Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #761
Trump's Present and Future possible indictments
- Thread starter Sixties Fan
- Start date
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #762
When Donald's team asked if he could speak, Engoron asked Donald if he would stick to the facts of the case. Donald started speaking without the judge's question.
He proceeded to attack the case, and accuse AG Letitia James of election interference, before Engoron pleaded with Donald's lawyer to "control" his client, and left the courtroom claiming that James owed him damages.
Once again, Donald was given more leeway that no other defendant would ever be given but in the end, this absurd rant won't help him.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #763
Part 1
Following Tuesday morning’s oral argument in the District of Columbia, Donald Trump made some predictable comments to the press from a Washington, D.C., hotel. As he finished, a reporter shouted out a request that he use the moment to tell his followers, “No violence.” The former president walked out of the room without responding.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...cb9-cff7-4590-b04a-b2a0fb875072_1480x833.jpeg
The Judges came prepared for oral argument on Trump’s immunity motion. Let’s start with the key figures in the argument:
Judges: Bush appointee Karen LeCraft Henderson. Biden appointees Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs.
Lawyer for Trump: Former Missouri Solicitor General John Sauer.
Lawyer for the Special Counsel: James I. Pearce, a career federal prosecutor who has worked in both DOJ’s public integrity section, which Jack Smith previously led, and in the Criminal Division’s appellate section.
The top line from the argument: a broad consensus among observers that the panel didn’t buy Trump’s immunity argument. None of the Judges seemed to believe Trump should be immune from prosecution. But each Judge came at it from a different vantage point. While they may end up agreeing on a single rationale for their decision, it’s also possible we could have an opinion with concurrences by one or more of the Judges, using different reasoning.
Mr. Sauer argued first because Trump is the petitioner—he lost in the trial court and is asking the Court of Appeals to reverse Judge Chutkan’s decision. Mr. Pearce, who argued second, began by telling the court that no other president in history claimed his immunity from prosecution extended beyond his time in office. A president’s role is unique, Pearce said, “but not above the law.”
The most telling points in the oral argument centered on hypotheticals offered by Judge Pan. Judges frequently use hypotheticals to help them understand what a ruling would mean both for the case at hand and in future cases. Judge Pan posed three to Sauer, asking whether, under his view of immunity, a president could:
It’s an unappetizing position. Sauer ran into still more trouble as the hypothetical was played out with both lawyers in turn, exploring the ways a president could avoid being impeached and convicted. They ranged from a president who resigns to avoid conviction, succeeds in concealing criminal conduct until he leaves office so he is never impeached, or even one who orders the deaths of his opponents in the Senate to prevent conviction. Under Trump’s theory of immunity, no prosecution would be available in these cases.
You don’t have to be a high-end appellate lawyer to understand that this argument is a stone-cold loser. At least in a democracy.
Judge Pan pointed out that Trump had taken a contradictory position in two earlier cases. During Trump’s 2021 impeachment and in Trump v. Vance where then-President Trump tried to prevent Manhattan DA Cy Vance from obtaining his tax returns, Trump’s lawyers argued he could be criminally prosecuted once he left office. Sauer was ultimately forced to concede they had taken that position then, but it’s not, he said “res judicata” here—not binding on Trump now. That one is a tough sell too, especially since Trump avoided conviction in the Senate by arguing he could be prosecuted in precisely this case after he left office. If the court accepts this view it would make a mockery of justice. This panel of Judges didn’t seem inclined that direction.
Trump is not the only former president who seems to have understood he could be prosecuted after leaving office. Judge Childs pointed out later in the argument that President Nixon was apparently so convinced he could be prosecuted that he sought a pardon.
The questions the panel had for the government focused less on whether Trump was entitled to immunity and more on what sort of rule they should fashion in the course of denying Trump’s motion. They were concerned with the rationale, the scope, and the future impact of their decision. “What should the rule be,” Pearce was asked at one point. The Judges wanted to know whether he was suggesting there was never immunity from criminal prosecution for presidents, or whether it should be available in some circumstances.
Following Tuesday morning’s oral argument in the District of Columbia, Donald Trump made some predictable comments to the press from a Washington, D.C., hotel. As he finished, a reporter shouted out a request that he use the moment to tell his followers, “No violence.” The former president walked out of the room without responding.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...cb9-cff7-4590-b04a-b2a0fb875072_1480x833.jpeg
The Judges came prepared for oral argument on Trump’s immunity motion. Let’s start with the key figures in the argument:
Judges: Bush appointee Karen LeCraft Henderson. Biden appointees Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs.
Lawyer for Trump: Former Missouri Solicitor General John Sauer.
Lawyer for the Special Counsel: James I. Pearce, a career federal prosecutor who has worked in both DOJ’s public integrity section, which Jack Smith previously led, and in the Criminal Division’s appellate section.
The top line from the argument: a broad consensus among observers that the panel didn’t buy Trump’s immunity argument. None of the Judges seemed to believe Trump should be immune from prosecution. But each Judge came at it from a different vantage point. While they may end up agreeing on a single rationale for their decision, it’s also possible we could have an opinion with concurrences by one or more of the Judges, using different reasoning.
Mr. Sauer argued first because Trump is the petitioner—he lost in the trial court and is asking the Court of Appeals to reverse Judge Chutkan’s decision. Mr. Pearce, who argued second, began by telling the court that no other president in history claimed his immunity from prosecution extended beyond his time in office. A president’s role is unique, Pearce said, “but not above the law.”
The most telling points in the oral argument centered on hypotheticals offered by Judge Pan. Judges frequently use hypotheticals to help them understand what a ruling would mean both for the case at hand and in future cases. Judge Pan posed three to Sauer, asking whether, under his view of immunity, a president could:
- order Seal Team 6 to execute a political rival, and get away with it
- accept a payment for issuing a pardon, and get away with it
- sell nuclear secrets to a foreign power, and get away with it
It’s an unappetizing position. Sauer ran into still more trouble as the hypothetical was played out with both lawyers in turn, exploring the ways a president could avoid being impeached and convicted. They ranged from a president who resigns to avoid conviction, succeeds in concealing criminal conduct until he leaves office so he is never impeached, or even one who orders the deaths of his opponents in the Senate to prevent conviction. Under Trump’s theory of immunity, no prosecution would be available in these cases.
You don’t have to be a high-end appellate lawyer to understand that this argument is a stone-cold loser. At least in a democracy.
Judge Pan pointed out that Trump had taken a contradictory position in two earlier cases. During Trump’s 2021 impeachment and in Trump v. Vance where then-President Trump tried to prevent Manhattan DA Cy Vance from obtaining his tax returns, Trump’s lawyers argued he could be criminally prosecuted once he left office. Sauer was ultimately forced to concede they had taken that position then, but it’s not, he said “res judicata” here—not binding on Trump now. That one is a tough sell too, especially since Trump avoided conviction in the Senate by arguing he could be prosecuted in precisely this case after he left office. If the court accepts this view it would make a mockery of justice. This panel of Judges didn’t seem inclined that direction.
Trump is not the only former president who seems to have understood he could be prosecuted after leaving office. Judge Childs pointed out later in the argument that President Nixon was apparently so convinced he could be prosecuted that he sought a pardon.
The questions the panel had for the government focused less on whether Trump was entitled to immunity and more on what sort of rule they should fashion in the course of denying Trump’s motion. They were concerned with the rationale, the scope, and the future impact of their decision. “What should the rule be,” Pearce was asked at one point. The Judges wanted to know whether he was suggesting there was never immunity from criminal prosecution for presidents, or whether it should be available in some circumstances.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #764
Part 2
Pearce had a carefully crafted answer to this, and it was responsive to some of the side comments Sauer wove into his argument. When asked early on about immunity, Sauer said that without it, presidents would always have to look over their shoulders and fear prosecution when making difficult decisions. He argued that President Obama could be prosecuted for a drone strike that resulted in civilian deaths or that Joe Biden could be prosecuted over some unspecified wrongs at the border and face a “Texas jury.” Pearce suggested that presidents might sometimes have access to immunity from prosecution, for instance, in a narrow setting involving a decision made to protect national security, with little time to decide, and made in reliance on the advice of White House Counsel.
That carve-out wouldn’t apply to a president like Trump who ignored the advice of the White House Counsel and conspired with a group of power-hungry sycophants to steal an election for his own personal purposes. But it would protect a president who faces a difficult one like the Obama decision Sauer referenced. Pearce told the court they didn’t have to decide on the scope of any exceptions, only identifying the possibility and leaving decisions to future cases. This is a usual pattern for courts handling developing doctrines, and nothing particularly exceptional or objectionable if the court chooses this route.
This was the meat of the argument, the merit of Trump’s immunity defense. But before they got there, Judge Childs asked questions about whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal now, challenging the idea that Trump could appeal immunity before a trial and conviction took place. The argument was offered in one of the amicus briefs. You’ll recall we’ve discussed it as well, and that I had dismissed the argument, because the Special Counsel had dismissed it, saying it was wrong and Trump was entitled to appeal.
Judge Childs seemed to see it differently and may well write to this issue in her opinion. But Pearce confirmed the government’s view, in response to her questions, that Trump was entitled to take the appeal at this point in the case. Judge Pan asked why he wasn’t willing to argue for dismissal on this basis, asking, “Doesn’t that serve your interests?” Pearce responded that the government’s interest was in doing justice, and they were obligated to take a position that was legally correct “even if it hurts us.” In sharp contrast to some of the arguments made by Sauer, Pearce offered, “We have to do what we think the law says.”
In one interesting stretch of questioning, Judge Pan forced Sauer to concede that there is not complete immunity, even for “official acts” by a president. Sauer had been arguing presidents were completely immune and Judge Pan had been pushing him on just how broadly that could sweep, for instance, that since communicating with foreign governments was part of a president’s job, could he claim immunity for conversations in which he sold government secrets. Sauer responded that a president in that situation could be prosecuted following impeachment and conviction.
Judge Pan moved in for the kill.
Pan: So, therefore, he’s not completely immune, because you concede he can be prosecuted under certain circumstances. Isn’t that also a concession a president can be prosecuted for an official act, because they can be impeached for an official act?
She asked Sauer if his concession didn’t narrow the issues before the court to simply deciding whether a president can be prosecuted without first being impeached. She pointed out, “All of your other arguments seem to fall away … if you concede a president can be prosecuted under some circumstances.”
This position may well drive the court’s opinion, or play prominently in a concurrence by Judge Pan if she can’t attract the other judges to it. It’s an elegantly simple argument. Trump concedes there is no absolute immunity, but sets up a condition for prosecution for official acts: there must be impeachment and conviction first. The court accepts the concession, that there is no absolute immunity. However, it rejects the “impeachment first” argument, a non-serious argument that isn’t grounded in either the language of the Constitution or case law. The panel seemed to think it had so little merit that it didn’t seriously press the government on this point during its turn. Pearce told the court, that they “might think” that if the Founding Fathers intended to preclude criminal prosecution of a former president who hadn’t been impeached and convicted, “you might find it in history from the convention.” Of course, it isn’t there.
By the conclusion of his exchange with the court on this point, Sauer seemed flustered, unable to explain why Judge Pan’s analysis was wrong. The best he had to offer was that the Founding Fathers were concerned about the possibility of politically motivated prosecutions, so they would have limited prosecution of presidents. Pan explained her reasoning to him: once he conceded there isn’t unlimited absolute immunity, the argument isn’t that his client can’t be prosecuted, it’s just about when his client can be prosecuted. You’re arguing there is absolutely immunity, she told him, that the judiciary can never sit in judgment on a president. But you’re conceding that’s not true.
After that exchange, at the close of his argument, and in a comment that hasn’t drawn much attention, Sauer asked the panel to “stay the mandate” so he could “seek further review” if he loses. That’s the delay argument. Sauer wants to take as much time as possible to push this appeal further—and continue to push off the trial date in this case, regardless of whether he wins or loses this motion. He doesn’t want the panel to limit the amount of time he has, which could end up being months before he has to file a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court. Not much audible reaction from the panel to give us a sense of whether they’re inclined to play along.
The court took a decidedly different tack in questioning the government. Judge Henderson asked Pearce how they could write an opinion that would keep the floodgates of political prosecutions from opening. Pearce fell back on traditional rule of law principles. He argued that the legal process isn’t political and that there are built-in safeguards that protect against political prosecutions, including prosecutors who follow strict codes of conduct, grand juries who must approve charges, trial juries who must agree that the government has proven a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and courts that can review convictions.
Pearce also argued that the floodgates argument presupposes that government no longer works like it’s supposed to, that it’s populated by actors who would engage in wrongful, purely political conduct. He said there was no reason to assume the future would be full of vindictive “tit-for-tat prosecutions.” Perhaps he has not read Trump’s 2025 plan, but he certainly underscored the panel’s concern about crafting a rule that works in this case and is protective for the future. Pearce told the court that this case had to be prosecuted because of the unprecedented nature of the charges against Trump, who conspired with private individuals and used the levers of power to corrupt the election system. His argument, that this is a novel, important case that required prosecution and that lesser cases will not be brought is an optimistic view of a future we all hope is in store for us.
That’s a lot. And of course, there was more in-the-weeds legal argumentation that will undoubtedly resurface in the opinion. But the takeaway seemed to be that this argument was not about whether Trump would lose, it was about how he will lose. That is the panel’s job to sort out.
One final thought. Because this is a federal appellate court, we were able to listen in. Audio clips are circulating online, on TV, and on social media for those who couldn’t listen to the entire argument. This sort of transparency makes it possible for people to understand the arguments; what was said and what wasn’t said. If ever there was an argument for cameras in the courtroom when Trump goes to trial, it’s this proceeding we were able to hear today.
Pearce had a carefully crafted answer to this, and it was responsive to some of the side comments Sauer wove into his argument. When asked early on about immunity, Sauer said that without it, presidents would always have to look over their shoulders and fear prosecution when making difficult decisions. He argued that President Obama could be prosecuted for a drone strike that resulted in civilian deaths or that Joe Biden could be prosecuted over some unspecified wrongs at the border and face a “Texas jury.” Pearce suggested that presidents might sometimes have access to immunity from prosecution, for instance, in a narrow setting involving a decision made to protect national security, with little time to decide, and made in reliance on the advice of White House Counsel.
That carve-out wouldn’t apply to a president like Trump who ignored the advice of the White House Counsel and conspired with a group of power-hungry sycophants to steal an election for his own personal purposes. But it would protect a president who faces a difficult one like the Obama decision Sauer referenced. Pearce told the court they didn’t have to decide on the scope of any exceptions, only identifying the possibility and leaving decisions to future cases. This is a usual pattern for courts handling developing doctrines, and nothing particularly exceptional or objectionable if the court chooses this route.
This was the meat of the argument, the merit of Trump’s immunity defense. But before they got there, Judge Childs asked questions about whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal now, challenging the idea that Trump could appeal immunity before a trial and conviction took place. The argument was offered in one of the amicus briefs. You’ll recall we’ve discussed it as well, and that I had dismissed the argument, because the Special Counsel had dismissed it, saying it was wrong and Trump was entitled to appeal.
Judge Childs seemed to see it differently and may well write to this issue in her opinion. But Pearce confirmed the government’s view, in response to her questions, that Trump was entitled to take the appeal at this point in the case. Judge Pan asked why he wasn’t willing to argue for dismissal on this basis, asking, “Doesn’t that serve your interests?” Pearce responded that the government’s interest was in doing justice, and they were obligated to take a position that was legally correct “even if it hurts us.” In sharp contrast to some of the arguments made by Sauer, Pearce offered, “We have to do what we think the law says.”
In one interesting stretch of questioning, Judge Pan forced Sauer to concede that there is not complete immunity, even for “official acts” by a president. Sauer had been arguing presidents were completely immune and Judge Pan had been pushing him on just how broadly that could sweep, for instance, that since communicating with foreign governments was part of a president’s job, could he claim immunity for conversations in which he sold government secrets. Sauer responded that a president in that situation could be prosecuted following impeachment and conviction.
Judge Pan moved in for the kill.
Pan: So, therefore, he’s not completely immune, because you concede he can be prosecuted under certain circumstances. Isn’t that also a concession a president can be prosecuted for an official act, because they can be impeached for an official act?
She asked Sauer if his concession didn’t narrow the issues before the court to simply deciding whether a president can be prosecuted without first being impeached. She pointed out, “All of your other arguments seem to fall away … if you concede a president can be prosecuted under some circumstances.”
This position may well drive the court’s opinion, or play prominently in a concurrence by Judge Pan if she can’t attract the other judges to it. It’s an elegantly simple argument. Trump concedes there is no absolute immunity, but sets up a condition for prosecution for official acts: there must be impeachment and conviction first. The court accepts the concession, that there is no absolute immunity. However, it rejects the “impeachment first” argument, a non-serious argument that isn’t grounded in either the language of the Constitution or case law. The panel seemed to think it had so little merit that it didn’t seriously press the government on this point during its turn. Pearce told the court, that they “might think” that if the Founding Fathers intended to preclude criminal prosecution of a former president who hadn’t been impeached and convicted, “you might find it in history from the convention.” Of course, it isn’t there.
By the conclusion of his exchange with the court on this point, Sauer seemed flustered, unable to explain why Judge Pan’s analysis was wrong. The best he had to offer was that the Founding Fathers were concerned about the possibility of politically motivated prosecutions, so they would have limited prosecution of presidents. Pan explained her reasoning to him: once he conceded there isn’t unlimited absolute immunity, the argument isn’t that his client can’t be prosecuted, it’s just about when his client can be prosecuted. You’re arguing there is absolutely immunity, she told him, that the judiciary can never sit in judgment on a president. But you’re conceding that’s not true.
After that exchange, at the close of his argument, and in a comment that hasn’t drawn much attention, Sauer asked the panel to “stay the mandate” so he could “seek further review” if he loses. That’s the delay argument. Sauer wants to take as much time as possible to push this appeal further—and continue to push off the trial date in this case, regardless of whether he wins or loses this motion. He doesn’t want the panel to limit the amount of time he has, which could end up being months before he has to file a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court. Not much audible reaction from the panel to give us a sense of whether they’re inclined to play along.
The court took a decidedly different tack in questioning the government. Judge Henderson asked Pearce how they could write an opinion that would keep the floodgates of political prosecutions from opening. Pearce fell back on traditional rule of law principles. He argued that the legal process isn’t political and that there are built-in safeguards that protect against political prosecutions, including prosecutors who follow strict codes of conduct, grand juries who must approve charges, trial juries who must agree that the government has proven a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and courts that can review convictions.
Pearce also argued that the floodgates argument presupposes that government no longer works like it’s supposed to, that it’s populated by actors who would engage in wrongful, purely political conduct. He said there was no reason to assume the future would be full of vindictive “tit-for-tat prosecutions.” Perhaps he has not read Trump’s 2025 plan, but he certainly underscored the panel’s concern about crafting a rule that works in this case and is protective for the future. Pearce told the court that this case had to be prosecuted because of the unprecedented nature of the charges against Trump, who conspired with private individuals and used the levers of power to corrupt the election system. His argument, that this is a novel, important case that required prosecution and that lesser cases will not be brought is an optimistic view of a future we all hope is in store for us.
That’s a lot. And of course, there was more in-the-weeds legal argumentation that will undoubtedly resurface in the opinion. But the takeaway seemed to be that this argument was not about whether Trump would lose, it was about how he will lose. That is the panel’s job to sort out.
One final thought. Because this is a federal appellate court, we were able to listen in. Audio clips are circulating online, on TV, and on social media for those who couldn’t listen to the entire argument. This sort of transparency makes it possible for people to understand the arguments; what was said and what wasn’t said. If ever there was an argument for cameras in the courtroom when Trump goes to trial, it’s this proceeding we were able to hear today.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #765
Part 1
Nothing good happens when you bend the rules for Trump. We saw that play out, again, in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday.
Normally, in a trial, the parties don’t get argue the case to the court. That’s what they hire lawyers for; professionals who are trained to do the job. Except in rare instances where a party proceeds pro se (without a lawyer), the only time the court hears from the plaintiff or the defendant is when they testify—under oath—from the witness stand.
But Judge Arthur Engoron bent the rules for Trump as the New York Attorney General’s civil fraud case against him came to a close. There had been back and forth for days between the Judge and Trump’s lawyers about Trump’s desire to participate in the closing arguments. Trump refused to comply with the conditions set by the judge. They would have required Trump to abide by the rules all lawyers must follow at this stage in proceedings: argue the evidence, apply the law to it, advocate for the conclusions you want the finder of fact, here the judge, to reach. There is, of course, no name-calling, no insinuating the other side hates you or the judge is biased against you.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...6129-4271-423e-aeaa-12f1fa1a82dd_600x400.jpeg
Judge Engoron told Trump’s lawyers: "He may not seek to introduce new evidence. He may not 'testify.' He may not comment on irrelevant matters. In particular, and without limitation, he may not deliver a campaign speech, and he may not impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff's staff, or the New York State Court System, none of which is relevant to this case.” The Judge correctly characterized these limits as lawful and reasonable.
Trump refused to follow those rules, so the Judge turned down his unusual request to participate along with his lawyers when they made their final summations.
joycevance.substack.com
Nothing good happens when you bend the rules for Trump. We saw that play out, again, in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday.
Normally, in a trial, the parties don’t get argue the case to the court. That’s what they hire lawyers for; professionals who are trained to do the job. Except in rare instances where a party proceeds pro se (without a lawyer), the only time the court hears from the plaintiff or the defendant is when they testify—under oath—from the witness stand.
But Judge Arthur Engoron bent the rules for Trump as the New York Attorney General’s civil fraud case against him came to a close. There had been back and forth for days between the Judge and Trump’s lawyers about Trump’s desire to participate in the closing arguments. Trump refused to comply with the conditions set by the judge. They would have required Trump to abide by the rules all lawyers must follow at this stage in proceedings: argue the evidence, apply the law to it, advocate for the conclusions you want the finder of fact, here the judge, to reach. There is, of course, no name-calling, no insinuating the other side hates you or the judge is biased against you.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...6129-4271-423e-aeaa-12f1fa1a82dd_600x400.jpeg
Judge Engoron told Trump’s lawyers: "He may not seek to introduce new evidence. He may not 'testify.' He may not comment on irrelevant matters. In particular, and without limitation, he may not deliver a campaign speech, and he may not impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff's staff, or the New York State Court System, none of which is relevant to this case.” The Judge correctly characterized these limits as lawful and reasonable.
Trump refused to follow those rules, so the Judge turned down his unusual request to participate along with his lawyers when they made their final summations.
Enough
Nothing good happens when you bend the rules for Trump. We saw that play out, again, in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday. Normally, in a trial, the parties don’t get argue the case to the court. That’s what they hire lawyers for; professionals who are trained to do the job. Except in rare...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #766
Part 2
But at the last minute, fresh off of a bomb threat to his home, and doubtless aware that Trump would forever complain about the unfairness of being refused the opportunity, Judge Engoron permitted him to speak. The results were predictable.
Trump proceeded to do more or less everything the Judge had previously forbidden. Before Trump began, the Judge asked whether he would abide by the guidelines he’d previously sent. Trump simply ignored him, jumping straight in. In a rant directed at New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump told the Judge, "When you say don't go outside of these things, we have a situation where I'm an innocent man, I've been persecuted by someone running for office and I think you have to go outside the bounds.” He asserted he had done "nothing wrong" and claimed that the state "should pay me for what we had to go through." “What’s happened here, sir, is a fraud on me," Trump said, claiming he was being targeted by officials who “want to make sure I don't win again.” He later accused the judge of not listening to him, saying, “I know this is boring to you.”
The Judge warned Trump lawyer Chris Kise to “Control your client.” But of course, Trump’s lawyers either cannot or will not control him, like they would any other client.
Other parties don’t get this sort of special treatment in court. Trump shouldn’t have received it either. Predictably, it did no good. It did not prevent Trump from continuing to complain that he was being treated unfairly. He went straight out of courtroom, only to tell the press that the case was a “fraud on me.” Judge Engoron may have concluded that with no jury in the box to be prejudiced by Trump’s ravings, it was easier to just let him have his way for the moment. But with Trump, no good deed goes unpunished.
It’s time for the courts to stop giving Trump special treatment. To stop walking delicately and gingerly lest he claim foul play when he is merely subjected to procedures anyone else in his position would be held accountable to. The courts, charged with delivering justice, need to stop being afraid of Trump.
In criminal cases, defendants don’t get to make closing arguments to the jury. But it’s easy to imagine that Trump will now claim his comments in New York set some sort of precedent and that he’s entitled to more special treatment, that he should get to speak to the jurors directly at the close of his criminal trials. The four judges in his cases should shut down this and any other requests he makes for special privileges. There is no reason to give Trump benefits that no other criminal defendant receives. He’s certainly not entitled to address a jury or a judge directly.
Other than responding to routine inquiries made by a judge, there is one time a defendant gets to speak directly to the court in a criminal trial. That’s following a conviction, when he’s permitted to make a statement, called allocution, to the judge before sentencing. This opportunity is afforded to every defendant, and it should be afforded to Trump if he’s convicted. In fact, it’s reversible error to fail to let a defendant speak before sentence is imposed. But until one of the cases against him reaches that point, no judge should permit Trump to speak in court, and under no circumstances to a jury, unless he’s on the witness stand, testifying under oath. No more playing lawyer. No more opportunity for the toddler to throw a temper tantrum that would lead to anyone else in his position being held in contempt. If judges mean for it to continue to exist, it’s time for them to show Trump that he is not above the law, not any longer.
How is it that our country has grown so accustomed to extending “favors” no one else receives to this man who is so unworthy of special treatment? What started out as making excuses for him following his election—he’s not a career politician so he doesn’t know how these things work, he doesn’t understand ethics laws in government—developed into a full blown failure by the other branches of government, both Congress and the Judiciary, to hold Trump accountable for his excesses. No more. It’s time for the courts to show that they are up to the task of treating Trump like they would treat anyone else.
joycevance.substack.com
But at the last minute, fresh off of a bomb threat to his home, and doubtless aware that Trump would forever complain about the unfairness of being refused the opportunity, Judge Engoron permitted him to speak. The results were predictable.
Trump proceeded to do more or less everything the Judge had previously forbidden. Before Trump began, the Judge asked whether he would abide by the guidelines he’d previously sent. Trump simply ignored him, jumping straight in. In a rant directed at New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump told the Judge, "When you say don't go outside of these things, we have a situation where I'm an innocent man, I've been persecuted by someone running for office and I think you have to go outside the bounds.” He asserted he had done "nothing wrong" and claimed that the state "should pay me for what we had to go through." “What’s happened here, sir, is a fraud on me," Trump said, claiming he was being targeted by officials who “want to make sure I don't win again.” He later accused the judge of not listening to him, saying, “I know this is boring to you.”
The Judge warned Trump lawyer Chris Kise to “Control your client.” But of course, Trump’s lawyers either cannot or will not control him, like they would any other client.
Other parties don’t get this sort of special treatment in court. Trump shouldn’t have received it either. Predictably, it did no good. It did not prevent Trump from continuing to complain that he was being treated unfairly. He went straight out of courtroom, only to tell the press that the case was a “fraud on me.” Judge Engoron may have concluded that with no jury in the box to be prejudiced by Trump’s ravings, it was easier to just let him have his way for the moment. But with Trump, no good deed goes unpunished.
It’s time for the courts to stop giving Trump special treatment. To stop walking delicately and gingerly lest he claim foul play when he is merely subjected to procedures anyone else in his position would be held accountable to. The courts, charged with delivering justice, need to stop being afraid of Trump.
In criminal cases, defendants don’t get to make closing arguments to the jury. But it’s easy to imagine that Trump will now claim his comments in New York set some sort of precedent and that he’s entitled to more special treatment, that he should get to speak to the jurors directly at the close of his criminal trials. The four judges in his cases should shut down this and any other requests he makes for special privileges. There is no reason to give Trump benefits that no other criminal defendant receives. He’s certainly not entitled to address a jury or a judge directly.
Other than responding to routine inquiries made by a judge, there is one time a defendant gets to speak directly to the court in a criminal trial. That’s following a conviction, when he’s permitted to make a statement, called allocution, to the judge before sentencing. This opportunity is afforded to every defendant, and it should be afforded to Trump if he’s convicted. In fact, it’s reversible error to fail to let a defendant speak before sentence is imposed. But until one of the cases against him reaches that point, no judge should permit Trump to speak in court, and under no circumstances to a jury, unless he’s on the witness stand, testifying under oath. No more playing lawyer. No more opportunity for the toddler to throw a temper tantrum that would lead to anyone else in his position being held in contempt. If judges mean for it to continue to exist, it’s time for them to show Trump that he is not above the law, not any longer.
How is it that our country has grown so accustomed to extending “favors” no one else receives to this man who is so unworthy of special treatment? What started out as making excuses for him following his election—he’s not a career politician so he doesn’t know how these things work, he doesn’t understand ethics laws in government—developed into a full blown failure by the other branches of government, both Congress and the Judiciary, to hold Trump accountable for his excesses. No more. It’s time for the courts to show that they are up to the task of treating Trump like they would treat anyone else.
Enough
Nothing good happens when you bend the rules for Trump. We saw that play out, again, in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday. Normally, in a trial, the parties don’t get argue the case to the court. That’s what they hire lawyers for; professionals who are trained to do the job. Except in rare...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #767
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #768
1)
There is so much—a deluge of evidence that a second Trump administration would be far darker, far more dangerous, and far closer to fascism and authoritarianism than the first one was. Like a wounded animal that is cornered, Trump has no other way out. It’s not difficult to see the signs. What’s difficult is understanding how so many people are able to ignore the truth that is in front of us.
Trump was back at it on Truth Social on Saturday, posting throughout the day, including a 2-minute and 45-second video titled, “God made Trump.” Another post featured an endorsement of Trump as “incorruptible” from Sammy the Bull Gravano. Gravano was the underboss of the Gambino crime family before he became a government witness against other Mafia figures and confessed to committing 19 murders—hell of a character witness.
But it was this post that did me in:
The observation is wrong—no need to look further than what the Supreme Court did to Roe v. Wade to appreciate that some Republican appointees to the federal bench are far from impartial jurists. But most federal judges are, setting aside their political affiliation to decide cases based on the facts and the law. There is certainly no indication that judges appointed by Democrats follow some sort of party line as Trump suggests. But here Trump is, again, trying to undercut public confidence in the judiciary ahead of the two significant losses he is about to suffer in civil cases—the New York Attorney General’s fraud case and the second E. Jean Carroll defamation case—and heading into his criminal cases. If you can’t win in court, then claim the judges are biased against you. All of them.
joycevance.substack.com
There is so much—a deluge of evidence that a second Trump administration would be far darker, far more dangerous, and far closer to fascism and authoritarianism than the first one was. Like a wounded animal that is cornered, Trump has no other way out. It’s not difficult to see the signs. What’s difficult is understanding how so many people are able to ignore the truth that is in front of us.
Trump was back at it on Truth Social on Saturday, posting throughout the day, including a 2-minute and 45-second video titled, “God made Trump.” Another post featured an endorsement of Trump as “incorruptible” from Sammy the Bull Gravano. Gravano was the underboss of the Gambino crime family before he became a government witness against other Mafia figures and confessed to committing 19 murders—hell of a character witness.
But it was this post that did me in:
The observation is wrong—no need to look further than what the Supreme Court did to Roe v. Wade to appreciate that some Republican appointees to the federal bench are far from impartial jurists. But most federal judges are, setting aside their political affiliation to decide cases based on the facts and the law. There is certainly no indication that judges appointed by Democrats follow some sort of party line as Trump suggests. But here Trump is, again, trying to undercut public confidence in the judiciary ahead of the two significant losses he is about to suffer in civil cases—the New York Attorney General’s fraud case and the second E. Jean Carroll defamation case—and heading into his criminal cases. If you can’t win in court, then claim the judges are biased against you. All of them.
If you can't win, call the judges corrupt
There is so much—a deluge of evidence that a second Trump administration would be far darker, far more dangerous, and far closer to fascism and authoritarianism than the first one was. Like a wounded animal that is cornered, Trump has no other way out. It’s not difficult to see the signs. What’s...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #769
Part 2
We know that is on Trump’s mind from his posts, like this one:
It should be unthinkable for Trump to make these comments, especially on the heels of the bomb threat called into the home of Judge Engoron, who is trying the fraud case, last week. Now he has moved on to Judge Kaplan, who is assigned to the E. Jean Carroll case. Despite knowing comments like this target people Trump identifies as his enemies in the minds of some of his followers, he continues to do it. And no one in the Republican Party condemns him for it. In fact, on Friday, Trump garnered an endorsement from Utah Senator Mike Lee. Lee is a graduate of Brigham Young University Law School. He clerked for two federal judges, including now-Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito, both when he was on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and after he went to the Supreme Court. Lee worked for a respected national law firm as a young lawyer and as an Assistant United States Attorney.
“I’ll take the mean tweets,” Lee said, before declaring, “I choose Trump.” Apparently, it’s okay with the Republican Senator from Utah if his party’s leading candidate for the presidency wants to threaten federal judges.
None of this is pretense. There has been too much violence, like the attack on Speaker Pelosi’s husband Paul, for Trump or any of his supporters to credibly maintain that his rage-tweeting doesn’t put lives at risk. As if we needed more evidence of the threat some of Trump’s supporters pose, audiotape of long-time Trump ally Roger Stone discussing killing two Democratic members of Congress as though it was the normal thing to do surfaced over the weekend, and received little mention. You can listen here.
Stone was convicted of obstructing a Congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. In July of 2020, Trump commuted his sentence, preventing Stone from entering prison. Then, in December 2020, Trump gave Stone a full and unconditional pardon. The official release, which you can hear written in Trump’s voice, justified the pardon because “Mr. Stone was treated very unfairly. He was subjected to a pre-dawn raid of his home, which the media conveniently captured on camera. Mr. Stone also faced potential political bias at his jury trial. Pardoning him will help to right the injustices he faced at the hands of the Mueller investigation.”
Roger Stone. Sammy the Bull. These are the people Trump cloaks himself in. Far too many people support, or at least continue to tolerate him. People like Trump, would-be strong men, count on the fact that most people can’t sustain outrage. Hold on long enough, like Trump has, and most people end up too exhausted to maintain any form of protest. And that’s exactly where we are, with the Iowa Caucuses upon us, and Trump showing a strong lead in the polls heading into them.
NBC’s Vaughn Hillyard noted that Trump leads the pack with 48% of respondents saying they support him, compared to Nikki Haley at 20%, Ron DeSantis at 16%, and Vivek Ramaswamy at 8%. Still more alarming is the fact that 49% of Trump supporters characterize themselves as “extremely enthusiastic,” while only 23% of DeSantis backers and 9% of Haley’s are that excited about their candidate.
At the start of the Trump administration, I reread George Orwell’s 1984, for the first time in many years, and experienced a frightening resonance between the book and the times we were living in. Orwell wrote about “doublethink,” which is “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” He wrote, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Today, too many people seem to be willing to watch a would-be dictator come to power in this country. We must avoid giving in to complacency. That’s an important part of our job right now. Don’t give up. Don’t think of Trump as inevitable. He’s not, and we’re going to make sure that he doesn’t win.
joycevance.substack.com
We know that is on Trump’s mind from his posts, like this one:
It should be unthinkable for Trump to make these comments, especially on the heels of the bomb threat called into the home of Judge Engoron, who is trying the fraud case, last week. Now he has moved on to Judge Kaplan, who is assigned to the E. Jean Carroll case. Despite knowing comments like this target people Trump identifies as his enemies in the minds of some of his followers, he continues to do it. And no one in the Republican Party condemns him for it. In fact, on Friday, Trump garnered an endorsement from Utah Senator Mike Lee. Lee is a graduate of Brigham Young University Law School. He clerked for two federal judges, including now-Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito, both when he was on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and after he went to the Supreme Court. Lee worked for a respected national law firm as a young lawyer and as an Assistant United States Attorney.
“I’ll take the mean tweets,” Lee said, before declaring, “I choose Trump.” Apparently, it’s okay with the Republican Senator from Utah if his party’s leading candidate for the presidency wants to threaten federal judges.
None of this is pretense. There has been too much violence, like the attack on Speaker Pelosi’s husband Paul, for Trump or any of his supporters to credibly maintain that his rage-tweeting doesn’t put lives at risk. As if we needed more evidence of the threat some of Trump’s supporters pose, audiotape of long-time Trump ally Roger Stone discussing killing two Democratic members of Congress as though it was the normal thing to do surfaced over the weekend, and received little mention. You can listen here.
Stone was convicted of obstructing a Congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. In July of 2020, Trump commuted his sentence, preventing Stone from entering prison. Then, in December 2020, Trump gave Stone a full and unconditional pardon. The official release, which you can hear written in Trump’s voice, justified the pardon because “Mr. Stone was treated very unfairly. He was subjected to a pre-dawn raid of his home, which the media conveniently captured on camera. Mr. Stone also faced potential political bias at his jury trial. Pardoning him will help to right the injustices he faced at the hands of the Mueller investigation.”
Roger Stone. Sammy the Bull. These are the people Trump cloaks himself in. Far too many people support, or at least continue to tolerate him. People like Trump, would-be strong men, count on the fact that most people can’t sustain outrage. Hold on long enough, like Trump has, and most people end up too exhausted to maintain any form of protest. And that’s exactly where we are, with the Iowa Caucuses upon us, and Trump showing a strong lead in the polls heading into them.
NBC’s Vaughn Hillyard noted that Trump leads the pack with 48% of respondents saying they support him, compared to Nikki Haley at 20%, Ron DeSantis at 16%, and Vivek Ramaswamy at 8%. Still more alarming is the fact that 49% of Trump supporters characterize themselves as “extremely enthusiastic,” while only 23% of DeSantis backers and 9% of Haley’s are that excited about their candidate.
At the start of the Trump administration, I reread George Orwell’s 1984, for the first time in many years, and experienced a frightening resonance between the book and the times we were living in. Orwell wrote about “doublethink,” which is “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” He wrote, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Today, too many people seem to be willing to watch a would-be dictator come to power in this country. We must avoid giving in to complacency. That’s an important part of our job right now. Don’t give up. Don’t think of Trump as inevitable. He’s not, and we’re going to make sure that he doesn’t win.
If you can't win, call the judges corrupt
There is so much—a deluge of evidence that a second Trump administration would be far darker, far more dangerous, and far closer to fascism and authoritarianism than the first one was. Like a wounded animal that is cornered, Trump has no other way out. It’s not difficult to see the signs. What’s...
joycevance.substack.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #770
Day Two
"I'm here because I was assaulted by Donald Trump, and when I wrote about it, he said it never happened. He lied. And he shattered my reputation." E. Jean Carroll, testifying in court on Wednesday. Imagine if, seven years ago, anyone in the Republican Party had possessed the courage and...
joycevance.substack.com
Here's your sick sleazebag.
Trump lawyer: Ex-president not responsible for E Jean Carroll backlash because supporters were likely to believe him – as it happened
Pressed by Trump lawyer, expert says people are ‘more likely’ receptive to information that easily ‘conforms to their views’
www.theguardian.com
San Souci
Diamond Member
- Feb 4, 2020
- 7,508
- 5,852
- 1,940
She is just another whore the Dems dragged out to defame an opponent. Like Christine Blowsey Ford ,Anita Hill ,and that whore who accused Max Moore. This bitch got fired for being incompetent. As are ALL "Me Too" feminazis.Here's your sick sleazebag.
Trump lawyer: Ex-president not responsible for E Jean Carroll backlash because supporters were likely to believe him – as it happened
Pressed by Trump lawyer, expert says people are ‘more likely’ receptive to information that easily ‘conforms to their views’
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #773
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #774
Former President Donald Trump must pay writer E. Jean Carroll over $83 million in damages for repeatedly defaming her, a jury found Friday.
The nine-person jury began deliberations in federal court in New York at 1:40 p.m. ET and reached a verdict in just under three hours.
The award included $11 million for damage to Carroll's reputation, $7.3 million for emotional harm and other damages, and $65 million in punitive damages.
The decision came after contentious closing arguments that saw Trump storm out of the courtroom. He returned for his own attorney's closing arguments but left the courthouse at 4 p.m., before the jury returned its verdict.
(full article online)
www.aol.com
The nine-person jury began deliberations in federal court in New York at 1:40 p.m. ET and reached a verdict in just under three hours.
The award included $11 million for damage to Carroll's reputation, $7.3 million for emotional harm and other damages, and $65 million in punitive damages.
The decision came after contentious closing arguments that saw Trump storm out of the courtroom. He returned for his own attorney's closing arguments but left the courthouse at 4 p.m., before the jury returned its verdict.
(full article online)
Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll over $83 million in defamation damages, jury rules
Former President Donald Trump must pay writer E. Jean Carroll over $83 million in damages for repeatedly defaming her, a jury found Friday.
www.aol.com
Steve Bannon failed to pay his lawyer â and now it's coming back to haunt him: report
Steven Bannon's refusal to pay his lawyer close to $500K in legal fees may end up inadvertently exposing more evidence of financial fraud by the former Donald Trump adviser.According to a report from the Daily Beast's Jose Pagliery, Bannon stiffed longtime attorney Robert Costello, a former...
www.rawstory.com
Trump pardoned Bannon on the federal charges, before the trial even started.
So NY State and the Manhattan DA went after him for the same fraud and money laundering charges. Trump can't save his ass now.
Here's the thing - Bannon got nailed for for RIPPING OFF TRUMP SUPPORTERS, to the tune of $$millions.
Trump pardoned the guy WHO RIPPED OFF HIS OWN SUPPORTERS.
And those same TRUMP SUPPORTERS still treat Bannon like a hero.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,499
- 12,060
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #776
This week, we learned that Donald Trump’s fundraising committees channeled an extraordinary $50 million toward bankrolling his myriad legal defenses throughout 2023. Such sordid trickery has a long history on the right: For decades, shrewd fundraising gurus have raked in cash from conservative voters with hallucinatory alarmism about leftist villains and other apocalyptic threats. We talked to Geoff Kabaservice, the author of Rule and Ruin, a history of the GOP, to situate Trump in this hallowed tradition of grifters. It turns out Trump may have outdone them all.
(listen to Podcast online)
newrepublic.com
(listen to Podcast online)
How Trump Used a Sleazy Old Trick to Scam His Voters on Legal Fees
For decades, right-wing fundraising gurus have raked in cash with all manner of grift. By channeling $50 million in donations to his legal defense, Trump may have topped them all.
newrepublic.com
Brick Layer
VIP Member
Fulton County DA acknowledges personal relationship with lead prosecutor on Trump case, but says it doesn’t disqualify her...
Exclusive: Georgia State Senator Takes First Step to Impeach Trump's Fulton County Prosecutor
Georgia state Sen. Colton Moore (R) took the first step on Thursday towards impeaching Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
www.breitbart.com
House Committee Subpoenas Fulton County DA Fani Willis
Election Interference Case Vanishes In D.C.
Case REMOVED from DC court docket
BREAKING: Trump J6 case REMOVED from DC court docket
The case, brought by special counsel Jack Smith and presided over by Judge Tanya Chutkan, currently has motions pending that are on appeal.
thepostmillennial.com
PITC, Presidental Information Technology Committee
Why was this secretive committee created?
In October 2014, Russian hackers breached the Executive Office of the President (EOP)’s network.
President Obama created, via executive action, PITC.
PITC includes representatives of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others.
Why is the committee relevant today?
First, PITC creates a presumption that the President controls all information he receives. The PITC memo established the President’s exclusive control over information resources and systems provided to the President. (§ 1, ¶ 2.). The memo created the presumption that information contained on information systems and resources was “EOP information.” ( § 4(f)). Because the memo relied upon the Federal Records Act’s definition of “information system” as resources organized for the “use” and “disposition” of “information”, the memo gives the President exclusive control over information he receives. This is relevant to what a President may reasonably believe about information given to him while in office.
Second, and related, if information stored on the PITC network formed the basis for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former President Trump, that evidence should have been disclosed to the former President and may be relevant to his liability.
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against former President Trump, claims “Trump was not authorized to possess or retain…classified documents.” But Obama’s PITC memo may have created a reasonable belief in President Trump that he, in fact, had such authority. Additionally, if the records Trump allegedly destroyed are still preserved within the EOP or the U.S. Department of Defense as part of PITC-created information systems, then other claims in the indictment may be baseless.
Secretive Obama Order May Change Legal Presumptions Regarding Records President Trump Received and Possessed; America First Legal Investigates
This memorandum is intended to maintain the President's exclusive control of the information resources and information systems provided to the President, Vice President, and EOP.
Presidential Memorandum -- Establishing the Director of White House Information Technology and the Executive Committee for Presidential Information Technology
America First Legal Whitepaper: The President of the United States Has Absolute Authority Over His Presidential Papers, Undermining An Essential Element of the Biden DOJ’s Mar-a-Lago Prosecution
America First Legal Whitepaper: The President of the United States Has Absolute Authority Over His Presidential Papers, Undermining An Essential Element of the Biden DOJ’s Mar-a-Lago Prosecution
Obama-era directive could alter presumptions about Trump documents case, legal group says
EXCLUSIVE — A little-known Obama administration directive intended to shield the White House from foreign cyberattacks “may be relevant” to former President Donald Trump‘s liability in his criminal classified documents
Last edited:
Trump spent $76 million over last two years on attorneys as legal troubles mount ahead of election
An Associated Press analysis of new Federal Election Commission filings shows Trump's political fundraising machine spent more than $76 million on legal fees over the last two years as he faces multiple lawsuits and federal and state criminal charges.
apnews.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump’s storied business career is checkered by bankruptcies and blunders. His investment in Eli Bartov, a New York University accounting professor, looms as another failed venture.
Trump’s Save America political action committee paid Bartov nearly $930,000 last year as an expert witness in the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case that threatens the former president’s real estate empire, according to new Federal Election Commission filings.
Bartov bombed. New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron declared in December the professor’s testimony proved only that “for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say.”
Trump spent $76 million over last two years on attorneys as legal troubles mount ahead of election
An Associated Press analysis of new Federal Election Commission filings shows Trump's political fundraising machine spent more than $76 million on legal fees over the last two years as he faces multiple lawsuits and federal and state criminal charges.
apnews.com
Trump has always bragged about his sexual assaults.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
That Thing That Never Happens Happened AGAIN! CO USPS Worker Admits She STOLE Ballots Prior to 2024 Vote
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 3
-
Meet the residents of Mont-Saint-Michel, France's medieval island- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 1
-
-
