The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Chaz? What/who is Chaz?
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
Right Rudolph Giuliani flipping is like saying Adam schiff didn't lie to the American people about his altering evidence to investigate and impeach trump.
I don't know what your analogy has to do with the point I made. Giuliani met with prosecutors under a proffer agreement. To me, that creates reason to believe he is flipping. When Rudy voluntarily walks in to talk to prosecutors and proffers, what does that have to do with Adam Schiff?
New York State AG Case Likely to Stay in State Court
Another legal setback for Trump
www.syracuse.com
Another legal setback for Trump
Judge, rejecting Trump arguments, signals hush money case will stay in NY court
Changing courts could give Trump a new avenue to try to get the case thrown out.
In fact, Flynn plead guilty to certain charges and he did indeed flip. But that was all undone when Trump pardoned Flynn. Trump is not the president any more so he cannot pardon Giuliani. It's a different ball game now.
Yes, but so what? Rudy also entered into a proffer agreement with federal prosecutors. It seems to me that act is more significant than Rudy's travel schedule.
I don't want to get deep into a discussion of Rudy's actions/loyalty/intent/motives regarding Trump and Trump world. This is a developing situation and the full import of the proffer meeting will soon be known. To me, the significant thing is the meeting happened at all. No one forced him to appear. He went in on his own. This is a notable behavior change and new development; which, I believe, signals deep trouble for Trump and his close aids. Proffer agreements often precede guilty pleas and cooperation agreements.
Maybe my belief is wrong. Maybe I'm reading the tea leaves incorrectly. We'll see soon enough. For now, I believe Rudy's attorney (Costello) told Rudy he is out of legal options. The only way to avoid serious jail time is to go in and cooperate, before Jack Smith indicts Guiliani and others.
Last edited:
What did Flynn flip about Trump? He plead on “lying” to investigators, which turned out to be false. No Russia collusion either.
Last edited:
So what being the headline asks if Rudy is flipping on Trump. It looks like he is actually campaigning with Trump,( traveling to the same places like Michigan, New Hampshire)so it would be odd that he would also be “flipping” on him.
Again, I don't want to get into an extended motives-interpretation discussion. That's fruitless because there is no way for either of us to prove someone else's motives. You say his campaigning with Trump suggests no flip. I could say back that Rudy is cooperating behind the scenes while making public appearances to protect his reputation with MAGA. But any theory you or I offer about unseen motives or unseen factors cannot be proven. We are not mind readers.
Just as I am free to believe Rudy is moving toward becoming a cooperating witness, you are free to believe Rudy Guiliani is as Trump-loyal as he has ever been and he is not flipping. Further speculation about Rudy's motives will not reveal the truth. Subsequent developments will.
If things go as I expect, the subsequent development (hard facts that can be verified) will be an announced plea agreement such that DOJ charges and Guiliani pleads guilty to lesser crimes. DOJ recommends light punishment or maybe even offers immunity. In return, Rudy will be a cooperating witness.
Under a proffer agreement, which is already done, a likely defendant (Rudy in this case) goes in and tells all. It seems safe to presume that Rudy has already crossed that bridge. Telling all is not small step. It is a game-changing step. We'll see fairly soon if this actually happened.
Last edited:
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
And what happens when Rudy Giuliani doesn't give them the hard enough evidence to "get" trump.......will they try to renege on the deal?
There is no way to answer that hypothetical question, except with a hypothetical response, which would be meaningless. Let's wait to see what actually develops.
While it does not answer your question, this detailed description (below) of how a proffer works is informative. Notice where Giuliani is in this process. From that, it would seem Giuliani has given them enough hard evidence for DOJ to agree to the proffer. We'll learn more as things play out.
I'll reiterate. The fact that Rudy entered into a proffer agreement is HUGE. This voluntary and legally significant move is a major behavior change for him. Giuliani's trajectory has changed, which will impact the trajectory of all others involved in Big Lie and Jan 6-related activities.
--------------------------
"Proffer sessions involving a prospective defendant do not occur out of the blue. Indeed, they almost always represent the near culmination of an ongoing process that begins with a target’s decision that he or she does not believe they can win at trial and therefore must make a deal. Counsel for the target must then determine the significance of the information the client can provide. The more powerful the testimony, the more favorable the potential deal. The more important the person or persons the testimony implicates, the more important the proffer and potentially generous the plea terms. The more direct and unimpeachable the testimony would be, the more significant the cooperation will be, and thus, the better the deal will be for the client.
"Once counsel concludes the client has something valuable to offer prosecutors and that the client can be an effective witness, the next step can be taken. Counsel contacts the prosecutors and arranges an “attorney’s proffer,” in which the lawyer, without the client, meets prosecutors to outline the general contours of what the client can provide. If the contours are unacceptable, say the client wants an agreement he will not be prosecuted for providing evidence against a lesser target, the session ends quickly. If, however, both sides see the prospect for getting something they want without giving up too much, the session gets more and more specific. It is only if the attorney’s factual representations offer enough for prosecutors to offer sufficiently reduced criminal exposure, and thus, a realistic deal may be available, that the next-to-last step, the client proffer, is taken. Giuliani has reportedly now taken that step." (Source)
Last edited:
Bad News for Truth Social
When the people who were supposed to merge with and buy out Trump's media company TMTG (owns Truth Social), are charged with crimes, that's not good for TMTG. Yet, is it any surprise that Trump would pick criminals with whom to do business? Yet another example of choosing "the best people," I guess.
"New York CNN — Federal prosecutors arrested three investors on Thursday on insider trading charges related to a deal to take former President Donald Trump’s media business public." (Source)
When the people who were supposed to merge with and buy out Trump's media company TMTG (owns Truth Social), are charged with crimes, that's not good for TMTG. Yet, is it any surprise that Trump would pick criminals with whom to do business? Yet another example of choosing "the best people," I guess.
"New York CNN — Federal prosecutors arrested three investors on Thursday on insider trading charges related to a deal to take former President Donald Trump’s media business public." (Source)
Last edited:
Jack Smith Has a New Cooperating Witness
His name is Michael Roman. He was directly involved in efforts to put forward slates of fake Trump electors following the 2020 election. Roman's info is coming to Smith not via a grand jury but via a proffer agreement.
Does the term "proffer" sound familiar? This is the second time "proffer" has been in the news this week.
Notice the shift now underway. Before, people who were called upon or subpoenaed to testify fought hard to not testify. Now people very close to Trump are rushing in to proffer.
What's the difference? What changed?
What changed is a federal felony indictment was issued. It listed the evidence. The DOJ mentioned 84 witnesses that are ready to testify in this case. That's 84 four people are ready to testify under oath abut the material information they have that will help convict Donald Trump.
Others are likely to be charged in the future. People close to Trump know this and the smart ones are rushing in to cooperate.
His name is Michael Roman. He was directly involved in efforts to put forward slates of fake Trump electors following the 2020 election. Roman's info is coming to Smith not via a grand jury but via a proffer agreement.
Does the term "proffer" sound familiar? This is the second time "proffer" has been in the news this week.
Notice the shift now underway. Before, people who were called upon or subpoenaed to testify fought hard to not testify. Now people very close to Trump are rushing in to proffer.
What's the difference? What changed?
What changed is a federal felony indictment was issued. It listed the evidence. The DOJ mentioned 84 witnesses that are ready to testify in this case. That's 84 four people are ready to testify under oath abut the material information they have that will help convict Donald Trump.
Others are likely to be charged in the future. People close to Trump know this and the smart ones are rushing in to cooperate.
Judge Rejects Trump's Presidential Immunity in Second Carroll Case
"NEW YORK – A federal judge on Thursday sharply rejected Donald Trump’s claim of 'presidential immunity' to fend off a defamation lawsuit from the writer E. Jean Carroll, ruling that Trump’s disparaging comments about Carroll in 2019 had no legitimate connection to his duties as president.
"The 46-page opinion all but ensures that Carroll’s second lawsuit against the former president will go to trial. And it’s the latest setback in Trump’s repeated bid to use the muscular protections of the presidency to shield him from civil litigation." (Source)
The trial is scheduled for Jan. 15, 2024.
"NEW YORK – A federal judge on Thursday sharply rejected Donald Trump’s claim of 'presidential immunity' to fend off a defamation lawsuit from the writer E. Jean Carroll, ruling that Trump’s disparaging comments about Carroll in 2019 had no legitimate connection to his duties as president.
"The 46-page opinion all but ensures that Carroll’s second lawsuit against the former president will go to trial. And it’s the latest setback in Trump’s repeated bid to use the muscular protections of the presidency to shield him from civil litigation." (Source)
The trial is scheduled for Jan. 15, 2024.
News flash: They are called Alternative Electors. The same thing happened in the 1960 Presidential Election in Hawaii. Alternate electors were used in a closely contested result. The judge even commented that it was good that the alternate electors were available to help the process along.
The fact that the Left wants to somehow criminalize this shows their complete stupidity and incompetence in interpreting the law.
The fact that the Left wants to somehow criminalize this shows their complete stupidity and incompetence in interpreting the law.
Last edited:
Trump had no 'Standing Order' to Declassify Documents
"Six days after the FBI raided former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022 and removed boxes of classified documents he had refused to turn over, Trump issued a statement claiming all the documents he retained were declassified under a "standing order" he had issued when he was president. National security experts and former Trump administration officials were highly skeptical of the claim, and Bloomberg News reported Thursday that, in fact, no order was ever filed with the relevant federal agencies."
"... government attorneys told Bloomberg that each agency "possesses no records responsive to your request" for Trump's alleged order." (Source)
In other words, Trump's "Standing Order" defense just evaporated into nothing. There never was a standing order, and that's now a fact publicly known.
"Six days after the FBI raided former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022 and removed boxes of classified documents he had refused to turn over, Trump issued a statement claiming all the documents he retained were declassified under a "standing order" he had issued when he was president. National security experts and former Trump administration officials were highly skeptical of the claim, and Bloomberg News reported Thursday that, in fact, no order was ever filed with the relevant federal agencies."
"... government attorneys told Bloomberg that each agency "possesses no records responsive to your request" for Trump's alleged order." (Source)
In other words, Trump's "Standing Order" defense just evaporated into nothing. There never was a standing order, and that's now a fact publicly known.