Trump's legal beagles Topic

Ashli Babbitt was not a peaceful protester. It's clear why the cop who shot her was exonerated.


On the day the police officer who shot her was exonerated, I went back and watched the terrifying footage of Ashli Babbitt’s death during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

It had been months since I’d seen it, and I had forgotten how frightening it was, the kind of scene we see all the time in the movies — transformed suddenly into a shocking, violent reality.

In the seven months since she was killed, Babbitt has become a martyr to the far right. In the twisted revisionist narrative being pushed by former President Trump and his supporters, she was a peaceful demonstrator — an “innocent, wonderful, incredible woman” — who was unjustifiably murdered by the police even though she posed no danger.

But that’s not what the video shows. Her death was a tragedy, to be sure — but it was hardly an unjustified murder.

In our first view of Babbitt on the video she’s at the front of an angry mob trying to get through to the “Speaker’s Lobby,” where members of Congress and staff are holed up. She’s screaming at the police, apparently demanding entry.

The crowd is surging. It’s at the doors. “F— the blue!” can be heard. People are bashing at the glass panels on the doors with sticks and flagpoles. Several police officers are doing their best to hold back an entire crowd, but it seems like a losing battle. “Break it down,” yells the crowd.

Members of Congress can be seen on the other side of the door. Also on the other side of the door is a police lieutenant holding a gun, pointing it at the mob, an unmistakable warning to stay back.

But Babbit decides instead — although it’s a little hard to see on the video — to climb through the shattered glass window into the Speaker’s Lobby, past the police barricade, toward the pointed gun. If she is allowed through, it seems inevitable that the mob will follow.

As she climbs through, a single shot is fired and she drops to the floor.

On Monday, the U.S. Capitol Police declared the shooting lawful, and said it would not pursue disciplinary charges against the lieutenant who killed Babbitt. That follows April’s decision by the Department of Justice not to bring criminal charges against the officer. Neither agency named the lieutenant, for his own safety.

8/26/2021 8:19 AM

A federal judge in Michigan has ordered that Sidney Powell, L. Lin Wood and seven other attorneys who filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state’s 2020 presidential election be disciplined, calling the suit “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process.”

In a scathing 110-page opinion, Federal District Judge Linda V. Parker wrote that the lawyers had made assertions in court that were not backed by evidence and had failed to do the due diligence required by legal rules before alleging mass fraud in the Michigan vote.

“This case was never about fraud,” she wrote. “It was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.”

She ordered the lawyers to pay the attorney’s fees for their opponents in the case — the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan. She also wrote that she will require them to attend legal education classes. And she referred the group to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, as well as attorney disciplinary committees in the states where each attorney is licensed, which could initiate proceedings that could result in the lawyer’s being disbarred.

8/26/2021 8:30 AM

Capitol Police officers sue Trump, Stone, extremists, alleging conspiracy, terrorism on Jan. 6


Seven officers from the United States Capitol Police are suing former President Donald Trump, his longtime adviser Roger Stone and members of far-right extremist groups, alleging they conspired to use violence Jan. 6 to attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday morning, alleges that Trump and the other defendants conspired with one other through the use of force, threats and intimidation that culminated in the attack on the Capitol.

Officer Jason DeRoche, an 18-year veteran of the Capitol Police and a Navy veteran, said the civil lawsuit isn't about winning a financial settlement. Rather, he said, the lawsuit aims to set the record straight about what happened Jan. 6 and make sure history doesn't repeat itself.

"We don't want something like this happening ever again," DeRoche said.

He said he wants Trump and the other defendants to be held accountable for what they did, so that "if they were to do this ever again, there would be consequences."

Jan. 6 hearing: At hearing, officers recall brutal riot, ‘desperate struggle’ to hold back mob

Joining DeRoche in the lawsuit are six other veteran Capitol Police officers who have each served 13 to 35 years at the department. The complaint details the events of Jan. 6, describing the officers being assaulted, bear-sprayed and tear-gassed and believing their lives were threatened.

DeRoche started his shift at 7 a.m. that day. A few hours later, he helped barricade the Capitol with bike racks against attacking Trump supporters, the lawsuit says. Over the course of a shift that lasted until 11:30 p.m., he was assaulted and attacked with bear spray, pepper spray and fire extinguishers. His eye was swollen shut, his arm was injured, and he suffered emotional injuries, the lawsuit says.

"These officers risked their lives and were brutally attacked defending the right of every citizen to a government of their choosing," said Edward Caspar, senior counsel with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, an advocacy group representing the police officers. "If they didn't do what they did that day – if they didn't have the courage to stand up – I don't know that we'd be living in a democracy today."

The lawsuit claims the defendants violated the federal Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era statute that allows individuals to sue when they are injured by conspiracies that "prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States."

The law couldn't fit the circumstances of the case better, Caspar said.

"This attack was about using force, intimidation and threats to prevent Congress from doing its job in certifying the election results and injuring the Capitol Police officers in the performance of their jobs," he said.

Attorneys for Trump and several other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, another defendant in the lawsuit, responded but didn't comment on the allegations.

Jan. 6 suicides: Two additional DC officers who responded to US Capitol insurrection die by suicide

The lawsuit argues that the conspiracy grew throughout 2020 as Trump and far-right influencers, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, sowed doubts about the integrity of the presidential election.

It ties together events from around the country – the takeover of the Michigan state Capitol on April 30, 2020, by armed protesters, violent attacks by the Proud Boys and fiery television appearances by Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers – to argue that they were all part of a nationwide conspiracy aimed at keeping Trump in office even after he lost the election.

The conspiracy increased in its fervor after the election, the lawsuit claims, as purveyors of the "Stop The Steal" conspiracy theory worked to spread disinformation about election fraud. Attacks and threats against election workers should be implicitly tied to the propaganda spread by Trump and others, the complaint argues.

8/26/2021 2:28 PM

Two weeks after the 2020 election, a team of lawyers closely allied with President Donald Trump held a widely watched news conference at the Republican Party’s headquarters in Washington. At the event, they laid out a bizarre conspiracy theory claiming that a voting machine company had worked with an election software firm, financier George Soros and Venezuela to steal the presidential contest from Trump.


But there was a problem for the Trump team, according to court documents released Monday evening.


By the time the news conference occurred Nov. 19, Trump’s campaign had already prepared an internal memo on many of the outlandish claims about the company, Dominion Voting Systems, and the separate software company, Smartmatic. The memo had determined that those allegations were untrue.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times

The court papers, which were initially filed late last week as a motion in a defamation lawsuit brought against the campaign and others by a former Dominion employee, Eric Coomer, contain evidence that officials in the Trump campaign were aware early on that many of the claims against the companies were baseless.

The documents also suggest that the campaign sat on its findings about Dominion even as Sidney Powell and other lawyers attacked the company in the conservative media and ultimately filed four federal lawsuits accusing it of a vast conspiracy to rig the election against Trump.

According to emails contained in the documents, Zach Parkinson, then the campaign’s deputy director of communications, reached out to subordinates on Nov. 13 asking them to “substantiate or debunk” several matters concerning Dominion. The next day, the emails show, Parkinson received a copy of a memo cobbled together by his staff from what largely appear to be news articles and public fact-checking services.

Even though the memo was hastily assembled, it rebutted a series of allegations that Powell and others were making in public. It found:

— That Dominion did not use voting technology from the software company, Smartmatic, in the 2020 election.

— That Dominion had no direct ties to Venezuela or to Soros.

— And that there was no evidence that Dominion’s leadership had connections to left-wing “antifa” activists, as Powell and others had claimed.

As Coomer’s attorneys wrote in their motion in the defamation suit, “The memo produced by the Trump campaign shows that, at least internally, the Trump campaign found there was no evidence to support the conspiracy theories regarding Dominion” and Coomer.

Even at the time, many political observers and voters, Democratic and Republican alike, dismissed the efforts by Powell and other pro-Trump lawyers like Rudy Giuliani as a wild, last-ditch attempt to appease a defeated president in denial of his loss. But the false theories they spread quickly gained currency in the conservative media and endure nearly a year later.

It is unclear if Trump knew about or saw the memo. Still, the documents suggest that his campaign’s communications staff remained silent about what it knew of the claims against Dominion at a moment when the allegations were circulating freely.

“The Trump campaign continued to allow its agents,” the motion says, “to advance debunked conspiracy theories and defame” Coomer, “apparently without providing them with their own research debunking those theories.”

Coomer, Dominion’s onetime director of product strategy and security, sued Powell, Giuliani, the Trump campaign and others last year in state district court in Denver. He has said that after the election, he was wrongly accused by a right-wing podcast host of hacking his company’s systems to ensure Trump’s defeat and of then telling left-wing activists that he had done so.

Soon after the host, Joe Oltmann, made these accusations, they were seized upon and amplified by Powell and Giuliani, who were part of a self-described “elite strike force” of lawyers leading the charge in challenging Joe Biden’s victory.

On Nov. 19, for example, Powell and Giuliani appeared together at the news conference at the Republican National Committee’s headquarters and placed Coomer at the center of a plot to hijack the election by hacking Dominion’s voting machines. By Powell’s account that day, the conspiracy included Smartmatic, Venezuelan officials, people connected to Soros and a “massive influence of communist money.”

Powell and Giuliani did not respond to messages seeking comment on the documents. Representatives for Trump also did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Trump continues to falsely argue that the election was stolen from him, and in recent months Powell and Giuliani have stuck by their claims that the election was rife with fraud. An attorney for Giuliani said in a court filing last month that at least some of his claims of election fraud were “substantially true.”

And as recently as three weeks ago, Powell told a reporter for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. that the 2020 election was “essentially a bloodless coup where they took over the presidency of the United States without a single shot being fired.”

It remains unclear how widely the memo was circulated among Trump campaign staff members. According to the court documents, Giuliani said in a deposition that he had not seen the memo before he gave his presentation in Washington, and he questioned the motives of those who had prepared it.

“They wanted Trump to lose because they could raise more money,” Giuliani was quoted as saying in the deposition.

But at the time that the internal report was prepared, Giuliani and Powell were both “active supervisors,” as he put it in his deposition, in the Trump campaign’s broader plan to challenge the election results — an effort that eventually included more than 60 failed lawsuits filed across the country. While Powell soon went her own way in claiming that Dominion had conspired to steal the election, Giuliani continued working closely with Trump and his campaign, ultimately changing strategies and seeking to persuade state legislatures to overturn the popular vote.

The motion notes that “the lines were blurred” as to whom Powell was working for at the time: herself, her nonprofit organization or the Trump campaign. Almost immediately after she promoted the conspiracy theory about Dominion at the news conference in November, Trump sought to distance himself from her. But by December, as Trump’s legal options narrowed, the former president considered bringing her back into the fold and discussed whether to appoint her as a special counsel overseeing an investigation of voter fraud.

The release of the documents was only the latest legal trouble for Giuliani and Powell, both of whom have been sued directly by Dominion for defamation. Dominion has also brought a defamation suit against Mike Lindell, CEO of MyPillow, for amplifying false election claims. Last month, a federal judge in Washington ruled that the cases could continue moving toward trial.

About the same time, a federal judge in Detroit ordered penalties to be levied against Powell and eight other pro-Trump lawyers — Giuliani was not among them — who filed a lawsuit that sought to overturn the election results in Michigan using the false claims about Dominion.

“This case was never about fraud,” Judge Linda V. Parker wrote in her decision. “It was about undermining the people’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.”

In June, a New York court suspended Giuliani’s law license, ruling that he had made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while fighting the results of last year’s election for Trump.

Even recently, the new court documents say, former Trump campaign officials have continued to cling to the baseless notion that the election was marred by fraud.

When attorneys for Coomer asked Sean Dollman, a representative of the Trump campaign, in a deposition if the campaign still believed that the election was fraudulent, he answered, “Yes, sir.”

The lawyers then asked, “What is that opinion based on?”

According to the court documents, Dollman gave a less than certain answer.

“We have no underlying definite facts that it wasn’t,” he said.

© 2021 The New York Times Company

9/22/2021 5:55 AM
This came out of the NYT? Ok, enough said. Long post. and I am kinda lazy..
9/22/2021 8:30 AM
Trump get blamed for Jan 6, but where were these critics when antifa were 'taking over' Seattle's Capital Hill, Looting every thing in sight in LA, Chic and burning Portland??

OOPS. there were the Democrat supporters. Got ya.

I have a hard time seeing how these rioters are any different than for eg Commie troops invading your country, and taking over your streets.. and your ELECTED OFFICIALS do NOTHING to stop it. and then you re elect them

Don't blame Trump. Don't blame Biden. BLAME THE DAMNED ANTIFA-TERRORISTS!! and that is what these animals are


9/22/2021 8:37 AM
Two very "intelligent" posts this AM from the Canuck loony!
76 is his age he says.
I think he's confused again.
It must be his IQ.
9/22/2021 9:04 AM
Many cities in America don't exist anymore. Portland is just rubble. Thanks, antifa!
9/22/2021 10:40 AM
Posted by bronxcheer on 8/26/2021 8:19:00 AM (view original):

Ashli Babbitt was not a peaceful protester. It's clear why the cop who shot her was exonerated.


On the day the police officer who shot her was exonerated, I went back and watched the terrifying footage of Ashli Babbitt’s death during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

It had been months since I’d seen it, and I had forgotten how frightening it was, the kind of scene we see all the time in the movies — transformed suddenly into a shocking, violent reality.

In the seven months since she was killed, Babbitt has become a martyr to the far right. In the twisted revisionist narrative being pushed by former President Trump and his supporters, she was a peaceful demonstrator — an “innocent, wonderful, incredible woman” — who was unjustifiably murdered by the police even though she posed no danger.

But that’s not what the video shows. Her death was a tragedy, to be sure — but it was hardly an unjustified murder.

In our first view of Babbitt on the video she’s at the front of an angry mob trying to get through to the “Speaker’s Lobby,” where members of Congress and staff are holed up. She’s screaming at the police, apparently demanding entry.

The crowd is surging. It’s at the doors. “F— the blue!” can be heard. People are bashing at the glass panels on the doors with sticks and flagpoles. Several police officers are doing their best to hold back an entire crowd, but it seems like a losing battle. “Break it down,” yells the crowd.

Members of Congress can be seen on the other side of the door. Also on the other side of the door is a police lieutenant holding a gun, pointing it at the mob, an unmistakable warning to stay back.

But Babbit decides instead — although it’s a little hard to see on the video — to climb through the shattered glass window into the Speaker’s Lobby, past the police barricade, toward the pointed gun. If she is allowed through, it seems inevitable that the mob will follow.

As she climbs through, a single shot is fired and she drops to the floor.

On Monday, the U.S. Capitol Police declared the shooting lawful, and said it would not pursue disciplinary charges against the lieutenant who killed Babbitt. That follows April’s decision by the Department of Justice not to bring criminal charges against the officer. Neither agency named the lieutenant, for his own safety.

She sounds like someone who died because of her own stupidity. Tell us; what is the sensible thing to do if a policeman points his firearm at you and tells you to stay back?

What do angry mobs think will happen if they are making threats? Or maybe you think that mobs should be permitted to do whatever they please. Give it a rest. I call this a good shoot

screaming at the police, apparently demanding entry. This is kind of stupid, yes?? What makes her think she is so special? = dead snowflake
9/22/2021 12:05 PM
Posted by laramiebob on 9/22/2021 9:04:00 AM (view original):
Two very "intelligent" posts this AM from the Canuck loony!
76 is his age he says.
I think he's confused again.
It must be his IQ.
You cannot understand my 8:37 am post? It is not me, who is stupid
9/22/2021 12:06 PM

Arizona’s Bizarre Election Recount Showed Trump Actually Got Fewer Votes And Biden Got Even More

As the New York Times reported early Friday, Trump managed to actually lose votes in the process while Biden officially gained nearly 100 more.

In fact, the draft report from the company Cyber Ninjas found just the opposite: It tallied 99 additional votes for President Biden and 261 fewer votes for Mr. Trump in Maricopa County, the fast-growing region that includes Phoenix.

The results are a huge blow to MAGA fans desperate to find any proof of the election fraud that Trump predicted before the election and rallied for months about afterward. For months, some of Trump’s biggest supporters claimed a domino effect would take place after massive fraud was uncovered in Arizona and led to other states finding similar issues. But despite the shady nature of Cyber Ninjas’ months-long, delay-plagued review, they ultimately didn’t turn up anything of interest.

For many loyalists, the investigation has been seen as the first in a string of state inquiries that would, domino-like, topple claims that Mr. Biden was legitimately in the White House.

State Senator Wendy Rogers, a Republican who is among Arizona’s most ardent advocates of the stolen-election canard, underscored that faith in a single sentence posted Thursday on Twitter: “Tomorrow we make history.”

Instead, election experts said, an inquiry run by Trump partisans that was granted unrestricted access to 2.1 million ballots and election equipment failed to make even a basic case that the November vote was badly flawed, much less rigged.

The full report is still forthcoming, and will certainly be scrutinized by those worried about the security of the Cyber Ninjas recall. But right now it’s even more clear that, much like last November, Trump didn’t get what he was looking for in Arizona.

[via NY Times]

9/24/2021 4:56 AM
◂ Prev 1...5|6|7
Trump's legal beagles Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.