Thanks for the video link.
Listening to it brought to mind one additional partial defense Trump has – he could argue that the exception to attorney-client privilege that was used to access the attorneys’ notes was improperly used. That would knock out a few of the charges.
Ok. After seeing the ugly details in the indictment…I guess he has to be charged. Some of the evidence wrt showing the docs to random people is extremely disturbing.
The civil unrest is going to be painful. And I see that he is already making big money peddling his witch hunt routine. Just the price we all have to pay, sadly.
Changing our behavior because of a little unrest? I think we need to Ferberize
One of my favorite lines from Breaking Bad:
“You don’t want a criminal lawyer, you want a criminal lawyer.”
Looks like Trump still has some friends at Fox News.
(I just came here to post that image. If anyone else was wondering if it’s a Photoshop: Fox News labels Joe Biden a ‘wannabe dictator’ during Trump speech | Fox News | The Guardian)
Did Biden lead a chant of “lock him up”?
There’s no way Biden can compete for the name “wannabe dictator” - Trump has that title sown up.
that’s the issue - EVERYTHING the Republicans accuse the Dems of is Projection - listen to the trump speeches, they are literally from the Quid-pro-quo impeachment of what he was accused of.
A glad-handing Trump was heard to declare, “Food for everyone!”
It turns out no one got anything. Not even a cafecito to-go.
A knowledgeable source assures New Times that Donald Trump’s stop at Versailles totaled about ten minutes, leaving no time for anyone to eat anything, much less place an order.
I’d be willing to bet that a large chunk of democrats would agree…
presumed innocent and all. balanced against a fed conviction rate that is high.
Trump has asked for the (first) classified docs trial to be postponed until after the election. Smith has replied, saying no thanks.
There is no basis in law or fact for proceeding in such an indeterminate and open-ended fashion, and the Defendants provide none. For the reasons discussed below and in the Government’s Motion, the Court should reset the trial date in this action for December 11, 2023.
But because “the Act was designed with the public interest firmly in mind,” in order to exclude such delay a “district court must find ‘that the ends of justice served . . . outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.’” Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 501 (2006). “That public interest cannot be served, the Act recognizes, if defendants may opt out of the Act entirely,” id., which the Defendants effectively try to do here by requesting an indefinite adjournment of the trial, for a minimum of some fifteen months.1 See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 519 (1972) (noting the “societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and at times in opposition to, the interests of the accused.”).
As for the impact of the Presidential Records Act on this prosecution, any argument that it mandates dismissal of the Indictment or forms a defense to the charges here borders on frivolous. The PRA is not a criminal statute, and in no way purports to address the retention of national security information. The Defendants are, of course, free to make whatever arguments they like for dismissal of the Indictment, and the Government will respond promptly. But they should not be permitted to gesture at a baseless legal argument, call it “novel,” and then claim that the Court will require an indefinite continuance in order to resolve it.
I would have thought the matter should be settled promptly. If we are to let him see more state secrets we need to at least be sure no mishandling happened just for comfort.
The Georgia Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Trump’s motion to quash special grand jury report and disqualify DA Willis from prosecuting.
“Even if the petition were procedurally appropriate, Petitioner has not shown he would be entitled to the relief he seeks.”
Trump has posted on Truth Social that he got a target letter from Jack Smith re: 1/6 on Sunday. I’m trying to ignore most media speculation about pending indictments, but this is a bit more concrete than that.
Another possible federal indictment, this time on attempted election fraud?
(Supposedly free link)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-jack-smith-jan-6-letter-classified-documents-hearing-e679b87?st=6ivdmo1cfgloboj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
