The answer is "YES".
The classical case is that you're looking for an answer to a question. Naturally you do that on Google.
You look for pages that are relevant, read them through, write some answer to yourself and/or some outside receiver.
To be honest that takes a lot of time. Try put your question to perplexity.ai
You may be surprised by the completeness!
I don't get paid for this, I just tried it.
Для всіх, відповідаючи на мої твіти російською чи українською мовою
Для всех отвечаю на мои твиты на русском или украинском языке
twitter is seemingly going to be my 24/7 occupation
If I'm commenting on things in parts of the world where they use the Cyrillic alphabet, not to mention Ukranian language or the Russian, I have to translate posts to get the message. There's also a cultural divide that creates problems.
I can't take anything for granted when I answer and I really have no idea about how an answer may land in the other end. I love Google translate but I do see there are other obstacles when communicating. No wonder we're trying to kill each other.
This will not end well if even if I try my best. For those answering my tweets in Ukrainian or Russian I can only say:
I'm sorry, I won't be able to correctly take into account the circumstances under which he recipient is living or the values governing living there and I will often seem like an idiot.
I'm sorry. I'can't answer your tweets risking that everything will just get worse.
Russian:
Твиттер, похоже, станет моим занятием 24 часа в сутки, 7 дней в неделю.
Если я комментирую что-то в тех частях света, где используется кириллица, не говоря уже об украинском или русском языке, мне приходится переводить сообщения, чтобы донести мысль. Существует также культурный разрыв, который создает проблемы.
Когда я отвечаю, я не могу ничего принимать как должное и понятия не имею, как ответ может попасть на другой конец. Мне нравится Google Translate, но я вижу, что при общении есть и другие препятствия. Неудивительно, что мы пытаемся убить друг друга.
Это не закончится хорошо, даже если я приложу все усилия. Для тех, кто отвечает на мои твиты на украинском или русском языке, могу сказать только:
Извините, я не смогу правильно принять во внимание обстоятельства, в которых живет получатель, или ценности, регулирующие жизнь там, и часто буду выглядеть идиотом.
Мне жаль. Я не могу отвечать на ваши твиты, рискуя, что все станет еще хуже.
Ukrainian:
twitter, мабуть, буде моїм заняттям 24/7
Якщо я коментую речі в тих частинах світу, де використовують кириличний алфавіт, не кажучи вже про українську чи російську мову, мені доводиться перекладати пости, щоб отримати повідомлення. Існує також культурний розрив, який створює проблеми.
Я не можу сприймати нічого як належне, коли відповідаю, і я справді не знаю, як відповідь може потрапити на інший кінець. Мені подобається Google Translate, але я бачу, що є й інші перешкоди під час спілкування. Не дивно, що ми намагаємося вбити один одного.
Це не закінчиться добре, навіть якщо я докладу всіх зусиль. Для тих, хто відповідає на мої твіти українською чи російською, я можу лише сказати:
Мені шкода, я не зможу правильно врахувати обставини, в яких живе одержувач, або цінності, які керують його життям, і часто виглядатиму ідіотом.
мені шкода Я не можу відповідати на ваші твіти, ризикуючи, що все стане тільки гірше.
Ett svar till ett svar på ett av mina e-mejl...
Diverse (!) engelska har insmugit sig i min svenska. Jag blir "shaken but not stirred" som Bond brukade säga.
I really hope Washington Post will choose to share it with you, as a peep into Washington Post's website.
If you can't enjoy it, you're part of the problem. Sorry guys.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2022/ann-telnaes-jan-6-capitol-cartoon/?tid=ss_tw
Thank you Ann!! I enjoyed every cartoon and some more.
And: No, I will not distribute it, it's for my scrap book. I've been following Trump since 2015 and I agree with Bragg. He's worth an indictment.
For those, thinking he will manage and wriggle out of this one:
Try this: https://a-zproj.blogspot.com/2023/03/trump-vs-justice-he-really-have-at.html
It's more or less a snapshot and I'm not going to update it further, but it's an illustration to what's awaiting our dear TFG who's, rent free, inhabited at least my head since 2016.
I say one thing: Good Luck With That, Donald Trump!
This is a "Google Translate" translation from Swedish. Not good but usable.
Updates: 20230318, 20230320, 20230323, 20230401, 20230414
I didn't have the ambition to continue updating this, it was more or less a situation snapshot. But, I'll make an exception...
Courts time line:
1) Indictment (the court saying you probably did it)
2) Arraignment (the defendant [Trump] must come to the court, fingerprints taken, "mug shot" taken, listen to the indictment before the court. Bail decided if applicable)
3) Prosecution (court proceedings start, the court will hear witnesses, choose a jury etc.)
4) Verdict, "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"
5) Sentencing (penalty in $ or/and years)
DA, District Attorney
AG, Attorney General
Criminal cases may end with a prison sentence, civil cases do not.
HUSH MONEY, STORMY DANIELS, BOOK KEEPING
RAPE ASSAULT, DEFAMATION
JENNA ELLIS, LYING
EVAN CORCORAN, LYING? (Mar-a-Lago)
IVANKA and 'Hey!THEY DID IT'
AG LETITIA JAMES CIVIL LAW SUIT, TAX FRAUD
DA FANI WILLIS FULTON COUNTY, GA, ELECTION TAMPERING
HUSH MONEY, STORMY DANIELS
Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor in the case, seems to be a more methodical person than average. He is the only person to win a lawsuit against the Trump Organization. He has decided to take on the of Stormy Daniels case. (Trump.org had an ongoing operation of "catch and kill" where Trump's misdeeds were tracked down, "catch", and the ladies in question were paid an average of $100,000, "kill", in exchange for their silence).
I have a certain attraction for Stormy D. When the feminists tried to defend her against Trump, she announced that women's rights were great but that she, for her part, lived by sucking cocks and she thought that the feminists should not mix their goals with her way of life.
She definitely has a star in my book!
Not least due to the fact that I have had a workshop, wall to wall with a little lady who made her living in the same field. Occasionally, she was offered cake by her customers and being a small, rather thin person, she couldn't dispose of all the cakes that arrived without warning!
I like that she got cakes, it meant she did a good job psychologically too. Also, when the cakes arrived, me and a friend plus the guy I rented the workshop from were invited to coffee and cake.
It was always the same, she swept all the dildos off the table and picked out some cracked but functional china, served big pieces of cake and then we sat and talked. It was educational for me. The little lady in question was herself married to a weight lifting hulk who matched her need for a muscular man, he didn't care about what she did to contribute to the household so there was no conflict in this.
I have to say I sympathize with the mindset, but I have some medical objections, so although I liked the lady, I can't actually recommend her lifestyle.
I'm digressing ...
The proposed indictment of Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels affair has nothing to do with what the two did together It is not punishable as long as both are in on it. What is punishable, however, is posting costs in the accounting as something other than what they are. The $130,000 payment to Daniels was funneled through his minion Michael Cohen in such a way that
1) Cohen paid Daniels out of his own money
2) Cohen got the sum back from Trump
3) Cohen received a "bounty" for the job of $300,000
Now we come to the crux of the charge: these transactions were booked as expenses for legal services and expenses for [something else equally incorrect]. Update 20230318: seemingly as a retainer for eventual further services. This is debunked in the Cohen trial! |
Posting expenses under the false pretense of other types of expenses ends up being charged with accounting crimes and in this case money laundering [Cohen, with Trump as an accomplice].
Update 20230320: There's an interesting detail, explained by Karen Friedman Agnifilo on Legal AF. The bad book keeping in itself is a "misdemeanor". If massaging the books is done with the intent to cover up another crime or fraud, the case will be about a "felony". The crime/fraud hasn't to be proven, it's the intent that counts. The punishment in that case spans from almost zero (probation) up to four years in prison. What on that scale Alvin Bragg is going to ask for, we'll just have to wait and see. |
Cohen cooperated and got a "plea deal" so he got out fairly quickly. Right now, Trump has been given the opportunity to appear before the "grand jury" of the criminal kind (there is another type called "civil" instead of "criminal"). This grand jury has the power to indict.
One can easily assume that Trump will not be willing to speak out. Partly because his lawyers will prevent him and partly because every single comma he will utter during such an interrogation can be used against him in later negotiations. He does not have access to a lawyer during that type of interrogation. All his lawyers know in advance how it will end, Trump just can't keep quiet when he should.
The above is a clear sign that he will be indicted. That kind of opportunity to speak is a clear sign that an indictment is pending. Update 20230318: And here we go: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110044039949982181 |
RAPE ASSAULT, DEFAMATION
E. Jean Carroll.
Yummy. Trump's lawyers have sought the court's permission not to:
1) use testimony from previous trials on two other "sexual assault" charges. They may not be brought up during Carroll's trial.
2) the tapes where Trump tells a friend that as a "star" he could "grab their pussies" without any problems and otherwise request sexual favors or basically anything because he was one.
Both are equally serious.
In the question of whether they should be allowed to be taken up during the Carroll trial, the judge in the case has weighed between two different paragraphs,
403 which says that you cannot prosecute people for things that happened X number of years ago
and
415 which says that if it is so, that old prosecutions can point to a "way of being" that can have a bearing on a corresponding prosecution in the present and point to a systematic [bad] behavior, this can be allowed to influence a contemporary sentence.
He has decided on the latter (415).
In addition to all the egregious behavior of the past, along with his explicit statements that he can do as he pleases with women, the trial will be decided by a jury drawn from Manhattan and they are to a high degree well-educated Democrats, and after hearing the tapes and reading the old testimonies, this will disfavor him. Especially when they've heard his own testimony, which will cement their view that Trump is a pig of a man without an ounce of morals. He doesn't have a chance to make it, this time.
Also, due to a one time window in time where the statute of limitations was waived, allowing old rape cases to be brought up before a court, Caroll's rape AND the defamations against her that Trump is been guilty of on his Truth Social site, will be processed before the same court. Trump can never shut up when he should.
Update 20230323: Rumors has it the jury will be anonymous since Trump has harassed so many people before during his "career" |
Update 20230401: This is now the case. The jury will be anonymous. Trump's case is now in the same category of cases as Al Capone's and other mafia bosses. This will definitely bias the court against him.
JENNA ELLIS, LYING
"legal adviser" to Trump's election organization and personal adviser to Trump
A slightly special story. She has issued a so-called "stipulation" where she admitted that on 10 different occasions (it is far from all, they are only selected examples by the judge) she has, against her better knowledge, lied about "election fraud" and "stolen election".
It is a paper she has signed and the court published. What's a bit special is that it's an association called something like "in defense of democracy" [can't find the name, yet.] is the one that filed a letter of complaint with the Colorado Bar Association to stop rogue lawyers.
As soon as she got out on the street again, she tweeted:
"The politically-motivated Left failed miserably in their attempt to destroy me.
They're now trying to falsely discredit me by saying I admitted I lied.
That is FALSE. I would NEVER lie. Lying requires INTENTIONALLY making a false statement.
I never did that, nor did I stipulate to or admit that.
As has become sadly typical, the opposition-controlled media is intentionally twisting the truth,
conflating the full RPC standard with the actual stipulation. The standard reads, “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, OR misrepresentation.”
The Colorado bar counsel and my counsel concluded that it was best to resolve the bar
complaints by agreeing to a public censure."
She was a bit lucky here. She received a reprimand but was allowed to continue as a lawyer. But:
if this association discovers that she starts lying more as soon as she gets out on the street, there is a high risk that they will file *another* "complaint" showing that she continues to lie, and her license as a lawyer will go West. You just have to wait and enjoy.
"The censorship" she will remember for the rest of her life. It is determined in the Colorado Supreme Court. She will have to stand on the counter while the judge reads her self-admitted misconduct, point by point. Next, it will be added to a public database where one can look up lawyers and their faults and failings. This can be used by anyone looking for a lawyer. Publicly that is.
Trump surrounding himself with one lawyer after another (Jenna Ellis is not the first, rather the third or fourth) who gets indicted or ends up on boards that decides whether (s)he will be allowed to continue as lawyers, will not help him in the trials to come. This will be noticed. [Rudy Giuiliani, Sidney Powell are prime examples but they are far from all. Trump can't get good legal advice any longer, "real" lawyers won't work with him anymore]
EVAN CORCORAN
vs. Department of Justice (aka Jack Smith :)
Corcoran is a lawyer who promised the National Archive and the Department of Justice that all documents that were "classified" had been returned and that none remained on Trump's premises. National Archives and Dept. of Justice did not believe him and issued a "warrant" where the US classified documents were found in a boxes containing a mix of magazines and memorabilia that Trump brought with him in violation of current regulations. He lied to the Department of Justice. That is a felony. It has also been ascertained that he lied repeatedly to them, about other things
Corcoran has asserted the attorney-client privilege as a defense. No one should know what defense lawyers discuss with their client. There is an exception to that rule and that is when the court suspects that the communication was made to prevent justice from discovering "fraudulent" conduct. The Department of Justice [DoJ] appointed a so-called "special investigator" [Jack Smith] to investigate Trump's overstepping in this context. That appointment has the advantage that even if the political climate were to change in the White House and Congress, NO ONE will stop him from getting his job done.
Jack Smith has requested from the DoJ that attorney-client immunity be waived to compel Corcoran to testify under oath about how some classified documents were not voluntarily returned. Smith has done this five times and each time it has been granted. Smith knows his business.
Update 20230323: Yes he does! In a federal appeals court, giving Trump & Co 8 hours (until 24:00 and Department of Justice 6 hours (until 06:00) to comment on questions posed by the appeal court, consisting of three judges, the appeal was decided to Trump's disadvantage. This procedure usually takes week or months!! Trump should now be even more worried, Corcoran's notes and even one or more audio tracks will be in Jack smith's hands, shortly since the client-attorney privilege now is waived. No wriggling out of this. |
Testifying under oath and lying is extremely expensive in the US, so when it comes down to it, you can expect to find out what went on at Mar A Lago. Corcoran will do everything he can to shift the blame onto Trump.
Update 20230320: Corcoran has been the lawyer used by Stormy Daniels against Trump. Their communications, even if Corcoran saw Daniels just as a perspective client are secret. Forever! Corcoran can't use anything said in connection with Daniels when he works as a lawyer for Trump. To Agnifilo this clearly disqualifies him from working for Trump for a number of reasons. |
The lying to the Department of Justice now put's him in a situation where he will be the defendant in a criminal investigation of himself. It's just an unbelievable mess!
Update 20230323 09:15 Manhattan time: "Spotted at the federal courthouse: Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran. He’s here today for a closed-door hearing on the challenge to special counsel Jack Smith’s subpoena to former VP Mike Pence in the inquiry into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election.
IVANKA and "Hey! THEY DID IT"
Ivanka has been removed from the Trump Organization since 2017. she says ant at least as it appears in the media. She has requested from the relevant court that she should not be charged or even subject to questioning because she left Trump.org behind. That presentation is not convincing, there is a lot of info, internally in Trump.org and externally in the media that shows that this is not true. In addition, the judiciary suspects that this is a maneuver by Trump to save his own favorite, Ivanka, who "if she wasn't my kid and so young, I could date her".
Through Ivanka's lawsuits in connection with the judiciary, Trump & Co. seek to delay possible trials about who is responsible for Trump.org's financial decisions and actions until he becomes unavailable as president. The problem is that Ivanka and others in the Trump family have had 2+ years to come up with pleadings showing they are innocent of everything. That time expires on 21/3 this year.
Now they request a 6-month postponement because they want testimony from Deutsche Bank and various other actors who contributed to Trump being able to borrow enormous sums under false pretenses about the value of his properties, etc. The court shrugs its shoulders and points out that they have had 2+ years to do it but haven't done it. Sorry guys.
In addition, it is a judge in New York who wrote a letter to all the judges that Trump used (in different states) to get his way. He has argued in a court that depending on another pending court ruling in another court, he must get 6 months postponement and then he did the same thing in another court.
He has thus outplayed the courts in various processes against each other in order to get time to weasel out of the problems.
This letter to the various courts outlines Trump's strategy, and warns them not to give Trump more time to wriggle out. The recommendation is that the various courts should determine their trial dates and not grant further postponements. In my opinion, an excellent idea.
AG LETITIA JAMES CIVIL LAW SUIT
Letitia James in New York is working on a lawsuit that will almost certainly result in Tump.org (if they're lucky) paying at least $250,000 in fines and the entire Trump family being banned from their main area of business, New York. It will mean the death of Trump.org. They're not there yet, but James works closely with Alvin Bragg and one thing's for sure, they know what they're doing.
This is a matter of a "civil" grand jury and apparently they are not toothless, either.
This is massive. The paragraph here is short, but the ramifications for the Trump organization... It will kill them, economically! And here the sons and the daughter of Trump are, with a high degree of probability. going to "get it". "It" being real problems.
When that happens, in a few months, the finals will be announced!! Until an indicment is issued, everything the prosecution is doing is under a seal, nobody knows what it will consist of until it's published. That's why there is not much more to tell about this.
DA FANI WILLIS FULTON COUNTY, GA
election fraud.
The following process is in its final stage:
In Fulton County, Georgia, under District Attorney Fani Willis, the famous conversation between Trump and Raffensperger, the election officer of this county in Georgia, where Trump requests that he (Raffensberger) find the 11000+ votes that makes Trump defeat Biden in Georgia. This conversation is both a threat and an attempt to influence the election in Georgia through his position. When it comes up, he (Trump) will be convicted of inciting election fraud and a threat to democracy in the United States. It is recorded.
There is no doubt about this. The problem is that Willis underestimated the time it would take to administer it all. The indctment was going to be "immediate". This wasn't the case. Georgia has a rather complicated model for dealing with this kind of problem. However, one thing is absolutely certain. Fani Willis will not be stopped, that much can be seen already. In short, she is stubborn.
Trump will have huge problems going forward when this happens in reality.
Update 20230320: Karen Friedman Agnifilo on Legal AF had some thoughts on why this case seems to be halted. Trump must appear in NY, get his mug shot done, meet the judge etc. To that end he must leave Mar-a- Lago. |
If Trump refuses to go:
# and if Trump's posting on Truth Social results in his minions appearing there, armed and prepared to stop justice in it's tracks there will be a problem. The police will do anything to avoid a clash, perhaps resulting in injuries and death.
# the security personnel round Trump must have clear orders to let him go, otherwise they will stop anybody from laying hands on him. Coordination is needed here.
# Either the NY DA must ask the DA in Florida OR the NY governor must ask the governor in Florida to orderfor the Floridian police to escort him. That's more administrative processing that may take time.
To sum it up, NY police cannot just go and get him before Tuesday just to avoid all this.
Agnifilo suggested that it could be that Fani Willis is waiting to see how all this is playing out. This may enable her to assess what to expect in her own process and what has to be done to avoid eventual problems Alvin Bragg will encounter. This is just an assumption, but I think a valid one. |
Note: Karen Friedman Agnifilo has been working in the Manhattan DA's office for nearly three decades, from when she left law school until she became number two among 500 lawyers, working in that position for ten years and also being acting DA when needed. She's extremely well suited to have opinions about the legal proceedings.
Disclaimer:
All written above is just what I've gathered as a total layman. I recommend Legal AF on YouTube to get the expert's views. I'm writing this for myself. Possibly someone will get interested enough to do his/her own research.
Top of page
[Summary of Trumps clash with justice up till now. In Swedish.]
A Google Translate translation is available here:
https://a-zproj.blogspot.com/2023/03/trump-vs-justice-he-really-have-at.html
Uppdaterat och språket rättat 20230317
Uppdateringar i fortsättningen endast på engelska: https://a-zproj.blogspot.com/2023/03/trump-vs-justice-he-really-have-at.html
Breaking: Erica Marsh
[2023-03-16_20:09]
The tweet above is about Alvin Braggs legal case.
HUSH MONEY, STORMY DANIELS:
Alvin Bragg, åklagare i målet, verkar vara en mera metodisk person än genomsnittet. Han är den enda person som vunnit en rättegång mot Trump-organisationen. Han har bestämt sig för att ta sig an avbetalningen av Stormy Daniels. (Trump.org hade en pågående verksamhet av “catch and kill” där Trump’s snedsteg spårades, "catch", upp och damerna i fråga betalades med $100000 i genomsnitt, "kill", mot att de höll tyst).
Jag har en viss
klockarkärlek till Stormy D. När feministerna försökte försvara
henne mot Trump meddelade hon att kvinnorättigheter var jättebra
men att hon för sin del levde på att suga kuk och hon tyckte att
feministerna inte skulle blanda samman sina målsättningar med
hennes sätt att leva.
Hon har definitivt
en stjärna i min bok!
Inte minst beroende på att jag har haft en verkstad, vägg i vägg med en liten dam som hade sin utkomst inom samma område. Understundom bjöds hon av sina kunder på tårta och eftersom hon var en liten, ganska smal person, kunde hon inte göra av med alla de tårtor som anlände utan förvarning!
Jag gillar att hon fick tårtor, det innebar att hon gjorde ett bra jobb även psykologiskt. Dessutom, när tårtor anlände, blev jag och en kompis plus han som jag hyrde lokalen av inbjudna till kaffe med tårta.
Det var alltid likadant, hon sopade av alla dildos från bordet och plockade fram lite sprucket men fungerande porslin, serverade rejäla tårtbitar och så satt vi och snackade. Det var utbildande för en annan. Den lilla damen ifråga var själv gift med en skrotlyftande hulk som motsvarade hennes behov av en muskulös karl, Han brydde sig inte om vad hon gjorde för att bidra till hushållet så det fanns ingen konflikt i detta.
Jag måste säga att jag sympatiserar med frihetstänket, men jag har en del medicinska invändningar, så även om jag gillade damen kan jag faktiskt inte rekommendera levnadssättet.
Jag avviker från ämnet, dessvärre...
Det tilltänkta
åtalet mot donald Trump i Stormy Daniels-affären har inget att göra med vad de två
gjorde tillsammans Det är inte straffbart så länge båda är med
på det. Vad som däremot är
straffbart är att bokföra kostnader i bokföringen som något annat än vad de är.
Betalingen på $130000 till Daniels slussades genom hans högra hand
Michael Cohen på så
sätt att
1) Cohen betalade Daniels av egna pengar
2) Cohen fick summan tillbaka av Trump
3) Cohen fick en "dusör" för jobbet på $300000
Nu kommer vi till kärnan av åtalet: dessa transaktioner bokfördes som kostnader för juridiska tjänster och kostnader för [något annat lika felaktigt].
Att bokföra kostnader under felaktiga förespeglingar om andra typer av utlägg slutar med att man blir åtalad för bokföringsbrott och i det här fallet penningtvätt [Cohen, med Trump som medskyldig].
Cohen samarbetade och fick en "plea deal" så han kom ut rätt kvickt. Just nu har Trump fått möjligheten att yttra sig inför en "grand jury" av de kriminella slaget (det finns en annan typ som kallas för "civil" istället för "criminal").
Man kan lätt utgå från att Trump inte kommer att ställa upp på att yttra sig. Dels därför att hans advokater kommer att hindra honom och dels för att varenda kommatecken han kommer att yttra under ett sådant förhör kan användas mot honom i senare förhandlingar. Han har inte tillgång till en advokat under den typen av förhör. Alla hans advokater vet på förhand hur det kommer att sluta, Trump kan bara inte hålla tyst när han borde.
Ovanstående är ett tydligt tecken på att han kommer att åtalas. Den typen av möjlighet att yttra sig är ett solklart tecken på att ett åtal väntar.
RAPE ASSAULT, E.
Jean Carroll.
Smaskigt. Trumps
advokater har sökt rättens medgivande att inte:
1) vittnesmål från
tidigare rättegångar om två andra "sexual assault" åtal inte får tas upp
under rättegången mot Carroll.
2) inspelingsbanden där Trump berättar för en kompanjon att han så som varande en "star" utan problem kunde "grab their pussies" och för övrigt begära andra sexuella tjänster eller i princip vad som helst för att han var det.
Båda är lika graverande.
I frågan om de skall tillåtas tas up under Carroll-rättegången har domaren i fallet har vägt mellan två olika paragrafer,
403 som säger att
man kan inte åtala folk för saker som hänt för X antal år sedan
och
415 som säger
att om det är så, att gamla åtal kan peka mot ett "sätt att vara" som kan ha bäring
på ett motsvarande åtal i nutid och peka på ett systematiskt beteende, kan detta tillåtas påverka en nutida dom.
Han har bestämt sig för det senare (415).
Till alla graverande beteenden från förr, tillsammans med hans uttryckliga utsagor att han kan göra som han vill med kvinnor, hör att rättegången kommer att avgöras av en jury som hämtas från Manhattan och de är välutbildade demokrater till 90% och när de hört banden och läst de gamla vittnesmålen kommer det att missgynna honom. I synnerhet när de fått höra hans eget vittnesmål, som kommer att cementera deras uppfattning att Trump är en mansgris utan ett uns moral. Han har inte en chans att klara sig den här gången.
JENNA ELLIS, "legal adviser" till Trumps valorganisation och personlig rådgivare till Trump
En lite speciell historia. Hon har avgivit en s.k. "stipulation" där hon medgivit att hon vid 10 olika tillfällen (det är långtifrån alla, de är bara utplockade exempel av domaren) har, mot bättre vetande, ljugit om "election fraud" och "stolen election" .
Det är ett papper hon har undertecknat och domtstolen publicerat. Det som är lite speciellt är att det är en sammanslutning som kallas något som liknar "till demokratins försvar" [har inte kunnat hitta namnet, Än.] är den som lämnat in en besvärsskrivelse till Colorados advokatsamfunds nämnd för att få stopp på oseriösa advokater.
Direkt när hon kom
ut på gatan igen tweetade hon:
"The
politically-motivated Left failed miserably in their attempt to
destroy me.
They’re now trying to falsely discredit me by saying I admitted I lied.
That is FALSE. I
would NEVER lie. Lying requires iNTENTiONALLY making a false
statement.
I never did that, nor did I stipulate to or admit that.
As has become
sadly typical, the opposition-controlled media is intentionally
twisting the truth,
conflating the full RPC standard with the actual
stipulation.
The standard reads, “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, OR
misrepresentation.”
The Colorado bar
counsel and my counsel concluded that it was best to resolve the bar
complaints by agreeing to a public censure."
Hon hade lite tur
här. Hon fick en reprimand men fick fortsätta som advokat. Men:
om den här
sammanslutningen upptäcker att hon sätter igång att ljuga mer så
fort hon kommer ut på gatan
är risken stor att de lämnar in ett nytt "complaint" som
visar att hon fortsätter
att ljuga, så åker hennes legitimation som advokat. Det är bara att vänta och avnjuta.
"The censure" kommer hon att märka av. Den fastslås i Colorados högsta domstol. Hon kommer att få stå i skranket medan domaren läser upp det av henne själv medgivna felaktiga beteendet, punkt efter punkt. Därefter kommer det att läggas till en offentlig databas där man kan slå upp advokater och deras fel och brister. Denna kan utnyttjas av envar som söker en advokat. Publikt mao.
Att Trump omger sig med den ena advokaten efter den andra (Jenna Ellis är inte den första, snarare tredje eller fjärde) som blir åtalad eller som hamnar i nämnder som avgör om vederbörande kommer att få fortsätta som advokat, kommer inte att hjälpa honom i de rättegångar som kommer. Han kommer att märka det. [Rudy Giuiliani, Sidney Powell är utmärkta exempel]
Evan Corcoran vs Department of Justice
Corcoran är en advokat som lovade National Archive och Deparment of Justice att alla dokument son var "classified" hade återlämnats och att inga sådana var kvar i Trump's lokaler. National Archives och Dept. of Justice trodde honom inte utan utfärdade en "warrant" där USAs klassificerade dokument låg i sällskap med tidskrifter och memorabilia som Trump tagit med sig i strid med gällande föreskrifter.
Corcoran har hävdat "attorney-client"-privilegiet som försvar. Ingen skall veta vad försvarsadvokater diskuterar med sin klient. Det finns ett undantag till den regeln och det är när domstolen misstänker att den kommunikationen har förts för att förhindra att rättvisan upptäcker "fraudelent" beteende. Department of Justice [DoJ] tillsatte en s.k. "special investigator" för att utreda Trumps övertramp i det här sammanhanget. Den tillsättningen har den fördelen att även om det politiska klimatet skulle förändras i Vita Huset och kongressen, iNGEN kommer att stoppa honom från att göra klart sitt jobb.
Jack Smith har
begärt av DoJ att immuniteten i "attorney-client"-förhållandet inte skall tillåtas gälla för
att tvinga den här Cochrane att vittna under ed om hur det kom
sig att somliga klassificerade dokument inte återlämnades
frivilligt. Det har Smith gjort
fem gånger och varje gång har det blivit beviljat. Smith knows his business.
Att vittna under ed och ljuga är oerhört kostsamt i USA så när det går av stapeln kan man räkna med att man får veta vad som pågått i Mar A Lago. Cochrane kommer att göra allt vad han kan för att vältra över skulden på Trump.
IVANKA and "Hey! THEY
DID IT"
Ivanka har avlägsnat
sig från the Trump Organisation sedan 2017. Åtminstone som det ser
ut ut i medierna. Hon har begärt av berörd domstol att hon inte
borde åtalas eller ens vara aktuell för
förhör eftersom hon lämnat Trump.org bakom sig. Den
framställningen är inte
övertygande, det finns en hel del info, internt i Trump.org och
externt i media som visar på att
detta inte stämmer. Dessutom misstänker rättsväsendet att det här är en manöver från
Trump att rädda sin egen favorit, Ivanka, som "om hon inte
varit min unge och så ung, skulle jag kunnat data henne".
Genom Ivankas processer i samband med rättsväsendet söker Trump & Co skjuta fram i tiden eventuella rättegångar om vem som är ansvariga för Trump.orgs ekonomiska beslut och åtgärder tills han blir oåtkomlig som president. Problemet är att Ivanka och andra i den Trump:ska familjen har haft 2+ år på sig att inkomma med inlagor som visar att de är oskyldiga till allt. Den tiden går ut 21/3 i år.
Nu begär de 6 månaders uppskov eftersom de vill ha in vittnesmål från Deutsche Bank och diverse andra aktörer som medverkat till att Trump kunnat låna ofantliga summor under falska förespeglingar om värdet på sina fastigheter etc. Domstolen rycker på axlarna och påpekar att de har haft 2+ år på sig att göra det men inte gjort det.
Dessutom är det en domare i New York som skrivit ett meddelande till alla domare som Trump använt sig av (i olika stater) för att få sin vilja igenom. Han har hävdat i en domstol att beroende på ett pågående domstolsutslag i en annan domstol, han måste får 6 mån på sig i en viss process och gjort samma sak i en annan domstol.
Han har alltså
spelat ut domstolarna i olika processer mot varandra för att få tid
att slingra sig undan.
Det här brevet till de olika domstolarna beskriver Trumps strategi och varnar dem för
att låta Trump få mera tid att slingra sig undan. Rekommendationen är att de olika
domstolarna skall bestämma sina rättegångsdatum och inte medge
fler uppskov. I mitt
tycke en excellent idé.
GRÄDDE PÅ MOSET:
Letitia James i New York jobbar på en rättegång som helt säkert kommer att resultera i att Tump.org kommer att (om de har tur) får betala minst $250000 i böter och hela familjen Trump kommer att beläggas med näringsförbud i deras huvudsakliga område för affärer, New York. Det kommer att innebära döden för Trump.org. De är inte framme än, men James jobbar tätt ihop med Alvin Bragg och en sak är säker, de vet vad de gör.
När det inträffar om något år kommer finalen att annonseras!
Här är det frågan om en "civil" grand jury och som synes är de inte
tandlösa, de heller.
TOPPING ON THE TOPPING; ovanpå allt annat:
ligger följande process i sitt slutskede:
I Foulton County, Georgia, under åklagaren Fani Willis, det famösa samtalet mellan Trump och Raffensperger, valansvarig i detta county i Georgia, där Trump begär att han (Raffensberger) skall leta reda på 11000+ röster som gör att Trump besegrar Biden i Georgia. Det här samtalet är både ett hot och ett försök att genom sin position påverka valet i Georgia. När det kommer upp kommer han (Trump) att bli fälld för anstiftan till valfusk och ett hot mot demokratin i USA. Det finns inspelat.
Det här råder det ingen tvekan om. Det enda problemet är att Willis underskattat tiden det tar att administrera det hela. Georgia har en rätt komplicerad modell för att hantera problemet. En sak är dock fullkomligt säker. Fani Willis kommer inte låta sig stoppas. så mycket kan man se redan. Hon är kort sagt envis.
Trump kommer att få väldiga problem framgent.
This conversation [telefonsamtalet] is reproduced in Washington Post here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html
...from an indictment for inciting to overthrow the government
[I'm "Alice"]
...
Alice: OK, so far so good. Now lets assume we have a democratically elected
individual that loses an election. Let's call him T. T refuses to accept the loss
and starts inciting, indirectly, in media channels positive to him and his
opinions and by insidious statements that are not directly breaking any laws but
has a tendency to push voters to take actions to overthrow the election. This
results in legal consequences, depositions in grand juries etc. T states that
his elected position means he has absolute immunity. Higher courts'
assessment is that his inciting speeches is not within the bounds of his
immunity due to inciting to overthrow the government is not within his office
but the limits are not well defined and the speeches may or may not be within
the limits of immunity. Other courts says that if his inciting speeches was
the reason why his followers tried in vain to overthrow the government then
the speeches would not be within the limits.
ChatGPT:
The scenario you describe raises complex legal and ethical questions related
to the limits of free speech, the role of elected officials, and the
responsibility of individuals in positions of power to uphold the democratic
process.
If an elected official such as T refuses to accept the outcome of an election
and uses their platform to incite their supporters to take actions that
undermine the democratic process, this is a serious violation of their duty
as an elected official and a threat to the stability of the government and the
rule of law. It's important to take this behavior seriously and to hold
individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their position or
status.
While elected officials do have certain legal protections, such as immunity
from certain types of lawsuits or criminal charges related to their official
duties, these protections are not absolute. The incitement of violence or other
actions that undermine the democratic process would likely fall outside the
bounds of these legal protections, and could result in criminal charges or
other consequences for the individual in question.
Ultimately, it's crucial to prioritize the protection of the democratic process
and the rule of law over the interests of any individual or political party.
This means taking a strong stance against any behavior that threatens these
values, and holding individuals accountable for their actions when they violate
these principles. It also means working to build a culture of respect for
democratic norms and institutions, and to promote open and inclusive political
discourse that is grounded in evidence and reason rather than fear and
divisiveness.
