The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[BigOrangeMojo]

Not sure it's unconstitutional but the fine's basis isn't rooted in economic reality...

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Apple, Facebook, Google, Nvidia - 4 of the 5 most valuable companies in the world. All CA based.

Go back to my Hilton comment above. There is a reason that most of the Company owned hotels was in NY and CA and it wasn't because they liked dealing with risk.

I'm referring to corporate headquarters.

 

[volgr]

Nope. You aren't accurate.

Not one peer has said they created fake income statements to give to an appraiser.

Not one.

They say what Trump did wasn't unusual and this was how business has been done in NY for decades....but yeah, they didn't specifically mention "fake income statements" as if that is a win for you. Then again you answered phones at Hilton so you have more inside info than these people. You have more knowledge than the banks that actually lent to him.

Ridiculous.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No crap, you loon. Do you not remember the multitude of of ongoing lawsuits when elector slate deadlines hit? Trump very well could have been the winner by 1/6. Again, these people were signing alternate elector slates to try and FOLLOW the law, not skirt it. Everyone knew who the real electors were and who the alternate electors were. Again, if you support this action against your fellow citizens, you are pathetic scum.

As much as I detest leftists like yourself, I wouldn't support you being prosecuted for doing what these people did. It is beyond crazy that people on your side are cheering this on.

Their hatred is off the charts

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

They say what Trump did wasn't unusual and this was how business has been done in NY for decades....but yeah, they didn't specifically mention "fake income statements" as if that is a win for you. Then again you answered phones at Hilton so you have more inside info than these people. You have more knowledge than the banks that actually lent to him.

Ridiculous.

You clearly have other people thinking for you instead of actually reading the ruling so you resort to name calling.

I'll take my W while you got read up on what other people are telling you to think...

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Mojo is right.

Not really.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

I'm referring to corporate headquarters.

Look at the biggest market cap companies are where they are HQ'ed. It's WA or CA....

These companies are where the IT talent is and that's not MS or KY or AL....

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Not really.

Once you said HQ, you just proved my point. 6 largest market cap companies are WA or CA, both liberal bastions...

You sound like my spouse, ha ha

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Look at the biggest market cap companies are where they are HQ'ed. It's WA or CA....

These companies are where the IT talent is and that's not MS or KY or AL....

The talent will go where the jobs are. They are stupid to stay in those high tax states. But I'm glad they are because they are run by leftist fools anyway and I don't want their political money coming here.

 

[hog88]

Not really.

He's absolutely right. If the money wasn't there to be made no business would be operating in NY or CA. Now for Corp HQs we've seen a lot of them move out and move south, nobody in their right mind should be investing in non-revenue generating property in either state. Those that are, are most likely doing it out of desire for status.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

He's absolutely right. If the money wasn't there to be made no business would be operating in NY or CA. Now for Corp HQs we've seen a lot of them move out and move south, nobody in their right mind should be investing in non-revenue generating property in either state. Those that are, are most likely doing it out of desire for status.

If you say so.

 

[Sudden Impact]

No crap, you loon. Do you not remember the multitude of of ongoing lawsuits when elector slate deadlines hit? Trump very well could have been the winner by 1/6. Again, these people were signing alternate elector slates to try and FOLLOW the law, not skirt it. Everyone knew who the real electors were and who the alternate electors were. Again, if you support this action against your fellow citizens, you are pathetic scum.

As much as I detest leftists like yourself, I wouldn't support you being prosecuted for doing what these people did. It is beyond crazy that people on your side are cheering this on.

I agree they were fooled, but the Wisconsin electors were not prosecuted, were they? Hitt did a great interview on 60 minutes explaining the ramifications of not signing the documents. The reasons he did sign the documents were reasonable. Fear and threats also were in play in the aftermath if he chose not to sign. So it is understandable he signed it, but does not stop the election interference case against Trump and his henchman. The law student even knew something was up. All of this was another con of the system.

 

[luthervol]

No crap, you loon. Do you not remember the multitude of of ongoing lawsuits when elector slate deadlines hit? Trump very well could have been the winner by 1/6. Again, these people were signing alternate elector slates to try and FOLLOW the law, not skirt it. Everyone knew who the real electors were and who the alternate electors were. Again, if you support this action against your fellow citizens, you are pathetic scum.

As much as I detest leftists like yourself, I wouldn't support you being prosecuted for doing what these people did. It is beyond crazy that people on your side are cheering this on.

What kind of scum are the people who fooled/intimidated them into signing the document?

 

[LibertyVol]

Oh, Trump will lose the general election there is no doubt about that and it won't matter who the D nominee is. I agree with you that the Rs will most likely lose the House and lose even more seats in the Senate.

I don’t think you will ever see another Republican president. You may not ever see another Republican Senate either. With the lack of controls over elections the Dems will win every time. With mail in ballots you could even elect a person with dementia.

 

[SuzyVol]

More of a mostly uninformed gut feeling, having seen this before sort of from the criminal legal side and definitely from the right wing punditry side, and maybe a bit of what I don’t see.

The reality is nuanced: judges apply legal standards to the facts as they see them.

I don’t know the exact legal standard here, but it is an extraordinary ask to have a prosecutor disqualified from a case. It’s a high bar.
What’s posted here is presumably the best bits for Trump, posted by a bunch of twitter accounts that have no integrity and absolutely nothing to lose by being all hype and no substance. In the eyes of moronic people who rely on them, people like Robert Barnes, Clay Travis, Johnathan Turley, and Julie Karen can never be wrong. If they get it wrong it’s because the judge must be be biased against Trump. There’s no skin in it for them. They’re just cheerleaders.
By their account, it seems Trump team established that Wade and Willis have a relationship and take trips together and Wade paid for travel.
Seems like everything else is, at a minimum, contested.
Very little has been posted in the way of contradictory evidence.
They’re basically just relying on the judge finding Willis and Wade not credible. That’s easy for cheerleaders to declare mission accomplished, but it’s another huge ask.

For the judge to see the facts in Trump’s favor, means the judge has to find that the prosecutor whose deputies practice in their court every day, confining rapists and murderers, is such a liar that even her essentially incontestable statements can’t be accepted as truthful.

Again, I don’t know every detail about what happened today, but I’ll be surprised if that happens.

I think this was more than likely a worthwhile motion on these facts, I think voters ought to remember it when Fani Willis comes up for re-election, but it’s probably more napalm of embarrassment with a bit of Hail Mary than a high probability silver bullet.

Do you think the judge might disqualify her/him/them based on an appearance of impropriety rather than a finding of impropriety? This would not require him to decide the veracity of their testimony.

 

[RockyTop85]

You only had to watch 15 minutes, which at 1.5x is like 10 minutes. Then again, it is easier to not watch the 10 minutes so you can still run your act.

I stated plainly a limited opinion about the case, gave a detailed explanation of my reasoning, and pointed out the areas where my knowledge could fall short.

I’m not sure why that’s triggering for you.

 

[BreatheUT]

And Biden voters are cheering the current administration for actually trying to lock up its opponent.

We have never seen anything like this that I can recall in American history unless we go back to the wild west. The persecution of Trump looks like vigilante street justice in our courts. Add that to the fact that district attorney's in blue cities release criminals time and time again to create havoc on society then its hard to trust the justice system in this country. It's been made into a mockery by dishonest reprobates and is so pervasive I wonder if hell is waiting for these folks. Only voting for the right people can correct what were seeing all over the country. I doubt that happens.

 

[BreatheUT]

It didn't but it makes your "objective truth" post laughable bs. Trump voters cheered the idea he wanted his opponents locked up. He didn't do it because they were friends but he knew the ignorant would eat it up. How many times did you chant it?

Let's not ignore where the chants came from though it was just a funny chant and there was no real intent (1) Clinton destroyed evidence that she had been discussing top secret info on personal servers, devices, email, etc. (2) Clinton was one of the leaders behind the faux dossier.

Most know the Clinton's are corrupt.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

That just isn't accurate. His peers have already said this is the way business is done in NYC. In the video I linked, an attorney in NYC said this is how business is done. If what you say is accurate, a bank would have sued Trump, instead they testified FOR him.

This far-right Trump cheerleading attorney in NYC runs a debt collection business. No expertise in multinational finance or preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP (both of what this case hinged on)

This is equivalent to a chiropractor analyzing a brain surgery operation...

 

[Sudden Impact]

We have never seen anything like this that I can recall in American history unless we go back to the wild west. The persecution of Trump looks like vigilante street justice in our courts. Add that to the fact that district attorney's in blue cities release criminals time and time again to create havoc on society then its hard to trust the justice system in this country. It's been made into a mockery by dishonest reprobates and is so pervasive I wonder if hell is waiting for these folks. Only voting for the right people can correct what were seeing all over the country. I doubt that happens.

Funny. Trump has admitted some of the Crimes he has been charged with. The problem I see is that he can't keep his mouth shut and he has been given to much leeway to convince people like you he is an innocent man. He has ripped the Republican party apart and on numerous occasions nsulted Veterans. He states whatever whenever for attention. Yet dummies follow his lead. Trump is nothing but a gimmick. no more no less nothing else. Yet the low standards som of you support for the Presidentcy is pretty sick. Go buy some Tennis Shoes or give money to his GOFUNDME page.

 

[Grand Vol]

Well... they brought it on themselves.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Fani Willis Took Over $8,500 from First Campaign as ‘Repayment’ for Loans Missing Paperwork, Submitted Without Date and Signature​

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis claimed during her Thursday testimony at the hearing to disqualify her from the Georgia election case against former President Donald Trump that she took a significant amount of cash from her first election and used it to replenish her physical cash reserves. Willis claimed to use the physical cash to repay her former lover, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, for luxurious vacations.

Willis made the claim about keeping “some of the cash” from her first campaign when asked about the origin of her cash savings. The district attorney claimed she has been saving physical cash “all my life,” and gave as an example, “When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of that.”

The district attorney also testified on Thursday that she lost $50,000 in that election, which she admitted left her “broke” toward the end of 2018.


Willis apparently referred to her 2018 campaign to become a Superior Court Judge in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit, which she lost in a runoff election held on July 24, 2018.

On May 15, 2018, a report suggests Willis loaned her campaign $19,000. However, the document, titled a Two Business Day Report, is required to be submitted within two days of any transaction of more than $1,000 received by the candidate, and it was not received by Georgia elections staff until June 13, 2018. The document itself was additionally submitted without a date or signature.

Willis’ campaign reported that it received the loan just one week prior to the May 22, 2018 general election, during which neither she nor Judge Kevin Farmer received a majority, causing an automatic runoff election.

Though Willis went on to lose the runoff election on July 24, 2018, a campaign filing made just six days prior to Election Day revealed her campaign received another $30,000 loan.

For this loan, however, there is no Two Business Day Report available online. Willis, additionally, never provided the details of either loan in her subsequent Campaign Contribution Disclosure Statements for 2018.

Fani Willis Took Over $8,500 from First Campaign as ‘Repayment’ for Loans Missing Paperwork, Submitted Without Date and Signature | The Star News Network

thestarnewsnetwork.com

 

[RockyTop85]

Do you think the judge might disqualify her/him/them based on an appearance of impropriety rather than a finding of impropriety? This would not require him to decide the veracity of their testimony.

Tl;dr: I don’t think the law requires her disqualification, but I assume that the judge could safely go beyond that without being overturned (because I assume the standard would be pretty favorable on appeal). A lot of trial judges refuse to go beyond what is legally required, but I don’t know whether this judge is like that or whether a former president as the defendant would prompt him to do that.

Long version:
Maybe?

Andrew Fleischmann wrote an opEd for The Hill and he basically said that would be for the best. He’s a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta, I’m familiar with his punditry, and posted a podcast where he was a guest when this case was filed. His statements about criminal law and how courts operate are generally correct, I find his opinions about how criminal courts should do better are, at a minimum, evidence that he knows his **** and actually practices.

The Georgia case against Trump may be fatally compromised

Fani Willis bulldozed into the courtroom with testimony so nonresponsive and embittered that the trial court had to threaten to strike her testimony — a remedy I have never seen employed in a Georg…

thehill.com

He raises some good points about events, filings, and testimony that I wasn’t familiar with from just not having followed this part of the case.

Alternatively, here is a very long pre-hearing article claiming that Georgia law doesn’t require disqualification unless the defendant can show prejudice, which is more in line with what I expected the standard to be.

Why Fani Willis Is Not Disqualified Under Georgia Law

Analysis of Georgia law on disqualifying prosecutors in light of allegations against DA Fani Willis and Nathan Wade.

www.justsecurity.org

The legal system is, by design and beyond, deferential to prosecutors. Prosecutors abuse that. Usually Judges don’t care. So, it’s easy to predict that nothing will happen here because that’s how it would go down in Georgia vs. Everyman.

I see the standards articulated in the other article as a floor that would allow the judge to go above them. I assume it would be up to his discretion if it were appealed. Most trial judges I’ve practiced in front of never go above the floor, but there’s a lot of media attention on this case, it’s against a former president, so maybe he will.

Side note about Fleischmann and others: Criminal defense attorneys experience great frustration over that dynamic and have opinions about how things would be better if the parties were on more of an equal footing. I think a lot of more publicly facing attorneys who do or have done criminal defense jumped off the wagon of the Georgia case when this came up. Ken White being another.

For myself, their relationship and the complexity of the case (which was criticized from the beginning) definitely seems shady, but doesn’t change the charged conduct. It’s also eyeroll inducing for Trump to get treated the way everybody should, skate, and then everything reverts back to the status quo for everybody else. So that’s why I mostly checked out. I want them both to lose.

 

[whodeycin85]

Nope. You aren't accurate.

Not one peer has said they created fake income statements to give to an appraiser.

Not one.

Got a link to those fake statements??? Your the 1st person I've heard mention that specific issue

 

[SuzyVol]

Tl;dr: I don’t think the law requires her disqualification, but I assume that the judge could safely go beyond that without being overturned (because I assume the standard would be pretty favorable on appeal). A lot of trial judges refuse to go beyond what is legally required, but I don’t know whether this judge is like that or whether a former president as the defendant would prompt him to do that.

Long version:
Maybe?

Andrew Fleischmann wrote an opEd for The Hill and he basically said that would be for the best. He’s a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta, I’m familiar with his punditry, and posted a podcast where he was a guest when this case was filed. His statements about criminal law and how courts operate are generally correct, I find his opinions about how criminal courts should do better are, at a minimum, evidence that he knows his **** and actually practices.

The Georgia case against Trump may be fatally compromised

Fani Willis bulldozed into the courtroom with testimony so nonresponsive and embittered that the trial court had to threaten to strike her testimony — a remedy I have never seen employed in a Georg…

thehill.com

He raises some good points about events, filings, and testimony that I wasn’t familiar with from just not having followed this part of the case.

Alternatively, here is a very long pre-hearing article claiming that Georgia law doesn’t require disqualification unless the defendant can show prejudice, which is more in line with what I expected the standard to be.

Why Fani Willis Is Not Disqualified Under Georgia Law

Analysis of Georgia law on disqualifying prosecutors in light of allegations against DA Fani Willis and Nathan Wade.

www.justsecurity.org

The legal system is, by design and beyond, deferential to prosecutors. Prosecutors abuse that. Usually Judges don’t care. So, it’s easy to predict that nothing will happen here because that’s how it would go down in Georgia vs. Everyman.

I see the standards articulated in the other article as a floor that would allow the judge to go above them. I assume it would be up to his discretion if it were appealed. Most trial judges I’ve practiced in front of never go above the floor, but there’s a lot of media attention on this case, it’s against a former president, so maybe he will.

Side note about Fleischmann and others: Criminal defense attorneys experience great frustration over that dynamic and have opinions about how things would be better if the parties were on more of an equal footing. I think a lot of more publicly facing attorneys who do or have done criminal defense jumped off the wagon of the Georgia case when this came up. Ken White being another.

For myself, their relationship and the complexity of the case (which was criticized from the beginning) definitely seems shady, but doesn’t change the charged conduct. It’s also eyeroll inducing for Trump to get treated the way everybody should, skate, and then everything reverts back to the status quo for everybody else. So that’s why I mostly checked out. I want them both to lose.

Thanks for your answer.