Donald Trump’s “Next Steps”?

On January 19^th, this year, the Supreme Court ruled against former president Donald John Trump, in his efforts to claim forever-stamp like “Executive Privilege”. In challenge that “privilege” he did not have to respond nor provide “documents” to the Select Committee investigating the January 6^th “Domestic Terrorist Attack” on the U.S. Capitol. A ruling from the “High Court”, it was no doubt about it a loss for Trump and in most legal cases it would mean “Case Closed” the Grand Wizard has spoken! But what has transpired since that “opinion” against Trump’s wishes by the Justice Robert’s Court, well just what in blazing saddles hell is going on? See, in this case in merit upon delivery by the SCOTUS a victory for the United States, the Defendant’s - Bennie Thompson & the Select Committee” - it had to finalize an answer to the Trump complaint, usually a very Simple Simon answer in brief that any 1^st year law student could handle, just point to what the SCOTUS ruled. But for some “Crazy Psycho Shit” reason, Donald Trump on one side and the government lawyers on the other side, both sides were in “mutual agreement” to allow a 2-week extension for that answer to be gaveled in - so it could then mean CASE CLOSED! That was paramount, as until the complaint was set fee, it allowed Trump wiggle room away from any chastising by the “Select Committee”, like in maybe a subpoena? Let’s face the facts, the “Committee” has issued how many subpoenas yet has yet to schedule the Kingpin to the gavel gallows? Now the reason for this request in extension, so Donald Trump “can determine his next steps”. OK, the ruling against Trump from the SCOTUS was rather odd, as Brett Kavanaugh is of record that the denial by the “Court” any “Executive Privilege” exists, that the ruling from the “High Court” was neither “binding” or “set-precedence” moving forward, and somewhat in “opinion” in favor that a President should enjoy some semblance of an “Executive Privilege” - talk about a Mobius Strip mentality! Then again, maybe like a shot across the bow for the “lower courts”, should this same subject once again try to wreck-havoc with the jurisprudence of justice served. So I ask may it please the court, what “next steps” is Trump talking about? He lost, what is it his attorney fails to understand? For that matter the government legal counsel also blind-sighted, to go along with this prolonging bull-shit to agree on the “mutual agreement” to extend the pain and agony of a Moron at the helm for 4-years why more? OK no big deal, what’s a few extra days deliberating his loss. Then, after the 2-week extension had almost come to a close out, low and behold came another “mutual agreement” extension between the parties, this time a request for another 30-days behind schedule in allowing this “Case Closed”. And Sad Sack enough, the same damn reason was given by our government lawyers, so “Donald Trump can determine his next steps”. I ask again for Miss liberty, “What next steps” the damn SCOTUS already rendered a decision that said nothing about “next steps” we are getting into some preferential treatment herein! But wait there is more entertainment your Tax Dollars at work enriching the legal community! That answer by Bennie Thompson’s government lawyers was supposed to be signed, sealed and delivered by yesterday, March 7^th,  but it was a NO SHOW! Shame on you? No, because low and behold instead of an answer, yet another “mutual agreement” extension between the parties - Donald Trump and Bennie Thompson - and if you can get 2-weeks then 30-days may as well go for the gusto and request 60-days more! So now it is out to May 6^th, and during the time there is NO ANSWER and the CASE CLOSED sign has yet to be illuminated, and Donald Trump cannot be subpoenaed, cannot be subject to arrest…is there something wrong with our system in jurisprudence? So here it is below how our Courts, which we thought we could Trust, well were we fooled!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-2769 (TSC)

JOINT MOTION FOR A FURTHER TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND THE COMPLAINT

The parties to this matter jointly request a two-week extension of time for Defendants to respond to the current Complaint. In the absence of an extension, Defendants’ response is due Friday, January 21, 2022. The Court has granted one prior extension of the response time. The parties’ motion is supported by good cause. In the evening of January 19, 2022, the Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s Application for a Stay of Mandate and Injunction Pending Review. See Order No. 21A272, 595 U.S. ___ (2022) (Jan. 19, 2022). The parties have since conferred with respect to Defendants’ forthcoming response to the Complaint and the future of the litigation. Given the recent decision from the Supreme Court and the Archivist’s subsequent production to the Select Committee of the records at issue in this litigation, the parties agreed that the best course was to defer the Defendants’ response so that Plaintiff can determine his next steps. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court grant this unopposed motion for a two week extension of time, until February 4, 2022, in which to respond to the Complaint.

Dated: Jan. 21, 2021 - This being the 1^st 2-week extension.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-2769 (TSC)

JOINT MOTION FOR A FURTHER THIRTY DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND THE COMPLAINT

The parties to this matter jointly request a further thirty day extension of time for Defendants to respond to the current Complaint. In the absence of an extension, Defendants’ response is due Friday, February 4, 2022. The Court has granted two prior extensions of the response time. The parties’ motion is supported by good cause. The Supreme Court recently denied Plaintiff’s Application for a Stay of Mandate and Injunction Pending Review. See Order No. 21A272, 595 U.S. ___ (2022) (Jan. 19, 2022). The parties have again conferred with respect to Defendants’ forthcoming response to the Complaint and the future of the litigation. Given the decision from the Supreme Court and the Archivist’s subsequent production to the Select Committee of the records at issue in this litigation, the parties agreed that the best course was to further defer the Defendants’ response for thirty days so that Plaintiff can determine his next steps. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court grant this unopposed motion for a further thirty day extension of time, until March 7, 2022, in which to respond to the Complaint.

Dated: Feb. 4, 2022 - This being the 2^nd extension, for 30-days.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-2769 (TSC)

JOINT MOTION FOR A FURTHER SIXTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND THE COMPLAINT

The parties to this matter jointly request a further sixty-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to the current Complaint. In the absence of an extension, Defendants’ response is due March 7, 2022. The Court has granted three prior extensions of the response time. The parties’ motion is supported by good cause. The Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s Application for a Stay of Mandate and Injunction Pending Review, see Order No. 21A272, 595 U.S. ___ (2022) (Jan. 19, 2022), and on February 22, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s petition for certiorari. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022222zor_bq7d.pdf. The parties have again conferred with respect to Defendants’ forthcoming response to the Complaint and the future of the litigation. The parties agreed that the best course was to maintain the status quo and further defer the Defendants’ response for sixty days so that Plaintiff can determine his next steps. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court grant this unopposed motion for a further sixty-day extension of time, until May 6, 2022, in which to respond to the Complaint

Dated: March 7, 2022 - This being the 3^rd extension, this time for an additional 60-days.

Simple Simon you do the math, and I guess Baby Brett Kavanaugh was right, that a former U.S. President can exercise an “Executive Privilege” when it means just not days but months in delays and thus staying away from the “wrecking ball” of justice deserved! Trump wins again.

Trumping the “BRIBE”

On February 18^th, U.S. District Court Judge Amil Mehta offered U.S. Representative Mo Brooks a “bribe”, that which is today backfiring on the wherewithal of the jurisprudence in justice served. Wherein after dismissing Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump Jr. in action a lawsuit filed by Eric Swalwell, that the Trump Dysentery Dynasty thugs were merely exercising their “Free Speech & Debate” clause to cause a “Domestic Terrorist Attack” on the U.S. Capitol, the judge thought it proper to “bait” Mr. Brooks, to file for a dismissal and that he would be awarded the same consideration as Rudy and Jr. It was like a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. And of course with respect to “legitimate political discourse” Brooks immediately filed for such a “motion” and of record as stated: “Defendant Mo Brooks (Brooks) Moves to Dismiss Eric Swalwell’s Complaint against Brooks in its entirety. Brooks’ Motion to Dismiss is pursuant to the Court’s suggestion in its Order of February 18, 2022 (Document 66).” That “suggestion” is the “Bribe”. But even though Mo  Brooks accepted this “too good to be true” offer unbecoming a “Judge”, it was almost 2-weeks plus and there came no acceptance of that “Motion” by Judge Mehta? It should have been a slam dunk a bribe is a bribe! And now we know why, as Eric Swalwell is taking Judge Mehta to task on this “bribe”. Way to go Mr. Swalwell!

The February 18th "Bribe" was as follows:

"The court invites Brooks to file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court is prepared to grant such motion for the same reasons it dismisses all claims against Giuliani and Trump Jr.: Brooks’s remarks on January 6th were political speech protected by the First Amendment for which he cannot be subject to liability." 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 ERIC SWALWELL, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 21-cv-00586 (APM)

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MO BROOKS’ MOTION TO DIMSISS

Plaintiff Eric Swalwell, through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Local Rules of this Court, submits this opposition to Defendant Mo Brooks’ motion to dismiss (ECF Dk. No. 57), which the Court invited Brooks to file in its February 18 omnibus order (ECF Dk. No. 56). In support of this opposition, Plaintiff hereby incorporates and refers to relevant points and authorities already before the Court, including in particular (i) Plaintiff’s Combined Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss by Defendants Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., and Rudolph Giuliani (ECF Dk. No. 23); (ii) The United States’ Response to Defendant Mo Brooks’s Petition to Certify He Was Acting Within the Scope of His Office or Employment (ECF Dk. No. 33); (iii) Plaintiff’s Opposition to Petition to Certify Defendant Mo Brooks Was Acting Within the Scope of His Office or Employment (ECF Dk. No. 34); and (iv) the opposition briefs to the motions to dismiss filed in Thompson, et al. v. Trump, et al. and Blassingame, et al. v. Trump. 1 Plaintiff also incorporates the oral arguments to this Court at the motions hearing on January 10, 1 The Thompson opposition is ECF Dk. No. 23 in case number 21-cv-00400 (APM), and the Blassingame opposition is ECF Dk. No. 21 in case number 21-cv-00858 (APM). Case 1:21-cv-00586-APM Document 58 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 3 2 2022, as well as the supplemental points and authorities the Court requested at that hearing (ECF Dk. Nos. 51 and 52). For the reasons articulated in these pleadings and at the January 10 hearing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant Brooks’ motion to dismiss.

 Dated: March 8, 2022

Dear Comrade Vladimir Putin

 

Brace for IMPACT!

Seems strange, that the 117th House of Representatives and its Congressional Select Committee investigating the January 6th “Domestic Terrorist Attack” on the United States Capitol issued a WARNING shot across the bow, just yesterday. It found more news media “umph” then Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, as “We the People” may be on the attack radar in our very own Homeland, by our very own “Congress”! That “committee”, which was commissioned by Nanny Nancy LousyLollaPelosi, well it may be running scarred that is will be “Banned” from continuing on to pressure “individuals-of-interest” to “so help me God, tell the truth and nothing but the truth.” Now this comes on the coattails of Pelosi and the “Committee” members in answer to the Court the legitimacy of this “Select Committee” - in consideration the Mark Meadows v. Pelosi and the Select Committee complaint, that the “Committee” is not following its own charter in “composition” under House Resolution 503. Basically speaking, it never officially “convened” according to its own rules and regulations, so everything to date accomplished by this ”Committee” could be found NULL & VOID. It means starting over, and “We the People” have not the wherewithal to provoke more pain and suffering upon ourselves - so it means the END of getting to the bottom of “who to blame” in that dreaded January 6th attack - said again it is classified as a “Domestic Terrorist Attack”. And today, March 4th, Pelosi and the Committee must answer to Judge Nichols. So just yesterday, the “Select Committee” issued a “Good Faith” decree that surrounds Donald John Trump an involvement in “Criminal” activity with respect to the “Insurgency”. Now it is understood that the “Select Committee” has no authority to prosecute, so can only make vague like recommendations in hopes someone out there is listening - “can you hear me now” like maybe DOJ Chief Merrick Garland. Now this answer due today before the District Court where Meadows is claiming the “non-legitimacy” of the “Select Committee” in violation its own fundamental rules, it comes after Pelosi and Bennie Thompson and the committee members, all named as defendants, had to file a motion for a 2-week extension in time to answer to that “legitimacy” question. Which I find rather strange, as it should have been a slam-dunk answer not in allowance any unnecessary delays. Well there is a reason that the DOJ referral against Mark Meadows for not cooperating with the Pelosi ”Select Committee” has been so silent and everybody keeps asking WHY? As to date the DOJ has refused to comment whether or not is would accept the referral from Pelosi, as the Nation’s chief law enforcer has its hands tied until such time a competent court makes a determination upon the question of that legal “legitimacy”. And Meadows has a strong suit, as does the “Select Committee”, so it could go either way in the court of popular dystopia. But I place my wager on Meadows, not that I am a supporter of what went on that January 6th, just the fact that Pelosi had a hissy-fit and here we are - some many months into the game and we still don’t know if what was paid for by the U.S. Taxpayers is “legitimate”. Sad, but when “some people never worked a day in their life, don’t know what work even means”, it is the Bob Dylan “Workingman’s Blues #2” still some more - Congress plays we pay and we suffer and I always thought double-jeopardy was something that was a trait only of a dictatorship! So by COB today in the Meadows complaint(1:21-cv-03217), we should have a reading on whether or not the “Select Committee” can continue on. Will it have to regroup? And the sad thing, if the Judge finds in favor of Meadows upon the question of legal “legitimacy” fails with the “Select Committee”, what it means for the other “Crazy Psycho Shit(Democrats) v. Legitimate Political Discourse(Republicans) lawsuits before the “Select Committee”, like with Eastman and Donald John Trump and Rudy…it’s an easy answer as the trickle down theory has its precedence set already - it means FREE at LAST! Now that is how Vladimir Putin gets away with “Murder Most Foul”!

Stugots - Lousy Hat Solidarity Party

Putin's Boss Speaks Out

 

Yes, from his grave side servitude Leonid Shebarshin speaks out to his once underling, Vladimir Putin. And the U.S. United Nations Ambassador said it like it is, that "This WAR was one man's choice" and with that "This WAR IS OVER is that same man's choice" and an "HONOR SUICIDE" is all that Putin has left to save face and save his Motherland. Cold WAR, for some but sometimes the sound of bullets mean a saving grace!

Putin's "Shebarshin" Style Suicide

 

Send Lagos to Putin