Senator Bob Menendez has been found guilty on all counts.
Trump Indicted!
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indictments jail law presidents trump
Senator Bob Menendez has been found guilty on all counts.
Off to jail for the sob.
Next he can be expelled from Senate hopefully soon.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Lawfare! 
Sorry, twitch response. Never heard of Bob before.
Sorry, twitch response. Never heard of Bob before.
Her trial has been delayed since she is battling breast cancer.
Blame-the-woman is so pervasive in our society, it should have its own thread.
Sen. Bob Menendez convicted in bribery trial; New Jersey Democrat found guilty of accepting gold bars and cash
Sen. Bob Menendez tried to shift the blame to his wife, Nadine Menendez, but was found guilty on all 16 felony counts for a scheme involving bribery and business favors.
www.cbsnews.com
He was the Senator, so he should get most of the blame in my opinion.
Special counsel files evidence under seal against Trump in election subversion case
Filings from special counsel Jack Smith laying out never-before-seen evidence in the election subversion case against Donald Trump – including interview transcripts and notes from an investigation that counted among its witnesses former Vice President Mike Pence, Ivanka Trump and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows – are now in the hands of a federal court.It will now be up to District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine how much of that evidence the public gets to see and when they will be able to see it.
Prosecutors filed the documents under seal as of 4:40 p.m. ET, according to Peter Carr, the special counsel office’s spokesman.
Related articleTrump hawks $100,000 watches as he leverages his candidacy for profit
The court submissions could eventually provide Americans with the most comprehensive view they’ll ever get of Smith’s case alleging that Trump conspired to defraud the United States in his efforts to overturn his 2020 electoral loss.
The filings are expected to include grand jury transcripts, the FBI’s formal notes from witness interviews and documentary evidence, as part of an effort by prosecutors to argue that their reworked indictment can survive under the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling has required the prosecutors to convince Chutkan – and likely, higher courts – that Trump was not acting in his official capacity when he and his supporters took various actions, culminating in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, to stave off his 2020 defeat.
It is likely the filings will dig into Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence – conduct that the Supreme Court indicated might be covered under immunity. The brief is also likely to lay out what investigators have learned about the circumstances of the January 6, 2021, Ellipse rally, while potentially providing more detail about endeavors by Trump and his allies to convince state officials to block certification of the 2020 results.
They have also indicated plans to file a version with proposed redactions – also under seal – that could ultimately be posted to the court’s public docket.
Smith previously secured permission to file a brief as long as 180 pages – four times the normal page length. That brief does not include the “substantial” numbered exhibits prosecutors plan to attach to their arguments that will offer up key evidence. The footnotes alone citing their various exhibits would account for more than 30 pages of the main brief, prosecutors have said.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/30/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump-immunity-6-3-biskupic
The former president vehemently opposed the plan to file the Smith immunity brief now, as his lawyers equated the brief to the types of special counsel reports that aren’t released until after the work of a special counsel is done.
Chutkan, in a Tuesday opinion explaining why she would greenlight the prosecutors’ filing plan, leaned on the Supreme Court’s own language in its July immunity ruling, which said Trump had absolute immunity for conduct related to his “core” executive branch duties. For other official acts as president, a “presumptive” immunity can be overcome if prosecutors can show that criminalizing such conduct would not interfere with the functions of the executive branch, according to the high court’s 6-3 ruling.
Chutkan said Tuesday that the Supreme Court had directed her to “conduct a ‘close’ and ‘fact specific’” analysis “of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.’”
“It anticipated that the analysis would require briefing on how to characterize ‘numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons,’ … and supplementing other allegations with ‘content, form, and context’ not contained in the indictment itself,” Chutkan wrote of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Trump will have the opportunity to respond to the prosecutors’ brief with a filing due October 17.
Legal Eagle has done a youtube on the new indictments. It has some pretty good stuff in it, but also about 6 pages of legalese to be able to refer to a tweet.
The critical unanswered question is what is the Star Trek reference?
CC3 is Sidney Powell I guess. The claims of course being that the 2020 election was rigged.
The critical unanswered question is what is the Star Trek reference?
CC3 is Sidney Powell I guess. The claims of course being that the 2020 election was rigged.
Spoiler Legal Eagle youtube :
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,007
You're really pacing yourself there, Hans.
This crowd, particularly @Valka D'Ur, should be able to figure out what the most likely Star Trek reference is. Is there some episode where a character makes a particularly unhinged claim?
It could be the "There are four lights" bit from ST:NG. But I bet there's something better.
This crowd, particularly @Valka D'Ur, should be able to figure out what the most likely Star Trek reference is. Is there some episode where a character makes a particularly unhinged claim?
It could be the "There are four lights" bit from ST:NG. But I bet there's something better.
My money is on
or making crazy eyes 
or some other sort of gesture/indication that they thought Powell was insane. No reference to any particular Episode or scene, but rather a general reference to Powell being "in outer space".
Last edited:
In Star Trek, full of would-be conquerors of the universe?
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,007
This is interesting, and it makes me pay better attention than I did to the excerpt: to see that P45 is one of the participants. (But I'm not sure P45 is the one making the reference, see below).My money is on P45 saying something like "Beam me up Scotty" and simultaneously rolling eyes
That means that "the defendant" (whoever that might be here) had to regard the Star Trek reference as one that P45 would be able to get (now the defendant could be mistaken in that assumption, of course; assuming any kind of knowledge on Trump's part is a risk). I've seen no evidence, over the years, that P45 knows Star Trek, so if "the defendant" judged that P45 could get the reference, it would probably be to something that everybody knows about Star Trek: i.e. a very well-known catch-phrase like the one you propose.
But 1) the phrasing suggests that P45 is not the one making the reference and 2) P45 might join in on mockery of Powell, but I think he would never himself disparage someone who was working in his interest, no matter how whackadoodle that person's theory.
Last edited:
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
... to boldly go?
You're right, I corrected my original statement... the defendant is the one making the statement not P45, so that's just imprecise reading on my part
But the point is the same. I think the speaker (defendant) just made a general reference to Powell being "in outer space" as a synonym for being crazy and/or out of touch with reality, ie., things happening on planet Earth and used a famous Star Trek phrase to do so.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,007
Yeah, the more I've thought about it, the more I think your guess is probably the correct one: Beam me up, Scotty.
I hope that the case goes to trial, and that in the course of the trial whoever is "the defendant" here gets called to testify and we learn what the Star Trek reference was.
I hope that the case goes to trial, and that in the course of the trial whoever is "the defendant" here gets called to testify and we learn what the Star Trek reference was.
What happens to Trump’s November sentencing?
Donald Trump has several legal tactics to try to stay out of state prison, but his best chance of success turns on the outcome of the presidential election.
The former president has already twice successfully delayed his sentencing past Election Day on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to influence the 2016 election by hiding a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. His lawyers are gearing up for more legal fights ahead, but no tactic will influence his future more than how voters cast their ballots.
“It’s 50/50” that he gets sentenced in November, said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a former top official at the Manhattan district attorney’s office and a CNN legal analyst. “If he loses the election, I think he gets sentenced, and I think he gets sentenced to prison. If he wins, I don’t think this goes forward.”
A victory on Election Day, she added, is “his get out of jail free card.”
For years, Trump’s legal playbook has been to seek delays. Often, he’s been successful. He was facing four criminal indictments by late 2023 and only one of those cases went to trial before the election.
Now his lawyers are sketching out several tactics to postpone his sentencing, currently scheduled for November 26, whether he wins or loses the presidential election. How the courts handle these last-ditch efforts will dictate an unprecedented moment in American history and whether and when a former US president serves time in prison.
More here:
BenitoChavez
What business is it of yours?
Which is such bullfeathers if that actually happens. It would be undeniable proof that "Nobody is above the law" is just a lie we like to tell ourselves to make us feel better.
SCOTUS gave it to him: delays and more delays plus immunity.
