Should Trump start paying E. Jean Carroll now?

[OPGenesis]

He doesn’t have to wait till he loses his appeal. He can start paying the court the millions now.

Most likely he will have to take out a bond, because the sum is too large, and he doesn’t have to pay everything up front.

His PAC is running out, due to his legal fees.

Also to note. Trump put the first five million on hold, till he lost his appeal, and then began to pay it.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...appeal-report/

[gachase21]

No, he needs to regain power - establish a dictatorship- gain control the military, and start seeking out these evildoers for retaliation.

[OPGenesis]

No, he needs to regain power - establish a dictatorship- gain control the military, and start seeking out these evildoers for retaliation.

Good luck lmao

Better focus on that 84 million first.

Then SC Jack Smith.

[gachase21]

He will be paying more to Letitia Jamie before he pays much to this bish.


As of now, it looks unlikely, almost impossible that Jack Smith will get a trial off before the election.

That timeline has diminished greatly against him in the last three weeks.

[georgeenoob]

He's not even gonna pay his own lawayers.

[OPGenesis]

He will be paying more to Letitia Jamie before he pays much to this bish.


As of now, it looks unlikely, almost impossible that Jack Smith will get a trial off before the election.

That timeline has diminished greatly against him in the last three weeks.

Well, at least Kaplan was nice enough to give him the option before his appeal gets denied

[OPGenesis]

He's not even gonna pay his own lawayers.

Well, his lawyers are cutting ties, since he’s running out of money.

[gachase21]

Well, at least Kaplan was nice enough to give him the option before his appeal gets denied

He will likely end up owing 28 million after appeal.

[OPGenesis]

He will likely end up owing 28 million after appeal.

My buddy’s an attorney and said Trumps lawyer might be a retard trying to defend a liability case during a damages trial lol.

Said he didn’t understand the strategy at all.

Trump sure does know how to hire em, I’ll give him that.

[PlanoLifter]

He doesn’t have to wait till he loses his appeal. He can start paying the court the millions now.

Most likely he will have to take out a bond, because the sum is too large, and he doesn’t have to pay everything up front.

His PAC is running out, due to his legal fees.

Also to note. Trump put the first five million on hold, till he lost his appeal, and then began to pay it.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...appeal-report/

As I understand it he either starts paying her or, if he appeals, he must pay the full amount to the court. And then, if loses the appeal, he pays interest on the $83m as well as forfeiting the $83m

[OPGenesis]

As I understand it he either starts paying her or, if he appeals, he must pay the full amount to the court. And then, if loses the appeal, he pays interest on the $83m as well as forfeiting the $83m

He’s gonna get raped on all the fees attached to his bond as well.

[whogotmuhbeers]

No, he needs to regain power - establish a dictatorship- gain control the military, and start seeking out these evildoers for retaliation.

Agreed. We need to create a monarchy and crown Trump as our king.

Semi srs

[OPGenesis]

Agreed. We need to create a monarchy and crown Trump as our king.

Semi srs

Only if Trump could get some type of consensus.

He can’t even win the popular vote in elections.

[gachase21]

Agreed. We need to create a monarchy and crown Trump as our king.

Semi srs

He will need to deal with these jurors as well.

He can suspend courts for a while until he writes a new Napoleonomic style like Trump Code

[gachase21]

Only if Trump could get some type of consensus.

He can’t even win the popular vote in elections.

He will only need the consensus of well-placed military leaders.

[OPGenesis]

He will only need the consensus of well-placed military leaders.

Like Mad Dawg Mattis and General Kelly?

Maybe McMaster lol.

[gachase21]

Like Mad Dawg Mattis and General Kelly?

Maybe McMaster lol.

No, he will need to pardon the proud boys and put them in charge

[OPGenesis]

No, he will need to pardon the proud boys and put them in charge

Maybe they can start representing him in court too lmao.

[gachase21]

Maybe they can start representing him in court too lmao.

On this plan the courts would be temporarily dissolved

[Phil9]

No one loses court cases as consistently as Donald J. Trump.

[RIKTER]

No, he needs to regain power - establish a dictatorship- gain control the military, and start seeking out these evildoers for retaliation.

Plus he needs to... Post Deleted By FBI.

[DeshaunWatson]

Looks like another back fire for Libs..




Ooooof


https://twitter.com/travis_in_flint/...LnoIxVGSrxQV5g

[OPGenesis]

Looks like another back fire for Libs..




Ooooof


https://twitter.com/travis_in_flint/...LnoIxVGSrxQV5g

Cope lmao

From a guy with the username DeShaun Watson.

[Phil9]

Looks like another back fire for Libs..




Ooooof


https://twitter.com/travis_in_flint/...LnoIxVGSrxQV5g

Cope lmao

From a guy with the username DeShaun Watson.

[Reliance012]

He will be paying more to Letitia Jamie before he pays much to this bish.


As of now, it looks unlikely, almost impossible that Jack Smith will get a trial off before the election.

That timeline has diminished greatly against him in the last three weeks.

The trial could still begin as early as March, but will probably start between April and June. Trump would need flagrant and extreme help from the SC if he’s to delay the 1/6 trial into fall. The timeline below was assuming an appeals court decision last week, which didn’t happen, though I expect it’s coming any day.

“In sum, the shortest plausible timeline under our assumptions: The mandate issues after five days, there is no en banc petition, and cert is denied. That would be about 19 days after the DC Circuit panel issues its decision.

The longest plausible timeline under our assumptions: Trump receives 30 days to petition for rehearing en banc, the mandate only issues until 7 days after the en banc petition is denied, Trump petitions the Supreme Court, which then grants cert and decides the case. That would be about four-and-a-half months after the DC Circuit panel decision, and would take us up to mid-May.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/91108/h...ive-timelines/

[DeshaunWatson]

Cope lmao

From a guy with the username DeShaun Watson.

Cope? I couldn’t give a fuk lmao. I’m just copy and pasting you fkin loser.






LMAO

[OPGenesis]

Cope? I couldn’t give a fuk lmao. I’m just copy and pasting you fkin loser.






LMAO

Whatever you say, DeShaun.

[gachase21]

The trial could still begin as early as March, but will probably start between April and June. Trump would need flagrant and extreme help from the SC if he’s to delay the 1/6 trial into fall. The timeline below was assuming an appeals court decision last week, which didn’t happen, though I expect it’s coming any day.

“In sum, the shortest plausible timeline under our assumptions: The mandate issues after five days, there is no en banc petition, and cert is denied. That would be about 19 days after the DC Circuit panel issues its decision.

The longest plausible timeline under our assumptions: Trump receives 30 days to petition for rehearing en banc, the mandate only issues until 7 days after the en banc petition is denied, Trump petitions the Supreme Court, which then grants cert and decides the case. That would be about four-and-a-half months after the DC Circuit panel decision, and would take us up to mid-May.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/91108/h...ive-timelines/

This article, and the timeline it suggested, was a horrible analysis- mocked by people in the legal community on both the left and right side.

As demonstrated so far with how wrong it has been on the timeline so far.

What makes it strange is the writers are fairly respectable - but this just turned out to be another demonstration as to how normal-thinking people can absolutely lose their chit it terms of rational thinking when it comes to anything involving Trump.

-The mere suggestion a decision- with 5 unprecedented measures- would come so quickly to start with is baffling.
-The left out the impact of Fisher??? a case that can likely eliminate 2 of Trump's 4 DC charges, that aren't even in Scotus until June
-The ignored Cannons stronghold of the May trial date in Florida, which MAGA Cannons helped team Trump in delaying everything else - except the trial date- which she will likely do in March. (she has to now with all the other measures delayed). But by waiting for the delay, it's preventing Chutkan from doing March or June
-Many other things it missed- horrid write-up




Here is the reality:

Since that article was published...
1. On January 18th DC trial Judge Chutkan acknowledged in a ruling the March trial date won't work anymore, with the delay in appeals, and her lack of Jursdition until it's finished. She also stated that when it is finally returned to her court, Trump was og allotted 7 months of prep time, and the clock is paused until it is back to her court- so he will still have all the remaining time left.

Also, Judge Chutkan barred special counsel Jack Smith from filing substantive new motions without advance permission while the trial is out of her jurisdiction on appeal.


https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8148.195.0.pdf

2. After that, in seeing the reality of the delay, on the 24th she went further into going ahead and scheduling a different Trial for April (meaning that slot is now occupied)




3. And then you got the reality of how long an en banc and SCOTUS hearing could go. If it ends up getting cert grant by SCOTUS- and making it there - are looking Last week June, 1st few days of July ruling likely- in which according the January 18th dc Judge filing- Trump's 7 7-month clock would just then continue.



But wait, there's more!!!



Next, you have Ultrea MAGA Judge Cannon in Florida who had delayed virtually everything, even suspended hearings, - except the May trial date (which has to be delayed now) and she doesn't plan on having the delayed hearing until March. Thus excluding Judge Chutkan from getting a May, or even early June, Trial anyway. And the pace Cannon plan- Trump will for sure not have that trial before election...

It is a trial chess game, and Judge Cannon holds the middle of the board...

Smith also made a crucial strategic error in filling the FL trial 1st- so now she has leverage.


More on that:

Judge Cannon Hands Donald Trump Much-Needed Delay in Blow to Jack Smith

Jan 13, 2024 at 11:00 AM EST

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's federal classified-documents case has been accused of failing to enforce a routine deadline, amid claims the former president is hoping to delay the trial until after November's presidential election.

Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, has rejected Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to force the former president to reveal if he plans on using a defense that he was merely relying on advice of his lawyers during the trial. Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Saturday for comment via email.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges relating to allegations he illegally retained top-secret and classified material after he left office in January 2021, then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them from his Mar-a-Lago, Florida, home. The former president has denied any wrongdoing and has repeatedly said that the charges are part of a political witch hunt that seeks to derail him as frontrunner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

Cannon has previously faced calls to recuse herself from the case in which she was randomly selected to oversee because she has already made a number of decisions that could be seen to have benefited the Republican.

In a court filings on Friday, Cannon rejected federal prosecutors "motion to compel disclosure regarding advice-of-counsel defense," while saying such a request is "not amenable to proper consideration at this juncture."

As noted on X, formerly Twitter, by Katie Phang, a lawyer and MSNBC legal analyst, Cannon "basically says that it's too early in the litigation to consider forcing Donald Trump to have to disclose this information."

Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor, was one of those who said that Cannon's decision is helping Trump delay the start of the classified documents trial, which is currently scheduled for May 20

The proceedings in Florida may yet change when a scheduling conference for the case takes place on March 1, just days before Trump's federal trial over 2020 election obstruction and conspiracy allegations is scheduled to begin.

Trump has long been accused of trying to delay the start of both the federal classified documents and election trials. If he wins the 2024 election, he could call on the DOJ to drop the federal investigations into him once he enters office in January 2025, or pardon himself as president if he is convicted beforehand.

Because the case involves highly sensitive documents, some of them involving national security, however, Judge Cannon has had to put elaborate security protocols in place that have delayed the trial by months.

"In the Mar-a-Lago case, Judge Cannon has just refused to enforce a routine deadline & it's entirely clear she has no intention of letting this case go to trial before the election or possibly ever," Vance posted on X.

Others also criticized Cannon for not helping Trump's case move forward towards its scheduled deadline.

"His luck in drawing Cannon for this open-and-shut case cannot be overstated," posted the Scary Lawyer Guy social-media account. "While [Judge Tanya] Chutkan *may* be able to get his other trial in before November, a more experienced (+ less biased) judge would have had the MAL [Mar-aLago] case on the calendar months ago. Instead, she's slow walking things."

Cannon has already faced calls to remove herself from the case over claims she may be biased towards the former president.

The judge previously handed down a decision that meant that Trump would not have to testify under oath his unsubstantiated claim that the FBI may have "planted" evidence against him during the August raid at his Mar-a-Lago resort in 2022.

Another ruling from Cannon also meant that Trump would not have to state which of the materials recovered from his Florida resort had allegedly been declassified before he left the White House in January 2021. This is another disputed claim by the former president that has never been backed up by his lawyers in official court filings.

But wait, there's more!!!


Also, you have the Fisher case- which isn't set to be heard until June- and would possibly all but negate 2 of Trump's major DC charges

Cont next post...

[gachase21]

The ‘Sleeping Giant’ Case that Could Upend Jack Smith’s Prosecution of Trump
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case that doesn’t mention the former president, but that could invalidate half of the Jan. 6 charges against him.

here’s been a lot of attention paid to the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for actions taken while president, a judgment that will have big implications for the 2024 presidential campaign and special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president on charges related to Jan. 6. But there’s a sleeping giant of a case also percolating in the Supreme Court that’s even more likely than the immunity issue to impact Smith’s prosecution of Trump.

The case is Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, which the court agreed to hear in December, and which doesn’t explicitly mention Trump. At issue is whether prosecutors and the Department of Justice have been improperly using a 2002 law originally aimed at curbing financial crimes to prosecute a Jan. 6 defendant named Joseph Fischer. Should the court side with Fischer, it would also call into question the use of the law against other Jan. 6 defendants — including Trump.

Smith’s indictment contains four counts in total. Two of those are for obstruction of an official proceeding and for conspiracy to do so. Those crimes are part of a relatively recent criminal statute governing financial disclosures known as the Sarbanes-Oxley (or “SOX”) Act, which was enacted following the Enron corporate accounting scandal, and which makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding of the U.S. government. The Justice Department has so far used it to charge over 300 people involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection; more than 150 have been convicted of the offense following jury trials or pleaded guilty to it.


Many of these defendants, including Fischer, have argued that the “obstruction of an official proceeding” part of the SOX Act was only meant to apply narrowly to financial crimes similar to the ones that produced the law in the first place — and not as broadly as the Justice Department has used it in the Jan. 6 cases.

Courts across the country have already been wrestling with the question of whether the SOX Act’s obstruction provisions apply to the various means by which people tried to halt Congress’ examination and ratification of the presidential election results favoring Joe Biden. As of this month, at least 14 judges in 22 cases had backed DOJ’s interpretation. But some have expressed doubts after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Fischer’s case; in at least two of the Jan. 6 cases, trial judges have delayed the defendants’ sentencings pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue, meaning the underlying SOX Act charges may be vulnerable.

The impact of Fischer on the Jan. 6 trial against Trump might not be known until after the Supreme Court wraps up its term in June, at which point it could knock out half of Smith’s counts against Trump. And it could also disrupt the convictions of many Jan. 6 defendants already serving time for their role in the insurrection.

Several conservative members of the high court describe themselves as “textualists” who take the words of a law at face value, and to a textualist reader the SOX Act would likely seem straightforward. Consider its language: “Whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” The statute’s language does not clearly specify that only certain kinds of obstruction qualify.

The broader reading of the statute would appear to be what Congress intended. Remarking on the bill that became the SOX Act, then-Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) repeatedly observed that it “strengthens laws that criminalize document shredding and other forms of obstruction of justice.” Referring to the statute in a 2002 White House press release, President George W. Bush likewise touted “strengthening laws that criminalize document shredding and other forms of obstruction of justice.” (Emphases added.) Another part of the law defines “official proceeding” as including “a proceeding before the Congress.”

So, DOJ’s legal equation would appear logically simple: On Jan.. 6, Congress was engaged in the official proceeding of counting the Electoral College votes for president under the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act. Trump took numerous steps to impede that process, and he did it corruptly, which loosely means that he knew what he was doing and his purpose was unlawful.

But here’s the wrinkle. Immediately preceding this language is another provision of the SOX Act, which specifies that whoever “corruptly — alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object ... with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding,” engages in a criminal act, too. (Emphasis added.) The Fischer argument is that the two provisions must be read together — that the phrase “or otherwise obstructs” in the broad part of the statute is confined by the narrower provision that came before it, with the link between the two being the opening word “corruptly.”

Under this reading, Smith would be required to prove that the defendants “corruptly” altered a record as a threshold matter before they can be charged more broadly with obstructing a congressional proceeding. He could add charges that the same defendants “otherwise” engaged in other, similar forms of obstruction using records or documents, the argument goes, but the statute doesn’t allow a standalone charge of obstruction of an official proceeding based on conduct such as trespassing on the Capitol building. Fischer and two other defendants in the case, Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, are charged with participating in the events of Jan. 6 — not personally taking any actions regarding records or documents.

The lower court agreed with the defendants, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that the SOX Act language is broad enough to cover their conduct. (The Supreme Court only took up Fischer’s case, leaving the D.C. Circuit ruling to stand for now as to Lang and Miller.)

The government’s argument is that the broad language of the provision employed by DOJ is clear, and there’s no need to read between the lines to intuit a conclusion that Congress actually meant to qualify all parts of the statute to require a corrupt nexus to a document or record. After all, the law refers to altering a record or otherwise obstructing an official proceeding — it doesn’t say “and.” In the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing in 1929, “there is no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they obviously mean.” Although conservative jurists, adhering to the plainest reading of the text, would presumably agree with the Justice Department, the fact that the Supreme Court voted to consider the Fischer case after so many Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted of violating the SOX Act means that a number of justices do have a problem with DOJ’s interpretation.

Needless to say, a Supreme Court ruling that limits the application of the obstruction charge to documents or records has the potential to undermine Smith’s prosecution of Trump and overturn hundreds of existing Jan. 6 convictions. A saving grace for Smith could be that in Trump’s case, the indictment contains other allegations, including that he assisted in devising and implementing a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, so it seems distinguishable from Fischer’s case. A fraudulent slate of electors is a document, after all. But until such point that the Jan. 6 case against Trump goes to the jury for deliberation on a verdict, the Supreme Court could rule in a way that gives Trump room to file a fresh motion to dismiss the SOX Act counts against him, which would produce even more delay.

The trial is currently set for March 4 on four charges — the two SOX Act charges, plus one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of conspiracy to threaten the exercise of rights secured under the Constitution, in this case, the right to vote. Although the presidential immunity appeal could slow things down, the Supreme Court hasn’t even agreed to hear it yet and could conceivably decline. Moreover, Trump will likely lose anyway, which means Smith would have to wait that one out until the court rules in June, at the latest. At that point, he can go to trial over the summer on all four counts in sufficient time to secure a jury verdict before the November election.

If the immunity issue resolves before March 4, or at least before Fischer is decided, Smith — and for that matter, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — may go forward with a trial on all four counts despite the risk that two of them might be declared invalid. (Smith could seek expedited review of Fischer in the Supreme Court, but it denied a rush request on the immunity issue, so that effort would seem futile.) If the trial occurs on the sooner side, and the Supreme Court later rules in a way that impacts Trump’s case, it could give Trump a basis to appeal a conviction on the rationale that the jury was tainted by evidence bearing on flawed SOX Act charges. (The problem for Trump would be that the relevant evidence probably overlaps with the conspiracy to defraud the United States charge anyway.) If a guilty verdict is reversed on appeal for some reason, Smith would have to retry Trump, which is not feasible given the treacherous politics of prosecuting former presidents not once, but twice. And if Trump wins the election, he’d surely call off the prosecution or try to pardon himself. Alternatively, Smith could go to trial in March on just the two remaining counts, but that would cut down the numerical odds of a guilty verdict — not to mention the fact that the first SOX Act count is the only one that doesn’t require proof of a conspiracy, or a meeting of the minds between more than one person — and will be perceived as a political triumph for Trump.

At a minimum, then, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Fischer case means the Jan. 6 case against Trump has legal exposure if it goes to trial on March 4, although the court might ultimately uphold DOJ’s use of the obstruction charge in Fischer. And if it doesn’t back the government … well, that would have enormous legal and political impacts for hundreds of Americans, perhaps most especially for a certain former president.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ution-00135852

Now keep in mind, the above article was written before DC Judge conceded the March trial not happening, the 7-month prepare clock paused, and moved on to schedule another April trial as well.




When you look at the conflicting trial dates, consider DCCA's already delayed timeline, and consider SCOTUS quickest timeline...


The earliest possible time Smith could pull off a trial before the election at this point is mid October. Now if you want to risk the options of Trump being stuck in a courtroom the 3 prime weeks before the election, wow.


In reality, that is the quickest- likely it can't happen anyway.


With 1 exception- Smith drops charges in Flordia Trial, then removes Cannon's stronghold of the chess board.

Most experts agree Smith is very unlikely to get a convention in Florida anyway with a 65% maga jury pool.



With GA all but out, the only likely remaining criminal Trial Trump could see is alvin bragg NY trial- which is simply the weakest case against him.

[gmenfan40]

My buddy’s an attorney and said Trumps lawyer might be a retard trying to defend a liability case during a damages trial lol.

Said he didn’t understand the strategy at all.

Trump sure does know how to hire em, I’ll give him that.

Your "buddy" must be such a great attorney if he is sitting in the shadows making pennies in comparison to the ones Trump or anyone with real money hires. It's easy to sit in the dark and judge... (Super Ded fkn Srs)