They’re upset that he took the stand and made a good case why it should be in Federal court and also why it will ultimately be dismissed due to immunity.
Last edited:
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
I do not share your certainty and clear view of the future. It must be nice to be so certain of so much, so much of the time.
As i said, I think Meadows hurt himself more than he helped himself, but in fact, I don't know how this will turn out. The judge's ruling, expected soon, will tell us how Meadows did on the stand.
Last edited:
How come the Left including Filliputz are so concerned about a person’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right?
I can't speak for that man. In my posts this evening, I'm saying Trump's day-long rant gives me reason to question his mental stability. I've said nothing about the First Amendment.
Apparently some on the Rabbid Right don't understand there are consequences to exercising some rights.
True enough. The First Amendment does not constitute a free pass to lie and defame. Guiliani found this out the hard way in court today.
That ruling was about a discovery issue, right?
"Corrupt Obama Judge Finds Rudy Giuliani Guilty Because He Didn't Turn Over Devices the FBI Confiscated from His Home | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft" Corrupt Obama Judge Finds Rudy Giuliani Guilty Because He Didn't Turn Over Devices the FBI Confiscated from His Home | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Last edited:
Not so fast...
From the above article: (bold emphasis mine)
New Mexico Supreme Court maintains Couy Griffin office removal
“I feel like I have a state that’s against me right now, and they used the court system to try to destroy me,” Griffin added. “I’m still a firm believer that the good …www.krqe.com
"Last year, a district court judge ruled Griffin must be removed from office as a county commissioner and barred him from running for office in the state again. This came after three New Mexico residents filed a civil case claiming he shouldn’t be able to serve based on his role in the January 6 insurrection.
Griffin tried to appeal the ruling, but the state Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in November. He filed a motion for the state’s highest court to reconsider, which they dismissed this week. Now, Griffin wants to take this to the United States Supreme Court."
By clicking on the source link in bold italics, another article by a different reporter appears and leads with this paragraph: (bold emphasis mine)
"The Otero County commissioner convicted for his role in the January 6th capitol riot is now at the center of a lawsuit. It was filed by a group of New Mexicans trying to make sure he never runs for political office in the state again.
Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin was eventually convicted of a misdemeanor for entering capitol grounds..."
Group calling for Couy Griffin to be removed from his commission seat
NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – The Otero County commissioner convicted for his role in the January 6th capitol riot is now at the center of a lawsuit. It was filed by a group of New Mexicans trying …
www.krqe.com
So it would appear that Marilyn Upchurch - the author of the first article - took artistic liberties in her description of the events of Jan 6th that suited her own agenda. The New Mexico Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and nowhere were they quoted as describing the events of Jan 6th as an insurrection; that's a misrepresentation by a local liberal media hack.
So the fact remains that there was no insurrection, according to your sources. However, it appears that in New Mexico local residents can keep people from serving on county commissions if they're convicted of a misdemeanor. Here's hoping all the local politicians in the blue state of New Mexico are pure as the wind-driven snow and without sin.
Fair points. And it remains the case that the disqualification question will soon be in court. The New Mexico case may not be relevant but the arguments made by the constitutional scholars are.Not so fast...
From the above article: (bold emphasis mine)
"Last year, a district court judge ruled Griffin must be removed from office as a county commissioner and barred him from running for office in the state again. This came after three New Mexico residents filed a civil case claiming he shouldn’t be able to serve based on his role in the January 6 insurrection.
Griffin tried to appeal the ruling, but the state Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in November. He filed a motion for the state’s highest court to reconsider, which they dismissed this week. Now, Griffin wants to take this to the United States Supreme Court."
By clicking on the source link in bold italics, another article by a different reporter appears and leads with this paragraph: (bold emphasis mine)
"The Otero County commissioner convicted for his role in the January 6th capitol riot is now at the center of a lawsuit. It was filed by a group of New Mexicans trying to make sure he never runs for political office in the state again.
Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin was eventually convicted of a misdemeanor for entering capitol grounds..."
Group calling for Couy Griffin to be removed from his commission seat
NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – The Otero County commissioner convicted for his role in the January 6th capitol riot is now at the center of a lawsuit. It was filed by a group of New Mexicans trying …
So it would appear that Marilyn Upchurch - the author of the first article - took artistic liberties in her description of the events of Jan 6th that suited her own agenda. The New Mexico Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and nowhere were they quoted as describing the events of Jan 6th as an insurrection; that's a misrepresentation by a local liberal media hack.
So the fact remains that there was no insurrection, according to your sources. However, it appears that in New Mexico local residents can keep people from serving on county commissions if they're convicted of a misdemeanor. Here's hoping all the local politicians in the blue state of New Mexico are pure as the wind-driven snow and without sin.
The ruling was that Guiliani is liable for defamation and the women he defamed are entitled to damages.
Regarding the discovery info Guiliani refused to divulge, what is he hiding and why?
He worked really hard to keep this information under wraps and he paid a very high price for doing so. So far, the price includes the $133,000 the judge ordered Guiliani to pay the plaintiffs for their legal fees. A much higher price will be paid when the amount of damages is set.
Guiliani knows the law and his way around a courtroom. It seems safe to assume he knew he would pay a high price for not divulging this court-required discovery information. Yet he kept it hidden. Since he willingly accepted the price and thereby succeeded in keeping the information hidden, we can only wonder what it is and why it is so important for him to keep it from public view.
Last edited:
Status Update: Dueling Motions for Summary Judgement
In 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, the Trump Organization, and his three eldest children. James alleges Trump and the Trump Organization fraudulently inflated the value of their assets by billions of dollars in order to obtain favorable loan terms and tax breaks, and deflated the value of their assets in order to avoid paying taxes. Trump has denied all allegations. James seeks to bar Trump et al from leading the Trump Organization, and to require him to pay a fine of around $250 million.
Months ago, in pretrial activity, an appeals court dismissed Ivanka from the suit on statute of limitations grounds. The remaining parties are scheduled to begin trial in October.
As the October trial approaches, both parties have asked the judge (Engoron) to decide the case without a trial. In their motions for summary judgement, both parties say they are entitled to victory without a trial, based on undisputed facts in evidence. Trump moved to have the case dismissed. James moved to have the case decided by the judge alone, and for the sanctions to be applied.
The judge could deny both bids for early victory, which would set the case for trial. He is scheduled to hold a hearing in late September and could rule then.
Sources: New York Times and Google Bard
In 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, the Trump Organization, and his three eldest children. James alleges Trump and the Trump Organization fraudulently inflated the value of their assets by billions of dollars in order to obtain favorable loan terms and tax breaks, and deflated the value of their assets in order to avoid paying taxes. Trump has denied all allegations. James seeks to bar Trump et al from leading the Trump Organization, and to require him to pay a fine of around $250 million.
Months ago, in pretrial activity, an appeals court dismissed Ivanka from the suit on statute of limitations grounds. The remaining parties are scheduled to begin trial in October.
As the October trial approaches, both parties have asked the judge (Engoron) to decide the case without a trial. In their motions for summary judgement, both parties say they are entitled to victory without a trial, based on undisputed facts in evidence. Trump moved to have the case dismissed. James moved to have the case decided by the judge alone, and for the sanctions to be applied.
The judge could deny both bids for early victory, which would set the case for trial. He is scheduled to hold a hearing in late September and could rule then.
Sources: New York Times and Google Bard
Last edited:
That is something I figured out long ago, they want their rights but dont care about the responsibilities that go along with them.
The 133,000. figure was about the discovery issue brought on by the FBI not giving back all his material that they seized.
Rudy didn’t admit to lying. He didn’t contest the issue because it would be in a heavily Dem. Fulton county where he wouldn’t receive a fair trial. He will appeal the ruling by the bias judge and is confident he will win on appeal that he was exercising his First Amendment constitutional right to have opinions.
Trump and his companies are not the only ones who do this, they need to keep going and go after all of the companies who cheat banks and the taxpayers. If they dont keep going and charge more people with these crimes then that does show that they are just going after Trump.
Keep rationalizing to yourself that is the case.
Last edited:
Your ability to reconstruct the truth to your liking is boundless.