The ink wasn’t dry on the print-outs of yesterday’s indictment of Defendant Trump before his supporters and lawyers and even his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination were all over the airways with the bogus defense that nothing he did back in 2020 was a crime because it was all “free speech” protected by the Constitution.
Omitted from all of the talking heads is any recognition of Trump's violation of his oath of office. Perhaps that's just a given. His only loyalty is to himself, but still let's not forget the many Capital Police who died or were disabled because their oath meant something to them and this democracy means something to them. Let us never forget to thank those who saved our democracy that day.
I knew that when Trump raised his hand and took the oath of office that he had no concept whatsoever what he was saying or agreeing to or promising. His whole manner told you that, aside from what you already knew about him.
It was as though we were watching a three-year-old take the oath of office or any oath of any kind. You knew it was totally absurd and not worth the air it required for the sounding of the words.
Mae, I couldn’t watch the inauguration. I’ve seen recaps, but I was sick to my stomach that day. I can barely watch him even now. Such a lowlife, worthless human being. He is going to die in prison, that is my only consolation. Thank God for Jack Smith.
Was moved by Jack Smith’s words yesterday placing them rightly with all who have sacrificed their bodies and their lives defending our country. Not enough can be said for their courage.
Patris, I also found his words and tone moving and calming. I felt we are finally being protected from the predators running rampant in our land. A compassionate demeanor and clearly spoken words. Mr. Smith has gone to Washington, this time to save America.
Hold on just a New Yawk minute, Trump has a new genius grift, I mean genius plan, a very stable genius plan, you wiseguy libs and Deranged Jack Smith ain't seen nothin' yet! Here it is, courtesy of a Mister Borowitz of New Yawk, New Yawk:
New Trump Fund-Raising E-mail Asks Supporters to Serve Prison Time for Him
By Andy Borowitz
August 2, 2023
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A new fund-raising e-mail from Donald J. Trump is offering donors the “unique chance” to serve prison time for the former President.
“Jack So-Called Smith and the Biden Justice Department want to put Your Favorite President Behind Bars!” the appeal, which was sent to millions of Trump supporters, reads. “For a Limited Time Only, You Can Go in My Place!!!”
According to a campaign spokesman, Trump donors are lining up in substantial numbers to serve time in prison for him. “This offer is doing even better than the Trump N.F.T.s,” the campaign worker said.
The success of the appeal, however, has raised concern that the demand for Trump prison slots could overwhelm supply. “Hopefully, there will be some more indictments soon,” the spokesman said.
I see Amazon now has "Raise Hell: The Life and Times of Molly Ivins", a 92 minute documentary on this great political writer. My all-time favorite. I sure wish she were alive to have written about The Lunatic.
Notice that Jack Smith did not charge Defendant Trump with inciting the violence at the Capitol, knowing that a First Amendment defense in that charge might prevail (Rudy, with his call to "combat by fire," on the other hand may be another matter). Smith -- or "Smith," as Trump likes to render it -- was pretty shrewd in his charging decisions.
With no-nonsense Jack Smith and this judge, Trump will have a hard time stalling this one. Trump will try to re-litigate the entire election but Jack Smith can easily assert collateral estoppel (that another court has already decided these claims in another case against the same parties), and proceed to the merits. I can't imagine many competent litigators wanted to take this mess on.
Here's one usually taught in tandem with collateral estoppel, to emphasize the need to distinguish them, Patris.
It may be useful also to know the main points of this, just as general background - and notice the theoretical theme of trying to be fair to both parties, and be efficient in scarce, valuable time of the courts, attorneys, contending parties, staff, possible future litigants who may be constrained by the rules applied, etc. :
Generally, res judicata is the principle that a cause of action may not be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. "Finality" is the term which refers to when a court renders a final judgment on the merits.
Res judicata is also frequently referred to as "claim preclusion," and the two are used interchangeably throughout this article.
Breaking Down the Concept
Claim preclusion can be best understood by breaking it down into two sub-categories:
Bar - a losing plaintiff cannot re-sue a winning defendant on the same cause of action
example: Plaintiff P sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C, but P loses. P may not try for better luck by initiating a new lawsuit against D on C.
Merger - a winning plaintiff cannot re-sue a losing defendant on the same cause of action
example: Plaintiff P successfully sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C. P may not again sue D on C to try to recover more damages.
Damages
As illustrated in the merger example, a claim can have finality, even when the judge does not award damages. Thus even if a winning party believes he deserves more in damages than he received (or if he received no damages, he believes he deserves some damages), he is not able to sue on the same cause of action.
Policies of Preclusion
There is a litany of cases dealing with res judicata. Courts, often uphold the doctrine, and typically justify res judicata based on several polices:
promoting efficiency
promoting fairness
avoiding inconsistent adjudication
Does Claim Preclusion Apply for Adjudication Not "On The Merits?"
"On the merits" refers to a judgment, decision, or ruling that a court will make based on the law, after hearing all of the relevant facts and evidence presented in court. Claim preclusion historically only referred to cases decided on the merits. However, the modern view taken by most jurisdictions is that a dismissal based on a failure to state a claim is also claim preclusive. Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure deals with a dismissal based on a failure to state a claim.
According, however, to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following are not claim preclusive and are not considered an adjudication "on the merits":
a lack of jurisdiction
improper venue
failure to join a party when required to do so under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 (aka "Mandatory Joinder")
voluntary dismissals
if the dismissal order does not state otherwise (i.e. a decision made "without prejudice" would not be claim preclusive")
Many jurisdictions also find that res judicata applies to a "dismissal for a failure to prosecute." This phrase refers to an involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's claims when the plaintiff fails to comply with the court's orders in some ways. These dismissals, however, are highly reviewable by appellate courts to ensure that the trial court was not abusing its discretion.
Counterclaims
Generally, claim preclusion applies to counterclaims. Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs counterclaims.
The rules regarding unasserted counterclaims, however, have some nuance. While an unasserted permissive counterclaim is not precluded, an unasserted compulsory counterclaim, is precluded. There are 2 exceptions to this rule:
The defendant's compulsory counterclaim may not be precluded if he was not aware that he could bring the compulsory counterclaim (Dindo v. Whitney 1971)
If the defendant wins an affirmative defense, then the defendant can counterclaim on the same facts
Some jurisdictions also follow the "Common Law Compulsory Counterclaim Rule." This rule states that if "Party A" fails to assert an available counterclaim during "Trial A," then "Party A" is precluded from suing in "Trial B" if if granting relief of that action would nullify the judgment from "Trial A."
Alternative Techniques to Preclude Another Party’s Actions
In addition to bar and merger, there are two other techniques that courts look to which have the same effect on a cause of action as claim preclusion:
Estoppel
"Party A" cannot litigate a position when that position is inconsistent with "Party A's" earlier conduct which "Party B" has detrimentally relied upon
Judicial estoppel
"Party A" cannot unfairly take factual positions in litigation that are inconsistent with previous positions that Party A had taken in prior judicial proceedings
Claim Preclusion and Adverse Parties
In judicial proceedings, claim preclusion only applies to adverse parties, it does not apply to co-parties (ex: a party that has been joined via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20). Contrast this rule with collateral estoppel (also known as "issue preclusion"), which applies to both co-parties and adverse parties.
The Defendant has a new lawyer alleged to be first class on TV saying that the indictment is a violation of the Defendant's first amendment rights. I cannot imagine that the man will try to argue that in court. He's a good lawyer who is on television saying horse manure.Trump can ruin any lawyer.
Excellent! After posting a link to LT's previous article on my FB page someone tried to convince me that TDG can't be charged because he is "criminally insane". Bullshit! He is insanely criminal and a traitor! Go Jack Smith! Go!
We've been through that on this very blog in the last few months - they may be thinking of some useful psychiatric definition, it is not the same thing as proving "insanity" for legal purposes:
Mr. T's defining "criminal conspiracy" was vivid and lovely, and the Gov. Whitmer illo was perfect.
This mud wrestle is disgraceful, and unfortunately will not be ended even in a year's time. I don't think there's ever been a political plague like this one.
Not in the USA, what would it be? Unless someone can cite a plausible counter-example of a longer stretch of time with as toxic a political phenomenon on the federal level, implicating the president and or former president.
Trump is vindicating that book title from Rick Wilson's NY TIMES bestseller, "Everything Trump Touches Dies."
Mr Feldman has added most appropriate point to your wonderful column: the vile wretch violated his oath of office. Our very conservative fellow citizens in Georgia have set a high standard for all of us. Let's follow their example. The law is the law. Therefore, the vile wretch is entitled to the full protection the law provides. Fine. Give him a fair trial and all the due process to which every American is entitled and then if he is convicted, take him into custody but not prison. Imprisonment is a threat to his personal safety. That would create a dilemma for the Secret Service. But, remember, federal custody can be just as harsh as prison. There are lots of federal installations around the nation. For example, consider life at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota where it is very safe but very isolated. So, as we near the end of the day, let us be resolved that no matter what, we work like hell to keep that oath breaking, constitution hater out of any elective office.
Would Minot AFB happen to have a SCIF? For such a facility, windowless and devoid of external communication methods and devices could make one perfect and poetic accommodation for a felon Trump, would it not?
Definitely. Wouldn’t want to defile a nice vacation spot. I’m thinking about a decommissioned coast guard station somewhere remote where he can be secure and contemplate his life.
Of course Defendant Dumpster's supporters (well, maybe a couple of them), his lawyers, and rivals all know (intellectually) this indictment has absolutely nothing to do with "free speech". But if they were to say otherwise, they'd all be crucified on the altar to the Dumpster. Let them rant, whine, & scream "free speech" all they want. Jack Smith has prepared the legal battlefield very well. The Orange Stain has more than met his match.
John Luman Smith (born 1969) is an American attorney who has served in the United States Department of Justice as an assistant U.S. attorney, acting U.S. attorney, and head of the department's Public Integrity Section. He was also the chief prosecutor at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, an international tribunal at The Hague tasked with investigating and prosecuting war crimes in the Kosovo War.
In November 2022, attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Smith an independent special counsel, responsible for overseeing two preexisting Justice Department criminal investigations into former president Donald Trump: one regarding Trump's role in the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack, and the other into alleged mishandling of government records, including classified documents. The second resulted in a 37-count indictment of Trump in June 2023 to which three counts were later added in July.[2] In August, the former resulted in an indictment on four charges.[3]
Early life and education
Smith was born in 1969.[4] He grew up in Clay, New York, a suburb of Syracuse.[5][6] In 1987, he graduated from Liverpool High School[7] where he played football and baseball.[8] He then studied political science at the State University of New York at Oneonta, graduating in 1991 with a bachelor of arts, summa cum laude.[8][9][10] Smith then attended Harvard Law School, from which he graduated in 1994 with a juris doctor, cum laude.[6]
Career
After graduating from law school, Smith joined the Manhattan District Attorney's office, serving as assistant district attorney. He was a member of the sex crimes and domestic violence units of the DA's office.[11] He joined the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York in 1999. As an assistant U.S. attorney at the Brooklyn-based office, he prosecuted the police officers who brutalized and sexually assaulted Abner Louima, and led the case towards the death penalty—which was later overturned—against Ronell Wilson, who murdered two members of the New York Police Department.[6][12][13]
From 2008 to 2010, Smith worked as investigation coordinator for the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.[14][13] In that position, he oversaw cases against government officials and militia members accused of war crimes and genocide.[6][12] In 2010, Smith returned to the U.S. to become chief of the U.S. Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section (PIN).[5][13] Among his first responsibilities was evaluating current investigations, and he recommended closing investigations into several members of Congress.[6][a] He spent five years as chief of PIN, where he prosecuted a variety of corruption cases, including those against Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, U.S. representative Rick Renzi, New York State Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver and Jeffrey Sterling, a Central Intelligence Agency agent who shared national secrets.[15][13]
We must assume at least *some* of Trump's lawyers and supporters know better. I cannot comprehend what makes people speak nonsense publicly. I just can't.
Margo, I think ALL of his lawyers know better and they're likely struggling to find some way out of an impossible legal situation. They know their backs are against a wall but what else can they say publicly? Yes, they speak nonsense but I think deep down I think they're all looking to ultimately profit from the experience when it's all over and done with. Insider-authored books are where their long-term profits lie.
Stan, I think there's an unwritten rule that a lawyer cannot write about a client due to privilege. The exception would be - maybe - if the client died. Which, in this case, I predicted would happen within 30 days. Really, the only decent thing for Lardass to do is checkout, thereby ending this daily soap opera, As His World Burns.
Lucian, I read your latest posting in the restaurant, holding a cold Ukrainian beer, just after I said, out loud, an expansion of what your reader difny suggested: za nas, za vas, i za Donbas, i za Ukraine, i za Lucian Truscott, i za Jack Smith. You called the Trumpoid apologists "stupid." Of course that is a reminder of Jamie Lee Curtis saying to Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, "To call you stupid is an insult to stupid people." In fact, they are not "stupid." They are the political/media equivalents of street peddlers of crack cocaine. Whatever they need to say to give their political addicts the excitement of hatred, they will say --- especially when it brings them money, lots of it. No? Remember the e-mails and texts between Fox workers, worrying that if they adulterated what they were pushing, their loyal junkies would go to another cooker, NewsMax or OAN, to get a purer product.
The free speech argument is only one of the many strawman arguments Trump supporters will make to throw shade on Smith's indictment. But, as Lucian points out the fundamental act, actually acts, taken by Defendant Trump, were active criminal steps which led to GOP politicians in seven states willingly collaborating and executing a conspiracy to deny the citizens of those states to deny voters in those states from having their votes counted accurately. The "conspiracy" was not in wishing and hoping he/they could reverse the votes but in actively selecting slates of false electors, having them certified as true electors and , then , setting in motion a plot to have these electors presented on January 6 so as to give Pence a reason not to certify Biden as the legitimately elected President. Put another way, it was a heist behind the scenes hoping Pence would believe he could not certify Biden and, thus, throwing the nation and the Congress into a turmoil where one DJ Trump could step forward as a strong man and take any action he wanted. When it fell apart, he went with Door #2 sending his goons to the Capitol.
Smith has produced and filed a very simple law suit. When it goes to trial the judge will be asked to approve all sorts of BS defenses by Trump's team. If she keeps here eye on the ball it will be simple. MIke Pence and several corroborating witnesses will testify Trump knew he lost, asked them to participate in a BS scheme to defraud the nation and when they did not , went over the edge.
Teaching 4& 5 year olds not to use the S word, means I rarely use it myself. After reading your explanation why there is No Free Speech loop hole in the indictment, I want to thank you for your gratifying use of the S word. "He was charged with conspiracy, stupid."
As they say, Let me be clear, about how good it felt to read.
I read somewhere that another possible defense will be to throw his lawyers under the bus; I guess you could call that one the "Mama, they made me do it" defense?
What gets me is the number of people who are defending a man who was the worst president in our history and would be just as bad or worse if he gets elected in 2024. He should never be allowed anywhere near the WH again.
I trust the D.C. judge to be as equal to her taak as Jack Smith is to his. The propaganda being cast about before the trial is not relevant, Andy Borowitz is. Thanks, Richard Turnbull, J.D.
[OFF TOPIC: The substack comment text editor rendering glitch that made reposting edited comments confusing apparently has finally been fixed. Thanks, substack.]
Omitted from all of the talking heads is any recognition of Trump's violation of his oath of office. Perhaps that's just a given. His only loyalty is to himself, but still let's not forget the many Capital Police who died or were disabled because their oath meant something to them and this democracy means something to them. Let us never forget to thank those who saved our democracy that day.
I knew that when Trump raised his hand and took the oath of office that he had no concept whatsoever what he was saying or agreeing to or promising. His whole manner told you that, aside from what you already knew about him.
It was as though we were watching a three-year-old take the oath of office or any oath of any kind. You knew it was totally absurd and not worth the air it required for the sounding of the words.
Mae, I couldn’t watch the inauguration. I’ve seen recaps, but I was sick to my stomach that day. I can barely watch him even now. Such a lowlife, worthless human being. He is going to die in prison, that is my only consolation. Thank God for Jack Smith.
I think I watched some of it. I remember the spectacle of a complete amoral ignoramus purporting to take the oath of office.
Was moved by Jack Smith’s words yesterday placing them rightly with all who have sacrificed their bodies and their lives defending our country. Not enough can be said for their courage.
Patris, I also found his words and tone moving and calming. I felt we are finally being protected from the predators running rampant in our land. A compassionate demeanor and clearly spoken words. Mr. Smith has gone to Washington, this time to save America.
I feel this too.
Breaking promises...that has been his Modus Operendi his WHOLE adult life
Grifters gotta grift. Oath? What oath?
Hold on just a New Yawk minute, Trump has a new genius grift, I mean genius plan, a very stable genius plan, you wiseguy libs and Deranged Jack Smith ain't seen nothin' yet! Here it is, courtesy of a Mister Borowitz of New Yawk, New Yawk:
New Trump Fund-Raising E-mail Asks Supporters to Serve Prison Time for Him
By Andy Borowitz
August 2, 2023
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A new fund-raising e-mail from Donald J. Trump is offering donors the “unique chance” to serve prison time for the former President.
“Jack So-Called Smith and the Biden Justice Department want to put Your Favorite President Behind Bars!” the appeal, which was sent to millions of Trump supporters, reads. “For a Limited Time Only, You Can Go in My Place!!!”
According to a campaign spokesman, Trump donors are lining up in substantial numbers to serve time in prison for him. “This offer is doing even better than the Trump N.F.T.s,” the campaign worker said.
The success of the appeal, however, has raised concern that the demand for Trump prison slots could overwhelm supply. “Hopefully, there will be some more indictments soon,” the spokesman said.
www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/new-trump-fund-raising-e-mail-asks-supporters-to-serve-prison-time-for-him?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Borowitz_08022023&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bea06ca24c17c6adf122719&cndid=39215786&hasha=f710a742aa5164be4eadc5c96bf5747c&hashb=a2ebaee910d076bc707e9353642bcf0854cf4021&hashc=88994fd47e4b826d5314a64a4cfb8cb7f793fb5cb315c56dc34d20596700b125&esrc=bounceX&utm_term=TNY_Borowitz
😂😂😂😂
OMG, I love Andy Borowitz so much!
I do too!🤣🤣
I see Amazon now has "Raise Hell: The Life and Times of Molly Ivins", a 92 minute documentary on this great political writer. My all-time favorite. I sure wish she were alive to have written about The Lunatic.
Rich, thank you for sharing this. I miss Molly Ivins to this very day.
For about a week after his winning the Electoral College, I thought Trump was so dumb (like GW Bush) as to be amusing, but then...
I wonder how Molly would have handled The Lunatic. I hate thinking about him, and I find him totally unfunny and devoid of any humanity.
Maybe Melanie will stand as a Tribute. Let’s watch.
Gotta love Borowitz!
Popped up today in my inbox...laughed and laughed.
Notice that Jack Smith did not charge Defendant Trump with inciting the violence at the Capitol, knowing that a First Amendment defense in that charge might prevail (Rudy, with his call to "combat by fire," on the other hand may be another matter). Smith -- or "Smith," as Trump likes to render it -- was pretty shrewd in his charging decisions.
With no-nonsense Jack Smith and this judge, Trump will have a hard time stalling this one. Trump will try to re-litigate the entire election but Jack Smith can easily assert collateral estoppel (that another court has already decided these claims in another case against the same parties), and proceed to the merits. I can't imagine many competent litigators wanted to take this mess on.
I did not know of this assertion. Probably because I never worked with a criminal lawyer. (Makes me question my life’s choices.)
Here's one usually taught in tandem with collateral estoppel, to emphasize the need to distinguish them, Patris.
It may be useful also to know the main points of this, just as general background - and notice the theoretical theme of trying to be fair to both parties, and be efficient in scarce, valuable time of the courts, attorneys, contending parties, staff, possible future litigants who may be constrained by the rules applied, etc. :
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/res_judicata
Res judicata translates to "a matter judged."
Generally, res judicata is the principle that a cause of action may not be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. "Finality" is the term which refers to when a court renders a final judgment on the merits.
Res judicata is also frequently referred to as "claim preclusion," and the two are used interchangeably throughout this article.
Breaking Down the Concept
Claim preclusion can be best understood by breaking it down into two sub-categories:
Bar - a losing plaintiff cannot re-sue a winning defendant on the same cause of action
example: Plaintiff P sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C, but P loses. P may not try for better luck by initiating a new lawsuit against D on C.
Merger - a winning plaintiff cannot re-sue a losing defendant on the same cause of action
example: Plaintiff P successfully sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C. P may not again sue D on C to try to recover more damages.
Damages
As illustrated in the merger example, a claim can have finality, even when the judge does not award damages. Thus even if a winning party believes he deserves more in damages than he received (or if he received no damages, he believes he deserves some damages), he is not able to sue on the same cause of action.
Policies of Preclusion
There is a litany of cases dealing with res judicata. Courts, often uphold the doctrine, and typically justify res judicata based on several polices:
promoting efficiency
promoting fairness
avoiding inconsistent adjudication
Does Claim Preclusion Apply for Adjudication Not "On The Merits?"
"On the merits" refers to a judgment, decision, or ruling that a court will make based on the law, after hearing all of the relevant facts and evidence presented in court. Claim preclusion historically only referred to cases decided on the merits. However, the modern view taken by most jurisdictions is that a dismissal based on a failure to state a claim is also claim preclusive. Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure deals with a dismissal based on a failure to state a claim.
According, however, to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following are not claim preclusive and are not considered an adjudication "on the merits":
a lack of jurisdiction
improper venue
failure to join a party when required to do so under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 (aka "Mandatory Joinder")
voluntary dismissals
if the dismissal order does not state otherwise (i.e. a decision made "without prejudice" would not be claim preclusive")
Many jurisdictions also find that res judicata applies to a "dismissal for a failure to prosecute." This phrase refers to an involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's claims when the plaintiff fails to comply with the court's orders in some ways. These dismissals, however, are highly reviewable by appellate courts to ensure that the trial court was not abusing its discretion.
Counterclaims
Generally, claim preclusion applies to counterclaims. Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs counterclaims.
The rules regarding unasserted counterclaims, however, have some nuance. While an unasserted permissive counterclaim is not precluded, an unasserted compulsory counterclaim, is precluded. There are 2 exceptions to this rule:
The defendant's compulsory counterclaim may not be precluded if he was not aware that he could bring the compulsory counterclaim (Dindo v. Whitney 1971)
If the defendant wins an affirmative defense, then the defendant can counterclaim on the same facts
Some jurisdictions also follow the "Common Law Compulsory Counterclaim Rule." This rule states that if "Party A" fails to assert an available counterclaim during "Trial A," then "Party A" is precluded from suing in "Trial B" if if granting relief of that action would nullify the judgment from "Trial A."
Alternative Techniques to Preclude Another Party’s Actions
In addition to bar and merger, there are two other techniques that courts look to which have the same effect on a cause of action as claim preclusion:
Estoppel
"Party A" cannot litigate a position when that position is inconsistent with "Party A's" earlier conduct which "Party B" has detrimentally relied upon
Judicial estoppel
"Party A" cannot unfairly take factual positions in litigation that are inconsistent with previous positions that Party A had taken in prior judicial proceedings
Claim Preclusion and Adverse Parties
In judicial proceedings, claim preclusion only applies to adverse parties, it does not apply to co-parties (ex: a party that has been joined via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20). Contrast this rule with collateral estoppel (also known as "issue preclusion"), which applies to both co-parties and adverse parties.
Exceptions to res judicata
collateral order doctrine
interlocutory appeal
Exactly. He tried to take away our votes, and for that reason alone he should never be allowed to hold any public office ever again.
The Defendant has a new lawyer alleged to be first class on TV saying that the indictment is a violation of the Defendant's first amendment rights. I cannot imagine that the man will try to argue that in court. He's a good lawyer who is on television saying horse manure.Trump can ruin any lawyer.
I do believe he's shot himself in his lawyer's foot with that one.
One guess where the lawyer's foot was. Not, not the mouth. Where his head was.
I call it “grasping at straws”.
LOL.
Excellent! After posting a link to LT's previous article on my FB page someone tried to convince me that TDG can't be charged because he is "criminally insane". Bullshit! He is insanely criminal and a traitor! Go Jack Smith! Go!
We've been through that on this very blog in the last few months - they may be thinking of some useful psychiatric definition, it is not the same thing as proving "insanity" for legal purposes:
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense
He’s too evil to be insane.
Marlene, As my mother used to say: “Crazy like a fox....” Ugh!
Mr. T's defining "criminal conspiracy" was vivid and lovely, and the Gov. Whitmer illo was perfect.
This mud wrestle is disgraceful, and unfortunately will not be ended even in a year's time. I don't think there's ever been a political plague like this one.
Not in the USA, what would it be? Unless someone can cite a plausible counter-example of a longer stretch of time with as toxic a political phenomenon on the federal level, implicating the president and or former president.
Trump is vindicating that book title from Rick Wilson's NY TIMES bestseller, "Everything Trump Touches Dies."
Mr Feldman has added most appropriate point to your wonderful column: the vile wretch violated his oath of office. Our very conservative fellow citizens in Georgia have set a high standard for all of us. Let's follow their example. The law is the law. Therefore, the vile wretch is entitled to the full protection the law provides. Fine. Give him a fair trial and all the due process to which every American is entitled and then if he is convicted, take him into custody but not prison. Imprisonment is a threat to his personal safety. That would create a dilemma for the Secret Service. But, remember, federal custody can be just as harsh as prison. There are lots of federal installations around the nation. For example, consider life at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota where it is very safe but very isolated. So, as we near the end of the day, let us be resolved that no matter what, we work like hell to keep that oath breaking, constitution hater out of any elective office.
Would Minot AFB happen to have a SCIF? For such a facility, windowless and devoid of external communication methods and devices could make one perfect and poetic accommodation for a felon Trump, would it not?
A lighthouse in Maine on an island.
I’ve stayed on islands off the coast of Maine, including Monhegan. Installing Dumpster on any of them would be a defilement.
Definitely. Wouldn’t want to defile a nice vacation spot. I’m thinking about a decommissioned coast guard station somewhere remote where he can be secure and contemplate his life.
Damn...I want him to rot in prison. Oh well, at least he wouldn’t he under house arrest at Mar-a-Lago.
Of course Defendant Dumpster's supporters (well, maybe a couple of them), his lawyers, and rivals all know (intellectually) this indictment has absolutely nothing to do with "free speech". But if they were to say otherwise, they'd all be crucified on the altar to the Dumpster. Let them rant, whine, & scream "free speech" all they want. Jack Smith has prepared the legal battlefield very well. The Orange Stain has more than met his match.
In case you missed it, Jack Smith's Wiki bio might be of some interest:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Smith_(lawyer) - Here's the opening paragraphs...
John Luman Smith (born 1969) is an American attorney who has served in the United States Department of Justice as an assistant U.S. attorney, acting U.S. attorney, and head of the department's Public Integrity Section. He was also the chief prosecutor at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, an international tribunal at The Hague tasked with investigating and prosecuting war crimes in the Kosovo War.
In November 2022, attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Smith an independent special counsel, responsible for overseeing two preexisting Justice Department criminal investigations into former president Donald Trump: one regarding Trump's role in the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack, and the other into alleged mishandling of government records, including classified documents. The second resulted in a 37-count indictment of Trump in June 2023 to which three counts were later added in July.[2] In August, the former resulted in an indictment on four charges.[3]
Early life and education
Smith was born in 1969.[4] He grew up in Clay, New York, a suburb of Syracuse.[5][6] In 1987, he graduated from Liverpool High School[7] where he played football and baseball.[8] He then studied political science at the State University of New York at Oneonta, graduating in 1991 with a bachelor of arts, summa cum laude.[8][9][10] Smith then attended Harvard Law School, from which he graduated in 1994 with a juris doctor, cum laude.[6]
Career
After graduating from law school, Smith joined the Manhattan District Attorney's office, serving as assistant district attorney. He was a member of the sex crimes and domestic violence units of the DA's office.[11] He joined the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York in 1999. As an assistant U.S. attorney at the Brooklyn-based office, he prosecuted the police officers who brutalized and sexually assaulted Abner Louima, and led the case towards the death penalty—which was later overturned—against Ronell Wilson, who murdered two members of the New York Police Department.[6][12][13]
From 2008 to 2010, Smith worked as investigation coordinator for the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.[14][13] In that position, he oversaw cases against government officials and militia members accused of war crimes and genocide.[6][12] In 2010, Smith returned to the U.S. to become chief of the U.S. Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section (PIN).[5][13] Among his first responsibilities was evaluating current investigations, and he recommended closing investigations into several members of Congress.[6][a] He spent five years as chief of PIN, where he prosecuted a variety of corruption cases, including those against Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, U.S. representative Rick Renzi, New York State Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver and Jeffrey Sterling, a Central Intelligence Agency agent who shared national secrets.[15][13]
We must assume at least *some* of Trump's lawyers and supporters know better. I cannot comprehend what makes people speak nonsense publicly. I just can't.
Margo, I think ALL of his lawyers know better and they're likely struggling to find some way out of an impossible legal situation. They know their backs are against a wall but what else can they say publicly? Yes, they speak nonsense but I think deep down I think they're all looking to ultimately profit from the experience when it's all over and done with. Insider-authored books are where their long-term profits lie.
Stan, I think there's an unwritten rule that a lawyer cannot write about a client due to privilege. The exception would be - maybe - if the client died. Which, in this case, I predicted would happen within 30 days. Really, the only decent thing for Lardass to do is checkout, thereby ending this daily soap opera, As His World Burns.
Lucian, I read your latest posting in the restaurant, holding a cold Ukrainian beer, just after I said, out loud, an expansion of what your reader difny suggested: za nas, za vas, i za Donbas, i za Ukraine, i za Lucian Truscott, i za Jack Smith. You called the Trumpoid apologists "stupid." Of course that is a reminder of Jamie Lee Curtis saying to Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, "To call you stupid is an insult to stupid people." In fact, they are not "stupid." They are the political/media equivalents of street peddlers of crack cocaine. Whatever they need to say to give their political addicts the excitement of hatred, they will say --- especially when it brings them money, lots of it. No? Remember the e-mails and texts between Fox workers, worrying that if they adulterated what they were pushing, their loyal junkies would go to another cooker, NewsMax or OAN, to get a purer product.
… I za Lawrence Dietz!!!
The free speech argument is only one of the many strawman arguments Trump supporters will make to throw shade on Smith's indictment. But, as Lucian points out the fundamental act, actually acts, taken by Defendant Trump, were active criminal steps which led to GOP politicians in seven states willingly collaborating and executing a conspiracy to deny the citizens of those states to deny voters in those states from having their votes counted accurately. The "conspiracy" was not in wishing and hoping he/they could reverse the votes but in actively selecting slates of false electors, having them certified as true electors and , then , setting in motion a plot to have these electors presented on January 6 so as to give Pence a reason not to certify Biden as the legitimately elected President. Put another way, it was a heist behind the scenes hoping Pence would believe he could not certify Biden and, thus, throwing the nation and the Congress into a turmoil where one DJ Trump could step forward as a strong man and take any action he wanted. When it fell apart, he went with Door #2 sending his goons to the Capitol.
Smith has produced and filed a very simple law suit. When it goes to trial the judge will be asked to approve all sorts of BS defenses by Trump's team. If she keeps here eye on the ball it will be simple. MIke Pence and several corroborating witnesses will testify Trump knew he lost, asked them to participate in a BS scheme to defraud the nation and when they did not , went over the edge.
Teaching 4& 5 year olds not to use the S word, means I rarely use it myself. After reading your explanation why there is No Free Speech loop hole in the indictment, I want to thank you for your gratifying use of the S word. "He was charged with conspiracy, stupid."
As they say, Let me be clear, about how good it felt to read.
HE WAS CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY, STUPID!!!
I read somewhere that another possible defense will be to throw his lawyers under the bus; I guess you could call that one the "Mama, they made me do it" defense?
Maybe he should try the Twinkie Defense
Barbara, Or in his case, the “french fry, ketchup and chicken nugget” defense!😂
Don't forget the hamberders
What gets me is the number of people who are defending a man who was the worst president in our history and would be just as bad or worse if he gets elected in 2024. He should never be allowed anywhere near the WH again.
I trust the D.C. judge to be as equal to her taak as Jack Smith is to his. The propaganda being cast about before the trial is not relevant, Andy Borowitz is. Thanks, Richard Turnbull, J.D.
[OFF TOPIC: The substack comment text editor rendering glitch that made reposting edited comments confusing apparently has finally been fixed. Thanks, substack.]