Trump Jan 6 sealed indictment delivered

138,018 Views | 1457 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by will25u
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Newt Gringrich on Liz Cheney and the Jan 6th committee. he's not impressed, he's horrified.

Quote:

Liz Cheney and the committee's ongoing process of dishonesty, violating attorney-client privilege, and leaking to friendly leftwing media was a total perversion of the congressional system. It was a dishonest effort to destroy innocent people of integrity with one-sided lies and smears.

Fortunately, Chairman Barry Loudermilk, who leads the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight (on which I served for over a decade), has doggedly looked into the Jan. 6 Committee's lies and manipulations. In the coming months, we will be shocked at the stunning dishonesty Chairman Loudermilk will reveal.

Passantino represented several witnesses before the Jan. 6 Committee with no problems. He represented Cassidy Hutchinson with precisely the same integrity. In fact, he represented Hutchinson through multiple interviews covering about 20 hours.

Hutchinson was a desirable witness for the Committee, because she entered the White House in her early 20s and became Special Assistant to the President and Coordinator for Legislative Affairs. She reported to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and had an office in the West Wing just a few feet from the Oval Office.
Quote:

Liz Cheney apparently decided Hutchinson would make a star witness if only she would say the right things.

In an amazingly inappropriate and unethical move, Liz Cheney herself (along with a small number of senior staff) approached Hutchinson after her second committee interview without informing her [attorney] Passantino. Liz Cheney then called Cassidy in for a third interview, with Passantino again serving as counsel, with neither Cassidy nor Cheney ever informing Passantino that they had been speaking without his knowledge.

Contacting Hutchinson without informing Passantino was clearly unethical, and it appears as if Liz Cheney instructed Cassidy not to tell Passantino they had spoken. This was a profound breach of legal ethics. Liz Cheney knew this well. She earned her law degree from the University of Chicago.

As a senior member of Congress (and the national media's anointed hero), Liz Cheney approached and sought to manipulate an isolated, frightened woman in her mid-20s. Does that sound appropriate? I suspect Liz Cheney knew she was doing something wrong because she apparently did not tell her fellow committee members.

After being manipulated by Cheney, Hutchinson dismissed Passantino and hired a new lawyer who was eager to cooperate with the committee. Suddenly, Hutchinson's testimony started changing. As Chairman Loudermilk has said:
Quote:

The Jan. 6 Committee did everything it could to avoid being reviewed. It has not released transcripts of many interviews. It claims to have destroyed some videos of interviews. In one deliberately opaque move, the committee seems to have sent some of its documents to various other agencies, making them difficult to gather.
Quote:

The Republican House has since brought the Jan. 6 Committee materials back from the National Archives, and they are being studied by the Committee on House Administration. Some surprisingly bad examples of rule-breaking and simply lying to the American people are beginning to emerge.

Passantino's courage in bringing his lawsuit will accelerate the process of learning just how bad the Jan. 6 Committee was and reveal the depth of its most aggressive members' dishonesty and manipulation.
History will not grant Liz Cheney or the Jan. 6 Committee members the profile in courage they wanted. It will record a profile in deception, distortion, and vengeance.
LINK

That will leave a mark.
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The motivations of the Jan 6th committee were transparent from the very beginning, when Pelosi rejected Banks and Jordan from serving on the committee - under the false notion that their appointments would affect the "integrity of the investigation".

In the past, integrity of an investigation included devils' advocates that would ensure all sides were covered in the search for the truth. But not in this case. Pelosi's hand-picking of Cheney & Kinzinger, who were already known to be massively anti-Trump and had voted for the 2nd impeachment, foretold of a sham committee with the express purpose of setting a narrative around January 6th.

I'm looking forward to the sham being exposed.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I'm looking forward to the sham being exposed.
Cheney has been sued for defamation by Hutchinsin's original lawyer. She will be deposed at some point.
JFABNRGR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

I'm looking forward to the sham being exposed.
Cheney has been sued for defamation by Hutchinsin's original lawyer. She will be deposed at some point.


Up until Hutcison's lawyer gets his payout.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
First, the only sedition convictions/charges involved the government suborning perjury at trial against the oath keepers, and hiding the video proof of the lies given at trial for years/as long as Pelosi could;





Second, everything about this is a BS show-trial only.







If you're not following Julie Kelly on "X" I think you are missing out.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

If you're not following Julie Kelly on "X" I think you are missing out.


Julie Kelly is mostly full of ***** But she is certainly an effective messenger for Trump's legal team.

Others have pointed out various issues with her "reporting", but for example, I see she's claiming Judge Beryl Howell "got her ass handed to her" but the reality is the D.C. Circuit affirmed Beryl Howell's ruling.

She's not providing accurate nor sober analysis of these cases any more than some that are equally glazed over by anti-Trump sentiments.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
She's a food blogger turned legal "expert" that didn't believe Trump could pardon J6ers, but DeSantis could pardon them from federal charges.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Man, it's gonna be a long 4 years for some of y'all.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TXAggie2011 said:

Quote:

If you're not following Julie Kelly on "X" I think you are missing out.


Julie Kelly is mostly full of ***** But she is certainly an effective messenger for Trump's legal team.

Others have pointed out various issues with her "reporting", but for example, I see she's claiming Judge Beryl Howell "got her ass handed to her" but the reality is the D.C. Circuit affirmed Beryl Howell's ruling.

She's not providing accurate nor sober analysis of these cases any more than some that are equally glazed over by anti-Trump sentiments.
Help me out here: do you believe these prosecutions are apolitical, fair, and warranted?
JFABNRGR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

First, the only sedition convictions/charges involved the government suborning perjury at trial against the oath keepers, and hiding the video proof of the lies given at trial for years/as long as Pelosi could;





Second, everything about this is a BS show-trial only.







If you're not following Julie Kelly on "X" I think you are missing out.


Bump and this is just one incident of many that wrongfully condemned many Americans.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So the special prosecutor is concealing evidence by…turning it over in discovery? How exactly does that work?

Be skeptical of anyone that gets cited by @badlegaltakes on X/Twitter.
JFABNRGR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

So the special prosecutor is concealing evidence by…turning it over in discovery? How exactly does that work?

Be skeptical of anyone that gets cited by @badlegaltakes on X/Twitter.


I read that as not turned over in trial but only after request from house and after long delays.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
J6 fedsurrection mysteries abound…

nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXAggie2011 said:

aggiehawg said:

Trump's attorneys file for a show cause order against Jack Smith for violating Chutkan's stay order.

Motion


The order didn't tell the parties they are not to make any filings even though the government had already told the court they would continue to do so.

Maybe Chutkan tells the government to hold off on anything until the stay is lifted. But certainly there doesn't appear to be anything contemptuous here.

And I assume the practical result of that would just be that the government files a bunch of motions/discovery the day the stay is lifted.


As I predicted, Chutkan says her order did not bar the governments actions so no contempt.

Chutkan also says the government providing discovery does not create a burden on Trump.

Chutkan does tell parties to file motion for leave before filing any additional motions, because Trump's team does have to review motions when filed to determine if they need to take action.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.195.0_8.pdf
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
When is a stay in proceedings not a stay in proceedings? When it is in Chutkan's court.

No surprise there.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TXAggie2011 said:




As I predicted, Chutkan says her order did not bar the governments actions so no contempt.

Chutkan also says the government providing discovery does not create a burden on Trump.

Chutkan does tell parties to file motion for leave before filing any additional motions, because Trump's team does have to review motions when filed to determine if they need to take action.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.195.0_8.pdf
Chutkan is an enemy to this nation. She is anything but an impartial officer of the court. She disgusts me.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

When is a stay in proceedings not a stay in proceedings? When it is in Chutkan's court.

No surprise there.
So, if the stay is lifted, will Trump be granted adequate time to review discovery or will Chutkan rule that he had adequate time during the stay to review it?

If the latter, how is that not a burden on Trump?

Also, can Trump appeal this ruling?
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:


Why was the officer not in uniform? Was he in MAGA gear?
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The stay applied to deadlines in the scheduling order. Trump's team knew this, the reason they filed the motion for content was because they didn't like Smith getting his arguments on the public docket without a response. They did not seriously think this was a contempt matter.

Trump does not have to respond to anything, nor will he lose any time in responding if the stay is ever lifted.


There is really nothing for him to appeal here. He's getting what he wants.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag with kids said:

aggiehawg said:

When is a stay in proceedings not a stay in proceedings? When it is in Chutkan's court.

No surprise there.
So, if the stay is lifted, will Trump be granted adequate time to review discovery or will Chutkan rule that he had adequate time during the stay to review it?

If the latter, how is that not a burden on Trump?

Also, can Trump appeal this ruling?


Chutkan spends most of page 4 of the order telling Trump's team they have no obligation to review anything right now nor make any objections or other filings. And says when the stay is lifted a new schedule will be issued.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:

The stay applied to deadlines in the scheduling order. Trump's team knew this, the reason they filed the motion for content was because they didn't like Smith getting his arguments on the public docket without a response. They did not seriously think this was a contempt matter.

Trump does not have to respond to anything, nor will he lose any time in responding if the stay is ever lifted.


There is really nothing for him to appeal here. He's getting what he wants.



Yep. Their asking for contempt was made for their social media audience, not any judges.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXAggie2011 said:

Ag with kids said:

aggiehawg said:

When is a stay in proceedings not a stay in proceedings? When it is in Chutkan's court.

No surprise there.
So, if the stay is lifted, will Trump be granted adequate time to review discovery or will Chutkan rule that he had adequate time during the stay to review it?

If the latter, how is that not a burden on Trump?

Also, can Trump appeal this ruling?


Chutkan spends most of page 4 of the order telling Trump's team they have no obligation to review anything right now nor make any objections or other filings. And says when the stay is lifted a new schedule will be issued.
That's fair enough except for the one thing. When the prosecution submits their filings, that is a PR event as much as it is a legal filing.

Which means that either Trump responds - to blunt the one-sided PR, or he doesn't, at which time it does not get addressed and gets to hang over his head.

Everything that happens in this case is highly publicized...so not responding can be implied as agreeance..."You know, if Trump didn't KNOW that Jack Smith was going to win on this point, he would have filed something to rebut it". And that's what the political side will do.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All that the public sees when discovery is provided to the other party is a notice it happened. And sometimes we don't even get that.

As far as any other filings, as I noted above, they have to get leave of court to file any motions. And they have to identify whether their motion would involve anything that is currently stayed (which isn't the entire case; the court still has jurisdiction over the "gag order" for example.)

As BMX noted, Trump essentially got what he wanted from an actual legal standpoint
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXAggie2011 said:

All that the public sees when discovery is provided to the other party is a notice it happened. And sometimes we don't even get that.

As far as any other filings, as I noted above, they have to get leave of court to file any motions. And they have to identify whether their motion would involve anything that is currently stayed (which isn't the entire case; the court still has jurisdiction over the "gag order" for example.)

As BMX noted, Trump essentially got what he wanted from an actual legal standpoint
What filings have they done since the stay? Is there a list?
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2

Everything after doc. 186
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump's people should work up something up on spoliation and the presumption that goes with it.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2

Everything after doc. 186
Thanks.

Looks like I could see why Trump would want to respond to one of those motions though. It does crap on him a lot (maybe he deserves it).

nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
captkirk said:

nortex97 said:


Why was the officer not in uniform? Was he in MAGA gear?
But wait, there's more? This whole thread is insane.






Quote:

Now we have to confront some very disturbing questions.

We've seen the bizarre and damning video in which the Secret Service respond with total lack of concern upon being informed of the bomb---unconcerned for themselves, for their protectee Kamala Harris, and even for children they allowed to walk within feet of the bomb.

Clearly they knew the bomb was a dud... but how?

Nonetheless as we've said they went through the motions of "dismantling" the bomb with a bomb-safe robot.


In this footage alone one can easily conclude J6 was a fed setup, the Secret Service at least were in on it, and this was a known faked pipe bomb (again, note that it is identical to what was used as a prop/training tool at the FBI, down to including the same type of rotary timer). They clearly never intended to allow this footage to be released.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gigem314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Apparently saving the future of democracy can wait a little longer. We don't need to put a calendar date on something of the utmost importance. Truth and justice need an undetermined sabbatical too.
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Now what?
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do yourself a favor and stop reading Chuck callesto. He tries to claim everting is massive breaking news and is often wrong.

Chutkan stayed the case in late 2023. at that point, the only way it was still going to trial in March is if the Supreme Court took it up immediately and made a ruling that there was no immunity. That did not happen, so it's been known since end of December no March trial date.


In terms of what that means now, this long forgotten case is now free to go to trial in March

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3370664/1#discussion


In the DC federal case, will be set back on docket once appellate courts are done. And you know the DC court will do their best to squeeze this in before November.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

In the DC federal case, will be set back on docket once appellate courts are done. And you know the DC court will do their best to squeeze this in before November.
If this were a short trial of two weeks or less, it would not be too hard to rearrange her docket. But for a months long trial? With discovery not even completed due to the stay? And the sheer size of the case? Very doubtful without Smith dramatically scaling back the scope of the case.

Further, due to the impending decision in the Jan 6th case, Fischer, SCOTUS could help him do that by throwing the 1512 charges out. But the charges remaining are much weaker without those 1512 counts, in my opinion.

I think Smith has effectively screwed himself on the timing here even if SCOTUS rules in his favor on immunity. And that is still a very big IF.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.