annie88 said:

---

Yikes.

Georgia Trump Grand Jury Foreperson:

pic.twitter.com/LPSFluPmcM

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) August 14, 2023

---

Wasn't that from awhile back?

Will Trump be indicted for an unprecedented 5th time?

Somewhere some a DA or AG has got to have a tingle in their testes.

Ag with kids said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Yikes.

Georgia Trump Grand Jury Foreperson:

pic.twitter.com/LPSFluPmcM

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) August 14, 2023

---

Wasn't that from awhile back?

---

Yes, she was on the "investigation grand jury," not the one that issued the indictments. Some weird thing in Georgia law.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Will Trump be indicted for an unprecedented 5th time?

Somewhere some a DA or AG has got to have a tingle in their testes.

---

If it happens, it will be Michigan. The AG there has already shown she is willing to indict political opponents.

Libs made a strategic error in who went first.

To be honest, Smith is the only one with a hope of sniffing a courtroom and that chance is slim to none and slim is on August holiday.

These charges are so legally un-based that the prosecutor is likely in her own legal trouble.

fka ftc said:

---

Trump has suffered more persecution than Jesus and its not even close.

---

Well Jesus never stole money from veterans to pay for a portrait of himself so it might be justified.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Trump has suffered more persecution than Jesus and its not even close.

---

Well Jesus never stole money from veterans to pay for a portrait of himself so it might be justified.

---

You have a court case showing he stole money or just lame attacks from your CNN paid subscription?

Jack Smith & Jay Bratt continue their game... here they argue that Trump's request to re-establish a SCIF for the purpose of securing DISCUSSIONS (not creating or storing any classified) instead of traveling to the court house should be denied because he could have those… https://t.co/aigMeBqseS pic.twitter.com/9ifYGpDmnV

— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) August 16, 2023

will25u said:

---

Jack Smith & Jay Bratt continue their game... here they argue that Trump's request to re-establish a SCIF for the purpose of securing DISCUSSIONS (not creating or storing any classified) instead of traveling to the court house should be denied because he could have those… https://t.co/aigMeBqseS pic.twitter.com/9ifYGpDmnV

— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) August 16, 2023

---

Truth always plays in Trumps favor, weird!

will25u said:

---

Jack Smith & Jay Bratt continue their game... here they argue that Trump's request to re-establish a SCIF for the purpose of securing DISCUSSIONS (not creating or storing any classified) instead of traveling to the court house should be denied because he could have those… https://t.co/aigMeBqseS pic.twitter.com/9ifYGpDmnV

— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) August 16, 2023

---

This Matt Beebe fellow has lots of odd takes. Who is he? Presidents don't grant a former President a security clearance. Current Presidents have frequently read in former Presidents into some or regular intelligence briefings. That's not the same thing as what Mr. Beebe is stating. Nor does it matter. He didn't have a SCIF anymore and there was no entitlement to have one. Trump also broke traditional practice in not allowing the incoming Biden team from getting the PDB. Sometimes things come full circle on you.

But again, it doesn't matter. He had no entitlement or basis upon which to continue to have a SCIF.

Mr. Beebe doesn't include the rest of the paragraph, by the way. The Government goes on to say the Defense and the Court's appointed Information Security Officer should meet and discuss places to discuss classified information. They do not take the position Trump's defense should have to come to the court house whenever they want to do so.

Quote:

---

28 U.S. Code 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

---

How, exactly, does one know whether the impartiality might reasonably be questioned? I assume making public pronouncements would qualify. Just being in a different political party would clearly not qualify -- we aren't going to limit the trials of any one party being held in courtrooms by a judge from that same party. So where does it cross the line?

Quote:

---

(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

---

In Trump's case, just about anyone paying attention would have heard of various disputes in the facts, but that cannot be a reason to expect a recusal. If it was, then wouldn't Judge Cannon be required to recuse herself as well?

So I assume hat "personal knowledge" would likely be knowledge that one could only gain by being really close to the case before it reaches the judge.

Quote:

---

(2)Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3)Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii)Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv)Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

---

Presumably, none of these are at all applicable.

Quote:

---

(c)A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.

---

I assume that the judge or her family, if any, are unlikely to be stockholder's in any Trump company.

Quote:

---

(d)For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:

...

(4)"financial interest" means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i)Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a "financial interest" in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;

...

---

So the judge is permitted to own shares in an investment fund that holds shares in Trump's companies as long as the judge does not participate in the management of the fund.

From what I have read in the past in regards to some other case, the rules for things like conflicts of interests most strongly seem to address issues of personal relationships with people on either side and financial relationships.

Considering all that, it doesn't seem all that likely for there to be a case for requiring the recusal of any of the judges on either side.

Im Gipper said:

---

Judge CANNON comes out swinging at special counsel this morning, striking two of prosecutors' sealed filings and demanding an explanation of "the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate" the docs case https://t.co/jawTpEvPWq pic.twitter.com/OciEt2vJql

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 7, 2023

---

Government filed their response:

BREAKING: Jack Smith's team tells Judge Cannon that a key witness in Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents case retracted false testimony after switching lawyers.

Details TKhttps://t.co/TrUDLFDTmm pic.twitter.com/2fnxtbYIrd

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 22, 2023

Summary: DC Grand Jury's continued work was looking at false statements by IT guy and DeOliveria. Feds informed the lawyer that was representing both of them. There was a conflict of interest.

IT was given a public defender and then recanted his testimony. He changed it to incriminate.Trump, DeOlivera and Nauta on the request to destroy the videotapes. New indictment names DeOlivera

Cannon was concerned grand jury was being used to continue an investigation of indicted people. It was not according to this filing, but new charges against unindicted persons.

How is this situation typically handled under cross exam? Can the defense bring up that he flipped his testimony or is his previous testimony not typically permitted in front of the jurors?

Yes, the defense would be allowed to impeach the IT guy with his prior testimony to the grand jury.

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, the defense would be allowed to impeach the IT guy with his prior testimony to the grand jury.

---

Jury you mean? I don't think grand jury's are involved in Florida now.

boboguitar said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, the defense would be allowed to impeach the IT guy with his prior testimony to the grand jury.

---

Jury you mean? I don't think grand jury's are involved in Florida now.

---

Meant exactly what I wrote.

The defense can use the IT guy's prior grand jury testimony against IT guy if he testifies at trial.

Im Gipper said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, the defense would be allowed to impeach the IT guy with his prior testimony to the grand jury.

---

Jury you mean? I don't think grand jury's are involved in Florida now.

---

Meant exactly what I wrote.

The defense can use the IT guy's prior grand jury testimony against IT guy if he testifies at trial.

---

Your statement can be construed either way, the "to the grand jury" was ambiguous. I read it as the defense was going to to try and impeach him TO the grand jury.

Im Gipper said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, the defense would be allowed to impeach the IT guy with his prior testimony to the grand jury.

---

Jury you mean? I don't think grand jury's are involved in Florida now.

---

Meant exactly what I wrote.

The defense can use the IT guy's prior grand jury testimony against IT guy if he testifies at trial.

---

The classic "were you lying then or are you lying now?"

aggiejayrod said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, the defense would be allowed to impeach the IT guy with his prior testimony to the grand jury.

---

Jury you mean? I don't think grand jury's are involved in Florida now.

---

Meant exactly what I wrote.

The defense can use the IT guy's prior grand jury testimony against IT guy if he testifies at trial.

---

The classic "were you lying then or are you lying now?"

---

On an already incredibly weak, circumstantial case where the argument is still to be made the the PRA is the governing law, not the BS around the Espionage Act. What a ****ing clown show.

Have his lawyers brought up anything in regards to the PRA in court? When is that going to be adjudicated?

They videotaped themselves doing the crimes and snooping around the IT room figuring out how to delete the video like a couple keystone cops, then there's text messages and call logs. Nauta was already indicted for lying about his involvement(didn't know feds had THOSE tapes). Trump's employees are flipping. This is anything but weak.

Not necessary at this point.

Whistle Pig said:

---

They videotaped themselves doing the crimes and snooping around the IT room figuring out how to delete the video like a couple keystone cops, then there's text messages and call logs. Nauta was already indicted for lying about his involvement(didn't know feds had THOSE tapes). Trump's employees are flipping. This is anything but weak.

---

You got a source on this information? Cause none of what you just made up was in the indictment.

Im Gipper said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Judge CANNON comes out swinging at special counsel this morning, striking two of prosecutors' sealed filings and demanding an explanation of "the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate" the docs case https://t.co/jawTpEvPWq pic.twitter.com/OciEt2vJql

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 7, 2023

---

Government filed their response:

BREAKING: Jack Smith's team tells Judge Cannon that a key witness in Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents case retracted false testimony after switching lawyers.

Details TKhttps://t.co/TrUDLFDTmm pic.twitter.com/2fnxtbYIrd

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 22, 2023

Summary: DC Grand Jury's continued work was looking at false statements by IT guy and DeOliveria. Feds informed the lawyer that was representing both of them. There was a conflict of interest.

IT was given a public defender and then recanted his testimony. He changed it to incriminate.Trump, DeOlivera and Nauta on the request to destroy the videotapes. New indictment names DeOlivera

Cannon was concerned grand jury was being used to continue an investigation of indicted people. It was not according to this filing, but new charges against unindicted persons.

---

Wait...Nauta's first name is WALTINE?

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, the defense would be allowed to impeach the IT guy with his prior testimony to the grand jury.

---

So, in which GJ testimony was he committing perjury since he's said 2 sides of the story?

Its funny to you this poor guy is having his life ruined for doing nothing more than helping his boss sort through mountains of presidential records sent to M-A-L by the Biden team which Biden team then weaponized NARA and the DOJ via the WH counsels office to persecute a political opponent.

Wow. Karma can be a ***** sometimes. May want to keep that in mind...

This case is the biggest piece of **** of all time.

Bad facts make bad law on meth.

Some of us will live to regret this.

Jack Smith continues to try and justify the propriety of Judge Beryl Howell's Runaway Grand Jury, and in true Jack Smith form, he misrepresents both case law and the facts before the Judge Cannon's court.
First, Blair held that a prospective witness could not challenge the… https://t.co/AdMVhbM6q0 pic.twitter.com/TN5Zgeyjjt

— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) August 23, 2023

That second tweet misses the mark. Canon is not asking Smith why he used a DC grand jury to investigate potential crimes in Florida. Apparently that is allowed n some circumstances.

Cannon wanted to know why they were continuing to use the grand jury post indictment.

So we have at least now Walt Nauta going to testify against Trump

likely Mark Meadows is going to testify against Trump

Jenna Ellis is DEFINITELY going to testify against Trump after all the insane amount of abuse she has taken from TrumpWorld

and Rudy is left hanging out to dry- so he will likely flip as well. Somehow I don't see Giuliani going to prison to protect Trump after Trump has refused to pay for his attorney fees.

fka ftc said:

---

Its funny to you this poor guy is having his life ruined for doing nothing more than helping his boss sort through mountains of presidential records sent to M-A-L by the Biden team which Biden team then weaponized NARA and the DOJ via the WH counsels office to persecute a political opponent.

Wow. Karma can be a ***** sometimes. May want to keep that in mind...

---

Your typical knee jerk attacks on everyone fail here.

I'm on TRUMP'S side on this one.

This guy originally said Trump DID NOT do bad things. Now he says Trump DID do bad things. AFTER the government got him a lawyer.

Looks like his life is NOT being ruined once he changed his story to hurt Trump.

Should I think that's a good thing?

LMCane said:

---

So we have at least now Walt Nauta going to testify against Trump

likely Mark Meadows is going to testify against Trump

Jenna Ellis is DEFINITELY going to testify against Trump after all the insane amount of abuse she has taken from TrumpWorld

and Rudy is left hanging out to dry- so he will likely flip as well. Somehow I don't see Giuliani going to prison to protect Trump after Trump has refused to pay for his attorney fees.

---

We have to normalize calling him WALTINE on TexAgs so I can giggle every time I read his name.

It'll add some levity to the board.

BMX Bandit said:

---

That second tweet misses the mark. Canon is not asking Smith why he used a DC grand jury to investigate potential crimes in Florida. Apparently that is allowed n some circumstances.

Cannon wanted to know why they were continuing to use the grand jury post indictment.

---

I assume that is out of the ordinary?

You are not allowed to use a grand jury to continue to investigate someone that is already under indictment.

According to this filing, they were not doing that. They were investigating potential perjury charges against two people that testified in DC grand jury.