The Omnibus P01135809 Criminal Investigation Thread

Having to deal with an openly criminal President is a major headache, since the whole US system was predicated on the assumption the American people would never be so fucking stupid as to vote in a crook.

Yeah...

Nah, there's mechanisms for dealing with criminal politicians at every level. What the US system didn't expect us that half the country would be too gutless and shameless to use those mechanisms effectively.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...dium=share&utm_campaign=twitter?sref=P7WyO68q

To be fair, those predications were based in a world that did not have the same ability to weaponize propaganda the way propaganda is used today.

Well...I dunno, 18th century newspapers were pretty vile.

and they were distributed globally? every second of every day?

Michigan AG: Expect a lot more indictments over Jan 6th. Goes on to say that Michigan will indict if the Feds don't.

https://www.rawstory.com/michigan-ag-more-indictments-coming/

IMO this is one of those that you are both right. The old newspapers weren't as prevalent, if anything there were more caustic. There's a weight to social media and silos they didn't have, but that is countered by the fact they were the ONLY source of news available in many cases. So, yeah. Both are a big problem.

I haven’t.

Trump's is in the E Barret Prettyman courhouse, he's been arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. He has been told he has the right to remain silent. Just not the capability.

The former POTUS getting arraigned is getting to be hum drum. Got another one coming down, and that might be RICO across multiple states.

The expectation of many experts that this trial will actually take place before the classification or illegal payment trials.

He's been warned that if he talks to any of the witnesses not within the presence of counsel or if he tries to influence any jury he may lose the condition of his release and be imprisoned.

First hearing date is Aug 28th, trial date will be set at that point in time.

It's Smith. Jack Smith. Jack Dorsey was the former owner of Twitter.

Nice to meet you, Mr Smith.

I wonder if his social media posts are counted under influencing potential jurors.

I guess not lol.

I wonder if his rambling, rabble rousing, stream of conscience "speeches" fall under that order. My over/under for how long before he's hauled back in court to show cause as to why he shouldn't be thrown in the slammer for violating the order is 3 weeks. Place your bets!

*impatience intensifies*

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1687288034289459201?s=20

Another lawyery question - can't he be held in contempt of court when he goes around loudly proclaiming that these are "illegal prosecutions"?

Lawyerforge can probably answer this better, but my understanding is that he's allowed to talk shit outside the courtroom due to the 1st Amendment. If he says anything like that in the courtroom he'll be warned, and if he continues

LOL. Fucking Harry Turtledove.

Trump documents case judge made multiple errors in earlier trial

Fun fact: She apparently has only about two weeks of actual experience sitting in a courtroom as a judge. Not really someone you want holding the gavel in a case like this.

Trump's appeal: "The judge I appointed wasn't competent enough to preside over my totally unfair trial!"

Keeping in mind that things may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, this isn't something I've done formal research on, blah blah blah disclaimercakes:
"Contempt of court" has a specific meaning that is different from "showing disdain toward the judicial process." It means "disobeying an order from the judge."

So as long as a judge hasn't specifically ordered him to not post to his social media or speak out elsewhere about the case, Trump is free to rail about Jack Smith and the prosecution as much as he wants without reasonably fearing being found in contempt of court.

At some point, it seems like one of the various judges in his various prosecutions should issue a "gag order" to limit what he says publicly about that case or the prosecutions in general against him. But it seems like such an order would be appealed, and it is fairly likely that whichever appellate court or SCOTUS would probably side against the court issuing such an order.