So about that infamous Iran memo that is supposedly now the smoking gun that is going to take down Trump...

Nope, swing and a miss, AGAIN. It's not among the documents that are a target of Trump's indictment.

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herrid...f-doj-charges-report


And here's the reality. Trump wasn't waving around a Classified Iran memo. He was showing the people heard in that audio a recent article in The New Yorker.

I think Posobiec is right about this.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobi...twcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

I'm confused, but I'm beginning to like it.

It's like Wylie Coyote and the RoadRunner. They got him this time........not!

I will never cease to be amused by how the Left gets so spun up on the latest WE GOT HIM THIS TIME!!! crap only to be deflated when it turns out that no, you didn't get him again.

This is hilarious.

I have seen this on a few different websites in the last few days. Given our current state of affairs in this country I would not be surprised. If it happens it will increase support for President Trump. I hope it does not happen because our country is being torn apart by a dual justice system, but someone is leaking this information for a reason.



Prosecutors are prepared to hit Trump and his allies with new charges, sources say

Prosecutors could bring between 30 to 45 additional criminal charges against the former president in the coming weeks, The Independent has learned.

https://www.independent.co.uk/...harges-b2366597.html

The Department of Justice is prepared to seek indictments against multiple figures in former president Donald Trump’s orbit and may yet bring additional charges against the ex-president in the coming weeks, The Independent has learned.

According to sources familiar with the matter, the department has made preparations to bring what is known as a “superseding indictment” — a second set of charges against an already-indicted defendant that could include more serious crimes — against the ex-president in the Southern District of Florida.

But prosecutors may also choose to bring additional charges against Mr Trump in a different venue, depending on how they feel the case they have brought against him in is proceeding.

The Independent understands that prosecutors’ decision on whether to seek additional charges from a grand jury — and where to seek them — will depend in part on whether they feel the Trump-appointed district judge overseeing the case against him in the Southern District of Florida, Aileen Cannon, is giving undue deference to the twice-impeached, now twice-indicted former president.

The team of federal prosecutors working under Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently prepared to add an “additional 30 to 45 charges” in addition to the 37-count indictment brought against Mr Trump on 8 June, either in a superseding indictment in the same Florida court or in a different federal judicial district. In either case, they would do so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors have obtained which reveal Mr Trump making incriminating statements.

Additionally, it is understood that Mr Smith’s team is ready to bring charges against several of the attorneys who have worked for Mr Trump, including those who aided the ex-president in his push to ignore the will of voters and remain in the White House despite having lost the 2020 election.

One of those figures is Mr Trump’s erstwhile personal attorney, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Mr Giuliani, whose law license was suspended in New York and Washington as a result of his allegedly making multiple false representations while seeking to help Mr Trump overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, reportedly participated in a voluntary interview with prosecutors working under the supervision of Mr Smith, the Justice Department special counsel whose office brought charges against Mr Trump earlier this month.

It is further understood that Mr Giuliani’s cooperation with prosecutors was undertaken as part of what is known as a “queen for a day” deal, under which the ex-mayor can avoid indictment for anything he tells prosecutors about during the interview.

This will allow the disgraced former federal prosecutor to avoid some charges, but a source familiar with the matter has said Mr Smith’s office will “most definitely” bring some charges against Mr Giuliani for his work on Mr Trump’s behalf in the weeks between the November 2020 election and the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol.

The Independent has also learned that Mr Giuliani’s “proffer” session with prosecutors dealt mainly with Mr Trump’s machinations during that time period as he sought to find a way to remain in the White House for a second term, even against the will of the voters who’d handed Mr Biden the keys to the White House by way of majorities in key swing states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona.

In a statement to The Independent, Mr Giuliani’s political adviser Ted Goodman said the ex-Trump attorney’s meeting with prosecutors “was entirely voluntary and conducted in a professional manner” but declined to elaborate further on the current status of Mr Giuliani’s dealings with the justice department.

“There's nothing more to say on this matter,” he added.

The ex-president and the ex-New York City mayor are also understood to be among the numerous targets in a state-level investigation in Georgia focusing on Mr Trump’s efforts to pressure Peach State officials to unlawfully overturn Mr Biden’s shock victory there.

That probe, which is being conducted by Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, is expected to result in multiple indictments which could be unveiled as early as next month. Ms Willis, who last year oversaw a special purpose grand jury probe into efforts by Mr Trump and his allies to reverse his loss to Mr Biden in Georgia, is reportedly considering indictments against the ex-president, his former attorney, top Republican figures in the state, as well as Mr Trump’s final White House chief of staff, ex-North Carolina congressman Mark Meadows.

Mr Meadows, who testified before the Georgia special grand jury last year, is also cooperating in the Justice Department probe into Mr Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Earlier this month, The Independent reported that Mr Meadows had given evidence before a Washington DC grand jury under Mr Smith’s supervision as part of an agreement that would see him eventually plead guilty to lesser federal charges in exchange for his testimony against Mr Trump and other figures.

Although Mr Meadows’ attorney, George Terwilliger, previously vehemently denied that Mr Meadows had entered any pleas of guilty to any crimes in response to that previous report, it is understood that the ex-congressman has signed an agreement with the Department of Justice which memorialises his obligations to cooperate with any prosecution against Mr Trump or others in the ex-president’s orbit in exchange for consideration that will spare him considerable legal jeopardy.

Representatives for Mr Trump and Mr Meadows did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Independent.

‘No white knight’: Jack Smith’s record rife with mistrials, overturned convictions, judicial rebukes

https://www.washingtontimes.co...ls-overturned-convi/

Special counsel Jack Smith, who has brought federal charges against former President Donald Trump, is an “overzealous” prosecutor who relies on ethically dubious tactics, including media leaks and enticing witnesses, say those who have been caught in his snare.

Mr. Smith headed the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section during the Obama administration from 2010 to 2015. He led a team of 30 prosecutors pursuing public corruption cases against major political figures.

Mr. Smith and other prosecutors — some working on the Trump case — have followed a familiar playbook. The script earned Mr. Smith a reputation as a hard-driving, intense prosecutor, but a string of mistrials and overturned convictions led to sharp rebukes from federal judges, including U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

“These are no white knights. They are very dangerous and will use any tactics to win at all costs,” said former Rep. Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican whom Mr. Smith’s team convicted in 2013 on corruption and fraud charges.

Mr. Renzi maintained his innocence but served nearly two years in prison before Mr. Trump pardoned him in 2021. He credits a 190-page white paper that his legal team submitted to the Justice Department claiming “repeated, concealed and corrosive” misconduct by prosecutors.

He said he was shocked by the similarities between his case and the prosecution of Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump was charged with 37 felony counts, including willful retention of national defense information, obstruction and false statements. Walt Nauta, an aide to the former president, has also been indicted in the investigation.

A review found that Mr. Smith’s team followed the same playbook in the Trump case as in other high-stakes political prosecutions of both Republicans and Democrats. That playbook has resulted in a spotty record:

• Mr. Smith’s conviction against former Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, a Republican accused of accepting payments and gifts in violation of federal public corruption laws, was overturned by the Supreme Court.

• The case against former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, a Democratic presidential candidate accused of illegally using campaign cash to conceal his mistress and love child, ended with a hung jury and mistrial.

• The prosecution of Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat accused of taking bribes, collapsed in a mistrial.

• The conviction of New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, on federal corruption charges was overturned by an appeals court. He was convicted during a second trial, but an appeals court threw out three of the six guilty verdicts. He died last year.

“Government lawyers have a higher duty to the truth and cause of justice, and that’s where some of these government prosecutors, like Mr. Smith, have fallen short,” Mr. McDonnell said. “They are smart and well-credentialed, but they don’t seem to be exercising good judgment when it comes to this point.”

Mr. Menendez declined to comment.

A spokesman for Mr. Smith declined to comment for this report.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has staunchly defended Mr. Smith’s standing as a “veteran career prosecutor.”

“As I said when I appointed Mr. Smith, I did so because it underscores the Justice Department’s commitment to both independence and accountability,” Mr. Garland said last month. “He has assembled a group of experienced and talented prosecutors and agents who share his commitment to integrity and the rule of law.”

Attorney-client privilege

Several patterns emerge from most of Mr. Smith’s high-profile prosecutions. The first is a questionable piercing of the attorney-client privilege.

In the Trump case, Mr. Smith’s team persuaded a federal judge to set aside the protections under the crime-fraud exception. The exception allows attorneys to break attorney-client privilege if they believe the legal advice was used in furthering a crime.

The ruling allowed prosecutors to access notes of Trump attorney Evan Corcoran that formed the basis for much of their allegations against the former president.

Mr. Smith took a similar tack in the Renzi case. He submitted as evidence recordings of the former lawmaker’s private conversations with his attorneys.

U.S. District Judge David Bury concluded that prosecutors unlawfully recorded the calls, and he ordered them to be suppressed along with the fact that the calls were wiretapped.

“The government’s conduct, in its totality, warrants a more significant sanction than just suppressing the privileged evidence. The court suppresses the wiretap,” Judge Bury said, adding that the government “acted unreasonably” to “exceed its authority.”

Mr. Smith was more successful in the McDonnell case. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that attorney-client privilege did not protect emails from a government lawyer. The court concluded that Mr. McDonnell’s legal team failed to prove that the emails constituted legal advice.

Mr. McDonnell said he is still “stunned and incredibly disappointed” that confidential discussions with his attorney were disclosed to a grand jury.

Media leaks

Another hallmark of a Smith prosecution is leaking to news media. Several high-profile cases have been punctuated by news reports revealing evidence favorable to the prosecution.

Mr. McDonnell said the case against him was littered with leaks, beginning with a newspaper report of the investigation.

“There is no question the initial story came from the government leaking things to The Washington Post,” he said. “There was a grand jury impaneled, and it was pretty clear that grand jury information was being leaked to The Washington Post, which is a separate violation of the law.”

Mr. Renzi’s experience was similar. Ahead of the 2006 midterm elections, when his seat was hotly contested, news of his corruption investigation appeared in local and national media. Some reports cited Justice Department officials.

The leaks were so pervasive that Justice Department officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, issued a memorandum with a “stern message” about prosecutors’ obligation to preserve the confidentiality of investigations.

Mr. Menendez’s legal team said prosecutors engaged in a deliberate pattern of media leaks that damaged the senator’s credibility with the public to increase the chances of indictment. The attorneys said prosecutors’ actions amounted to “serious misconduct.”

Last month, several outlets published a leaked audio recording of a 2021 private meeting between Mr. Trump and staffers. The former president discussed holding secret government documents that he did not declassify.

“The media leaks are a three-pronged attack,” Mr. Renzi said. “It taints the jury pool, suppresses voter turnout and pressures the judge to rule in their favor.”

Witness enticement

Stanley Woodward, an attorney for Mr. Nauta, said a prosecutor on Mr. Smith’s team trying to secure cooperation suggested that Mr. Woodward’s application for a judgeship would be considered more favorably if he and his client turned against Mr. Trump. Mr. Woodward has filed a complaint with the chief U.S. judge in Washington alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

In the McDonnell case, prosecutors filed charges against the former governor’s wife and promised to drop the charges if she would testify against him.

The government promised to pay $25,000 to Phillip Aries, the cooperating witness in the Renzi case, but prosecutors invoked his testimony more than 90 times during closing arguments. Mr. Aries said he did not receive “one thin dime” for his cooperation.

Weeks before Mr. Renzi’s Supreme Court petition, Mr. Aries emailed a prosecutor seeking his $25,000 payment, which he said would be like “winning the lottery.”

Although the FBI promised the payment, Mr. Renzi said, Mr. Smith’s team was aware of the deal and concealed it from the defense team.

Pushing limits of the law

Another hallmark appears to be a broad interpretation of the law, resulting in several rebukes or failed prosecutions in Mr. Smith’s political cases.

Mr. Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, was charged with six counts, including three counts of violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Ultimately, the Justice Department was embarrassed when the jury deadlocked on five of the six felony counts and acquitted Mr. Edwards on the last one.

The National Review, a conservative news journal, questioned the government’s claims before the trial. It said efforts to conceal an extramarital affair and illegitimate child hardly amounted to election fraud.

In the Menendez case, 10 of the 12 jurors said prosecutors stretched the definition of the bribery and corruption statute and failed to make the case that receiving the gifts violated federal law.

The most stunning condemnation was in the McDonnell case when the Supreme Court overturned his conviction.

“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that,” Justice Roberts wrote in a unanimous opinion. “But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

Joey D
7/3/23

In Iowa, it was "Blizzards for Everybody". I'm surprised the MSM isn't claiming that he was trying to buy votes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...owa-Dairy-Queen.html

I think he would be a pain in the ass to work with, and hoot to hang out with. Neither is germane to the question: were you better off four years ago? In my opinion, yes, by miles.

quote:

yes, by miles.

Hell yeah!

BREAKING: In another sign the Mar-a-Lago raid was political, the DOJ prosecutor who authorized it –DNC donor and Russiagate alum Jay Bratt –blacked out every reference to Trump cooperating with subpoenas from the publicly released search warrant affidavit, new court docs reveal

2/10 Here’s the newly unsealed evidence of cooperation by Trump — complying with not one, but two grand jury subpoenas — that DOJ prosecutor Jay Bratt tried to hide from the public behind several redactions in the initially released affidavit in support of his Mar-a-Lago raid:

REDACTED:

Page 2: ” additional documents bearing classification markings … have been produced to the government in response to a grand jury subpoena … ”

REDACTED:

Page 18: ” … agreed to accept service of a grand jury subpoena … ”

REDACTED:

Page 20: ” … an extension was granted for compliance with the subpoena … ”

REDACTED:

Page 21: ” … documents … produced pursuant to the grand jury subpoena … ”

REDACTED:

Page 22: ” … classified documents (the ones recently provided … ”

REDACTED:

Page 23: ” … agreed to accept service of a grand jury subpoena for footage from those cameras … ”

” … provided a hard drive to FBI agents … ”

REDACTED:

Page 25: ” … in response to a grand jury subpoena provided FBI agents and DOJ COUNSEL a Redweld envelope containing documents … ”

REDACTED:

Page 28: ” … a padlock was installed on the STORAGE ROOM door.”

https://www.revolver.news/2023...nst-president-trump/

The man is only gaining steam.

Fucking baller, rolling out with Kid Rock blasting. I think Trump is the only man in politics that can pull that off.



Trump and Joe Rogan

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balzé Halzé,

quote:

were you better off four years ago?

Absolutely! No contest. Obama's third term (with Biden fronting) is even worse than his first two.

Joey D
7/10/23

NSFW...language.

Not really sure why Trump would be so critical of the Iowa governor for staying neutral in the primary. Iowa governors have traditionally stayed neutral at least until well after the Iowa primary. Making an enemy out of a popular Republican governor, especially one who is neutral and has not endorsed any other Republican candidate, doesn't make a lot of sense. Why make enemies out of fellow Republicans?

https://www.politico.com/news/...er-reichman-00106201

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Not really sure why Trump would be so critical of the Iowa governor for staying neutral in the primary.

Not sure, eh? It's amazing to me how some people after seven years still don't understand Trump.

[/QUOTE]
Not sure, eh? It's amazing to me how some people after seven years still don't understand Trump.[/QUOTE]

You have a good point. I should know better. I do know why this would be Trump's reaction. He is far more interested in personal grievances and settling scores than he is in doing anything positive for the Republican party as a whole. Since the governor is remaining neutral (which has almost always been the case) Trump is just fine with making her an enemy, even at the cost of losing the support of a state senator and who knows how many other Iowans. Which isn't to suggest that he will lose the Iowa primary. He will probably win. But when it comes time to with the general election, whether it's against the brain dead Biden or whoever, this kind of behavior won't help.

^^^^^
I'm just gonna say, with all due respect, you STILL don't get it.

President Trump doesn't give two popcorn farts about the "Republican Party" as it is. What he DOES give a shit about is...
This country
Patriotism
Americans
The U.S. Constitution
the Economy
strongly regulated borders
energy independence
Judeo/Christian Values
Kicking the shit outta our enemies instead of bowing down to them
etc.
etc.

If you don't get that, then I don't think anyone here can help you.

quote:

I'm just gonna say, with all due respect, you STILL don't get it.

Well, you may be right. My number one political goal is to defeat Biden and his Democrat allies in the upcoming election. That's clearly not Trump's number one goal. Not saying he doesn't care about all of the things you listed, but he cares about settling scores and himself more. He will most likely be the Republican nominee, but if for some reason he isn't, do you think he will make every effort to help the Republican nominee win? Of course he won't. He would rather see Biden win if he is not the nominee.