(01-15-2024 02:14 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Somebody lays their hopes on a corrupt DOJ and judges. The SCOTUS probably isn’t going along. Bummer.

There are at least 7 Supreme Court justices with integrity. Not so sure about the stupid Latina and the latest DEI appointment.

Quote:U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday is expected to hear from special counsel Jack Smith’s team and Donald Trump’s attorneys on the former president’s motions to dismiss his classified documents case.

"She has yet to issue a scheduling order setting a trial date. In the meantime, she's hearing argument today on two motions to dismiss,” MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin said. “I'm not a betting person, probably would make a miserable one, but the fact she set oral arguments on two motions to dismiss makes me think maybe she thinks she can get rid of this case without setting a trial date. That is frightening, given the gravity of the charges here and the evidence that supports those charges."

https://www.salon.com/2024/03/14/that-is...d-of-case/

SPOOKY POO

I'm on record ...
it's gonna be modern-day landslide for trump ...
unless fat alvin can secure felony conviction in the stormy daniels case ...
from 2016 ...
where statute of limitations lapsed ...
a minor inconvenience to these virulent SOBs...
hey hey hey ...

EGGS IN ONE BASKET

Don't give a rat's ass about this case... but I do seem to recall when it was first filed... that Jack Smith was being praised in certain corners for his expediency and for avoiding election cycles. Guess that's been thrown out the window.

The reality is the case means nothing after the election. If Trump wins, they won't prosecute a sitting President. If he loses, he is forever out of the picture and nobody cares.

(03-14-2024 08:50 AM)green Wrote:  I'm on record ...
it's gonna be modern-day landslide for trump ...
unless fat alvin can secure felony conviction in the stormy daniels case ...
from 2016 ...
where statute of limitations lapsed ...
a minor inconvenience to these virulent SOBs...
hey hey hey ...

EGGS IN ONE BASKET

Braggs case is about to go on hold due to the immunity challenge as well. Since the SC is hearing the immunity case, that case has to halt s depositions and testimony from Trump is not allowed if he has immunity.

(03-14-2024 09:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 08:50 AM)green Wrote:  I'm on record ...
it's gonna be modern-day landslide for trump ...
unless fat alvin can secure felony conviction in the stormy daniels case ...
from 2016 ...
where statute of limitations lapsed ...
a minor inconvenience to these virulent SOBs...
hey hey hey ...

EGGS IN ONE BASKET

Braggs case is about to go on hold due to the immunity challenge as well. Since the SC is hearing the immunity case, that case has to halt s depositions and testimony from Trump is not allowed if he has immunity.

not necessarily ...
judge merchan ...
a biden donor ...
has yet to rule on the matter which predates trump's term of office ...

HELD IN ABEYANCE

(01-15-2024 02:14 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Somebody lays their hopes on a corrupt DOJ and judges. The SCOTUS probably isn’t going along. Bummer.

Fascists

(03-14-2024 09:47 AM)green Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 09:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 08:50 AM)green Wrote:  I'm on record ...
it's gonna be modern-day landslide for trump ...
unless fat alvin can secure felony conviction in the stormy daniels case ...
from 2016 ...
where statute of limitations lapsed ...
a minor inconvenience to these virulent SOBs...
hey hey hey ...

EGGS IN ONE BASKET

Braggs case is about to go on hold due to the immunity challenge as well. Since the SC is hearing the immunity case, that case has to halt s depositions and testimony from Trump is not allowed if he has immunity.

not necessarily ...
judge merchan ...
a biden donor ...
has yet to rule on the matter which predates trump's term of office ...

HELD IN ABEYANCE

It depends. If they are saying any part of the trial covers a timeframe when he was president, then the immunity comes into play. Keep i mind, Bragg has yet to state what the original crime was, so he likely has to state that (to see if it falls in the presdential timeframe) before a ruling can be put in place.

(03-14-2024 10:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 09:47 AM)green Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 09:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 08:50 AM)green Wrote:  I'm on record ...
it's gonna be modern-day landslide for trump ...
unless fat alvin can secure felony conviction in the stormy daniels case ...
from 2016 ...
where statute of limitations lapsed ...
a minor inconvenience to these virulent SOBs...
hey hey hey ...

EGGS IN ONE BASKET

Braggs case is about to go on hold due to the immunity challenge as well. Since the SC is hearing the immunity case, that case has to halt s depositions and testimony from Trump is not allowed if he has immunity.

not necessarily ...
judge merchan ...
a biden donor ...
has yet to rule on the matter which predates trump's term of office ...

HELD IN ABEYANCE

It depends. If they are saying any part of the trial covers a timeframe when he was president, then the immunity comes into play. Keep i mind, Bragg has yet to state what the original crime was, so he likely has to state that (to see if it falls in the presdential timeframe) before a ruling can be put in place.

furtherance of another crime he has to prove ...
it's so ridiculous ...

ON ITS FACE

(01-14-2024 04:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 03:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 09:56 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The Stasi Motion didn't get granted? It's an outrage!

Funny. 99.9% of the time an advice of counsel defense is used, it actually makes those communications highly relevant.

How dare a state actor make a motion to require a defendant to state if an affirmative defense is going to be used. Seems pretty much the norm.

The sheer horror of that act. /sarcasm off.

Its all on hold until big jack can move his case in dc along, so its completely irrelevant at this time. There was absolutely no reason for Trump to disclose anything at this time. This is just jack getting his panties in a wad.

I'm sure he is smart enough to know that the judge put the brakes on everything. Smith and Tanq don't like it. Too damned bad. You don't get to keep working the discovery file forward until the brakes are removed.

Sorry if that messes up the coordinated political calendar.

Well if Smith and Tang don't like it, its probably the sound legal decision in the matter. Smith got slapped down before by the Supreme Court in that other corruption case a few years back.

(03-14-2024 10:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 09:47 AM)green Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 09:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 08:50 AM)green Wrote:  I'm on record ...
it's gonna be modern-day landslide for trump ...
unless fat alvin can secure felony conviction in the stormy daniels case ...
from 2016 ...
where statute of limitations lapsed ...
a minor inconvenience to these virulent SOBs...
hey hey hey ...

EGGS IN ONE BASKET

Braggs case is about to go on hold due to the immunity challenge as well. Since the SC is hearing the immunity case, that case has to halt s depositions and testimony from Trump is not allowed if he has immunity.

not necessarily ...
judge merchan ...
a biden donor ...
has yet to rule on the matter which predates trump's term of office ...

HELD IN ABEYANCE

It depends. If they are saying any part of the trial covers a timeframe when he was president, then the immunity comes into play. Keep i mind, Bragg has yet to state what the original crime was, so he likely has to state that (to see if it falls in the presdential timeframe) before a ruling can be put in place.

Bragg is trying to claim it is an illegal campaign contribution which he has no jurisdiction over.

(03-14-2024 10:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 10:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  It depends. If they are saying any part of the trial covers a timeframe when he was president, then the immunity comes into play. Keep i mind, Bragg has yet to state what the original crime was, so he likely has to state that (to see if it falls in the presdential timeframe) before a ruling can be put in place.

Bragg is trying to claim it is an illegal campaign contribution which he has no jurisdiction over.

These are examples of the sort of 'games' that most of us don't like... The Leticia James case is an even better example of how you can use a law in a way that was clearly never intended.... if you find a smart enough attorney... and I don't mean LJ necessarily. The only people this application of the law might benefit are the lenders... who have a fiduciary responsibility themselves to do their own due diligence, and they did.

Question... Why doesn't anyone sue pawn brokers who tell you (just making up numbers but I know this is how these things work... you see it every day in that Pawn TV show in Vegas) that the diamond ring that you paid $3,000 for that is now being sold in stores for $4,000 that their own appraiser said is worth $2,000... that they will try and buy it from you for $1,000 and only make a $800 loan against it to you?? How is the 'borrower' the problem because he asks for $3,000 for his property?

If you want to protect the little guy, THAT would be how you would do it... not this.... and part of the reason why there are so many lawsuits against trump (part of.. yes, some of this is self-inflicted) is that all of these different jurisdictions are trying all sorts of 'novel' applications of laws hoping to find SOMETHING that sticks.

Quote:Bragg said his office doesn't oppose delaying the start of the trial for 30 days.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...rcna143481

PUSH IT BACK AN HOUR

(03-14-2024 02:23 PM)green Wrote:  

Quote:Bragg said his office doesn't oppose delaying the start of the trial for 30 days.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...rcna143481

PUSH IT BACK AN HOUR

Gives Bragg time to figure out what the crime is. He already knows the NY jury will convict whatever it is.

(03-14-2024 06:07 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 02:23 PM)green Wrote:  

Quote:Bragg said his office doesn't oppose delaying the start of the trial for 30 days.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...rcna143481

PUSH IT BACK AN HOUR

Gives Bragg time to figure out what the crime is. He already knows the NY jury will convict whatever it is.

'staging' the oblivious ...

isn't language a hoot ...

(03-14-2024 06:07 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 02:23 PM)green Wrote:  

Quote:Bragg said his office doesn't oppose delaying the start of the trial for 30 days.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...rcna143481

PUSH IT BACK AN HOUR

Gives Bragg time to figure out what the crime is. He already knows the NY jury will convict whatever it is.

They haven't decided yet what the crime is. Whether it was for tax reasons or election reasons. Paying a blackmailer is a crime none the less in NYC.

(03-14-2024 06:31 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 06:07 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 02:23 PM)green Wrote:  

Quote:Bragg said his office doesn't oppose delaying the start of the trial for 30 days.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...rcna143481

PUSH IT BACK AN HOUR

Gives Bragg time to figure out what the crime is. He already knows the NY jury will convict whatever it is.

They haven't decided yet what the crime is. Whether it was for tax reasons or election reasons. Paying a blackmailer is a crime none the less in NYC.

So is getting a business loan apparently.

(03-14-2024 07:59 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 06:31 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 06:07 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 02:23 PM)green Wrote:  

Quote:Bragg said his office doesn't oppose delaying the start of the trial for 30 days.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...rcna143481

PUSH IT BACK AN HOUR

Gives Bragg time to figure out what the crime is. He already knows the NY jury will convict whatever it is.

They haven't decided yet what the crime is. Whether it was for tax reasons or election reasons. Paying a blackmailer is a crime none the less in NYC.

So is getting a business loan apparently.

And don’t forget saying a that a lying beetch is lying when she says you raped her in a department store is also an $85,000,000 offense. NYC, where law goes to imitate Idiocracy.

(03-14-2024 06:07 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 02:23 PM)green Wrote:  

Quote:Bragg said his office doesn't oppose delaying the start of the trial for 30 days.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...rcna143481

PUSH IT BACK AN HOUR

Gives Bragg time to figure out what the crime is. He already knows the NY jury will convict whatever it is.

suppose the jury acquits or deadlocks ...
one or more holdout(s) nullifies verdict ...
game of chance ...
best not miss ...

HOMETOWN BOY MAKES GOOD