INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:18 pm
Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
THE GOVERNMENT DID SOMETHING
CLEVER, POSSIBLY AN ARGUMENT FOR
THE SUPREME COURT DOWN THE ROAD.
THEY REFERENCED ONE OF THE
AMICUS BRIEFS.
THEY SAID IT COULD BE DECIDED AS
A MATTER OF THE EXECUTIVE
VESTING CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH SAYS THERE'S
AN INTEREST -- THERE'S A
GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN MAKING
SURE FOLLOWING EACH ELECTION
THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS PASSED
ON, THAT CONTROL OF THE WHITE
HOUSE IS PASSED ON TO THE WINNER
OF THAT ELECTION, EXECUTIVE
VESTING.
SO YOU MIGHT SAY THAT HERE WHERE
A FORMER PRESIDENT INTERFERED
WITH THAT SPECIFIC CLAUSE,
THERE'S NO IMMUNITY.
THAT VIEW, IF ADOPTED, I THINK
THE PANEL DECISION, FRANKLY WILL
BE BROADER SAYING THERE'S NO
IMMUNITY.
BUT PERHAPS THAT WILL BE
ATTRACTIVE TO THE SUPREME COURT.
Mueller, She Wrote @MuellerSheWrote wrote: Today, Trump’s lawyers argued that you can only indict a president if he’s been impeached and convicted by Congress. But check out the argument Trump’s lawyers made during his impeachment. And the judges brought this up today during the immunity hearing.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources
As ever, when they say "Sources" with that guy, they mean Tramp himself screaming it down the phone at them.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pm From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources Trump himself, while his lawyers scream and try to smash down the door to shut him the hell up.
Oh please, oh please, oh please...raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pm From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources
He's represented. I have never seen a judge allow that sort of crap when the party is represented.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pm From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources
Ahem:raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pmhttps://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources
An individual may represent themselves in court (a non-attorney cannot represent an organization, however).Former President Trump intends to personally deliver part of the defense's closing argument at the conclusion of his civil fraud trial in New York
I think we have an answer.realist wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:01 pmHe's represented. I have never seen a judge allow that sort of crap when the party is represented.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pm From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources
But that's only my 40 years of experience. OMMV
Lots more at the link above. A link to the ruling with the sharp objection from GOP-appointed judges - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 18.0_4.pdfOver objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account.
The social media company filed a petition last year asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel's July ruling, which upheld a lower court's order holding that Special Counsel Jack Smith's office could execute a search warrant on Trump's Twitter account without notifying the former president.
The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Twitter's petition in a one-sentence decision issued Tuesday.
Because no member of the court requested a vote, a formal tally was not recorded among the 11-member appellate court.
However, the court's four members who were appointed to their posts by Republican presidents voiced their opposition to the handling of the matter in a fiery 12-page statement attached to the decision.
The "statement" notes the prosecutor knew the messages also were archived by a government agency, but if the prosecutor had asked the agency, the agency would have informed the former president, who likely would have invoked privilege (and created delay).Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:27 pm IANAL and didn't read the GOP judges' replies, but as a general normal person, I'd assume that tweets belong to twitter, not to the person who posts them. Thus whoever writes the tweet wouldn't need notification for info re any tweet or twitter account - a warrant would notify twitter. But what do I know.
The way I read that sentence, the four judges who wrote the nastygram DID vote to hear the case.Over objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account.
That's what the article says; here's what the court actually said:noblepa wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:40 pmThe way I read that sentence, the four judges who wrote the nastygram DID vote to hear the case.Over objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account.
Note that it says that the court rejected the petition "over the objections of four judges . . .".
This is fairly boilerplate language, but if a judge had called for vote, that would be noted. If at least one judge (but less than a majority) had voted to rehear en banc, that would have been noted.D.C. Cir. wrote:Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, the response thereto, the amicus curiae brief filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied.
This might have been gamesmanship by the objectors dissenters statement-makers; it might have been an attempt to avoid a losing vote but still get the chance to say something. (Which sounds dumb, but internal court politics aren't always driven by smarts.)Because no member of the court requested a vote, a formal tally was not recorded among the 11-member appellate court.
So, once again, Trump's incompetent lawyers did nothing when they should have done something.The options at this juncture are limited. Once informed of the search, President Trump could have intervened to protect claims of executive privilege, but did not, and so these issues are not properly before the en banc court.