Author: Dave

Supreme Court to take up landmark cases

by Dave

These are cases in which whatever the outcome, millions of Americans will be impacted. And millions of Americans will believe that the judges are total idiots, and/or highly partisan. To begin with, they are neither. The buck stops at the Supreme Court. All judges who have been accepted to the Supreme Court are really brilliant.

Unlike the legislature and executive branch, the judicial branch at every level, issues opinions that are available to the public and can be critically reviewed by constitutional scholars, who really understand the issues. 

Two landmark cases are the Trump disqualification case and the Trump presidential immunity case. Neither one has been accepted by the US Supreme Court, but almost everyone believes they will be soon. Lawyers on both sides will be burning the midnight oil, to explain, in a million words or less, to explain why their side is right.  

Trump Disqualification Case

By a 4 to 3 ruling, Colorado Supreme Court ruled on December 20, 2023 that the Secretary of State may not include Donald Trump from the primary ballot. The ruling would also eliminate him from the general election ballot. The Supreme Court will have the final say in these cases. 

State judges can take several “off-ramps” to dismiss disqualification challenges. I call these the “Don’t let this case land in my courtroom defenses” or “Stop them at the courthouse doors.” The judge does not need to hold an evidentiary hearing if the plaintiffs have not demonstrated real injury. Second, judges have ruled in many states that these cases are premature, or as they say, are not ripe for review, because Donald Trump’s name is not on the general election ballot.

Colorado’s case went forward based on both state and federal laws and the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. State law giving the Secretary of State the right to disqualify candidates in the primary election, allowed the case to proceed. The case cleared several major hurdles in the District Court, in particular, that the violence on January 6, 2021, adequately fits the definition of an insurrection and that Trump’s actions constituted “engagement.” So, none of the normal off-ramps were taken.

However, Trump was the victor in this initial court case, because the judge concluded that the 14th Amendment did not specifically state that it applied to presidential elections. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment held for all elected offices of government, which they decided included the president. 

This case must be decided by the Supreme Court. They understand what is at stake. Suppose a similar judgment occurs in Florida, Texas, or Georgia. It has the potential to allow Biden to win, because Trump is not on the ballot. And remember, if one of the four judges disqualifying Trump had dissented, the ruling would have allowed Trump to run. It was summed up by one commentator, that voters not judges decide elections. Well, we shall see.

I particularly like a recent opinion posted on CNN. It is important to note that this opinion is not the views of CNN, and the author is not a lawyer. 

CNN Link: The Fourteenth Amendment gambit is breathtakingly foolish

Jan 6 Presidential immunity case

As part of the pre-trial motions of the January 6 case, with a scheduled start date of March 4, Donald Trump claimed presidential immunity for all actions while he was president. The trial court ruled against him, so he filed an appeal. The Special Counsel, Jack Smith, asked the Appellate Court to expedite the matter and they agreed.

Since the case will inevitably end up in the Supreme Court, Smith asked the Supreme Court to review the case, prior to the Appellate Court decision. As I was completing this post, the Supreme Court, rejected Smith’s petition without comment. This allows the Appellate Court to decide first, which will inevitably delay the start of the trial.

To leapfrog ahead of the Appeals Court or maintain the normal order. That was the question until last Thursday. Trump’s legal team wrote an excellent reply to Smith’s petition. Nothing is stronger than taking someone else’s words and using them against them. Smith argued that jumping ahead of the normal order was needed because this matter was of great public importance. Trump countered that if this is so important, it justified the Appellate Court’s review first to ensure the Supreme Court had all the facts before a landmark decision. It’s the old “haste makes waste” argument. 

The elephant in the room is the elections. Trump wants to push the January 6 criminal case to after the election. The decision by the Supreme Court and Trump’s very busy court date means it might be delayed past November.  If Trump loses again in the Appellate Court, he has 45 days to file an appeal to the full Appellate Court, and if he loses again, 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The January 6 Defendants Case

On Dec 13, 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Fischer case, which if successful, will undermine the legal basis for 2 of the 4 counts against Trump in the January 6 case. The Fischer case is also referred to as the Jan 6 defendants case because it arose from a defendant found guilty of participating in the riot on January 6. 

The case is whether the law that formed the basis of guilty convictions of over 200 defendants for attempting to disrupt an official proceeding on January 6 was really applicable. It was enacted as an anti-corruption corporate statute after the Enron scandal to prevent the destruction of documents.

For a detailed examination of the applicable law 18 USC 1512, see Lawfare post: Trump Jan 6 Indictment: The Statutes.

So, the Supreme Court, through a very narrow interpretation of the applicable law, could effectively dismiss two of the charges against Trump and the conviction of over 200 defendants in the January 6 riots. The Department of Justice has been slowly working their way up to the leadership ranks of the extremist groups, and it would terrible to see the organizers of the January 6 riots go free, based on slight interpretation differences in the words, like “corruptly” or “otherwise.”

Abortion Pill Case

The Supreme Court will decide if states can limit access to the abortion pill, mifepristone. Since overturning Roe vs. Wade, the argument is availability is a state’s issue. However, the drug has been approved for general use by the FDA. This case will have the greatest impact on abortion rights since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It is estimated that approximately half of all abortions in the US are medicated abortions. Plus, any ruling to limit use of a drug that has been deemed safe by the FDA, would allow states to challenge the use of any other drug on the market, making their judgment superior to the FDA.

NYT: Abortion Pill Rullings

The Supreme Court tends to leave the most controversial decisions to the end of its term, which could end in July 2024. My sense is they will act rapidly on the Colorado Disqualification Case, as it directly impacts Trump’s candidacy. A delay in the presidential immunity case would be a big gift to Trump as he would definitely get the case dismissed if he is elected president. The status quo right now on the abortion case, is the ruling on restrictions has been put on hold, so this is one that can be delayed without a major impact.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Trump’s criminal court dates

by Dave

Trump is indicted in four court cases, of which 3 cases (Federal Jan 6 case, Manhattan hush money case and Federal documents case) have scheduled start dates of March 4, March 25 and May 20, 2024. It is obvious the court dates will be rescheduled, as there is only 21 days between the Jan 6 case and the hush money case. Even the general order can change.

Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis “Trump’s RICO Case” with now 15 defendants has not been scheduled, but I think it is fair to say, it will be the last one to be heard. Willis suggested a start date of August 5. 

If Jack Smith prevails in the expedited Supreme Court case, which petitions the Court to deny Trump immunity, then it is possible the Jan 6 case will start as scheduled on March 4, and the Manhattan hush money case will be rescheduled. The order most damaging to Trump, I believe, would be to complete the two federal cases first, then go to the Manhattan hush money case.   

Trump would like everything pushed back beyond the election. He knows this won’t happen. Initially his legal team filed to have the hush money case tried in federal court, but just before the deadline on November 15, they withdrew their appeal for the venue change. If they had succeeded on appeal, Trump could have pressed the issue of presidential immunity.  But, I think they now see this case as the one to go forward in 2024, delaying the two federal cases.

The hush money case is no slam dunk. The Trump team has argued that this should not be a felony charge at all, but a misdemeanor charge. ”Bragg’s office must show that Trump’s actions were taken with the intent to commit or conceal another crime in order for the falsification of business records charges to be elevated from misdemeanors to felonies.” (Politico, Nov 16, 2023) Second, that it is based on Michael Cohen, who has been convicted of perjury and disbarred. And finally, there is an issue of the legality of extending the statute of limitations by executive order. Bottom line: the hush money case will definitely be appealed, if Trump is found guilty.

Link: Politico, Nov 16, Trump is trying to use campaign to dodge criminal consequences, Manhattan DA says

Link: Raw Story, Dec 14, How Trump’s D.C. court delay could backfire in his New York hush money trial

Trump’s team is busy preparing their reply to Jack Smith’s petition of the Supreme Court, due on Dec 20. I expect they will make a strong point to delay the immunity issue until the appellate court rules. No sense in picking up a hot potato when it is already in a lower court. Further, the petition cites “Nixon’s case” which was expedited to the Supreme Court because it concerned President Nixon’s refusal to provide documents to a special prosecutor, obviously not the same situation as Trump.

A lot of moving parts. I’m still hoping the Fani Willis conspiracy case starts prior to November 2024. It will be televised. We shall see.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Jan 6 case: Supreme Court Petitioned by Jack Smith

by Dave

Donald Trump legal team filed a motion to dismiss in the January 6 case based on absolute presidential immunity. It was denied by Judge Chutkan in a completely rigorous and thorough manner. So, Trump’s team appealed the decision.  The start date of March 4, 2024 in court was likely to slip due to the pre-trial filings.  

Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court whether Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office. Trump’s lawyers have stated that his alleged actions over the 2020 election results were part of his official duties at the time and therefore he is protected by presidential immunity. Smith has asked this review be expedited, so the trial date can be maintained.

Jack Smith’s petition simply excerpts critical elements of Judge Chutkan’s decison. One example:

Holding a former President criminally accountable is “essential to fulfilling our constitutional promise of equal justice under the law.” 

Nothing in the US Constitution provides immunity to ex-presidents. The conservatives on the Supreme Court will have a difficult time trying to invent some special immunity for Trump, so he can evade the charges. 

In the petition, Judge Chutkan’s decision is included as an appendix. So, there are no surprises to Trump’s legal team.  Trump must respond to the petition by December 20, so the Supreme Court can decide whether to consider the case.  

See CNN link

I am hoping that the Supreme Court will rule against Trump. Presidents or other government officials might avoid prosecution for their criminal actions when they are in office. But, once out of office, they should have to be accountable. 

Stay tuned,

Dave

Smith’s brief is available on the Supreme Court website and the link below.

Brief to Supreme Court US v TrumpDownload

Hunter Biden’s Indictments

by Dave

Conservative social media and cable TV stations, have associated Joe Biden and Hunter Biden with all kind of influence peddling schemes, with zero evidence. It is not illegal to benefit from your family’s name to help secure high paying consulting jobs. It also helps to have graduated from a prestigious law school (Yale) and have worked years at a very well know law firm (Boies, Shillert, Flexner LLP).

Now, let’s move on to the facts. Hunter Biden will likely be tried in Delaware, for gun related charges, and in California for failure to pay federal taxes.

Sept 19, 2023: Delaware charges. Hunter Biden was officially indicted in Delaware on three federal firearms-related charges: two for making false statements on a firearm application form and one for prohibited possession of a firearm.

December 7, 2023: California charges. Hunter Biden was indicted on nine additional charges, including three felony and six misdemeanor offenses, for allegedly failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes between 2016 and 2019.

The 56-page filing laid out a series of charges, including allegations that the president’s son failed to pay taxes, failed to file, evaded an assessment and filed a fraudulent form. The indictment says that “rather than pay his taxes, the Defendant spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle.”

“Between 2016 and October 15, 2020, the Defendant spent this money on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature, in short, everything but his taxes,” the indictment says.

See link: Hunter’s spending habits

There may be more charges against Hunter Biden in the future. One possibility is a failure to register as a foreign agent. Biden has pled not guilty to the Delaware charges, and I expect the same for the California charges.

These are serious criminal charges, and Biden’s guilt or innocence will be determined by the courts in either late 2024 or early 2025. He can try to plea bargain, but I’m not sure if the prosecutors are willing to cut him a deal. It certainly sounds like he is guilty of tax fraud and in which case, he will likely serve time. The US Department of Justice is not targeting Trump or Biden, nor Steve Bannon or Bob Menendez, but anyone who has broken to law. These are all wealthy and intelligent individuals, who when they break the law, have to suffer the consequences like the rest of us.

Remember Lady Justice carries a balance in one hand and a sword in another. I have faith in our legal system, that Hunter Biden will be tried based on the facts of the case. And he can always appeal the decision.

Neither of these indictments connect Joe Biden with Hunter Biden’s crimes. Yet Republicans in the House, act as if these indictments support their impeachment probe. It is absurd.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Disqualification lawsuits – Part II

by Dave

I just wanted to add that a website called Lawfaremedia.org is tracking these lawsuits. Five state courts have dismissed these cases, Florida, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado and Michigan, with the latter two states, the dismissals are under appeal.

The map provided by Lawfaremedia.org also shows disqualification lawsuits were voluntarily withdrawn in six states, which I found odd. But there may be a good reason. All six lawsuits were initiated by John Anthony Castro, who claims to be a Republican candidate for president in the Republican primaries. I suspect these lawsuits were withdrawn because Castro knew he would lose again on the issue of standing (actual harm) and the arguments for dismissals would be pretty much copied by other judges. Or Castro might have been conserving his resources for more likely success.

Florida’s dismissal of Castro’s lawsuit was simple. Case dismissed because of issues of standing and ripeness (issue is the primary ballot prior to the election itself).

It is entirely proper that violation of our constitutional rights, including Section 3, Fourteenth amendment, barring individuals from running from office be addressed to the courts. But, the courts recognize the dangers of possibly excluding eligible candidates from the ballot.

If any single individual can make a claim in court of ineligibility based on Section 3, it would complicate our elections and thus interfering with another fundamental right of the people choosing their leaders. So, plaintiffs have a certain threshold to meet, before they get to make their case.

Thus, I do not believe any of John Anthony Castro’s lawsuits, or those from private citizens will succeed. I am pessimistic about the cases under appeal in Colorado and Michigan, as they likely will question the standing issue, and end the challenge in these states.

Each dismissal will be quickly announced by Trump’s base as a legal victory against left wing democrats. It is a fact that the disqualification effort has little chance of succeeding and was supported by both Democrats and conservative Republicans. I personally do not support this effort as I believe in the right of voters to choose their president.

Now, should any Secretaries of State exclude Donald Trump from the ballot after the parties have announce their candidates, then yes, this case will be heard on an emergency basis and likely go up to the US Supreme Court.

Stay tuned,

Dave

PS. I did not go into John Anthony Castro’s bio, but it is one full of controversy which can be googled.

Trump’s NY Fraud Case: Ends with a whimper, not a bang

by Dave

It looks likely that December 11, Donald Trump takes the stand for the defense. No dramatic end, unlike television court cases. After the judge submits a written decision, Trump’s lawyers will immediately appeal, and ask that the judgement to bes stayed (set aside) while it is appealed.

I like Politico’s conclusion, stated upfront: “Trump is fighting an uphill battle in his fraud trial. But it could be years before penalties kick in.” Next line is a mistake. The prosecution and defense will rest in December. A verdict is expected in the last week in January. This is a civil case, no one goes to jail. But the penalties are sufficiently severe that Trump may need to sell properties.

Politico: Trump is fighting an uphill battle in his fraud trial. But it could be years before penalties kick in.

Stay tuned,

Dave

The Disqualification Lawsuits

by Dave

The efforts to disqualify Donald Trump from running for president, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment are not succeeding. It has been in the news recently, as the Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 5, 2023. The Court can either uphold the lower court ruling, and keep Trump on the ballot, or reverse the decision, and then Trump is off the ballot. Appeals to the Supreme Court for an emergency hearing would be immediately submitted if he is taken off the ballot. Otherwise, I believe this will end the challenge in Colorado and the dismissal will be permanent.

Colorado’s district court dismissed the lawsuit, stating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did not apply to the president. But, the ruling likely pleased petitioners in part, as the judge opined that the violence on January 6, 2021 did qualify as an insurrection.

Other lower court dismissals (Minnesota, Michigan, Florida and New Hampshire) offered a chance for re-filing. Minnesota district court considered that Section 3 did not apply to primaries. Michigan district court considered disqualification a political question, not one to be decided by the courts.

The two other cases (Florida and New Hampshire) were rejected quickly on a demonstration of actual harm if Donald Trump ran for president. In New Hampshire, an attorney, John Anthony Castro, registered to run for president, and tried to convince the court, that allowing Donald Trump on the ballot, would cause his candidacy harm. The courts didn’t buy it.

The courts in other states will take notice of the many ways to dismiss legal challenges. Certainly ruling that a case has no standing, is the most efficient one, as the court does not need to get into the more nuanced arguments of whether Trump encouragement of the January 6 violence was “engaging in insurrection.”

The basis of democracy is we select our president at the ballot box by having all eligible voters being able to cast their ballot. Excluding a candidate from even one state, could be decisive in a close election. I have posted an opinion previously that these lawsuits run counter to our democratic processes. The courts should lean towards narrow interpretation of rules and laws and restrict their role in deciding whether to exclude both voters and candidates in the election process.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Update on Trump’s Civil Fraud Case

by Dave

The defense is presenting its case, scheduled to end on December 11, with the testimony of Donald Trump. I am sure that Donald Trump has been thoroughly coached on how to respond to questions.

Prosecution has not decided to present a rebuttal, but if it does, it will be concluded in on December 12. There will be no closing arguments in court, but the attorneys will submit them in writing by January 6. Oral arguments will take place on January 11. Then, we wait for a decision.

Judge Engoron stated he hopes to file his written decision by the end of January. Of course, it won’t be pretty. In a summary judgement in September, the Judge ruled that Trump organization was guilty of fraud. This is really the punishment phase of the case. Regardless of the decision, Donald Trump will appeal.

The Court of Appeals re-instated the Judge’s gag order. I am not sure how long the gag order will be in place, but it was needed after Trump attacked the Judge’s clerk, so it may last for a long time.

The E. Jean Carroll defamation case, part 2, begins January 16. It is noted that Trump actually sued Carroll, claiming she defamed him. The case has been dismissed, but Trump (as usual) is appealing the decision. Trump is not required to appear in court. The jury will decide whether to increase Carroll’s original award of 5 million dollars in damages.

While Trump can sit out the defamation case, his presence will be required in the upcoming criminal cases, namely the January 6 case scheduled to begin in Washington on March 4 and the hush money case, scheduled to begin in Manhattan on March 25. The documents case should follow in May, and the Georgia Rico case could be pushed to after the elections. Unlike all other cases, the Georgia case will be televised. Unless they can cut more deals, it will be a bit crazy with all the defendants their lawyers and the media.

Every single case will be appealed, so these cases will extend into 2025. The RICO case appeals could go even longer.

Stay tuned,

Dave

The Art of Election Forecasting

by Dave

This is a subject which I know quite a bit about, as I have a website called sim538.com which summarized many of the forecasts made during the 2020 presidential election. I am working on a new website, which will be similar for the 2024 presidential election. My new site will track the election forecasters and note significant changes.

Below, I have posted a recent consensus map from the website 270towin.com .

The map identifies the toss-up or swing states and their electoral votes (EV’s) are Pennsylvania(19), Georgia(16), Arizona(11), Nevada(6) and Wisconsin(10), for a total of 62 electoral votes. I call the swing states, PAWN-G as it is easy to remember. The candidate that wins 270 electoral votes or more, becomes president.

I also coined the term, super swing states. To qualify, nearly every forecast map must show this as a toss-up state. Right now, Georgia and Arizona are the only two super swing states.

Assuming the consensus map is right, it is totally amazing that there are so few swing states this early in the presidential election. Also note that each of the five swing states were won by Biden in 2020, by a very narrow margin. The map shows Democrats have a slight lead with 241 electoral votes over Republicans with 235 electoral votes.

For Democrats to win, they need 29 more EV’s. They could do this by winning two to three of the five swing states. The most obvious combination is PA(19) and WI(10). But if Democrats lose PA, then they can still win, if they win in GA, WI and AZ, for a very narrow win with 278 votes.

For Republicans to win, they need 35 EV’s. They could do this by winning PA, GA and AZ. But if they lose PA, there are less winning combinations. GA, WI and AZ is a possible combination for a very narrow win of 275 votes.

So, of the 5 swing states, winning PA and GA is really important.

Some of the old swing states are off the list. Florida and North Carolina are likely to go Republican, while Michigan and New Hampshire are likely to go Democrat. But these states can not be ignored and may be the source of additional surprises in 2024.

A lot depends on turnout – can candidates get their base sufficiently fired up to actually show up at the polls or mail in their ballots. Forecasters and party strategists know this very well. There’s a lot more to come.

My new website will start in January 2024, to track election forecasts in a purely non-partisan manner.

Stay tuned,

Dave .

Robert Kennedy, Jr.

by Dave

Robert Kennedy, Jr. has never run for any office. I hope people do not vote for him. I’ve seen him several times on Fox News. I guess Fox believes he will pull votes away from Joe Biden.

He just seems always to go off the deep end on issues and would make a terrible president. He is an environmental activist, which I like. I don’t think he would be effective at reducing global carbon emissions, because this requires building coalitions with other countries. I don’t see him quietly negotiating agreements with other countries, as he is too much of a rogue adversary.

On so many issues, he gets off the tracks in big conspiracy themes. He is reckless. You can’t have a president who is constantly attacking government. In some ways, it is a bit like Trump, who would dismember the FBI and Justice Department, if he could. Kennedy would take action against the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, in his extreme viewpoint that they are colluding with “Big Pharma” and “Big Oil.” At the center of his conspiracy rants, is the big corporations have destroyed our institutions. From Wikipedia:

Kennedy has also stated that the American government is dominated by corporate power; he said the Environmental Protection Agency was run by the “oil industry, the coal industry and the pesticide industry”, and described the Food and Drug Administration as overly dominated by “Big Pharma”.[148]

I want a president who can identify what is wrong with our institutions, and improve them. Trump is hell bent on getting revenge on the Justice Department, while Kennedy would go after the EPA and FDA.

Global problems, like Russia’s invasion into Ukraine, North Korea’s aim to get nuclear weapons and climate change, require strong cooperation with our partners around the world. Kennedy is an isolationist in this regard.

An outspoken opponent of the military industry and foreign intervention, Kennedy was highly critical of the Iraq War as well as American support for Ukraine against Russia’s invasion of the country.

Kennedy is an equal opportunity attacker of Republican and Democrats, President and Congress. Don’t waste your vote on him. We need realistic problem solvers. Of all the potential candidates, Joe Biden, is the only one who brings together a real team to pragmatically work with world leaders to solve global problems.

Kennedy is an extreme isolationist. He would have never supported Ukraine to defend themselves against Russia. Russia can not be allowed to redraw its boundaries one country at a time.

As I complete this post, a historical meeting between President Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping will take place in San Francisco. Biden will press Xi Jinping to join the US and world leaders in persuading the rogue countries like North Korea from sending weapons to Russia, to use in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The summit will be an opportunity for Biden to urge China to break their close alliance with Iran, because of their funding of Islamic terrorist organizations.

Neither Kennedy nor Trump (with 91 criminal charges against him) should be the US next president. They are big on words, but short on actual accomplishments.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Quick updates on Trump’s Criminal Cases (Nov 13, 2023)

by Dave

Jan 6 election interference case: Trump’s legal team has asked the trial be televised. This is a non-starter as no federal criminal trial can be broadcast. Trial set to begin March 4. Gag order put on hold by Appeals court. The 3 judge panel will hear oral arguments Nov 20 on the gag order. March 4 is also super Tuesday Republican primary, where roughly 1/3 of all delegates are chosen.

Trump has filed for a dismissal of all charges. On Nov 5, the Special Prosecutors responded forcefully, as follows (from first sentence of arguments):

“Rather than challenging the indictment on its merits, the defendant’s motions (ECF Nos. 113 and 114) attack the indictment by mischaracterizing its allegations, raising inapposite hypotheticals, and advancing arguments that are long on rhetoric but short on law. Stripped of those distractions, the defendant’s statutory and constitutional claims are entirely meritless.”

Classified documents case: Still scheduled to begin May 20, 2024 in Ft. Pierce, FL. Judge Aileen Cannon, has ruled against moving the trial date to beyond November 2024. A meeting is scheduled for March 1, 2024 to reconsider the deadlines and Trump’s side can again argue that the start date is too soon.

GA Election Fraud conspiracy case: Right now (Nov 12), four guilty pleas have been accepted, so there are now 15 defendants in the case. As requirements of the plea agreements, each defendant must be willing to testify honestly for the prosecution. Note that the prosecution has indicated that they would like a March 4 trial start date, which coincides with the Jan 6 federal case in Washington.

As of November 6, defendant Harrison Floyd, a former Black Voices for Trump director, is requesting government agencies turn over 145,000 Fulton absentee ballots. Judge Scott McAfee will rule on Floyd’s request “in the coming days” according to news reports. Court observers expect more defendants to opt for plea deals in the coming weeks. Harrison Floyd might be one of them.

Judge Scott McAfee expressed concerns that the courtroom for the trial of 15 defendants is not large enough. He wants the trial to be as open as possible, which includes allowing the media to televise the proceedings.

Hush money case, which is still scheduled to begin March 25. Judge Juan Merchan has said he is open to reschedule this case and will hold a conference with attorneys in February 2024 on start dates. This is a criminal case, and Donald Trump is required to be present.

Scheduling these four court cases isn’t easy. The Hush Money case might be the shortest, and ready for trial, but the judge might hold off until the other cases are done.

Other court cases:

Minnesota Supreme Court refused to consider denying Donald Trump from running in the primaries. The suit is based on the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 which bars any candidate who has engaged in insurrection from holding office. The Court based their decision on the fact that primaries are a means of deciding the party’s candidate, not an election to a government position. I support this decision, because the outcome would be very undemocratic. Elections must be decided by the voters.

Those who wish to bar Donald Trump from the Minnesota, will have a second chance after he is on the ballot. A similar court case in proceeding in Colorado.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Trump’s fraud trial and coming court trials in 2024

by Dave

Ivanka Trump was the prosecution’s last witness. Legal experts are saying that her testimony allowed prosecutors to introduce important documents into evidence.

The defense is now able to present witnesses to show that the fraud was minor or excusable in some manner. It will be far less dramatic. Trump’s legal defense witnesses will likely show that the bank executives were pleased to make the loans and that they were repaid on time. Some of this may be immaterial. Since the judge has already ruled that fraud was committed, it no longer is a trial about guilt or innocence, but about the extent of the punishment.

It is estimated that the defense will rest on December 15 and closing arguments by Dec 22, 2023. It has been reported that there are Then there are closing arguments in the following week. Prosecutors have asked the judge to exclude some of the witnesses as not relevant to the case, which makes sense as the case is not about whether fraud was committed. The judge has already ruled on this.

I expect the judge to rule in January 2024. There will definitely be an appeal by Trump’s legal team. I guess the big issue is whether the ruling, including the control of assets in New York State, can be stayed (put aside) until the Appellate court rules.

— What’s coming up in 2024?

The team of reporters from the various networks will stick around as more court cases are coming down the road. The civil defamation case by E. Jean Carroll is scheduled to begin January 15, 2024, which is just about adding 10 million dollars to her award.

There are four criminal cases against Trump, all of which could start before election day. The first two cases are the January 6 election obstruction case, March 4, in Washington and the hush money case (also known as the Stormy Daniels case) scheduled to begin March 25 in NYC. The other two cases documents case in Ft. Pierce, FL and GA interference case likely start dates are after May, 2024. Right now, Trump’s lawyers are trying to push back the documents case to a date after the election.

Three other non- Trump trials are set for 2024. The really big court case will be Senator Bob Menendez and his wife Nadine trial on accepting bribes to influence foreign policy, which is scheduled to begin on May 6, 2024. Three other accomplices were charged. For everyone who thought the Justice Department was just targeting corrupt Republicans, this one will clearly show that there are corrupt politicians in both parties. It is certain that pictures of Bob’s stack of gold bars and his Mercedes will be offered into evidence.

On May 28, 2024, Steve Bannon will go on trial for stealing from the “We build the Wall” fund. Steve Bannon was pardon by Trump on federal charges which I found extremely hypocritical. Bannon was stealing from the most ardent Trump supporters, willing to support his “charitable organization” to privately fund the building of a wall between the US and Mexico. So, scamming Trump’s supporters is ok, right? I uploaded a couple posts on Steve Bannon, and his accomplices in this scam. I don’t expect the trial will last long.

Almost I almost forgot Rep. George Santos trial, which in scheduled for September 2024. Santos is accused of stealing people’s identities and making charges on his own donors’ credit cards without their authorization, lying to the FEC and, by extension, the public about the financial state of his campaign. Santos is accused of falsely inflating the campaign’s reported receipts with non-existent loans and contributions. He is so, so guilty, it is laughable to think he is a representative.

A familiar refrain is “I am completely innocent” which then turns into “We will win on appeal.” I know that every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But I can express my opinion which is “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” Well, I think 2024 should be game over for Donald, Steve, Bob, George and assorted accomplices. This is really how you drain the swamp! But things don’t always work out that way.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Trump’s testimony on Fraud Cases

by Dave

Trump’s rants on the stand did not help his case one bit. Per CNN: “Judge Arthur Engoron, who has clashed with Trump throughout the trial, at first tried to stop the former president’s political barbs and speechifying, telling his lawyer Chris Kise to “control your client” and threatening to have Trump removed as a witness.”

The prosecution was trying to connect the overvaluations to actions Trump either initiated or approved. Also, questioning Trump about known facts, and getting a dishonest reply, would further diminish his credibility. Of course, his legal team would coach him on ways to be evasive, but not dishonest.

Why did his testimony hurt him? When a question is not directly answered, then the judge can conclude that the witness refused to answer the question. In this civil case, the judge can infer this in a negative manner, further linking Trump to the fraud. Of course, the negative inferences can be raised on appeal.

I watched various news channels, and of course, Fox News commentators were trying to make financial fraud look like something that shouldn’t be a crime because no one was hurt by his fraud. This is terribly wrong. Fraud hurts the integrity of the system. I can get a bank loan based on my real income and assets. I don’t want someone else qualifying based on fraudulent appraisals, and getting approved with better terms by making numbers. That’s outrageous and makes a mockery of our laws and rules.

Finally, Fox News commentators stated that the AG James of New York State targeted Donald Trump’s organization. Well, this was only after his attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, admitted under oath in Congress, that the Trump organization including Donald Trump and CFO Allen Weisselberg routinely “cooked the books” to impress banks and insurers. So, all Attorney General Letitia James was saying at election time, is that she would prosecute anyone where there was ample evidence of wrongdoing including Donald Trump. And, they were cooking the books on all their properties in New York State, so it was fraud on a massive scale.

A fireman goes where there is smoke. AG James was just doing what the state pays her to do – enforce the laws for everyone.

Usually, if some evidence beneficial to a defendant has not been presented during questioning by a prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney on cross examination, will allow defendants a chance to provide more evidence. The defense decided not to cross examine Trump, because his ramblings about politics and his wealth would not help him.

Fox News commentators will not be reporting how 3 appellate judges, all appointed by presidents from the Democratic Party, ruled in favor of Trump this week, in lifting the temporarily the gag order in the federal January 6 case. Judges look at the briefs, laws and precedents, not politics.

Also, cases to disqualify Trump from the ballot are being heard in Colorado and Minnesota. I am hopeful these cases will fail, as I believe, a democracy has to let all voters select their president.

The process of equal justice based on the law takes time. Trump’s legal team will immediately appeal Judge Engoran’s verdict. And they will request his judgement be stayed until the appeal can be decided. This is another check against judgements based on errors committed in the court proceedings.

So, this case will continue into 2024.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Quick Updates

by Dave

New York State Business Fraud Case

The prosecution is close to finished, with 4 Trumps being called to testify by prosecutors: Donald, Jr, Nov 1, Eric, Nov 2, Ivanka, Nov 3 then Donald Trump, Monday, Nov 6. There may be an expert witness, on Nov 7, then the defense can call witnesses. To me, the case could easily wrap up before Dec 22.

January 6 Federal Case

Judge Chutkan has re-imposed the gag order, as requested by the Special Counsel, Jack Smith. This will spawn another appeal to reverse the judge’s decision. Trump response:

The Corrupt Biden Administration just took away my First Amendment Right To Free Speech. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social site about an hour after the brief notice emerged from the court.

The judge has also asked Trump if he would like the case televised. He has until Nov 10 to give his opinion. Generally, federal cases are not televised.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Trump and Judge Chutkan’s Gag order

by Dave

Judge Chutkan will preside over Trump’s January 6 criminal trial, scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024. The special counsel indictment explained Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. The trial will be held in Washington. It will not be televised.

Last week, Judge Chutkan imposed a gag order, then a few day later, temporarily paused it, as Trump’s team argued for more time to appeal the gag order. The ACLU filed an amicus curiae (meaning friend of the court) brief arguing the gag order was vague and too broad. Special Counsel filed a brief for immediately re-imposing the gag order.

The trial is 3 months away, so all this is pre-trial motions. So, Judge Chutkan better order some extra strong glasses and coffee as the documents snowball!

To Trump haters, Judge Chutkan’s gag order seemed wonderful. Yet, this is a country where we don’t silence people for disseminating views we don’t like. Actually, Trump still retains most of his rights to free speech in these court cases. He can attack the whole trial as a witch hunt and political. The DOJ is fair game. He just can not target court staff, prosecutors and potential witnesses. See the Judge’s order below:

The Court therefore ordered that:
All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.

Trump’s legal team will argue Judge Chutkan’s gag order is unconstitutional. The ACLU has sided with Trump in a filing to the court, alleging the gag order is both too vague and too broad. They argue because the order is too vague, Trump would not know if he has violated the order until too late. The ACLU brief took issue with the word “target” as too imprecise.

There is incredible irony of the ACLU defending Trump’s free speech rights as he has attacked everyone else’s right to freedom of speech or the press. He sued CNN for libel and slander and asked for 475 million dollars. In July 2023, this case was dismissed. And he launched another lawsuit against the New York Times, for their article on his finances. It was dismissed in May 3, 2023 and Trump has to pay the legal fees of the New York Times. Trump obviously abused his right to free speech, as he was found guilty of defamation in the E. Jean Carroll case and ordered to pay 5 million dollars in damages. A second trial will be held in January to determine if 10 million dollar more should be added to the damages.

So, I believe the ACLU had to hold their noses and stick to their principles in siding with Trump. They began the brief, stating:

“Former President, and now Defendant, Donald Trump has said many things. Much that he has said has been patently false and has caused great harm to countless individuals, as well as to the Republic itself. Some of his words and actions have led him to this criminal indictment, which alleges grave wrongdoing in contempt of the peaceful transition of power.”

OK, I would have been satisfied with just calling him a habitual liar. But they go on:

“But Trump retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he as to say.”

An outstanding point. Restricting someone’s freedom of speech is depriving the public of a right to hear his views. And that is a core principle of democracy. Autocratic governments find ways to limit free speech, particularly over the internet or on cable news.

Yet, the Judge must ensure impartial administration of justice. The gag order is applied to all parties, including prosecutors, the defendant and the defense counsel. A fair trial means maintaining the right of prosecutors to present evidence and and the right of the defendant to demonstrate his innocence.

In this case, it is a balancing act of a rights to carefully crafted gag order. Otherwise, Donald Trump may use the power of social media, including Truth Social which he owns and cable news stations and millions of radical supporters to sufficiently intimidate witnesses and alter the outcome of the trial.

Link:

aclu-briefDownload

Stay tuned,

Dave

This is the response by Special Counsel Jack Smith

trumps-big-mouthDownload