fka ftc said:

---

Important to note that the decision on Nixon, per my recollection, was specific to Executive Privilege and not to his physical possession of the tapes but whether he had to provide the tapes to an investigation, with SCOTUS saying Exec Privilege cannot preclude a legit investigation (by Congress if I recall, but would apply to DOJ or other courts).

That's not the set of facts we have here. This is purely about possession of unspecified documents that were ASSUMED to have "national defense information" based on them "having classified markings".

Continuing to point to a very, very weak construct by the DOJ.

---

fka ftc said:

---

Nauta has counsel in DC but needed a local rep if I read correctly. And the date was pushed two weeks. Not a big deal in my opinion. Trump lawyers may have had a conflict that prevented them from repping Nauta in Florida.

---

---

fka ftc said:

---

Nauta has counsel in DC but needed a local rep if I read correctly. And the date was pushed two weeks. Not a big deal in my opinion. Trump lawyers may have had a conflict that prevented them from repping Nauta in Florida.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

That's probably the case here, but it seems like a Trump thing to do to **** this guy.

---

Quote:

---

But all that aside, in their efforts to stop Trump, Prosecutor Jack Smith, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and their federal minions have violated federal law, and specifically the Hatch Act. Let's explore that in a bit more detail.

Specifically, 5 U.S. Code 7323 -provides:

(a)Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not --

(1)use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

---

Quote:

---

This provision of the United States Code prohibits a United States government agent or employee -- a category applying to Jack Smith and his ostensible supervisor Garland -- from using their "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."

---

Quote:

---

Even if the underlying charges against Trump were legitimate, which they are not, the Hatch Act makes no exception for legitimate charges and still prohibits federal employees from using their offices to influence, interfere with, or affect the results of an election. In other words, electoral integrity trumps the whims of a prosecutor, even if the prosecutor had a legitimate case.

---

Quote:

---

Smith and Garland are federal employees, and their prosecution, dropped like a dirty bomb in the middle of election season, not only after Trump declared for re-election, but after Biden, Haley, DeSantis, Hutchinson, Scott, Ramaswamy, Christie, Pence, Burgum, and Bobby Kennedy all declared their candidacies, is designed to disrupt and affect the 2024 presidential race, in a way to injure President Trump.

A day after the indictment, 81% of Republicans in a Reuters poll believed that Smith's charges are politically motivated and an ABC poll showed that 47% of all Americans believe the charges are politically motivated, outnumbering by 10% those who do not believe the charges to be politically motivated, at 37%.

Those numbers are significant. When 81% of Republicans and nearly half of all Americans believe charges are political, and even when Democrats and independents are factored in, more Americans believe these charges are political than not. The nation has a serious crisis-of-confidence problem in our criminal justice system, and Smith's indictment has thrown gasoline on a fire of public distrust of the system.

---

Quote:

---

The Hatch Act doesn't have enough teeth to punish offenders like Smith, in that penalties for violating it could mean a five-year suspension or debarment from the federal government and a $1000 fine, but no prison. But still, the law is the law, and Smith and Garland have violated the law with this prosecution.

---

Quote:

---

Two Republican legal experts, Jeff Clark and Mike Davis, reacted to bombshell allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against Donald Trump's prosecutors from their former target, Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.). Renzi's comments, published exclusively on PJ Media, expose the politically biased tactics of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

---

Quote:

---

"There may be a long pattern of brickbat tactics here," Clark said, and Davis called out Smith's "very weak legal theory."

Based on a 2019 complaint and request for investigation filed on Renzi's behalf by respected legal firm Mayer Brown, evidence was found of prosecutorial misconduct including improper media leaks, illegal wiretaps, concealment of exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence, destruction of evidence, and introduction of false testimony before and during Renzi's trial.

But while the former allegations were mainly directed at prosecutors working under the supervision of now-Trump Special Counsel Jack Smith, Smith's involvement was apparently more direct. Renzi presented evidence tying Jack Smith and David Harbach, both now prosecuting Trump, to "prosecutorial misconduct" and shady behavior involving jury influencing, illegal wiretaps, and more.

"The prosecutorial misconduct of Jack Smith and his lead prosecutor in my case, David Harbach, is what led to the presidential pardon" that Trump gave him, the former congressman told me. And two Republican legal experts reacted by slamming Smith and his prosecutorial team in exclusive comments to PJ Media.

---

---

Quote:

---

Even if the underlying charges against Trump were legitimate, which they are not, the Hatch Act makes no exception for legitimate charges and still prohibits federal employees from using their offices to influence, interfere with, or affect the results of an election. In other words, electoral integrity trumps the whims of a prosecutor, even if the prosecutor had a legitimate case.

---

Quote:

Hmm. Not sure I agree with that, though. Need to give that more thought and research.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

p.s. Not charging Trump would also influence the Presidential election.

---

Quote:

---

The Justice Department on Friday filed a motion seeking to block former President Trump from releasing any classified materials that will be shared with his legal team during his prosecution for the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago, noting that some are still being used in the course of their investigation.

The documents "include information pertaining to ongoing investigations" which could be used to further cases against uncharged individuals, the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote.

---

Quote:

---

The suggested protective order, which will be reviewed by Judge Bruce Reinhart, would allow Trump to review the 31 documents the DOJ is using in the case only while in the presence of his attorneys.

"Defendants shall only have access to Discovery Materials under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel's staff. Defendants shall not retain copies of Discovery Material. Defendants may take notes regarding Discovery Materials, but such notes shall be stored securely by Defense Counsel," the DOJ wrote.

---

Quote:

---

It also includes similar language to a protective order agreed to in another Trump case that bars the former president from disclosing evidence in the case. New York state prosecutors made that request as they pursue a 34-count indictment of Trump relating to a hush money scandal.

"The Discovery Materials, along with any information derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed to the public or the news media, or disseminated on any news or social media platform, without prior notice to and consent of the United States or approval of the Court," the department wrote.

Judge Aileen Cannon, who oversaw Trump's previous challenge to the investigation, referred the motion to Reinhart, who approved the initial search of Mar-a-Lago.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

It would also require some suspension of disbelief that Congress intended the Espionage Act to allow the DOJ to criminally charge a former president and current presidential candidate on the basis of a dispute surrounding the handling and disposition of presidential records.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Pointing out that arguing congressional intent here may be the weakest of all arguments and cuts both ways. A lot of meat on the bone with these other constitutional based arguments.

But thats wild though. I'm sure the idea didn't come from nowhere. This is the wildest we've ever seen and it's a good point that historically the process itself has been weaponized going back to Marbury.

Some have come to the realization over the years that the republicans trying to **** Bill Clinton over his side piece was a grievous error and might have bought us a few more years until the all out meltdown we've seen since 2015.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

There's probably a couple hundred people in the US with the requisite knowledge, training and experience to competently manage the defense of Trump in this case.

Half of those people won't touch the case for political reasons.

The other half wont get involved because the case it too radioactive. Maybe they've already worked with Trump before, maybe they are conflicted out, maybe they don't want the heat associated with going up against the DOJ or maybe they are caught up in the intimidation tactics outlined in hawg's thread above.

All this amounts to a 6th amendment issue. The pool of competent counsel has been tainted, and there is no way that if this case goes to trial that Trump gets an impartial jury. Where they gonna find people with no opinion on Trump and can agree to be impartial? That in and of itself is reason to ***can this case on constitutional grounds and grant Trump the extraordinary remedy of qualified immunity for anything related to his service as president.

So if you Trump right now you got to find the best experts you can. Sort out this co-conspirator counsel issue, get something on file on 6th amendment constitutional grounds, attack the indictment on constitutional grounds, attack the warrant, and figure out some way to get this case out of district court and in front of the 11th circuit any way you can.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

aggiehawg said:

LOL. SCOTUS refused to hear any election case regarding Trump, with strict time constraints.

You think they would jump into this administrative legal equivalent of a stickey wicket before it is a ripe controversy and with time constraints when they can just punt?

---

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

eric76 said:

Original jurisdiction?

Is Trump a state? Is he currently a public official? Is he being prosecuted by another state?

I don't see how the Supreme Court could exercise original jurisdiction in this case.

---

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

aggiehawg said:

LOL. SCOTUS refused to hear any election case regarding Trump, with strict time constraints.

You think they would jump into this administrative legal equivalent of a stickey wicket before it is a ripe controversy and with time constraints when they can just punt?

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

So essentially SC exercises original jurisdiction and it's up to congress to pass a law that would somehow prevent them from hearing the case.

Then SC would have to rule on the constitutionality of a law that prevents itself from hearing a specific case.

Then while all this was going on, Biden signs an executive order cutting off electrical power to the Supreme Court building so they cant hear either case.

Then congress has to pass a special appropriation to fund the restoration of electrical power at the supreme court building case so the case may be heard.

Then when both cases are finally heard a law clerk leaks both draft opinions and riots ensue furthering our decent into cahos and accelerating our trajectory of become a proxy state of China and the new world order.

So our future as a nation is looking bright and we've got the best and most trustworthy people on the job of sorting all this out.

So we got that going for us, which is nice.

---

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

There's probably a couple hundred people in the US with the requisite knowledge, training and experience to competently manage the defense of Trump in this case.

Half of those people won't touch the case for political reasons.

The other half wont get involved because the case it too radioactive. Maybe they've already worked with Trump before, maybe they are conflicted out, maybe they don't want the heat associated with going up against the DOJ or maybe they are caught up in the intimidation tactics outlined in hawg's thread above.

All this amounts to a 6th amendment issue. The pool of competent counsel has been tainted, and there is no way that if this case goes to trial that Trump gets an impartial jury. Where they gonna find people with no opinion on Trump and can agree to be impartial? That in and of itself is reason to ***can this case on constitutional grounds and grant Trump the extraordinary remedy of qualified immunity for anything related to his service as president.

So if you Trump right now you got to find the best experts you can. Sort out this co-conspirator counsel issue, get something on file on 6th amendment constitutional grounds, attack the indictment on constitutional grounds, attack the warrant, and figure out some way to get this case out of district court and in front of the 11th circuit any way you can.

---

eric76 said:

As for being unable to choose an impartial jury, I thought that it was okay to have an opinion about someone as long as you can remain impartial.

It makes no sense at all that someone is above the law because they are too well known.

---

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might hire a team of experts to evaluate whether it's viable to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over this case and cut out the middle-men. Expeditious resolution of this case is in the public interest may curtail the further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents.

That may be the best path forward for this kind of a case, but that also guarantees that it will not be done.

The country needs a donkey show to distract us from imminent total economic collapse.

---

eric76 said:

Original jurisdiction?

Is Trump a state? Is he currently a public official? Is he being prosecuted by another state?

I don't see how the Supreme Court could exercise original jurisdiction in this case.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Judiciary Act of 1789

---

Quote:

---

And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party.

---

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

There's probably a couple hundred people in the US with the requisite knowledge, training and experience to competently manage the defense of Trump in this case.

Half of those people won't touch the case for political reasons.

The other half wont get involved because the case it too radioactive. Maybe they've already worked with Trump before, maybe they are conflicted out, maybe they don't want the heat associated with going up against the DOJ or maybe they are caught up in the intimidation tactics outlined in hawg's thread above.

All this amounts to a 6th amendment issue. The pool of competent counsel has been tainted, and there is no way that if this case goes to trial that Trump gets an impartial jury. Where they gonna find people with no opinion on Trump and can agree to be impartial? That in and of itself is reason to ***can this case on constitutional grounds and grant Trump the extraordinary remedy of qualified immunity for anything related to his service as president.

So if you Trump right now you got to find the best experts you can. Sort out this co-conspirator counsel issue, get something on file on 6th amendment constitutional grounds, attack the indictment on constitutional grounds, attack the warrant, and figure out some way to get this case out of district court and in front of the 11th circuit any way you can.

---

eric76 said:

As for being unable to choose an impartial jury, I thought that it was okay to have an opinion about someone as long as you can remain impartial.

It makes no sense at all that someone is above the law because they are too well known.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

There's no way that Trump gets a fair trial in this case under the 6th amendment for the reasons stated above and earlier in this thread. By me.

No-one is above the law because they are too well known, but Trump is an extraordinary case.

Anything to do with Trump is so politically charged, toxified, tainted and otherwise suspect due to the course of events over the past 7-years that the court exercising original jurisdiction is appropriate in this extraordinary circumstance involving a former president and an current presidential candidate. They case has no place in the district courts, and I think the people that drafted the constitution and the judicial act of 1789 would agree with this notion.

---