Trump’s attorney John Lauro has confirmed that Trump is entering a plea of not guilty to the superseding indictment.
Federal prosecutors and lawyers for Donald Trump are in court today to discuss how to move forward with the federal election subversion case against Trump in the first hearing after the supreme court’s ruling granting him broad immunity from criminal charges.
It’s going to be studied historically forever, how this scum pile is even an option for such a large portion of this country.
Not if he wins, expect all “studies” that aren’t right-wing propaganda to cease entirely.
If he wins, the only valid (legal) studies can be performed by watching a lot of YouTube videos. And the only way you are allowed to publish your study results is as a 2.5 hour YouTube video.
Here’s an interesting bit:
Sitting in a row with other Justice Department officials behind the counsel table, he [Jack Smith] smiled broadly when John Lauro, a lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump, said offhandedly that he had yet to address his plan to file a motion challenging the legality of the special counsel.
Mr. Smith emphatically nodded his head in agreement several times after the presiding judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, interrupted Mr. Lauro when he suggested that the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had directed Mr. Trump’s lawyers to raise the issue. Judge Chutkan interrupted, and said, “He directed you to do that?”
Now, we may find that the lawyer was exaggerating a bit. But if it turns out that Thomas somehow reached out to the Trump legal team and said “Hey, I wrote this thing specifically to get you off the hook, use it”, wouldnt that be a Big Fucking Deal?
NAL but I would think that would be a really, REALLY Big Fucking Deal.
Gawd, I’d love to be a fly on the wall in Chutkan’s chambers when she calls Thomas’ lawyer to verify who said what.
My reaction to this can be summed up in gif form by taking a clip out of context from the Home Alone movie Trump was not in, i.e. the good one:
I prefer this myself.
I mean of course he pleads “not guilty”. The whole point of this trial is prove him conclusively, and irrevocably guilty. Which, fortunately will be easy given the mountains of evidence. smh.
will Wallace finding that Trump was “engaging in insurrection” be part of the prosecuting argument?
