Troll Posted January 7, 2023 Report Share Posted January 7, 2023 33 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: That seems right to me. I take it this is your answer. 👇 almost forgot lol....yes and yes 💯 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 7, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2023 45 minutes ago, Troll said: Well if you are going by the "we got em' now", there's a court case involved, 66 standard... someone's surely in deep shiat 💩. But I don't subscribe to those kind of sub=standards as you... 🤡 PS: stop trying those baby steps using only yer left foot... ...no wonder you keep falling down. 🤡🤡 BTW: hope this helps 👍 I'm losing you...again...it's been real...have fun counting those ballots!....🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 7, 2023 Report Share Posted January 7, 2023 Just now, DBP66 said: I'm lost...again...it's unreal...but I have fun counting Trump's supheonas!....🙄 FIFY 🤡 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 26 minutes ago, Troll said: you are not viewing left/right as of the same body...they absolutely are. You should tell them that. Maybe they'll stop calling each other names and blaming each other for ruining the country. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: You should tell them that. Maybe they'll stop calling each other names and blaming each other for ruining the country. LOL agreed.... "I don't understand how" is an interesting phrase...apologies for misreading it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 2 hours ago, DBP66 said: something is either true or not...a fact or fiction...there is only one truth....it's not hard to find something that isn't true...like the election being "rigged"....Elon's BIG mistake??....he has no clue what he's doing with Twitter. He's losing a lot of $$$. You truly don’t understand what posted or the 1st amendment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 11 hours ago, Warrior said: Dude, that maybe your biggest leap to date and you’re had some big ones. Some level of collusion doesn’t equal rigged. @DBP66, in this thread, you accuse @Warrior of claiming that the 2020 election was "rigged" because he claims that there was some level of collusion. 👇 10 hours ago, DBP66 said: of course it does.....like I said....you like word games...😉 ↳ In the other thread, you claim that there was some level of collusion in the 2016 election. 👇 2 hours ago, DBP66 said: [Hakeem Jeffries] was referring to the election interference on the part of Russia helping to get Trump elected...detailed in the Muller report. Outside interference in our elections was never as bad as the 2016 election. But then you deny that the 2016 election was rigged. 👇 2 hours ago, DBP66 said: of course [Trump won]...I'm not nuts. It would make him a "tainted" Pres. in my eyes. ...but still legit. And then you claim that those, like Hakeem Jeffries, who said that Trump was a "fake" and "illegitimate" president, while he was still in office, were merely expressing an opinion. 👇 1 hour ago, DBP66 said: he was expressing his opinion...that's all. It doesn't add up to me. Are you playing word games, or am I missing something? 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 41 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: Are you playing word games, or am I missing something? Oh no!... 66 is never going to go down THAT rabbit 🐰 hole...🤣 wait for it... 66 be like... 😝 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 1 hour ago, Belly Bob said: @DBP66, in this thread, you accuse @Warrior of claiming that the 2020 election was "rigged" because he claims that there was some level of collusion. 👇 In the other thread, you claim that there was some level of collusion in the 2016 election. 👇 But then you deny that the 2016 election was rigged. 👇 And then you claim that those, like Hakeem Jeffries, who said that Trump was a "fake" and "illegitimate" president, while he was still in office, were merely expressing an opinion. 👇 It doesn't add up to me. Are you playing word games, or am I missing something? Exposed! That’s a big web 66 weaved. Can’t wait to hear him BS his way out of this one 😳 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 8, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 1 hour ago, Belly Bob said: @DBP66, in this thread, you accuse @Warrior of claiming that the 2020 election was "rigged" because he claims that there was some level of collusion. 👇 In the other thread, you claim that there was some level of collusion in the 2016 election. 👇 But then you deny that the 2016 election was rigged. 👇 And then you claim that those, like Hakeem Jeffries, who said that Trump was a "fake" and "illegitimate" president, while he was still in office, were merely expressing an opinion. 👇 It doesn't add up to me. Are you playing word games, or am I missing something? Yes, I did....and you're missing a lot...When we have evidence of outside interference in our election you can't question the legitimacy of the candidate who received the assistance? I would think you can and should. and to clarify, as per the Muller report we know Russia interfered in our 2016 election to help Trump get elected. I'm not trying to play any word games. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 8, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 9 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said: Exposed! That’s a big web 66 weaved. Can’t wait to hear him BS his way out of this one 😳 LOL...LOL...🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 8, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 38 minutes ago, Troll said: Oh no!... 66 is never going to go down THAT rabbit 🐰 hole...🤣 wait for it... 66 be like... 😝 Bob makes sense...you don't....🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 3 hours ago, Belly Bob said: @DBP66, in this thread, you accuse @Warrior of claiming that the 2020 election was "rigged" because he claims that there was some level of collusion. 👇 In the other thread, you claim that there was some level of collusion in the 2016 election. 👇 But then you deny that the 2016 election was rigged. 👇 And then you claim that those, like Hakeem Jeffries, who said that Trump was a "fake" and "illegitimate" president, while he was still in office, were merely expressing an opinion. 👇 It doesn't add up to me. Are you playing word games, or am I missing something? Belly Bob, whatever point DP attempts to reach to make always adds up in his head. No matter how flawed the logic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 8, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 8 hours ago, Warrior said: Belly Bob, whatever point DP attempts to reach to make always adds up in his head. No matter how flawed the logic. flawed logic?....LOL..."there was proven collusion to influence the outcome absolutely.".....sure there was champ!...🤡 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 10 minutes ago, DBP66 said: flawed logic?....LOL..."there was proven collusion to influence the outcome absolutely.".....sure there was champ!...🤡 pssst..."proof of" and "proven" are two separate things.... There is "proof of" collusion between our gov and facebook, twitter, etc in the elections... What most don't realize, is that the Obama admin negated the longstanding act which prevents our gov from doing such. It is actually "legal" for our gov to use tax dollars to disseminate outright lies, untruths, etc. as well as promote propaganda on these platforms and other media. look it up. 🤡 PS: and your attempts to rewrite history and loutright lie about it is noted as well... BTW: NPR POLITICS Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion Facebook Twitter Flipboard Email March 24, 20195:14 PM ET ....of course THAT could be "misinformation" as well, given such current policy... 🤡 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 8, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 33 minutes ago, Troll said: pssst..."proof of" and "proven" are two separate things.... There is "proof of" collusion between our gov and facebook, twitter, etc in the elections... What most don't realize, is that the Obama admin negated the longstanding act which prevents our gov from doing such. It is actually "legal" for our gov to use tax dollars to disseminate outright lies, untruths, etc. as well as promote propaganda on these platforms and other media. look it up. 🤡 PS: and your attempts to rewrite history and loutright lie about it is noted as well... BTW: NPR POLITICS Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion Facebook Twitter Flipboard Email March 24, 20195:14 PM ET ....of course THAT could be "misinformation" as well, given such current policy... 🤡 Mueller report shows Russians, Trump camp were friends with benefits. Collusion by another name? Analysis: Mueller didn't find a conspiracy he could prove, but did show that the Russians and the Trump team pursued a relationship during the election and after. The Mueller report was released Thursday.NBC News / Getty Images April 18, 2019, 6:10 PM EDT By Ken Dilanian WASHINGTON — To charge a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, Robert Mueller decided he had to prove the existence of an explicit, corrupt agreement between the two sides. It wasn't enough, his report said, that the Trump campaign and Russia were acting out of mutual interest. Mueller said he didn't find a conspiracy he could prove. But he did establish in painstaking detail that the Russians and the Trump campaign pursued a relationship of mutual benefit during the election campaign — and afterward. Some might argue that verges on a different sort of collusion. Mueller report finds no Trump-Russia conspiracy but raises questions over obstruction of justice APRIL 18, 201905:2 "The report reveals that there was an awful lot of contact between people in Trump world and Russians, and there appears to be at least some attempt at coordination," said Greg Brower, a former U.S. attorney during the George W. Bush administration and senior FBI official. "One could argue you put all that together, it looks like collusion." The report says, "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." But it also says that "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." And after the Russians helped Trump get elected though efforts that were apparent to the Trump campaign, the report says, the Russians reached out to members of the Trump transition team, including the president's son-in-law, ostensibly seeking the fruits of their labors. After a backchannel meeting in the Seychelles, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund passed a friend of the president's son-in-law a two-page document proposing how the Trump administration could promote "U.S.-Russia reconciliation." Two days before Trump took office, the document found its way to Jared Kushner, who promptly passed it along to incoming White House adviser Steve Bannon and incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The Mueller report is "a damning account of a wildly successful Russian influence operation from start to finish," said Clint Watts, a former FBI agent and social media expert. "The Russian approach was, 'Let's reset foreign policy relations with the United States in a way that we're getting everything we want,' and they were pursuing that on multiple fronts." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 5 minutes ago, DBP66 said: Mueller report shows Russians, Trump camp were friends with benefits. Collusion by another name? Analysis: Mueller didn't find a conspiracy he could prove, but did show that the Russians and the Trump team pursued a relationship during the election and after. The Mueller report was released Thursday.NBC News / Getty Images April 18, 2019, 6:10 PM EDT By Ken Dilanian WASHINGTON — To charge a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, Robert Mueller decided he had to prove the existence of an explicit, corrupt agreement between the two sides. It wasn't enough, his report said, that the Trump campaign and Russia were acting out of mutual interest. Mueller said he didn't find a conspiracy he could prove. But he did establish in painstaking detail that the Russians and the Trump campaign pursued a relationship of mutual benefit during the election campaign — and afterward. Some might argue that verges on a different sort of collusion. Mueller report finds no Trump-Russia conspiracy but raises questions over obstruction of justice APRIL 18, 201905:2 "The report reveals that there was an awful lot of contact between people in Trump world and Russians, and there appears to be at least some attempt at coordination," said Greg Brower, a former U.S. attorney during the George W. Bush administration and senior FBI official. "One could argue you put all that together, it looks like collusion." The report says, "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." But it also says that "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." And after the Russians helped Trump get elected though efforts that were apparent to the Trump campaign, the report says, the Russians reached out to members of the Trump transition team, including the president's son-in-law, ostensibly seeking the fruits of their labors. After a backchannel meeting in the Seychelles, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund passed a friend of the president's son-in-law a two-page document proposing how the Trump administration could promote "U.S.-Russia reconciliation." Two days before Trump took office, the document found its way to Jared Kushner, who promptly passed it along to incoming White House adviser Steve Bannon and incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The Mueller report is "a damning account of a wildly successful Russian influence operation from start to finish," said Clint Watts, a former FBI agent and social media expert. "The Russian approach was, 'Let's reset foreign policy relations with the United States in a way that we're getting everything we want,' and they were pursuing that on multiple fronts." everything in red is opinion... for partisan morons to assist in ignoring the actual outcome, sell papers, and have you argue against others like a fool (that fell for it. lol)... 🤡 PS: as far as... "Mueller said he didn't find a conspiracy he could prove. But he did establish in painstaking detail that the Russians and the Trump campaign pursued a relationship of mutual benefit during the election campaign — and afterward." ... as said at the time, many people who view foreign policy as relevant in a presidential election, would probably view that as a PLUS (+1), when there is no "malfeasance" involved. BTW: How's Joey's proxy war with dem ruskies going now? 🤡 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 The problem with trying to communicate with this board's libtard patrol: 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 8, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 11 minutes ago, Troll said: everything in red is opinion... for partisan morons to assist in ignoring the actual outcome, sell papers, and have you argue against others like a fool (that fell for it. lol)... 🤡 PS: as far as... "Mueller said he didn't find a conspiracy he could prove. But he did establish in painstaking detail that the Russians and the Trump campaign pursued a relationship of mutual benefit during the election campaign — and afterward." ... as said at the time, many people who view foreign policy as relevant in a presidential election, would probably view that as a PLUS (+1), when there is no "malfeasance" involved. BTW: How's Joey's proxy war with dem ruskies going now? 🤡 LOL..opinion?...: "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." No rabbit hole for me today...have fun!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 17 minutes ago, DBP66 said: LOL..opinion?...: "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived No rabbit hole for me today...have fun!! MORON ALERT !!! 🤣 how does one "establish" the true intent of another's "perceptions" ??? think hard... Then how does one, NOT represent that as an "opinion" of another... 🤡 PS: BTW: That must be the ole' "opinion rabbit hole" you dug yerself into there... 🐰 LOL. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 8, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 3 hours ago, Troll said: MORON ALERT !!! 🤣 how does one "establish" the true intent of another's "perceptions" ??? think hard... Then how does one, NOT represent that as an "opinion" of another... 🤡 PS: BTW: That must be the ole' "opinion rabbit hole" you dug yerself into there... 🐰 LOL. so you were proven wrong again and figured you'd take another stab at it??....LOL...it's not "one" who established their intent...that's the job of our Intelligence agencies....many people who know a LOT more than you and me will ever know....looks like another swing and a miss Ronnie!....🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 39 minutes ago, DBP66 said: so I was proven wrong again and figured I'd take another stab at it??....LOL...it's not "one" who can established guess their intent...that's the job opinion of "part" of our Intelligence agencies....many people know a LOT more than I will ever know....looks like another swing and a miss for me Ronnie!....🤡 FIFY 👍 🤡 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted January 8, 2023 Report Share Posted January 8, 2023 8 hours ago, DBP66 said: flawed logic?....LOL..."there was proven collusion to influence the outcome absolutely.".....sure there was champ!...🤡 Here’s DP handing in his basement. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 9, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2023 Trump is headed to court Tuesday to argue that presidents can't be sued for defamation. Here's what's at stake. Ashley Collman Mon, January 9, 2023 at 4:12 PM EST Former President Donald Trump.Joe Raedle/Getty Images) An appeals court is set to weigh in on E. Jean Carroll's defamation suit against Donald Trump. Trump and the DOJ argue that he can't be personally sued for statements he made in office. Carroll's lawyers argue that the statements in question had nothing to do with his job. A defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump will be heard by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on Tuesday, and while the case stems from a rape allegation, what's at stake is whether presidents can be sued for comments they make in office. The case concerns longtime Elle advice columnist E. Jean Carroll's rape allegation against Trump, and his subsequent denials. In June 2019, Carroll wrote in an essay for New York Magazine that Trump forced himself on her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s. Trump was president at the time Carroll went public with the rape claim, and he loudly denied her allegation in a series of statements to the press, in which he insulted her appearance and claimed she made the accusation up to sell her memoir. Trump went so far as to claim he never met Carroll, but that was quickly refuted with an image of the two chatting at a party in 1987. Carroll sued Trump for defamation in November 2019, saying her career suffered "as a direct result of Trump's defamatory statements." Trump — and the Department of Justice, which later intervened in the case — have argued that he is protected by a federal law known as the Westfall Act. Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is pictured in New York in 2020.Seth Wenig/AP The Westfall Act protects government employees from being sued for actions in the line of their work. A common use of the act is protecting US Postal Service workers from being sued for car accidents they're involved in. Instead, the US government becomes the defendant in such suits. The DOJ has argued in court filings that Trump's comments were protected by the Westfall Act because part of the job of being president is "speaking to the public and the media on matters of public concern — including, at times, responding to allegations about the elected official's own private conduct bearing on his fitness to hold office." Carroll's legal team has countered that Trump "acted with private motives, and not in furtherance of any official federal purpose or function, in seeking to punish and humiliate Carroll for revealing his decades-old crime," according to their court filings. The legal question of whether Trump was protected by the Westfall Act has divided judges as the case has made its way through the courts. US District Judge Lewis Kaplan sided with Carroll's lawyers, ruling in October 2020 that Trump wasn't acting in his official capacity when he denied Carroll's rape allegation. "His comments concerned an alleged sexual assault that took place several decades before he took office, and the allegations have no relationship to the official business of the United States," Kaplan wrote. But when Trump's lawyers appealed Kaplan's decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a three-judge panel was split on the issue, favoring Trump 2-1. However, the panel agreed there was some uncertainty over whether Trump's comments were made within the scope of his employment, and ultimately passed the case to the DC Court of Appeals since the case focuses on DC law. That court will hear oral arguments in the appeal on Tuesday. The DC Court of Appeals will be hearing the case "en banc," meaning every judge in the court will hear the case and offer an opinion — a situation reserved for particularly complex cases. What's at stake The appeals court decision likely won't have too much of an impact on Carroll, since she filed a second lawsuit against Trump in November. That lawsuit also stems from her rape allegation, and includes a defamation complaint over Trump calling her allegations a "Hoax and a lie" on his social media platform, Truth, in October 2022. Because he made those comments after leaving the White House, he won't be able to claim Westfall Act protection. The second lawsuit also includes a claim of battery. Previously, Carroll had not been able to sue Trump for the alleged rape itself, because the statute of limitations had expired. But a new New York law, the Adult Survivors Act, temporarily allows the filing of lawsuits claiming sexual assault in cases where the statute of limitations has expired. This means that one way or another, Carroll's allegations against Trump are likely to go in front of a jury — if Trump doesn't settle the case first. But the case is still important when it comes to determining just how much protection the Westfall Act offers a sitting president. If the court sides with Trump, it could further expand the protections a president is given, making it incredibly difficult to sue a president for anything he or she says while in office — even if those statements are libelous. It also means that the suit will likely be dismissed, since the federal government can't be sued for defamation. Denny Chin, the lone dissenter on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, who sided with Carroll, underlined how Trump winning on this issue could have ramifications for the presidency: Chin wrote that "no President could be held accountable for damage done in front of a microphone or in an official meeting — whether defaming a citizen, exposing classified national security information, or inciting a riot." "This is not, and should not be, the law," Chin wrote. Shanlon Wu, a partner at DC law firm Cohen Seglias, told Insider that the case is so specific to Trump's personal situation that a win for Trump wouldn't necessarily apply to future presidents. However, he said one potential consequence of the court siding with Carroll is that it could open Trump up to lawsuits from other people he verbally attacked in office. "That makes it very high stakes for Trump, but not as a matter of legal precedent," Wu said. Another thing to keep in mind: if the court sides with Carroll, her case could be heard in a matter of months. Carroll's lawyers have petitioned to try both cases at the same time, and the current trial date for the first lawsuit is scheduled for April 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 9, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2023 A Georgia special grand jury finished its report into Trump's attempts to overturn 2020 election results. Another grand jury has to decide whether to indict him. Jacob Shamsian Mon, January 9, 2023 at 10:58 AM EST Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and former President Donald Trump.AP Photo/John Bazemore; MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images; REUTERS/Jeenah Moon A Georgia special grand jury finished its report on Donald Trump's alleged 2020 election interference. Another grand jury would read it and decide whether to bring criminal indictments. The special grand jury recommended making its report public. An Atlanta grand jury has completed its report exploring whether Donald Trump and his allies broke the law when attempting to overturn 2020 election results in Georgia. The 26-member special grand jury had the power to subpoena evidence and witnesses, but not to bring indictments. It was convened by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in May to investigate former President Donald Trump's calls to state officials in the wake of his 2020 election loss, asking them to "find" enough votes to reverse the result. Now, Willis must decide whether to send that report to another grand jury, which will decide whether to bring criminal indictments. In addition to Trump, the grand jury's investigation examined his allies who plotted to send fake electors to Congress on January 6, 2021, and hand Trump a second term. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, in an order announcing the completion of the special grand jury's work, scheduled a January 24 hearing to decide whether the report should be made public. The jurors who wrote the report recommended that it should be, McBurney wrote. The Georgia investigation, which is criminal in nature, is one of Trump's most severe legal risks. Willis has moved swiftly and fought court battles to enforce the grand jury's subpoenas and bring a parade of high-profile witnesses before the special grand jury, including Gov. Brian Kemp; the state's Republican Party chairman, David Shafer; Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; Trump's ex-chief of staff Mark Meadows, and more than a dozen others who communicated with Trump at the time that he challenged the election results. "The Court thanks the grand jurors for their dedication, professionalism, and significant commitment of time and attention to this important matter. It was no small sacrifice to serve," McBurney wrote in his order. According to an analysis from the Brookings Institution, Trump and the fake electors could face charges of election fraud, improperly trying to influence government officials, and criminal solicitation. If Willis convenes another grand jury to weigh bringing indictments — as she is widely expected to do — that grand jury would move relatively quickly. It would sit for up to two months, and would already have all the evidence and witness transcripts gathered by the special grand jury in front of them. If that other grand jury does decide to bring criminal charges against Trump, he would be required to appear in court in Atlanta for his arraignment hearing. Trump has other legal cases to juggle as well. This week, his company and its former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, are scheduled to be sentenced in a Manhattan court after being found guilty last year of a long-running tax fraud scheme. The investigation is ongoing, and the Manhattan district attorney's office hasn't publicly ruled out charging Trump himself. The former president also faces a litany of civil cases, including a rape lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, an upcoming trial for a lawsuit from a group of plaintiffs who alleged he hawked a multilevel-marketing scam, a case from the New York attorney general's office over allegedly fraudulent business practices, and a wrongful death lawsuit from the family of a Capitol police officer who died after the January 6 riot. On a federal level, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is overseeing a pair of criminal investigations into the fake electors scheme, as well as Trump's possession of government documents after he left office. Willis's case would likely have the edge in moving forward, given how far along it is and the strength of the evidence, Ronald L. Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, previously told Insider. "So far as I know, in none of these other investigations do they have a recording of former President Trump trying to persuade officials to take certain actions," Carlson said. "The secretary of state of Georgia is responsible for that. He's the one that recorded the phone call, which said, 'Brad, I want you to find me 11,780 new votes.'" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.