Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (4 comments) [73 views]


Holy FrigginFreakinEFFIN Cow! Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump immunity claim!
Crime by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 2:54 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (15 comments) [105 views]


9 Surprising Findings From Joe Biden's Physical
Medical by HatetheSwamp     February 29, 2024 9:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [15 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [88 views]


Mitch McConnell to step down from GOP leadership position in the
Government by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 9:42 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [45 views]


"Where's Hunter?" He is in the capitol building kicking Republican ass!
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 12:02 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (14 comments) [124 views]


What should we make of the Michigan primary results?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 9:42 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (2 comments) [27 views]


Clueless Sen. Tuberville 'running in circles' in response to IVF question
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 23, 2024 12:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (24 comments) [283 views]


The Doddering Old Fool's two serious problems coming out of Michigan
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 6:39 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [29 views]


Fake news? Are supposed voter concerns over Biden’s age overblown?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 11:20 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [21 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.
HOT RUMOR: Trump Case Likely to be Dismissed, Due to DOJ Misconduct
By HatetheSwamp
July 7, 2023 12:35 pm
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

I didn't mind pointing out to you TDSers that getting excited over an indictment is foolhardy.

Waltine “Walt” Nauta, a Navy valet who worked in Trump’s White House and who continued to be a personal aide to Trump after he left office, is one of Trump’s co-defendants. Former DOJ Counterintelligence Chief Jay Bratt, who is currently a member of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors, was named the target of accusations made by Nauta’s attorney, a renowned, highly esteemed Washington attorney named Stanley Woodward, a few weeks ago. According to news reports, Woodward claimed in a sealed letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that during a meeting to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt said that if he couldn’t persuade Nauta to testify against Trump, it might affect Woodward’s application to be a D.C. Superior Court judge.

Bratt’s alleged misconduct could lead to harsh penalties and even be a reason to throw out the entire case against Nauta and Trump. Depending on the details of what was said, Bratt might even be charged with a crime.

Bratt’s actions and any other alleged misconduct by Jack Smith’s team should be the subject of an investigation by a special counsel if the Department of Justice is sincere about treating this case in an open and transparent manner.


This is still a country where the protections of the Bill of Rights should apply even to someone as despicable as Donald Trump.

So, we'll see.

But, there might have been some woke counting of prehatched chicken. Baha baha!


Cited and related links:

  1. theleadingreport.com



Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "HOT RUMOR: Trump Case Likely to be Dismissed, Due to DOJ Misconduct":

  1. by Indy! on July 7, 2023 12:39 pm

    It would not be surprising at all (for me) to find out the Ds are working behind the scenes to get Trump off the hook. Once the precedent is set - and somebody goes to jail - nobody is really safe. Look how much crap has slid by since Ford pardoned Nixon.

    Oh - and btw - in case I haven't mentioned it here yet... I've been predicting for years now that if Trump is ever convicted of anything - he will be pardoned by whoever is in the White House at the time. And before you ask - yes, that includes Joe Biden.


  2. by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2023 12:49 pm

    Indy!,

    No doubt, the bloodlust of Swamp woke TDSers is leading them astray. You're bang on about precedent.

    These self-righteous phonies are asking for a boatload of trouble. If some Dems are not working behind the scenes to introduce some sanity in the forming of the lynch mob, they should be.


  3. by Curt_Anderson on July 7, 2023 12:58 pm
    HtS,
    Don't hold your breath. Stanley Woodward's allegations against Bratt are a month old and have gone nowhere.

    Even if the accusations had any substance, both the Supreme Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have made it clear that allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are almost never sufficient grounds to dismiss such criminal charges. A defendant whose rights have been abridged may have other remedies, but the courts have ruled that dismissing an indictment requires a defendant to show that the asserted misconduct "substantially influenced the grand jury's decision to indict" or that there is "grave doubt" on that score.
    latimes.com


  4. by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2023 1:49 pm

    I did call it a hot rumor. But, did you watch the video. Apparently, the some of the misconduct took place in misleading the Grand Jury.


  5. by Curt_Anderson on July 7, 2023 2:20 pm
    Did YOU watch the video?

    The supposed prosecutorial misconduct relates to Woodward's application to be a judge. The accusation is that Bratt implied he could help get Woodward the judgeship if Trump were convicted...or something along those lines. In reality it was just mentioned during small talk between lawyers. There were no explicit or implicit promises or threats made. Prosecutors don't have any influence over judicial applications as both Bratt and Woodward certainly know.

    Anyway, those allegations of prosecutorial misconduct happened before Trump and Nauta were indicted. Apparently Judge Cannon was unimpressed by the accusation.

    If there are new and/or different accusations of prosecutorial misconduct, provide a quote and a link to a printed, published report.


  6. by oldedude on July 7, 2023 2:22 pm
    Stanley Woodward's allegations against Bratt are a month old and have gone nowhere.

    There's an actual process. They have to interview the person making the allegations. Then they have to put that together and get that story straight. Then they interview Bratt, and others around him that may know something to substantiate what Woodward and Bratt said and compare the stories. It's not a night of "True crime NYC" or some other TV show. These things actually take time. A month isn't too long.

    Does that mean there's going to be a dismissal? Absolutely not. I did hear about this two or three weeks ago, and decided there was no point in saying anything until other information was forthcoming. I've got maybe a 55% chance its a dismissal right now because there's a leak, which is not in my interest to make a bet either way.


  7. by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2023 2:25 pm

    Bullfernerner.

    The supposed prosecutorial misconduct relates to Woodward's application to be a judge.

    Iowa, you didn't watch the video.


  8. by Curt_Anderson on July 7, 2023 2:28 pm
    I watched it. Once.

    What other allegations do think were made...such as misleading the grand jury. Who says that besides you?


  9. by Ponderer on July 7, 2023 2:57 pm

    Hello... Room service...?


  10. by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2023 2:59 pm

    It's the impugning of Trump for accessing his Bill of Rights right not to testify. On the MSNBC video, the Trump guy says that he witnessed it personally in front of the Grand Jury several times. He claimed that in a trial, that would be grounds for a mistrial. That comports with my limited understanding.

    I understand your TDS and your, apparently irrepressible, instinct to Good German Dems, but, considering who the Judge is, is it impossible for you to consider the possibility that the judge may rule in Trump’s favor on the matter of prosecutorial misconduct?


  11. by Curt_Anderson on July 7, 2023 3:02 pm
    Ponderer,
    Don't you hate it when hotels advertise their "excellent service" but in reality their room service gets the order wrong or they never deliver the order?


  12. by Curt_Anderson on July 7, 2023 3:07 pm
    "It's the impugning of Trump for accessing his Bill of Rights right not to testify." ---HtS

    What the hell does that even mean? Targets of an indictment, including Trump, never testify before grand juries. Trump may or may not testify when the case goes to trial.

    That "Trump guy" in the MSNBC video is Timothy Parlatore, who quit as Trump's attorney last month.


  13. by Ponderer on July 7, 2023 3:11 pm

    Oh how I know it, Curt. I worked room service at a 4-star Marriott 'round the turn of the century.

    Of course... it got demoted to a 3-star by the time I left.


    🤓




  14. by Indy! on July 7, 2023 3:47 pm

    Not paying attention to all these details, but if you expect the Supreme Clowns to stick to a precedent to save the case against Trump, you might want to look into their other decisions, Curt. They'll flip on any GOP dime that rolls by. But - as I've said - they won't have to. Trump will be pardoned.


  15. by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2023 4:07 pm

    What the hell does that even mean? Targets of an indictment, including Trump, never testify before grand juries. Trump may or may not testify when the case goes to trial.

    Never?

    Why don't you watch the d@ng video?


  16. by Curt_Anderson on July 7, 2023 4:33 pm
    "What the hell does that even mean? Targets of an indictment, including Trump, never testify before grand juries. Trump may or may not testify when the case goes to trial.

    Never?" --HtS

    Never. Certainly there is no expectation that a target should/would testify.

    "The target of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify or put on a defense before the grand jury."

    "In most jurisdictions, a target has no right to testify."

    "No targets testify in federal grand juries because the crimes are complex, the prosecutors prepared, and the witness is without counsel in the room."


    en.wikipedia.org
    pioneerlawoffice.com


  17. by HatetheSwamp on July 7, 2023 4:35 pm

    Curt,

    No, as po'd say effin RIGHT. So?

    Never?


  18. by Curt_Anderson on July 7, 2023 6:01 pm
    So, so much for your "Trump was impugned" theory. Trump cannot be impugned for not testifying before a grand jury because there is no expectation that the target would testify. And targets don't testify before the grand jury in federal cases.


  19. by HatetheSwamp on July 8, 2023 2:54 am

    So, two things.

    1. You didn't watch the video, or,
    2. You're arguing with someone other than ol pb.

    Heck. Probly both.


  20. by oldedude on July 8, 2023 7:06 am
    curt-
    Never. Certainly there is no expectation that a target should/would testify.

    "The target of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify or put on a defense before the grand jury."

    "In most jurisdictions, a target has no right to testify."

    "No targets testify in federal grand juries because the crimes are complex, the prosecutors prepared, and the witness is without counsel in the room."

    Again, you can't read as po'd say effin law.

    It doesn't say they can't. It says it's not normal. Two different things. Which is kind of funny because you've used this as an argument to me several times against trumpster. I guess if the law suits you, you use it. or create a way for it to work for you. However wrong it is.


  21. by Curt_Anderson on July 8, 2023 9:42 am
    OD, HtS,
    Read the quotes and links I provided. The last one says "No targets testify in federal grand juries…”. It makes no sense to claim Trump was impugned for invoking his constitutional right not to testify if his testimony wasn’t allowed, or even if it were rarely allowed.

    Nobody is claiming that the case against Trump in Florida will be dismissed for a reasons of prosecutorial misconduct other than the crackpot wingnut sources HtS provides and Trump who who says that the fact that he was indicted is prosecutorial misconduct because it “election interference”.


  22. by Indy! on July 9, 2023 12:25 pm

    I'm not even following this, but isn't the Florida case in the hands of some wingnutty judge who is openly supporting Trump? Remember Florida is where Jeffrey Epstein got the sweetheart deal the first time they busted him for sexually abusing children.


  23. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 7:30 pm
    If you're not following the case, don't give input.

    The decision will come either this week or next. We'll see what the judge says.


  24. by Indy! on July 10, 2023 12:51 am

    I’ll do that right after you kiss my ass, old dud.


Go To Top

Comment on: "HOT RUMOR: Trump Case Likely to be Dismissed, Due to DOJ Misconduct"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page