Its too bad President Biden plays by the rules and refrains from commenting on on going court cases. I bet he he started just even musing about this question as paranoid as Trump is it would start freaking him out.



Experts urge SCOTUS to ask if immunity would allow Biden to order Trump's assassination

Sarah K. Burris
April 24, 2024 1:39PM ET




Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump, and Clarence Thomas. (Official White House photo by Andrea Hanks)




The Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments Thursday in Donald Trump's claim that, as president, his actions had absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

At issue is whether Trump can be criminally charged for efforts to overthrow the 2020 election and for encouraging the attack on the U.S. Capitol, or whether his position as president at the time protects him from it.

The law states that Trump is protected only for official actions taken as president. Trump has attempted to claim that, as president, he had a duty to ensure that the election was legitimate.

Writing for Just Security, legal analysts Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann crafted a list of questions that they suggested the High Court ask the two sides as part of Thursday's debate.

Among the things they said they'd ask Trump's lawyers is the so-called "SEAL Team 6" argument that surfaced during the arguments before the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals. In that debate, the panel asked if a president could order the infamous Navy special operations team to kill someone.

Read Also: Nakedly partisan Supreme Court lets Trump dance above the law

In this case, the lawyers were more blunt: “Would President Biden be free to order the assassination of a political rival if the president felt his opponent was a threat to democracy?”

Other questions include hypotheticals like whether a president could impound voting machines under the guise of "official duties" to impact an election result.

Another group of questions alludes to the delay that the Supreme Court appeal has added to the election interference trial. As it stands, the case likely won't be decided before the 2024 election.

"Why shouldn’t we lift the stay immediately following oral argument with an opinion to follow, as we have done in the past?" they think SCOTUS should ask of Trump's lawyers. Also, "why should we not decide this case as expeditiously as possible?"

In that same vein, the lawyers suggest asking the government's side, "Are you trying to hold a trial and reach a verdict to inform American voters in the presidential election? If not, what legitimate reason do you have for there to be a speedy trial before the election? Before the inauguration?"

Similarly, they wondered if it wouldn't be worth discussing that the defendant could become immune or "otherwise evade criminal prosecution after a certain date. Would the Justice Department have an interest in trying the individual before that date?"

Special counsel Jack Smith had asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and bypass the Appeals Court, stressing the importance of the timeline and knowing that it would likely be appealed to the High Court anyway. The justices refused, telling Smith to go through the normal process.

Read the full list of questions here.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-supreme-court-immunity-argument/

 

Assasination?
Thats more of a clinton thing isn't it?

Besides, biden is too demented to consider such. Crooked enough for sure, but too demented to think of it.

Wait! Someone check! Have the clintons been in touch with the bidens??

 

I don't see how they can't be and I a wondering why Ronna McDaniel is not on the list aw well.



Trump, Giuliani, Meadows are unindicted co-conspirators in Michigan fake elector case, hearing reveals
LAURA ROMERO
Wed, April 24, 2024 at 1:05 PM MDT·1 min read
1.1k



PHOTO: Former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a Farmers for Trump campaign event at the MidAmerica Center on July 7, 2023, in Council Bluffs, Iowa. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

• 
  

Former President Donald Trump, his former chief of staff leaving the page." data-wf-tooltip-position="bottom" data-wf-reset-every="90">Mark Meadows, and Rudy Giuliani are unindicted co-conspirators in the Michigan attorney general's case against the state's so-called "fake electors" in the 2020 election, a state investigator revealed in court on Wednesday.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel charged 16 Republicans last year with forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery for allegedly attempting to replace Michigan's electoral votes for Joe Biden with electoral votes for Trump at the certification of the vote on Jan. 6, 2021.

MORE: 9 Michigan Republicans plead not guilty to acting as 'fake electors' in 2020


During Wednesday's hearing, which was part of preliminary examinations for the so-called fake electors, Howard Shock, a special agent for the attorney general's office, also testified that former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis is also an unindicted co-conspirator.

Shock's revelation was in response to questions from Duane Silverthorn, an attorney for Michele Lundgren, one of the so-called fake electors.

"Finally, former President Donald Trump?" asked Silverthorn.

"Yes," Shock testified.


PHOTO: Former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a Farmers for Trump campaign event at the MidAmerica Center on July 7, 2023, in Council Bluffs, Iowa. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Ted Goodman, Giuliani's political adviser, said in a statement that the former New York City mayor is "proud to stand up for the countless Americans who raised legitimate concerns surrounding the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election."

"He won't be bullied or pressured into silence by highly partisan actors," the statement said.

Nessel dismissed the charges against one of the alleged fake electors in October in exchange for cooperating with the case. The state is still pursuing charges against the other 15 defendants.

All the defendants have pleaded not guilty.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-giuliani-meadows-unindicted-co-172800269.html

 

Jack Smith must now make 'strategic choice' on Trump case with 'major consequences'




Carl Gibson, AlterNet

April 27, 2024 6:25PM ET














WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 01: Special Counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks on a recently unsealed indictment including four felony counts against former U.S. President Donald Trump on August 1, 2023 in Washington, DC. Trump was indicted on four felony counts for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)




During Thursday's oral arguments concerning former President Donald Trump's claim of total criminal immunity, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) indicated warmth toward Trump's position. One columnist recently wrote that if Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith hopes to try the former president before the election, he may have to put some elements of his indictment on the chopping block.

In a Saturday column for Bloomberg, Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman wrote that SCOTUS may very well hand Trump a victory in one of two ways: Either they kick certain legal questions back to the lower courts and effectively ensure further delays that will push the trial back to the election, or a majority of justices could rule that Trump is indeed immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed as president — effectively scuttling Smith's four-count indictment.

Feldman observed that during oral arguments, Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh posited that if the Court agreed that Trump had some level of immunity for official acts, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan may be compelled to rule on what constitutes private acts versus official acts.

READ MORE: Ex-federal judge 'profoundly disturbed' by SCOTUS entertaining Trump's total immunity claim

"f Kavanaugh prevails, Jack Smith may well have a strategic choice to make with major consequences for the timing of the trial," Feldman wrote. "Drop some of the charges and proceed; or stick to his guns and risk having no trial at all."

Additionally, Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who was also appointed by Trump — appeared to recommend to the prosecution that it revise its case against Trump to specify acts committed in a private capacity. Feldman wrote that Barrett "walked through the relevant charges one by one, each time getting Trump’s lawyer to admit that the conduct she was asking about was private, not official."

"She pointed to Trump using a private attorney 'to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud,'" Feldman recounted. "She quoted the indictment saying that Trump 'conspired with another private attorney' on false allegations about the election. Finally, she referred to 'three private actors, two attorneys … and a political consultant [who] helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding,' as directed by Trump."

"Barrett was effectively saying that the prosecution could go forward immediately (after the Supreme Court decides the case) provided that Smith follows her roadmap and drops elements of the criminal charges that are arguably official, like Trump deliberating with Department of Justice officials about who would be the next attorney general," Feldman added.

READ MORE: Chutkan slams Trump in latest ruling rejecting immunity argument: No 'divine right of kings'

Last year, Smith indicted the 45th president of the United States on four federal felony charges: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. As Axios reported at the time, Smith's DC indictment came on the heels of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's indictment for alleged cover-up of hush money payments allegedly made in the furtherance of his political campaign.

Smith was originally scheduled to go first in prosecuting Trump, with Judge Chutkan scheduling a trial date of March 4. However, Trump's appeal of Chutkan's immunity ruling — which was upheld by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in February — meant that a March trial date was no longer feasible. And until SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the immunity question, Chutkan can't schedule a new date.

The Supreme Court technically can rule on the issue at any time, though justices have until the end of the term in June to publish their final decision. Chutkan has said that she would give each side between two and three months to prepare for a trial, meaning that if the DC election interference trial were to take place before the election, it would likely not happen until September.

Click here to read Feldman's column in full (subscription required).


https://www.rawstory.com/jack-smith-trump-strategic-choice-consequences/

 

Trump Coup Lawyer Jeff Clark Absolutely Scorched In DC Bar Finding
Nicole Lafond and John Light
Wed, May 1, 2024 at 7:39 AM MDT·8 min read
137

• 
  

Not Looking Good For Jeff Clark
Jeff Clark, the DOJ attorney who leaving the page." data-wf-tooltip-position="bottom" data-wf-reset-every="90">Trump unsuccessfully sought to install mid-coup attempt as attorney general, is facing an effort to disbar him in Washington D.C. And things aren’t going well for him.

On Tuesday, a panel recommended that he be disbarred, finding that it is “the only possible sanction” befitting his attempt to “create national chaos.”


From the disciplinary counsel’s proposed finding of fact and conclusions:

It is not enough that the efforts of these lawyers ultimately failed. As a profession, we must do what we can to ensure that this conduct is never repeated. The way to accomplish that goal is to remove from the profession lawyers who betrayed their constitutional obligations and their country. It is important that other lawyers who might be tempted to engage in similar misconduct be aware that doing so will cost them their privilege to practice law. It is also important for the courts and the legal profession to state clearly that the ends do not justify the means; that process matters; and that this is a society of laws, not men.

The proceedings are not over, but Tuesday’s report was a serious blow to Clark.

(Perhaps the most serious since his boss at the DOJ swatted away his January 2021 power grab by reminding him he had only ever been appointed to lead the Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division: “You’re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.” But we digress …)

Reactions to Trump’s TIME Interview
In case you missed it, Trump made some of his most ominous noises yet about what to expect in 2025 in an interview with a publication close to his heart: TIME magazine.

He said it was up to the states to monitor pregnant women for abortions, promised mass immigrant deportations, declared he’d prosecute Biden if the Supreme Court didn’t grant him full immunity, mulled pardons for January 6 rioters, and speculated about violence if he doesn’t win.

Important Case Come November
Kate Riga reports on a case out of Pennsylvania that could decide a close election, and may be SCOTUS-bound.

The fight centers on the date voters must write on the outer envelope holding the ballot; if it’s wrong or missing, the ballot goes uncounted. It’s a steep penalty given the reality that none of the parties involved in the case asserts that those dates are actually used for anything.

“People are gonna have their votes not counted under this ruling for totally immaterial reasons, like writing 2023 instead of 2024,” Ari Savitzky, lead attorney on the case for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing individual voters and a group of state civil and voting rights groups, told TPM. “Filling out the date on this form has nothing to do with anything.”

Trump Trial Update
We’re off today.

On Tuesday, Josh Kovensky reported, prosecutors seemed to be building toward testimony by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer. It’s been unclear when — or even if — he would take the stand, but the information given by former Stormy Daniels lawyer Keith Davidson yesterday seemed to set the stage for him, with Davidson describing his interactions with Trump’s fixer, many of which were … unpleasant. “The moral of the story is no one wanted to talk to [Michael] Cohen,” Davidson said, per Josh.

So we’ll be looking to see if Cohen makes an appearance when things resume tomorrow.

Also Tuesday, Judge Juan Merchan found Trump in contempt, fined him and threatened to jail him if he continues to flout the gag order. He laid out what he’ll be looking for going forward. Here’s Josh:

Trump needs to “be able to fully campaign for the office which he seeks” and must “be able to respond and defend himself against political attacks,” Merchan wrote in the order, adding that witnesses shouldn’t take advantage of the gag and use it as a “sword instead of a shield.”

The limit, Merchan wrote, comes when there’s no precipitating political attack to which Trump might be responding. Merchan did not hold Trump in contempt for the Avenatti post in part because of what Merchan described as a “tenuous correlation” to a preceding post that Cohen had made. For the remaining ten, Merchan wrote, Trump’s attorneys had failed to identify any political attack which Trump might have been responding.

Trump immediately fundraised off the contempt finding.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-coup-lawyer-jeff-clark-133930702.html

 

Judge denies ex-Trump election lawyer John Eastman’s request to reactivate law license while he fights disbarment
Mary Kay Mallonee, CNN
Thu, May 2, 2024 at 9:54 AM MDT·2 min read
646



Jason Getz/Pool/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/AP

• 
  

An attorney discipline judge in California has rejected a request from ex-Trump election lawyer leaving the page." data-wf-tooltip-position="bottom" data-wf-reset-every="90">John Eastman to reactivate his law license following her recent recommendation that he be disbarred, which rendered him unable to practice law for now.

Eastman, who devised a multi-step plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election and was part of the effort to appoint fake electors in several states, wants to keep practicing law so he can represent clients and pay his own legal bills as he fights criminal charges stemming from the 2020 election efforts.

Judge Yvette Roland, who oversees state bar proceedings in California, recommended in March that Eastman be disbarred for his election subversion efforts. His license was immediately revoked while the ethics proceedings continue.


The California Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to endorse or reject Roland’s recommendation to disbar Eastman.

Still, Roland’s March opinion marked a major step in the consequences for lawyers who propelled false theories of election fraud on former President Donald Trump’s behalf.

“Eastman failed to uphold his primary duty of honesty and breached his ethical obligations by presenting falsehoods to bolster his legal arguments,” Roland wrote in her opinion recommending he be disbarred. “In sum, Eastman exhibited gross negligence by making false statements about the 2020 election without conducting any meaningful investigation or verification of the information he was relying upon.”

In his plea to Roland to reactivate his law license while he fights disbarment, Eastman said he needed to be able to represent Reps. Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene in a political speech fight and pay his own legal bills.

But Roland, in rejecting Eastman’s request on Wednesday, wrote in her decision that he “fails to demonstrate that he no longer presents a threat to the public.”

Roland wrote that she “found that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for Eastman’s misconduct in part to safeguard the public. The court’s decision determined that Eastman made deceptive and misleading claims in legal documents, public forums, and other contexts concerning the 2020 presidential election and the extent of Vice President Michael R. Pence’s authority to override the electoral process.”

Politico first reported Roland’s decision.

Eastman is charged alongside Trump and others in the Georgia election subversion case. He has pleaded not guilty in that case.

He also was indicted last month in Arizona in connection with efforts to overturn the 2020 election, along with more than a dozen other Trump allies, including Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-denies-ex-trump-election-155455147.html

 

Another Trump lawyer was just barred from practicing law in D.C.: report

David McAfee
May 4, 2024 4:56PM ET




White House photo




Donald Trump's list of his former attorneys who have received sanctions or been barred from the practice of law in one or more jurisdictions just got a little bit longer.

Jeffrey Clark, a former high-ranking Justice Department official under Trump's administration, was found to have violated ethics rules. Similarly, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani predicted he would be disbarred and that it would help him "in heaven."

Now, Trump lawyer John Eastman "has been temporarily suspended from practicing law in the District of Columbia," according to Bloomberg News.

ALSO READ: Trump’s Manhattan trial could determine whether rule of law survives: criminologist

"The suspension is temporary until the final disposition of the California proceeding, DC Court of Appeals Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby wrote Friday," the report states. "California State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland on May 1 rejected Eastman’s attempt to lift his suspension in that state, saying his disbarment would 'safeguard the public' after he made false claims about the 2020 election. The California Supreme Court will make the final determination."

In California, according to the report, "Roland in March found that Eastman should be disbarred for knowingly making false claims about Trump winning the 2020 presidential election."

The report notes that former Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro has also had his law license suspended.

Law & Crime also picked up the news, noting of Eastman, "The erstwhile Donald Trump ally has fought so he can continue to represent his clients and earn money as he defends his law licenses while also facing down the prospect of his own looming criminal trial on racketeering (RICO) charges in Fulton County, Georgia."

"A similar request to stay his temporary inactive status in the Golden State was denied by California State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland on May 1, citing the 'gravity of Eastman’s transgressions, particularly those involving moral turpitude, and the increased likelihood of future misconduct due to his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing,'" the Law & Crime report states.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-eastman-barred-dc-law/

 

Another heroic patriot. Just ask Trump and treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans who want to defund the police and say fuck the blue. The only "blue" worth backing are the ones who shoot unarmed Black people.


Jan. 6 rioter guilty of beating cop so hard he snapped flag pole in half

David Edwards
June 19, 2024 2:15PM ET




Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (Shutterstock.)




A January 6 rioter was found guilty this week of beating an officer so hard with a flag pole that it snapped in half.

Utah resident Odin Meacham, 30, was convicted in D.C. Tuesday of "seven felonies: civil disorder; two counts of assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers with a dangerous weapon; assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers; engaging in physical violence on restricted grounds with a dangerous weapon; disorderly conduct on restricted grounds with a dangerous weapon; and entering and remaining on restricted grounds with a dangerous weapon," the Justice Department said in a statement.

The government accused Meacham of driving from Utah to Washington, D.C., to attend then-President Donald Trump's Stop the Steal rally on Jan. 6. Following Trump's speech, he joined rioters who were attacking Capitol Police.

"Meacham rushed towards several police officers guarding the Lower West Terrace, raised a wooden flagpole over his head, and slammed the flagpole against the upper body of a Capitol Police Officer so hard that the flagpole snapped in half," the statement said. "Meacham then swung the broken flagpole at officers again, striking a bike rack that had been placed in front of the officers for protection."

ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans subpoena ex-Capitol Police intel head for Jan. 6 inquiry

Meacham then abandoned the flagpole for a black metal pole, which he allegedly used to strike another officer.

At one point, Meacham urged other rioters to "lean in" and continue to fight.

"Shortly afterwards, Meacham raged at the line of officers, calling them various profanities, and asking if they were scared," the statement added.

He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates on Sept. 26.

"In the 41 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,450 individuals have been charged in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 500 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, a felony. The investigation remains ongoing," the Justice Department said.



https://www.rawstory.com/january-6-odin-meacham/

 

American hater and his rag are truly despicable.

Only an American hater would dare even say such slime.

"The only "blue" worth backing are the ones who shoot unarmed Black people."

Only in a "shithole country" eh, American hater?​

 

"After I lost the election": Legal expert says new Trump recording could be "admissible evidence"
Nandika Chatterjee
Updated Fri, June 21, 2024 at 11:47 AM MDT·2 min read
2k



Donald Trump Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

• 
  

Donald Trump got caught forgetting his own lie — that the 2020 election was stolen from him — during an interview with journalist Ramin Setoodeh for his new book, “Apprentice in Wonderland,” according to a tape Setoodeh shared Thursday with MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace.

Setoodeh, the co-editor-in-cheif of Variety, told Wallace that he and Trump were discussing the latter's falling out with his once close friend, former Fox News personalityldo Rivera. As the subject came up , the presumptive GOP nominee let it slip that Rivera called him after he “lost the election,” which he then quickly corrected to say, “I won the election, but when they said we lost.”

Trump went on to belittle Rivera, who he said "called me up three or four times, and finally, I had a little time. I called him back. And he went on Fox and he started talking about, 'The president called me.' I didn't call him."


As Wallace noted, Trump, "speaking casually," actually "admitted" that he lost. At the same time, he publicly insists that he won, a lie fervently believed by supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Setoodeh said the interview took place in August 2021.

“He was very comfortable that day because we were actually watching clips of 'The Apprentice,' and I think part of the reason the mask slipped off was that he was remembering his life as an entertainer, he was very amused, he was excited to see himself in the boardroom,” the author said.

“This is all performance art for Donald Trump,” he added.

At least one legal expert believes Trump's remark could be used against him.

"This statement made on tape and on the record by Mr. Trump would be admissible in evidence against him on the issue of his corrupt intent in the four Smith indictments in DC that SCOTUS is inexcusably keeping on hold in United States v. Trump," Laurence Tribe, a law professor at Harvard University, posted on X.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lost-election-legal-expert-says-152120847.html

 

Please remember that according to american hater book reports are not subject to fact checking, even by the media outlets that publish them.