More whinning from old Donnie, he is hav trouble getting someone to back him for his 454 fine letter of backing, after he cont some 30 insurance companies. Maybe someone should tell him that if he was honest, ( joke of the century) he would have a chance of getting better results. When insurance companies know that he is a constant lier, no one can believe any of his financial statements, they know that he lied some 30,000 times while in office, they know that he does not pay his bills, (ask lawyers about this) and then he says believe in me. He was total immunity, knowing that that is only way he has to beat any of the charges, does he reathat he might be a target, as Joe Biden should be given the same immunity.
Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
He never broke a law.
Joe did get immunity...."not fit for trial" but fit enough to run the world's most influential country and economy.
Tell me how that makes sense.
Ex-Trump White House official convicted of contempt must report to prison, appeals court finds
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Lindsay Whitehurst
Published Mar 14, 2024 • 1 minute read
Capitol-Riot-Contempt
An appeals court Thursday, March 14, denied Navarro's bid to stave off his jail sentence on contempt of Congress charges for refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro has been ordered to report to a federal prison by March 19.
WASHINGTON (AP) — An appeals court denied Trump White House official Peter Navarro’s bid to stave off his jail sentence on contempt of Congress charges Thursday.
Navarro has been ordered to report to a federal prison by March 19. He argued he should stay free as he appeals his conviction for refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
But a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. disagreed, finding his appeal wasn’t likely to reverse his conviction. His attorneys did not immediately return messages seeking comment, but have previously indicated he would appeal to the Supreme Court.
Navarro was the second Trump aide convicted of contempt of Congress charges. Former White House adviser Steve Bannon previously received a four-month sentence but a different judge allowed him to stay free pending appeal.
Navarro was found guilty of defying a subpoena for documents and a deposition from the House Jan. 6 committee. He served as a White House trade adviser under then-President Donald Trump and later promoted the Republican’s baseless claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
Navarro has said he couldn’t cooperate with the committee because Trump had invoked executive privilege. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta barred him from making that argument at trial, however, finding that he didn’t show Trump had actually invoked it.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Lindsay Whitehurst
Published Mar 14, 2024 • 1 minute read
Capitol-Riot-Contempt
An appeals court Thursday, March 14, denied Navarro's bid to stave off his jail sentence on contempt of Congress charges for refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro has been ordered to report to a federal prison by March 19.
WASHINGTON (AP) — An appeals court denied Trump White House official Peter Navarro’s bid to stave off his jail sentence on contempt of Congress charges Thursday.
Navarro has been ordered to report to a federal prison by March 19. He argued he should stay free as he appeals his conviction for refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
But a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. disagreed, finding his appeal wasn’t likely to reverse his conviction. His attorneys did not immediately return messages seeking comment, but have previously indicated he would appeal to the Supreme Court.
Navarro was the second Trump aide convicted of contempt of Congress charges. Former White House adviser Steve Bannon previously received a four-month sentence but a different judge allowed him to stay free pending appeal.
Navarro was found guilty of defying a subpoena for documents and a deposition from the House Jan. 6 committee. He served as a White House trade adviser under then-President Donald Trump and later promoted the Republican’s baseless claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
Navarro has said he couldn’t cooperate with the committee because Trump had invoked executive privilege. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta barred him from making that argument at trial, however, finding that he didn’t show Trump had actually invoked it.
Ex-Trump White House official convicted of contempt must report to prison, appeals court finds
Navarro has been ordered to report to a federal prison by March 19.
Judge rejects bid by Trump to throw out classified documents case
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer And Terry Spencer
Published Mar 14, 2024 • Last updated 5 days ago • 5 minute read
FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A federal judge on Thursday rejected one bid by Donald Trump to throw out out his classified documents criminal case, and appeared skeptical during hours of arguments of a separate effort to scuttle the prosecution ahead of trial.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a two-page order saying that though the Trump team had raised “various arguments warranting serious consideration,” a dismissal of charges was not merited. The case involves boxes of records, some highly classified, that Trump took to his Mar-a-Lago estate when he left the White House.
Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by the former president, had made clear during more than 3 1/2 hours of arguments that she was reluctant to dismiss one of the four criminal cases against the 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee. She said at one point that a dismissal of the indictment would be “difficult to see” and that it would be “quite an extraordinary” step to strike down an Espionage Act statute that underpins the bulk of the felony counts against Trump but that his lawyers contend is unconstitutionally vague.
The ruling from Cannon is a modest win for special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which in addition to the classified documents case is pursuing a separate prosecution of Trump on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
But it left unanswered questions over when the case might proceed to trial and only covered one of the two motions argued in court on Thursday. A separate motion about whether Trump was permitted under the Presidential Records Act to retain the documents after he left the White House remains pending, but the judge also seemed disinclined to throw out the case on those grounds.
“It’s difficult to see how this gets you to the dismissal of an indictment,” she told a Trump lawyer.
Trump attended Thursday’s arguments, listening intently with his hands sometimes clasped in front of him on the defence table as his attorneys pressed Cannon to throw out the case.
The hearing was the second this month in the case in Florida, which has unfolded slowly in the courts since prosecutors first brought charges last June. Cannon heard arguments on March 1 on when to schedule a new trial date — it was initially set for May 20 — but has yet to announce one and gave no indication Thursday on when she might do so. Prosecutors have pressed the judge to set a date for this summer. Trump’s lawyers are hoping to put it off until after the election.
After the hearing, Trump on his Truth Social platform took note of the “big crowds” outside the courthouse, which included supporters with flags and signs who honked their car horns in solidarity with the ex-president. He again said the prosecution is a “witch hunt” inspired by President Joe Biden.
Some of Thursday’s arguments centred on the 1978 statute known as the Presidential Records Act. The law requires presidential documents to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration, though former presidents may retain notes and papers created for purely personal reasons.
His lawyers say the act entitled him to designate as personal property the records he took with him to Mar-a-Lago in Florida and that he was free to do with the documents as he pleased.
“He had original classification authority,” said defence lawyer Todd Blanche. “He had the authority to do whatever he thought was appropriate with his records.”
Prosecutors countered that those records were clearly presidential, not personal, and included top-secret information and documents related to nuclear programs and the military capabilities of the U.S. and foreign countries. They say the presidential records statute was never meant to permit presidents to retain classified and top-secret documents, like those kept at Mar-a-Lago.
“The documents charged in the indictment are not personal records, period. They are not,” Harbach said. “They are nowhere close to it under the definition of the Presidential Records Act.”
Trump’s lawyers separately challenged as overly vague a statute that makes it a crime to have unauthorized retention of national defence information, a charge that forms the basis of 32 of the 40 felony counts against Trump in the case.
Defence lawyer Emil Bove said ambiguity in the statute permits what he called “selective” enforcement by the Justice Department, leading to Trump being charged but enabling others to avoid prosecution. Bove suggested a recent report by special counsel Robert Hur that criticized Biden’s handling of classified information did not recommend charges proved his point about the lack of clarity.
When a law is unclear, Bove told Cannon, the court’s “obligation is to strike the statute and say, ‘Congress, get it right.”’
Jay Bratt, another prosecutor with Smith’s team, disputed that there was anything unclear about the law and Cannon pointedly noted that striking down a statute would be “quite an extraordinary step.”
In her subsequent ruling rejecting the defence request, she cited “still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases” along with “disputed factual issues” that could be decided by a jury.
Trump is accused of intentionally holding onto some of the nation’s most sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago — only returning a fraction of them upon demand by the National Archives. Prosecutors say he urged his lawyer to hide records and to lie to the FBI by saying he no longer was in possession of them and enlisted staff to delete surveillance footage that would show boxes of documents being moved around the property.
Cannon has suggested in the past that she sees Trump’s status as a former president as distinguishing him from others who have held onto classified records.
After the Trump team sued the Justice Department in 2022 to get his records back, Cannon appointed a special master to conduct an independent review of the documents taken during the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search. That appointment was later overturned by a federal appeals court.
On Thursday, she wrestled with the unprecedented nature of the case, noted that no former president had ever faced criminal jeopardy for mishandling classified information.
But Bratt responded “there was never a situation remotely similar to this one.”
Trump is separately charged in a federal case in Washington with conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump has argued in both federal cases that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution, though Cannon has not agreed to hear arguments on that claim in the documents case.
The U.S Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Trump’s immunity claim in the election interference case next month.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer And Terry Spencer
Published Mar 14, 2024 • Last updated 5 days ago • 5 minute read
FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A federal judge on Thursday rejected one bid by Donald Trump to throw out out his classified documents criminal case, and appeared skeptical during hours of arguments of a separate effort to scuttle the prosecution ahead of trial.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a two-page order saying that though the Trump team had raised “various arguments warranting serious consideration,” a dismissal of charges was not merited. The case involves boxes of records, some highly classified, that Trump took to his Mar-a-Lago estate when he left the White House.
Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by the former president, had made clear during more than 3 1/2 hours of arguments that she was reluctant to dismiss one of the four criminal cases against the 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee. She said at one point that a dismissal of the indictment would be “difficult to see” and that it would be “quite an extraordinary” step to strike down an Espionage Act statute that underpins the bulk of the felony counts against Trump but that his lawyers contend is unconstitutionally vague.
The ruling from Cannon is a modest win for special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which in addition to the classified documents case is pursuing a separate prosecution of Trump on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
But it left unanswered questions over when the case might proceed to trial and only covered one of the two motions argued in court on Thursday. A separate motion about whether Trump was permitted under the Presidential Records Act to retain the documents after he left the White House remains pending, but the judge also seemed disinclined to throw out the case on those grounds.
“It’s difficult to see how this gets you to the dismissal of an indictment,” she told a Trump lawyer.
Trump attended Thursday’s arguments, listening intently with his hands sometimes clasped in front of him on the defence table as his attorneys pressed Cannon to throw out the case.
The hearing was the second this month in the case in Florida, which has unfolded slowly in the courts since prosecutors first brought charges last June. Cannon heard arguments on March 1 on when to schedule a new trial date — it was initially set for May 20 — but has yet to announce one and gave no indication Thursday on when she might do so. Prosecutors have pressed the judge to set a date for this summer. Trump’s lawyers are hoping to put it off until after the election.
After the hearing, Trump on his Truth Social platform took note of the “big crowds” outside the courthouse, which included supporters with flags and signs who honked their car horns in solidarity with the ex-president. He again said the prosecution is a “witch hunt” inspired by President Joe Biden.
Some of Thursday’s arguments centred on the 1978 statute known as the Presidential Records Act. The law requires presidential documents to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration, though former presidents may retain notes and papers created for purely personal reasons.
His lawyers say the act entitled him to designate as personal property the records he took with him to Mar-a-Lago in Florida and that he was free to do with the documents as he pleased.
“He had original classification authority,” said defence lawyer Todd Blanche. “He had the authority to do whatever he thought was appropriate with his records.”
Prosecutors countered that those records were clearly presidential, not personal, and included top-secret information and documents related to nuclear programs and the military capabilities of the U.S. and foreign countries. They say the presidential records statute was never meant to permit presidents to retain classified and top-secret documents, like those kept at Mar-a-Lago.
“The documents charged in the indictment are not personal records, period. They are not,” Harbach said. “They are nowhere close to it under the definition of the Presidential Records Act.”
Trump’s lawyers separately challenged as overly vague a statute that makes it a crime to have unauthorized retention of national defence information, a charge that forms the basis of 32 of the 40 felony counts against Trump in the case.
Defence lawyer Emil Bove said ambiguity in the statute permits what he called “selective” enforcement by the Justice Department, leading to Trump being charged but enabling others to avoid prosecution. Bove suggested a recent report by special counsel Robert Hur that criticized Biden’s handling of classified information did not recommend charges proved his point about the lack of clarity.
When a law is unclear, Bove told Cannon, the court’s “obligation is to strike the statute and say, ‘Congress, get it right.”’
Jay Bratt, another prosecutor with Smith’s team, disputed that there was anything unclear about the law and Cannon pointedly noted that striking down a statute would be “quite an extraordinary step.”
In her subsequent ruling rejecting the defence request, she cited “still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases” along with “disputed factual issues” that could be decided by a jury.
Trump is accused of intentionally holding onto some of the nation’s most sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago — only returning a fraction of them upon demand by the National Archives. Prosecutors say he urged his lawyer to hide records and to lie to the FBI by saying he no longer was in possession of them and enlisted staff to delete surveillance footage that would show boxes of documents being moved around the property.
Cannon has suggested in the past that she sees Trump’s status as a former president as distinguishing him from others who have held onto classified records.
After the Trump team sued the Justice Department in 2022 to get his records back, Cannon appointed a special master to conduct an independent review of the documents taken during the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search. That appointment was later overturned by a federal appeals court.
On Thursday, she wrestled with the unprecedented nature of the case, noted that no former president had ever faced criminal jeopardy for mishandling classified information.
But Bratt responded “there was never a situation remotely similar to this one.”
Trump is separately charged in a federal case in Washington with conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump has argued in both federal cases that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution, though Cannon has not agreed to hear arguments on that claim in the documents case.
The U.S Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Trump’s immunity claim in the election interference case next month.
Judge rejects bid by Trump to throw out classified documents case
A federal judge on Thursday rejected one bid by Donald Trump to throw out out his classified documents criminal case.
What laws has he broken? The "made up ones" he's being charged with now don't actually exist or are taken completely out of context. This "fine" of $454M is completely over reach & doesn't allow him to appeal without first paying it. NO ONE has ever had this issue before. This judge hates Trump so much, he determined what his assets were worth before the trial even begun. Didn't realize he was a real estate expert.
There was no harm done to anyone - banks got paid in full, financial statements (as most corporation financial statements do) stated specifically for the reader to do their own due diligence before accepting the financials as factual. This is how business is done but when you have people who have never been in business who think they know what the experts don't, this is what happens. Trump is only the first. I believe there's another one James is going after and when will it stop. If a corporation isn't producing what you like, then just go after them on made-up basis. No wonder companies are leaving NY.
Soon they'll put him in a Alaskan gulag and feed him high doses of Vitamin K until he dies of blood clots and call it natural causes. Death by kale.
When you talk about land values, I am sure the judge took into consideration that he asked that city what assessed values they had placed on it. Old Donnie is too old to understand that he should keep his mouth shut, from what can be interpreted is that he gets to feel IMPOTANT, when he barges about what his properties are worth. He says Mar-A-Alamo, is worth 50-100 times the 18 million, 1.8 billion, okay let’s charge him properly tax based on his assessment, and he can then be more impotent.
Why didnt the bank get charged with fraud? How many other judges can you name that moonlight as realators doing property value estimates?
Former MSNBC host under fire after endorsing possible Trump assassination
Author of the article
enette Wilford
Published Mar 19, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 1 minute read
Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was slammed after he appeared to support the possibility of Donald Trump getting assassinated.
The political commentator was reacting to a speech the former president gave at a rally over the weekend in Ohio.
In the video, posted to a Biden-Harris campaign account on X, Trump described how he felt like Abraham Lincoln, remarking how Presidents Lincoln and Andrew Jackson were treated terribly in their time, adding “nobody comes close to Trump.”
The account noted Lincoln was assassinated, to which Olbermann replied, “There’s always the hope.”
The mere suggestion sent people on X spiralling, calling on X CEO Elon Musk to ban the former SportsCenter host.
“This account should be permanently suspended,” one person wrote.
“Wish of harm is against terms of service of X,” another pointed out.
The post by Olbermann, who is the author of the book Trump is F***ing Crazy, has since been deleted, but it was screenshot and reshared many times.
Olbermann did keep most of his other posts on X, including when he called Trump a “terrorist threat” and tagged the FBI after the former president said if he doesn’t get elected, “it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
He doubled down in a post the following day, writing, “There is an actual argument going on about whether or not a psychotic would-be dictator who doesn’t value human life and instigated his thugs to try to overthrow the government meant ‘BLOODBATH’ literally or figuratively.”
However, Olbermann clarified that he definitely was not endorsing Trump’s assassination; rather “that he IS treated worse than Lincoln.”
He added: “As I’ve said for nine years: THAT HE’S CONVICTED, THEN DIES IN PRISON.”
torontosun.com
Author of the article
enette WilfordPublished Mar 19, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 1 minute read
Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was slammed after he appeared to support the possibility of Donald Trump getting assassinated.
The political commentator was reacting to a speech the former president gave at a rally over the weekend in Ohio.
In the video, posted to a Biden-Harris campaign account on X, Trump described how he felt like Abraham Lincoln, remarking how Presidents Lincoln and Andrew Jackson were treated terribly in their time, adding “nobody comes close to Trump.”
The account noted Lincoln was assassinated, to which Olbermann replied, “There’s always the hope.”
The mere suggestion sent people on X spiralling, calling on X CEO Elon Musk to ban the former SportsCenter host.
“This account should be permanently suspended,” one person wrote.
“Wish of harm is against terms of service of X,” another pointed out.
The post by Olbermann, who is the author of the book Trump is F***ing Crazy, has since been deleted, but it was screenshot and reshared many times.
Olbermann did keep most of his other posts on X, including when he called Trump a “terrorist threat” and tagged the FBI after the former president said if he doesn’t get elected, “it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
He doubled down in a post the following day, writing, “There is an actual argument going on about whether or not a psychotic would-be dictator who doesn’t value human life and instigated his thugs to try to overthrow the government meant ‘BLOODBATH’ literally or figuratively.”
However, Olbermann clarified that he definitely was not endorsing Trump’s assassination; rather “that he IS treated worse than Lincoln.”
He added: “As I’ve said for nine years: THAT HE’S CONVICTED, THEN DIES IN PRISON.”
Former MSNBC host under fire after endorsing possible Trump assassination
Keith Olbermann was slammed after he appeared to support the possibility of Donald Trump getting assassinated.
It’s apparent that you speak a different language (Republican) than most of the public (English). The bank did nothing that could be considered to be fraudulent, they lent the money, unless you admit that lending money to someone, like dishonest Donnie, paints the bank with the same brush. Do you notice that old Donnie is always trying to push lawsuits down the road, and they are starting to pile up on him?
The bank didnt know? It was the first development project they"ve (the bank) has ever done, were niave to how it all works and the value of real estate in New York? Was it a bank from North Dakota?
This time next year you may be referring to this criminal as President Donnie again .
Give it up, Fred. When somebody starts their post about a civil trial with "What law was broken?" you might as well try teaching differential equations to marmots.