https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/...inson-book-trump-white-house-chaos/index.html Cassidy Hutchinson’s new book reveals a Trump White House even more chaotic than previously known
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-goes-full-deranged-suggests-153150970.html Trump Goes Full Deranged, Suggests Charging People He Doesn’t Like With Treason
https://www.yahoo.com/news/indicted-trump-asks-buy-glock-210045268.html Indicted Trump Asks to Buy a Glock at Campaign Stop—Which Would Be Illegal LOCK HIM UP
SO IT IS ORDERED: Trump loses AGAIN in an attempt to unmask potential jurors in his upcoming RICO trial in Fulton County. Trump trial: Judge rules juror's identities in Georgia election case must be protected https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/tr...ial-judge-ruling-jurors-identities-protection
Judge rejects Trump's effort to have her recused from Jan. 6 case https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...r-recused-from-jan-6-case/ar-AA1hmwcg#image=1 A district judge has denied former President Donald Trump's effort to have her recuse herself from presiding over his federal election interference case. Washington, D.C., District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected the argument from Trump's legal team regarding statements she made during her sentencing of pro-Trump rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. In an October 2022 hearing cited by Trump's attorneys, Judge Chutkan described the Capitol assault as "nothing less than an attempt to violently overthrow the government" by Trump's supporters, who "were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man. It's a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day." MORE: Trump files motion to have judge in federal election interference case disqualified In arguing for Chutkan's recusal, Trump's attorneys said that "the public meaning of this statement is inescapable -- President Trump is free, but should not be. As an apparent prejudgment of guilty, these comments are disqualifying standing alone." In another example, Trump's attorneys cited a December 2021 hearing in which Chutkan, addressing a convicted rioter, said that "the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged." "Public statements of this sort create a perception of prejudgment incompatible with our justice system," Trump's attorneys argued in their bid to have Chutkan disqualified. In her ruling Wednesday, Chutkan also disputed that her statements were based on facts she observed through news coverage, rather than those presented to her through the defendants themselves in their arguments asking for leniency. Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors," using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations," trying to enlist the vice president to "alter the election results," and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
Yes... he really is this dumb. Trump seeks dismissal of D.C. election interference case, citing ‘presidential immunity’ https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/05/tru...nce-charges-citing-presidential-immunity.html Former President Donald Trump asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to dismiss the indictment against him on election interference charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. His attorneys claim Trump is “absolutely immune from prosecution” because his alleged criminal conduct was part of his presidential duties. The indictment charges him with four criminal counts related to his bid to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden, including his role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021. (More at above url)
“It will be every defendant for himself” – Georgia defendants might turn on Trump because he “doesn’t care about anyone but himself” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...n-t-care-about-anyone-but-himself/ss-AA1hSjyH
https://www.yahoo.com/news/legal-experts-jack-smith-filing-194054925.html Legal experts: New Jack Smith filing blows a big hole in Trump's election interference defense Federal prosecutors requested that a judge compel former President Donald Trump to disclose, several months before his trial for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election, whether he plans to mount a defense centered on blaming his lawyers for giving him poor legal advice. The prosecutors filed a motion to Judge Tanya Chutkan to direct Trump to inform them by Dec. 18 if he plans to employ the “advice of counsel defense” – a strategy which involves blaming his former legal team for providing poor advice, The New York Times reported. “In the time since the grand jury returned the indictment against the defendant on August 1, 2023, the defendant and his counsel have repeatedly and publicly announced that he intends to assert the advice of counsel as a central component of his defense at trial,” prosecutors wrote in their filing. The formal order would force Trump to tell them his plans by mid-December thereby preventing any “disruption of the pretrial schedule and delay of the trial.” Early disclosure could also provide prosecutors with a strategic advantage. If Trump opts for the advice of counsel defense, he would waive his attorney-client privilege, requiring him to share all “communications or evidence” related to his defense team, including potentially privileged information that could weaken his position. “Knowing this will enable the prosecutors to prepare to counter that defense through witnesses and arguments showing the weakness of that defense, and indeed, that such defense is completely untenable given Trump’s statements and actions that show he himself made all the critical decisions relating to subverting the 2020 election results,” Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, told Salon. The prosecutors have proof that Trump’s lawyers, especially White House counsel Pat Cipollone, gave him advice which he disregarded, he explained. “By raising such a defense, Trump will automatically forfeit any reliance on the attorney-client privilege, thereby freeing lawyers and other persons to testify about conversations with Trump,” Gershman said. But it’s “questionable” whether Trump could even assert the advice of counsel defense unless he testified, Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law, told Salon. “The defense depends on the claim that lawyers assured Trump that his contract was lawful, so that even if the lawyers were wrong, Trump lacked criminal intent because he relied on the advice,” Gillers said. “But I don’t see how Trump can create that defense, unless he testifies to his reliance on the advice of counsel, and we doubt very much that Trump will ever testify in any of his criminal cases.” Lawyers have played a central role in the election interference case since prosecutors initiated grand jury subpoenas in spring of 2022, The Times reported. These subpoenas primarily targeted lawyers like John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro, who joined Trump's inner circle during the election and played a pivotal role in guiding him on the "fake elector" scheme, that declared him the winner in key swing states that had actually been won by his opponent, Joe Biden. The subpoenas also sought information about other lawyers, including Jenna Ellis and Rudy Giuliani, who were involved in advising Trump on the false elector plan and also promoting baseless claims of widespread election fraud. “Conceivably, the judge may allow lawyers who allegedly gave Trump advice that his conduct was lawful would be sufficient to create the defense, if believed, even without Trump’s testimony,” Gillers said. “But I doubt it. Trump will have to say that he relied on the advice of counsel in order to create the defense and to get a jury instruction on it.” Trump could also use this strategy to his advantage by claiming that his lawyers told him that it was “perfectly legal,” to commit these acts, former Assistant U.S. Attorney William "Widge" Devaney told Salon. In his defense, the former president could claim that he “didn't have the state of mind to commit a crime” and his lawyers instructed him that it was fine, Devaney said. But the bottom line here is that the prosecutors will have “significant investigation demands” since so many documents now claimed as privileged will then become available for them to review, Gillers pointed out. “The timing of all of this is still critical,” Devaney said. “Trump's main strategy here is ‘can I delay this long enough, get elected president again and stop the cases.’ So you’re going to see every effort to delay, drag the trial out. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a giant witness list, giant exhibit list.”
He will charge people he don't like with treason...and then 'small hands' goes on to say he had no duty to support the Constitution as president. Yet he wants to be president again. Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime. The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office without unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve. But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices. The former president has already tried to remove the 14th Amendment case to federal court, but this motion was denied.