Well the National Archives refused to rent space in Florida for Trump to have access, like they did for every other former POTUS. Guess the whole state is unsafe.
Trump indicted over classified documents
209,036 Views |
3433 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by will25u
JFC ain't THAT the truth.Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:
So freaking dumb.
Brought to you by the same government that classifies EVERYTHING.
I've seen some dumb **** that never should have been classified.
Stackin' them gag orders now.
Will we see a little friendly rivalry amongst judges and prosecutors in Florida, New York, Georgia and DC on who will be the first to jail Trump?
What a freaking disgusting excuse for a human being this judge is. What an absolute lunatic piece of ****, not to mention his other biases and that he's more concerned with smiling in court. Truly, this is some scary **** that someone like this it's on the bench.
JUST IN: Video emerges of Judge in Trump Fraud case discussing his ability to OVERRULE A JURY based on his assertions and feelings about the case.. pic.twitter.com/g3RO21LXYM
— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) October 3, 2023
Currently a happy listless vessel and deplorable. #FJB TRUMP 2024.
Holy misleading editing. Here's the actual lecture.
Judges do have the ability in at least some cases to set aside a verdict if they think that the jury got it wrong. I don't know if that applies to all judges, though.
It is quite common, I think, to ask the judge to do that but most won't.
In the case of Colie shooting the cowardly bully youtuber Cook, the jury found Colie guilty of firing inside a building. It doesn't seem at all reasonable that you can be both not guilty of defending yourself and guilty of defending yourself at the same time. His lawyer has reportedly petitioned the judge to set aside the verdict because it isn't logical that the jury can find him guilty of that when they found him not guilty of defending himself. I don't know about others here, but I'm hoping that he does set aside the verdict.
So, yeah. If a judge can't understand how the jury could come to a guilty verdict, they can often set aside the verdict. I have no issues with that.
I don't know if that can go both ways. I know of one jury civil trial in which the seller of a Bellanca aircraft replaced the wings with the wings from another airplane that have never been approved for that airplane. When the buyer found out that they were the wrong wings, it cost him a lot of money to have the correct wings put on. So the buyer filed a lawsuit. The jury found for the defendant (that is, the seller of the aircraft) in spite of it being indisputable that he had illegally replaced the wings on the aircraft with wings from a completely different aircraft. It would have been nice if the judge in that case would have set aside the verdict.
It is quite common, I think, to ask the judge to do that but most won't.
In the case of Colie shooting the cowardly bully youtuber Cook, the jury found Colie guilty of firing inside a building. It doesn't seem at all reasonable that you can be both not guilty of defending yourself and guilty of defending yourself at the same time. His lawyer has reportedly petitioned the judge to set aside the verdict because it isn't logical that the jury can find him guilty of that when they found him not guilty of defending himself. I don't know about others here, but I'm hoping that he does set aside the verdict.
So, yeah. If a judge can't understand how the jury could come to a guilty verdict, they can often set aside the verdict. I have no issues with that.
I don't know if that can go both ways. I know of one jury civil trial in which the seller of a Bellanca aircraft replaced the wings with the wings from another airplane that have never been approved for that airplane. When the buyer found out that they were the wrong wings, it cost him a lot of money to have the correct wings put on. So the buyer filed a lawsuit. The jury found for the defendant (that is, the seller of the aircraft) in spite of it being indisputable that he had illegally replaced the wings on the aircraft with wings from a completely different aircraft. It would have been nice if the judge in that case would have set aside the verdict.
The judge in that video says he's overturned a jury twice in his career. He was affirmed once, overturned the other time.
He was talking to a group of community college students. It wasn't a deep discussion
He was talking to a group of community college students. It wasn't a deep discussion
That judge is still a world class POS. No one who is that biased, openly biased, should ever be wearing the black robe in a court room. He needs to be tossed from the helicopter at first opportunity.
I listened to the whole speech. Either he just mailed it in or he's not a very deep guy to begin with. To put a bright red bow on top, he wanted to be a journalist but he sucked at it before deciding to go to law school. Maybe that was self deprecating humor and a way to tell community college students they can fail in life a few times before they find their way, maybe not. He's an odd duck, though and comes off as one.TXAggie2011 said:
The judge in that video says he's overturned a jury twice in his career. He was affirmed once, overturned the other time.
He was talking to a group of community college students. It wasn't a deep discussion
SockStilkings said:
That judge is still a world class POS. No one who is that biased, openly biased, should ever be wearing the black robe in a court room. He needs to be tossed from the helicopter at first opportunity.
What is an example of his bias?
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,575
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
boboguitar said:SockStilkings said:
That judge is still a world class POS. No one who is that biased, openly biased, should ever be wearing the black robe in a court room. He needs to be tossed from the helicopter at first opportunity.
What is an example of his bias?
Enough on he derail.
Trump says he still doesn't have the production.
As many said at start of thread, this case was never going to trial on April. Judge is not a deep state pawn doing Biden's bidding
Trump says he still doesn't have the production.
Trump is asking Judge Cannon to move his documents trial from May to December 2024. He says he hasn’t been able to access a swath of classified docs central to his case and that SCIF in Florida isn’t ready to handle them yet. https://t.co/vvJ1kztVoA
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 5, 2023
As many said at start of thread, this case was never going to trial on April. Judge is not a deep state pawn doing Biden's bidding
Quote:
The judge overseeing the probe into former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents has paused any litigation involving the classified materials in question as she considers a request from Trump to extend deadlines in the case, according to a new order.
At issue is how the classified materials at the center of the case are to be handled by the defendants and their attorneys, based on national security requirements.
ABC NewsQuote:
After Judge Aileen Cannon established several deadlines for ruling on those issues, Trump's legal team last month filed a motion asking her for a three-month extension, saying that Trump and his co-defendants have still not had access "to significant portions of the materials that the Special Counsel's Office has characterized as classified and conceded are discoverable -- much less the additional classified materials to which President Trump is entitled following anticipated discovery litigation."
Cannon's order on Friday temporarily pauses the upcoming deadlines as she considers Trump's motion.
This case is increasingly pointing towards an appeal by the government regarding Judge Cannon's handling of the CIPA process. We're not even to hard part of CIPA cases.
Soo, how many CIPA cases on which you been lead counsel? I haven't been on one, except a civil case in the 80s that involved EMP testing. I just got the info declassified instead.TXAggie2011 said:
This case is increasingly pointing towards an appeal by the government regarding Judge Cannon's handling of the CIPA process. We're not even to hard part of CIPA cases.
The most high profile criminal case in American history, and the public is not allowed to see the evidence used to convict?
Is that where we are at with this?
Somebody let me know.
Is that where we are at with this?
Somebody let me know.
Most high profile?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
The most high profile criminal case in American history, and the public is not allowed to see the evidence used to convict?
Is that where we are at with this?
Somebody let me know.
There were others that were probably higher even if they didn't involve a former President.
OJ Simpson's murder trial probably drew a lot more attention, just not particularly political.
The kidnapping of the Lindburgh baby was enormously high profile.
And don't forget the Manson Family.
As for seeing the evidence used to convict? For documents of high national security importance. Do you really think that they should publicize those documents? Do you think that the Rosenberg's should have been put on trial if without the top secret documents they were giving to the Soviets being made public?
It seems to me to be the highest of entitlement to think that we should be made privy to documents that are extremely important for national security.
Speaking of Lindbergh, it would be nice for the crew who insisted they destroy the reputations of our Founding Fathers to focus their attention on Lindbergh murdering his young son, essentially performing a post-term abortion of the child because he thought the child was "imperfect" and his Aryan tendencies could not tolerate that.
Back to this. This is by far the most high profile criminal case particularly since NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED and the sitting POTUS ordered his WH Counsel to coordinate with NARA and the DOJ to set Trump up, leaking vague, often mischaracterized information, and indicting the former POTUS with pictures of boxes of unknown contents being stored.
This is not about a former POTUS committing alleged "crimes". This is about the DOJ being absolutely corrupt and the sitting POTUS committing crimes by abusing his power to persecute a political rival.
Back to this. This is by far the most high profile criminal case particularly since NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED and the sitting POTUS ordered his WH Counsel to coordinate with NARA and the DOJ to set Trump up, leaking vague, often mischaracterized information, and indicting the former POTUS with pictures of boxes of unknown contents being stored.
This is not about a former POTUS committing alleged "crimes". This is about the DOJ being absolutely corrupt and the sitting POTUS committing crimes by abusing his power to persecute a political rival.
eric76 said:Most high profile?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
The most high profile criminal case in American history, and the public is not allowed to see the evidence used to convict?
Is that where we are at with this?
Somebody let me know.
There were others that were probably higher even if they didn't involve a former President.
OJ Simpson's murder trial probably drew a lot more attention, just not particularly political.
A relatively high percentage of people in this country were paying intense interest in the OJ Simpson debacle, both before and during the trial. Wherever you went, it was frequently brought up. If you turned the tv on, you couldn't help but notice it.Ag with kids said:eric76 said:Most high profile?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
The most high profile criminal case in American history, and the public is not allowed to see the evidence used to convict?
Is that where we are at with this?
Somebody let me know.
There were others that were probably higher even if they didn't involve a former President.
OJ Simpson's murder trial probably drew a lot more attention, just not particularly political.
A pretty large percentage of people are aware of Trump's issues, but the only ones who are really paying that much attention are those on the far Right and those on the far Left. I suspect that there are more people in this country who just want Trump to fade away than there are who are intensely interested in the verdict.
I know very few people outside of here who are greatly interested in it and I live in one of the most Republican counties in the country. The older, retired people around here who watch tv a lot probably pay more attention while the rest are busy living their own lives. Hardly anyone seems to mention it in conversation.
When the trial starts, there will likely be a lot more interest, but even then, it will probably not draw the interest that OJ Simpson's trial brought.
Just because you have intense opinions about it, don't assume that everyone does.
From what I've been told and what I've read, the Lindbergh (sp?) baby kidnapping also drew very intense interest. I obviously have no direct recollection of the event, but growing up I knew many who did.
By the way, Trump's current trial seems to be generally ignored by people. Sure, some people think that he's being treated unfairly, but most don't really seem to care.
If you ask someone around here what they think about it, you are likely to get a "WTF?" stare in response.
And nobody seems to be following it very closely. Can you tell us who testified on Friday and what they said? Or who is expected to testify on Monday?
Do you even care? I know that I don't care. When it comes down to it, the court will render a decision. I have never trusted Trump and there is nothing in the allegations that I would put past him. If the decision goes against him, it won't surprise me. If it goes for him, it will surprise me. In either case, it's not going to upset me.
If you ask someone around here what they think about it, you are likely to get a "WTF?" stare in response.
And nobody seems to be following it very closely. Can you tell us who testified on Friday and what they said? Or who is expected to testify on Monday?
Do you even care? I know that I don't care. When it comes down to it, the court will render a decision. I have never trusted Trump and there is nothing in the allegations that I would put past him. If the decision goes against him, it won't surprise me. If it goes for him, it will surprise me. In either case, it's not going to upset me.
Where in the hell did you get THAT diatribe from my OJ meme...eric76 said:A relatively high percentage of people in this country were paying intense interest in the OJ Simpson debacle, both before and during the trial. Wherever you went, it was frequently brought up. If you turned the tv on, you couldn't help but notice it.Ag with kids said:eric76 said:Most high profile?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
The most high profile criminal case in American history, and the public is not allowed to see the evidence used to convict?
Is that where we are at with this?
Somebody let me know.
There were others that were probably higher even if they didn't involve a former President.
OJ Simpson's murder trial probably drew a lot more attention, just not particularly political.
A pretty large percentage of people are aware of Trump's issues, but the only ones who are really paying that much attention are those on the far Right and those on the far Left. I suspect that there are more people in this country who just want Trump to fade away than there are who are intensely interested in the verdict.
I know very few people outside of here who are greatly interested in it and I live in one of the most Republican counties in the country. The older, retired people around here who watch tv a lot probably pay more attention while the rest are busy living their own lives. Hardly anyone seems to mention it in conversation.
When the trial starts, there will likely be a lot more interest, but even then, it will probably not draw the interest that OJ Simpson's trial brought.
Just because you have intense opinions about it, don't assume that everyone does.
From what I've been told and what I've read, the Lindbergh (sp?) baby kidnapping also drew very intense interest. I obviously have no direct recollection of the event, but growing up I knew many who did.
Methinks your TDS is getting to you...
NEW: Judge Aileen Cannon just denied Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to create a secure facility in DC which would have forced Trump and defendants to travel to DC to view some "classified documents" in Smith's other case against Trump.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) October 17, 2023
Polar opposite of Judge Chutkan: pic.twitter.com/V1xzUQQKBF
If Jack Arse Smith wants to play funny games for the sole purpose of harassing Trump and his lawyers, then the Judge is appropriate to slam them the **** down.
Whomever the R nominee is should PROMISE to put Jack in Leavenworth for the rest of his life. Pure, evil, treasonous scum that Libs and CMs and TDSers on this site constantly cheer on.
Whomever the R nominee is should PROMISE to put Jack in Leavenworth for the rest of his life. Pure, evil, treasonous scum that Libs and CMs and TDSers on this site constantly cheer on.
NEW: Just left classified docs case hearing in Judge Cannon courtroom. She will consider a modified trial schedule given numerous issues including voluminous discovery, discovery delays, late delivery of secure location to review evidence and Trump’s conflicting trial schedules.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 1, 2023
Judge Cannon appeared skeptical about special counsel’s assurances the March 4 trial date for DC case won’t run into May 20 trial date for classified documents case.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 1, 2023
She admonished DOJ’s Jay Bratt for his “level of understanding to these realities.”
She also asked for an…
To emphasize: Trump’s lawyers told Judge Cannon this afternoon they have evidence that the Biden White House collaborated with NARA, DOJ, and intel agencies to determine which documents to include in Jack Smith’s indictment.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 1, 2023
Also to emphasize: Trump’s lawyers told Judge Cannon they discovered a June 2023 letter asking DOE to remove Trump’s ACTIVE SECURITY CLEARANCE.”
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 1, 2023
A few weeks AFTER Smith handed down classified documents indictment.
Evidently "never under estimate Joe's ability to **** things up" extends to his DOJ's coordinated persecution of Trump over presidential records.
Funny. But this was called out the night of the raid and in the days after. There was never anything nefarious nor wrong about Trump having documents at Mar-a-Lago.
But TDS is a helluva drug man. Helluva drug.
Funny. But this was called out the night of the raid and in the days after. There was never anything nefarious nor wrong about Trump having documents at Mar-a-Lago.
But TDS is a helluva drug man. Helluva drug.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
Good time to point out that Brazil, Venezuela and the US are using the the court system to declare political opponents ineligible to hold office.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Again, Biden says jump; courts say how high?
This order from Cannon today very well might prompt the first interlocutory appeal down in Florida, or might at least lead to the first one if/when she denies a later motion as to a particular document
CANNON on the other hand dings Smith team for "expedient" reading of the law governing classified trial evidence, says she won't bar defenants — as a blanket, initial matter — from seeing the classified material at issue. But she may later.https://t.co/E1JDAAVswh pic.twitter.com/QzM0ZIsUCw
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 1, 2023
Secret evidence of secret crimes seems terribly anti-American, but I would never vote for Joe Biden. Guess I am the one out of touch.
Secret evidence of secret crimes was abolished in the tradition of British common law by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1640 which was carried over to the foundation of the republic.
We've managed to get mind ****ed so bad that secreted evidence has made a comeback in 2023.
What a time to be alive!
We've managed to get mind ****ed so bad that secreted evidence has made a comeback in 2023.
What a time to be alive!
And goons like Jack Smith are viewed as heroes instead of the fascists they are.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Secret evidence of secret crimes was abolished in the tradition of British common law by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1640 which was carried over to the foundation of the republic.
We've managed to get mind ****ed so bad that secreted evidence has made a comeback in 2023.
What a time to be alive!
Ah yes...let the prosecution decide what is "relevant and helpful" to the defense.TXAggie2011 said:
This order from Cannon today very well might prompt the first interlocutory appeal down in Florida, or might at least lead to the first one if/when she denies a later motion as to a particular documentCANNON on the other hand dings Smith team for "expedient" reading of the law governing classified trial evidence, says she won't bar defenants — as a blanket, initial matter — from seeing the classified material at issue. But she may later.https://t.co/E1JDAAVswh pic.twitter.com/QzM0ZIsUCw
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 1, 2023
Can't find any problem with that.
Featured Stories
See All
11:56
7h ago
5.4k
8:20
7h ago
3.0k
Brauny's Bullets: A&M takes care of Grambling in 8-0 regional opener
by Ryan Brauninger
39:03
12h ago
3.1k