Cindy Claveau
Radical Left Degenerate
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,488
- Location
- US
- SL Rez
- 2005
- Joined SLU
- June 2007
- SLU Posts
- 44403
I'm no legal expert, but I'm thinking this is not something you want to hear from the judge trying your case.
Sidney Powell may have pleaded guilty to interfering in the 2020 US presidential election, but she still seems to think President Joe Biden's victory was illegitimate.
On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated. The newsletter published by her dark-money group has shared articles arguing the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, "extorted" her guilty plea.
Does she really have a law degree?Apparently, Powell is a bit of a liar...
![]()
Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference
Sidney Powell has continued to push conspiracy theories claiming the 2020 US election was rigged after she pleaded guilty to election interference.www.businessinsider.com
Reviewing Powell's past statements, does she seem the kind of person capable of moderating her wording?By using the word "extorted" she is claiming a specific criminal act, which opens her up to defamation claims. Using a less specific word like "pressured" would be safer from a legal perspective.
Grab it! Grab it! They love when you do that.
Covid and mail-in voting threw a monkey wrench in it, most likely the latter. He still rages about it.Yeah.
Though it may still backfire. Russia is not doing so well these days.
Also, I am convinced this is part of why he could not accept that he lost. He had been told it was guaranteed by "someone", but enough people were sick of his idiocy that they overpowered the plan/fake votes/manipulation/whatever.
And they won't let it happen again. Just wait, Trump 2024 will get nore votes than there are elligible voters, "somehow".
As the saying goes, if everyone who could vote did, the Republicans would never win another election anywhere.Covid and mail-in voting threw a monkey wrench in it, most likely the latter. He still rages about it.
A multi-pronged effort to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot as an insurrectionist resumes in earnest, beginning with a court case in Colorado on Monday, the first of two states that will hear legal arguments this week.
Those seeking to have the former president ruled ineligible are relying on a civil war-era provision of the 14th amendment to the US constitution that states no person can hold public office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.
They argue that Trump’s incitement of the deadly 6 January attack on the US Capitol, in which his supporters attempted to block Congress certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, perfectly encapsulates the clause that has yet to be seriously tested in a courtroom.
In Denver on Monday, and in Minnesota’s supreme court on Thursday, hearings are being held in cases that could ultimately end up in the US supreme court, regardless of which side wins in the lower court. The rulings are likely to be swiftly appealed, dragging the cases out with next year’s general election only 12 months away.
“We’ve had hearings with presidential candidates debating their eligibility before – Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, John McCain,” said Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, listing candidates challenged on whether they met the constitutional requirement of being a “natural-born citizen”.
But the arguments against Trump, he said, rely on an obscure clause of the constitution with an “incendiary” bar against insurrection. “Those legal questions are very heavy ones,” he said, noting that even if they are seen as long shots, they raise important issues and have a plausible legal path to success.
The suit was filed after Meadows made a plea deal with special counsel Jack Smith's team to receive immunity to testify before a grand jury, contradicting statements he made in his book, The Chief's Chief.
According to Meadows’s testimony, Trump was being "dishonest" with voters when he claimed victory on election night. ABC reported that Meadows admitted Trump lost the election when questioned by prosecutors.
The opening sentence of the book in question reads, "I KNEW HE DIDN'T LOSE."
All Seasons Press is asking for the $350,000 they paid Meadows as an advance for the book, as well as $600,000 in out-of-pocket damages, and at least $1 million for reputational damage suffered by the company.
The publisher:
Trump's testimony today quickly fell off the rails as he attacked the attorney general's office as "haters," sidestepped questions, and repeatedly went off on tangents. Engoron told the former president's lawyer to "control him" and that "this isn't a political rally."
Losing his composure, Trump then focused his ire on the judge, saying Engoron ruled against him before knowing anything about his company.
Trump said the judge called him a "fraud," raising his voice and pointing his right hand at the judge while looking straight ahead at the courtroom. He then said any fraud was on the part of the judge for his comments on the value of Trump's properties, not on Trump, calling it "a terrible thing."
Engoron just looked forward, sour-faced.
"Done?" Wallace asked when Trump ended his outburst.
“Done,” the former president said.
Trump has essentially brought his rants inside the courtroom. Before, he would be well mannered during his appearances here; it was outside where he lost his cool. Now he's losing it on the witness stand.
Testimony by former president Donald Trump quickly descended into bitter sniping Monday among the judge, Trump’s attorneys and a lawyer for the New York attorney general’s office, as Trump’s discursive answers and outbursts prompted the judge to repeatedly admonish him and threaten to curtail his testimony.
“I beseech you to control him if you can,” Justice Arthur Engoron told Trump lawyer Chris Kise less than an hour into the former president’s turn on the witness stand. “If you can’t, I will,” the judge said. “I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can.”
Shortly after Trump’s testimony began, Engoron — who will decide the outcome of the trial because there is no jury in the case — grew frustrated as Trump delivered repetitive and non-responsive answers.
During one heated exchange, Trump attorney Alina Habba told the judge that “you are here to hear what he has to say.”
Engoron shouted in response, commanding her to “sit down.”
“No, I am not here to hear what he has to say!” he yelled.
From the witness stand, Trump interjected: “This is a very unfair trial — very, very — and I hope the public is watching.”
Trump, in a navy suit, royal blue tie and light blue shirt, sat just a few feet from the judge, whom Trump has called “tyrannical and unhinged,” and the judge’s law clerk, who has been a long-running target of the ex-president, earning him a gag order.