2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +2 / -0

You're correct on the dates, one reporter put it as

"was pregnant and / or had a new born" is off limits.

Mcdougall did say June so I wonder if there's other evidence or this was just a mix-up

5
WHOSkiddingWhO 5 points ago +5 / -0

This came up last year and was rejected by the ethics committee

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/06/13/cannot-reasonably-be-questioned-judicial-ethics-committee-says-merchans-impartiality-is-unimpaired/?slreturn=20240315133548

a relative’s “independent political activities do not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.”

2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +2 / -0

I didn't read it as dismissive. I was just confused

3
WHOSkiddingWhO 3 points ago +3 / -0

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/04/15/prosecutors-want-trump-fined-3000-for-violating-judge-merchans-gag-order/?sh=38ab97749dc7

Prosecutors Want Trump Fined $3,000 For Violating Judge Merchan’s Gag Order

Prosecutors argued Monday at former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial that the ex-president violated his gag order and should be fined, asking Judge Juan Merchan to hold Trump in contempt after he criticized potential witnesses in the criminal case.

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

I thought you meant issuing the stock was market manipulation because I just posted the SEC filing.

3
WHOSkiddingWhO 3 points ago +3 / -0

The missiles were close enough that a lot of US service members suffered internal injuries. It wasn't cost free.

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

What about it is market manipulation?

That sounds illegal

3
WHOSkiddingWhO 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's something to keep on an eye on if you're in this trade which I know folks here are.

I saw some stuff in my feed today about it.

3
WHOSkiddingWhO 3 points ago +3 / -0

Jury selection is going to take a while.

I saw that one of the lawyers was asking to take a day off in June for his kids graduation

4
WHOSkiddingWhO 4 points ago +4 / -0

There's like 90 reporters in the courthouse. There's just no cameras in the courtroom during the trial

5
WHOSkiddingWhO 5 points ago +5 / -0

I agree.

This was to save face and to avoid an escalation Israel and Iran don't want.

took out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019

Do you mean Qasem Soleimani? al-Baghdadu was from ISIS, not Iran.

3
WHOSkiddingWhO 3 points ago +3 / -0

New York doesn't allow cameras in the courtroom.

You get pictures taken prior to the proceedings beginning, but once something actually starts happening it's just a court sketch artists.

There's a big media overflow room where reporters basically watch cameras of the trial and they can live tweet from there and report from there. But there's going to be no audio, no video within the court room

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

No doubt both of these flights were taken down on purpose.

well the flight over Ukraine was shot down by a BUK surface to air missile, but it was a screwup. The Russian backed Ukranian separatists thought it was a military plane and celebrated it as a big victory. For a like a half hour and then when they learned they screwed up tried to cover it up.

2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh Seagal is a complete ass.

There's a famous story about Seagal doing a scene on a houseboat. And refusing to rehearse the scene. So they do the scene and houseboats have doors on both sides, Seagal turns to the wrong door, the one leading to the ocean, not the pier and everyone saw it do it and they all held they tongue. Nobody stopped him as he fell off the boat.

He also was hanging out with Mob guys in Brooklyn and Staten Island because he loves playing like a tough guy. He used to go to nightclubs with them. They ended up extorting him out of $750,000. His main producer Nasso, I think his name was, was connected to the Gambinos and claimed actuall Seagal owed him $500,000. Nasso did several year in prison, IIRC.

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

If a prosecutor tried to say what you said about a red flag the judge at a minimum would hammer the prosecutor and instruct the jury to disregard that statement, or at worst order a mistrial.

This is way before trial though.

We may get to see his grand jury testimony because that was raised on the court hearing Friday and neither his lawyer nor the doj objected to it

4
WHOSkiddingWhO 4 points ago +4 / -0

Good point. His lawyer is being paid by Trump's Super PAC. So I think he hasn't wandered off.

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

People always say pleading the 5th is a red flag.

Yeah, we don't know what him or his lawyer or think were thinking and I'm speculating.

Why do think he talked?

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

the government does not think it will have to prove that classified records were in the boxes moved by Trump's co-defendants.

Well hell, isn't that the core of the obstruction charge against them?

I can think of two scenarios. Before and After this interview.

If Nauta knew that there was an issue with classified info at Mar-A-Lago prior to the interview and he lied about that or moving boxes. That would be a crime.

And if he did anything after this interview would he do the FBI was looking for classified info that would be a crime. The indictment didn't come down for a full year later in the search warrant hadn't happened until August 2022. This interview was May 2022. And the issue of classified information at Mar-A-Lago with a national news story by February 2022 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna16890

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

At that point maybe this seemed just like you know a misunderstanding. Somebody packed up the boxes wrong and they got shipped to Mar-A-Lago.

If he starts pleading the fifth not answering their questions, that might be a big giant red flag that something else occurred.

They knew the FBI had been talking to other employees. Perhaps he didn't come fully clean with his lawyer before this interview. Perhaps he could thought he could help Trump if he said there was nothing moved.

3
WHOSkiddingWhO 3 points ago +3 / -0

Here's the article she says is a fair account of the hearing Friday.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-defendants-classified-documents-case-seeking-charges-dropped/story?id=109164028

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's classified documents case heard arguments Friday from Trump's co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira on motions to have the charges against them dismissed.

Here's the key part

Sounds like you have a jury argument," Judge Cannon replied.

This is the judge saying your arguments won't get your case dismissed right now, you have to make this argument at trial.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›