Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

You can file anything you want, at any time, with the clerk of any court.

That doesn't mean the court has to look at it or do anything with it.

You file for extraordinary relief and it gets rejected by all three courts.

Then what?

All three courts deny Trump's appeal for extraordinary relief?

Where does that get you?

People don't like the idea because it would confirm what we already know.

---

Jailing Trump will be the ultimate Dem/Lib/RINO/CM effort to FAFO this country has seen since the 1860's,

The fact that more people do not take it seriously is gross and repugnant to me.

I've been preachin' the gospel for weeks now but nobody come to Jesus.

All you people digging in your heels.

The TDS is too strong.

They done jedi mind-tricked all of y'all, and ya'll can't even see straight.

Y'all done ate up with the TDS and the TDS has got ahold of ya!

Sarge 91 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

There are so many bad legal takes from both sides on Twitter, even from supposed attorneys, that it is astounding. Unfortunately, it is not surprising in the least.

---

Who is the decider of what is or isn't a bad legal take?

---

Not someone who thinks Trump should just file something directly with SCOTUS.

---

What is the downside of filing something directly with SCOTUS and the 11th circuit when the worst that could happen is that they say no?

---

In Federal Courts, if a pleading or motion is deemed frivolous you can be hit with sanctions and attorney fees. So "no" is not the worst than could happen.

---

Is seeking unprecedented and extraordinary relief from the appellate courts in an unprecedented case considered frivolous and worthy of sanctions?

...

If the defendant's name is Donald Trump, it just might be.

...

And this also smells like yet another constitutional issue were it to occur.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

Dems theory of the case: throw enough **** on the wall and some of it will stick.

---

It's a lazy way of doing things, for sure; but thanks to Trump being the way he is, he does make it easier than most for there to be something that will stick on the wall.

---

It will be just as easy to do against DeSantis should he ever emerge as a front runner.

Bryanisbest said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

Dems theory of the case: throw enough **** on the wall and some of it will stick.

---

It's a lazy way of doing things, for sure; but thanks to Trump being the way he is, he does make it easier than most for there to be something that will stick on the wall.

---

It will be just as easy to do against DeSantis should he ever emerge as a front runner.

---

No no no, DeSantis supporters SWEAR Ronnie is above all this and is impervious to a weaponized DOJ.

This is all Trump's own doing and no one is above the law and such.

Those afflicted with permanent TDS cannot fathom that the DOJ and judicial system have been corrupted against one political party. They think its just Trump.

They are coming for us, Trump is just the first one in the way.

Bryanisbest said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

Dems theory of the case: throw enough **** on the wall and some of it will stick.

---

It's a lazy way of doing things, for sure; but thanks to Trump being the way he is, he does make it easier than most for there to be something that will stick on the wall.

---

It will be just as easy to do against DeSantis should he ever emerge as a front runner.

---

For anything Desantis has said and done that's the same as Trump has done, sure. Now, I don't really think there's much Desantis has done that's the same as what has gotten Trump all of the attention he's gotten from the DOJ. I mean, at the very minimum, Desantis hasn't taken anything he wasn't supposed to, refused to give it back, say there was nothing else, then actually have that which he said he no longer did after being subpoenaed for it.

The little things make a world of difference.

The Constitution isn't silent on jurisdiction. There are no grounds at this point to go to SCOTUS and an appeal would essentially be ignored, at best, by the Court.

They can investigate trying to find something appealable to the 11th Circuit at any point, but raising frivolous or otherwise procedurally improper appeals would not help them unless their sole strategy to cause delay (which is itself improper.)

Oh, and if you think SCOTUS is chomping at the bit to get involved, recall Trump tried to get the SCOTUS to review the 11th Circuit's ruling last fall about Trump's property interests in the seized documents...and SCOTUS declined to review the ruling.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Oh, and if you think SCOTUS is chomping at the bit to get involved, recall Trump tried to get the SCOTUS to review the 11th Circuit's ruling last fall about Trump's property interests in the seized documents...and SCOTUS declined to review the ruling.

---

Again, its cute when you think the judicial system is functioning in the name of justice.

Hint... its not. Its working for Biden and friends.

But you keep clinging to procedures and venues and standings whilst the Constitution is burned in front of you.

Everybody on here should take a moment to reflect on the words of Jesus, who was quoted by brother Mark as having said

'Physician, heal thyself'

Bryanisbest said:

---

Dems theory of the case: throw enough **** on the wall and some of it will stick.

---

Waving around classified Iran attack plans isn't "**** on the wall"

Manhattan said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

Dems theory of the case: throw enough **** on the wall and some of it will stick.

---

Waving around classified Iran attack plans isn't "**** on the wall"

---

Sounds very SERIOUS!!!


Remind us.




Why isn't he being charged for this?

Because they don't have the document, shoulda raided Bedminster.

Manhattan said:

---

Because they don't have the document, shoulda raided Bedminster.

---

Oh OK

Manhattan said:

---

Because they don't have the document, shoulda raided Bedminster.

---

Too tough to get a warrant there I suppose.

8 Biden judges
7 Obama judges.
0 Trump judges

Quote:

---

What I'm referring to is magazines, newspapers, plans of buildings. I had plans of buildings. You know, building plans? I had plans of a golf course.

---

Not clear yet why military wouid give Trump plans for a golf course, or why Hillary would email pervert Weiner building plans, but this is the latest story from Trump.

https://www.semafor.com/article/06/27/2023/it-was-bravado-trump-says-he-wasnt-holding-up-classified-documents-in-2021-meeting

Will be interesting to see who the female staffer on the tape is and what she told grand jury or FBI.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

What I'm referring to is magazines, newspapers, plans of buildings. I had plans of buildings. You know, building plans? I had plans of a golf course.

---

Not clear yet why military wouid give Trump plans for a golf course, or why Hillary would email pervert Weiner building plans, but this is the latest story from Trump.

https://www.semafor.com/article/06/27/2023/it-was-bravado-trump-says-he-wasnt-holding-up-classified-documents-in-2021-meeting

Will be interesting to see who the female staffer on the tape is and what she told grand jury or FBI.

---

Considering there were multiple other people in the room, it seems like "they were just newspaper clippings, etc" should be pretty easy to prove one way or another.

Proving that they were not magazines or golf course plans should be easy. But proving they were classified documents is a completely different story.

Will the other people in the room have personal knowledge of that? Based on the just the tape, I doubt it.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Proving that they were not magazines or golf course plans should be easy. But proving they were classified documents is a completely different story.

Will the other people in the room have personal knowledge of that? Based on the just the tape, I doubt it.

---

They might, or might not, have knowledge, but they would be able to describe with detail what he was showing them. Then those at court with knowledge would be able to know if what was shown to them shouldn't have been in Trump's possession.

Quote:

---

but they would be able to describe with detail what he was showing them

---

That's an enormous assumption to make. .

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

but they would be able to describe with detail what he was showing them

---

That's an enormous assumption to make. .

---

That's up the the attorneys to prove and the jury to confirm. I'd think whoever would be called could tell the difference between a magazine or newspaper and something that looks like a print out that would be taken out of a file or folder.

Proving its " print out that would be taken out of a file or folder" is a very long way from proving it was classified

BMX Bandit said:

---

Proving its " print out that would be taken out of a file or folder" is a very long way from proving it was classified

---

All good points. My point was more that if this latest "they were just magazines" excuse was a lie, it would be one that's very easy to disprove.

He's not charged with showing them that document (at least yet) and we don't even know if that document is one of the 31 he is charged with keeping at Mar-A-Lago.

Sorry to repeat things, but that audiotape appears to be in the indictment for reasons beyond proving that particular document was classified. He says a number of things which just don't make sense if he declassified everything before or, and I forget the timing of that tape vs the subpoenas, if you previously returned everything you thought was "classified/secret."

And if the argument is Trump was full of **** and making up a lot of nonsense, well, as a defendant you don't want a jury thinking you're completely full of ****

Quote:

---

and I forget the timing of that tape vs the subpoenas, if you previously returned everything you thought was "classified/secret."

---

Interview conversation was in 2021. Subpoena was in 2022.

july 21 was the recording. long before any subpoena.

the tape will be used, IMO, to undercut any defense of "everything was declassified."

BMX Bandit said:

---

Proving its " print out that would be taken out of a file or folder" is a very long way from proving it was classified

---

Which is why it doesn't matter what anyone says or thinks except for the people that will be in the court.

ok, but getting back to how this discussion started:

its an enormous leap by you to think any of these witnesses will be able to describe the documents in detail.

its not an easy task for smith to prove these documents were classified

BMX Bandit said:

---

ok, but getting back to how this discussion started:

its an enormous leap by you to think any of these witnesses will be able to describe the documents in detail.

its not an easy task for smith to prove these documents were classified

---

If the 31 documents in the indictment are marked classified and don't have declassification markings on them, it won't be hard to prove they're classified, as that's some literal "prima facie" evidence that they're classified. They can add to that by finding the classification authority on them to discuss the particular document or why that kind of document would be classified.

It'll then be up to the defense to try to explain that away. A potentially tough task, made more difficult by that audiotape.

The DOJ prosecutes classified documents cases all the time. They know how to do that well. This is only more complicated because of what the defense ***might*** claim

BMX Bandit said:

---

ok, but getting back to how this discussion started:

its an enormous leap by you to think any of these witnesses will be able to describe the documents in detail.

its not an easy task for smith to prove these documents were classified

---

You're right; it is my bad to say they'd be able to describe with detail what's on the papers if Trump was holding them facing himself and never turning the pages for them to see.

Now, and again, none of us know, but if Trump did turn the pages around to face the people he was talking to, which isn't unheard of being done by people when they're showing things to others, then they would at least get a glimpse of what he was reading from and describe that to the court.

And you're right; it isn't going to be an easy task, but just because it won't be easy doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm sure any of the attorneys on here can talk about the times they've had non-easy tasks and were successful in the end.

Regardless, only time will tell how things will end.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

ok, but getting back to how this discussion started:

its an enormous leap by you to think any of these witnesses will be able to describe the documents in detail.

its not an easy task for smith to prove these documents were classified

---

If the 31 documents in the indictment are marked classified and don't have declassification markings on them, it won't be hard to prove they're classified, as that's some literal "prima facie" evidence that they're classified.

---

So which one of the 31 documents is being discussed on the tape?

Quote:

---

The DOJ prosecutes classified documents cases all the time. They know how to do that well.

---

can you provide the name of the defendant prosecuted where the DOJ didn't have the document alleged to be classified where the defendant was successfully prosecuted?

Multiple sources previously told CBS News defense attorneys were not certain the memo in question was ever recovered and returned to the government. Former Senior DOJ official, “..in a way it might be analogous to try to prove a murder case without a body.” https://t.co/YawawFSMIG

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) June 28, 2023

BMX Bandit said:

---

Proving that they were not magazines or golf course plans should be easy. But proving they were classified documents is a completely different story.

Will the other people in the room have personal knowledge of that? Based on the just the tape, I doubt it.

---

Well he named droped Miley, and I'm sure (Trump appointed) Miley would be willing to testify, that the documents described were real and classified.

BMX Bandit said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

ok, but getting back to how this discussion started:

its an enormous leap by you to think any of these witnesses will be able to describe the documents in detail.

its not an easy task for smith to prove these documents were classified

---

If the 31 documents in the indictment are marked classified and don't have declassification markings on them, it won't be hard to prove they're classified, as that's some literal "prima facie" evidence that they're classified.

---

So which one of the 31 documents is being discussed on the tape?

---

I have said multiple times I don't think they're likely using the audio tape to prove the classification status of any of the specific documents. I just said it again above.

And besides if he's talking about one document and the video doesn't prove its status, they still have 30 other documents for which they clearly wouldn't be relying on the video to prove their specific classification status