It’s like being accused of assaulting someone, so you demand to be allowed to question them alone in a room with no witnesses or recording devices.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
If he thinks traveling to view these documents is a hassle, imagine if he was behind bars, like he should be. What is it they need to do with these documents, anyway- authenticate their existence?
Your honor - the accused seeks the court’s permission to continue doing what they have been accused of.
Perhaps Judge Cannon would like to order that Trump has the right to sell any classified evidence to Iran or North Korea, because it’s his First Amendment right to do what he wants with them. Why not just go all in.
Zero. Bribery requires payment.
Well, he could be asking for “this” and promising “that” in the future (with no intention of ever living up to the bargain)
It always astounds me that there are still folks who think that Trump will honor his part of the quid pro quo.
The filing for a SCIF puts paid to the arguments that the documents were secure, doesn’t it?
It’s entitled and presumptuous, but not entirely crazy, in my opinion. If they reinstated the SCIF at Mar-a-Lago, however that is done, I’d think he was definitely getting special treatment but i wouldn’t think it was corrupt beyond the pale for the judge to give in to the request, you know? As long as that’s not the first in a long string of entitled and presumptuous rulings in his favor. There has to be a line, and i think this is skirting right up to the edge of it. Aaaaannnd, yeah, now I see the problem…
Who would pay for it? The government has SCIFs specifically for this purpose, so ISTM that Trump would have to pay for it if he wants a SCIF at the scene of the crime.
There was something on the local news (paraphrasing) “They have identified local council but have not secured it” i.e. “They want HOW MUCH?”
IN ADVANCE???
Smiles all around.
Counsel.
I normally don’t do spelling corrections, but I’ve seen this way too often in the past few days on these Trump-related threads.
His lawyer fund is running low. More so if Jack Smith seizes it.
I admit I have mixed feelings about the asset seizure/forfeiture laws and believe they should be reviewed and made more nuanced… but in this case, I heartily endorse the practice.
I feel like if there’s any two things in the world that are almost entirely free to act with legal impunity, it’s lawyers and PACs. If Trump’s PACs can suffer criminal consequences, that will have been quite the accomplishment to have been able to get both of those over the line.
Here are the videos, one has him discussing trial in the media and how one prosecutes political crimes.
From the Salon article:
Republicans — Trump for sure — have commonly raised funds based on lies about donation matching and/or phony deadlines. Why hasn’t this been enforced before?
See:
Surprisingly, it may be that DeSantis is innocent here:
DeSantis’s Striking, Risky Strategy: Not Trying to Trick Small Donors
A bit funny that the New York Times headline, immediately above, says the risky strategy is to not defraud your supporters.
Sure, in the same way that there is a downside to everything.
It’s just like lying in general; of course lying is a bad habit to get into and a general propensity toward honesty is more likely to lead to a stable life with less drama, but there are many situations where telling the truth can get you in hot water. Just ask anyone married.
Getting back to the subject of fraudulent donation requests, I don’t think it’s as simple as claiming something that’s untrue. I believe fraud is more complicated than that. Politicians lie all the time, or at least mislead people, and if every time you said something untrue when asking for money you were guilty of fraud, we just don’t have the infrastructure in place to handle all of that prosecution. I am sure there has to be more than that.
From what I read in the article - it was potentially about how the two seperate PACs were moving money between themselves and the timing thereof.
Okay, yes, I’ve heard that coordination between the PACs was what was egregious in this case, and one reason why they weren’t going to dismiss this as “business as usual”.
Ah, here is the article I read before.
Also, I have to say, it’s not a good look when you are trying to defend yourself from allegations of fraud, and your official spokesperson is using playground taunts and mocking nicknames in your statements. Sure, the die-hard Trumpers will high-five each other as Trump “sticks it to the libs” but those aren’t the people that he needs to convince.