jerrymahoney

What you describe is item 71. of the indictment which refers to false documents signed by Attorney 3 who Ms. Christina Bobb. Count 32 is Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice.

I don't know about cut and dried but Trump is on the recorded phone call warning Raffensperger and his staff that it is a criminal offense if he does not (again) diligently try to find more illegal Georgia votes.

Well I would agree with that especially the Georgia situation if you have ever read the entire one hour Raffensperger phone call. As for any actual jail time, an agreement between the state or federal corrections authorities and the Secret Service would have to be worked out.

But the Milley docs that he claimed to be showing off on the tape at least up until now don't exist. Trump might be subject to indictments in multiple venues but the scenarios as suggested above will take years to process and go through appellate stages. I do not underestimate Jack Smith if that was directed at me. But I can read the indictment. And if even one of the claims in the indictment becomes questionable to the jury, that could end the whole thing right there regardless of which judge is running the show.

Also from the above: But negotiating those accommodations, which must happen before the trial, can take time — time that in this case brings us ever closer to the 2024 election in which the defendant is now a leading candidate. If the judge says no to compromises like summarizing key documents, the prosecution might decide that some are simply too complex or too sensitive to put at issue in the case.

To the above: Some of those scenarios might not just affect the 2024 Presidential Election but also the 2028 Presidential Election.

Early morning addendum to the above: Trump Recording Is Indictment's 'Smoking Gun' Evidence: Former Prosecutor 6/10/23 AT 12:03 AM EDT "The audio tape of Donald Trump discussing a classified document with individuals who did not have security clearance is "the smoking gun piece of evidence" in the federal indictment of the ex-president, former prosecutor Joyce Vance said." "The tape features Trump discussing a "highly confidential" record with his guests, and the former president says during the recording that he did not have the document declassified before he left the White House." https://www.newsweek.com/trump-recording-indictments-smoking-gun-evidence-former-prosecutor-1805705 Great. Except that it seems so far, the "highly confidential" record does not exist. Gen. Milley says that he never wrote a record as described. And the Trump defense in response to a subpoena says that they can't locate any such record as described.

It is not certain that Corcoran's Washington DC grand jury testimony will be allowed in evidence at trial in Miami. "During the investigation, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the exception applied, forcing Mr. Trump’s lawyers to provide information to the grand jury. But Judge Cannon is not bound by Judge Howell’s decisions when it comes to what information should be presented to a jury." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/us/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-trial.html And there does not seem to be other instances -- so far -- where the prosecution can say we have have Trump on audio record saying post-Presidency that: See this document? It's still classified.

From the indictment at 34. Senior Military Official is Milley TRUMP Well, with [the Senior Military Official] , let me see that, I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack [ Country A ] . Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look This was him. They presented me this this is off the record, but they presented me this . This was him. This was the Defense Department and him. Except Milley said he never wrote any document as described. And per CNS News link above: Attorneys for Trump informed the Justice Department that they've not been able to locate a classified document related to Iran sought by investigators that was discussed during a recorded meeting, two people with knowledge of the case confirmed to CBS News.

If he is going to use the meeting to prove that Trump knew that documents in his possession were still classified he may hit a snag if it is proved the documents described were non-existent.

The fact that the meeting as described maybe can not be used to show that Trump knew documents in his possession were still classified may resonate with the jury if it is shown he was describing a non-existent document ... and is maybe not the "smoking gun" in the case.

Yes and this is also from the indictment 34. just above what you posted. The New Yorker article “You’re Gonna Have a F*****g War”: Mark Milley’s Fight to Stop Trump from Striking Iran ran July 15, 2021. Trump was not happy. The Bedminster meeting was July 21, 2021. Trump says as above: Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers This thing just came up So in just 6 days Trump was able to come up with the Milley document that he was heard crumpling on the audio in his hands. How did he do that -- with his computerized archival records system? There is no one at that meeting who say say what exactly was in his hands And Milley has said that he never produced such a document: "The document Trump references was not produced by Milley, CNN was told." CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape-classified-document-iran-milley/index.html And Trump was notorious for misrepresenting detailed documents: "One person said it's not clear if the document with the "plan of attack" exists, or if Trump was misidentifying something to those assembled for the meeting, but said prosecutors have the tape." "Sometimes aides and visitors weren't even sure if what Trump was talking about on national security or military matters was true or if documents Trump mentioned existed, sources recalled. But Trump seemed to talk a lot about Milley and his own view of what really happened on that front." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-indictment-documents-mark-milley-mar-a-lago/ And Trump was maybe saying "It's classified I can't show" so the meeting attendees wouldn't see that the Document was not what Trump said it was.

Not always. Open inguinal hernia repair has long been the method of choice for most surgeons and is often recommended in contemporary literature as the optimal approach for primary unilateral inguinal hernia, which is a hernia occurring for the first time on one side of the groin, without any prior repair. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160137/

Right -- and you could be killed in a car crash on the way to the hospital.

The indictment makes 40+ references to Attorney 1. Attorney 1 is Corcoran. The information on Corcoran in the indictment comes from Corcoran's testimony at the Washington DC Grand jury after Judge Howell issued a ruling on waiving attorney-client privilege. But the Miami Judge whether Cannon or eventually someone else is not bound by the WDC Court's Grand Jury ruling to allow Corcoran's testimony at trial. From NY Times: During the investigation, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the exception applied, forcing Mr. Trump’s lawyers to provide information to the grand jury. But Judge Cannon is not bound by Judge Howell’s decisions when it comes to what information should be presented to a jury. During pretrial motions, if Mr. Trump’s lawyers ask Judge Cannon to suppress the evidence to protect attorney-client privilege and she does so, prosecutors could appeal — but that would further delay the case. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/us/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-trial.html or https://archive.is/sm8Jm

You're the one who said Trump sticking to the same verbal game plan outside of the court would be a plus for the prosecution.

The only thing that counts is what a Judge allows to be said/presented in the presence of a jury. And if your "admitting his crimes" refers to the 'smoking gun' meeting as in the indictment, maybe not hang too much on that just yet.

Trump never has to say anything under oath. Saying 'Not Guilty' at an arraignment just means you are not going to plead Guilty at least at the present time.

Trump nor any defendant in a US criminal trial is not required to take the witness stand at all. That is, if the defense does not call the defendant to testify, the prosecution cannot then call the defendant to testify,

At least in the USoA, in a criminal trial, it is the job of the prosecutor to prove the defendant did do as charged. Not that the defendant has to prove he didn't do as charged

The double recovery refers to 2 lawsuits for the same 2019 defamation. And what you refer to the 'first case' is actually the second case. The case involving the amended complaint as in the OP was filed in 2020. That case has been long delayed as it was filed when Trump was still President and all the implications thereof. That cased is noted in Court documents as Carroll I The case you have called the 'first case' was filed in 2022. In Court documents noted as Carroll II. And the appeal and the new trial or remittitur motion are both for Carroll II.

Trump asks for new trial in E. Jean Carroll sex abuse case June 9, 2023 In a filing in federal court in Manhattan, Trump's lawyers said the jury's $2 million award for the sexual abuse portion of the verdict was "excessive" because the jury had found that Carroll was not raped, and that the conduct she alleged did not cause any diagnosed mental injury. Trump’s lawyers said in the filing on Thursday that Carroll is seeking “double recovery” with the second lawsuit. They also argued that the jury’s awards were out of proportion to similar cases, asking U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan to reduce them if he rejects the bid for a new trial. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-asks-new-trial-e-jean-carroll-sex-abuse-case-court-filing-2023-06-08 Note that this is a separate motion from the appeal.

I was responding to a query of "How could America stoop so low as to give this obnoxious buffoon any credibility???" And the Kansas map was just one example as to where such persons who give Trump credibility were located in 2020.

I have posted the 14th Amendment Disqualification clause. In brief: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to disqualify someone who has already held a public office from holding "any office" if they participate in an "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html Not general purpose felony conviction.

The people who in the main supported Trump don't care who busted the unions. They just want someone to tell them you got screwed and I'm gonna do somethin' about it.