Does that include Fox and all the other right wing blabber mouths?
Hmmmm
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Hmmmm
They earn that trust by reporting to a high standard. This is yet another case of relying on unnamed sources which leaves us guessing.
I learned an additional detail today. The Jan 6 committee acquired telephone company records that corroborate this call, which was made from the White House to an phone number belonging to one of the canvassers. While it is unknown if those records include a transcript, they do show the duration of the call is longer than what the Detroit News reported reviewing. If the committee got a transcript or the recording itself, DOJ will have it as the committee turned everything it had over to them.
The Detroit News story is frustratingly incomplete. That does not mean they should not have reported what they have, but if they only have so much, they should fully report that. If they did, the headline-grabbing effect of the story (which news outlets love) would be just as big, and readers would not be left with more questions than answers. Shame on the Detroit News for being so sloppy in their reporting.
Last edited:
The talking heads on TV are not unbiased and they don't claim to be (or should not claim to be). I'm old enough to remember when newspaper journalists did make that claim and a genuine effort to fulfill it.
So the J6 committee was apparently aware of the phone call - and probably the recording - but did nothing. That's probably because they knew the recording was likely illegal according to MI law and couldn't be used. That would also explain why Jack Smith hasn't used it against Trump either, because it would be "fruit of the poisonous tree". The Detroit News and its anonymous source may also be facing felony charges. MI law is a bit murky on this, but it's easy to see why the source of the recording wanted to remain anonymous.
"Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c...
In addition, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties..."
Michigan Recording Law | Digital Media Law Project
This story is much ado about nothing anyway. The backdrop of what happened was that the Wayne County Republican Canvassers had major reservations about certifying the votes due to the tabulations being incorrect. The pressure came from protests and threats against them to certify the votes regardless. Trump, along with the RNC chair were telling them don’t succumb to the pressure and be steadfast while an election lawyer would be provided to help them.So the J6 committee was apparently aware of the phone call - and probably the recording - but did nothing. That's probably because they knew the recording was likely illegal according to MI law and couldn't be used. That would also explain why Jack Smith hasn't used it against Trump either, because it would be "fruit of the poisonous tree". The Detroit News and its anonymous source may also be facing felony charges. MI law is a bit murky on this, but it's easy to see why the source of the recording wanted to remain anonymous.
"Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c...
In addition, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties..."
Michigan Recording Law | Digital Media Law Project
www.dmlp.org
Last edited:
You and I both agree that details are sketchy about this call and recording, so anything we say about it is more speculation than fact. That said, here's my reply
I do not expect Trump to be charged with additional crimes out of this recording. The significance of it to me is the indication of intent the recording provides. It might be that RNC Chair is charged. It might also be that the canvasser is charged for illegally recording the call. Or it might be that the canvasser(s) got consent or someone on the calling end set up permission ahead of time. We just don't know.
They probably turned the info over to DOJ along with everything else they turned over. Beyond that they did nothing, but what would they do if there was something to do? The committee was not conducting a criminal investigation. They were gathering info to get the story told.
I don't know MI law but if like some states it is illegal to record someone on the phone without their consent, you're right, the contents of the call cannot be used to prosecute the recorded party. But in this case, the recording can be used as evidence that indicates, in Trump's own voice, his intent. Intent is an important question in Trump's upcoming trials, so this may be important evidence, that may well be admissible. In Jack Smith's hands, this recording would not be used as evidence to prosecute a Trump crime, it would as evidence to show his intent.
I do not expect Trump to be charged with additional crimes out of this recording. The significance of it to me is the indication of intent the recording provides. It might be that RNC Chair is charged. It might also be that the canvasser is charged for illegally recording the call. Or it might be that the canvasser(s) got consent or someone on the calling end set up permission ahead of time. We just don't know.
I tend to agree. If Smith wanted to press a bribery charge based on what little we know of the call, it would not stick. Smith has plenty of Trump crimes to prosecute already and lots of evidence to do it with. He does not a smaller item like this to bring Trump to justice.
That might also explain why the Detroit News is being so cagey with the details.
Only Congress can create federal offices, not the DOJ. Appointments Clause in the constitution. Former AG Janet Reno unconstitutionally ( and illegally) created the office of special counsel.Yeah ... pretty much follows the idea of the original statutory language ... contained in the original statute authorizing Independent Counsels (prior to 1999 when the Ethics in Government Act expired):
Old, under the Ethics in Government Act (quoted above and at link immediately below:
28 USC CHAPTER 40—INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
Current, under the Code of Federal Regulations:
§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
The idea of appointing people from outside the government to serve in various capacities when there might be a conflict of interest has been around for a long time ... but it might be an unfamiliar concept for young pups ...
Tell it to that disgraced former AG Meese ... who appears to be suffering a similar cognitive decline as Rudy Colludy ...
Seriously though, might want to do some of that boning up yourself ... you know: actually read the statutes involved that the various AG(s) have been relying to appoint Special Counsels since oh I dunno ... 1999 ?
... rather than just chasing after whatever kook in MAGA Land seems to be offering eternal salvation for The Don.
From some other additional MAGAt Legal Beagle Twatwaffle ... other than mrddmia ?
THAT'S HERESY !!!
FWIW, this lunacy was originally promulgated by that Federalist Kook Professor Steven Calabresi ... way back when Robert Mueller (private citizen at the time) was appointed as Special Counsel ... while Jeff Sessions was at the helm of DOJ during the Orange Menace's Administration:
Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment As Special Counsel Was Unlawful
And it's headed to exactly the same place now as it was then:
... nowheresville ...
Federal regulations do not establish federal offices, only Congress.
Federal regulations also shall not usurp Congress and their written statutes.
Last edited:
Questions Answered in Court; Week of 12/17/23
Running Total
*Trump-Favorable Answers: 18
Trump-Adverse Answers: 169
Trump Win Rate: 10.65%
Answered This Week:
*Yes, Jack Smith’s request that the US Supreme Court quickly take up and rule on Trump’s immunity claim is denied. 12/22/23, US Supreme Court
Yes, Trump’s motion for a directed verdict in the NY civil fraud trial is denied. 12/18, Engoron
Answered in Recent Weeks:
Yes, the Article 78 petition Trump filed regarding Engoron’s gag order is an invalid maneuver and is not allowed. 12/14/23, NY Appellate Division
Yes, the gag order issued by Judge Engoron in Trump’s civil fraud trial is valid. 12/14/23, NY Appellate Division
No, Trump cannot assert presidential immunity as a defense in the upcoming Carroll defamation trial. 12/13.23, 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals 12/13/23
*Yes, the proceedings of Trump’s federal election interference trial will be paused until jurisdiction is returned to the US District Court by the higher courts who have taken up a related matter on appeal. 12/13/23, Chutkan
Yes, Jack Smith’s motion to expedite the immunity question is granted and Trump is given a quick deadline to respond if he wishes to. 12/11/23, DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Yes, the US Supreme Court will quickly take up the question of Trump’s immunity. 12/11/23, US Supreme Court
No, the Trump trial scheduled for March 4, 2023 will not be delayed. 12/8/23, DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Yes, Judge Chutkan’s gag order regarding Trump is slightly narrowed and mostly upheld. 12/8/23, DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Yes, while the stay of Engoron’s order that cancels Trump’s NY business certificates remains in place, the other provisions of that order are enforceable. 12/7/23, New York Appellate Division
No, Trump’s appeal of the Engoron gag order will not be fast-tracked. 12/4/23 Appeals Court Justice Manzanet-Daniels
Yes, Trump can be prosecuted on Jan. 6 criminal charges. Presidential immunity does not apply. 12/1/23, Chutkan
No, Trump is not immune from three civil lawsuits filed against him regarding Jan 6. 12/1/23, US Court of Appeals, DC District
Yes, the Trump gag order in his NY fraud case is reinstated. 11/30/23, New York Appellate Division
No Trump may not call a court-appointed monitor as a witness. 11/27/23, Engoron
No, since he already has the transcripts, Trump may not issue a subpoena for the US House Jan 6 Committee video tapes. 11/27/23, Chutkan
No, references to Jan 6 will not be struck from Trump’s DC criminal case. 11/17/23, Chutkan
Yes, Trump’s motion for a mistrial in his NY civil fraud trial is denied. 11/17/23, Engoron
*No, Trump will not be kept off the Colorado ballot on 14th Amendment grounds. 11/17/23, Wallace
*Yes, the Special Counsel’s request to set a deadline for Trump’s defense team to provide notice of the classified information it seeks to use at trial is denied. 11/16/23, Cannon
Yes, the deadline has passed and it is too late for Trump to add an additional expert witness in the upcoming Carroll case. 11/16/23, Kaplan
*Yes, Judge Engoron’s gag order on Trump will be temporarily stayed. 11/16/23, Friedman
Answered in Previous Weeks:
Running Total
*Trump-Favorable Answers: 18
Trump-Adverse Answers: 169
Trump Win Rate: 10.65%
Answered This Week:
*Yes, Jack Smith’s request that the US Supreme Court quickly take up and rule on Trump’s immunity claim is denied. 12/22/23, US Supreme Court
Yes, Trump’s motion for a directed verdict in the NY civil fraud trial is denied. 12/18, Engoron
Answered in Recent Weeks:
Yes, the Article 78 petition Trump filed regarding Engoron’s gag order is an invalid maneuver and is not allowed. 12/14/23, NY Appellate Division
Yes, the gag order issued by Judge Engoron in Trump’s civil fraud trial is valid. 12/14/23, NY Appellate Division
No, Trump cannot assert presidential immunity as a defense in the upcoming Carroll defamation trial. 12/13.23, 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals 12/13/23
*Yes, the proceedings of Trump’s federal election interference trial will be paused until jurisdiction is returned to the US District Court by the higher courts who have taken up a related matter on appeal. 12/13/23, Chutkan
Yes, Jack Smith’s motion to expedite the immunity question is granted and Trump is given a quick deadline to respond if he wishes to. 12/11/23, DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Yes, the US Supreme Court will quickly take up the question of Trump’s immunity. 12/11/23, US Supreme Court
No, the Trump trial scheduled for March 4, 2023 will not be delayed. 12/8/23, DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Yes, Judge Chutkan’s gag order regarding Trump is slightly narrowed and mostly upheld. 12/8/23, DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Yes, while the stay of Engoron’s order that cancels Trump’s NY business certificates remains in place, the other provisions of that order are enforceable. 12/7/23, New York Appellate Division
No, Trump’s appeal of the Engoron gag order will not be fast-tracked. 12/4/23 Appeals Court Justice Manzanet-Daniels
Yes, Trump can be prosecuted on Jan. 6 criminal charges. Presidential immunity does not apply. 12/1/23, Chutkan
No, Trump is not immune from three civil lawsuits filed against him regarding Jan 6. 12/1/23, US Court of Appeals, DC District
Yes, the Trump gag order in his NY fraud case is reinstated. 11/30/23, New York Appellate Division
No Trump may not call a court-appointed monitor as a witness. 11/27/23, Engoron
No, since he already has the transcripts, Trump may not issue a subpoena for the US House Jan 6 Committee video tapes. 11/27/23, Chutkan
No, references to Jan 6 will not be struck from Trump’s DC criminal case. 11/17/23, Chutkan
Yes, Trump’s motion for a mistrial in his NY civil fraud trial is denied. 11/17/23, Engoron
*No, Trump will not be kept off the Colorado ballot on 14th Amendment grounds. 11/17/23, Wallace
*Yes, the Special Counsel’s request to set a deadline for Trump’s defense team to provide notice of the classified information it seeks to use at trial is denied. 11/16/23, Cannon
Yes, the deadline has passed and it is too late for Trump to add an additional expert witness in the upcoming Carroll case. 11/16/23, Kaplan
*Yes, Judge Engoron’s gag order on Trump will be temporarily stayed. 11/16/23, Friedman
Answered in Previous Weeks:
For Trump in court this week: 1 Win, 1 Loss.
That’s rich coming from those that bellyache and pearl clutch about how Trump is trampling the constitution, NOT. Then they IGNORE it when they think it benefits getting Trump. Hypocrisy has no bounds…
By the same reasoning, all charges against Hunter Biden that were filed by the Special Counsel should be immediately dismissed.
Trump Ballot Eligibility Decision in Maine is Imminent
The 14th Amendment/Trump-disqualification question is taking different tracks in different states, depending on state law and various court actions. In Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows says she has the authority to decide if Trump is eligible for ballot inclusion, and she says she will announce her decision soon.
Before the Colorado Supreme Court made its ruling on the question (Trump is disqualified), she had heard arguments from both sides and said she would soon announce her decision. But when the CO court ruled, Bellows held off. She said she wanted both sides to have the opportunity to review the Colorado ruling and file additional arguments if they wished.
Bellows now says she will issue her decision early this coming week. That likely means Dec. 26 or 27.
The Secretary's decision can be challenged in the courts, and that is highly likely. But unless a court overrules her, her decision will stand.
www.pressherald.com
The 14th Amendment/Trump-disqualification question is taking different tracks in different states, depending on state law and various court actions. In Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows says she has the authority to decide if Trump is eligible for ballot inclusion, and she says she will announce her decision soon.
Before the Colorado Supreme Court made its ruling on the question (Trump is disqualified), she had heard arguments from both sides and said she would soon announce her decision. But when the CO court ruled, Bellows held off. She said she wanted both sides to have the opportunity to review the Colorado ruling and file additional arguments if they wished.
Bellows now says she will issue her decision early this coming week. That likely means Dec. 26 or 27.
The Secretary's decision can be challenged in the courts, and that is highly likely. But unless a court overrules her, her decision will stand.
Secretary of state delays decision on Trump ballot access after Colorado ruling
Challengers seeking to keep former President Donald Trump off Maine's presidential primary ballot say a Colorado court ruling this week helps their case.
www.pressherald.com
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority sez:
28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority
Congress delegated this power to the AG.
Sucks to be Ed Meese ... as well as The Orange Menace™
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Trump Ballot Eligibility Decision in Maine is Imminent
The 14th Amendment/Trump-disqualification question is taking different tracks in different states, depending on state law and various court actions. In Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows says she has the authority to decide if Trump is eligible for ballot inclusion, and she says she will announce her decision soon.
Before the Colorado Supreme Court made its ruling on the question (Trump is disqualified), she had heard arguments from both sides and said she would soon announce her decision. But when the CO court ruled, Bellows held off. She said she wanted both sides to have the opportunity to review the Colorado ruling and file additional arguments if they wished.
Bellows now says she will issue her decision early this coming week. That likely means Dec. 26 or 27.
The Secretary's decision can be challenged in the courts, and that is highly likely. But unless a court overrules her, her decision will stand.
Secretary of state delays decision on Trump ballot access after Colorado ruling
Challengers seeking to keep former President Donald Trump off Maine's presidential primary ballot say a Colorado court ruling this week helps their case.
Could be best Xmas present evah !
Likely so. Along with Mueller’s prosecution at least.
It's irrelevant in any respect. The US Supreme Court made its decision without reference to the Meese brief, or anything else for that matter. They denied Special Counsel Smith's motion without comment. In doing so, they implicitly acknowledged his standing to make the motion. They do not rule on motions that are made by people who do not have the legal standing to make them.
Last edited: