Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | GA Supremes DQ Willis

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 623
  • Views: 26K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:


“Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he spoke with President-elect Donald Trump by phone this week in support of a former law clerk who is seeking a job in the incoming administration – but the justice said he did not discuss Trump’s pending effort to delay his sentencing.

“William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position,” Alito said in a statement issued Wednesday. “I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”

… In his statement, Alito said he spoke with Trump on Tuesday – and said he did not discuss the case with Trump. The president-elect filed his appeal Wednesday morning.

“We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said.

“We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect.”

The Trump transition did not immediately respond to a request for comment.“
Click to expand...

I’m calling BS. Trump isn’t calling references for job applicants.
 
superrific said:
I don't think we need to see the documents report. We already know most of what was in it, and what we don't know -- i.e. what types of documents he kept -- probably we'd be better off not knowing.

But the J6 report is vital and it sounds like Garland is shoving Cannon's bullshit right where it belongs. Well, that's not quite true, but Garland is a polite guy. He'll just throw the ruling in the trash, instead of trying to shove it down her throat (which is what I would do, metaphorically of course -- I would hold a press conference to detail all of the reasons why Cannon's order was bogus and to make clear for the record that she is not a judge but rather a culture warrior in robes).
Click to expand...
Garland will find a way to drop the ball or attest get this preempted.

I hope I'm wrong.
 
This sentence is amazing.

"The government’s proposed approach does not sufficiently address the threatof public dissemination, and that alone is a reason under S.D. Fla. Local Rule 77.2 to enjoin the Attorney General from further dissemination"

That's right. They are claiming that the local rule of a district court is not only binding on the attorney general who isn't a part of this case, but that the local rule supersedes the instructions of Congress and the DOJ's regulations codified in the Federal Register. Note that they are complaining about DOJ disclosing the report to members of Congress. So now a local rule of a local court is being held up as a limitation on Congress' investigative and oversight authority.

You can't make this shit up. Also the thing is written like ass, but that's neither here nor there. If a student had prepared that for me, it would have been sent back with plenty of red ink.
 
superrific said:
I didn't realize that there was a "my clerk wants a job" exception to the prohibition on ex parte contacts.

There is no universe in which this is OK. In a just world, Alito would be disappeared.
Click to expand...
Not well known and never before used
 
superrific said:
I don't think we need to see the documents report. We already know most of what was in it, and what we don't know -- i.e. what types of documents he kept -- probably we'd be better off not knowing.

But the J6 report is vital and it sounds like Garland is shoving Cannon's bullshit right where it belongs. Well, that's not quite true, but Garland is a polite guy. He'll just throw the ruling in the trash, instead of trying to shove it down her throat (which is what I would do, metaphorically of course -- I would hold a press conference to detail all of the reasons why Cannon's order was bogus and to make clear for the record that she is not a judge but rather a culture warrior in robes).
Click to expand...
But she'll fill the next Supreme court vacancy should one occur in the next years
 
superrific said:
I don't think we need to see the documents report. We already know most of what was in it, and what we don't know -- i.e. what types of documents he kept -- probably we'd be better off not knowing.

But the J6 report is vital and it sounds like Garland is shoving Cannon's bullshit right where it belongs. Well, that's not quite true, but Garland is a polite guy. He'll just throw the ruling in the trash, instead of trying to shove it down her throat (which is what I would do, metaphorically of course -- I would hold a press conference to detail all of the reasons why Cannon's order was bogus and to make clear for the record that she is not a judge but rather a culture warrior in robes).
Click to expand...
That's what the 'nanny state' is for, to protect Trump.
 
Calheel said:
You are closer to the ground than anyone, but I'd be surprised if the case got completely dropped.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the charges against Lt. Gov Bert Jones have already been dismissed by the Prosecuting Attorney's Council of Georgia. Jones' case was assigned to the Counsel after the Fulton County judge determined that Fani's office had a conflict of interest with Jones. Instead of assigning the case against Jones to another DA, Executive Director Peter Skandalakis simply dismissed the charges against Jones last September. Jones was accused by Willis of being part of the so called "fake electors" scheme. He found Senator Jones' involvement and actions to be within the scope of his duties. "Therefore, this case does not warrant further investigation or further actions, and I consider the matter closed."

He could take similar actions against some or all of the remaining defendants.
 
Ramrouser said:
Keep in mind that the charges against Lt. Gov Bert Jones have already been dismissed by the Prosecuting Attorney's Council of Georgia. Jones' case was assigned to the Counsel after the Fulton County judge determined that Fani's office had a conflict of interest with Jones. Instead of assigning the case against Jones to another DA, Executive Director Peter Skandalakis simply dismissed the charges against Jones last September. Jones was accused by Willis of being part of the so called "fake electors" scheme. He found Senator Jones' involvement and actions to be within the scope of his duties. "Therefore, this case does not warrant further investigation or further actions, and I consider the matter closed."

He could take similar actions against some or all of the remaining defendants.
Click to expand...
Did Bert Jones meet with the fake electors and encourage them to sign fraudulent ballots certifying Trump as the winner of the 2020 election in Georgia, despite overwhelming evidence that he did not, in fact, win the state? Because if he didn't, his case has no relation to the case against Ray.
 
lawtig02 said:
Did Bert Jones meet with the fake electors and encourage them to sign fraudulent ballots certifying Trump as the winner of the 2020 election in Georgia, despite overwhelming evidence that he did not, in fact, win the state? Because if he didn't, his case has no relation to the case against Ray.
Click to expand...
Also, was Ray the LT Gov? "He found that Senator Jones' involvement and actions to be within the scope of his duties" is a sentence that does not apply to an atty in private practice.
 
superrific said:
Also, was Ray the LT Gov? "He found that Senator Jones' involvement and actions to be within the scope of his duties" is a sentence that does not apply to an atty in private practice.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if the "fake electors" discussions and actions by the parties involved were so hare brained, crazy and fraudulent, it could not have been within the scope of the Lt Gov's duties. The Counsel determined, as a matter of law, that the Lt Gov's participation in voting as an alternate elector on Dec 14, 2020 was within the normal scope of his duties. That's got to have an impact on the other defendants who participated in this voting.
 
I'm not a lawyer but ,from the little I know, assuming logic follows law or vice versa doesn't ring true.
 
I didn't realize that the decision disqualifying Fani had absolutely no legal basis. I mean, I suspected it was bullshit, but the judges DID NOT EVEN TRY to articulate a rationale for their decision. This was the entirety of their legal analysis:

"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.4"

And the footnote only provides a half-hearted attempt to distinguish other on-point cases. But at no point does the opinion even offer an explanation of its assertion. It admits that the law is on Fani's side, but says this is a rare case that needs different treatment. Why? Nobody can tell.

I'm beginning to understand Ramrouser now. The quality of lawyering on display in this case -- the defendants, the advocates on both sides, the judges on this panel -- is horrifically poor. Some of the worst I've ever seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top