Republican Senators are now giving Trump the middle finger. GOP senators avoid Trump during Florida visit According to a report from Politico, a substantial number of Republican senators attending the National Republican Senatorial Committee meeting in Florida last week kept their distance from Donald Trump despite the fact that the event was held a mere three miles away from Mar-a-Lago where the former president now resides. As the report notes, of the more than 20 Republicans attending the retreat at The Breakers, only three took time to meet with Trump. According to one senator who asked not to be named, "People appreciate his input. But I think a lot of people see a lot of other opportunities elsewhere for 2024. And so while he has a role to play, I think a lot of people are tired of looking backwards and they want to look forward. So, I did not go see him.” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) -- who has butted heads with Trump --was willing to go on the record, telling Politico, "I went down there to meet with National Republican Senatorial Committee supporters and honestly never even gave it a thought. Our focus is on winning this cycle and then winning the presidency back. And to go back in and to try to rehash 2020 is not what we’re doing." Asked for a response, Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich lashed out, claiming, "Nothing screams ‘RINO Loser’ louder than a couple career politicians anonymously claiming to ‘snub’ the most popular Republican in America at a sold out event. Who cares?”
trump who lost the election calling senators who won their election... losers.. i cnanot believe there are GOP fucktards who still support trump ...
Trump can be sued for role in January 6 attack on Capitol, federal judge rules https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-january-6-lawsuits-damages/ Washington — Former President Donald Trump can be sued for damages incurred during the January 6 attack on the Capitol, "the first-ever presidential transfer of power marred by violence," a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Friday. In a written opinion that ran over 100 pages, Judge Amit Mehta rejected the former president's claims that he is entitled to broad immunity from multiple lawsuits blaming him for the riot. Mehta reasoned that some of Trump's actions on January 6 were "plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment" or by presidential immunity. Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, two members of the Capitol Police, and a group of House Democrats, led by Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, have each accused the former president of inciting the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6 in three separate lawsuits. The suit filed by Swalwell also named Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, Donald Trump Jr., and GOP Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama. The suit filed by 11 House Democrats alleges Trump, Giuliani and two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, conspired to incite a crowd of his supporters to breach the Capitol in order to stop Congress from counting states' electoral votes and reaffirming President Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election. Taken together, the lawsuits were filed under a provision of a Reconstruction-era statute known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which holds that it is illegal for a group to conspire to prevent federal government officials from carrying out their lawful duties. They allege Trump and his political allies conspired to prevent Congress from performing the necessary task of certifying the 2020 presidential election and the extremist groups aided in the execution of that conspiracy. Mehta ruled that many of the claims against Trump, the Oath Keepers, and the Proud Boys may continue in court, but he dismissed the lawsuits filed against Trump Jr. and Giuliani. Trump argued in court filings and hearings that he has "absolute immunity" from liability in the three civil suits filed against him and claimed his remarks outside the White House before the mob descended on the Capitol were political speech protected by the First Amendment. During that speech, he urged attendees of the "Save America" rally at the Ellipse to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol building "to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," words referenced multiple times in Mehta's opinion. The former president contended that in his January 6 speech, he was acting in his capacity as president in an attempt to affect Congress's certification of the Electoral College votes and is therefore not responsible for any of the damage from the rioting that took place after his speech. He was not conspiring to commit a crime, his lawyers argued, but acting as president of the United States. The judge flatly rejected this claim, writing the fiery speech was not part of the president's official duty — it was focused on keeping him in office for a second term. Trump used the speech "to complain about perceived cases of election fraud…and to exhort the Vice President to return those certifications to those states to be recertified," Mehta wrote. Then-Vice President Mike Pence resisted the entreaties of the former president and many other Republicans to reject the certification of the Electoral College votes. Based on the evidence provided, Mehta said that it is reasonable to assume that when Trump called on his supporters to march the Capitol and "fight like Hell," "he did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers' efforts to certify the Electoral college votes." Trump issued a call to action and his supporters responded by breaching the Capitol, the judge said. Dissecting Trump's speech on the Ellipse, the conditions of its delivery and the rhetoric leading up to it, Mehta reasoned the former president's words "stoked an already inflamed crowd, which had heard for months that the election was stolen." He concluded that Trump's words were "an implicit call for imminent violence or lawlessness" that are neither protected by presidential immunity nor the First Amendment. Mehta did, however, reject Swalwell's claim that the former president should be held liable for not exercising his presidential powers to stop the riot. "Were it otherwise, Presidents routinely would be subject to suit for not doing more or for not acting at all," the judge wrote, while allowing other parts of Swalwell's lawsuit to go forward. The attorney representing Trump in this lawsuit did not immediately respond to CBS News' request for comment. As for Rudy Giuliani, Mehta ruled that although Trump's former personal lawyer advocated for "trial by combat" during his own January 6, 2021 speech, he did not issue a call to action. "There is no allegation that anyone took Giuliani's words as permission to enter the Capitol," the judge wrote, a conclusion he also reached in the case of the president's son, Donald Trump Jr. The Oath Keepers unsuccessfully contended they should not be held accountable for the riot under that Reconstruction-Era law because Congress was not actually performing its official duty, a claim multiple defendants facing criminal prosecution for their alleged roles in the attack have also made. "This reading of the Constitution defies common sense," Mehta wrote Friday. Jon Moseley, an attorney for the Oath Keepers, said he was not surprised by Mehta's order when CBS News informed him of the judge's decision. Moseley did, however, say he hopes the court further consolidates these lawsuits to make them more efficient going forward. D.C. Attorney General Carl Racine announced last year that his office was also suing the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys on similar legal grounds. Friday's ruling does not mean the former president has been found responsible for the attack, but that the lawsuits against him can continue in federal court.
Trump's latest lawyers tactics..... Trump's attorney turns NY court hearing into clown show An attorney for Donald Trump turned a (virtual) New York courtroom into a Fox News-style proceeding Thursday. Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, "I want to know," Habba, in court, asked the NY Attorney General, "are you gonna go after Hillary Clinton for what she's doing to my client?" "That she spied at Trump Tower in your state?" Habba continued, "Are you gonna look into her business dealings?" Judge Engoron was not impressed. "The Clintons are not before me," the judge replied. NPR host Peter Sagal weighed in, saying , "she's speaking to the Judge as if he's an opponent on a cable news panel, which strikes me as not wise? Also, the [clerk] keeps having to tell her to stop talking over the judge." Habba also told the judge AG James is engaged in "selective prosecution," "It's unconstitutional," she claimed.
Rudy Giuliani poised to cooperate with January 6 committee https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/22/giuliani-cooperate-january-6-committee Trump’s former lawyer may reveal the roles played by Republicans to prevent certification of Joe Biden’s election victory Donald Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani is expected to cooperate with the House select committee investigating January 6, and potentially reveal his contacts with Republican members of Congress involved in the former president’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The move by Giuliani to appear before the panel – in a cooperation deal that could be agreed within weeks, according to two sources briefed on negotiations – could mark a breakthrough moment for the inquiry as it seeks to interview key members of Trump’s inner circle. That is the case because even though Trump’s allies and Republican members of Congress already known to have been involved in such efforts have refused to help the panel, Giuliani is now in a position to inform House investigators about any possible culpability. Broadly, Giuliani has indicated through his lawyer to the select committee that he will produce documents and answer questions about Trump’s schemes to return himself to office on 6 January that House investigators had outlined in a subpoena issued to him last month. The former president’s attorney is prepared to reveal his contacts and the roles played by Republican members of Congress in the scheme Giuliani helped orchestrate to have then-vice-president Mike Pence stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory. Giuliani is also prepared to divulge details about Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence to adopt the scheme, and the effort coordinated by him and the Trump White House to have legislatures certify slates of electors for Trump in states actually won by Biden. But the former president’s attorney has indicated that he will assist the select committee only if his appearance is not pursuant to his subpoena, and does not have to give records or discuss his contacts with Trump over executive and attorney-client privilege concerns. Giuliani is prepared to make exceptions in instances where the panel can demonstrate that meetings with Trump that would have otherwise been subject to those protections might have been broken, and that the protections should not apply. The demands surrounding the circumstances of his cooperation reflect comments he made on Newsmax last week when he falsely claimed the select committee was “illegal”, and claimed that “it doesn’t have minority membership and really can’t subpoena anybody.” The select committee appears to have ignored his remarks as they move to finalize an agreement with Giuliani. The comments did not come up in recent talks and the panel last week allowed Giuliani to postpone his document production deadline for a second time, one of the sources said. That may be explained in large part because of the panel’s determination to get the cooperation of one of Trump’s closest if problematic advisers who was involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election from the start – and has a penchant for sometimes revealing too much. Giuliani could speak to events such as a 18 December 2020 meeting in the Oval Office where Trump reviewed a draft executive order to seize voting machines and verbally agreed to install conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate election fraud. The Guardian has reported that Giuliani then led the Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington DC when Trump called from the White House and discussed ways to stop Biden’s certification – and could speak to non-privileged elements of the plan. The cooperation deal would also technically involve Giuliani turning over documents in addition to appearing before the select committee, the sources said, but the logistics were unclear given the FBI last year seized his devices that he used on 6 January. Giuliani is committed to appearing before the panel, the source said, but it was not clear whether he would testify under oath in a closed-door deposition, for which the select committee has been pushing, or appear in a more informal interview on Capitol Hill. A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment on negotiations with witnesses. The sources added negotiations could still collapse, but if a deal could be agreed, Giuliani would probably appear before the panel at least before the end of March. The select committee has been quietly making substantial progress in its investigation into the events of 6 January, securing records from the National Archives, as well as documents and testimony from some of Trump’s top aides and advisers. Last month, the chairman of the panel, congressman Bennie Thompson, revealed that House investigators had spoken to more than 500 witnesses and obtained more than 50,000 documents, including thousands from Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows. The willingness by Giuliani to negotiate what appears to be an expansive cooperation deal has come in stark contrast to the defiance expressed by the initial set of Trump aides and advisers who were subpoenaed by the select committee last year. Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon refused to comply with his subpoena in its entirety, boasting executive privilege protection – only to be referred to the justice department for criminal contempt of Congress and indicted on two counts about four weeks later. That has served as a warning to other witnesses. Even if his cooperation deal ultimately falls through, Giuliani may be engaging with the select committee at least to avoid a similar fate to Bannon and a potentially costly legal battle to fight such charges. The benefits of partial cooperation have also become apparent, after Meadows was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear for a deposition as required by his subpoena, but remains unindicted two months after his initial referral to the justice department.
Now here is a gentleman who has balls... Donald Trump Jr. served with lawsuit for witness intimidation of Alexander Vindman Donald Trump Jr. has been officially served with court papers in a lawsuit brought by former Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for witness intimidation and retaliation. Vindman announced earlier this month that he is also suing Rudy Giuliani, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino and former Trump White House official Julia Hahn. Vindman has accused the defendants of "an intentional, concerted campaign of unlawful intimidation and retaliation" in connection to his role in the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. "This campaign of intimidation and retaliation has had severe and deeply personal ramifications for Lt. Col. Vindman," the lawsuit claims. "It also left a stain on our democracy." Court documents indicated that Donald Trump Jr. had been served with the lawsuit on Tuesday.
The prosecutors leading the Manhattan D.A.’s inquiry into Donald Trump have resigned. The D.A. is said to have doubts about the case. Wednesday, February 23, 2022 2:37 PM EST https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyregion/trump-ny-fraud-investigation.html The prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, submitted their resignations after the new Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, indicated to them that he had doubts about moving forward with a case against the former president, according to people with knowledge of the matter.