal, embrace nuclear energy. Reverse racism is racism. An open border is not a border. Parents determine the education of their children. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind. Capitalism lifts us up from poverty. There are three branches of government in the United States, not four. And the U.S. Constitution is the strongest and greatest guarantor of freedom in human history."
Vivek said that is the truth that still gives hope to the free world.
"If we can revive that dream over group identity, victimhood, and grievance, then nobody in the world — not a nation, not a corporation, not a virus, not China, is going to defeat us," Vivek said. "That is what American exceptionalism is all about." //
mikwcas Lugger66
9 hours ago edited
I was the same way eight years ago for Ted Cruz. I will never be that short sighted or self righteous ever again. This is Politics, not my Pastor and the deacon board having a disagreement. I've grown. And I hope I live for the day that I can eventually vote for RDS on a presidential ticket. It probably just isn't gonna be on this one, and that's fine by me.
I think the country needs a redo here anyhow.
Just 23% of Haley supporters say they would vote for Trump in a matchup with Biden. The plurality of Haley supporters, 43%, would vote for Biden instead. //
Chris Paige
2 hours ago
Nope, you're reading that poll wrong: what it says is that Haley's supporters are Ds who either will not or cannot admit they're Ds. The last thing we should want as a nominee is someone who is preferred by Biden voters (you're guaranteeing ZERO enthusiasm &, even if by some miracle you win, you're guaranteeing that she'll be a RINO in office). These people don't agree w/ us on anything, so why should we put them in office? Better to run them out of the party for the same reason & in the same way that the Whigs always lost & the GOP won - trying to hold the pro slavery Whigs in the party was just doomed to failure; we had to get rid of them & we need to get rid of Haley's people. This is addition by subtraction (just like when we rid ourselves of pro slavery Whigs). //
afeblue32
2 hours ago
All that tells me is 1) Democrats are looking for anyone else, and 2) Nikki Haley appeals to Democrats.
Curmudgeon
10 hours ago
The bank in question testified at the trial for the defence. They stated they did their own assessment and agreed terms with Trump. The loan was paid back in full in accordance with the agreement. //
Blue State Deplorable
9 hours ago edited
This prosecution is patently ridiculous. First, there are no damages - the bank was made whole with interest. Second, the bank is not some unequal partner that was taken advantage of. This is their business and they have professionals that advise them accordingly. Third, and as Kevin O’Leary points out, this is a negotiation that happens every day in every city in America. It’s how commercial real estate development is often financed. Anyone who thinks Trump is guilty of something here is galactically stupid. //
Ready2Squeeze Romeg
9 hours ago
At least here in NY, valuations for purposes of taxes are always much lower than what the property is worth on the market. That is done intentionally as it fools a lot of people into thinking that they are getting a 'deal' on their tax assessment - when in fact everyone else's property is similarly 'under valued'.
But don't worry - the government just makes it up on the tax rate ...
It is encouraging, though, to see that there are candidates who understand the stakes and are willing to stand up and say that the nation and our republic are not served by imprisoning a former president for the sake of spite. //
Trump is playing a dangerous game ... that will do massive damage to the nation. //
Laocoön of Troy etba_ss
5 hours ago edited
This is 100% true. Trump hasn't learned a damned thing. He thinks this is a game and he'll be able to schmooze his way out of the hole he dug for himself. Like Trump University, Trump Steaks, and all of the rest of the scams he's run for most of his life. He really stupidly thinks he can talk his way outta this. I don't think dumbass properly describes his foolishness.
the Meese brief addresses the question of the universe of individuals who can be lawfully appointed to the position of “Special Counsel” in order for this regulation to fit under federal statutes and the Constitution’s Appointment Clause.
Meese states that the appointments of Patrick Fitzgerald, John Huber, and John Durham as past “Special Counsels” were all valid because, at the time of their appointment, each was serving as a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney within the Department of Justice. Their appointment as “Special Counsel” did not alter their authority; it just granted them the same authority over a particular investigation pursuant to the regulation that they otherwise would not have under their individual geographic limitations.
Meese and his co-authors first published the objection set forth in the current brief in law journals and other publications following Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel, given that he was an attorney in private practice at the time he was named Special Counsel to investigate former President Trump, but never to a court.
Now Meese and his co-authors are making the claim against Jack Smith to a court because of his effort to have the Supreme Court take up the immunity issue. This created an opportunity for them to raise the question by arguing that Smith lacks jurisdiction to seek the Court’s relief because he is not truly an “Officer” of the United States.
Congress alone has the authority to create federal offices not established by the Constitution. And the Attorney General cannot ex nihilo fashion offices as he sees fit. Nor has Congress given the Attorney General power to appoint a Special Counsel of this nature. Thus, without legal office, Smith cannot wield the authority of the United States, including his present attempt to seek relief in this Court. //
Because Jack Smith was a private citizen when appointed, never having been nominated by a President or confirmed by a vote of the Senate, he was not within the scope of individuals who could be authorized by Garland to exercise prosecutorial authority equivalent to United States Attorneys. Any action purporting to create such a position – or “office” -- and vest it with the same authority as United States Attorneys is unconstitutional because it was not “created by law." //
Among the most compelling arguments made by the Meese brief comes at the end when it notes the incarnation of a Special Counsel vested with a Javert-like mission, as compared to the statutorily-created officers of the Justice Department – the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, eleven Assistant AGs, and 94 U.S. Attorneys – all subject to Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. According to the Biden DOJ, the Attorney General can simply create a Special Counsel Office, appoint a non-government actor to that post, grant him the power to wield the authority of a grand jury, draw resources from various federal law enforcement agencies, and direct their conduct, and seek search and arrest warrants when loosed upon a member of the public.
If the Meese brief’s argument is correct, then all the actions taken by Smith have been without lawful authority under federal law – beginning with the use of the grand jury in Washington D.C. to build the cases he has brought against former President Trump. The outcome would almost certainly mean that the cases would be dismissed.
“Defendant contends that the Constitution grants him “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility” while he served as President of the United States, so long as he was not both impeached and convicted for those actions…. No court—or any other branch of government—has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold.” //
Earlier today, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Trump was not immune from civil suit based on claims related to January 6, on the ground that the conduct constesting the election was in his capacity as a candidate, not as a president.
If Donald Trump were the covert Kremlin agent Democrats made him out to be, he might have given President Vladimir Putin the same kind of red-carpet treatment that Democrats gave Chinese communist dictator Xi Jinping this week.
On Wednesday, President Xi was greeted in the hastily sanitized streets of San Francisco with all the fanfare of a communist parade, complete with waving red banners, to welcome the head of Red China. //
President Joe Biden is to China what Democrats claimed Trump was to Russia: that is, compromised by complex financial ties that raise significant conflicts of interest and warrant a congressional impeachment inquiry. What if the streets of Palm Beach, Florida were draped in Russian flags to greet President Putin after Donald Trump Jr. had accepted $3.5 million from an ex-Moscow mayor’s wife? //
Will the same people who raised a circus over ridiculous “pee tape” rumors about Trump and Russian prostitutes wonder if the Chinese have any more illicit films of Hunter Biden indulging in crack cocaine and hookers? We never found those pee tapes but there’s plenty of graphic porn online starring the first son. //
But even beyond the Bidens’ entanglement in influence-peddling schemes involving prominent Chinese leaders, there’s good reason why Democrats might want to leave a good impression on the world’s leading civil rights offender. A Federalist analysis of federal campaign donations found that companies credibly accused of harnessing Chinese slave labor overwhelmingly donated to Democrats. Of the nearly $40 million that went to congressional candidates between the two major parties in 2020, Democrats took home more than 85 percent while Republicans received less than 15.