Trump’s legal battles: How six cases may play out

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #129624 Reply
    Brydo

    As president of the United States, Donald Trump enjoyed unique protection from legal action, be it criminal or civil.
    Now, after losing the 2020 presidential election, Mr Trump will soon become a private citizen again.
    That means he will lose his presidential privileges, putting him in the crosshairs of litigators and prosecutors.
    “Once he is out of office, the atmosphere will change,” Daniel R Alonso, a former US federal and New York state prosecutor, told the BBC. “He will no longer have the reality or the threat of presidential power to thwart investigations.”
    A wide-ranging criminal investigation in New York is the most serious legal concern for Mr Trump and his real-estate company, the Trump Organization.
    On top of that, there is an array of lawsuits ranging from allegations of fraud by a family member to sexual harassment by an advice columnist.
    A legal storm is brewing. Here, we consider how the six biggest legal battles may develop.

    1) The hush-money allegations

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54716550

Viewing 14 replies - 51 through 64 (of 64 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #131887 Reply
    Wigwam

    Evidence, Brydo?  Wisconsin is currently holding a Joint Public Hearing of the Assembly & Senate Committees on Campaigns and Elections. They are listening to the evidence. It’s online if you want to hear evidence.

    #131892 Reply
    Brydo

    Wigwam every piece of evidence has been thrown out of court, so far, if there is credible evidence and the election was stolen then it should be dealt with. Remember all these witnesses can say what they like outside a court but inside if they lie they will be in trouble.

    They have had recount after recount and found nothing so let’s see the evidence put in front of a judge and take it from there.

    #131907 Reply
    Wigwam

    <p style=”text-align: left;”>Pointless to point out that fraud doesn’t get to court often or for years if it does. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.  If you believe there was no fraud, you must also believe Nicola Sturgeon is an honest person.</p>

    #131934 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    Texas case rejected as lacking standing.

    #131936 Reply
    Brydo

    I’m not sure what else you expected wigwam.

    #131943 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    I didn’t expect anything, Brydo. I’m not an expert on US law.  It wasn’t rejected on the evidence. As with other cases so far, the court has  not considered the evidence.

    More case being filed though..

    #131944 Reply
    Georgie

    There is no evidence.

    #131947 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    Looks like you haven’t been paying attention, Georgie. There is plenty of evidence but it has yet to be presented in court and proved or disproved.

    #131959 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    Oo-er..

    Austin, TX, Release: December 11, 2020. For Immediate Release

    Below is Chairman Allen West’s statement regarding the decision by the Supreme Court to dismiss Texas’ constitutionally legitimate and critical lawsuit.

    “The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, has decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

    The Texas GOP will always stand for the Constitution and for the rule of law even while others don’t.

    #131961 Reply
    Brydo

    There is no evidence wigwam, certainly none of mass fraud. In fact they have not argued fraud in any of the cases they have brought to court. They instead talk about mass fraud outside court, where there are no legal ramifications, but as soon as they go onto court they declare “this is not a fraud case” as they have zero proof to offer.

    #131971 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    If people swear affidavits alleging wrong-doing, that is evidence, by definition. It may not be good evidence, it may prove to be untrue evidence, but it is evidence.  No court so far has been willing to let the evidence be heard and therefore tested.

    #132001 Reply
    Brydo

    Republican judges have thrown out case after case wigwam if all this evidence is kicking about don’t you think at least one judge would have seen it and found in trumps favour?

    Its more likely the evidence is hearsay, uncouberated or does not, in itself, break the law.

    #132008 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    Brydo, so far no court has allowed evidence to be presented, so the merit or otherwise of it is not the issue.  They have dismissed the cases on procedural grounds.  This may change this afternoon.

    #132010 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    Wisconsin Supreme Court this afternoon will hear oral evidence and rebuttal to decide if the Wisconsin Election Board broke the law in its procedures for dealing with 221,000 postal votes.

Viewing 14 replies - 51 through 64 (of 64 total)
Reply To: Trump’s legal battles: How six cases may play out
Your information: