Trump's Present and Future possible indictments

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Delldude]

This case will cripple Trump financially.

Looks like it triggered Sixties Fan...............

 

[Sixties Fan]

Fox News Panel Erupts in Chaos Over “Zero Evidence” in Biden Impeachment

The “Fox & Friends” host was forced to admit the Republicans’ Biden probe has turned up nothing.

newrepublic.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

We're Going To Need More Coffee

The legal landscape in three of the four criminal cases against Trump continues to shift in his favor this week, following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the presidential immunity appeal in the D.C. election interference case, creating at least a two-month delay for Trump. Today, requests...

joycevance.substack.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, is expected to plead guilty to perjury charges Monday in connection with the testimony he gave during former President Donald Trump's civil fraud trial, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

Weisselberg was not expected to enter into a cooperation agreement with the plea that would require his testimony at any future trial, one source familiar with the matter said. Weisselberg arrived at the Manhattan district attorney's office before 7 a.m. and is expected to make the plea this morning.

(full article online)

Ex-Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg to plead guilty to perjury in civil fraud trial

Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, is expected to plead guilty to perjury charges in connection to testimony he gave during former President Donald Trump's civil fraud trial, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

www.aol.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Court did not absolve Trump of insurrection. That feels important. But despite that, this decision feels like it’s more about practicality than partisanship; it is the Court doing exactly what the conservatives so frequently say they must not do, supplanting the intent of the Founders, or in this case, the post-Civil War drafters of the 14th Amendment, with their own judgment about what the law should be.

The Court says that to remove a federal candidate/official from running or from office, Congress has to act. This is the argument we discussed a few weeks back. Today, the Court concludes that “The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass ‘appropriate legislation’ to ‘enforce’ the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The Court reasons from this starting point: states can’t remove an elected federal official from office. So, the Court concludes, they also can’t remove a candidate from the ballot: “The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5.” The Court reasoned that absent some sort of legislation passed by Congress pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, no dice. In this majority’s view, only Congress, not the states and not even the courts, can remove an insurrectionist from the ballot.

This is not an untenable legal argument, but there were strong responses to it, which we discussed during the appellate process, and which the per curiam opinion doesn’t process to the satisfaction of the Justices who concur. Ultimately, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Court chose not to let Colorado remove Trump from the ballot because they feared what might happen if they did. This concern about acting out of fear of the insurrectionist, fear that Trump’s base would rally to his support in predictably violent ways, highlights the predicament the country is in. What do the Justices expect will happen when Trump loses the election and pulls out all of the stops to regain power? The “national temperature” is already turned up to high, and the oathbreaking insurrectionist who put it there remains eligible to stand for election.

The decision may be 9-0, but Justice Barrett’s remonstrances that the Court has brought the country together are belied by the gap between the five Justices who wrote the lead opinion and the four who concurred. As the Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson concurrence says, “To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that ‘[n]o person shall’ hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists.” The phrase “oathbreaking insurrectionist” appears four times in the concurrence. It seems to be a synonym for Donald Trump. As in, “In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The three may have joined the other Justices, but it feels like one or more of them was just a hair’s breadth away from writing a dissent.

The biggest difference in the view of the three-Justice concurrence is that they believe “Remedial legislation of any kind, however, is not required.” In other words, it’s enough to say Trump can stay on the ballot for now without setting up excessive requirements for other cases. “Today,” the concurrence concludes, “the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.”

The bottom line continues to be, as it appeared following the Supreme Court’s decision to put off argument in the presidential immunity appeal until April 22, that the court wants to let voters decide the Trump question via election.

One last big picture consideration on this case: Justice Thomas participated in this decision and will apparently do so in the presidential immunity appeal too, despite his wife’s involvement with the movement to keep Trump in office. If that’s not a conflict of interest, it’s hard to contemplate what would be. Yes, Justice Thomas is technically a free agent when it comes to applying the ethics rules to himself, but it’s stunning, and we should all stay outraged that neither the Chief nor any of the other Justices have found a way to apply pressure to him. Congress should complete its work on mandatory ethics rules for the Supreme Court. They’ve proven that self-governance doesn’t work where the highest court in the land is concerned. It’s outrageous.


(full article online)

The "Oathbreaking Insurrectionist"

As we were all waiting for the preordained decision from the Supreme Court that insurrectionist Donald Trump could remain on the ballot in Colorado, we got some news we didn’t know would break today. We learned that Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg had surrendered for processing on new charges...

joycevance.substack.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]