Convicted Felon Donald Trump Legal Troubles: Trump Wins Unanimous Vote

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Convicted Felon Donald Trump Legal Troubles: Trump Wins Unanimous Vote

«‹›642 »

Decon: Nov 22, 2015

Fifteen of Many posted:

Finally, someone unbiased will get to the bottom of this.

https://twitter.com/mikeallen/status/1627678784718610433?s=46&t=Qg0L_0BnrIkDuWn4gdetnA

Breaking and entering by literally shattering windows, and beating people with flagpoles are actually okay because other people gawped at the walls at approximately the same time.

# ? Feb 20, 2023 16:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 15:52

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

Decon posted:

Breaking and entering by literally shattering windows, and beating people with flagpoles are actually okay because other people gawped at the walls at approximately the same time.

Actually they're just going to accuse a bunch of barely-visible people of being FBI provocateurs. It'll work, too.

# ? Feb 20, 2023 17:27

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

they find footage of a democratic congressman picking his nose and crack the conspiracy wide open

# ? Feb 20, 2023 18:51

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

4.6 years of video footage. Quick napkin math says about 21TB of video if they are 480p

Jan 6 camera filez #173 - SOROS!

cr0y fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Feb 20, 2023

# ? Feb 20, 2023 19:42

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

�17 hours of Jan 06* footage shows nothing happening. Here watch these empty halls to see how much Dems want to lie to you.�

*hours from 12:00 am to 1:30pm and from 6:30pm to 11:59pm.

# ? Feb 20, 2023 23:05

Inner Light: Jan 2, 2020

Inferior Third Season posted:

Assuming indictments of any kind are even remotely possible makes you a modern-day Pollyanna.

Careful, you might get probated for saying this! According to the hive mind, consequences and accountability are right around the corner. Any day now.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Feb 20, 2023 23:27

Random Stranger: Nov 27, 2009

[Video footage zooms in sending a dozen people carrying "Trump was robbed!" signs to focus in on one guy who happens to have a rainbow on their shirt.]

"As you can see, the January 6th protestors were actually leftists."

# ? Feb 20, 2023 23:29

Lager: Mar 9, 2004; Give me the secret to the anti-puppet equation!

Random Stranger posted:

[Video footage zooms in sending a dozen people carrying "Trump was robbed!" signs to focus in on one guy who happens to have a rainbow on their shirt.]

"As you can see, the January 6th protestors were actually leftists."

And it'll definitely be a Pink Floyd t-shirt with the sleeves ripped off.

# ? Feb 20, 2023 23:31

IPlayVideoGames: Nov 28, 2004; I unironically like Anders as a character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8uM0zOBuSw

# ? Feb 20, 2023 23:42

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

Murgos posted:

�17 hours of Jan 06* footage shows nothing happening. Here watch these empty halls to see how much Dems want to lie to you.�

*hours from 12:00 am to 1:30pm and from 6:30pm to 11:59pm.

This is gonna be some next level poo poo of creative and selective editing, no doubt.

Thing is, I watched it unfold live on various Twitch streams and such.

# ? Feb 21, 2023 13:33

Aztec Galactus: Sep 12, 2002

Why even show anything? He already went on TV and said he watched the videos and it proves everything "they" told you is lie. He just needs to repeat some version of that every night and by March, right wingers will all assert that January doesn't exist

# ? Feb 21, 2023 13:50

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

Always thought there were too many months, and that it was probably part of the Woke Agenda

# ? Feb 21, 2023 14:12

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

Always remember that the traitors don't try to start with facts and argue from there. They argue by assertion. In elementary school we used to call this, "making poo poo up." That's why it's foolish to not say something "because MAGA will spin it thus." They don't take facts and spin them: they just make things up to suit their assertions.

I truly hope the Dominion lawsuit results in a crushing economic verdict against Fox. They keep trying to assert an assault upon their right as the media, but here's the thing: most shows on Fox News aren't news. They're individual talking heads making assertions.

# ? Feb 21, 2023 14:34

Judge Schnoopy: Nov 2, 2005; dont even TRY it, pal

Ynglaur posted:

Always remember that the traitors don't try to start with facts and argue from there. They argue by assertion. In elementary school we used to call this, "making poo poo up." That's why it's foolish to not say something "because MAGA will spin it thus." They don't take facts and spin them: they just make things up to suit their assertions.

I truly hope the Dominion lawsuit results in a crushing economic verdict against Fox. They keep trying to assert an assault upon their right as the media, but here's the thing: most shows on Fox News aren't news. They're individual talking heads making assertions.

Yeah, the "no reasonable person would believe this" defense works for some arguments, but certainly shouldn't protect them in a defamation lawsuit.

# ? Feb 21, 2023 14:53

V-Men: Aug 15, 2001; Don't it make your dick bust concrete to be in the same room with two noble, selfless public servants.

Judge Schnoopy posted:

Yeah, the "no reasonable person would believe this" defense works for some arguments, but certainly shouldn't protect them in a defamation lawsuit.

It protected Tucker Carlson when he was the target of a defamation suit, but if you extend that defense to the entire network: that no reasonable person believes Fox News, I mean.. that's true but should that immunize them from any penalties?

# ? Feb 21, 2023 16:41

Madkal: Feb 11, 2008; Fallen Rib

Failed Imagineer posted:

Always thought there were too many months, and that it was probably part of the Woke Agenda

Smarch - the worst month of all.

They should have "no reasonable person...." as a disclaimer before all their shows and after every commercial break then if they want to use it as an argument for lying.

# ? Feb 21, 2023 16:49

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

BiggerBoat posted:

This is gonna be some next level poo poo of creative and selective editing, no doubt.

Thing is, I watched it unfold live on various Twitch streams and such.

Oh so you're one of those people who believe what their eyes see? Ok 🙄

# ? Feb 21, 2023 17:23

Kavros: May 18, 2011; sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

Lager posted:

And it'll definitely be a Pink Floyd t-shirt with the sleeves ripped off.

This guy likes Nirvana! that's a woke leftist hiding under those pit vipers and army cut

# ? Feb 21, 2023 17:49

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Jury in Georgia Trump Inquiry Recommended Multiple Indictments, Forewoman Says

quote:

A special grand jury that investigated election interference by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in Georgia recommended indictments of multiple people on a range of charges in its report, most of which remains sealed, the forewoman of the jury said in an interview today.

�It is not a short list,� the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said, adding that the jury had appended eight pages of legal code �that we cited at various points in the report.�

She declined to discuss who specifically the special grand jury recommended for indictment, since the judge handling the case decided to keep those details secret when he made public a few sections of the report last week. But seven sections that are still under wraps deal with indictment recommendations, Ms. Kohrs said.

Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: �You�re not going to be shocked. It�s not rocket science,� adding �you won�t be too surprised.�
The investigation in Atlanta has been seen as one of the most significant legal threats to Mr. Trump as he begins another run for the presidency. In November, the Justice Department named a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee two Trump-related criminal investigations. And last month, the Manhattan district attorney�s office began presenting evidence to a grand jury on whether Mr. Trump paid hush money to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign, laying the groundwork for potential criminal charges against the former president in the coming months.

A focal point of the Atlanta inquiry is a call that Mr. Trump made on Jan. 2, 2021, to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, in which he pressed Mr. Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, to recalculate the results and �find� 11,780 votes, or enough to overturn his loss in the state.

�We definitely started with the first phone call, the call to Secretary Raffensperger that was so publicized,� said Ms. Kohrs, whom The Associated Press first named and spoke with on Tuesday about the election meddling investigation.

�I will tell you that if the judge releases the recommendations, it is not going to be some giant plot twist,� she added. �You probably have a fair idea of what may be in there. I�m trying very hard to say that delicately.�

The special grand jury met for nearly seven months in a courthouse in downtown Atlanta and heard testimony from 70 witnesses. Mr. Trump was not among them, and his lawyers have said he did nothing wrong.

Special grand juries in Georgia do not have indictment powers; the ultimate charging decisions will be up to Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga., who has led the investigation.

Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Feb 21, 2023

# ? Feb 21, 2023 21:02

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

Deteriorata posted:

Jury in Georgia Trump Inquiry Recommended Multiple Indictments, Forewoman Says

Lol I have no idea how to interpret this.

Do we have any precedent in terms of timeline between when a GJ makes recommendations and the DA possibly acting on them? This poo poo moves so slow.

# ? Feb 21, 2023 21:33

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

cr0y posted:

Lol I have no idea how to interpret this.

Do we have any precedent in terms of timeline between when a GJ makes recommendations and the DA possibly acting on them? This poo poo moves so slow.

That was a special GJ, not empowered to indict. The "regular" GJ will start hearing the DA I think in the first week of March?

# ? Feb 21, 2023 21:45

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

cr0y posted:

Oh so you're one of those people who believe what their eyes see? Ok 🙄

Well, to be fair, I also used my ears.

# ? Feb 22, 2023 01:10

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

mdemone posted:

That was a special GJ, not empowered to indict. The "regular" GJ will start hearing the DA I think in the first week of March?

I�ve seen speculation that two weeks is probably the minimum you could expect for Willis to fully brief the GJ and show them the evidence and let them read the testimony such that they can be confident in their indictment.

So, maybe mid to late March for indictments?

# ? Feb 22, 2023 01:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

Arizona�s top prosecutor concealed records debunking election fraud claims
Newly released documents show how Republican Mark Brnovich publicized an incomplete account of his office�s probe of the 2020 election in Maricopa County

quote:

Nearly a year after the 2020 election, Arizona�s then-attorney general Mark Brnovich launched an investigation into voting in the state�s largest county that quickly consumed more than 10,000 hours of his staff 's time.

Investigators prepared a report in March 2022 stating that virtually all claims of error and malfeasance were unfounded, according to internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post. Brnovich, a Republican, kept it private.

In April, the attorney general � who was running in the GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat � released an �Interim Report� claiming that his office had discovered �serious vulnerabilities.� He left out edits from his own investigators refuting his assertions.

His office then compiled an �Election Review Summary� in September that systematically refuted accusations of widespread fraud and made clear that none of the complaining parties � from state lawmakers to self-styled �election integrity� groups � had presented any evidence to support their claims. Brnovich left office last month without releasing the summary.

That timeline emerges from documents released to The Post this week by Brnovich�s successor, Kris Mayes, a Democrat. She said she considered the taxpayer-funded investigation closed and, earlier this month, notified leaders on Maricopa County�s governing board that they were no longer in the state�s crosshairs.

The records show how Brnovich used his office to further claims about voting in Maricopa County that his own staff considered inaccurate. They suggest that his administration privately disregarded fact-checks provided by state investigators while publicly promoting incomplete accounts of the office�s work. The innuendo and inaccuracies, circulated not just in the far reaches of the internet but with the imprimatur of the state�s attorney general, helped make Arizona an epicenter of distrust in the democratic process, eroding confidence not just in the 2020 vote but in subsequent elections.

Post exclusive, just hit a bit ago. Worth reading in full, as it goes into the details of the claims and how they were elided. It's another good example of the kind of journalism that makes a subscription worth it.

# ? Feb 22, 2023 17:10

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Getting closer to the top:

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump Subpoenaed in Jan. 6 Investigation

quote:

Former President Donald J. Trump�s daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law Jared Kushner have been subpoenaed by the special counsel to testify before a federal grand jury about Mr. Trump�s efforts to stay in power after he lost the 2020 election and his role in a pro-Trump mob�s attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to two people briefed on the matter.

The decision by the special counsel, Jack Smith, to subpoena Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner underscores how deeply into Mr. Trump�s inner circle Mr. Smith is reaching, and is the latest sign that no potential high-level witness is off limits.

The disclosure about the subpoena comes two weeks after it was revealed that Mr. Smith had subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence to testify before the grand jury. Mr. Pence plans to fight the subpoena, invoking his role as the president of the Senate to argue that it violates the �speech or debate� clause of the Constitution.

It is unclear whether Mr. Trump will seek to block Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner from testifying on the grounds of executive privilege, as he has tried with some other witnesses. Both of them served as White House officials in the Trump administration. Mr. Trump declined to try to stop them from testifying before the House special committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack and what led to it.

An aide to Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner did not respond to a request for comment. Josh Stueve, a spokesman for Mr. Smith, declined to comment.

Ms. Trump was in the Oval Office on Jan. 6 as her father placed a late-morning call to Mr. Pence to pressure him to block or delay congressional certification of the Electoral College results documenting Joseph R. Biden Jr.�s victory. As president of the Senate, Mr. Pence, who rejected Mr. Trump�s demands, was to serve in a ceremonial role overseeing the process that day.

Ms. Trump also accompanied her father to the rally of his supporters at the Ellipse near the White House. Hundreds of his supporters moved from there to the Capitol, where they attacked the building, some chanting, �Hang Mike Pence!� for his refusal to do what Mr. Trump wished.

Mr. Kushner returned from the Middle East that day, ultimately going to the White House after the pro-Trump mob had been rioting for hours. Both he and his wife were involved in efforts to get Mr. Trump to tell the rioters to go home, and then to commit to a peaceful transfer of power to Mr. Biden.

Both testified before the Jan. 6 House select committee, appearing for videotaped interviews in which both provided memories about the day. The committee, in turn, repeatedly played clips of their testimony at some of its public hearings.

One clip that got considerable attention showed Ms. Trump making clear that she accepted Attorney General William P. Barr�s declaration that there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the election, despite Mr. Trump�s repeated claims otherwise.

Mr. Trump was infuriated by the clips and what was said in them, according to people in contact with him.

Since then, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump, who relocated with their three children to Florida after they left the White House, have maintained family contact with the former president. But while Mr. Kushner appeared at Mr. Trump�s campaign kickoff in November, Ms. Trump declined to and put out a statement saying she would not be involved in her father�s campaign this time.

Both were intimately involved in his 2016 race before going to work at the White House.

In December, Mr. Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social, that he did not want them to be involved in his third campaign.

�Contrary to Fake News reporting, I never asked Jared or Ivanka to be part of the 2024 campaign for president and, in fact, specifically asked them not to do it,� Mr. Trump wrote, going on to say the campaign would be �too mean and nasty.�

�There has never been anything like this �ride� before, and they should not be further subjected to it,� he added.

# ? Feb 22, 2023 22:26

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

Deteriorata posted:

Jury in Georgia Trump Inquiry Recommended Multiple Indictments, Forewoman Says

Huh. Kinda feel like this is a giant excercise in rear end covering and that none of the recommended indictments are going to take place.

# ? Feb 23, 2023 06:17

Xiahou Dun: Jul 16, 2009; We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.

Zeroisanumber posted:

Huh. Kinda feel like this is a giant excercise in rear end covering and that none of the recommended indictments are going to take place.

Or some rando stumbled into a very exciting position and decided to milk the bejeezus out of it.

# ? Feb 23, 2023 07:59

happyhippy: Feb 21, 2005; Playing games, watching movies, owning goons. 'sup; Pillbug

Dubar posted:

Why even show anything? He already went on TV and said he watched the videos and it proves everything "they" told you is lie. He just needs to repeat some version of that every night and by March, right wingers will all assert that January doesn't exist

Watch them just show Pelosi and try to read into what she was doing rather what she did.
SEE SEE THERE SHE IS THERE TALKING TO A SECURITY GUARD WAS SHE TELLING THEM TO SHOOT BABBIT?!?!!?!

# ? Feb 23, 2023 12:37

RoboChrist 9000: Dec 14, 2006; Mater Dolorosa

V-Men posted:

It protected Tucker Carlson when he was the target of a defamation suit, but if you extend that defense to the entire network: that no reasonable person believes Fox News, I mean.. that's true but should that immunize them from any penalties?

If Fox News wants to keep arguing that they are not news and no reasonable person would believe what they say, then fine, hold them to that. Revoke all of their press clearance. The Onion isn't allowed to have access to the White House and other press events, why should Fox?

If Fox wants to use "we are not news" as their legal defense, then why the gently caress are they allowed to continue gaining the privileges of a news organization?

# ? Feb 23, 2023 12:57

Dietrich: Sep 11, 2001

Just need to make sure that every time the removal of Press Access is questioned, you quote Fox News Attorneys arguments that they are not news and no reasonable person would think that they are.

# ? Feb 23, 2023 13:21

Silly Burrito: Nov 27, 2007; SET A COURSE FOR
THE FLAVOR QUADRANT

RoboChrist 9000 posted:

If Fox News wants to keep arguing that they are not news and no reasonable person would believe what they say, then fine, hold them to that. Revoke all of their press clearance. The Onion isn't allowed to have access to the White House and other press events, why should Fox?

If Fox wants to use "we are not news" as their legal defense, then why the gently caress are they allowed to continue gaining the privileges of a news organization?

I would legitimately trust the Onion�s news more than I would Fox�s news.

# ? Feb 23, 2023 15:17

RoboChrist 9000: Dec 14, 2006; Mater Dolorosa

The Onion makes me laugh consistently.
Fox News wants me and people like me dead for the crime of existing.

Anyway as an aside and to lighten the mood; this is probably my favorite Onion article of all time and never fails to make me laugh no matter how bad my mood or how many times I read it. It's powerful, use it wisely. I imagine we'll all have need of it these coming months and years.

But yeah. Fox should have had their press credentials revoked ages ago, and if they decide to play the 'no sane person would believe what we say' card again, then gently caress it, use that. Record them. Make them say it in public.

# ? Feb 23, 2023 15:25

Meatball: Mar 2, 2003; That's a Spicy Meatball; Pillbug

Silly Burrito posted:

I would legitimately trust the Onion’s news more than I would Fox’s news.

Hey, when a guy I hate makes a good point, it really is heartbreaking.

# ? Feb 23, 2023 15:33

BIG-DICK-BUTT-FUCK: Jan 26, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

snip

Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Feb 25, 2023

# ? Feb 25, 2023 15:23

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Justice Department pushes back on Trump�s sweeping claims of presidential immunity for January 6 speech

quote:

The Justice Department on Thursday urged an appeals court to reject sweeping claims of presidential immunity put forward by former President Donald Trump in the civil litigation surrounding the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol.

The department told the appeals court � which is considering several private lawsuits brought against Trump for his conduct in the lead-up to the attack on the Capitol � that a president can�t be absolutely immune for speech on a matter of public concern if the speech is found to have incited violence.

�No part of a president�s official responsibilities includes the incitement of imminent private violence,� the Justice Department said in a friend-of-a-court brief that the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals asked the government to file.

Thursday�s brief marks the first time the department has confronted directly the question of Trump�s civil immunity for his conduct related to January 6. The lawsuits were brought by Democratic members of the House and Capitol Police officers.

The Justice Department did caution the court against using the January 6 civil cases as a vehicle to draw firm lines on whether president can face liability for speech related to electoral or political concerns. Instead, the department asked the DC Circuit to issue a �narrow� ruling, focused solely on the assertion by Trump�s attorneys that he should be immune to civil lawsuits for presidential speech even if that speech incited violence.

The January 6 civil cases are currently at a phase where courts are weighing questions about the legal strength of the claims against Trump, and those courts are not yet considering the factual merits of the allegations against the former president. A district court judge previously denied a Trump motion to dismiss the case, finding that the former president was not absolutely immune from the civil January 6 lawsuit.

The DC Circuit is now considering a Trump request to reverse that ruling. After hearing arguments on the matter last year, the appeals court invited the Justice Department to weigh in.

�The United States here expresses no view on the district court�s conclusion that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that President Trump�s January 6 speech incited the subsequent attack on the Capitol,� the DOJ said in its brief. �But because actual incitement would be unprotected by absolute immunity even if it came in the context of a speech on matters of public concern, this Court should reject the categorical argument President Trump pressed below and renews on appeal.�

# ? Mar 2, 2023 19:16

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

This is a separate call from the one we all know about.

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1636155588248829956?t=vi5_M5Q8UATJP79YqyKpFQ&s=19

# ? Mar 16, 2023 17:53

Silly Burrito: Nov 27, 2007; SET A COURSE FOR
THE FLAVOR QUADRANT

cr0y posted:

This is a separate call from the one we all know about.

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1636155588248829956?t=vi5_M5Q8UATJP79YqyKpFQ&s=19

Seriously, how much more evidence do they need before they just go ahead and indict him?

# ? Mar 16, 2023 18:05

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Silly Burrito posted:

Seriously, how much more evidence do they need before they just go ahead and indict him?

I think, after the results of the special grand jury, they're just going through the i dotting and t crossing process with a regular degular grand jury.

# ? Mar 16, 2023 18:32

bird food bathtub: Aug 9, 2003; College Slice

Silly Burrito posted:

Seriously, how much more evidence do they need before they just go ahead and indict him?

Justice delayed is something something, whatever. I'm sure that line isn't applicable here at all.

# ? Mar 16, 2023 19:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 15:52

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Tricky because you don't want to go off half cocked but fascists are never good faith in their insistence that everyone else has to perfectly follow the rules

# ? Mar 16, 2023 20:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Convicted Felon Donald Trump Legal Troubles: Trump Wins Unanimous Vote

«‹›642 »