A federal judge has determined Rudy Giuliani forfeits the defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers against him, a decision that could lead to significant penalties for the former Donald Trump attorney.
Giuliani lost the case because he struggled to maintain access to his electronic records, partly because of the cost, and couldn’t adequately respond to subpoenas from attorneys for Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss as the case moved forward.
The mother and daughter are asking for unspecified damages after they say they suffered emotional and reputational harm, as well as having their safety put in danger, after Giuliani singled them out when he made false claims of ballot tampering in Georgia after the 2020 election.
Read it here https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/30/politics/rudy-giuliani-georgia-election-workers/index.html
read it all
And it's Mango Mussolini a.k.a. the orange jesus a.k.a. sent by god a.k.a. King of America according to that trailer trash nick fuentes.
what say you... I say lock his orange ass up
Donald Trump caused a stir online with a tongue-in-cheek comment about leaving the U.S. to live in “a gold domed suite” with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
The former president posted the remark Monday on his Truth Social platform, after his bond was set at $200,000 following his indictment for allegedly scheming to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.
Although Trump said he will surrender Thursday in Fulton County, his post seemed to suggest that skipping the country wasn’t far from his mind:
The failed District Attorney of Fulton County (Atlanta), Fani Willis, insisted on a $200,000 Bond from me. I assume, therefore, that she thought I was a “flight” risk - I’d fly far away, maybe to Russia, Russia, Russia, share a gold domed suite with Vladimir, never to be seen or heard from again. Would I be able to take my very “understated” airplane with the gold TRUMP affixed for all to see. Probably not, I’d be much better off flying commercial - I’m sure nobody would recognize me!
Yes, Trump was probably joking.
However, since the order setting bond also bars Trump from intimidating co-defendants, witnesses or victims in the case, including with “posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media,” it’s possible he was simply trying to provoke the court to see how much he can get away with.
Still, many users of Twitter — er, X — thought Trump’s comment about fleeing the U.S. to hang with Putin was a bit strange under the circumstances.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-raises-eyebrows-joke-fleeing-183202437.html. read it there
And yes it was a joke and no it wasn't. Within the last couple of weeks Mango voiced that he would rather be living in France. Now it's Russia. Clearly this insurrectionist trash wishes to be elsewhere. Well, with 4 indictments pending he is probably feeling the pressure. And in the Florida case, that is the documents case, Mango's IT guy obtained new counsel..... retracted his previous statements and has apparently told the grand jury in D.C. that Mango did in fact tamper or attempt to tamper with the surveillance system.
Christopher Worrell, a member of the Proud Boys who was convicted in a bench trial on seven charges related to his actions during the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, was scheduled to be sentenced in federal court in Washington on Friday but is now missing, according to court records and the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
“We are interested in hearing from any members of the public who might have information regarding Mr. Worrell’s whereabouts,” Patty Hartman, a spokesperson for the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, told CNN in a statement.
The FBI has released a wanted poster for Worrell, 52, saying he “violated conditions of release pending sentencing.”
Read It here https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/18/politics/christopher-worrell-proud-boys-fbi-search/index.html
lol as I said plenty of room in Federal Prison or the graveyard..... NEXT
The Justice Department is seeking 33 years in prison for Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader convicted of seditious conspiracy in one of the most serious cases to emerge from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to court documents filed Thursday.
Tarrio, who once served as national chairman of the far-right extremist group, and three lieutenants were convicted by a Washington jury in May of conspiring to block the transfer of presidential power in the hopes of keeping Republican Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election.
Prosecutors are also asking for a 33-year-sentence for one of Tarrio’s co-defendants, Joseph Biggs of Ormond Beach, Florida, a self-described Proud Boys organizer.
They are asking the judge to impose a 30-year prison term for Zachary Rehl, who was president of the Proud Boys chapter in Philadelphia; 27 years in prison for Ethan Nordean of Auburn, Washington, who was a Proud Boys chapter president; and 20 years for Dominic Pezzola, a Proud Boys member from Rochester, New York. Pezzola was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted of other serious charges.
Tarrio, of Miami, and his co-defendants will be sentenced before U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly in a string of hearings starting later this month in Washington’s federal court.
It’s the same courthouse where Trump pleaded not guilty this month in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith accusing the Republican of illegally scheming to subvert the will of voters and overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
Tarrio, who was not at the Jan. 6 riot itself, and his three lieutenants were also convicted of two of the same charges Trump faces: obstruction of Congress’ certification of Biden’s victory, and conspiracy to obstruct Congress.
The Proud Boys will be the second group of far-right extremists sentenced for seditious conspiracy convictions in the Jan. 6 attack. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was sentenced in May to 18 years in prison, and other members of the antigovernment militia group also received lengthy prison terms.
Prosecutors, however, are appealing those sentences, which were lower what than the government had been seeking. Prosecutors had asked U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to sentence Rhodes to 25 years behind bars.
Tarrio was a top target of what has become the largest Justice Department investigation in American history. He led the neo-fascist group — known for street fights with left-wing activists — when Trump infamously told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during his first debate with Biden.
Tarrio wasn’t in Washington on Jan. 6, because he had been arrested two days earlier in a separate case and ordered out of the capital city. But prosecutors alleged he organized and directed the attack by Proud Boys who stormed the Capitol that day.
During the monthslong trial, prosecutors argued that the Proud Boys viewed themselves as foot soldiers fighting for Trump as the Republican spread lies that Democrats stole the election from him, and were prepared to go to war to keep their preferred leader in power.
Defense attorneys argued there was no conspiracy and no plan to attack the Capitol, and sought to portray the Proud Boys as an unorganized drinking club whose members’ participation in the riot was a spontaneous act fueled by Trump’s election rage. Tarrio’s lawyers tried to argue that Trump was the one to blame for exhorting a crowd outside the White House to “ fight like hell.”
Reads it here https://www.huffpost.com/entry/capitol-riot-proud-boys-enrique-tarrio_n_64ded4eae4b04a3ebc33cf6b
Well I hope they get what they want, however, the judge is a Mango appointee.
A Texas woman was arrested and has been charged with threatening to kill the federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington and a member of Congress.
Abigail Jo Shry of Alvin, Texas, called the federal courthouse in Washington and left the threatening message — using a racist term for U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — on Aug. 5, court records show. Investigators traced her phone number and she later admitted to making the threatening call, according to a criminal complaint.
In the call, Shry told the judge, who is overseeing the election conspiracy case against Trump, “You are in our sights, we want to kill you," the documents said. Prosecutors allege Shry also said, “If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you," and she threatened to kill U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat running for mayor of Houston, according to court documents.
A judge earlier this week ordered Shry jailed. Court records show Shry is represented by the Houston public defender’s office, which did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Wednesday.
Read it here https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-woman-accused-threatening-kill-003134408.html
I keep saying there is plenty of room in Federal Prison or the graveyard
Former President Donald Trump has been indicted in the 2020 election subversion case in Georgia. Prosecutors say Trump and others "joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome" of the election.
There are 19 defendants named in the 41-count indictment. In addition to Trump, they include his lawyers, John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, as well as former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Read the full indictment.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said the 19 defendants have until noon ET on August 25, to "voluntarily surrender."
This is the fourth indictment Trump is facing. The former president, who is the current GOP 2024 frontrunner, has already been charged in three separate cases this year. He denies any wrongdoing and says they are politically motivated.
lol.... put this insurrectionist trash into pre-trial detention
Of course former President Donald Trump pardoned disgraced Gen. Mike Flynn for lying to the F.B.I. about his conversations with a Russian diplomat. He's a disgusting individual. Flynn has called for one religion in the U.S.; I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean the Jewish faith. While describing his trip to Auschwitz, Flynn blamed the Jews for being exterminated.
"But any mother who would be told, give me your child, okay, give me your child, your baby, and we're gonna separate you, and we're not just gonna put you into a club coach car, right, where there's buffet service," Trump's former national security adviser said. "We're gonna stuff you like a sardine into a train."
And early on, they really didn't know," he continued. "They thought that they were being taken out of war zones to be taken care of. And then it didn't take long before the word got out because people started to escape."
"Some great stories about it," he said. "And they started to realize, hey, they're actually taking you there, and they're doing some really sick things."
"But I'm thinking to myself because I asked, I asked the guy, the very, very astute historian that was walking myself and a couple of others through him, I'm asking him, so tell me, what were the rules for the guards because there wasn't many guards, but there were thousands, thousands of people," he continued.
"Maybe they're members of your congregation," he told the attendees. "Maybe it's you."
"That just said, okay, here's my child, and get on the train," he said. "Talk about being in the valley of the shadow of death."
"Now that's in the 30s, in the 1930s," he added. "That's not even 100 years ago."
Note, Flynn wants a single religion in this Country.... White Nationalism Christianity..... not quite the blond, blue eyed aryans that Hitler wanted.. but you get the point.
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump attempted a violent coup to remain in power the last time he was president, so why would he step down at the end of his term if he’s elected a second time, particularly knowing that prison may await him once he leaves office?
To a range of increasingly alarmed authoritarianism scholars and Republican officials and consultants, the answer is simple: He will never leave willingly.
“The signs are all there that he would not leave voluntarily,” said Heather Cox Richardson, a history professor at Boston College. “After all, he did his best to stay in office in 2021, sparking an insurrection to do it, and he has vowed to use the power of the presidency more forcefully in a possible second term.”
David Jolly, a former Republican congressman from Florida, which is now Trump’s home state, agreed that a second Trump term could mean the end of American democracy as it has existed for 236 years. “If Trump gets reelected, all bets are off on the Constitution surviving the tests he’ll throw at it,” he said. “His movement would support anything he tries, regardless of constitutional provisions.”
“Trump is so unpredictable that anything could happen. Literally anything,” said GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who added that Trump’s hold on his base of supporters today is “even stronger and more intense” than it was in 2016.
Trump’s campaign staff did not respond to multiple queries about whether he would honor the constitutionally prescribed end of his second and final term, but his statements through the years suggest that he does not see the Constitution as necessarily binding.
As the 2020 election approached, Trump repeatedly suggested that he was owed a third term, because so much of his first was consumed with a Justice Department investigation into his campaign’s coordination with Russia to help him win in 2016. And as Election Day grew closer and he lagged far behind Democrat Joe Biden in the polls, Trump floated a postponement of the vote because of the coronavirus pandemic — an idea quickly shot down by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
More recently, while repeating his lie that the 2020 election had been “stolen” from him, Trump last year called for the “termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” so he could be immediately reinstated as president.
Despite this, many if not most Republicans ― even those who dislike Trump and think he betrayed his oath with his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob he had incited attacked the U.S. Capitol to keep him in power ― believe that those who worry about a second Trump term morphing into a dictatorship are catastrophizing.
“While he can damage the wheels of democracy, I don’t know that he can break them,” said Oscar Brock, a Republican National Committee member from Tennessee.
David Kochel, a Republican consultant in Iowa with decades of experience, said what Trump may want and what Trump can get are two entirely different things. “It wouldn’t matter what he did. The Constitution is what it is,” Kochel said. “The military swears an oath to defend it, not the president. No chance he stays longer than the constitutionally allowed term.”
Those arguments, though, echo the ones Republicans made after Trump lost the Nov. 3, 2020, election, when the GOP establishment largely humored Trump’s lies about “fraud” on the theory that there was nothing he could do to stop Biden’s inauguration.
Instead, Trump actively used the threat of violence, and then actual violence in the Jan. 6 insurrection, to try to coerce then-Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers into giving him a second term in office. About 140 police officers were injured by Trump’s mob, and five ended up dying.
Gail Helt, who watched for signs of democratic decay abroad as a CIA analyst and now runs the Security and Intelligence Studies program at King University in Tennessee, said too many Americans continue to assume that rules, “norms” and even laws would protect the nation, when Trump cheerfully ran roughshod over them during his first term.
“We have to stop applying norms to Trump and expecting he will abide by them,” she said. “We have to get that through our heads. Four more years of Trump will be our undoing.”
Read it here https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-second-term-autocrat_n_64d6841ae4b03966864a12b9
As I said before if re-elected he will never leave office.
Within days of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ suspension of Monique Worrell, an executive staff member at the State Attorney’s Office who was on maternity leave was notified of her termination when investigators with the office accompanied by law enforcement made an unexpected visit to her home.
Keisha Mulfort, the former chief of staff for the State Attorney’s Office and Worrell, went on leave on May 30, the day her daughter was born. She has spent time in the hospital due to birth-related complications, she told the Sentinel.
Her leave, according to her lawyer Fritz Scheller, is pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a federal law providing certain workers job-protected leave when taking time off for medical reasons including pregnancy or birth. Scheller contends that her firing as well as the demands made to her after Worrell’s suspension may violate federal law protecting workers.
On Wednesday morning, Mulfort’s boss, Worrell, was suspended from office by DeSantis and replaced with Orange County judge Andrew Bain. That same morning, Bain’s newly hired chief assistant, Ryan Williams — who unsuccessfully ran against Worrell in 2020 — called Mulfort “from another employee’s private cellphone,” according to a letter of legal representation from Scheller to the State Attorney’s Office.
Williams asked Mulfort “to provide access” and “to change administrative profiles on the office’s social media pages,” according to the letter.
“The demand was perplexing,” the letter said. “As Ms. Mulfort informed [Williams], your office already had the passwords, which had been changed during her leave.”
Another employee from the State Attorney’s Office then “demanded that [Mulfort] respond to Williams” by 9 a.m. on Thursday, wrote Scheller.
Mulfort contacted Scheller Wednesday night and asked if he would act as a mediator between her and the State Attorney’s Office. He agreed to take her on pro bono.
The next morning, Scheller said he sent the State Attorney’s Office the letter, notifying them that he was representing Mulfort and alleging that the demands seem to violate Mulfort’s rights protected under federal law.
“Ms. Mulfort is willing to assist your office with any requests that do not violate her rights under the FLMA,” the attorney’s letter said, later adding, “While I expect that we can easily resolve this matter, I caution you that notwithstanding the recent changes in leadership in your office, your office’s FLMA obligations remain the same.”
In addition to sending the letter, Scheller said he also called the office’s general counsel and Williams but received no reply. Scheller said he wanted to set up a time to meet and work out the matter with the State Attorney’s Office.
On Thursday afternoon, however, multiple personnel from the State Attorney’s Office including sworn investigators and two Orange County deputies went to Mulfort’s house, she told the Sentinel. She was upstairs nursing her daughter when they knocked on her front door.
The State Attorney’s Office employees again requested access to change administrative profiles on the public office’s social media pages, Mulfort said.
During the exchange, Mulfort was handed a letter saying her employment with the State Attorney’s Office was terminated effective Wednesday. Mulfort said that was how she found out she was fired.
The letter also asked that she return a cellphone, iPad, building and parking lot access cards and a Toyota Camry, and further requested that she “[r]elinquish ‘administrator’ rights of the office’s social media accounts.”
“There are no reasons for what they did. … I’m being treated like a criminal, even though I’m someone who has served this community,” she said. “How am I supposed to feel … and what message is that sending?”
In a statement, Orange County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Michelle Guido confirmed deputies accompanied “two sworn law enforcement officers who are investigators at the State Attorney’s Office.”
“The deputies were requested to stand by solely to record the interaction on body worn camera,” Guido said. “While it is not uncommon for deputies to provide standby services, this should have been handled exclusively by the sworn investigators at the State Attorney’s Office.”
“The Sheriff was not aware and did not approve of the standby request,” the statement continued. “Had it been brought to him, he would have rejected this request and left it in the hands of the State Attorney’s Office.”
The State Attorney’s Office has not responded to a request for comment.
Scheller called the situation “highly disturbing” and said he is committed to pursuing all legal remedies.
“To paraphrase the philosopher Hannah Arendt, the cruel actions by DeSantis’ minions in the State Attorney’s office proves that the greatest evil is not necessarily perpetuated by leaders who carry the stench of autocracy but rather is found in the evil committed by nobodies, that is, by human beings who abandon their humanity at the altar of ambition,” Scheller wrote in an email.
ok... so Duhsantis suspends the only black female elected State Attorney in Florida. He replaces her with a MALE. Who then fires the former State Attorneys' Chief of Staff who is on MATERNITY LEAVE.
See what the GOPQ has in store for women in thisa country. Open your eyes, and have no doubt.
Ohio voters rejected Tuesday an effort to raise the threshold to amend the state’s constitution ahead of a November referendum on whether to constitutionally guarantee abortion rights there, handing abortion rights advocates a critical victory.
Known as Issue 1, the measure would have changed Ohio’s referendum law – lifting the threshold to amend the state’s constitution from a simple majority to 60% of the vote.
Its passage would have effectively raised new obstacles to direct democracy, making it harder for citizens to bypass the Ohio legislature with referendums.
The measure was a GOP-led effort targeting an upcoming November referendum in which voters will decide whether to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution.
Effectively, Tuesday was the first of a two-step process, determining whether November’s referendum would be able to pass with a simple majority – 50% plus one vote – or need to meet the higher threshold of 60% plus one vote.
If the abortion measure is approved by voters in that November election, the amendment would trump Ohio’s 2019 law that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy without exceptions for rape or incest. It is currently the subject of a court battle.
Tuesday’s referendum was broadly opposed by Democrats and progressive groups. Republicans and conservative interests were split on the measure. GOP Gov. Mike DeWine supported Issue 1, as did the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Right to Life, the Buckeye Firearms Association and more.
“The concern is that people can come in, outside forces, outside the state of Ohio and spend a ton of money to try to impact that. The better process is frankly, through the legislative process,” DeWine told Ohio reporters in May.
But two GOP former governors, John Kasich and Bob Taft, opposed it. Kasich, who suffered a political setback when voters overturned a controversial anti-union law in 2011, said on Twitter in April that seeking to limit voters’ say on public policy measures is wrong.
“I’ve experienced that firsthand, having policies backed by myself and a majority of the legislature’s members overturned at the ballot box, and it never occurred to me to try to limit Ohioans’ right to do that,” he said. “It wouldn’t have been right then, and it isn’t right now.”
The sprint to November’s referendum has made Ohio the next major battleground in the fight over abortion rights after the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade last year.
Already, voters in two deep-red states, Kansas and Kentucky, have rejected efforts to limit abortion rights (though abortion is still banned in Kentucky). The Democratic push to enshrine abortion rights in Michigan’s constitution played a key role in the party’s victories there in the 2022 midterm elections.
In Ohio, outside groups have poured more than $26 million into advertising on both sides. Protect Our Constitution, a group focused on passing Issue 1, has spent almost $2.7 million on advertising, according to AdImpact data. Protect Women Ohio, a group focused on fighting new protections for abortion in November, had spent $7 million ahead of the Tuesday vote.
Even ahead of Tuesday’s vote, there were indications of strong voter interest in the measure. About 696,000 Ohioans had voted before Election Day, either early or by mail – a number that exceeded the 638,000-voter turnout in the August 2022 primary and special election.
The November referendum will also set the stage for a crucial 2024 election: Ohio’s Senate race. The incumbent, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, is among the GOP’s top targets as the party seeks to retake the Senate majority.
Among his Republican challengers is Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the state’s elections chief and the highest-profile proponent of Issue 1. In a video posted Tuesday on Twitter, LaRose touted holding 76 events in favor of the measure.
So you get it.... the abortion issue is on November's ballot. The GOPQ tried to squeeze this in because they knew the majority of voters would approve of a woman's right to choose. Well they gambled and lost. They pissed off a lot of voters. Last week they filed suit in an effort to get the abortion question REMOVED from November's ballot.
There you go the GOPQ is AFRAID of the voters.
Donald Trump suffered another legal reversal on Monday, losing his counterclaim for defamation against E Jean Carroll, the writer against whom he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation and fined $5m, and who continues to pursue a separate defamation case against him.
Dismissing the counterclaim, a judge in New York, Lewis A Kaplan, said that when Carroll repeated her allegation that Trump raped her, her words were “substantially true”. Kaplan also set out in detail why it may be said that Trump raped Carroll.
The former president, 77, already faces 78 criminal indictments for election subversion, retention of classified documents and hush-money payments to a porn star. Expected to be indicted for election subversion in Georgia, he also faces investigations of his business practices.
Well there you go..... the orange jesus loses yet ANOTHER court case.
The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington to step in after he released a post online that appeared to promise revenge on anyone who goes after him.
Prosecutors asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue a protective order in the case a day after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and block the peaceful transition of power. The order — which is different from a so-called “gag order” — would limit what information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Such protective orders are common in criminal cases, but prosecutors said it's “particularly important in this case” because Trump has posted on social media about "witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him."
Prosecutors pointed specifically to a post on Trump's Truth Social platform from earlier Friday in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”
Prosecutors said they are ready to hand over a "substantial" amount of evidence — “much of which includes sensitive and confidential information” — to Trump's legal team.
They told the judge that if Trump were to begin posting about grand jury transcripts or other evidence provided by the Justice Department, it could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”
Prosecutors' proposed protective order seeks to prevent Trump and his lawyers from disclosing materials provided by the government to anyone other than people on his legal team, possible witnesses, the witnesses' lawyers or others approved by the court. It would put stricter limits on “sensitive materials,” which would include grand jury witness testimony and materials obtained through sealed search warrants.
A Trump spokesperson said in an emailed statement that the former president's post “is the definition of political speech,” and was made in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.”
The indictment unsealed this week accuses Trump of brazenly conspiring with allies to spread falsehoods and concoct schemes intended to overturn his election loss to President Joe Biden as his legal challenges floundered in court.
The indictment chronicles how Trump and his Republican allies, in what Smith described as an attack on a “bedrock function of the U.S. government,” repeatedly lied about the results in the two months after he lost the election and pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, and state election officials to take action to help him cling to power.
read it here https://www.yahoo.com/news/prosecutors-ask-judge-issue-protective-025850354.html
Former Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday rejected arguments that Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election amounted to free speech, saying the government had a “legitimate” case following Tuesday’s indictment of the former president.
Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with his attempts to remain in power after he lost the election to Joe Biden. He faces four felony charges claiming multiple conspiracies to defraud the United States, obstruct an official proceeding and deprive Americans of their right to vote and have that vote counted.
The former president’s attorneys responded with fury, accusing the Justice Department of attacking free speech and undermining Trump’s First Amendment rights. But Barr, who served under Trump until Dec. 23, 2020, told CNN those assertions were wrong.
“As the indictment says, they’re not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie,” Barr told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Wednesday. “He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech.”
“As a legal matter, I don’t see a problem with the indictment,” he added. “I think that it’s not an abuse. The Department of Justice is not acting to weaponize the department by proceeding against the president for a conspiracy to subvert the electoral process.”
Barr went on to confirm key points in the indictment, saying Trump was repeatedly told there was no evidence of electoral fraud.
“As to people who had some knowledge of whether or not there was fraud, everyone was telling him that the election was not stolen by fraud,” he said, adding that Trump “would search for a lawyer who would give him the advice he wanted.”
“He wouldn’t listen to all the lawyers in various departments or the White House.”
The indictment is Trump’s third in four months. Special counsel Jack Smith has charged the former president with 40 felony counts related to his handling of classified documents. Trump has also been indicted in New York on charges related to hush-money payments made to the porn star Stormy Daniels in the waning days of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Barr added Wednesday that his former boss had ensnared many former aides and supporters in his misdeeds, warning he would continue to do the same moving forward.
twice impeached, 3 times indicted and Georgia is still possible for a 4th indictment.
Jeffrey Clark, a former top Justice Department official under Donald Trump, was prepared to use the Insurrection Act to stay in power despite Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election, according to Tuesday’s federal indictment of the former president.
The indictment reveals a stunning Jan. 3, 2021, exchange between Clark, who is referred to as Co-Conspirator 4, and deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin. Philbin had previously warned Clark in December that “there is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House [o]n January 20th.” He made the point again on Jan. 3 in an effort to dissuade Clark from assuming the role of acting attorney general under a fraudulent Trump presidency.
Philbin warned Clark that if Trump tried to stay in office despite no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, there would be “riots in every major city in the United States.”
Clark replied, “Well, [Phibin], that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”
The Insurrection Act, originally enacted in 1792, empowers the president of the United States to deploy the military domestically in certain cases, like suppressing civil disorder or rebellion.
Tuesday’s indictment accuses Clark of having “worked on civil matters and who, with the Defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.”
Trump himself was indicted on four felony charges related to the insurrection, his second federal indictment this year.
Donald Trump has been indicted on criminal charges by a federal grand jury in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
The former president was charged with: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Read the full indictment here.
Trump is scheduled to appear at the Washington, DC, federal courthouse at 4 p.m. ET on Thursday. Smith said his office will seek a speedy trial and called January 6 an "unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy."
This is the third time Trump has been criminally indicted. Smith charged Trump in the classified documents probe in June, and a Manhattan grand jury charged the former president for business fraud in March. Trump, who is running for president in 2024, pleaded not guilty in both cases.
Here you go the orange jesus indicted again.
A state judge in Georgia has rejected Donald Trump’s bid to derail his potential prosecution for attempting to subvert the 2020 election results.
In a nine-page ruling, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney said it’s simply too soon for Trump or his allies to seek to prohibit Georgia prosecutors from continuing to investigate him — in large part because he hasn’t been indicted yet.
“[W]hile being the subject (or even target) of a highly publicized criminal investigation is likely an unwelcome and unpleasant experience, no court ever has held that that status alone provides a basis for the courts to interfere with or halt the investigation,” wrote McBurney, who spent a year overseeing District Attorney Fani Willis’ special grand jury investigation of Trump’s election-related actions.
In an aside, McBurney made a clear reference to Trump’s effort to capitalize on his legal troubles as well: “And for some, being the subject of a criminal investigation can, a la Rumpelstiltskin, be turned into golden political capital, making it seem more providential than problematic.”
He also noted that Trump had already been admonished by federal courts — in his bid to short-circuit a potential prosecution for hoarding classified documents — when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals shot down his bid to reclaim items seized from his estate by the FBI.
Earlier this month, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously rejected a separate attempt by Trump to shut down Willis’ investigation.
Willis has signaled that she is likely to make final charging decisions in August, and it’s widely believed she will recommend charges against Trump and a potentially long list of enablers who aided his bid to subvert the election results in Georgia and several other states won by Joe Biden. That’s when Trump can make his motions to challenge the proceedings that led to the charges, McBurney said.
“Guessing at what that picture might look like before the investigative dots are connected may be a popular game for the media and blogosphere, but it is not a proper role for the courts and formal legal argumentation,” McBurney wrote.
Trump has assailed Willis, a Democrat, accusing her of mounting a political witch hunt against him to damage his prospects in the 2024 presidential election. But courts repeatedly supported her efforts to haul in dozens of Trump’s top aides and allies, including his former chief of staff Mark Meadows and onetime national security adviser Mike Flynn.
Trump has contended that Willis’ yearlong efforts to assemble evidence through the use of a “special grand jury” — a quirk of Georgia law that permits district attorneys to lead wide-ranging, complex probes — should be thrown out as unconstitutional. He also said Willis has a conflict, given her political advocacy for Democrats.
McBurney said Trump had failed to back up those claims, which require concrete evidence. He noted that prosecutors are typically disqualified if they express a view of a defendant’s guilt or if they have a financial interest in the outcome of a case. Neither situation, he said, is present for Willis.
“While both sides have done enough talking, posting, tweeting (“X’ing”?), and press conferencing to have hit (and perhaps stretched) the bounds of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct … neither movant has pointed to any averments from the District Attorney or her team of lawyers expressing belief that Trump … is guilty or has committed this or that offense,” he said.
He noted that the case was sure to result in a rash of publicity and potential capitalization for both prosecutors and defense once it ends — regardless of outcome — comparing it with the O.J. Simpson trial. But he said Willis had hewed carefully in her comments, saying only that she is following evidence and characterizing her case as important, without suggesting anything about Trump’s guilt.
“Put differently, the District Attorney’s Office has been doing a fairly routine — and legally unobjectionable — job of public relations in a case that is anything but routine,” he wrote.
McBurney said he appreciates the potential that a wrongful indictment could damage someone’s reputation. But anyone claiming misconduct has to be specific.
“The Court appreciates that ‘a wrongful indictment is no laughing matter; often it works grievous, irreparable injury to the person indicted,’” McBurney wrote. “However, in this situation, movants’ rather overwrought allegations of prosecutorial overreach and judicial error do not suffice to show that there is significant risk of ‘wrongful’ indictment.”
|World Visitor Map|