Liberal Forum

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 12:15 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 12:15 am

1-1,000

maybe more

Between 1 and 1,000 - maybe more.

Okay.

So, if it's only one, don't you feel kind of silly expecting Trump to recognize the handwriting?

You'll feel better if you just admit that you are being silly. It will take a weight off of you. 
 
 

DeezerShoove » 29 Sep 2025, 5:34 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2025, 5:34 pm

So are
Martha Stewart, Robert Downey Jr., Michael Vick, Tim Allen, Nicole Richie,
Christian Slater, Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson, Danny Trejo, Marion James... etc.

Not the end of the world I guess.

------------------------------------------

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ca ... ll-matters

But the fireworks weren’t over. On Dec. 21, CNN broke the story that members of Congress were alleging that Hutchinson’s first, Trump World-funded attorney, who had shepherded her through three interviews with the committee in early 2022, had instructed her to say “that she did not recall details that she did.” The next day, the committee issued its final report and asserted in the criminal referrals section of the executive summary that it had “substantial concerns regarding potential efforts to obstruct its investigation, including by certain counsel (some paid by groups connected to the former President) who may have advised clients to provide false or misleading testimony to the Committee.” The report did not name names. 
 

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 11:09 am

------------------------------------------

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ca ... ll-matters

But the fireworks weren’t over. On Dec. 21, CNN broke the story that members of Congress were alleging that Hutchinson’s first, Trump World-funded attorney, who had shepherded her through three interviews with the committee in early 2022, had instructed her to say “that she did not recall details that she did.” The next day, the committee issued its final report and asserted in the criminal referrals section of the executive summary that it had “substantial concerns regarding potential efforts to obstruct its investigation, including by certain counsel (some paid by groups connected to the former President) who may have advised clients to provide false or misleading testimony to the Committee.” The report did not name names.

-------------------------- Hutchinson’s first, Trump World-funded attorney was Stefan Passantino, who had been deputy White House counsel in the Trump administration from January 2017 to August 2018, focusing on federal compliance and government ethics. Passantino’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, declined to comment for this article but did send a statement Passantino issued in September when he filed a defamation lawsuit against former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who had—without naming Passantino—alluded in a tweet  to “the one who coached [Hutchinson] to lie.” In that statement Passantino asserted:

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 11:09 am

------------------------------------------

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ca ... ll-matters

But the fireworks weren’t over. On Dec. 21, CNN broke the story that members of Congress were alleging that Hutchinson’s first, Trump World-funded attorney, who had shepherded her through three interviews with the committee in early 2022, had instructed her to say “that she did not recall details that she did.” The next day, the committee issued its final report and asserted in the criminal referrals section of the executive summary that it had “substantial concerns regarding potential efforts to obstruct its investigation, including by certain counsel (some paid by groups connected to the former President) who may have advised clients to provide false or misleading testimony to the Committee.” The report did not name names.

-----------Hutchinson’s first, Trump World-funded attorney was Stefan Passantino, who had been deputy White House counsel in the Trump administration from January 2017 to August 2018, focusing on federal compliance and government ethics.--- Passantino’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, declined to comment for this article but did send a statement Passantino issued in September when he filed a defamation lawsuit against former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who had—without naming Passantino—alluded in a tweet  to “the one who coached [Hutchinson] to lie.” In that statement Passantino asserted:

As with all my clients during my 30 years of practice, I represented Ms. Hutchinson honorably, ethically, and fully consistent with her sole interests as she communicated them to me (and others) while I represented her.  As Ms. Hutchinson herself testified, I never counseled her to lie.  I have never counseled a client to mislead anyone. Anyone who takes the time to read the transcripts in which I represent Ms. Hutchinson or to learn anything about me will know this one-sided caricature of me is false.

(Weissmann did not respond to an email seeking comment. He has not yet filed a response to Passantino’s suit, which was not served on him until December, according to court records.)-----------------------

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 11:17 am

-----------Hutchinson’s first, Trump World-funded attorney was Stefan Passantino, who had been deputy White House counsel in the Trump administration from January 2017 to August 2018, focusing on federal compliance and government ethics.--- Passantino’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, declined to comment for this article but did send a statement Passantino issued in September when he filed a defamation lawsuit against former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who had—without naming Passantino—alluded in a tweet  to “the one who coached [Hutchinson] to lie.” In that statement Passantino asserted:

(Weissmann did not respond to an email seeking comment. He has not yet filed a response to Passantino’s suit, which was not served on him until December, according to court records.)-----------------------

In a memoir published in September, Enough, Hutchinson describes in detail how she came to be represented by Passantino in February 2022, and why she fired him in early June 2022. This article is not a book review. It’s a close look at what the Hutchinson memoir reveals about the troubling dynamics of a distinctive form of attorney-client relationship—one that has, as we’ll see, become common during the congressional and federal criminal investigations of Donald Trump. I’m referring to the situation in which a witness in a probe is represented by an attorney selected and funded by close allies of the person or people at the center of that investigation. I will supplement Hutchinson’s account with passages from her depositions before the select committee, independent reporting about her case and the federal Trump investigations, and some observations on some of these events from a professor of legal ethics.To be clear from the outset, no prosecutions have materialized from the committee’s criminal referral relating to alleged obstruction of its inquiry. Moreover, in both Hutchinson’s testimony and in her book, she asserts that Passantino did not counsel her to perjure herself and, indeed, urged her not to.At the same time, Hutchinson does allege in her book that Passantino told her that saying “‘I don’t recall’ isn’t perjury.” He also told her that “the committee wouldn’t know what I could and couldn’t recall,” she writes. She alleges further that Passantino shrugged off her protestations that she had “lied” with reassurances that she had done “fine.” (She voiced virtually identical recollections in her testimony at her fifth and sixth interviews before the committee in September 2022, three months after her live televised testimony.)he knowledge that 

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 11:37 am

 

---------------There is nothing improper per se about an attorney accepting fees from a third party, including in the context of investigations. On the contrary, it is theoretically desirable for innocent parties caught up in, say, the criminal investigation of an employer, not to have to bear the onerous costs of retaining a lawyer, which the employer should rightfully bear. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct—an American Bar Association template intended to guide states nationwide in regulating on the subject—permit lawyers to accept such compensation so long as the client provides “informed consent” and “there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment.” (The pertinent District of Columbia Rule is nearly identical.)At the same time, courts have cautioned that where the third-party payor is closely linked to the target of an investigation, there are obvious temptations that can taint a lawyer’s loyalty to the client, especially when the lawyer is simultaneously representing other clients involved in the probe. (In his lawsuit, Passantino notes that he did represent several witnesses before the House select committee besides Hutchinson.) In a 2006 case concerning a federal grand jury investigation into corruption by an unidentified public official, for instance, a U.S. district judge observed: “The structure of this financial arrangement ... imparts a desire, however subconsciously embedded, to protect ... the public official who pays the client’s legal fees.” The judge in that case disqualified a Pennsylvania law firm, paid by an entity allied with the targeted public official, which had been representing seven grand jury witnesses, including two who had become targets of the inquiry. The government had told the firm that it was willing to offer immunity to either of its two target clients, but not both. The firm, in maintaining that it still didn’t have a conflict, had argued to the judge at a hearing that “an indictment is not the end of the world.”
 

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 11:09 am

------------------------------------------

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ca ... ll-matters

But the fireworks weren’t over. On Dec. 21, CNN

The same CNN that called human grade Ivermectin a horse medicine? The one that paid Zachary Young 5million for lying about him? The same one that pretended zimmerman was white and treyvon was 12?

Nuff said.

roadkill » 30 Sep 2025, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 10:13 am

They're always upset.     lol

And that's because TRUMP has outmaneuvered them on EVER ISSUE at EVERY JUNCTURE. 

As it stands now, they are totally on the WRONG SIDE OF EVERYTHING!!

 

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 11:40 am

---------------There is nothing improper per se about an attorney accepting fees from a third party, including in the context of investigations. On the contrary, it is theoretically desirable for innocent parties caught up in, say, the criminal investigation of an employer, not to have to bear the onerous costs of retaining a lawyer, which the employer should rightfully bear. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct—an American Bar Association template intended to guide states nationwide in regulating on the subject—permit lawyers to accept such compensation so long as the client provides “informed consent” and “there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment.” (The pertinent District of Columbia Rule is nearly identical.)At the same time, courts have cautioned that where the third-party payor is closely linked to the target of an investigation, there are obvious temptations that can taint a lawyer’s loyalty to the client, especially when the lawyer is simultaneously representing other clients involved in the probe. (In his lawsuit, Passantino notes that he did represent several witnesses before the House select committee besides Hutchinson.) In a 2006 case concerning a federal grand jury investigation into corruption by an unidentified public official, for instance, a U.S. district judge observed: “The structure of this financial arrangement ... imparts a desire, however subconsciously embedded, to protect ... the public official who pays the client’s legal fees.” The judge in that case disqualified a Pennsylvania law firm, paid by an entity allied with the targeted public official, which had been representing seven grand jury witnesses, including two who had become targets of the inquiry. The government had told the firm that it was willing to offer immunity to either of its two target clients, but not both. The firm, in maintaining that it still didn’t have a conflict, had argued to the judge at a hearing that “an indictment is not the end of the world.”

--------------------------------------------

In the Trump investigations, representations by lawyers selected and funded by sources close to Trump have been quite common. According to the New York Times, the Trump-aligned Save America PAC has spent more than $20 million on various Trump-probe legal bills since 2021, making payments to 30 law firms as well as to many individuals for “legal consulting.” Though most of that money has been spent on Trump’s own defense, much has been spent on representing witnesses and, indeed, co-defendants in indicted cases. 

Cannonpointer » 30 Sep 2025, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 11:44 am

The same CNN that called human grade Ivermectin a horse medicine? The one that paid Zachary Young 5million for lying about him? The same one that pretended zimmerman was white and treyvon was 12?

Nuff said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 According to one such motion, one government witness in the Florida prosecution, Trump Employee 4—reportedly Yuscil Taveras, the information technology director at Mar-a-Lago—reversed his testimony and inculpated Trump and others after switching from a lawyer funded by Save America PAC to an independent counsel, appointed by the court, after the government raised concerns about conflicts.

Have you heard anything about an intense and energetic campaign of lawfare against Trump by the people who push the tranny **** on us?

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 12:00 pm

In the Trump investigations, representations by lawyers selected and funded by sources close to Trump have been quite common. According to the New York Times, the Trump-aligned Save America PAC has spent more than $20 million on various Trump-probe legal bills since 2021, making payments to 30 law firms as well as to many individuals for “legal consulting.” Though most of that money has been spent on Trump’s own defense, much has been spent on representing witnesses and, indeed, co-defendants in indicted cases. 

NO ****?

DAMN, man! That's heavy.

Thanks for that info! I had heard that **** was going on - just didn't have a handle on how BIG it was!

*Beekeeper » 30 Sep 2025, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 12:00 pm

And that's because TRUMP has outmaneuvered them on EVER ISSUE at EVERY JUNCTURE. 

As it stands now, they are totally on the WRONG SIDE OF EVERYTHING!!

I think of it as the Ernest T. syndrome.       

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3FLNTiXdyo
 

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 12:04 pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 According to one such motion, one government witness in the Florida prosecution, Trump Employee 4—reportedly Yuscil Taveras, the information technology director at Mar-a-Lago—reversed his testimony and inculpated Trump and others after switching from a lawyer funded by Save America PAC to an independent counsel, appointed by the court, after the government raised concerns about conflicts.

Yeah, that level of lawfare is some heavy ****, man. Thanks for hipping me to it.
 

Cannonpointer » 30 Sep 2025, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 10:47 am

Between 1 and 1,000 - maybe more.

Okay.

So, if it's only one, don't you feel kind of silly expecting Trump to recognize the handwriting?

You'll feel better if you just admit that you are being silly. It will take a weight off of you.

the whacked out handwriting would be easy to spot.

Cannonpointer » 30 Sep 2025, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 12:05 pm

Have you heard anything about an intense and energetic campaign of lawfare against Trump by the people who push the tranny **** on us?

NO ****?

DAMN, man! That's heavy.

Thanks for that info! I had heard that **** was going on - just didn't have a handle on how BIG it was!

---------------------------------------------------------

• Case history: Special Counsel Jack Smith investigated Trump regarding his handling of classified materials found at his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office. The case resulted in criminal charges against Trump and two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
• Judge: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, presided over the case in Florida.
• Case dismissal: Judge Cannon dismissed the charges against Trump in July 2024, ruling that the special counsel's appointment was unconstitutional. Following Trump's re-election, Smith withdrew the appeal against Trump, but an appeal related to the co-defendants remains ongoing.
• Special counsel report: Smith's investigation concluded with a final report submitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland. In January 2025, Judge Cannon blocked the Justice Department from releasing the portion of the report concerning the classified documents case to Congress. 

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 1:41 pm

the whacked out handwriting would be easy to spot.

Are you Turkish or Palestinian?

Cannonpointer » 30 Sep 2025, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 12:05 pm

Have you heard anything about an intense and energetic campaign of lawfare against Trump by the people who push the tranny **** on us?

NO ****?

DAMN, man! That's heavy.

Thanks for that info! I had heard that **** was going on - just didn't have a handle on how BIG it was!

AI OverviewAlthough calls for Judge Aileen Cannon to recuse herself have been made, particularly by outside groups, she has not done so
. Following her July 2024 ruling dismissing the documents case against Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but did not request Cannon's removal. 
The primary arguments for recusal concern the perception of judicial impartiality, citing her rulings in the classified documents case and Trump's public praise of her. 
Key events regarding recusal

• Trump's praise: After Judge Cannon dismissed the classified documents case, Trump publicly praised her. 

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 1:54 pm

AI OverviewAlthough calls for Judge Aileen Cannon to recuse herself have been made, particularly by outside groups, she has not done so
. Following her July 2024 ruling dismissing the documents case against Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but did not request Cannon's removal. 
The primary arguments for recusal concern the perception of judicial impartiality, citing her rulings in the classified documents case and Trump's public praise of her. 
Key events regarding recusal

• Trump's praise: After Judge Cannon dismissed the classified documents case, Trump publicly praised her. 

-------------------------------

Concerns about Judge Aileen Cannon's handling of the classified documents case against Donald Trump led to calls for her recusal, but she did not step aside before she dismissed the case in July 2024. Critics allege she acted unethically by demonstrating bias toward Trump through a series of controversial decisions

jerrab » 30 Sep 2025, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 2:16 pm

-------------------------------

Concerns about Judge Aileen Cannon's handling of the classified documents case against Donald Trump led to calls for her recusal, but she did not step aside before she dismissed the case in July 2024. Critics allege she acted unethically by demonstrating bias toward Trump through a series of controversial decisions

Who had concerns.....Democrats?

Who gives a rat's *** about the liars and hoaxers in the party of fools.  
 

RebelGator » 30 Sep 2025, 2:49 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2025, 2:49 pm

Who had concerns.....Democrats?

Who gives a rat's *** about the liars and hoaxers in the party of fools.

-----------------------------------------Trump nominated Judge Cannon, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida, in 2020. She was confirmed, with the support of 12 Democratic senators, by a vote of 56-21. In August 2022, Cannon was randomly assigned as the judge in Trump v. United States, a civil suit filed by Trump after a search warrant was executed and documents were seized from his Mar-a-Lago property. Trump requested that the court appoint a special master to review the seized materials and temporarily pause the Department of Justice investigation, and Cannon granted the request on legal rationale that many found highly questionable, and which the Eleventh Circuit later roundly rejected. The Department of Justice then requested that Cannon partially stay her order while they appealed it to the Eleventh Circuit, a request that she denied a few days later. Two weeks later, a panel of three judges on the Eleventh Circuit, two of whom were also nominated by President Trump, granted the emergency stay and ruled that Cannon not only abused her discretion in denying the stay but also incorrectly interpreted an “indispensable factor” such that she wrongly decided to exercise equitable jurisdiction over the case. Later, the Eleventh Circuit panel fully overturned her decision and ruled that the district court did not have the jurisdiction to consider Trump’s request, writing: