TRUMP CONVICTED

BudmanTX

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Winning.

Appeals court upholds key provisions of Trump gag order in federal Jan. 6 case
An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack special counsel Jack Smith while leaving in place limitations on other parties.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirms a prior ruling from Judge Tanya Chutkan, who barred Trump from making statements that “target” foreseeable witnesses, court staff and prosecutors.

The appeals court refined that directive, barring Trump from any statements “made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with” the course of the case.

But it removed Smith from the list of protected court staff, giving Trump free reign to go after a prosecutor he is fond of taunting as “deranged.”
“We agree with the district court that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s public statements pose a significant and imminent threat to the fair and orderly adjudication of the ongoing criminal proceeding, warranting a speech-constraining protective order. The district court’s order, however, sweeps in more protected speech than is necessary,” the panel wrote.
DEVELOPING
thehill.com

Appeals court upholds key provisions of Trump gag order in federal Jan. 6 case

An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack…
thehill.com thehill.com

READ: Trump gag order appeals court ruling
An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack special counsel Jack Smith while leaving in place limitations on other parties.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirms a prior ruling from Judge Tanya Chutkan, who barred Trump from making statements that “target” foreseeable witnesses, court staff and prosecutors.

Read the ruling here:

thehill.com

READ: Trump gag order appeals court ruling

An appeals court largely upheld a gag order limiting former President Trump’s statements as he faces federal prosecution for seeking to block the transfer of power, broadening his ability to attack…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
i was just reading about this.....best part imo

GA2VjWtXIAAHJc3.png

basically he's not better than anyone else.....
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Seems some people's opinions are not worth a lot.

Vance: ‘Preposterous’ to think Trump would abuse power if reelected
Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on Sunday argued it would be “preposterous” to think former President Trump would abuse power if reelected to the White House in 2024.

“The idea that Trump is going to be radically different that what he was four years ago is preposterous,” Vance said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He was an effective, successful president. I think he will be an effective, successful president again. That’s why I have endorsed him.”

Vance claimed Trump’s presidency brought “peace” and “prosperity,” and he dug into economic conditions under President Biden.
“Look, the guy was president for four years. We had peace. We had prosperity. We had wages rising faster than inflation,” Vance said. “Joe Biden has been president for three years now. The average Ohio family pays $10,000 more to afford the same standard of living.”
Vance’s remarks came after CNN anchor Jake Tapper pointed out “a lot of conservatives” have “deep concerns” about a second term for Trump and what it’d mean for democracy.

Tapper played a clip from last week of former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) discussing her concerns that Trump would try to seize power for a second time in 2024.

“[Trump] already tried to seize power once. So it shouldn’t be hard for anybody to imagine that he will do it again. Once a president decides that he’s above the law, as Donald Trump has, everything unravels nearly immediately,” Cheney said in a previous interview with Tapper.
Vance, a strong ally of Trump, argued the push to make the election about the past indicates “the fact that Democrats don’t have much to run on,” while Republicans do.

Tapper pushed back on Vance’s argument, claiming Trump is the one discussing the past the most, as evidenced by his repeated false assertions of the 2020 election being stolen from him.
“So, look, you just showed me a clip of Liz Cheney, and I think that’s a person who is clearly obsessed with 2020 and talks [about] almost nothing other than Jan. 6, 2021,” Vance shot back.
Cheney, a three-term conservative who emerged as one of the most outspoken GOP critics of Trump, has repeatedly warned of the risks to democracy that a second Trump term would bring.

These concerns, along with other details about the state of the Republican Party and the moments leading up to and after Jan. 6, are featured in her new memoir titled, “Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning.”

“I think, if you look at what [Trump] is out there campaigning on, he’s campaigning on redelivering peace and prosperity for the American people,” Vance said Sunday. “Now, if you want to talk about the 2020 election, we can have that conversation, but I want to talk about, and I think President Trump wants to talk about, the future. That’s what this election is going to be decided on. That’s what I’m focused on.”
Tapper then noted, “I think the concern is that he wouldn’t stock his administration with the JD Vances of the world. He would stock them with individuals who would not be able to tell him no.”

Vance later sidestepped a question on whether he would be interested in running as former Trump’s vice president amid reports he might be on Trump’s short list. Vance did not say whether he would take the job if offered but said he would help the former president as much as possible.
Trump endorsed Vance’s 2022 Senate run, and Vance previously announced his support for Trump’s 2024 reelection bid last January.
thehill.com

Vance: ‘Preposterous’ to think Trump would abuse power if reelected

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on Sunday argued it would be “preposterous” to think former President Trump would abuse power if reelected to the White House in 2024. “The idea that Trump …
thehill.com thehill.com
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
printer said:
Seems some people's opinions are not worth a lot.

Vance: ‘Preposterous’ to think Trump would abuse power if reelected
Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on Sunday argued it would be “preposterous” to think former President Trump would abuse power if reelected to the White House in 2024.

“The idea that Trump is going to be radically different that what he was four years ago is preposterous,” Vance said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He was an effective, successful president. I think he will be an effective, successful president again. That’s why I have endorsed him.”

Vance claimed Trump’s presidency brought “peace” and “prosperity,” and he dug into economic conditions under President Biden.
“Look, the guy was president for four years. We had peace. We had prosperity. We had wages rising faster than inflation,” Vance said. “Joe Biden has been president for three years now. The average Ohio family pays $10,000 more to afford the same standard of living.”
Vance’s remarks came after CNN anchor Jake Tapper pointed out “a lot of conservatives” have “deep concerns” about a second term for Trump and what it’d mean for democracy.

Tapper played a clip from last week of former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) discussing her concerns that Trump would try to seize power for a second time in 2024.

“[Trump] already tried to seize power once. So it shouldn’t be hard for anybody to imagine that he will do it again. Once a president decides that he’s above the law, as Donald Trump has, everything unravels nearly immediately,” Cheney said in a previous interview with Tapper.
Vance, a strong ally of Trump, argued the push to make the election about the past indicates “the fact that Democrats don’t have much to run on,” while Republicans do.

Tapper pushed back on Vance’s argument, claiming Trump is the one discussing the past the most, as evidenced by his repeated false assertions of the 2020 election being stolen from him.
“So, look, you just showed me a clip of Liz Cheney, and I think that’s a person who is clearly obsessed with 2020 and talks [about] almost nothing other than Jan. 6, 2021,” Vance shot back.
Cheney, a three-term conservative who emerged as one of the most outspoken GOP critics of Trump, has repeatedly warned of the risks to democracy that a second Trump term would bring.

These concerns, along with other details about the state of the Republican Party and the moments leading up to and after Jan. 6, are featured in her new memoir titled, “Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning.”

“I think, if you look at what [Trump] is out there campaigning on, he’s campaigning on redelivering peace and prosperity for the American people,” Vance said Sunday. “Now, if you want to talk about the 2020 election, we can have that conversation, but I want to talk about, and I think President Trump wants to talk about, the future. That’s what this election is going to be decided on. That’s what I’m focused on.”
Tapper then noted, “I think the concern is that he wouldn’t stock his administration with the JD Vances of the world. He would stock them with individuals who would not be able to tell him no.”

Vance later sidestepped a question on whether he would be interested in running as former Trump’s vice president amid reports he might be on Trump’s short list. Vance did not say whether he would take the job if offered but said he would help the former president as much as possible.
Trump endorsed Vance’s 2022 Senate run, and Vance previously announced his support for Trump’s 2024 reelection bid last January.
thehill.com

Vance: ‘Preposterous’ to think Trump would abuse power if reelected

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on Sunday argued it would be “preposterous” to think former President Trump would abuse power if reelected to the White House in 2024. “The idea that Trump …
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
1702241437173.gif
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Herb & Suds said:
It seems dear leader is no longer going to testify as the last defense witness in his trial
Anyone surprised
I’m sure it’s less important than Hunter Biden lol
I can’t believe he ever was the “leader “ of our country

View attachment 5350348View attachment 5350349
:clap::lol:
Click to expand...
toward the end of that day's court session, the expert witness he's referring to said this regarding a financial statement made by Trump's organization:

"I've never seen a statement that provides so much detail and is so transparent," he said. "The footnotes provide an awesome amount of information."

Well, what should one expect an expert witness to say after they were paid $900,000 for 650 billable hours of -- doing what, exactly?

But, OH, the Footnotes! :lol:
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Herb & Suds said:
It seems dear leader is no longer going to testify as the last defense witness in his trial
Anyone surprised
I’m sure it’s less important than Hunter Biden lol
I can’t believe he ever was the “leader “ of our country

View attachment 5350348View attachment 5350349
:clap::lol:
Click to expand...
I do hope the Palm Beach County tax assessor accepts defendant’s $1.8bn valuation.

Will be wild.
 
Last edited:
BudmanTX

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
okie dokie......looks like Jack Smith is going for the juggular of the orange potato head

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734267120844677549

here is the writ to SCOTUS: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211115417267_No. 23-624 U.S. v. Donald J. Trump Petition.pdf

and basically this is from the jack smith parody acct explaining things kinda....

To sum it up:

He appealed the DC district ruling denying his motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity.

He also filed to have all DC trial proceedings be placed on hold while his appeal was being adjudicated by the appellate courts.

This is currently being reviewed by Judge Chutkan. We filed (yesterday) to highlight what aspects of the case should continue and why.

Similar to the district court, the appellate court would have most likely denied his motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity. (2-4 weeks)

He would’ve then appealed to SCOTUS, maintaining all trial proceedings should be stayed while they considered his appeal.

This would result in potentially weeks and months of delay to the DC trial.

This VERY rare procedural move takes the issue of presidential immunity straight to SCOTUS, pushing for an expedited ruling.

The end of the line.

No more exits.

Basically let SCOTUS make the rule and then eveything below doesn't mean anything.....trial in March
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
BudmanTX said:
okie dokie......looks like Jack Smith is going for the juggular of the orange potato head

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734267120844677549

here is the writ to SCOTUS: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211115417267_No. 23-624 U.S. v. Donald J. Trump Petition.pdf

and basically this is from the jack smith parody acct explaining things kinda....

To sum it up:

He appealed the DC district ruling denying his motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity.

He also filed to have all DC trial proceedings be placed on hold while his appeal was being adjudicated by the appellate courts.

This is currently being reviewed by Judge Chutkan. We filed (yesterday) to highlight what aspects of the case should continue and why.

Similar to the district court, the appellate court would have most likely denied his motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity. (2-4 weeks)

He would’ve then appealed to SCOTUS, maintaining all trial proceedings should be stayed while they considered his appeal.

This would result in potentially weeks and months of delay to the DC trial.

This VERY rare procedural move takes the issue of presidential immunity straight to SCOTUS, pushing for an expedited ruling.

The end of the line.

No more exits.

Basically let SCOTUS make the rule and then eveything below doesn't mean anything.....trial in March
Click to expand...
Seems like everybody has had enough of the delays except the one who is most loudly proclaiming that he is innocent.


This from Tromp and his team of yes men lawyers:

Trump’s presidential campaign criticized Smith for trying to go around the appeals court. “There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters. President Trump will continue to fight for Justice and oppose these authoritarian tactics,” the campaign said in a statement.

www.huffpost.com

Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court To Rule Quickly Whether Trump Can Be Prosecuted

Later Monday, the justices indicated they would decide quickly whether to hear the case.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com

What, are they signaling here? That they believe Trump cannot get a fair hearing from the Supreme Court and SCOTUS are participating in "this sham" to injure Trump? or are they saying thee is no need to bother the justices with this trivial sham? Why not agree to expedite? Perhaps they already know how bad of an argument it is and that its only purpose was to delay the trial?

I haven't read much else on the matter but the latter seems true to me. Even Trump knows that his plea of immunity is BS and he's angry that his delay tactic is being foiled by the highest court in the land. He has nowhere else to go. All signals are that the trial will begin on Jack Smith's schedule.

I am delighted and amazed.
 
Last edited:
topcat

topcat

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Seems like everybody has had enough of the delays except the one who is most loudly proclaiming that he is innocent.


This from Tromp and his team of yes men lawyers:

Trump’s presidential campaign criticized Smith for trying to go around the appeals court. “There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters. President Trump will continue to fight for Justice and oppose these authoritarian tactics,” the campaign said in a statement.

www.huffpost.com

Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court To Rule Quickly Whether Trump Can Be Prosecuted

Later Monday, the justices indicated they would decide quickly whether to hear the case.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com

What, are they signaling here? That they believe Trump cannot get a fair hearing from the Supreme Court and SCOTUS are participating in "this sham" to injure Trump? or are they saying thee is no need to bother the justices with this trivial sham? Why not agree to expedite? Perhaps they already know how bad of an argument it is and that its only purpose was to delay the trial?

I haven't read much else on the matter but the latter seems true to me. Even Trump knows that his plea of immunity is BS and he's angry that his delay tactic is being foiled by the highest court in the land. He has nowhere else to go. All signals are that the trial will begin on Jack Smith's schedule.

I am delighted and amazed.
Click to expand...
The Defendant can only get a fair trial in Russia, Russia, Russia. If the appeals court rules against him, the Supremes are off the hook and won't take up the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top