LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's JournalTrump envisioned deal to let Russia 'take over' parts of Ukraine
TFG's peace plan is to give Putin everything Putin wants
https://twitter.com/stevebenen/status/1633865281952178178
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-envisioned-deal-let-russia-take-parts-ukraine-rcna74132
During a radio interview with Fox News host (and longtime confidant) Sean Hannity on Monday, the twice-impeached ex-president finally revealed how he personally would have prevented the war. According to Trump, all he needed to do was let Russia “take over” parts of Ukraine.
As part of the on-air interview, the former president congratulated himself for the fact that Russia didn’t invade its neighbors during his White House term. Trump quickly added, “That’s without even negotiating a deal. I could have negotiated. At worst, I could’ve made a deal to take over something, there are certain areas that are Russian-speaking areas, frankly, but you could’ve worked a deal.”
As it turns out, Hannity aired portions of this interview on his Fox News program hours later, but these comments were omitted from the television broadcast.....
In other words, Trump has a vision, and it involves Ukrainian officials giving up parts of their territory to the country that invaded them, in the hopes that might temporarily satisfy Trump’s friends in Moscow. What could possibly go wrong?
Will Rupert Murdoch actually fire these Fox 'News' hosts who willingly spread the big lie?
I want tucker added to this list
https://twitter.com/lynn_of_cait/status/1632450705859510274
https://twitter.com/FormerGOPer/status/1633985351634104322
Why Michael Flynn's new lawsuit looks like an audacious stunt
This is a very stupid lawsuit
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1633984775663878144
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/michael-flynns-new-lawsuit-looks-audacious-stunt-rcna74161?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma&taid=640a700c6ee8d70001dbafa6&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
It was just a few years ago when federal prosecutors charged Flynn, accusing him of lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian government, lying to investigators about being a paid foreign agent, and acting illegally as an unregistered foreign agent while working on Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Flynn soon after admitted he lied, twice pleaded guilty — under oath and in open court — and became a cooperating witness with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Flynn then changed his lawyers, at which point he stopped helping the Mueller probe and decided he was no longer guilty of the crimes he’d already pleaded guilty to. Soon after, then-Attorney General Bill Barr took an interest in the case, and the Justice Department announced it was dropping all of the charges against Trump’s former aide.
As difficult as it was to believe, Barr’s DOJ concluded that it could not prove Flynn was guilty of the crimes to which he’d already pleaded guilty. (A retired judge examined what transpired and ultimately accused the Justice Department of exercising a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power.”)....
It’s against this backdrop that Flynn is now suing, claiming federal law enforcement subjected him to malicious prosecution when they charged him with crimes he had twice pleaded guilty to in open court.
New York State's Trump Investigation An analysis of the reported facts and applicable law
This is interesting read by Prof. Eisen
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1633995552474923010
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1634000622897733632
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1634005567675981824
https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-york-states-trump-investigation-an-analysis-of-the-reported-facts-and-applicable-law/
In a new Brookings publication, four leading experts discuss the possible first case that reportedly may lie ahead shortly—and conclude that Trump is at risk of eventual indictment even if he is not named in that initial filing. This report analyzes the potential charges both the Trump Organization and Trump himself may face. The report also goes in depth into the defenses that may be available in response to any indictment.
The authors identify five possible areas of prosecutorial attention to Trump, his business and its executives:
1. Allegations of Falsifying Business Records
The report looks at New York’s law against falsifying the books and records of a business. That may apply if the company did not properly account for its handling of fringe benefits directed towards its CFO, Allen Weisselberg, or members of his family. The fringe benefits at issue reportedly include apartments, car leases and private school tuition. The same statute may also apply to the company’s reported accounting for other disputed matters. That includes the reimbursement of hush money payments allegedly made at Trump’s direction to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
This report outlines four more crime that TFG may be charged with. The conclusion of this report is interesting.
New York felony criminal violations generally have a statute of limitations of only five years and quite a bit of the conduct reportedly under investigation predates the five-year period. On the other hand, continuation of an ongoing criminal conspiracy and other tolling doctrines (such as the protracted absence of a defendant from the jurisdiction) can operate to extend statutes of limitations.
Prosecutors will also have to prove that Trump or anyone else charged had the specific intent to defraud. Trump and other defendants may rebut such proof by claiming that they relied on accountants, lawyers, and other professionals to do what was best for the company within the constraints of the law. Trump, as is his wont, may also seek to deflect, pointing the finger at others who should be held criminally responsible.
Federal court to expedite Andrew Warren's appeal in lawsuit against DeSantis
DeathSantis removed a duly elected district attorney for no real reason other than he did not agree with DeathSantis. This trial judge ruled that DeathSantis improperly removed the District Attorney but that the judge had no authority to reinstate this official. Normally the law hates a wrong without a remedy and so I hope that the court of appeals overturns the trial judge. The fact that court of appeals has granted expedited review is a good sign
https://twitter.com/NikitaKitty/status/1633760868209946626
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/federal-court-to-expedite-andrew-warren-s-appeal-in-lawsuit-against-desantis/ar-AA18ojca?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f17ba30eaf174a7db0e2a527c40e1a48&ei=30
Warren sought to expedite the review because, according to his legal team as written it the request, "the public needs resolution at the earliest possible opportunity of whether the governor illegally removed the duly elected prosecutor in the state’s third most populous city," a spokesperson for Warren said in a news release.
Back in January, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that DeSantis did violate Warren's First Amendment rights by suspending him, but said the court didn't have the power to reinstate his position. Following the ruling, the court did ask DeSantis to rescind his suspension of the state attorney, but the governor has yet to do so.
Now that the federal court has granted the motion to expedite the appeal, the initial brief from Warren is due on March 13. The response brief from DeSantis is due April 12 and if Warren wishes to file a reply brief, it would be due April 26. Oral arguments in the case will be held the week of May 1 in Montgomery, Alabama.
Warren was elected in 2016 and 2020 as prosecutor of Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa. He has said DeSantis overturned the will of voters by removing him from office.
Federal court to expedite Andrew Warren's appeal in lawsuit against DeSantis
Source: MSN
The battle with DeSantis will continue as U.S. Circuit Judge Jill Pryor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted the motion to expedite the case. According to the court document, Warren could face DeSantis and his legal team in court as soon as May.
Warren sought to expedite the review because, according to his legal team as written it the request, "the public needs resolution at the earliest possible opportunity of whether the governor illegally removed the duly elected prosecutor in the state’s third most populous city," a spokesperson for Warren said in a news release.
Back in January, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that DeSantis did violate Warren's First Amendment rights by suspending him, but said the court didn't have the power to reinstate his position. Following the ruling, the court did ask DeSantis to rescind his suspension of the state attorney, but the governor has yet to do so.
Now that the federal court has granted the motion to expedite the appeal, the initial brief from Warren is due on March 13. The response brief from DeSantis is due April 12 and if Warren wishes to file a reply brief, it would be due April 26. Oral arguments in the case will be held the week of May 1 in Montgomery, Alabama.
Warren was elected in 2016 and 2020 as prosecutor of Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa. He has said DeSantis overturned the will of voters by removing him from office.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/federal-court-to-expedite-andrew-warren-s-appeal-in-lawsuit-against-desantis/ar-AA18ojca?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f17ba30eaf174a7db0e2a527c40e1a48&ei=30
A federal judge has ordered Peter NAVARRO to turn over 200-250 presidential records
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1633960605173395456Prosecutors signal criminal charges for Donald Trump are likely.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1633966335418851330Texas AG Ken Paxton's $3.3M settlement with whistleblowers in jeopardy
This makes me smile. A trial will expose a ton of dirty laundry
https://twitter.com/KHOU/status/1633630266278412288
https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-lawsuit-settlement/285-37472a1e-0d1a-444c-8180-220028a07b12
The lawsuit alleged that Paxton fired the employees after they accused him of criminal acts, according to court filings. It was a payout that would be covered with taxpayer dollars and would have to be approved during this current legislative session.
On Wednesday, the attorneys for the fired employees sent KHOU 11 the ‘motion to lift abatement’ that they filed with the Texas Supreme Court, which would allow the suit to move forward again. The attorneys say they filed it because Paxton’s office wouldn’t agree that the legislative approval would happen during the current session. They released the following statement.
“Sadly, we have not been able to reach a final settlement because OAG will not agree to include in the formal agreement a deadline for the legislature to approve funding this session, even though that was the fundamental premise upon which they asked us to negotiate in the first place. So we’ll go back to court, where the taxpayers will end up paying more to defend OAG than they would to settle this case. We would still settle the case if the legislature approved the payment this session, but we cannot and did not agree to give OAG the benefit of a settlement while the whistleblowers wait in perpetuity for legislative approval.”
Texas AG Ken Paxton's $3.3M settlement with whistleblowers in jeopardy
This makes me smile. A trial will expose a ton of dirty laundry
https://twitter.com/KHOU/status/1633630266278412288
https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-lawsuit-settlement/285-37472a1e-0d1a-444c-8180-220028a07b12
The lawsuit alleged that Paxton fired the employees after they accused him of criminal acts, according to court filings. It was a payout that would be covered with taxpayer dollars and would have to be approved during this current legislative session.
On Wednesday, the attorneys for the fired employees sent KHOU 11 the ‘motion to lift abatement’ that they filed with the Texas Supreme Court, which would allow the suit to move forward again. The attorneys say they filed it because Paxton’s office wouldn’t agree that the legislative approval would happen during the current session. They released the following statement.
“Sadly, we have not been able to reach a final settlement because OAG will not agree to include in the formal agreement a deadline for the legislature to approve funding this session, even though that was the fundamental premise upon which they asked us to negotiate in the first place. So we’ll go back to court, where the taxpayers will end up paying more to defend OAG than they would to settle this case. We would still settle the case if the legislature approved the payment this session, but we cannot and did not agree to give OAG the benefit of a settlement while the whistleblowers wait in perpetuity for legislative approval.”
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 145,176
