Trump indicted over classified documents

266,245 Views | 3603 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by HTownAg98
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Smoke signaling for help from the 11th Cir.
Doubtful they would be of any assistance. Our federal appellate courts are a mess. Too politically motivated.
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Does the Supreme Court of the United States have the ballsack to decide the fate of Trump in the next 235-days?

What are we seeing here?
I thought Trump was going to jail? You finally off that obsession?
Sounds like you got a high confidence level that a man under federal criminal indictment across three federal judicial districts isn't going to end up in jail. I can respect that.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Im Gipper said:

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Does the Supreme Court of the United States have the ballsack to decide the fate of Trump in the next 235-days?

What are we seeing here?
I thought Trump was going to jail? You finally off that obsession?
Sounds like you got a high confidence level that a man under federal criminal indictment across three federal judicial districts isn't going to end up in jail. I can respect that.
Prison? For what? Here's a hint: when a prosecutor has to invent novel uses of heretofore statutes never designd to be used in that matter, that's what lawyers call a "stretch."

When the prosecutors hide evidence, refuse to comply with their disclosure requirements (such as Brady or Giglio material)? Any indictment which used Jan 6th Committee's materials and relied on that crap alone without parallel construction is fruit of the poisonous tree. Completely inadmissible at trial and reversible error if allowed.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXAggie2011 said:

Cannon denies dismissal on the case for unconstitutional vagueness with what the 11th Circuit should rule is an unconstitutional word salad


Seemed clear, if maybe a bit wordy, to me...
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What's hard to follow? Smith is making adamant statements about things that are absolutely not clear in law and that have not been settled by courts. While, of course others are excused for the exact same and worse.

Shes pointing out that it isn't cut and dried. The President IS the Executive Branch. The Espionage Act was never intended to be used against a President. That's absurd on its face.

Jack Smith should be prosecuted.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a joke about a run-on sentence. Chill the fork out
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?


The Supreme Court dines on fast-food while the Trump cases bear down them.

In a time of unprecedented need for judicial heavy lifting they decide to tackle the important issue of whether public officials can block people on social media.

They gotta be careful not to wear themselves out though. Burnout is real.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?

MiamiHopper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Judge won't set a trial date but is now asking for jury instructions, and ordering that the jury instructions be written in a way that misstates the law. Before she's even ruled on the issue in the motion to dismiss. What is going on here?
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Judge is forcing the parties to take a hard look at their case. Thats the takeaway here.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MiamiHopper said:

Judge won't set a trial date but is now asking for jury instructions, and ordering that the jury instructions be written in a way that misstates the law. Before she's even ruled on the issue in the motion to dismiss. What is going on here?
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Funny watching Weissman squirm and insist that the judge doing literally anything to poke at the obvious holes in the DOj's case has to lead to disqualification.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MiamiHopper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"On the right is Judge Cannon"

As other commenters have noted, imagine a judge asking the prosecution in a murder case to prepare jury instructions to assume that the murder took place during The Purge.

That's the nonsensical direction this is headed.
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MiamiHopper said:

"On the right is Judge Cannon"

As other commenters have noted, imagine a judge asking the prosecution in a murder case to prepare jury instructions to assume that the murder took place during The Purge.

That's the nonsensical direction this is headed.
nonsensical?

The judge or the original filing?
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jt2hunt said:

MiamiHopper said:

"On the right is Judge Cannon"

As other commenters have noted, imagine a judge asking the prosecution in a murder case to prepare jury instructions to assume that the murder took place during The Purge.

That's the nonsensical direction this is headed.
nonsensical?

The judge or the original filing?
The Judge is going to have to very carefully craft an order to try to get around what the 11th Circuit already said in 2022 when Trump sued after the Mar-A-Lago raid. Or, I guess she can just choose to ignore it.

If she adopts one of those two theories in any kind of order, the government will probably mandamus her at the 11th Circuit faster than her clerk can post the order online.


Quote:

We cannot discern why Trump would have an individual interest in...any of the...classified documents...Even if we assumed that Trump did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them.

Trump does not have a possessory interest in the documents at issue...he neither owns nor has a personal interest in the documents


rgvag11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
rgvag11 said:


No way! Two entrenched democrats quit?!

Whatever will we all do?!

Good ****ing riddance. We need millions of them to quit and get off our dime.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is this the only way Cannon can force Smith to address these issues of first impression directly? Because he's not even addressing the PRA and the Amy Berman Jackson precedent in the Bill Clinton sock drawer case.

Since these are question of first impression as applied to a President, need to craft jury instructions and brief them to support the verbiage selected. There are not exactly Pattern Jury Instructions available here.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
rgvag11 said:


long story short on that: nothing untoward going on.

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.

I recall at the height of the Enron case, bankruptcy judge Gonzalez had something like 12 clerks working for him (BK judges usually either get 1 clerk + 1 secretary or 2 clerks and 0 secretary).
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.
Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?
MiamiHopper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.
Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?
Leaning on the scale with both hands pressing down.
MiamiHopper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Is this the only way Cannon can force Smith to address these issues of first impression directly? Because he's not even addressing the PRA and the Amy Berman Jackson precedent in the Bill Clinton sock drawer case.

Since these are question of first impression as applied to a President, need to craft jury instructions and brief them to support the verbiage selected. There are not exactly Pattern Jury Instructions available here.
The records for which Trump has been charged are agency records. They are subject to FRA, not the PRA, and unequivocally are not personal records. Also, the Judicial Watch v. Clinton case is not a precedent here. It's not close. And yes, there are pattern jury instructions for the crimes that Trump has been charged with. But I guess Cannon doesn't like Trump's chances with those.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

No way! Two entrenched democrats quit?!


Why wouid Cannon hire "extended democrats" as clerks?


(Btw, I'll wait for better sourcing before believing this story is true)

I'm Gipper
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MiamiHopper said:

aggiehawg said:

Is this the only way Cannon can force Smith to address these issues of first impression directly? Because he's not even addressing the PRA and the Amy Berman Jackson precedent in the Bill Clinton sock drawer case.

Since these are question of first impression as applied to a President, need to craft jury instructions and brief them to support the verbiage selected. There are not exactly Pattern Jury Instructions available here.
The records for which Trump has been charged are agency records. They are subject to FRA, not the PRA, and unequivocally are not personal records. Also, the Judicial Watch v. Clinton case is not a precedent here. It's not close. And yes, there are pattern jury instructions for the crimes that Trump has been charged with. But I guess Cannon doesn't like Trump's chances with those.
How do you know? They are sealed and that's part of the argument over who gets to see them. Did either grand jury see them? The one in DC and then the one hastily convened in Florida?
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im Gipper said:

Quote:

No way! Two entrenched democrats quit?!


Why wouid Cannon hire "extended democrats" as clerks?


(Btw, I'll wait for better sourcing before believing this story is true)
there are updates in the story. One quit because she had a baby. The other quit for reasons yet unknown. The author of the article solicited intel and the responses widely panned any suggestion of anything remotely nefarious going on with Judge Cannon.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.
Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?
maybe. I'm honestly surprised that she hasn't just done the usual article III judge thing, taken it all under advisement, and then sat on it until the case no longer has political value (I.e. issue orders/opinions after the election).
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for the update.

Although I still hope Cannon holds Smith's feet to the fire. He keeps playing games.
MiamiHopper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some of the agencies are listed in the indictment. I don't know if it's an exhaustive list.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

aggiehawg said:

Quote:

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.
Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?
maybe. I'm honestly surprised that she hasn't just done the usual article III judge thing, taken it all under advisement, and then sat on it until the case no longer has political value (I.e. issue orders/opinions after the election).
Oh you know Smith would go the 11th Circuit for a writ of mandamus against her. Judge Sullivan played several rounds on mandamus with the DC Circuit telling him to dismiss the Flynn case. Sullivan just gave them the bird repeatedly.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MiamiHopper said:

Some of the agencies are listed in the indictment. I don't know if it's an exhaustive list.
Are they listed in the statement of probable cause supporting the search warrant, though? I have never seen that.

Have you? Because I would love to read that if you could link it. Unredacted version of course.

TIA.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

aggiehawg said:

Quote:

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.
Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?
maybe. I'm honestly surprised that she hasn't just done the usual article III judge thing, taken it all under advisement, and then sat on it until the case no longer has political value (I.e. issue orders/opinions after the election).
Oh you know Smith would go the 11th Circuit for a writ of mandamus against her. Judge Sullivan played several rounds on mandamus with the DC Circuit telling him to dismiss the Flynn case. Sullivan just gave them the bird repeatedly.
she'd just do the same thing.

What are they going to to? Get a writ from the 11th circuit because it's obvious she's been thinking about it too long because she's just a woman?
MiamiHopper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

MiamiHopper said:

Some of the agencies are listed in the indictment. I don't know if it's an exhaustive list.
Are they listed in the statement of probable cause supporting the search warrant, though? I have never seen that.

Have you? Because I would love to read that if you could link it. Unredacted version of course.

TIA.
They're not listed in the unredacted parts of the search warrant. Some might be redacted though. Not sure if this an issue. The documents he was charged with are vaguely described in the indictment. You'll have to do a little sleuthing to put together what you can about who created each document and who owns the information contained in it.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

aggiehawg said:

Quote:

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.
Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?
maybe. I'm honestly surprised that she hasn't just done the usual article III judge thing, taken it all under advisement, and then sat on it until the case no longer has political value (I.e. issue orders/opinions after the election).


There are 7 motions that were filed in February that still aren't even docketed a month later because of the special redaction process she put in place for this case.

Oh, she's certainly sitting on things.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Not sure if this an issue. The documents he was charged with are vaguely described in the indictment. You'll have to do a little sleuthing to put together what you can about who created each document and who owns the information contained in it.
That would be a NO. Defense having to sleuth to find Brady material. Plus, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES ARE PART OF THE ARTICLE II CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

Let's go back over that pesky separation of powers issue, shall we?

On which planet does any Executive Branch agency is authorized to become POTUS? With all of the powers afforded thereto?

No where. Either POTUS has plenary power or that office does not.
First Page Last Page
Page 86 of 103
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.