DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Looks like Charges coming against Trump

Aw, I'm sure you're mortally wounded. Rather odd how you hold others to a level of accountability you yourself can't seem to meet.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.....

Feds Reportedly Have New Evidence of Potential Trump Obstruction

The Justice Department has gathered new evidence in their investigation of Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents that further suggests obstruction, sources told The Washington Post. The fresh revelation also suggests that Special Counsel Jack Smith has maintained his focus in the probe on the former president’s possible obstruction attempts, a difference between the investigation into documents found at President Biden’s office and home. FBI investigators and the Justice Department have found that Trump looked through boxes that contained classified documents after he’d already been subpoenaed to turn them over, hoping to keep some with him, the Post’s sources said. And when Trump finally turned over the documents in January, authorities concluded that he withheld some. As the investigation heats up, Trump faces three other criminal probes, having been charged by a grand jury investigating the hush-money payout of pornstar Stormy Daniels on Thursday. “The witch-hunts against President Trump have no basis in facts or law,” Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said. “The deranged special counsel and the DoJ have now resorted to prosecutorial misconduct by illegally leaking information to corrupt the legal process and weaponize the justice system in order to manipulate public opinion and conduct election interference, because they are clearly losing all across the board.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-...rrWEEElh9S3dDyEs6RnIwWUsTIGGix8pnGQqVlt8

Hey look………..a victim. Poor thang.

Chris Christie knocks DeSantis over potential Trump extradition: ‘Who the hell asked you?’

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Sunday knocked Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis, who suggested last week his state would not cooperate in any potential extradition of former President Trump over an indictment filed in Manhattan despite having not received such a request.

A grand jury on Thursday voted to indict Trump, who became a resident of Florida after he left the White House, on charges not yet officially known, prompting DeSantis a few hours later to suggest the state would not assist in any extradition requests of the former president even though Trump’s legal team has maintained they planned to cooperate.

Trump is expected to be arraigned in Manhattan on Tuesday in a case involving an alleged hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Christie, who along with DeSantis is among the possible 2024 contenders who could challenge Trump in a GOP primary, said the Florida governor’s suggestion was moot because the defendant, Trump, wasn’t seeking such a protection.

“I think it’s interesting that someone says they’re going to refuse to extradite someone who’s not asking,” Christie said. “I mean, Trump and his lawyers are negotiating a voluntary surrender, which is what they should do. It’s the responsible thing to do. And Ron DeSantis comes out and says, ‘I won’t extradite him.’ Well, who the hell asked you?” Christie said.

“The governor has no role, has no role in this, particularly when the defendant doesn’t want him to have a role in it, right?” Christie said. “So, like, the defendant’s not being asked to be defended, but he’s jumping to his defense because he knows it’s a no-cost position on the substance.”

Florida law allows the governor to intervene in extradition matters if they are contested, though Trump’s lawyers have indicated that they have no plans on fighting the former president’s extradition.

Attorneys for the former president have made no suggestions that Trump would not cooperate in the matter. Trump attorney Joe Tacopina said on Sunday he expects his client’s surrender on Tuesday to be “painless and classy.”

“Hopefully this will be as painless and classy as possible for a situation like this, which I don’t even know really what brings us here, but that’s a different story,” Tacopina said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

DeSantis said following news of the Trump indictment that he would contest an extradition of Trump “given the questionable circumstances at issue.” Republicans have repeatedly lambasted Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, for what they call a politically motivated investigation of Trump.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday...m820lrHSgI0WmgikjOgtGuRUANJHCdcLW7O-UhiI

I'm sure we're all awaiting the "painless and classy" part.

I'm just wondering, can you recall who was it they were calling the "snowflakes" again?

I’m sorry Pit, but whatabouts are only allowed by posters sitting on the right.

Look. More name calling by the left.

trump’s campaign has raised $5M since indictment.

Lol …. that’ll be gone in a week in legal fees. MAGA supporters better dig deep into their blue collar pockets.

Obstruction charges may come next since the DOJ indicated possible obstruction at Mar-A-lago.

So you mean me pointing out that the right labeled the left as snowflakes is me name calling? Where were you then? Do you plan to call out Eve the next time she comes on here ranting libtard? I didn't think so. You're so precious. Or did you pull your usual of addressing the post to someone you didn't mean to address?

To give a supposed billionaire money.

No. I am saying I have never once used that term in my life. Yet, you bring it up after I posted about Perfect labeling and insulting others. Get your last word in.

You ever notice how those sitting on the right will come in here and protect their golden goose with distraction? And the damn thing only lays rotten eggs!

Funny how you refuse to admit that when the right does the same thing you play invisible. That was the point. Yet another point you fail to address. It seems you love one sided conversations. Or maybe that was during the time you made yourself invisible to everyone until you got your wish.

I'll ask you again, are you going to call out Eve or others when they act in the same fashion or do you plan to continue to only point the finger in one direction? And basically that was a rhetorical question since I don't expect a straight answer. So I didn't call anyone a name at all and you think that helped make your point? Just wow.

While playing the denial game from start to finish.

No, but I notice that you label and insult others on a daily basis. BTW---------I am not a member of the right. But, I'm not surprised you are painting that picture. It's who you are.

The other side rarely posts. I think we all know why. You and a few others constantly attack anyone w/a different viewpoint. Kinda hard for me to call them out when they are not even posting. On the other hand, a few of you label, belittle, insult, and misrepresent about what others are saying multiple times daily.

BTW: I used to call out guys like Vambo, 40, and others all the freaking time. But, you selective memory won't acknowledge that fact. Hell, the called me a "libtard" for my stances, just like guys like Perfect and OCD are calling me Trumpian, Alt Right, and MAGA Hatter or something stupid like that.

I don't care if you don't like getting called out for your brutish behavior. Don't like it.....stop acting like a bully and behave like a decent human being. Calling other people names is not acceptable behavior.

So now that I didn't do any name calling, you accuse me of name calling again. Got it. About the worst name I call anyone in terms of politics is right wing extremist. And for the most part it's the politicians who fit that term perfectly. I do however find it odd that those who only attack one side claim they are not upholding the behavior of the other side. But then plausible deniability runs strong. The irony in all of this is that it's you of all people labeling someone else as a bully.

Vers is right. Nobody bothers to post here any longer because there is no actual discussion. It's all name calling, smack talk, finger pointing about who said what. Nothing of value is ever discussed in this forum. 80% of the topics posted are cherry picked to highlight fringe behavior so someone can have a tanty about it and point fingers at the other side.

Everyone who had an actual valuable opinion has left. And it's not just this forum. It's the whole site.

What Trump risks if he keeps talking about the judge in his N.Y. criminal case

The former president has suggested Judge Juan Merchan is biased, and referred to District Attorney Alvin Bragg as an "animal." Could the court limit his ability to speak about the case?

For days, former President Donald Trump has been on a tear on social media, railing against District Attorney Alvin Bragg's hush money investigation, his former lawyer Michael Cohen, prosecutors and, more recently, the judge presiding over the historic case.

Without evidence, he's referred to Judge Juan Merchan as “Trump Hating” and suggested that Merchan was “handpicked” by Bragg. In an interview Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Trump's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, was asked about the attacks and whether he believes the judge harbors any slant.

"No, I don’t believe the judge is biased. I mean, the president is entitled to his own opinion," Tacopina said.

Trump has referred to Bragg as an “animal” in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social. In an earlier Truth Social post, he appears to have shared an article that included an image of him wielding a baseball bat juxtaposed next to an image of Bragg’s head. That post was deleted.

All defendants have a right to vigorously defend their innocence, but Trump can’t threaten the prosecutor without risking other legal charges under New York law. The judge could also issue a gag order to prevent Trump or his attorneys from speaking publicly about the case.

NBC News spoke with former prosecutors about how and when a judge might limit speech about a case.

What’s a “gag order?"

A gag order is a judicially imposed order restricting parties, attorneys and/or witnesses in a pending case from making any public statements about it. The standard courts look to is whether such statements have a “reasonable likelihood” of possibly preventing a fair trial.

Merchan could issue one himself, or do so at the request of either side, but former prosecutors say they are not used frequently in New York. It’s up to the judge to craft the order as narrowly as possible to protect free speech rights, while at the same time preserving the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Often a defendant’s attorney will request that a judge issue one — whereas in this case, it’s Trump own statements that have fueled speculation about whether Merchan will issue one.

The fact that Trump is running for public office raises the stakes and puts any restriction on his First Amendment rights in sharper view, but Robert C. Gottlieb, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan, said that shouldn’t matter.

“He’s no different than anyone else,” said Gottlieb of Trump, noting that while one cannot ignore the political implications of the case, “that does not give him [Trump] more rights to influence jurors or to threaten or incite violence. In that courtroom, he is only a defendant.”

Gottlieb also pointed to ethical rules prohibiting Trump’s attorneys from making public statements intended to prejudice the jury pool or influence the outcome of the trial.

What’s the likelihood of the judge imposing one here?

Other former prosecutors are more skeptical that a gag issue will be issued at Tuesday’s arraignment based on Trump’s social media posts thus far.

“I think it would be challenging to do it out of the box,” said Daniel Horwitz, another former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, now in private practice. “There usually has to be a predicate for it.”

Horwitz suggested it’s more likely that Merchan will issue a warning to everyone in court Tuesday and set some “ground rules,” essentially putting Trump on notice that if he talks, “he does it at his peril.”

Gottlieb has appeared before Merchan and agreed that, at minimum, the judge will make a record of what Trump has said about the case thus far, and admonish him against making any statements that could influence the jurors.

“I cannot believe that it won’t be addressed,” said Gottlieb. “You can’t ignore what has happened.”

Even if the judge opts not to impose a gag order, former District Attorney Cy Vance, who immediately preceded Bragg, noted that Trump risks violating other laws if he continues to make statements about the case.

“There is a crime. That’s called obstructing governmental administration under New York law,” Vance said on MSNBC's “Inside with Jen Psaki” on Sunday, explaining that it would involve efforts to intimidate a public official. “[I]f I were Mr. Trump’s lawyer I would tell him to knock it off because it’s not going to help him with the judge and if it is charged, that’s not going to help him with a jury.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...uv0Ke72S_DHgY2pZoILL7M1bmpWqXUyZ5QUmTeq8

I'm not sure what good a gag order would do in this case. With so many of his political cronies pushing the very same nonsense I don't think it would make that much difference.

Can we all now admit that the phrase "the republican party is the party of law and order" is nothing but a bunch of crap?

Can someone post what exactly Pelosi said but not as a tweet please. For some reason when people post tweets the past couple weeks I can there is a psot but cannot see the actually tweet.

Additionally, if anyone can tell me how to fix this issue please PM me - Thanks

Certainly not "all of us". That you can be sure of.

Trump’s lawyer will be in contempt of court more then “My Uncle Vinny.”

Holding you to the bar of not lying to argue is pretty low really. I don't need to do it, I don't do it and I won't let you continue to lie about what I say just so you can argue.

Nice you tried to pull the old "double standard" argument that I have pointed out with you. Typical "I know you are but what am I" PitTrope.

IC trump is landing in NYC for is indictment. I guess he can right this off as a campaign expense. Lol …better send more money fast MAGA men and women. He’s literally flying through it fast.

I think he heads in tomorrow morning to deal with it.

Maybe the DOJ will show up with their obstruction charges in the Mar A Lago case, and hit him with a double whammy.

That would steal one agency's dramatic thunder, can't see that happening.

One thunder….One lightning strike. They work together. Besides trump would save his supporters millions by being booked for two separate felony charges on the same day at the same location.

Nancy Pelosi

BADawg

I was responding to Jester

Is potahto

Thanks Pdawg


I think people are reading way too much into this.

We all know innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
She never says he is guilty until proven innocent
She says he has the right to go to trial and prove his innocence
It's a colloquialism.
Proven innocent in a court of law.

I think people just try to twist things for the sake of twisting them rather than just taking the most simple meaning.
Must be a bunch of old southern women on this board with all the pearl clutching going on

It’s not a whole lot of people and those that mentioned it didn’t make a big deal about it. The big deal began with all the what abouts. You can’t say something on this board about anything without saying something about every other person in the world who may agree with you.

Good comment. It like something wrong is okay because somebody else does it. But they are evil and need to be punished but because they weren't that makes this other thing justified.

Why can't we just accept that both things are wrong?

Every single thing in politics is about scoring points against your enemy. Sadly people (in general) worship at the alter of politics instead of getting mad at the politicians.

IMO, if something is wrong then it is wrong regardless of who does it, regardless of if others do it.

she implied that is how our court system works and said "everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence."




no one knows what the 34 counts are yet. when we know that... we will know more

Did she imply it or did you infer it?