Manhattan said:

---

As posted one post before yours, trump is raising money on this and had more than enough for a proper doc review and defense.

---

Trump has to raise money. The federal government is using its full weight and power to crush and bankrupt him for daring to oppose their marxist agenda.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

As posted one post before yours, trump is raising money on this and had more than enough for a proper doc review and defense.

---

Trump has to raise money. The federal government is using its full weight and power to crush and bankrupt him for daring to oppose their marxist agenda.

---

Just as an example of what happened today in the DC District Court:

I have a relatively simple J6 case that was indicted in late March.

The Trump indictment came more than 4 months later.

We had a status hearing in my case very recently.

We are talking about March and…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 28, 2023

Orange Man doesn't seem to be taking the news well.

Why should he take the news well? This is a naked attack on his freedom.

an absolute No No!

GeorgiAg said:

---

Orange Man doesn't seem to be taking the news well.

---

1) Voted for Biden
2) Has no problem with the use of novel theories to prosecute the leader of the opposition party in the middle of the election cycle

Spreadsheet upda....no, wait...

nortex97 said:

---

hoopla said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

This is January 6 prisoner Ryan Samsel, seen here in the closet room he was held in for 5 months.

He has been held in prison IN ISOLATION since January 2021.

During that time he has been moved around to 17 different facilities.

He has been beaten, abused, tortured, and… pic.twitter.com/j8xD3GYLtJ

— Joey Meugniot (@realjoeymUS) August 17, 2023

Update: Neither Trump, nor any major party politicians have said a word about the abuse of J6 prisoners in DC's uniparty gulags.

---

Special Housing Units (SHUs) are controversial and used at most jails and prisons in the U.S.

---

This guy has been held as a political prisoner in a communist gulag in the United States by the American KGB for going on years now, and all you have to respond with is "SHU's are controversial and common?"

---

Yep. His treatment is not considered abusive. He is in the SHU for making threats against law enforcement while incarcerated.

If you think this is bad, then take a long hard look at how American justice really works.

hoopla said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

hoopla said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

This is January 6 prisoner Ryan Samsel, seen here in the closet room he was held in for 5 months.

He has been held in prison IN ISOLATION since January 2021.

During that time he has been moved around to 17 different facilities.

He has been beaten, abused, tortured, and… pic.twitter.com/j8xD3GYLtJ

— Joey Meugniot (@realjoeymUS) August 17, 2023

Update: Neither Trump, nor any major party politicians have said a word about the abuse of J6 prisoners in DC's uniparty gulags.

---

Special Housing Units (SHUs) are controversial and used at most jails and prisons in the U.S.

---

This guy has been held as a political prisoner in a communist gulag in the United States by the American KGB for going on years now, and all you have to respond with is "SHU's are controversial and common?"

---

Yep. His treatment is not considered abusive. He is in the SHU for making threats against law enforcement while incarcerated.

If you think this is bad, then take a long hard look at how American justice really works.

---

I'm appalled by our gestapo. Enlighten me, what threats did he make?

He threatened fbi agents while making phone calls from prison. He also evidently has some serious mental health problems that he has refused treatment for.

Strange hill to die on. Simple Google search.

Charge(s):
Forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with a federal agent while they are engaged in their official duties; Committed or attempt to commit any act to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engage in the lawful performance of his official duties; Obstructed, influenced, or impeded any official proceeding, or attempt to do so

Www.justice.gov

NEW: I have transcript from today's hearing before Judge Chutkan and it's worse than reported.

Chutkan marveled at Jack Smith's rapid "discovery" production while downplaying fact DOJ could not name a single case in DC District that went from indictment to trial in 5 months: pic.twitter.com/pAxcBlv7dv

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 29, 2023

Chutkan confronted John Lauro, Trump's attorney, about needing longer than 4 months to go thru 12 million+ pages of evidence bc--get this--most of it related to Trump and he must have reviewed it already. Sure, he has all the J6 committee material in his nightstand😂 pic.twitter.com/zifEhbC9hV

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 29, 2023

Chutkan keeps saying case won't go to trial in 2026 and grasping for reasons why. She continues to hammer Trump's lawyer for not reviewing possible evidence related to an indictment that didn't even exist.

"It's not a surprise he's been indicted." pic.twitter.com/tMytuBJe8D

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 29, 2023

will25u said:

---

NEW: I have transcript from today's hearing before Judge Chutkan and it's worse than reported.

Chutkan marveled at Jack Smith's rapid "discovery" production while downplaying fact DOJ could not name a single case in DC District that went from indictment to trial in 5 months: pic.twitter.com/pAxcBlv7dv

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 29, 2023

Chutkan confronted John Lauro, Trump's attorney, about needing longer than 4 months to go thru 12 million+ pages of evidence bc--get this--most of it related to Trump and he must have reviewed it already. Sure, he has all the J6 committee material in his nightstand😂 pic.twitter.com/zifEhbC9hV

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 29, 2023

Chutkan keeps saying case won't go to trial in 2026 and grasping for reasons why. She continues to hammer Trump's lawyer for not reviewing possible evidence related to an indictment that didn't even exist.

"It's not a surprise he's been indicted." pic.twitter.com/tMytuBJe8D

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 29, 2023

---

Wow...and HOW would they have known EXACTLY what would be entered into discovery PRIOR TO the indictment?

This ***** should be deported and lose her citizenship. She's a much greater threat to democracy than Trump is.

Quote:

---

Wow...and HOW would they have known EXACTLY what would be entered into discovery PRIOR TO the indictment?

---

Next she'll be claiming that Trump should have had a spy in the grand jury. Jeebus!

agz win said:

---

Strange hill to die on. Simple Google search.

Charge(s):
Forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with a federal agent while they are engaged in their official duties; Committed or attempt to commit any act to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engage in the lawful performance of his official duties; Obstructed, influenced, or impeded any official proceeding, or attempt to do so

Www.justice.gov

---

These charges don't sound very serious. Attempt to obstruct or impede? Throw him in a tiny cell for 2 years without trial!

Re the Meadows' removal motion in federal court in Atlanta yesterday:

What everyone needs to keep in mind here is the standard that is applicable -- the purpose of the hearing yesterday was not to prove or disprove the the factual issues that were the main point of contention.…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 29, 2023

will25u said:

---

Re the Meadows' removal motion in federal court in Atlanta yesterday:

What everyone needs to keep in mind here is the standard that is applicable -- the purpose of the hearing yesterday was not to prove or disprove the the factual issues that were the main point of contention.…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 29, 2023

---

That post is a must read for insights into defense strategy.

From that tweet.

Quote:

---

Also -- as has been briefly mentioned in various places, after being raised by
@McAdooGordon
-- when Meadows takes the immunity issue to the 11th Circuit, Trump will do so as well.

What the 11th Circuit does re a claim of Presidential Immunity made by Trump -- if they uphold it and dismiss the Georgia case -- will create GREAT DIFFICULTY for Jack Smith in DC. The 11th Cir. ruling will not be binding on the Judge in DC, but Trump is going to make a Presidential Immunity claim in the DC case and when it is denied he's going to take that to the DC CIr.

If the 11th Cir. has already ruled in his favor -- and this will come long before next March -- Trump will then seek to bypass the DC Cir. after filing there by seeking "Cert before Judgment." Then both the 11th Cir and DC cases would be before SCOTUS at the same time.

---

As usual, this is clear as mud, from another source about the removal statute.

Quote:

---

Removal under 28 U.S.C. 1442 in criminal cases is less common, and we are not aware of any criminal case in which one defendant's removal forced the removal of other defendants.[url=https://www.justsecurity.org/87884/removal-of-criminal-cases-to-federal-court-two-dozen-faqs/#post-87884-footnote-46][47][/url]

However, after the Heinze federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia said that both defendants had met the test in Mesa, it went on to suggest, in dicta, that even if the test had been met by only one defendant, the entire case could (even should or must) be removed. The court cited an Eleventh Circuit decision in the civil context for slander between two elected county district court officers that recognized "if one claim cognizable under Section 1442 is present, the entire action is removed, regardless of the relationship between the Section 1442 claim and the non-removable claims."[url=https://www.justsecurity.org/87884/removal-of-criminal-cases-to-federal-court-two-dozen-faqs/#post-87884-footnote-47][48][/url]

---

LINK

What is the reasoning for the defendants wanting the case moved to federal court? Better possibility it gets dismissed? I would think federal court would get moved to DC which would be a worse jury pool. Or would it somehow stay in GA?

SwigAg11 said:

---

What is the reasoning for the defendants wanting the case moved to federal court? Better possibility it gets dismissed? I would think federal court would get moved to DC which would be a worse jury pool. Or would it somehow stay in GA?

---

Stays in Georgai just goes to the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia. Still the same prosecutor. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence apply.

There are some federal legal defenses that would be more properly heard by a federal judge not an elected state judge. Also a slightly better jury pool since it will be pulling from all of the counties within the district and not just Fulton County which went for Biden by like 76%.

BTW, it is not that usual for criminal cases to be removed from state court to federal court. Happens often in civil cases but not criminal cases. So kind of murky. Then again, these are not all just run of the mill defendants either.

A President, his Chief of Staff and an DOJ Asst. AG are al federal officrs with their job duties and responsibilities. Allowing some podunt county attorney being ablr to charge them with crimes for carrying their work would cause chaos.

But the pitfall here is how these various indictments were daisy chained together. Smith's DC indictment involves actions outside of Washington and folds in a lot of the acts complained of in Georgia. So if that case largely gets tossed in federal court, it affects his indictment too.

Thank you for the explanation!

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

What is the reasoning for the defendants wanting the case moved to federal court? Better possibility it gets dismissed? I would think federal court would get moved to DC which would be a worse jury pool. Or would it somehow stay in GA?

---

Stays in Georgai just goes to the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia. Still the same prosecutor. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence apply.

There are some federal legal defenses that would be more properly heard by a federal judge not an elected state judge. Also a slightly better jury pool since it will be pulling from all of the counties within the district and not just Fulton County which went for Biden by like 76%.

BTW, it is not that usual for criminal cases to be removed from state court to federal court. Happens often in civil cases but not criminal cases. So kind of murky. Then again, these are not all just run of the mill defendants either.

A President, his Chief of Staff and an DOJ Asst. AG are al federal officrs with their job duties and responsibilities. Allowing some podunt county attorney being ablr to charge them with crimes for carrying their work would cause chaos.

But the pitfall here is how these various indictments were daisy chained together. Smith's DC indictment involves actions outside of Washington and folds in a lot of the acts complained of in Georgia. So if that case largely gets tossed in federal court, it affects his indictment too.

---

Important part here and where I will deviate from the herd a bit. Presidential Immunity in particular is something that could not from a Constitutional perspective be decided in a state court and I would suggest could also not be settled by federal courts. Its is a pure question as to whether POTUS himself acted within the executive powers and his oath of office.

But this is not clear in the Constitution and the argument could be made that the Founding Fathers did not envision or did not wish to envision what is going on now. An abuse of executive power by POTUS to target a political opponent using the Executive against the former Executive. It is not a trivial question for state judge, federal judge, etc to determine - how could they and where is that power granted to them in the US Constitution? I have not seen it.

Before someone says a former POTUS can be indicted... yes, for crimes committed before or after their term. Questions of crimes committed whilst POTUS are covered in the Constitution. Its filed under impeachment.

So who decides? SCOTUS seems like the logical place but they also have an issue. Again, the US Constitution does not grant them this power. The power is reserved for Congress. I fully expect this to rise to SCOTUS and SCOTUS to punt to Congress. These are the early steps in the defense many decried that if it was a legit defense then why didn't Trump say this day 1...?

Not how it works. Standing and such.

These are my personal views after long consideration of the laws and since this is unprecedented (to the extreme), one has to go back to the founding of this Country and gleam what was intended by the Constitution and even further by the Founding Fathers.

A low level judge deciding Presidential Immunity is the stuff of banana republics and blatantly, laughably unconstitutional. Else, Biden could be arrested tomorrow if some West Texas judge says he conspired to commit murder by funding abortions past 15 weeks in Texas. Chew on that.

as explained to your formerly known as user name, there is no basis to claim a president cannot be charged with a crime that he did while in office unless he is impeached first. while he is in office, the president cannot be arrested. but once out of office, there is no blanket protection as you suggest.

under your scenario, on the morning of january 20, 2000, Bill could have shot Hillary in the head and gotten off scot-free (put aside the clear defense of "justification"). that just does not make any sense.

a president will have immunity for actions in office that are part of his official duties. this is supposed to be broadly interpreted. i'm not confident judge chutkan nor judge jones will follow the law, but the circuit courts most likely will. while there has not been any briefing on this so I can't comment on the entirety of the claim, from a 30k foot view reading the indictments, I think Trump has an excellent immunity defense.

my personal favorite case on this is ohio v thomas it was illegal to sell or serve margarine in ohio unless there was a sign in a window saying it was being served. a federal officer was serving food to disabled vets that included margarine paid for by congressional budget. the officer was arrested by ohio police. SCOTUS held the officer was immune from suit because he was acting "as a federal officer, in and by virtue of valid federal authority"

Trump's lawyers are not going to argue he has immunity for every action in office. they know that is a meritless argument. they are going to argue, as they have already said, "He is now immune from prosecution for acts that he takes in connection with those policy decisions "

BMX Bandit said:

---

as explained to your formerly known as user name, there is no basis to claim a president cannot be charged with a crime that he did while in office unless he is impeached first. while he is in office, the president cannot be arrested. but once out of office, there is no blanket protection as you suggest.

Where is this in the US Constitution or documented anywhere else? You cannot explain a damn thing because YOU DO NOT KNOW.

under your scenario, on the morning of january 20, 2000, Bill could have shot Hillary in the head and gotten off scot-free (put aside the clear defense of "justification"). that just does not make any sense.

Makes perfect sense. If Bill woke-up that morning and discovered HIllary was a spy and took her out before she could spill the info to the Rooskies, he would be well within his exec powers to eliminate her. We eliminate threats all the time based on the President's decision. Who are you to question whether the POTUS was legit in his decision? And question, is there or is there not a process to hold a POTUS accountable and what is it called?

a president will have immunity for actions in office that are part of his official duties. this is supposed to be broadly interpreted. i'm not confident judge chutkan nor judge jones will follow the law, but the circuit courts most likely will. while there has not been any briefing on this so I can't comment on the entirety of the claim, from a 30k foot view reading the indictments, I think Trump has an excellent immunity defense.

Are you having trouble understanding this because I do not have any trouble. Regarding the judges "following the law", can you cite the law that allows low level judges to determine if POTUS acted within their official duties? Can you list the official duties or point to the document where they reside? I am certain its the US Constitution but maybe in law school they give you the hidden book of US constitutional secrets.

my personal favorite case on this is ohio v thomas it was illegal to sell or serve margarine in ohio unless there was a sign in a window saying it was being served. a federal officer was serving food to disabled vets that included margarine paid for by congressional budget. the officer was arrested by ohio police. SCOTUS held the officer was immune from suit because he was acting "as a federal officer, in and by virtue of valid federal authority"

What is the relevance of serving margarine vs what POTUS views as his official duties whilst in office? Thanks for sharing your personal favorite case though. Its interesting, entirely irrelevant.

Trump's lawyers are not going to argue he has immunity for every action in office. they know that is a meritless argument. they are going to argue, as they have already said, "He is now immune from prosecution for acts that he takes in connection with those policy decisions "

Every action the POTUS takes is in connection with his policy decisions. Outside of what he eats, wears, and how many times a day he tinkles and poos, just about everything else is a policy decision. I know it may be hard, but just admit that neither you, nor anyone else, has previous experience in this legal area. You are trying to apply procedural rules for traffic tickets, divorce court and bar fights to a case involving jailing a political opponent for actions taken whilst the individual had the authority to take such actions.

---

Quit deralingin with you "no basis to claim" false information and again admit you simply do not know. Its okay, no one expects you to know it all. Also, there is NO LAW that says a POTUS cannot be arrested whilst POTUS. No law. No authority to do so. Not allowed under our Constitution without impeachment first.

POTUS remains head of the Executive while he is POTUS and thus the DOJ is under him. Separation of powers limit his authorities as defined under the Constitution. Lots of folks need remedial education on our Constitution.

If Trump is to be indicted for this...on the most flimsy of charges and most novel of legal applications, then why aren't these same techniques being applied to the current POTUS who most certainly broke the law on a felony level in relation to Ukraine and several other countries where he took money in exchange for an advantageous application of American foreign policy?

You tell me a POTUS is not immune from being charged with crimes committed while he was President? I can accept that so long as the same set of circumstances apply across the board to those who are presently in office.

We all know the rules for Trump are different than the ones applicable to Biden, or any Democrat for that matter.

Take a look at Hunter Biden. Ask yourself why he is being shielded by the Department of Justice and the so-called Special Counsel who just happens to have connections to the Biden family. Then no longer wonder why people look at this prosecution/persecution of Trump with deep suspicion.

they aren't applied equally because the DoJ and these state prosecutors are crooked as hell. I don't think trump committed any crimes here and shouldnt have been indicted. and as said above he has a very strong immunity defense, which would mean it wouldn't matter even if they were technically crimes.

BMX Bandit said:

---

they aren't applied equally because the DoJ and these state prosecutors are crooked as hell. I don't think trump committed any crimes here and shouldnt have been indicted. and as said above he has a very strong immunity defense, which would mean it wouldn't matter even if they were technically crimes.

---

It wouldn't matter but for a process that looks quite a bit similar to Germany in the 1930s, complete with a Judge Freisler doing work for the prosecutors.

We've got a group of people running the legal apparatus in this country who frankly do not care for the Constitution or the rights of the people they charge with crimes. In the case against Flynn, the DoJ doctored evidence, withheld evidence, and blackmailed Flynn into a guilty plea based on their threats against his son. When exposed by AG Barr, they had a backstop in a corrupt judge who forced a pardon out of Trump rather than admit the wrongdoing of the prosecution in that matter. We've got a similar set of circumstances with Jack Smith here.

One of the reasons I am going with DeSantis in the primary relates to the probable perpetuation of this state of affairs under a second Trump term. President Trump believes he can work with these people in the same way he worked with them (and bought them off) in New York and other jurisdictions controlled by Democrats and their bureaucrat lackeys. The Art of the Deal may work in the business world. But in Washington it is "Kill or be Killed" that needs to carry the day for the next Republican President.

That's a funny response to let everyone know you are either unable to or afraid to discuss.

I gave you examples back, rationale for my position, and asked you to provide anything to contradict.

Your response is to falsely accuse me of "trolling" simply because I don't bow to terrestrial masters, even if the think because they wasted time in law school they deserve a bow.

Engage or keep me ignored. But please do not keep misleading people with bad information on this case and the Constitution.

well stated. they don't know, or more likely don't care, about the path they are taking this country down

BMX Bandit said:

---

they aren't applied equally because the DoJ and these state prosecutors are crooked as hell. I don't think trump committed any crimes here and shouldnt have been indicted. and as said above he has a very strong immunity defense, which would mean it wouldn't matter even if they were technically crimes.

---

Don't forget about all the crooked judges that are allowing these cases to continue.

U.S. District Judge Steve Jones: Is there a role under Article II of the Constitution for the president in a state election or any election?

Meadows: I don't know enough to opine.

Then they'll be the crooked jury pools, if there is a conviction, of course. Otherwise, they're American patriots.

If there is no role for POTUS in elections then why did Biden announce he would use all powers he has to preclude his primary political rival from running? Then order his DOJ to pursue the objective and for them to work with "friendly" state officials to further pursue this?

SockStilkings said:

---

If there is no role for POTUS in elections then why did Biden announce he would use all powers he has to preclude his primary political rival from running? Then order his DOJ to pursue the objective and for them to work with "friendly" state officials to further pursue this?

---

Mostly I would say because not one thing you said is true.