Trump Gets Triggered By Looming Criminal Charges & Melts Down

He won't listen to his lawyers and has never figured out that "when you're in a hole you stop digging"

SELF-DEFEATING: Trump OUTBURST earns new defamation charges

BY STEPHANIE BAZZLE

After an amended complaint listed the continued (alleged) defamation of E Jean Carroll after a jury verdict in her favor, Donald Trump continued to lash out against his victim.

E. Jean Carroll received a hard-earned verdict earlier this month after sharing her story with a jury, which found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation.

That didn’t stop him from repeating his attacks on her, though, and she’s filed an amended complaint.

Trump seems determined to make the case for her — immediately after she filed her amended complaint, he turned to his social media to repeat the same statements a jury already deemed defamatory, as well as comments that were deemed inadmissible in court.

He declared that Carroll “made up” the story, that he never met her (except in a receiving line), and that he never touched her.

He revamped his “not my type” claim into a declaration that he would “never want to” meet or touch her.

He repeated his unsupported (and irrelevant to the sexual assault and defamation allegations) claim that Carroll said racist things about her husband, and reiterated his argument that accepting help to fund her case proves she’s “part of the Democrats playbook” and that the whole case is a purely political attack.

This is, of course, all belied by the fact that she told friends about the sexual assault at the time, and a jury has already affirmed the credibility of her story.

There’s also the fact that he mistook Carroll for his ex-wife during his deposition, despite claiming she’s not his “type.”

Trump isn’t letting facts get in the way of a misogynistic and potentially defamatory attack, though. He posted, in part:

Continued
 

Trump’s Lawyers Warn Him: Get Ready to Be Indicted by the Feds​

The former president has angrily complained in response to predictions that if the Justice Department is going to charge him, then “what about Joe Biden?”

 
Here's a recent snapshot of the Republican presidential nomination race.

"Ron DeSantis
... his efforts to sell Trump Lite to voters who want the full-calorie version have fizzled so far."

"Full calorie". Ha ! That's why Kimmel calls Trump Vladimir Gluten.

<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>
It's been years. I've puzzled over why Trump hasn't been held to account. Still not sure, BUT !!
It may be those bringing these actions against Trump had enough doubt about the system to believe the [other] Teflon Donald would evade / survive them.
So instead the indictments are piling up at this crucial time in the race.
I can't say for certain it's deliberate. But I can imagine, among sincere law & order conservatives Trump's current and near term future legal adversities do raise legitimate questions about Trump's legitimacy / viability.
 

====================================
Trump’s chances of going to prison skyrocket as The Guardian drops bombshell on Trump, reveals that, “Donald Trump’s lawyer tasked with searching for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after the justice department issued a subpoena told associates that he was waved off from searching the former president’s office, where the FBI later found the most sensitive materials anywhere on the property.”

But it gets even worse for Trump…

he Guardian continues: “The lawyer found 38 classified documents in the storage room. He then asked whether he should search anywhere else but was steered away, he told associates. The lawyer never searched Trump’s office and told prosecutors that the 38 papers were the extent of the material at Mar-a-Lago.

The assertion that there were no classified documents in Trump’s office or elsewhere proved to be wrong when the FBI retrieved 101 classified documents months afterwards, including from the office, which was found to be where the most highly classified documents had been located.

The lawyer previously unreported account, as relayed to the Guardian by two people familiar with the matter, suggests he was materially misled as the special counsel Jack Smith examines whether his incomplete search was actually a ploy by Trump to retain classified documents.”

This is DEVASTATING for Trump. It shows not just criminal intent, but consciousness of guilt — two legal elements that are sure to doom Trump once Special Counsel Jack Smith criminally charges him for stealing highly classified documents — and then lying about to federal investigators.

=======================================

 
S2 #84
This information in #84 may be considered "public knowledge". - but -
Even if common knowledge, that doesn't necessarily mean it's admissible as evidence.
Not clear to me:
where do the legal standards of "attorney : client" privilege apply here?

And is this Trump's "clever" way of rendering the most damning evidence against him inadmissible?
 
Don't think so - I'll defer to the lawyers on this because attorney-client privilege is a far more complicated topic than you might at first suspect. And there are any number of exceptions to that:

If a client seeks advice from an attorney to assist with the furtherance of a crime or fraud or the post-commission concealment of the crime or fraud, then the communication is not privileged. If, however, the client has completed a crime or fraud and then seeks the advice of legal counsel, such communications are privileged unless the client considers covering up the crime or fraud.

My reading of this says that the information in question is not privileged but as I said, I'll leave it to the lawyers do make that determination (BTW, if the lawyer thought the information was privileged he couldn't have released it without his client's permission (explicit or implicit) and, if it wasn't exempt the lawyer is in deep doo-doo with the Bar.
 

====================================

BREAKING: Former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks gives Donald Trump some truly terrible news about his classified documents scandal — and beautifully trolls him with a hilarious pin in the process.
Wine-Banks appeared on MSNBC wearing a perfectly chosen little toast pin and explained that she had it on because she thinks that "he's toast."

In particular, the renowned former prosecutor believes that the tape recording of Trump discussing stolen classified material about a military strike on Iran will sink him in the end.

"This evidence just adds to the mound of stuff that already exists, and no one piece is the ‘be all and end all,’ but when you put them all together, the case is so strong. You cannot imagine his getting away with this," said Wine-Banks.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the classified documents that were smuggled into Mar-a-Lago and then hidden from the government is reportedly escalating, and he is already sitting on a mountain of evidence. Things look increasingly grim for the already-indicted former president.
 
Jill Wine-Banks looks well-preserved for a Watergate era prosecutor. Perhaps it's an older pic of her, perhaps analog, alongside a digital image of Trump.

The Republican primary:
mud-slinging season has begun. The RNC has set a high bar for primary debate candidate eligibility.

The RNC will require that: [source: https://nypost.com/2023/06/02/rnc-announces-requirements-for-first-gop-primary-debate/ ]
- all participants attain at least 1% in three national polls or 1% in two national polls and 1% in a state poll from one of four early nominating states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
- debaters to have at least 40,000 unique donors and at least 200 in 20 states.
- have a minimum of 40,000 unique donors to their principal presidential campaign committee or exploratory committee and at least 200 unique donors per state in 20 states or more.

These criteria present the appearance of institutional (RNC) bias favoring establishment candidates with widespread name recognition. "Trump" for example?
 

Trump IndictedTrump Is Charged in Classified Documents Inquiry

The seven counts against the former president include conspiracy to obstruct, willful retention of documents and false statements, according to people familiar with the indictment. He said he would surrender to the authorities on Tuesday.
Alan Feuer, Maggie Haberman, William K. Rashbaum, Ben Protess

Alan Feuer, Maggie Haberman, William K. Rashbaum and Ben Protess

Trump is the first former president in U.S. history to face federal charges.

The Justice Department on Thursday took the legally and politically momentous step of lodging federal criminal charges against former President Donald J. Trump, accusing him of mishandling classified documents he kept upon leaving office and then obstructing the government’s efforts to reclaim them.

Mr. Trump confirmed on his social media platform that he had been indicted. The charges against him include willfully retaining national defense secrets in violation of the Espionage Act, making false statements and a conspiracy to obstruct justice, according to two people familiar with ...

 
QE9opmA.png
 

Trump Lawyers in Classified Docs Case Quit Hours After Indictment: Report

David Badash

Attorneys representing Donald Trump in the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s prosecution of the former president on what reportedly are seven categories of federal felonies have resigned from representing him, just hours after a grand jury indicted their client.

“Two lawyers who represented Donald Trump in the months before he was indicted on federal charges over his handling of classified documents quit working for him Friday morning,” ....


Trump Lawyers Blindsided by Existence of Bombshell Recording – ‘They Don’t Know How to Defend This’: Maggie Haberman

Brad Reed – Raw Story


CNN on Friday morning obtained a bombshell transcript of a recording in which former President Donald Trump boasts of retaining “secret” military information that he never declassified while he was president.

Appearing on CNN shortly after this news broke, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman revealed that ....

 
Can't find anything on mainstream media confirming whether or not this is true
I can't definitively assert the photo-image is authentic (unmodified) or not.
I see no obvious indication of falsification (photo-shop, etc).

And the presence of a photo-copier doesn't prove it was used to duplicate and illegally disseminate classified information to our enemies.

BUT !!
A copier would have made that easier.

How many "smoking guns" are needed here? Surely the copier in that room doesn't assuage the vulnerability.
BUT: it's not the linchpin of a case that would otherwise be not prosecutable.

Experts that have reviewed evidence in this case seem to find the prosecution's case strong.
 
Back
Top