Trump Indictments (NY, GA, Jan 6, etc.)

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

WOW! Manhattan DA DROPS HAMMER on TRUMP​

Sep 5, 2024

Michael Cohen reacts to an update from Matthew Colangelo at the Manhattan DA.

10:05
 
searcher said:

SCARED Trump Makes DESPERATE MOVE in Sentencing​

Sep 5, 2024

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas and Talking Feds host Harry Litman report on the latest from Donald Trump’s attempt to scuttle his sentencing in his criminal case.

11:46
Click to expand...
What we need is the DOJ to step in and start arresting these judges for election interference. Thats all this is.
 
^^^ anyone with even half a brain already knew that, but thanks for the confirmation.
 

Trump to appear in court for appeal in E. Jean Carroll sex abuse case​

Former President Trump will personally appear at a Manhattan federal appeals court Friday as he continues to fight the $5 million verdict against him for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll who accused him of sexual assault.

Why it matters: This is Trump's latest attempt to get a new trial in the case but the court is not likely to issue a decision before the presidential election, CNN reported.

Catch up quick: Carroll sued Trump in 2022, alleging he raped her in the mid-1990s and that he defamed her when he denied the assault after she went public with her allegations in 2019.

  • A jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation last year and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million in damages.
  • The jury did not find Trump liable for rape in the trial, though it was one of the types of battery the jurors were instructed to consider by the judge.
  • Trump has denied all wrongdoing in the case.
More:

 

Georgia judge dismisses two criminal counts against Trump, court filing shows​

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A Georgia judge on Thursday dismissed two criminal counts in the U.S. state's 2020 election interference case against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and one other count against allies of the former president.

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee found that state prosecutors did not have the authority to bring those charges, which related to the alleged filing of false documents in federal court.

McAfee allowed the remainder of the case to move forward, including eight charges against Trump. Trump and 14 co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to racketeering and other charges stemming from what prosecutors allege was a scheme to overturn Trump's narrow defeat in Georgia in the 2020 election.

More:

 
The plot thickens...


Dear Mr. Bove, I have some information for you. It concerns the FBI Miami, but also the proceedings surrounding Trump. The information you will receive from me is very disturbing, but will provide comprehensible information about the Trump trial. Most of the documents are in German, but it will be easy for you to translate them. My name is Sascha Clauss-Theisohn and I am the chairman of an association from Germany. We help with scandals in youth welfare and curiosities in the justice system. Here we received information that an old Nazi network was in charge of the justice system in Germany. I had to search for a long time before I discovered the connections. What all the cases had in common was that the people involved had had their education financed by a foundation from the Nazi era. This foundation was headed by Theodor Pfizer from 1925 onwards. He came from the Black Reichswehr and was a true Nazi. During the World War, he was responsible for the Reichsbahn and the Russian campaign. When the war did not look good for the Nazis, he swore final victory over the USA. He received the highest civilian award of the Nazis. After the war, he was awarded the Federal Cross of Merit. He was allowed to take over this foundation again immediately. It was even allowed to expand in America. Countless prosecutors were trained through this network from then on, despite the McCormack Act (today FARA).

Now to the FBI Florida, which was ultimately responsible in Mar-a-lago. It deployed an instructor from Germany to the FBI University. The name of the instructor is Jürgen Stock. He was not only Vice President of the BKA but also an alumni of this foundation. He was also responsible when the Ukrainian Azov films were covered up

This foundation, without whose director there would probably never have been a Third Reich, dedicated an LEI-certified sub-foundation to its “leader” in 2017.

To summarize, the FBI Florida and officers demonstrably involved in the Mar-a-Lago operation were trained by a BKA (Jürgen Stock) officer who:

1. is an alumni of a Nazi-era foundation.
2. this foundation is not allowed to operate in the USA because of the McCormack Act.
3. the head of the foundation vowed to destroy the USA
4. Germany dedicated a new foundation to this foundation director in 2017.
5.The BKA deputy chief was financed by the same network that financed the Nazi elite and the RAF elite and he doesn't want to have noticed that the head was the same person? What quality does this BKA official have if he does not notice this?
6. this BKA vice was at the time of Azov-Films in the cover-up of this worst conceivable child pornography from a Ukrainian Nazi network VIze.
7. the BKA is the only agency that has tampered with records of provenance and it is the very vice of this agency that the FBI Florida uses as an instructor?
8. is it a coincidence that the FBI is being taught by alumni of a person who has sworn final victory over the USA?
9. did the FBI not notice that the man came from a foundation whose director was newly honored in 2017?

I am sending you some information and evidence. Lawyer Fischer has already written an article about my discovery in relation to Germany. Unfortunately in German. The whole thing was covered up for 80 years until I came across this foundation in March 2023. I found out about the American networks at the beginning of the year.

I hope this will help you reveal the morality and ideology of the FBI.

Die Nazi-Wurzeln der Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes - 2020 NEWS

Theodor Pfizer, seines Zeichens ehemaliger Vorstandsvorsitzender und Ehrenpräsident der Studienstiftung, war bei der Reichsbahn möglicherweise in die Deportationen und den Einsatz von Zwangsarbeitern involviert. Die NSDAP band den „voll verwendungsfähigen“ Beamten in vertrauliche Angelegenheiten...
2020news.de

Azov-Films

The banality of evil | clausserssicht.de

clausserssicht.de

Kind regards

Sascha Clauss-Theisohn
+4915229376444

 

Trump CALLED OUT by FED Up Appellate Court Judges​

Sep 23, 2024

A new “annoyed” order by a federal appellate court directed at Trump and his lawyers giving them a drop dead deadline of 10/14 to file his federal appeal to stop his NY criminal sentencing, explains how Trump’s lawyers are circling the drain with 10 different filings or hearings in 4 different state and federal trial and appellate courts, between now and the election. Michael Popok explains why Trump is getting clobbered at the intersection of Law and Politics.

13:38
 

Late yesterday the Trump Defense in the DC prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith took a position on the upcoming filing by Smith of an "Opening Brief" on the issue of Presidential Immunity which is now back before the District Court.

They picked an odd vehicle to take a stand -- opposing a motion made by Smith for permission to file an oversized brief -- 180 pages, when the limit is normally 45 pages. Within the Opposition they requested that the Court reconsider its earlier Scheduling Order calling for Smith to file this brief on or before Sept. 26.

I wrote a Substack article yesterday -- link below -- addressing what is now an obstacle to Smith making all of his evidence available for the public.

A Protective Order Smith sought and obtained at the start of the case prevents both sides from filing on the public docket any motion that includes "sensitive materials" as defined by the Protective Order. Before such materials can be filed publicly, an effort must be made to confer with the other side regarding the extent of redactions necessary, and after such efforts they must submit the motion under seal to the Court to resolve any disputes regarding redactions.

Smith's 180 page motion is going to be accompanied by hundreds of pages of exhibits in an Appendix. The content of that Appendix is unknown.

But the Protective Order includes within the definition of "Sensitive Materials" all Grand Jury materials involving witness testimony and exhibits, as well as all reports, memos, records, and exhibits related to witness interviews done by the Special Counsel during the investigation.

THAT is the material Smith wants to be released to the public ahead of the election.

The Opposition to the oversized brief filed by Trump's defense last night seems to be a bit of a "scatter-shot" effort. It doesn't have any real central premise beyond that the Opening Brief is an inappropriate vehicle to begin the dispute over the application of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. But I suspect it reads that way because the motion to file the oversize brief came only 4 days before the due date for filing the brief, and it was a "vehicle" to put their opposition in writing that just presented itself unexpectedly.

But, because the Opening Brief, even if allowed, is going to be filed under seal to deal with the "Sensitive Materials" first, the material won't appear on the public docket of the case. So the Trump Defense has more time to decide how it wants to continue this argument -- whether in the District Court or try to advance the issue into the Appeals Court.

All of this assumes that some version of the 180 page brief or the Appendix isn't leaked to the press between now and the election.

You can read a more comprehensive analysis of the Protective Order and why Jack Smith might be responsible for protecting former President Trump from Jack Smith at the link. It is behind a paywall but there is a 7 day free trial.

Special Counsel Jack Smith Has Stumbled Into A Barrier He Created -- The "Protective Order" He Insisted On Might Prevent The Release Of Much Of His Evidence This Week

It was intended to keep the Trump Defense from releasing favorable evidence to the public -- now Smith's intended release of evidence this week might have run into a roadblock because of it.
shipwreckedcrew.substack.com
9:24 AM · Sep 24, 2024
 

Special counsel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

dicta - Meaning in law and legal documents, Examples and FAQs | LegalBrief AI

Dicta, or side comments, are statements made by a judge in a legal opinion that are not essential to the decision and have no binding legal force, serving more as casual observations or personal views.
www.legalbriefai.com

Questions...............

Will Trump go to Jail in NY Case? Will Judge Cannon be Reversed? My Interview with Danny Cevallos​

Oct 5, 2024
I had the pleasure of chatting with my friend and fellow legal analyst Danny Cevallos recently, and we discussed pressing legal issues of the day, like: will New York State Judge Jaun Merchan sentence Donald Trump to prison on his 34 felony convictions; will the appeals court reverse Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of Trump classified documents case and if so, will they remove her from the case and assign it to a different federal judge; among other topics.

One of the fun aspects of my discussion with Danny is that we come from different backgrounds: Danny is a career defense attorney and I spent 30 years as a federal prosecutor. So we analyze the legal issues of the day from two different perspectives, yet more ofter than not, we land on the similar legal conclusions.

14:16
 

Trump THROWS US Military UNDER BUS in Criminal Filing​

Oct 6, 2024 Legal AF Podcast

Trump and his lawyers are at it again blaming everybody for the crime scene that was Jan 6 except for himself. In a new filing with Judge Chutkan in the DC election interference case, Trump blames Nancy Pelosi, and General Mark Millie for the crimes, trying to divert attention from his own role as the criminal mastermind. Michael Popok breaks it all down in his new hot take.

23:10
 

So after being found guilty and while actually awaiting punishment we have this................

Maddow’s bombshell reporting: Trump trying to pay Stormy Daniels to be quiet again​

Oct 16, 2024 #MSNBC #DonaldTrump

Rachel Maddow breaks down her bombshell reporting on how Trump is once again trying to pay Stormy Daniels to be quiet.

13:37
 
searcher said:
If I was charged with crimes and could get rid of the prosecutor I'd do it too. lol
Click to expand...
It's not about getting out of anything. He was illegally appointed and therefore deserves to be let go. Had the dems done it properly, Trump wouldn't be able to fire him.

A "means justifies the ends" kinda person would realize that.
 
Joe King said:
A "means justifies the ends" kinda person would realize that.
Click to expand...

Let's wait until Nov 7th and see if Trump will be getting rid of Smith. By then the smoke will have cleared and we'll know what's what.
 
Smith was appointed by the DOJ. Therefore Smith works for the executive branch of government, and seeing as the potus is the head of the executive branch of government, the potus can fire Smith.

Had the dems appointed him via Congress, as should have been done, Smith would work for Congress and be untouchable by the potus.
...and the dems could have appointed him when they controlled Congress in '21 & '22.

That they did not, was a dumb mistake on their part.
...but they didn't care about doing it right. They employed any means they could to arrive at the end the wanted. Now it's biting them in the ass. Lol
 
Joe King said:
He was illegally appointed and therefore deserves to be let go
Click to expand...

A bit out of my realm so I looked it up.


§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Source:

28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

www.law.cornell.edu

_____________________________________

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).

Source:

28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

www.law.cornell.edu
 
Let's look at the law that Garland himself cited when appointing Smith.


In his order appointing Smith as special counsel and defining Smith’s duties, Attorney General Garland cited four statutory provisions as the source of his own appointment authority.

Turning to the merits, the first two statutes cited in Garland’s appointment order deal with the attorney general’s authority to subdelegate his own powers and assign duties to those who are already employees and officers within the Department of Justice, so those statutes alone cannot authorize Smith’s appointment.

The third cited statute provides that each “attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney.” The government argued that this statute grants the attorney general the authority to appoint “special attorneys,” including special counsels like Smith. But Judge Cannon rejected this argument, based largely on the past-tense phrasing of the statute. Because the statute refers to attorneys “already retained in the past sense,” Cannon held that it is “a descriptive statute about already-retained attorneys” rather than “a source of new appointment power.” Cannon bolstered this conclusion by pointing to another statute in the U.S. Code that explicitly provides the present-tense power to appoint special attorneys. But special attorneys appointed under that statute may only “assist United States attorneys,” not serve as special counsels.

The fourth statute cited by Garland’s appointment order presents the closest legal question, and it is thus the key source of purported authority to appoint a special counsel. That statute grants the attorney general the authority to “appoint officials … to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” By using the word “appoint,” the statute appears at first blush to echo the Appointments Clause. And a special counsel is an official who “prosecutes crimes,” thus falling within the plain terms of the statute’s grant of appointment power.

However, this statutory provision lies within the chapter of the U.S. Code setting out the structure and powers of the FBI, an agency that does not house special counsels. Trump and his supporting amici argued that this statute’s location in the U.S. Code and its use of the word “officials” rather than “officers” indicate that it refers only to FBI officials and agents, not special counsels.

In her order, Judge Cannon agreed with Trump, focusing on the statute’s context and its use of the word “officials.” Cannon held that the government’s reading “would shoehorn appointment authority for United States Attorney-equivalents into a statute that permits the hiring of FBI law enforcement personnel.”

First, Cannon reasoned that the terms “‘officer’ and ‘official,’ though overlapping in some areas, are not synonymous.” Dictionary definitions “indicate that ‘officers’ are distinguished from ‘officials’ by the ‘greater importance, dignity, and independence of their positions.” (brackets removed). And of course, the Appointments Clause itself uses the word “officers,” meaning that the word “officer” would send a clearer signal that Congress intends to vest inferior-officer appointment authority.



Bottom line on this, is that higher Courts will be the ultimate deciders on this issue.

Personally, I think Canon was correct in her ruling. YMMV
 
Opinion piece, take it fwiw and dyodd.

How Trump Goes to Prison​

Donald Trump is facing an extreme sliding-doors scenario on Election Day. If he wins, he would have the power to single-handedly scuttle the federal criminal cases against him, be immune from prosecution while in office, and, thanks to the Supreme Court, have broad immunity from prosecution once — if — he leaves. If he loses, though, he will face criminal penalties that could leave him in command of a 70-square-foot prison cell for most of the rest of his life.

“He will be facing serious legal jeopardy if he loses. He knows that,” says Bennett Gershman, a professor of constitutional law at Pace Law School who served for a decade as a New York prosecutor. “It’s probably on his mind every day. He faces four very, very serious cases, in one of which he has already been convicted as a felon. The others are easily convictable.”

The minute it becomes clear that Trump has lost the election, his legal team will be preparing for the fight of a lifetime to keep him out of prison. “This defendant will use every means at his disposal to delay the outcome and complicate the adjudication,” says Martin Horn, a professor of corrections at John Jay College and the executive director of the New York State Sentencing Commission. “Who knows what legal maneuvers are available to him?”

Here is a look at where the four cases against Trump stand and how they might play out.

More:

 

Trump's impending return to White House brings criminal cases to a halt​

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump's claimed U.S. presidential election victory on Wednesday will essentially end the criminal cases brought against him, at least for the four years he occupies the White House.

The first former U.S. president to face criminal charges, Trump for much of this year faced four simultaneous prosecutions, over allegations ranging from his attempt to cover up a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign to his attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. A New York jury in May found him guilty of falsifying business records tied to the Daniels payment, making him the first former U.S. president convicted of a felony.

More:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…