Trump Gets Triggered By Looming Criminal Charges & Melts Down

Maggie Haberman Casually Drops Bombshell That Prosecutors Are Looking Into Charges That Could End Trump for Good
BY JASON MICIAK

Instead of the IANAL, IAAL, and for the last year – at least – on this site, I’ve demanded to know why the feds were not going after Trump for wire fraud. Indeed, the case I most often used was Georgia. Why weren’t Trump’s calls into Georgia in an attempt to get officials to reverse the certification not charged by the U.S. attorney in Georgia for wire fraud (which covers more than money)?

Why wasn’t the money Trump raised off lies charged??? The triple boost in small letters? The automatic payments bimonthly? Why?

Now, according to Maggie Haberman, Jack Smith is looking at charging Trump for wire fraud. From Mediaite:

As they investigate former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, federal prosecutors have also been drilling down on whether Mr. Trump and a range of political aides knew that he had lost the race but still raised money off claims that they were fighting widespread fraud in the vote results, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Mr. Trump and his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes as they raised as much as $250 million through a political action committee by saying they needed the money to fight to reverse election fraud even though they had been told repeatedly that there was no evidence to back up those fraud claims.

Not only was there no evidence that there was a problem with the election, the money wasn’t used to stop the pretend steal!

NY Times article
https://twitter.com/x/status/1652107762493423618

The prosecutors are looking at the inner workings of the committee, Save America PAC, and at the Trump campaign’s efforts to prove its baseless case that Mr. Trump had been cheated out of victory.

It made no effort! It contracted that “effort” out to people willing to do it without pay, the thousands of MAGAs outside the Capitol, and the bought/paid-for Senators within the Capitol.

Finally.

www.politicalflare.com

Maggie Haberman Casually Drops Bombshell That Prosecutors Are Looking Into Charges That Could End Trump for Good

Instead of the IANAL, IAAL, and for the last year – at least – on this site, I’ve demanded to know why the feds were not going after Trump for wire fraud. Indeed, the case I most often used was Georgia. Why weren’t Trump’s calls into Georgia in an attempt to get officials to reverse […]
www.politicalflare.com www.politicalflare.com
 
Shiftless2 said:
Maggie Haberman Casually Drops Bombshell That Prosecutors Are Looking Into Charges That Could End Trump for Good
BY JASON MICIAK

Instead of the IANAL, IAAL, and for the last year – at least – on this site, I’ve demanded to know why the feds were not going after Trump for wire fraud. Indeed, the case I most often used was Georgia. Why weren’t Trump’s calls into Georgia in an attempt to get officials to reverse the certification not charged by the U.S. attorney in Georgia for wire fraud (which covers more than money)?

Why wasn’t the money Trump raised off lies charged??? The triple boost in small letters? The automatic payments bimonthly? Why?

Now, according to Maggie Haberman, Jack Smith is looking at charging Trump for wire fraud. From Mediaite:

As they investigate former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, federal prosecutors have also been drilling down on whether Mr. Trump and a range of political aides knew that he had lost the race but still raised money off claims that they were fighting widespread fraud in the vote results, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Mr. Trump and his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes as they raised as much as $250 million through a political action committee by saying they needed the money to fight to reverse election fraud even though they had been told repeatedly that there was no evidence to back up those fraud claims.

Not only was there no evidence that there was a problem with the election, the money wasn’t used to stop the pretend steal!

NY Times article
https://twitter.com/x/status/1652107762493423618

The prosecutors are looking at the inner workings of the committee, Save America PAC, and at the Trump campaign’s efforts to prove its baseless case that Mr. Trump had been cheated out of victory.

It made no effort! It contracted that “effort” out to people willing to do it without pay, the thousands of MAGAs outside the Capitol, and the bought/paid-for Senators within the Capitol.

Finally.

www.politicalflare.com

Maggie Haberman Casually Drops Bombshell That Prosecutors Are Looking Into Charges That Could End Trump for Good

Instead of the IANAL, IAAL, and for the last year – at least – on this site, I’ve demanded to know why the feds were not going after Trump for wire fraud. Indeed, the case I most often used was Georgia. Why weren’t Trump’s calls into Georgia in an attempt to get officials to reverse […]
www.politicalflare.com www.politicalflare.com
Click to expand...
 

From the Epoch Times (if you're not familiar with it, this is a far right site affiliated with Falun Gong and it makes Fox look like bleeding heart liberals) ​

​

ANALYSIS: The Potential Implications of Trump’s Legal Team’s Letter to Congress​

Hans Mahncke

Last week, a lawyer for former President Donald Trump, Timothy Parlatore, along with three additional lawyers, sent a 10-page letter to the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio). The letter seeks Turner’s intervention in special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal investigation regarding Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents.

The letter details, for the first time ever, Trump’s side of how a supposedly unremarkable document packing and storing issue culminated in the Aug. 8, 2022, raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, as well as in the possible indictment of a former president for mishandling classified documents.

What remains unclear, however, is the strategy being pursued by Trump’s legal team in sending the letter. The demand that Congress shut down the special counsel investigation is not within Congress’s purview, most notably because of the separation of powers. The second demand from Trump’s lawyers, that Congress change the laws regarding how classified documents are handled by the executive branch, is equally puzzling. Congress is split and, even if they wanted to, Republicans cannot change laws.

However, the bigger problem related to this second demand is that it appears to be an indirect admission that Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents were mishandled.

This would represent a marked shift from Trump’s previous line of defense, which was that Trump had unfettered declassification powers and that, therefore, it was logically and legally impossible for him to have unlawfully retained classified documents.

The objective of the apparent shift in strategy may be to draw President Joe Biden into the matter. Biden has his own classified documents scandal, having retained, in various locations, a trove of classified documents from his time as a senator and as vice president, including in his Delaware garage, which was also being used by his son Hunter Biden.

By blaming Trump’s and Biden’s problems on imprecise rules and procedures in how former presidents and vice presidents handle documents, both Trump and Biden could be painted as victims, rather than as guilty parties.

However, such a strategy comes at a heavy price. First, as mentioned, it involves a concession that Trump’s documents were in fact mishandled. Trump’s lawyers lay the blame for this at the hands of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which they claim did not assist Trump in packing up documents at the White House. This is alleged to have been a departure from previous practice.

Trump’s lawyers also blame the haste of leaving the White House for the fact that the documents ended up in Mar-a-Lago. They further blame this on the fact that previous presidents were two-term presidents and had more time to pack up but, in reality, they have opened the door to claims that Trump himself created the haste by refusing to concede the presidential election. This also reignites issues such as the January 6 riots, which do not help Trump’s cause.

Second, Trump’s team makes a related admission that, had NARA offered Trump assistance, Trump “would have accepted the offer and there would have been no reason to transfer the documents to Mar-a-Lago.”

Again, this goes against the previous narrative that Trump had declassified all documents and was therefore entitled to retain them.

Third, Trump’s lawyers admit that when Trump received the first NARA request to return all documents with classification markings in January 2022—four months before the grand jury issued a subpoena for the documents—“President Trump asked his staff to retrieve 15 boxes that had been moved to Mar-a-Lago so he could see what was in them before they were sent to NARA in Washington, DC.” But the lawyers concede that Trump did not review the boxes “due to other demands on his time” and that Trump “subsequently directed his staff to ship the boxes to NARA without any review by him or his staff.”

Apparently, this concession was made to explain why boxes that contained both documents marked classified, as well as assorted personal items and presidential records, ended up in the hands of NARA.

However, admitting that Trump intended to go through the boxes but ended up not doing so creates new problems. Most conspicuously, it paints Trump’s Mar-a-Lago operation as sloppy. But the bigger problem for Trump is that by conceding that he intended to participate in the January 2022 search for documents, Trump’s lawyers have opened the door to claims that Trump might have participated in the May 2022 review of documents after the grand jury subpoena for those documents was issued.

This is a crucial admission for potential criminal charges against Trump because Trump’s main legal problem is that one of his lawyers signed a certification claiming that all documents marked classified had been returned pursuant to the grand jury subpoena. This turned out to be incorrect after the FBI’s raid uncovered additional documents marked classified.

In their letter, Trump’s lawyers argue that the grand jury certification only pertained to documents that were found and not to all documents that may have been kept at Mar-a-Lago. However, the certification does not make this distinction. It states that “any and all responsive documents accompany this certification.”

Special counsel Jack Smith might use the admission that Trump intended to personally get involved in the January 2022 documents search as evidence that Trump may have been involved in the subsequent search and perhaps in the false certification. Trump could still claim that his lawyers did all the searching and that it had nothing to do with him but this latest admission will allow Smith to question that narrative.

The strongest argument put forward by Trump’s lawyers is that the manner in which Trump and Biden have been treated in their respective cases is very different. While Trump’s home was raided, Biden was allowed to conduct his own searches, even after several batches of classified documents had been found in various places. Trump’s lawyers also make the point that Biden kept his classified documents for many years, going back to his days in the Senate, whereas Trump only had his documents for about one year. While Biden’s documents were moved and stored at multiple locations, Trump’s were always in the same place.

While these are strong arguments, it remains unclear what the purpose of involving Congress is, given that the case is with a special counsel in the executive branch.

It also remains unclear why Trump’s lawyers made concessions, seemingly without gaining anything in return. While the letter has not been widely covered in the media, there is no doubt that special counsel Jack Smith has taken note and that he will use the various admissions in the letter against Trump.

End of part 1

​

 
Part 2

Trump Team Tricked by DOJ​

On a broader level, perhaps the most notable thing about the letter is the confirmation that Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) tricked Trump and his team into thinking that they were working together to amicably resolve the issues surrounding the documents while, in reality, the DOJ was trying to entrap Trump.

The first time they were tricked was in the run-up to the grand jury subpoena, when Trump’s lawyers claim to have been cooperating, only to have the subpoena sprung on them. Trump’s lawyers lament that “by unleashing a grand jury subpoena, DOJ intended to put President Trump on the defensive, not to invite his cooperation.”

Inexplicably, despite having been tricked once, only to be slapped with the May 11, 2022, grand jury subpoena, Trump’s team was again tricked into cooperating when the DOJ’s Chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the National Security Division, Jay Bratt, went to Mar-a-Lago on June 3, 2022. According to Trump’s lawyers, Trump personally met Bratt, and Trump’s team was led to believe that the DOJ would “ask to return to Mar-a-Lago and examine all the boxes.” Apparently, Bratt reinforced this belief when he asked that an additional lock be installed in the area where the boxes were being kept.

According to the letter from Trump’s lawyers, “President Trump and Mr. Corcoran [a lawyer for Trump] understood this to be the beginning, not the end, of working cooperatively with Mr. Bratt and DOJ to resolve any outstanding concerns about the boxes. President Trump did not imagine that, rather than accept his offer, Mr. Bratt would abruptly discontinue the dialogue and seek a search warrant, apparently eager to criminalize this document dispute with NARA.”

While Trump has many genuine grievances regarding his treatment at the hands of Bratt and the DOJ, these issues should have been addressed as soon as they arose. For instance, the NARA request for documents could have been contested or at least debated over. Instead, Trump’s team cooperated and sent NARA many boxes of unexamined and unvetted materials. Notwithstanding Trump’s cooperation, NARA used the contents of those boxes to instigate a criminal investigation of Trump. Similarly, the resultant grand jury subpoena should have been challenged at the time for being both vague and overbroad. Instead, Trump’s team again tried to cooperate, only to be served with a search warrant that was itself based on the assertion that Trump’s cooperation had been inadequate. Yet, even after these events, Trump and his team continued to try and cooperate, only to be served with a search warrant.

Trump and his lawyers should have been well aware that they were dealing with people who were not seeking cooperation but were out to get them. Just as with previous attempts to entrap Trump, including the Russia collusion hoax, the Ukraine impeachment affair, and the January 6 investigation, the documents saga was an entrapment scheme all along.

www.theepochtimes.com

ANALYSIS: The Potential Implications of Trump’s Legal Team’s Letter to Congress

News analysis Last week, a lawyer for former President Donald Trump, Timothy Parlatore, along with three additional lawyers, ...
www.theepochtimes.com www.theepochtimes.com
 
S2 P1 & P2

I can't take Trump seriously, despite the fact that he's the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

I confess, I was a teen when I developed an appreciation for wild conspiracy theories. Rumors that Paul McCartney was dead ran through my school for days, supported by fragments cherry-picked from Beatles history. It was nonsense of course, but creative nonsense that I see mirrored in religious believers, and Trump's nonsensical world-view.
"The only crime that I've committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it." Trump 23/04/09 on FOX Easter Sunday
Click to expand...
- nonsense -
 
Shiftless2 said:

"Trump just chickened out of testifying in his rape trial" S2 #67​

Click to expand...
Not often, but occasionally Trump sobers up and avoids tumbling over the precipice.
Trump's already exposed his lie. Shown a photograph of his accuser Trump wrongly identified her as Marla Maples, Trump's second wife. No crime there. BUT !! Trump also said his accuser is not his type. Can't have it both ways the Donald.
 
Jury began their deliberations and after a mere two and a half hours came back to find him guilty of sexual abuse and defamation.

Jury Sides With Writer Who Says That Trump Sexually Abused Her​

Six men and three women found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll but rejected her rape accusation.
Benjamin Weiser, Lola Fadulu and Kate Christobek

A Manhattan jury on Tuesday found former President Donald J. Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of the magazine writer E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages in a widely watched civil trial that sought to apply the accountability of the #MeToo era to a dominant political figure.

The federal jury of six men and three women found that Mr. Trump, 76, defamed Ms. Carroll when he posted a statement on his Truth Social website in October, calling her case “a complete con job” and “a Hoax and a lie.”

The jury, in returning its verdict shortly after 3 p.m. said Ms. Carroll had not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Trump had raped her, as she had long claimed.
Ms. Carroll sued the former president last year, accusing him of shoving her against a wall and raping her in a dressing room the luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan, in the mid 1990s.

Although more than a dozen women have accused Mr. Trump of sexual misconduct over the years, allegations he has always denied, Ms. Carroll’s case is the first of those claims to be successfully tested before a jury.

The jury’s unanimous verdicts came after just under three hours of deliberation in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Its findings are civil, not criminal, meaning Mr. Trump has not been convicted of any crime and faces no prison time.

Sexual abuse is defined in New York as subjecting a person to sexual contact without consent. Rape is defined under state law as sexual intercourse without consent which involves any penetration of the penis in the vaginal opening.

The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, had told the jury before sending it to deliberate that “preponderance of the evidence” standard could be understood as “more likely true than not true.” (In a criminal case, when a jury is asked to assess guilt, they must meet a much higher standard, of beyond a reasonable doubt.)

Jury also found that Ms. Carroll proved that Ms. Carroll was injured as a result of Trump’s publication of his denial of her accusations on his Truth Social account in October 2022.
The jury determined that Ms. Carroll had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Trump knew his statement was false when he said her accusation was a hoax, a legal

Across three days of vivid and sometimes contentious testimony, E. Jean Carroll recounted for a jury the day she said Donald J. Trump attacked her, sparring with a lawyer for the former president as she told her story.

Ms. Carroll, a former magazine columnist, said in a Manhattan federal court that the encounter with Mr. Trump started with banter after he stopped her at the 58th Street exit of the Bergdorf Goodman department store nearly three decades ago.

Ms. Carroll said Mr. Trump asked her to help select a gift for a female friend. “I love to give advice, and here was Donald Trump asking me for advice about buying a present,” she said.

She described to the jury how they went to the lingerie section and stumbled upon a gray-blue bodysuit. Mr. Trump directed her to “go put this on,” she said. She declined and told him to put it on instead — banter that she described as “jesting and joshing.”

Then, she said, Mr. Trump motioned her inside the dressing room, immediately shut the door and shoved her against the wall.

Ms. Carroll said Mr. Trump used his weight to pin her and pulled down her tights. She grew emotional as she spoke. “I was pushing him back,” she said, adding, “I was almost too frightened to think.”

“His fingers went into my vagina, which was extremely painful,” Ms. Carroll said. Then, she said, he inserted his penis.

Ms. Carroll said she used her knee to push Mr. Trump away and fled.

The event had lifelong consequences, she said: “It left me unable to ever have a romantic life again.”

Mr. Trump has denied Ms. Carroll’s allegations. During cross-examination, a lawyer for the former president questioned Ms. Carroll about her politics, the decades it took her to come forward and her inability to recall the year that the alleged attack took place.

Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, insinuated that Ms. Carroll strategically chose to reveal her story to increase sales of a memoir in which she first publicly brought her allegation.

Ms. Carroll, however, said that she decided to go public after The New York Times’s “bombshell” reporting about Harvey Weinstein, which set off the #MeToo movement. She said that telling her story about Mr. Trump might be “a way to change the culture of sexual violence.”

The lawyer pressed Ms. Carroll repeatedly about basic facts, probing for inconsistencies and asking about her inability to remember precisely when in 1995 or 1996 the encounter occurred.

“I wish to heaven we could give you a date,” she replied.

Mr. Tacopina also questioned Ms. Carroll about whether she had screamed for help.

“I’m not a screamer,” Ms. Carroll responded. “I was fighting,” she said. “You can’t beat up on me for not screaming.”

Mr. Tacopina said he was not, but Ms. Carroll, her voice rising, said from the witness stand that women often keep silent about attacks because they fear being asked what they could have done to stop it.

“They are always asked, ‘Why didn’t you scream?’” Ms. Carroll said.

“He raped me, whether I screamed or not,” she declared.

More from Trump, this time to Fox News Digital: ““We’ll appeal. We got treated very badly by the Clinton-appointed judge,” Trump said.

He added: “I have no idea who this woman is.”

Before discharging the jury, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan suggested to the jurors that they “not identify yourselves, not now and not for a long time.” This jury, composed of six men and three women, has been anonymous throughout the trial, even to the judge and the lawyers. The judge said during jury selection at the end of April that the jurors would be picked up in cars from assembly points and be brought into the courthouse through a garage. He said at the time that it was “all for your protection.”

Trump was first heard discussing assaults on women when the “Access Hollywood” tape became public during the 2016 campaign. When he won the presidential election after that, it seemed as though the tape had ultimately had little impact. But Carroll’s lawyers used the tape to build a damning case against Trump, one that ultimately proved successful, as jurors appear to have ...

www.nytimes.com

Trump Rape Lawsuit: Jury Finds Trump Liable for Sexual Abuse and Defamation

A jury of six men and three women awarded the writer E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages. Donald J. Trump called the verdict a “disgrace.”
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Getting him to pay is another matter entirely

mkNmLsN.jpeg
 
Judge Kaplan issues safety warning to jurors of E. Jean Carroll vs Trump trial. “My advice to you is not to identify yourselves. Not now and not for a long time”

YXnOFr6.png

pvrKmzn.png
 
"... Judge Lewis Kaplan advised them before their dismissal not to identify themselves although they're now allowed to." Rubin / S2 #72
Click to expand...
I heard juror anonymity was not common, even in mob boss trials. If so what does that tell us about the law judge's perception of Trump?
 
Not just his perception of Trump - his perception of Trump's followers.

On a similar vein, after the OJ Simpson trial I remember a reporter going around and interviewing the general public. And one young black kid said that if he had been on the jury and they'd found OJ guilty he'd never have been able to go home again. Not to his neighborhood.
 
230514.JPG

This dizzy b**** is in desperate need of an education.
No desire to be gratuitously crude but I suspect if she were to be brutally marathon gang-raped by competing biker gangs, it might help uplift her to a more charitable attitude about the women she claims to trust.
Do you suppose her insatiable desire to perform oral sex on any man that will hold relatively still for her has deformed her perception?
I appreciate those that embrace the challenge of public service. When do you suppose Karianne Lisonbee (R-UT) might begin?
 
"Trump's White House lawyer predicts ex-president will end up in jail ..." R. Sharp #77
Click to expand...
How many years has it been?! If we extrapolate the time curve Trump will be entering the "jail" house [not "prison"] at age 283. No rush fellers.
ur·gent (ûrjənt)
adj.
1. Compelling immediate action or attention; pressing.
2. Conveying a sense of pressing importance: an urgent message.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin urgēns, urgent-, present participle of urgēre, to urge.]
urgent·ly adv.
Synonyms: urgent, exigent, pressing, imperative
These adjectives mean compelling immediate attention. Urgent often implies that a matter takes precedence over others: "For I ride on an errand most urgent, and with the first light of morning we must go" (J.R.R. Tolkien).
Exigent and pressing suggest an urgency that requires prompt action: "When once disease was introduced into the rural districts, its effects appeared more horrible, more exigent, and more difficult to cure, than in towns" (Mary Shelley). "The danger now became too pressing to admit of longer delay" (James Fenimore Cooper).
Imperative implies a need or demand whose fulfillment cannot be deferred: "The stricken countries of Europe needed everything and could afford to buy nothing. Financial help was imperative" (David McCullough).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
"Justice delayed is justice denied." William Ewart Gladstone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top