Alleged Would-Be Trump Assassin Pleads Not Guilty to Four Charges
Cole Allen’s attorneys also asked the court to remove U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro and her office from the case due to a “conflict of interest.”
Cole Allen, the man who allegedly tried to murder President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, pleaded not guilty in a DC federal court on Monday.
Allen faces four charges:
- Attempt to assassinate the President of the United States
- Assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon
- Transporting a firearm across state lines
- Discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence
Allen’s attorneys asked the court to remove U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro and her office from the case due to a “conflict of interest.”
What conflict of interest? The team claims “that Pirro was a victim of their client’s alleged crime” and has a personal friendship with Trump.
“As this case proceeds closer to trial, the country and the world will continue to wonder—how can the American justice system permit a victim to prosecute a criminal defendant in a case involving them?” the team wrote in their motion, as cited by Fox News. “Or even—how can one of the victim’s closest friends prosecute the alleged perpetrator of the offense? Given U.S. Attorney Pirro’s friendship with the President and her and Acting A.G. Blanche’s attendance at the event at the center of this prosecution, the law necessitates their disqualification.”
But Eugene Ohm, the public defender, said in court that the team likely won’t ask to remove the entire DOJ from the case.
Judge Trevor McFadden replied, “That would be quite a request.”
The court scheduled a status conference on June 29. Before that date, “prosecutors and Allen’s defense team will argue over whether Pirro or Blanche should have to recuse themselves.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’d say only in America
But Europe is lost too
Just delaying….he’s caught and it’s going down. Heck, he shot a member of the security detail.
So the attorney for Allen is admitting that there are victims, or intended victims of their client’s actions? Make the not guilty plea ridiculous
Why used the term “allegedly”? He was caught on the spot attempting to assassinate President Trump. There is no “allegedly.”
No, he was caught on the spot assaulting the officer and discharging the weapon, but the other two charges depend on putting two and two together. He wasn’t seen transporting the weapon, and he never got as far as an actual assassination attempt.
That depends entirely on how one defines attempt. You seem to imply that there has to be an actual act of physical violence directly against the president. One could argue that planning, having the capacity to, and initiating an action with the goal of assassinating the president constitutes an attempt.
No, it doesn’t depend on any definition. It’s a plain fact that he wasn’t “caught on the spot” doing any of those things. How do you know he planned, had the capacity to, and initiated an action with the goal of assassinating the president? Right now that is an allegation, not an established fact. No one literally saw him do those things; concluding that he did them requires putting two and two together. And that’s what a trial is for.
If “the spot” is defined as the Secret Service did, the general area that was being covered by the protective services, then he was caught on “the spot.” I admit I am hopscotching to the conclusion that the videos that appear to have been taken by him and the writings that appear to have been written by him were in fact his work, which should be as easy to demonstrate in court as finding the sum of two plus two. Therefore, planning and initiating an attempt to kill the president is in fact, an assassination attempt. You stated the he never got as far as an actual assassination attempt; you are correct that that is what the trial is for.
Take him out back, dispatch with extreme prejudice.
Ridiculous
Lawyers know their audience:
The DC jury that’s going to hear this case is going to be comprised by a majority who wished Allen succeeded. All they need is a flimsy reason and the conflict of interest cited may just be enough.
call the ss agent that allen shot to the stand–on video and in the presence of numerous witnesses
case closed
“that Pirro was a victim of their client’s alleged crime” Doesn’t that kind of torpedo his clients case? If there was no crime, how could Pirro be a victim?
No. A crime that did not happen but is merely alleged to have happened has victims, which are equally alleged. Suppose I were to falsely accuse you of hitting me; the crime would be entirely fictional, but in the allegation you would be the perpetrator and I would be the victim.
Thanks for the clarification.
Who cares what he pleds, hammer him for the Presidential assassin and shot a police officer.
You have to have a trial first.
Nah! Let’s wonderland it. First the sentence (death by…). Then the verdict (GUILTY). Then finally the trial!
Wasn’t the same recusal nonsense made by the defense at Kirk’s pretrial hearings? And wasn’t the request denied? The same should apply to Pirro not having to recuse herself. They don’t want Pirro involved because she doesn’t take any BS from the other room.
they set oj free and they hate the wht victim of this attack more than the wht people who oj mu rdered
Leave a Comment