crazietalk.net

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

August 10th, 2023, 6:36 pm

OPK wrote: ↑

August 10th, 2023, 5:56 pm

Likely both.

True. Worked for Walt, I suppose.

Judge Chutkin in DC is gonna lap everyone. She is like the federal judges I know. Serious, no nonsense, does not suffer fools lightly. They all take their oaths extremely seriously, as do most lawyers (despite what we see Trump rolling out).

OPK wrote: ↑

August 10th, 2023, 6:38 pm

Judge Chutkin in DC is gonna lap everyone. She is like the federal judges I know. Serious, no nonsense, does not suffer fools lightly. They all take their oaths extremely seriously, as do most lawyers (despite what we see Trump rolling out).

Chutkan's reaction to the "joint" hearing time response cracked me up. Talk about a sharp rap on the knuckles.

His name was RICO
He wore a diamond…

I gather the reporting of 10 indictments related to Trump was not correct. It was one massive indictment for Trump and the 19, and 9 unrelated indictments for other stuff, correct?

I don't know if Fani's timeline is realistic, nor her desire to try all 19 co-defendants at the same time. But this is sure going to be interesting.

I'm not sure I like the fact that there will be cameras, though. A lot of pundits were saying, "It's important to keep the narrative out of Trump's hands, so cameras are a good thing." I disagree. I think it keeps an aggrieved, petulant, narcissistic candidate in the news constantly. It feeds the spin machine. I'd just as soon Georgia courts bottle this one up tight, or have the trial move slowly enough so that there's nothing for the cameras to show. Waiting so long to start this means viewer fatigue won't set in before voting happens.

Yes to only one indictment. Nine other cases get the trivia question fact of being processed the same day as DJT.
Also, yeah, no way 19 people are tried at the same time. It could have been more, but at least one person is a unindicted co-conspirator, and speculation is heavy is that whoever it is has flipped. Lin Wood? Michael Flynn?
Whoever it is will be bad news for Trump & Co.

We'll know in the next two weeks how scared people are by this. I will be very surprised if all of them plead not guilty. There is no hoping that some GOP Santa is going to win the general election and make it all go away. Like it or not for all of these folks, this case IS going to trial.

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

August 15th, 2023, 9:12 am

We'll know in the next two weeks how scared people are by this. I will be very surprised if all of them plead not guilty. There is no hoping that some GOP Santa is going to win the general election and make it all go away. Like it or not for all of these folks, this case IS going to trial.

Maybe not, but the fact that we have to talk about it that way at all makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. I never thought we'd be talking about African-level corruption as even a remote possibility in modern America.

A message from a friend said he read this today: "Trump has lost Georgia so many times the military will have to name a base after him."

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

August 15th, 2023, 12:43 pm

A message from a friend said he read this today: "Trump has lost Georgia so many times the military will have to name a base after him."

Irony, he'd love it.

I haven't finished reading, yet, but it is already clear that "unindicted co-conspirator Individual 4" is someone who was deep in the soup on this, but has since flipped and has been cooperating with the prosecution. If anyone finds out who this person is, I'd love to know.

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

August 15th, 2023, 1:07 pm

I haven't finished reading, yet, but it is already clear that "unindicted co-conspirator Individual 4" is someone who was deep in the soup on this, but has since flipped and has been cooperating with the prosecution. If anyone finds out who this person is, I'd love to know.

I gave two of my guesses up above. It's very likely it's someone that we are aware of; someone who was important enough (and trusted enough) to be in the room.

PS...it would be extra salty if it's someone that Trump has previously pardoned. (Or at least made charges go away).
Flynn, Bannon, Stone, etc...

Actually in the indictment, the person I'm thinking of is known as "Individual 20".

Almost a good band name.

Still have not had a chance to read the indictment. But I applaud those who have. As with all of these cases — better to read the indictment and reach your own conclusions than to have someone on TV tell you “what it means.” They are written to be self-explanatory to a fair degree.

OPK wrote: ↑

August 15th, 2023, 9:04 pm

Still have not had a chance to read the indictment. But I applaud those who have. As with all of these cases — better to read the indictment and reach your own conclusions than to have someone on TV tell you “what it means.” They are written to be self-explanatory to a fair degree.

Before Trump erupted on the legal landscape, I don't think I'd ever read one. I'm sure that I thought my eyes would glass over at the legalese, but overall, they truly are written so most anyone can make sense of them.

Here's a buncha guesses (and a couple confirmations) of who the 30 un-named and un-indicted co-conspirators are in the Georgia case.

In other words, here's 30 people that Trump doesn't like very much.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-30-unin ... 00847.html

In unsurprising news, Jack Smith's team went to town on Trump's proposed 2026 trial date.

"In service of a proposed trial date in 2026 that would deny the public its right to a speedy trial, the defendant cites inapposite statistics and cases, overstates the amount of new and non-duplicative discovery, and exaggerates the challenge of reviewing it effectively," wrote Molly Gaston, a prosecutor on Smith's team.

To the defense complaint that it will take forever to go through the discovery evidence, the DOJ responded with this.

Smith's team argued 3 million pages of the documents came from Trump entities; a million pages were already publicly available from the House committee that investigated the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021; and hundreds of thousands of other pages came from the National Archives where they were already available. Prosecutors said they loaded electronic records, such as 3 million pages from the Secret Service, in easily searchable form.

In their summary of the filing, Jack Smith personally wrote, "also, fuck that guy".
Ok maybe he didn't...but he wanted to.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doj-opposes- ... 09759.html

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

August 21st, 2023, 6:52 pm

In unsurprising news, Jack Smith's team went to town on Trump's proposed 2026 trial date.

"In service of a proposed trial date in 2026 that would deny the public its right to a speedy trial, the defendant cites inapposite statistics and cases, overstates the amount of new and non-duplicative discovery, and exaggerates the challenge of reviewing it effectively," wrote Molly Gaston, a prosecutor on Smith's team.

To the defense complaint that it will take forever to go through the discovery evidence, the DOJ responded with this.

Smith's team argued 3 million pages of the documents came from Trump entities; a million pages were already publicly available from the House committee that investigated the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021; and hundreds of thousands of other pages came from the National Archives where they were already available. Prosecutors said they loaded electronic records, such as 3 million pages from the Secret Service, in easily searchable form.

In their summary of the filing, Jack Smith personally wrote, "also, fuck that guy".
Ok maybe he didn't...but he wanted to.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doj-opposes- ... 09759.html

I will say, as someone who has defended a few dozen federal criminal cases and a lot of document-heavy civil cases, Trump ain’t wrong to say that the task of going through that material and preparing for trial is monumental. The Feds had 2 1/2 years to get the case ready.

OPK wrote: ↑

August 21st, 2023, 7:11 pm

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

August 21st, 2023, 6:52 pm

In unsurprising news, Jack Smith's team went to town on Trump's proposed 2026 trial date.

"In service of a proposed trial date in 2026 that would deny the public its right to a speedy trial, the defendant cites inapposite statistics and cases, overstates the amount of new and non-duplicative discovery, and exaggerates the challenge of reviewing it effectively," wrote Molly Gaston, a prosecutor on Smith's team.

To the defense complaint that it will take forever to go through the discovery evidence, the DOJ responded with this.

Smith's team argued 3 million pages of the documents came from Trump entities; a million pages were already publicly available from the House committee that investigated the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021; and hundreds of thousands of other pages came from the National Archives where they were already available. Prosecutors said they loaded electronic records, such as 3 million pages from the Secret Service, in easily searchable form.

In their summary of the filing, Jack Smith personally wrote, "also, fuck that guy".
Ok maybe he didn't...but he wanted to.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doj-opposes- ... 09759.html

I will say, as someone who has defended a few dozen federal criminal cases and a lot of document-heavy civil cases, Trump ain’t wrong to say that the task of going through that material and preparing for trial is monumental. The Feds had 2 1/2 years to get the case ready.

But who knows how many of these documents Trump had copies of sitting in the bathroom at Mar-A-Lago? Not my fault that he chose to read comics rather than evidence while sitting on the throne!

Who’s watching the debate tonight? I’m torn between wanting to watch/be informed and not wanting to give Fox any viewership.

ArkieDukie wrote: ↑

August 23rd, 2023, 7:02 am

Who’s watching the debate tonight? I’m torn between wanting to watch/be informed and not wanting to give Fox any viewership.

I likely won't watch live - I will read the summaries and see the Youtube highlights in the morning. It might give me nightmares before bedtime. With so many people and Fox hosts who won't challenge them, it is going to be chaos and pointless.

ArkieDukie wrote: ↑

August 23rd, 2023, 7:02 am

Who’s watching the debate tonight? I’m torn between wanting to watch/be informed and not wanting to give Fox any viewership.

I will likely watch at least some of it. Lots of these names are new to me, and the only thing I know about them I know from media reports. As unbiased as those media folks always are, I'm looking forward to hearing the candidates themselves explain to me why I shouldn't vote for them.