Too many trials too little time .

Updating them is difficult . But I'll give it a shot

Trump paid the NY Slimes legal fees of $392,000 after his suit against the paper for releasing his tax records was dismissed by a judge.

DC Judge Chutkan promised a swift trial on the Jan 6 charges against Trump. That will not happen . SCOTUS agreed to hear Trump's claim of immunity . SCOTUS already determined that President's don't have absolute immunity as Trump claims . And though SCOTUS could've let the DC Circus court's decision stand ;it appears they will make a limited ruling on how much immunity the President has ;or if Trump was taking "official actions " as President on Jan 6.
This delay probably means it is too late to have a trial before the November elections .

The document case in my view is where Trump is most vulnerable . It will eventually go to trial and even though Judge Aileen Cannon, is a Trump appointed ,it doesn't mean he will walk .

The Hur report about Quid Pro Joe retaining classified docs deliberately tried to make a distinction between the 2 cases beyond the fact that Hur basically said Quid was in a quasi-veg state that a jury would find hard to convict. Basically it came down to cooperation with the attempt to retrieve the docs.

What is delaying that trial is they have to walk on egg shells in discovery due to the sensitive nature of the classified Docs. Trump's lawyers want access to them ,But they don't have security clearance. So the court has to one by one determine which one's will be made available Trump is using the issue to make requests to dismiss the case.

Inspector Javert Jack Smith wanted an August 2023 start . That did not happen . Then he wanted a Dec 2023 start . That date came and went. I believe it will be hard to get a conviction based on the similarities of the 2 cases. Docs were stored haphazardly in un-guarded boxes. In both cases Trump and Quid tried to make the case that the docs belong to them . Trump being a President has a more compelling case in that Quid at the time was a Senator or VP .

In Georgia they are trying to make the case that Trump and cronies had a conspiracy to disrupt the election. They are making local RICO charges.
That case has turned into a soap opera. Sometime before Nathan Wade (a married man at the time) was assigned to prosecute the case ;even though he is out of his league experience-wise ; Wade was shtumping Fulton County DA Fani Willis. The case for now is primarily one of her corruption. They were living large on the public trough ;money that was diverted for their pleasure.
The judge in the case now has to decide if charges against Trump are dismissed ;and if not ,if Willis and Wade should be dismissed. They may come under legal jeopardy themselves. If nothing else ,this delays the case probably past the election.

The hush money case
DA Alvin Bragg is hell bent to get this case underway. He wants to prove that Trump violated a NY law on the falsification of business records for the purpose of committing a federal campaign finance violation that the federal government declined to prosecute. In NY he will probably get away with such an absurdity . In NY the case is a misdemeanor. His tying it to Federal campaign finance laws is a lame attempt to turn it into a felony.
This is the same case his predecessor declined to prosecute because there is nothing there . Trump got a non-disclosure agreement from a prostitute to keep it quite that they had relations. Sleezy yes . Illegal ? NDA 's are signed all the time . Trump has failed to get the case dismissed.

Various attempts to remove Trump from ballots in states have been attempted . SCOTUS must move quickly to reject these very dubious claims that Trump (who has not even been charged with insurrection) can be removed based on the 14th Amendment insurrection clause.

Civil cases . These are the arrows that have so far struck Trump's Achilles' heel . Trump has judgement of over a $ half billion in NY against him in the E Jean Carrol case and the NYC's allegations that he over valued his properties for the purpose of getting loans . NYC claims he defrauded the banks and the government . Besides the fines the verdict ;handed down by a partisan judge without a trial by jury ; bars Trump and sons from conducting business in NY for 3 years .
Not sure how other states handle this .In NY he can't even think of appealing until he pays up . IMO this is a classic 8th amendment violation of excessive fines ;and a 14th amendment due process violation.

It is chilling to think that if the state can effectively deny Trump an appeal ;they can do that to anyone in the state.

Add to the pile on . The RNC is attempting to put in a resolution to prevent the committee from assisting in paying Trump's legal bills. I'm guessing they want another 4 years by Clueless Joe and the radical Dems.

I think that about covers it ...............for now

Considering the general ineptitude demonstrated by Willis and Wade, perhaps the Trump defense team would be wise to let them continue to "lead" the state's case.

Doesn't matter if the trial is held in Fulton County. Trump should press hard for a venue change.

Megyn Kelly's panel skewers the lawfare campaign ;and as a bonus mocks Keith Olbermann . All in 8 1/2 minutes .

Keith Olbermann Melts Down Over Supreme Court Hearing Trump Immunity Case, with The Fifth Column - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mXgv4kWyZc&t=285s)

More problems for Willis

She made a phone call to Wade's former business partner Terrance Bradley that another prosecutor; Cobb County prosecutor Cindi Lee Yeager, overheard , She warned Bradley that " They are coming after us. You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us,”

Phil Holloway ✈️ on X: "“The caller was District Attorney #FaniWillis… You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us” Does this amount to “influencing a witness” which is a felony? Maybe, if the call was “by means of corruption” This case started with a phone call Willis said was corrupt https://t.co/DJYmFbbTh5" / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/PhilHollowayEsq/status/1765000050340446292)

Hard for the judge to ignore the fact that Willis was witness tampering .

Judge Cannon presiding over the Trump document case will hold hearings today to decide if, as Trump claims ; that Jack Smith's appointment as a Special Council was legal. She has heard from Trump and Smith . But now she is getting testimony from a couple legal experts not part of the case. Seth Barrett Tillman, of the Landmark Legal Foundation will argue that Smith is not a legit officer of the United States ;that he was appointed without Congressional authorization as required by statute and the Appointment Clause (Article 2 Sec 2) . He is just an employee and thus should be supervised by a Federal DA. She may appoint someone to oversee Smith's activities .

Trump has also argued that Smith's appointment was politically motivated and his work has exceeded any reasonable funding that the DOJ budgeted. He claims that Smith was given a blank check through Clueless Joe and that violates the Appropriations Clause. ( Article I, Section 9, Clause 7) which states Congress has to approve public spending.



It is unlikely, at best, that there is any source of funding at DOJ that could have funded the sprawling, politically-motivated activities that Smith has undertaken as if President Biden handed him a blank check. As we have noted, and as with any government agency, the realities of bureaucratic resource limitations have constrained DOJ’s work in the past. See ECF No. 414 at 9. Therefore, to the extent the Court reaches this issue, DOJ and the Office should be required to substantiate their position regarding alternative funding sources at an evidentiary hearing

trump-re-cfpb.pdf (documentcloud.org) (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24742376/trump-re-cfpb.pdf)

It is fascinating to me to see the incredible fear/hatred these people have of Trump. If he is elected, there is going to be a day of payback.

Bragg asked Judge Merchan to extend the gag order on Trump even though the trial is over.

I am already sure this violates he 1st amendment rights . Does it also violate yours and mine?

There are 2 parts of this right . One is to speak .The other is to listen. I may not agree with what someone has to say . I sure as hell want the right to decide to listen or not. Suppose I am on the fence . Listening to what the candidates say would be a determining factor.

This gag order will give Clueless Joe an advantage. If you want a drinking game ;take a shot every time "convicted felon" gets mentioned. Trump will be handcuffed in the way he responds due to the order .
Already the ads attacking Trump as a convicted felon are all over and will only get more frequent as election day approaches. His conviction could be a deciding factor and yet he is deprived of the right of speaking about it ;and we are deprived to hear what he has to say.

Yes, the trial is over. What was the verdict? (Yes, the gag order can remain in place.) He had his chance to speak intelligently and in his own defense during the court proceedings but didn't.

(Yes, the gag order can remain in place.)Two questions: 1. Why would the gag order need to remain in place? 2. In what way would that not be a denial of his first amendment right to freedom of speech?


Already the ads attacking Trump as a convicted felon are all over and will only get more frequent as election day approaches. His conviction could be a deciding factor and yet he is deprived of the right of speaking about it ;and we are deprived to hear what he has to say.It sure has the suspicious appearance of collusion between the Biden campaign and the trial judge.

Judge Judy hits the nail on the head.


Judge Judy Sheindlin has delivered a verdict on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's successful prosecution of former President Trump, calling the case "nonsense."
The famous TV arbiter told CNN host Chris Wallace that as a "taxpayer in this country," she resents Bragg for "using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement."
"And that's what you think the DA did in Manhattan?" Wallace asked in an interview that streamed Friday on Max.

"That's what I think. I mean, if you look — you had to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was," said Sheindlin.

"I would be happier, as someone who owns property in Manhattan, if the district attorney of New York County would take care of criminals who were making it impossible for citizens to walk in the streets and use the subway, to use his efforts to keep those people off the street, than to spend $5 million or $10 million of taxpayers’ money trying Donald Trump on this nonsense," Sheindlin told Wallace.

Judge Judy renders verdict on NY v. Trump case: 'Nonsense' | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-judy-renders-verdict-trump-v-new-york-case-nonsense)

"I would be happier, as someone who owns property in Manhattan, if the district attorney of New York County would take care of criminals who were making it impossible for citizens to walk in the streets and use the subway, to use his efforts to keep those people off the street, than to spend $5 million or $10 million of taxpayers’ money trying Donald Trump on this nonsense,"

Those people Bragg won't charge.

Alvin Bragg: Manhattan DA will not prosecute certain crimes, provides explanation | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/index.html)

Too busy to try a criminal? Ha! Bragg doesn't want to charge anyone at all! (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2022/12/16/too-busy-to-try-a-criminal-ha-bragg-doesnt-want-to-charge-anyone-at-all/)

Alvin Bragg’s Recipe for Disaster | City Journal (city-journal.org) (https://www.city-journal.org/article/alvin-braggs-recipe-for-disaster)

I'd love to see the rationale for denying one of the top contenders for the Presidency his right to speech and the people's right to hear what he has to say .


The question is what are they afraid of ????????

He had his chance to speak intelligently and in his own defense during the court proceedings but didn't.

How exactly was he supposed to do that when he did not know what he was charged with until the prosecution's final statement ?

Two questions: 1. Why would the gag order need to remain in place? 2. In what way would that not be a denial of his first amendment right to freedom of speech?I suppose these will remain unanswered. It seems to be the pattern for liberals on this site. I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

SCOTUS gave themselves another day ;until Wednesday to make their final rulings for their term. One of the key decisions will be 'US v Trump' which will decide the extent of Presidential Immunity. (the day before the debate )

I have read much about the case and listened where I could to oral arguments. But I am just an amateur observer
SCOTUS blog is usually balanced in their coverage and I often take cues from them. They say the court sorta agrees with Trump.


With four of the court’s conservative justices -- Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh -- appearing to lean toward some form of immunity for Trump, the ruling may hinge on Roberts, who although relatively quiet seemed dubious about the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, which he summarized as saying that “a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.” And although Dreeben stressed the “layers of protection” available to shield a former president from unwarranted prosecutions, such as the assumption that prosecutors will act in good faith and the need for a grand jury to return an indictment, Roberts asked Dreeben why the court shouldn’t send the case “back or issue an opinion saying that’s not the law?”

Supreme Court appears likely to side with Trump on some presidential immunity - SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/supreme-court-appears-likely-to-side-with-trump-on-some-presidential-immunity/)


Laugh line of the year ........"layers of protection” available to shield a former president from unwarranted prosecutions, such as the assumption that prosecutors will act in good faith"

SCOTUS did make other calls already.
'Gonzalez v Trevino' ;they sided with someone who's prosecution was politically motivated.
Supreme Court allows ex-council member’s retaliatory arrest lawsuit to move forward - SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-allows-ex-council-members-retaliatory-arrest-lawsuit-to-move-forward/)

She unlike Trump had her case thrown out before trial. But like Trump the charges brought against her were clearly political. Bragg would never charge anyone else under similar circumstances. He made no bones about the fact that he was out to get Trump.

'Erlinger v US' the court said that a jury had to decide unanimously under the beyond reasonable doubt standard .

Erlinger v. United States - SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/erlinger-v-united-states/)


Judge Merchan told the jury that they did not have to agree on one specific crime. Jurors could disagree on key aspects of the crime and still convict him.

As far as the NY civil fraud case that could extort a $ half billion from Trump if not successfully appealed ; even il duce Cuomo is critical of the case.

“The Attorney General’s case in New York, frankly, should have never been brought and if his name was not Donald Trump, and he if he wasn’t running for president, I’m the former AG in New York, I’m telling you that case would have never been brought, and that’s what is offensive to people,”

Former NY Governor Cuomo: Criminal Case And Civil Case Against Trump Should’ve ‘Never Been Brought’ (dailywire.com) (https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-ny-governor-cuomo-criminal-case-and-civil-case-against-trump-shouldve-never-been-brought)

Somewhat relevant to this thread, when Snopes agrees with Trump, then the evidence must have been overwhelming. At least Trump can, hopefully, put the Charlottesville debacle behind him.


The lie that then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people" was rated "false" by left-leaning fact-checking website Snopes.
"Trump did say there were 'very fine people on both sides,' referring to the protesters and the counterprotesters. He said in the same statement he wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be 'condemned totally,'" Snopes said.
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/snopes-trump-charlottesville/2024/06/23/id/1169841/?ns_mail_uid=cf5431dc-7f9e-46f5-ba4f-ca96b2f0bc10&ns_mail_job=DM641914_06242024&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0101023dievw

Kudo's to the Missouri AG Andrew Bailey. He is suing NY for their unconstitutional lawfare .


“We have to fight back against a rogue prosecutor who is trying to take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail,” he added. “It sabotages Missourians’ right to a free and fair election. Stay tuned.”
Missouri AG announces suit against NY over Trump ruling: 'Restore the rule of law' (cbs6albany.com) (https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/missouri-ag-announces-suit-against-ny-over-trump-ruling-restore-the-rule-of-law-trump-raised-53-million-from-small-donors-during-the-24-hours-after-an-manhattan-court-found-him-guilty-of-34-felony-charges-related-to-falsifying-financial-records)

It's about time. Every Red State AG should do the same. Between attempts to remove Trump from the ballot and bogus prosecutions by activist state DAs ;enough is enough .

Somewhat relevant to this thread, when Snopes agrees with Trump, then the evidence must have been overwhelming. At least Trump can, hopefully, put the Charlottesville debacle behind him.


The lie that then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people" was rated "false" by left-leaning fact-checking website Snopes.
"Trump did say there were 'very fine people on both sides,' referring to the protesters and the counterprotesters. He said in the same statement he wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be 'condemned totally,'" Snopes said.


https://www.newsmax.com/politics/sno...r=0101023dievw (https://www.newsmax.com/politics/snopes-trump-charlottesville/2024/06/23/id/1169841/?ns_mail_uid=cf5431dc-7f9e-46f5-ba4f-ca96b2f0bc10&ns_mail_job=DM641914_06242024&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0101023dievw)










yup and more proof that the Dems are ready to throw Joe under the bus. Snopes is a very biased left wing "fact checker" .

Joe 's whole rationale for running in 2020 he claimed was that Trump said "very fine people" .


“With those words, the President of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it,” Biden said in his announcement video. “And in that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I’d ever seen in my lifetime.”


Charlottesville attack: Biden takes Trump head-on in presidential announcement video | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/politics/joe-biden-charlottesville-trump-2020-launch/index.html)

Dems lately are fine with daily Charlotteville incidents ;as long as it is antisemitic violence.


NYC Jewish family pummeled at 5th-grade commencement by attendees shouting 'Free Palestine,' mom says (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2024/06/23/us-news/nyc-jewish-family-pummeled-at-5th-grade-commencement-by-attendees-shouting-free-palestine-mom-says/)

Keffiyeh-clad mob launches bloody assault on Los Angeles synagogue - The Jewish Chronicle (thejc.com) (https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/keffiyeh-clad-mob-launches-bloody-assault-on-los-angeles-synagogue-dw0csx1i)

They don't get charged by Dem DAs

Outrage as Manhattan DA Bragg’s office drops nearly all cases from Columbia University’s anti-Israel protest (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/us-news/outrage-as-manhattan-da-braggs-office-drops-nearly-all-cases-from-columbia-universitys-anti-israel-protest/)


That's because the Dems think they are 'very fine people'.

Joe did eventually put out a statement against the antisemitic violence in LA . He did not call for anyone to be charged .

President Biden on X: "I’m appalled by the scenes outside of Adas Torah synagogue in Los Angeles. Intimidating Jewish congregants is dangerous, unconscionable, antisemitic, and un-American. Americans have a right to peaceful protest. But blocking access to a house of worship – and engaging in violence" / X (https://x.com/POTUS/status/1805253626551497103?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1805253626551497103%7Ctwgr% 5E482599908013fd797dd27cf17abc553567fcd8fc%7Ctwcon %5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fka tiepavlich%2F2024%2F06%2F24%2Fbiden-and-doj-mia-after-anti-semitic-mob-attacked-a-synagogue-n2640862)



𝗡𝗶𝗼𝗵 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗴 ♛ ✡︎ on X: "They're beating up Jewish women in LA in broad daylight now. Why? Because of a country thousands of miles away, or so they'll tell you. It's not about Israel or even about zionism. These are dormant genocidal urges that they finally see an outlet for. https://t.co/yqK73jIMJg" / X (https://x.com/NiohBerg/status/1805007140664578493?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1805007140664578493%7Ctwgr% 5E482599908013fd797dd27cf17abc553567fcd8fc%7Ctwcon %5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fka tiepavlich%2F2024%2F06%2F24%2Fbiden-and-doj-mia-after-anti-semitic-mob-attacked-a-synagogue-n2640862)