Any day now is today, Trumpers. Trump Indicted

gwb-trading said:
This must make Jack Smith quite happy. Trump's original defense was that he was just listening to his lawyers. Now in a broadcast interview, Trump outlines that he believed his lawyers were wrong so he ignored them, made up his own mind and recruited people pushing election fraud stuff to back him. This must be a joyful day for the prosecution.

Trump says it was his decision to describe the 2020 election as ‘rigged’
“You know who I listen to? Myself,” Trump said during an interview on NBC.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/17/trump-2020-election-rigged-00116428

Former President Donald Trump said Sunday that he didn’t respect lawyers and members of his campaign who told him he lost the 2020 presidential election, and that it was his decision to buy into the theory that the election was rigged.

“In many cases, I didn’t respect them,” Trump said during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” when asked why he decided to ignore his lawyers and advisers who told him he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden. “But I did respect others. I respected many others that said the election was rigged.”

Trump, the current frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary, is facing indictments related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In the federal case against him, prosecutors cited the fact that Trump was told repeatedly by his lawyers that he had lost the election. Trump’s campaign lost dozens of lawsuits trying to challenge his 2020 defeat in the weeks after the election, with their baseless conspiracy theories swatted away.

When pressed about how he came to the conclusion that the election was rigged, Trump said it was his own decision.

“You called some of your outside lawyers — you said they had crazy theories. Why were you listening to them? Were you listening to them because they were telling you what you wanted to hear?” NBC host Kristen Welker asked.

“You know who I listen to? Myself. I saw what happened. I watched that election, and I thought the election was over at 10 o’clock in the evening,” Trump said. “It was my decision. But I listened to some people. Some people said that,” he added later.
More...


 
Legal Experts Say Donald Trump Just Threw His Own Legal Defense ‘Under The Bus'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...s-own-legal-defense-under-the-bus/ar-AA1gSGkx

Donald Trump doomed one of his legal defenses during his interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker that aired on Sunday’s broadcast of “Meet The Press,” said legal experts.

Trump told Welker it was his decision — and not that of his lawyers — to challenge the 2020 election result.

“Were you calling the shots, though, Mr. President, ultimately?” Welker asked Trump. The ex-POTUS replied: “As to whether or not I believed it was rigged? Oh, sure … it was my decision. But I listened to some people. Some people said that.”

(More at above url)
 
Mercor said:
Good article
Georgia is charging under RICO act but not saying that there were any statutory violations
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/fani-williss-monstrous-trump-case/

Fani Willis’s Monstrous Trump Case
If Willis is to be believed, a person need not commit or agree to commit any statutory crime in order to be guilty of RICO conspiracy.

Oh, about those 161 “overt acts” in furtherance of a RICO conspiracy that Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis trumpeted in the first few dozen pages of her mammoth indictment of Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants. Never mind. Turns out, according to Willis, that those 161 acts don’t really define the sprawling conspiracy to — well, to do something. They just give you some flavor.

The prosecutor now says she need not prove any of them. That was Willis’s position in contesting the attempt by Trump’s co-defendant and former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to remove the prosecution to federal court. The district attorney insists that, instead of proving what she’s ramblingly pleaded in the first 60 pages of the indictment, she can just prove other acts, even if they’re not in the indictment. By the DA’s lights, whatever she decides to prove just needs to be somehow connected to what she frames as a conspiracy to reverse the result of the 2020 presidential election — notwithstanding that it is not a crime to try to reverse the result of an election.
More...

Nowadays, there are too many instances of judicial malpractice being practiced today. Alan Dershowitz has noted the various abuses in his commentaries. How do US courts even allow it? Common sense would dictate that the lower courts would junk it on the spot yet, here we are, nobody is at home? All the kids are out to play. No adult supervision. We will see if there are adults in the appellate courts or do they leave it up to the US Supreme Court to decide?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top