fka ftc said:

---

What process?

Trump could be put in at any time as Speaker of the House and be 3rd in line. Biden with all his taint will take out him and Kamala all together (notice how everyone is silent on Kamalatoe these days).

You are seriously delusional if you think these things are outside the realm of possibilities these days.

When Trump reattains his throne, I will accept your apologies and at least let you put some Tabasco on the crow you will eat.

But you will NOT be invited to the reveal of his portrait on Mt Rushmore.

---

Now that's funny right there

So the Senate is going to convict Joe and Kamala?

Manhattan said:

---

So the Senate is going to convict Joe and Kamala?

---

There's a 25% chance of it apparently...

Ag with kids said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

So the Senate is going to convict Joe and Kamala?

---

There's a 25% chance of it apparently...

---

So if Pb is the probability of convicting Biden and Pk is the probability of convicting Kamala, then the product of the probabilities Pb and Pk are 0.25.

So it could be that Pb=0.5 and Pk=0.5 since Pb*Pk=0.5*0.5=0.25.

Or if Pb=1.0, then Pb*Pk=1*Pk=Pk=0.25.

We could make some math problems. It should be obvious how to solve the folllowing:

For problems 1, 2, and 3, assume that the probability of convicting Biden and Harris is 25%.

1) If the probability of convicting Biden is 60%, what is the probability that Harris will not be convicted?

2) If the probability of convicting Biden is 60%, what is the probability of neither Biden nor Harris being convicted?

3) If the probability of convicting Biden is 50% and the probability of convicting Hunter is 75%, what is the probability of Biden, Hunter, and Harris all being convicted?

And for the bonus question,

Bonus) If the probability of Biden and Harris being convicted is 60% and 20%, respectively and the probability of Trump being made Speaker of the House prior to that is 35%, what is the probability of Trump becoming President as the result of the both Biden and Harris being convicted?

So get out your slide rules and have fun.

filing says trump unopposed to moving the august trial date, but his lawyers will file opposition to the December date.

Yesterday's motion to move Trump documents trial date back to December is a routine procedural move that both sides agreed to -- the Govt just filed the paperwork. The Aug. date was set just to satisfy the Speedy Trial Act requirement. Now the sides will agree to "exclude time"…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) June 24, 2023

Ags77 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

What process?

Trump could be put in at any time as Speaker of the House and be 3rd in line. Biden with all his taint will take out him and Kamala all together (notice how everyone is silent on Kamalatoe these days).

You are seriously delusional if you think these things are outside the realm of possibilities these days.

When Trump reattains his throne, I will accept your apologies and at least let you put some Tabasco on the crow you will eat.

But you will NOT be invited to the reveal of his portrait on Mt Rushmore.

---

Now that's funny right there

---

I hear that crow is actually better than dove. However, the probability that the house elects Trump speaker is near zero.

fka ftc said:

---

---

Wrong color.

eric76 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

So the Senate is going to convict Joe and Kamala?

---

There's a 25% chance of it apparently...

---

So if Pb is the probability of convicting Biden and Pk is the probability of convicting Kamala, then the product of the probabilities Pb and Pk are 0.25.

So it could be that Pb=0.5 and Pk=0.5 since Pb*Pk=0.5*0.5=0.25.

Or if Pb=1.0, then Pb*Pk=1*Pk=Pk=0.25.

We could make some math problems. It should be obvious how to solve the folllowing:

For problems 1, 2, and 3, assume that the probability of convicting Biden and Harris is 25%.

1) If the probability of convicting Biden is 60%, what is the probability that Harris will not be convicted?

2) If the probability of convicting Biden is 60%, what is the probability of neither Biden nor Harris being convicted?

3) If the probability of convicting Biden is 50% and the probability of convicting Hunter is 75%, what is the probability of Biden, Hunter, and Harris all being convicted?

And for the bonus question,

Bonus) If the probability of Biden and Harris being convicted is 60% and 20%, respectively and the probability of Trump being made Speaker of the House prior to that is 35%, what is the probability of Trump becoming President as the result of the both Biden and Harris being convicted?

So get out your slide rules and have fun.

---

Math?!?!?!?!

STAPH!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

The government the same day filed a motion for a conference pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act:

Quote:

---

Accordingly, the Classified Information Procedures Act, Pub. L. 96456, 94 Stat. 2025, 18 U.S.C. App. III 116 ("CIPA"), will play a significant role in this case. It will govern, pretrial, how the Court oversees classified discovery and rules on the potential discoverability of certain classified information. In addition, CIPA provides a framework for the Court to decide, again pre-trial, issues related to the use and admissibility of classified information at trial, and it sets forth procedures for handling questions related to classified information that might arise during trial. Last, CIPA establishes certain appellate procedures.

For the reasons set forth above, as it typically does in prosecutions involving classified information, the government hereby moves pursuant to Section 2 of CIPA "for a pretrial conference to consider matters relating to classified information that may arise in connection with the prosecution." 1 18 U.S.C. App. 3 2. In the motion for a continuance being filed contemporaneously with this motion, the government is providing the Court and defendants with a proposed schedule for when the different proceedings CIPA establishes may occur.

---

---

LINK

This is going to be a cluster f***.

We will be speaking Chinese or Russian before this ever goes to trial…

BREAKING: This is why they want to get rid of Judge Aileen Cannon in classified docs case. Her first smackdown of Special Counsel Jack Smith:

"PAPERLESS ORDER denying without prejudice Government's Motion to Implement Special Condition of Release. The Government seeks an order…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 26, 2023

This is the order Jack Smith wanted the former president to sign pic.twitter.com/wIB77LU4dr

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 26, 2023

Cliff's Notes here. Trump can be credibly accused of witness tampering if he talks to anyone on the prosecution's witness list...but they don't want to tell him who is on their witness list.

ETA: Judge Cannon told them to piss off.

aggiehawg said:

---

Cliff's Notes here. Trump can be credibly accused of witness tampering if he talks to anyone on the prosecution's witness list...but they don't want to tell him who is on their witness list.

ETA: Judge Cannon told them to piss off.

---

I am sure the list includes co-conspirators such as Melania, Barron, Eric, Don Jr, Ivanka, the grandkids, the housekeepers, his personal valet is his co-defendant already so probably cannot chat with him. Certainly includes most aids and staffers and his secret service detail.

If Trump is seen speaking to them without his attorneys or if he uses their names when conducting a campaign rally that references the word "indictment" or "hoax" or "documents", then he will need to be ordered executed on the spot.

Libs think half the Country is just going to sit by and watch whilst the other have of demented Biden voters cheer?

Trunp agreed to the order on "how the evidence can be viewed" so Kellyisnt being honest here.

On the disclosure of names, Cannon said "the press really wants wants this, so feds you are going to have to do much more than file a boiler plate motion".

My guess is new motion filed & Cannon grants it.

Far from a "smack down". It's a "try again"

BMX Bandit said:

---

Trunp agreed to the order on "how the evidence can be viewed" so Kellyisnt being honest here.

On the disclosure of names, Cannon said "the press really wants wants this, so feds you are going to have to do much more than file a boiler plate motion".

My guess is new motion filed & Cannon grants it.

Far from a "smack down". It's a "try again"

---

WOW! How little do you expect from very seasonied attorneys now?

Surprised you don't think this misstep by DOJ attorneys means absolutely nothing. We heard about DOJ prosecutors from the Mueller cases ARGUING about improper and ineffective service when their attorneys showed up entering a GENERAL appearance, for gosh sakes. That's crim pro 101, crap.

Prosecution cannot argue service and jurisdiction when counsel enters a general appearance. It has been waived.

Once again, these government lawyers are not very impressive to me. That was very dumb of them.

Quote:

---

but they don't want to tell him who is on their witness list.

---

Read the motion again. Team Trump has already been given this list. The media wants a copy.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

but they don't want to tell him who is on their witness list.

---

Read the motion again. Team Trump has already been given this list. The media wants a copy.

---

No you read the order again.

Here is the entire Order. Where does it say DoJ isn't giving Trump the list?


PAPERLESS ORDER denying without prejudice 33 Government's Motion to Implement Special Condition of Release. The Government seeks an order implementing a special condition of bond related to Defendants' (Trump and Nauta) communication with eighty-four listed witnesses about the facts of the case, except through counsel.

The Government conditions its request on the filing of the non-exhaustive list under seal. Defendants take no position on the Government's seal request but reserve the right to object to the special condition and the manner by which the Government intends to implement it.

In the meantime, numerous news organizations have moved to intervene to oppose the Government's Motion to File Witness List Under Seal, citing the First Amendment and related legal principles. Upon review of the foregoing materials, the Government's Motion is denied without prejudice, and the Motion to Intervene and accompanying Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice are denied as moot.

The Government's Motion does not explain why filing the list with the Court is necessary; it does not offer a particularized basis to justify sealing the list from public view; it does not explain why partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory; and it does not specify the duration of any proposed seal. The Clerk is directed to return the Pro Hac Vice fees to the filing attorneys. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 6/26/2023.


From the Motion:


At the hearing, Judge Goodman orally ruled that, as a special condition of release, both defendants be prohibited from communicating with certain witnesses about the facts of the case except through counsel. See Transcript of June 13, 2023, Initial Appearance and Arraignment (ECF No. 31) at 23-25, 28-29. The court further ordered that the government provide counsel for defendants with a list of the witnesses to whom this prohibition would apply. Id. at 23. On June 22, 2023, the government provided counsel with the list of these witnesses.1

Quote:

---

Surprised you don't think this misstep by DOJ attorneys means absolutely nothing.

---

Not sure what that means, but will try to respond.

Feds thought that because they are Feds and Trump didn't object, they could walk into court and get whatever they wanted. Cannon reminded them that the people, through the media, have an interest in this case. If Feds want to keep this list secret from public, they have to establish why. Sure, it was a misstep. Does it matter? Not really.

I'm also confused at you claiming Fed don't want to tell Trump who is on the list. The motion says they already provided it, and if that was false you know Trump lawyers would be all over that telling Cannon it was a lie.

CNN reporting they have the (2021) tape of donald's conversation about classified documents. Grab your popcorn!

Wait a minute!

WAIT A MINUTE!

You mean someone on twitter intentionally twisted the facts of a case hoping to get a rise out of their followers, hoping they wouldn't probe deeper, intentionally duping them into believing something that isn't really true?!? LIKE THE MSM?!?

CNN? That long ago huh. Oh boy!

Just listened to the tape. His staff was surely impressed with the document. Significant.

Quote:

---

I'm also confused at you claiming Fed don't want to tell Trump who is on the list. The motion says they already provided it, and if that was false you know Trump lawyers would be all over that telling Cannon it was a lie.

---

She issued a paperless order. No hearing, no response required.

agz win said:

---

CNN reporting they have the 2012 tape of donald's conversation about classified documents. Grab your popcorn!

---

Elaborate?

Why would he be talking about classified docs 4 years before he's POTUS???? And what would it matter?

Maybe he meant 2021

A "scandal" of Trump dockaments, golf hats, AF1 menus, a hurricane map and letters from Lil Kim is not enough to make me even yawn compared to the corruption in the Biden Crime family being confirmed by multiple news outlets, commissions, hearings, disclosures and whistleblowers.

This thread should have already dropped off the front page.

"See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

What do you think he meant when he said that?

Fido04 said:

---

Maybe he meant 2021

---

You're right and I edited. I multitasking with a slow cooked NY strip.

Fido04 said:

---

"See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

What do you think he meant when he said that?

---

Just what he said

Fido04 said:

---

"See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

What do you think he meant when he said that?

---

I honestly don't care. What was on the document? Maybe it's Biden's bank records or the secrets Hunter and Joe sold to the Chinese.

But at this point, one POTUS is accused of waving some unknown piece of paper that may or may not have sensitive information, the other accepted $10s millions in bribe whilst working with his crackhead son.

fka ftc said:

---

Fido04 said:

---

"See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

What do you think he meant when he said that?

---

I honestly don't care. What was on the document? Maybe it's Biden's bank records or the secrets Hunter and Joe sold to the Chinese.

But at this point, one POTUS is accused of waving some unknown piece of paper that may or may not have sensitive information, the other accepted $10s millions in bribe whilst working with his crackhead son.

---

Knowing Trump it could have been a document with dimensions for Playboy of the Month and he was full of **** that the document was classified. He likes to exaggerate and lie like that (I know this because the left and media have been telling me this since 2015).

They have that document to prove it was classified, right?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm also confused at you claiming Fed don't want to tell Trump who is on the list. The motion says they already provided it, and if that was false you know Trump lawyers would be all over that telling Cannon it was a lie.

---

She issued a paperless order. No hearing, no response required.

---

As part of the arraignment order (as would usually be done) the Government was ordered to provide the witness list to Trump.

And what, you don't think Trump's team would speak up loudly if the government was trying to keep the witness list from them?