• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Special Counsel investigation of Trump part 2

Special counsel asks judge to limit Trump’s public statements in federal election subversion case

Justice Department prosecutors want US District Judge Tanya Chutkan to reel in Donald Trump’s public statements in the federal 2020 election interference case against him, asking her to place a court order limiting what he can say, according to a newly released filing.

The request for a limited gag order, filed in recent days, represents the most direct response from prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s office to the former president’s public statements to date. The Justice Department said the order is needed to protect the integrity of his trial in March. Trump has already been ordered not to intimidate potential witnesses or talk to them about the facts of the case.

In making their argument, prosecutors pointed to false public statements Trump previously made around the 2020 vote “to erode public faith in the administration of the election and intimidate individuals who refuted his lies.”


“The defendant is now attempting to do the same thing in this criminal case — to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory attacks on the citizens of this District, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses,” prosecutors wrote in their filing.
Click to expand...
 
Ford said:
ZiprHead said:
www.acc.af.mil

Joint Chiefs of Staff issue letter to Joint Force in response to January 6 assault on U.S.

In response to the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, the Joint Chiefs of Staff addresses its Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Guardians in the letter below/attached. They remind us "as
www.acc.af.mil

Hint: They said it was an insurrection.
Click to expand...
Republican Senator Tuberville: "Yeah, but that's the Woke military! They read poetry on aircraft carriers! They let women serve! They let the gays serve! That doesn't count...I'm only going to listen to the REAL military!"
Click to expand...
We had a guy that played bagpipes in the hangar bay. No, that's not a euphemism. Females that had to transit through male berthing and head to get to their workspace. Oddly it was the guys that always complained, especially Petty Officer Peyronie. He got all bent out of shape about it.
 
TV and credit cards said:
We had a guy that played bagpipes in the hangar bay. No, that's not a euphemism. Females that had to transit through male berthing and head to get to their workspace. Oddly it was the guys that always complained, especially Petty Officer Peyronie. He got all bent out of shape about it.
Click to expand...

So…he was a particularly Petty Officer.
 
ZiprHead said:
apnews.com

Rudy Giuliani sued by former lawyer, accused of failing to pay $1.36 million in legal bills

Rudy Giuliani’s former lawyer Robert Costello has sued him, alleging the ex-New York City mayor has paid only a fraction of nearly $1.6 million in legal fees he’s racked up from investigations into his efforts to keep Donald Trump in the White House.
apnews.com apnews.com

Poor Rudy...
Click to expand...

So Rudy needs to sue Trump for all the legal bills that Trump hasn't paid Rudy. It's a delicious cycle.
 
ZiprHead said:
View attachment 44309

Milley is a witness against Trump. Will there be consequences?
Click to expand...
Where to even start with this?

Well let's start with...who appointed Milley to be the head of the Joint Chiefs? Oh look! President Donald J. Trump!

The withdrawal from Afghanistan? Trump actually wanted to get out even faster, but was essentially talked down off the wall to settle on the schedule that the Biden administration stuck to for the most part. Did it cost "many lives?" Well, 13 American service members lost their lives, and that's not great, but not quite as many combat deaths as happened during the Trump administration - oddly enough...45.

Were "hundreds of American citizens" left behind? Depends on who you ask. At the time, the State Department put the number at 100 Americans who wanted to leave, but according to a subsequent GOP Congressional report, around 800 were eventually evacuated. Meaning they weren't hung out to dry so much as it took some time to get them out.

As for the claim that we left "BILLIONS of dollars of the finest military equipment ever made," that is just flat out wrong. Yes, we left behind equipment, but Fragilego Mussolini makes it seem like we left fully loaded F-35 fighters fueled up on the runway with an instruction manual in the front seat. Truth is, when we bug out the military looks at what we've got on the ground and says "how much of this stuff is really worth saving?" Hell, we don't even have to be retreating for the military to leave unused equipment on the table. There are vast fields of decommissioned aircraft that never saw a moment of combat just taking up space. Are they useful to anyone? No. Rest assured that all the hardware we left behind in Afghanistan had been stripped of every useful piece of the "finest military equipment" and what was left was essentially scrap metal.

As for his claim that Milley was giving China a "heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States," I have to point out that said President took reams of classified documents and put them in a storage room at his resort in Florida where a Chinese spy was able to waltz into the property and Trump literally showed Milley's plans to people who had no business even being in the same room with top secret documents.

To quote a line from a Jeff Bridges movie: "Shut the fuck up, Donnie."
 
And Milley didn’t •lead• the military operationally. Trump really has no clue and/or is just misleading his uneducated followers.
 
Jesus Christ. Not only did Rudy feel her up, but Matt Gaetz too. And at the least three others put the moves on her.

Damn, they are just skeevy pigs.
 
ZiprHead said:
Jesus Christ. Not only did Rudy feel her up, but Matt Gaetz too. And at the least three others put the moves on her.

Damn, they are just skeevy pigs.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't need to be a star to grab them by the pussy after all. Must have been an interesting interview.

Hutchison: And I was the editor on the school newspaper, as well as on the Volleybal...
Meadows Staffer: And your hot! You'll get the position.
Hutchison: Wait... what? I was telling about my accomplishments like staffing with Sen. Ted Cru...
Meadows Staffer: Look, you are hot. The college stuff is good.... that's good, but you are hot!
Hutchison: Am just getting this position because of my looks.
Meadows Staffer: This position, that position...
Hutchison: I'm not certain how this makes me feel.
Meadows Staffer: Don't worry, others will take care of that.
Hutchison: Oh... you mean it is look but don't touch... I think I can live with that.
Meadows Staffer: Sure sweety, whatever you want to tell yourself.
Hutchison: So I umm... I have the job.
Meadows Staffer: Depends.
Hutchison: On what?
Meadows Staffer: Do I have to spell it out? How you feel about elderly men who wear depends.
Hutchison: *eyes wide* You can do this... it is just until the end of the Presidency... what is the worst that can happen.
 
Trump asks Judge Chutkan to dismiss election interference case, citing presidential immunity and Senate acquittal

Donald Trump has asked the federal judge overseeing special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case to dismiss the criminal charges, arguing he has immunity because he was president at the time and also was acquitted by the US Senate after his impeachment.

Thursday’s filing may set up a fight that eventually goes to the Supreme Court. While courts have held presidents can be immune from civil liability for their actions while in office, novel legal questions about whether that extends to criminal prosecutions remains unsettled.
Click to expand...

BTW, why don't CNN links parse like most everyone elses?
 
Loose lipped doof.

abcnews.go.com

Trump allegedly discussed US nuclear subs with foreign national after leaving White House: Sources

Months after leaving office, former President Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive info about U.S. nuclear subs with an Australian billionaire, say sources.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

Months after leaving the White House, former President Donald Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with a member of his Mar-a-Lago Club -- an Australian billionaire who then allegedly shared the information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The potential disclosure was reported to special counsel Jack Smith's team as they investigated Trump's alleged hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the sources told ABC News. The information could shed further light on Trump's handling of sensitive government secrets.

Prosecutors and FBI agents have at least twice this year interviewed the Mar-a-Lago member, Anthony Pratt, who runs U.S.-based Pratt Industries, one of the world's largest packaging companies.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-warned-fbi-raid-mar-lago-team-feared/story?id=102932105

In those interviews, Pratt described how -- looking to make conversation with Trump during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago in April 2021 -- he brought up the American submarine fleet, which the two had discussed before, the sources told ABC News.

According to Pratt's account, as described by the sources, Pratt told Trump he believed Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States, to which an excited Trump -- "leaning" toward Pratt as if to be discreet -- then told Pratt two pieces of information about U.S. submarines: the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads they routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected.

In emails and conversations after meeting with Trump, Pratt described Trump's remarks to at least 45 others, including six journalists, 11 of his company's employees, 10 Australian officials, and three former Australian prime ministers, the sources told ABC News.

While Pratt told investigators he couldn’t tell if what Trump said about U.S. submarines was real or just bluster, investigators nevertheless asked Pratt not to repeat the numbers that Trump allegedly told him, suggesting the information could be too sensitive to relay further, ABC News was told.

It's unclear if the information was accurate, but the episode was investigated by Smith's team.
 
blastula said:
It's unclear if the information was accurate, but the episode was investigated by Smith's team.
Click to expand...

Thing is, Trump is simply too stupid and arrogant to share anything but the actual intel. He'd say "I know this might not be accurate, but my people tell me the sub can do...." and rather than throwing them a bone that leads them off the trail he'd tell them the exact distance as told to him.
 
WAPO Link
Donald Trump’s many legal problems have led to a veritable fire hose of often-mundane, procedural court filings. But occasionally, there’s a nugget that catches your eye.
Such was the case Monday, in the government’s latest filing in Trump’s classified documents case.

While arguing against the motion by Trump’s lawyers to delay the May 20 trial, special counsel Jack Smith’s lawyers assured they’re ready to go and that such a delay isn’t necessary, unsurprisingly. But they also said they are ready to prove something significant that, to this point, has remained shrouded and the subject of much speculation: why Trump allegedly took and kept the documents.


“That the classified materials at issue in this case were taken from the White House and retained at Mar-a-Lago is not in dispute,” Smith’s office said.

It then added that “what is in dispute is how that occurred, why it occurred, what Trump knew, and what Trump intended in retaining them — all issues that the Government will prove at trial primarily with unclassified evidence.”
The government apparently thinks it knows “what Trump intended” with the documents. And it’s signaling that it plans to prove that intent.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom