''What do i have to lose ? ... If i do this , what do i have to lose ?'' asked the loser. Trump White House lawyer desperately tried to stop him from enacting a 'murder-suicide pact' with America Newly revealed details about President Donald Trump's last days in office show that White House counsel Pat Cipollone tried desperately to stop him from pursuing bogus claims of a stolen election -- including one measure he considered a "murder-suicide pact." The New York Times, while reporting on recently disclosed testimony before the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots, reveals that the former White House counsel was particularly alarmed by a plan concocted by former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark that involved sending "official letters to multiple state legislatures falsely alerting them that the election may have been stolen and urging them to reconsider certified election results." “That letter that this guy wants to send — that letter is a murder-suicide pact,” Cipollone told Trump. “It’s going to damage everyone who touches it. And we should have nothing to do with that letter. I don’t ever want to see that letter again.” Richard Donoghue, a former top Justice Department official, told the committee that he also repeatedly tried getting Trump to stop his plans to overturn the election, but he kept pushing more extreme measures. “The president said something to the effect of: ‘What do I have to lose? If I do this, what do I have to lose?’” he told the committee. “And I said: ‘Mr. President, you have a great deal to lose. Is this really how you want your administration to end? You’re going hurt the country.’”
'Coup Memo' Lawyer Loses Bid To Hold Up Records He Warns Could Convict Trump https://news.yahoo.com/coup-memo-lawyer-loses-bid-042836055.html The right-wing attorney who authored “coup memos” for Donald Trump and supporters on how to scuttle the presidential election lost a court battle Friday to hold back his documents from the House select committee investigating last year’s Jan. 6 insurrection. Lawyer John Eastman had claimed the situation had turned him into a “pseudo-defense attorney for the former president” — so the emails are thereby protected by attorney-client privilege. Eastman warned in his civil suit that granting the committee access to his emails involving the former president could amount to a historic legal finding that Trump may have committed a crime while he was a sitting president. “Were this Court to sustain the defendants’ claims, it may be the first formal finding of Presidential criminality by a federal court in United States history,” Eastman wrote in his suit seeking to hold up access to his records. The committee argued Wednesday that Eastman’s records are indeed likely to show evidence of multiple crimes committed by both him and Trump, which would thereby trigger the “crime-fraud exception” to attorney-client privilege. The explosive filing alleged that Trump and key allies conspired to defraud the U.S. and obstruct an official congressional proceeding: the certification of electoral votes. Eastman also argued Friday that just as in a criminal trial, the committee should be required to turn over any exculpatory evidence it has — which could prove innocence — before he can cooperate. U.S. District Court of Central California Judge David Carter dismissed Eastman’s objections late Friday. Carter noted that battles over attorney-client privilege in a civil lawsuit — even when they involve criminal allegations — don’t merit protections for criminal defendants because there’s currently no risk of jail time. Eastman’s records could be critical in the committee’s investigation. He devised a strategy to throw out election results, and discussed it in the Oval Office. He also fired off haranguing emails to Greg Jacob, counsel at the time for then-Vice President Mike Pence, over electoral votes as the men hid during the Jan. 6 insurrection from Trump supporters stormed through the Capitol. Check out Eastman’s arguments here, and the judge’s ruling here.
Likelihood of criminal charges against Trump rising, experts say Some ex-prosecutors call on DoJ to accelerate investigation after House panel’s allegations Trump broke laws to overturn election https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...p-criminal-charges-capitol-attack-house-panel The likelihood of a criminal investigation and charges against Donald Trump are rising due to allegations by a House panel of a “criminal conspiracy” involving his aggressive drive to overturn the 2020 election results, coupled with a justice department (DoJ) inquiry of a “false electors” schemeTrump loyalists devised to block Joe Biden’s election. Former federal prosecutors say evidence is mounting of criminal conduct by Trump that may yield charges against the ex- president for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress on 6 January or defrauding the US government, stemming from his weeks-long drive with top allies to thwart Biden’s election by pushing false claims of fraud. A 2 March court filing by the House January 6 panel implicated Trump in a “criminal conspiracy” to block Congress from certifying Biden’s win, and Trump faces legal threats from justice department investigations under way into a “false electors” ploy, and seditious conspiracy charges filed against Oath Keepers who attacked the Capitol, say department veterans. The filing by the House panel investigating the 6 January assault on the Capitol by a mob of pro-Trump supporters stated that it has “a good-faith basis for concluding that the president and members of his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States”. The panel’s hard-hitting findings about Trump’s criminal schemes were contained in a federal court filing involving top Trump lawyer John Eastman, who has fought on attorney client privilege grounds turning over a large cache of documents including emails sought by the committee. Back in January, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, also revealed a criminal investigation was being launched into a far reaching scheme in seven states that Biden won which was reportedly overseen by Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani to replace legitimate electors with false ones pledged to Trump. But the House panel’s blockbuster allegations that Trump broke laws to overturn the election have prompted some ex-prosecutors to call on the justice department to quickly accelerate its investigations to focus on the multiple avenues that Trump used to nullify the election results in tandem with top allies like Giuliani. “The compelling evidence of criminal activity by Trump revealed by the committee in its recent 61-page court filing should spur DoJ to act expeditiously,” Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of DoJ’s fraud section, told the Guardian. “Given the gravity of the revelations, the department should consider a strike force or even a special counsel to coalesce sufficient resources to focus on these criminal attacks that strike at the heart of our democracy,” Pelletier added. “There is no time to waste now that the House committee has provided the clearest view yet into how Trump and his campaign apparently schemed to upend our democracy.” Other ex-prosecutors say the House panel and the justice department seem poised to increase legal heat on Trump. “A pincer-movement is emerging in the January 6 investigations of those who conspired to overturn the election,” said Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor. “The justice department and the House select committee investigating the Capitol siege have turned up the heat on Trump’s inner circle that could ensnare Trump himself.” Trump and his lawyers have fought unsuccessfully to keep White House records from the panel on executive privilege grounds, and Trump last month sparked strong criticism by calling for massive protests in DC, Atlanta and New York if “vicious” and “racist” prosecutors in those cities probing his political and business activities “do anything illegal”. Former prosecutors note that the justice department has at least two key criminal investigations under way that could be instrumental in bringing criminal charges against Trump himself. The criminal inquiry into “false electors” came after referrals by state attorneys general in Michigan and New Mexico where phony slates of electors were assembled with help from the Trump campaign and key loyalists like Giuliani who has also been subpoenaed by the House panel to testify and provide documents. In addition, the department announced this month it struck a plea deal with one of about a dozen Oath Keepers who had been charged with seditious conspiracy for the attack on Congress on 6 January aimed at disrupting Biden’s certification. Further in another legal track threatening Trump, a special grand jury in Georgia has been convened by the Fulton county district attorney to investigate Trump’s high-pressure call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, on 2 January urging him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn Biden’s win in the state. These federal and state investigations could gain momentum given the House panel’s allegations that Trump and his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to block Biden from taking office. Some ex-prosecutors say the panel’s detailed allegations could lead to a criminal referral to the justice department that prosecutors would probably examine seriously. “The committee’s sworn, evidence-based allegation that former president Trump conspired to overturn the election sends an unmistakable message,” Aftergut said. “The train heading toward a criminal referral to the DoJ is leaving the station.” Aftergut in a 9 March Washington Post op-ed co written with Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe called for the attorney general, Merrick Garland, to name a special counsel to lead a Trump related-investigation as the best way to reassure the country that “justice is non-partisan, and fears of political fallout will not determine the decision on whether to bring charges”. Other former prosecutors say the House panel’s 2 March evidence that Trump broke laws in a criminal conspiracy, coupled with the justice department investigations that are moving forward, could fuel criminal charges against Trump and his top allies. “The seditious conspiracy charges and the newly announced investigation of fake electors indicate that the government is increasingly investigating more serious and significant charges above and beyond the violent events of the day,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor who worked on Ken Starr’s team during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. “These developments, along with the ongoing investigation of Trump confidants like Rudy Giuliani, suggest that more charges are likely,” Rosenzweig added. “I assume that as part of the ongoing investigation into January 6, the department already has a dedicated task force looking into potential criminal charges against Trump and his top loyalists. If they do not, they should.” Aftergut said that the House panel had amassed substantial evidence that should benefit prosecutors investigating criminal charges against Trump. “In the course of interviewing more than 600 witnesses, the committee has developed a mountain of evidence that could greatly enhance prosecutors’ efforts,” he said.
Former Manhattan prosecutor believed Trump was guilty of numerous felonies https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...secutor-believed-trump-was-guilty-of-numerous One of the top prosecutors who had been leading the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Trump and the Trump Organization said in his resignation letter that he believed Trump was “guilty of numerous felony violations,” The New York Times reported. “His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people,” Mark Pomerantz wrote to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) in the letter obtained by the Times. “The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.” Pomerantz called Bragg's decision not to move forward with presenting the evidence to a grand jury and seeking charges "misguided and completely contrary to the public interest." "...I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury," Pomerantz wrote to Bragg. "No case is perfect. Whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice." Pomerantz also expressed his concerns that not proceeding in this case would "doom" future efforts at prosecuting Trump in related cases. Danielle Filson, a spokesperson for Bragg, noted to The Hill in a statement that the investigation was ongoing and prosecutors were still working on the case. “The investigation continues. A team of experienced prosecutors is working every day to follow the facts and the law. There is nothing more we can or should say at this juncture about an ongoing investigation,” she said. The development comes as Pomerantz and another top prosecutor, Carey Dunne, submitted their resignations last month. The development comes as Pomerantz and another top prosecutor, Carey Dunne, submitted their resignations last month after Bragg indicated apprehension about moving forward with Trump's case, the Times reported in February. The resignation came ahead of the grand jury for the probe expiring on April 1. In response to Pomerantz's resignation, Trump attorney Ronald Fischetti told the Times that his former law partner “had the opportunity to present the fruits of his investigation to the D.A. and his senior staff on several occasions and failed." “Never before have we seen this level of corruption in our legal system," the Trump Organization said in their own statement to the newspaper. The Hill has reached out to the Trump Organization, Pomerantz and Fischetti for comment.
Then you really should go back and find my comments on Hillary Clinton. They are not difficult to find. And let's say I stated regularly she is a crony capitalist and not fit for office.
My apologies. Can you link me your thread on Preparing for Clinton's Indictment? I'm sure it has 39 pages of stuff I'd love to read.