https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-lawyers-challenge-limits-evidence-sharing-prosecutors-warn-threats-2023-08-11/

Federal prosecutors revealed on Friday that they intend to soon release to Trump's defense team 11.6 million pages and records of evidence, in addition to a hard drive containing images extracted from electronic devices.

That's a lot of evidence.

I don’t know how that number could be real :chin:

Judge Chutkan says:

"The more a party makes “inflammatory” statements that could taint a jury pool, she said, “the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly” to ensure a fair trial."

The carrot is also a stick.

From a year-old post ...

Btw, DJT will be stricken from some key state ballots due to provisions in US 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 because of the findings of J6 Committee and subsequent state & federal indictments, so the fat old orange fascist fuck won't be able to run again in '24 (though he'll still be a player / spoiler of some sort.) — 180 Proof

News flash @NOS4A2 – Anti-"Deep State" Federalist Society legal scholars argue that Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 is CONSTITUTIONALLY DISQUALIFIED from ever being POTUS again:

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/william-baude-and-colleague-write-about-section-3-disqualification-trump-holding-office



Thoughts?

@Ciceronianus @Hanover @Maw

Federal prosecutors revealed on Friday that they intend to soon release to Trump's defense team 11.6 million pages and records of evidence, in addition to a hard drive containing images extracted from electronic devices. — Michael

So Trump could hire a team of 1,000 lawyers, and each would have 11,600 pages to mull over. I think there is going to be a request for more time to prepare.

My guess is the "J6 trial" will be set for March '24 – the "Falsified Business Records trial" in Manhattan will be moved from March to ??? – and the defense will just have to suck it up. :sweat:

Anti-"Deep State" Federalist Society legal scholars argue that Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 is CONSTITUTIONALLY DISQUALIFIED from ever being POTUS again: — 180 Proof

I read that (fooloso4 posted the link.) If the seditious conspiracy trial, now slated for Jan 2 2024, results in a guilty verdict, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for an interested party to file suit on this basis, with a very firm constitutional foundation. Here’s hoping it happens, and that some decent conservatives - there are such - become party to it. (Although one would have hoped that the very fact that DJT will not recognise the validity of the last election he contested would itself be sufficient grounds for disqualification from the next one. Alas, common sense does not have much footing in the current American political scene.)

Trump could hire a team of 1,000 lawyers — Metaphysician Undercover

Trump burns through lawyers like most folks do toilet rolls, and the supply of the former is considerably more constrained than the latter. Not to mention the expense :yikes:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/12/trump-legal-costs-pac-00110960

Maybe, just maybe, Trump has gotten himself in over his head this time. We might need a new phrase to describe his upcoming position, 'real bankruptcy', meaning that you actually suffer the effects of having no money, as opposed to Trump's usual position, 'fake bankruptcy', meaning that you declare bankruptcy to avoid paying your creditors, and they suffer the effects of having no money.

I saw something similar at Reason magazine, online. I'm not overfond of The Federalist Society, with which Clarence ("The Moocher") Thomas and Samuel ("The Crank") Alito and others I think less than admirable are associated. It's avowed commitment to "individual liberty" seems to me to be limited and often in conflict with its avowed commitment to "traditional values."

Regardless, I think this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment applies. But I can't claim to have read the law review article and likely won't (I loathe law review articles). I think Michael Popek is overly optimistic, though. The leaders of the Republican Party are the most part craven, the followers of this Rupert Pupkin-like figure are too zealous in their ignorance to pay attention to such things, and conservative media is largely made up of his shills. The only hope is with the courts, though it's possible the majority of the voters recognize him for what he is.

:up:
@Hanover @Maw

Any guesses how much bail the judge will set for Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 in Fulton County, Georgia?

My thought on the 14th Amendment thing was that it was interesting. It seems to give a basis to disqualify any person from federal office who has engaged in "insurrection or rebellion," which could be stretched I suppose to mean someone who attempted to interfere in an election. The historical context is somewhat problematic for such an interpretation considering the "insurrection and rebellion" that amendment referenced involved folks most literally taking up arms and killing US soliders in an attempt to remove themselves from the union. What Trump did, while nothing I would defend, was distinct enough that I could see it being difficult to convince many that it was a literal insurrection or rebellion.

It's also not clear who gets to decide here whether it was an insurrection or rebellion. The current indictments themselves don't use those words. Would it be Congress' duty to make such a finding, or maybe just one of the houses, or perhaps the courts. Maybe the journal article discussed that. Seems all academic talk mostly for law professors to ponder over. The way, I fear, we must put an end to Trump is to not elect him. The power is in the hands of the people, probably the way it was intended, and we can blame no one but ourselves with the outcome.

As to bail, I've read that the thought of Trump ever going to jail is around 0%. I'm told the Secret Service has weighed in and declared any sort of jail time would create a national security issue that they couldn't protect. I know you want to see the perp walk out the door and into the patrol car, leaning forward with cuffs behind his back, then streched out on a bench waiting for a friend to come by with some cash to get him out. Let's not think so big and instead just hope we don't see him back in the oval office, feet propped up on his desk.

:cool: 4 out of 4 in 2023 ...

The timeline of MAGA Loser #1's legal reckoning for his 2016-2023 crime spree (excluding potentially ruinous civil lawsuits):

1. NYC felony indictment
31Mar23 :up:
"34 counts of Business Documents Fraud Crealing and/or Covering-up Felonies", etc

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-full-document-640043319549?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=RelatedStories&utm_campaign=position_02

2. Miami, Federal indictment
8Jun23 :up:
re: 37 counts "Mishandling Documents, Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, Violating Espionage Act, Making False Statements to Federal Authorities, Witness Tampering" etc

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/donald-trump-charged-retention-classified-documents

9Jun23 Federal indictment unsealed ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/09/trump-indictment-unsealed-pdf-text-criminal-charges

2.1 Miami, Federal Superceding Indictment (1)
27Jul23 :up:
+3 felony charges (+1 Espionage (32), +2 Obstruction), etc
+ new exhibit – "Iran war plan" documents (audio, July 2021)

3. Washington, DC, Federal indictment
1Aug23 :up:
re: 4 counts
• Conspiracy to Defraud the U.S.;
• Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding;
• Obstruction of and attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding;
• Conspiracy to Deprive Voting Rights

1Aug23 Federal Indictment unsealed ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/01/trump-indictment-full-text-2020-election-jan-6 — 180 Proof

4. Fulton County, GA, felony indictment
14Aug23 :up:
re: 41 counts, 19 defendants (+ 30 unindicted co-conspirators*)

*cooperating witnesses for the state :wink:

In sum: RICO Defendent-1 is charged with Violation of Georgia RICO Act + 12 other felonies...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/14/politics/read-trump-indictment-georgia-election/index.html

LOCK HIM UP! :victory: :rofl:

Regardless, I think this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment applies — Ciceronianus

Does someone need to file suit in order for Trump to be found ineligible to stand? I mean, it wouldn’t automatically follow from a conviction without a separate suit being filed would it? (When McConnell declined to convict Trump on his second impeachment, he pointedly said that civil laws have other remedies for Trump’s acts. He might have been referring to that.)

It's a bit of a spectacle and distraction from actual policy affecting people's lives. Trumpism isn't going to be defeated in court anyways.

I love seeing the "lock her up" crowd in the maw of the criminal justice system.

There are many disgusting things about Trump, but the most disgusting is the way he treats criminal indictments as commercial opportunities, and then bleeds his rubes to pay the legal fees. Really his depravity is bottomless.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23909543/23sc188947-criminal-indictment.pdf

At all times relevant to this Count of the Indictment, the Defendants, as well as others not
named as defendants, unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia, and elsewhere. Defendants Donald John Trump, Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, John Charles Eastman, Mark Randall Meadows, Kenneth John Chesebro, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Jenna Lynn Ellis, Ray Stallings Smith III, Robert David Cheeley, Michael A. Roman, David James Shafer, Shawn Micah Tresher Still, Stephen Cliffgard Lee, Harrison William Prescott Floyd, Trevian C. Kutti, Sidney Katherine Powell, Cathleen Alston Latham, Scott Graham Hall, Misty Hampton, unindicted co-conspirators Individual 1 through Individual 30, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, constituted criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury.

RICO charges for Trump in Georgia.

Trumpism isn't going to be defeated in court anyways. — Benkei

And Trumpism might succeed better without Trump and with Trump being a fond memory.
Or actually it should just be called populism.

Are these the same indictments published before the grand jury got a chance to decide whether to indict him or not? Yes, yes they are. Another farce, almost like everyone is infected with the same disease, rendering their sense of justice impotent.

Are these the same indictments published before the grand jury got a chance to decide whether to indict him or not? Yes, yes they are. — NOS4A2

Not exactly. This case information file was posted and then removed. It seems to be an error given that the case number on it (23SC188945) is apparently unrelated to Trump.

My guess is that someone mistyped the case number and so when case 23SC188945 had its information posted it included the Trump file by mistake.

Another farce, almost like everyone is infected with the same disease, rendering their sense of justice impotent.

Or a simple mistake that does nothing to exonerate Trump from the crimes he is alleged to have committed.

Did a little research for you so that you can schedule accordingly.

Trump's current trials are set as follows:

The D.C. case - Conspiracy to defraud the US by overturning an election - January 2, 2024.
The Manhattan case - Improper use of campaign funds - March 2, 2024.
The Miami case - Illegal possession of classified documents - May 20, 2024.
The Atlanta case - Conspiracy to change the results of the election - Not yet set.

It should be a busy campaign season for him.

Does someone need to file suit in order for Trump to be found ineligible to stand? I mean, it wouldn’t automatically follow from a conviction without a separate suit being filed would it? (When McConnell declined to convict Trump on his second impeachment, he pointedly said that civil laws have other remedies for Trump’s acts. He might have been referring to that.) — Quixodian

I'm not sure what the procedure would be. As far as I know, there's been no proceeding under it. This mountebank and the myrmidons that assist him have been relatively rare since the Amendment was adopted. Suckers, of course, are born every minute as P.T. Barnum or someone else said.

I suspect McConnell was merely trying to justify his cowardice in failing to support impeachment when he made the remarks you refer to.

Either malice or incompetence. Neither are good, and it let’s me know the level of expertise we’re working with here.

It will be interesting to see if other states move forward with fake elector investigations. If the Georgia case leads to a conviction, the coordination amongst central actors will provide a body of evidence that will permit more effort to be put upon revealing local examples of pressure.

Click here to sign a petition to ban Trump from holding public office

Signed. Just think, Trump wouldn't be going through all of this if he had just conceded the election and gave back classified documents when asked nicely. Trump brought all of this on himself. Zero sympathy, here. Also, he could have refrained from sexually assaulting women and paying hush money to porn stars using campaign funds. Trump supporters: this is your golden calf, your false deity...

Finally, there's some momentum developing behind the claim that Trump ought to be declared ineligible for public office. I've long wondered how it could be possible for a candidate to stand for an election for which he refuses to abide by the rules or recognise judicial or constitutional authority. I mean, you couldn't get into a chess match or tennis tournament with that attitude, let alone be elected to the highest office.

Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.

The latest salvo came Saturday in The Atlantic magazine, from liberal law professor Laurence Tribe and J. Michael Luttig, the former federal appellate judge and prominent conservative, who argue the 14th Amendment disqualifies the former president from returning to the Oval Office.

“The people who wrote the 14th Amendment were not fools. They realized that if those people who tried to overturn the country, who tried to get rid of our peaceful transitions of power are again put in power, that would be the end of the nation, the end of democracy,” Tribe told CNN’s Kasie Hunt on “State of the Union” on Sunday.

Luttig, who’s become a strong critic of Trump’s actions after the election, called for officials to look carefully at his qualifications for being on the ballot.

“All officials, federal and state, who have a responsibility to put on the ballot candidates for the presidency of the United States are obligated under the Constitution to determine whether Donald Trump qualifies to be put on the ballot,” Luttig said. — CNN

Signed it. Thanks! :up:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/829968

Good on you, I didn't, of course, as I'm not a US elector, but as you know, deeply interested (and concerned).

Yeah, well, as the link in my previous post indicates, I'd advocated Putin's Bitch's disqualification last June or thereabouts. I'm encouraged that the discussion in legal and political circles is gaining momentum. I think when Arizona, Wisconsin and/or Michigan also bring separate RICO / conspiracy indictments similiar to Georgia's indictment, the floodgates will burst open with lawsuits to bar Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 from various state ballots for President (or any federal office), the effect of which killing his "candidacy" in it's gaudy crib.

update:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/