eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

TXAggie2011 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).

---

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.

---

Good. The only way this **** will stop is if republicans start pushing back against blatant lawfare.

---

Trump has spent his entire life embracing lawfare.

---

As I have said before, he is no different in this respect than Astor, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Ford, Gates and Musk.

If you pull in revenue on a high scale, then you can expect to sue and be sued in this country.

What you did not see out of Trump is using a network of party hacks on federal, state and local levels to launch investigations against his political opponent.

That is what we have gotten out of Oldfinger.

will25u said:

---

NEW: This matter was discussed during the March 14 hearing in Florida. Nearly all of the DOJ's classified documents investigation took place in Trump-hating DC--even though the alleged crime happened in FLA.

Materials remained under seal by DC chief judge and were not… pic.twitter.com/EbeLG9rE2F

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 26, 2024

---

Yes but....

As I said at the time, because the case wasn't going to be prosecuted in DC, the rulings made as part of the grand jury investigation are not binding on Cannon.

She can exclude Corcoran as a witness by upholding the claim of privilege.

She can preclude SCO Smith… https://t.co/54zioSnzgX

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 26, 2024

will25u said:

---

NEW: This matter was discussed during the March 14 hearing in Florida. Nearly all of the DOJ's classified documents investigation took place in Trump-hating DC--even though the alleged crime happened in FLA.

Materials remained under seal by DC chief judge and were not… pic.twitter.com/EbeLG9rE2F

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 26, 2024

---

Beryl Howell is Grade A scum and should be disbarred. How these clowns are in such positions of power is infuriating.

And yes, I know Howell is in that position for a reason.

This was all done as a means of controlling the investigation and grand jury proceedings within an extremely biased democrat jurisdiction. It is another attack on Trump's right to due process.

Rest of that tweet.

Quote:

---

She can preclude SCO Smith from using any evidence she deems was obtained in an improper manner.

That's the risk that Smith ran by conducting the case in the fashion he did.

---

The whole DC grand jury and then just transcripts being read to the Florida grand jury has never sat well with me. It was hinky from the beginning.

Watching INSLAW doc on Netflix now. This is what the voter database evolved from...The software PROMIS. Justice department is corrupt to the core.

The Octopus is the Netflix show.

President Trump is surfing on evil.

The fact that this thread is still relevant and Biden family corruption isn't.....

Today is deadline for Jack Smith and Team Trump to file draft jury instructions on Espionage Act in classified docs case. I'll be on docket watch to report the responses.

These are the 2 scenarios related to "unauthorized possession" of records Judge Cannon wants both sides to… pic.twitter.com/bcA7JnRS5V

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 2, 2024

Jack Smith's response is hysterical (and not in a funny way in a desperate way) bc he knows he has little control over her decision related to final jury instructions.

And he is arguing the basis for Trump's "unauthorized possession" of national defense material rests on Obama… pic.twitter.com/uVr0qxy8ex

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 3, 2024

This is why Smith is so angry--he knows if Cannon proceeds with the proposed scenario presented in her jury instructions order, he is, as one defense attorney told me at the time, f*cked.

He essentially demands that she rule now on jury instructions (she doesn't have to) or… pic.twitter.com/765SfIDygK

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 3, 2024

Here is the filing.

Jack Smith Is Barking Up the Wrong 18 U.S. Code § 793 Code |

Jack Smith is intentionally using the wrong subsection of Code § 793 in Trump’s Mara-largo classified documents case.

He is using (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document,… pic.twitter.com/6gBYiwwiH6

— Andrea Shaffer, Employment/Labor Law (@Andreafreedom76) April 3, 2024

Like I've said for a while- this case was a blunder. The process used to get to an indictment was questionable (at best; constitutionally infirm at worst), the case as-charged is weak, and they had no choice but to bring it to an unfriendly judge. Now I guess they're hoping the 11th Cir can bail them out?

Interesting that Jack admits that if you take Trumps view of the jury instructions you should have a directed verdict in Trump's favor. So on the one hand you have to twist the facts and law to say that according to an Obama era executive order Trump mishandled classified documents (even tho he's constantly referring to "documents with classified markings" not "classified documents") and on the other hand you have "as a matter of law this case should be dismissed outright"

Quote:

---

Quote:
Smith argued that the legal premise behind Judge Aileen Cannon's request is "wrong" and that it would "distort" the trial, potentially leading to a directed verdict in Trump's favor. The special counsel urged Cannon to "promptly" decide whether the legal premise in question represents a "correct formulation of the law," and indicated that federal prosecutors would appeal if the judge rules against them.

---

Come on Aileen!

This is her way of punting the case to the court of appeals.

Yet again, another scenario that was broached on here several months ago.

Folks question why the Judge was calling for jury instructions at this stage, this is why. Forces the parties to take a hard look at their case.

So we might guess there will be a round trip to the court of appeals that takes a minimum of 3-months or so which pushes the case right up to the election.

Also consider the possibility that this is all a ruse and they going through the motions here to appease whoever needs to be appeased. So you got to call into question whether this is happening organically.

No requirement to decide how to charge the jury right now. She could just sit on this for a while. I think she just wanted the DOJ to put its cards on the table.

'Vitally'

'Promptly'

'Wrongly'

Confirms to us that they shook!

Shook!

aggiejayrod said:

---

Interesting that Jack admits that if you take Trumps view of the jury instructions you should have a directed verdict in Trump's favor. So on the one hand you have to twist the facts and law to say that according to an Obama era executive order Trump mishandled classified documents (even tho he's constantly referring to "documents with classified markings" not "classified documents") and on the other hand you have "as a matter of law this case should be dismissed outright"

---

If they can just get the case to the USSC, John Roberts will gladly let the DOJ and Chinese puppet argue both sides.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Vitally'

'Promptly'

'Wrongly'

Confirms to us that they shook!

Shook!

---

Yes, because the right to a speedy trial belongs to the government. (it doesn't)

Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, and Hussein's merry band of miscreants are fascists.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Vitally'

'Promptly'

'Wrongly'

Confirms to us that they shook!

Shook!

---

Yes, because the right to a speedy trial belongs to the government. (it doesn't)

Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, and Hussein's merry band of miscreants are fascists.

---

All that is really saying Smith doesn't want to go to court with the PRA as an available defense for Trump. Mostly because they know the Clinton sock drawer case sinks them there. They want to play hide the ball calling everything "documents marked with classification information" and pretend it's all nuclear codes Trump stole to give to his bff Putin.

Cannon really needs to be blunt here and ask why PRA doesn't apply then dismiss with prejudice. Then fine Smith for overcharging again citing the last big Supreme Court case for him overcharging and making up the law as he goes.

"documents marked with classification information"

=

"died with or from covid"

aggiejayrod said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Vitally'

'Promptly'

'Wrongly'

Confirms to us that they shook!

Shook!

---

Yes, because the right to a speedy trial belongs to the government. (it doesn't)

Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, and Hussein's merry band of miscreants are fascists.

---

All that is really saying Smith doesn't want to go to court with the PRA as an available defense for Trump.

---

I know. Smith just continues to push the "need to get to trial" because they whole point was that the DOJ coordinated all of these cases to wait three years and then hurriedly go to trial during primary/election season so they would interfere with the election and with Trump's ability to campaign AND defend himself.

If this were legitimately about justice, it would have all gone to court well before now.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Vitally'

'Promptly'

'Wrongly'

Confirms to us that they shook!

Shook!

---

excessive use of adverbs is a hallmark of shoddy legal writing. It's a telltale sign that (1) the writer sucks, (2) their argument is weak/faulty, or (3) a good measure of both.

aggiejayrod said:

---

All that is really saying Smith doesn't want to go to court with the PRA as an available defense for Trump. Mostly because they know the Clinton sock drawer case sinks them there. They want to play hide the ball calling everything "documents marked with classification information" and pretend it's all nuclear codes Trump stole to give to his bff Putin.

---

And this PRA/NARA stuff was always entrapment. It was a setup from before Trump left office.

Hussein's geniuses did this.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Vitally'

'Promptly'

'Wrongly'

Confirms to us that they shook!

Shook!

---

Yes, because the right to a speedy trial belongs to the government. (it doesn't)

Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, and Hussein's merry band of miscreants are fascists.

---

All that is really saying Smith doesn't want to go to court with the PRA as an available defense for Trump.

---

I know. Smith just continues to push the "need to get to trial" because they whole point was that the DOJ coordinated all of these cases to wait three years and then hurriedly go to trial during primary/election season so they would interfere with the election and with Trump's ability to campaign AND defend himself.

If this were legitimately about justice, it would have all gone to court well before now.

---

or they'd happily put a pin in it and offer to pick back up in 2025.

Quote:

---

excessive use of adverbs is a hallmark of shoddy legal writing. It's a telltale sign that (1) the writer sucks, (2) their argument is weak/faulty, or (3) a good measure of both.

---

Ever since the Mueller team started writing indictments, I have been appalled by the lack of quality in their legal pleadings. Those lawyers were supposed to be the best at what they do. Not so much from my standpoint.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

If this were legitimately about justice, it would have all gone to court well before now.

---

or they'd happily put a pin in it and offer to pick back up in 2025.

---

Rest assured, they have a stack of stuff ready to go for 2025, whether Trump wins or loses. They will make sure no one ever tries to outflank them again.

You can't have single-party rule with two parties. And there a lot of posters here who cheer these fascist tactics.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Vitally'

'Promptly'

'Wrongly'

Confirms to us that they shook!

Shook!

---

Yes, because the right to a speedy trial belongs to the government. (it doesn't)

Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, and Hussein's merry band of miscreants are fascists.

---

All that is really saying Smith doesn't want to go to court with the PRA as an available defense for Trump.

---

I know. Smith just continues to push the "need to get to trial" because they whole point was that the DOJ coordinated all of these cases to wait three years and then hurriedly go to trial during primary/election season so they would interfere with the election and with Trump's ability to campaign AND defend himself.

If this were legitimately about justice, it would have all gone to court well before now.

---

Wildest part about all this is that the Stormy Daniels case now stands the best chance of getting across the finish line before the election.

So we got a situation where the executive branch of a single US state has its finger on the scale of the US presidential election.

Trump gets convicted of a felony in New York, loses, then what?

All of this would have been inconceivable 9-years ago in 2015.

Imagine traveling back in time and having to explain to someone the state of affairs in 2024. They'd put you in the nut house. Wild to think about.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Vitally'

'Promptly'

'Wrongly'

Confirms to us that they shook!

Shook!

---

excessive use of adverbs is a hallmark of shoddy legal writing. It's a telltale sign that (1) the writer sucks, (2) their argument is weak/faulty, or (3) a good measure of both.

---

Yep. 100% A dead giveaway.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

All that is really saying Smith doesn't want to go to court with the PRA as an available defense for Trump. Mostly because they know the Clinton sock drawer case sinks them there. They want to play hide the ball calling everything "documents marked with classification information" and pretend it's all nuclear codes Trump stole to give to his bff Putin.

---

And this PRA/NARA stuff was always entrapment. It was a setup from before Trump left office.

Hussein's geniuses did this.

---

Indeed.

A political poison pill in that regard.

Quote:

---

Indeed.

A political poison pill in that regard.

---

The NARA director is a Trump hater so broken by his TDS that no therapy will help him. Our federal workforce needs to be completely dismantled.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Indeed.

A political poison pill in that regard.

---

The NARA director is a Trump hater so broken by his TDS that no therapy will help him. Our federal workforce needs to be completely dismantled.

---

2.8 million federal employees in the US fear that Trump might rip a page from the playbook of Argentine president Javier Milei and clean house.

So we are looking at five entities acting in concert with the common goal of making sure that Trump never assumes office again:

1. Federal employees a/k/a the deep state;

2. The executive branch (tip to tail);

3. The Judiciary;

4. Legislative branch which impeached Trump twice;

5. The MSM / Big data (the Technocracy).

Regardless of the outcome of any of these individual cases, it stands to reason that we are likely to see the country completely burned to the ground before Trump ever gets sworn in again.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

All of this would have been inconceivable 9-years ago in 2015.

Imagine traveling back in time and having to explain to someone the state of affairs in 2024. They'd put you in the nut house. Wild to think about.

---

Consider the absurdity of the district attorney of Leon County, Florida indicting Al Gore, David Boies and Warren Christopher for trying to "steal an election."

Yet a quarter-century later Fani and Her Boo are the New Normal.

Quote:

---

Consider the absurdity of the district attorney of Leon County, Florida indicting Al Gore, David Boies and Warren Christopher for trying to "steal an election."

---

Christopher couldn't wipe his own butt by that point.

James Baker ran rings around him. Boies was dismal as usual.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

excessive use of adverbs is a hallmark of shoddy legal writing. It's a telltale sign that (1) the writer sucks, (2) their argument is weak/faulty, or (3) a good measure of both.

---

Ever since the Mueller team started writing indictments, I have been appalled by the lack of quality in their legal pleadings. Those lawyers were supposed to be the best at what they do. Not so much from my standpoint.

---

My legal writing prof would have literally hit me with my laptop if I wrote "vitally important" in a document. She was a no-nonsense battle axe of a retired judge. She would go in dry on Jack smith if he turned in that crap to her as a 1L. I can't even imagine her reaction to this crap.

Sounds like you went to a better law school than me (Hollywood Upstairs College of Law).

Associates that work on my files know they'd better well have a damn good reason for putting an adverb in a brief my name is on.

aggiejayrod said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Vitally'

'Promptly'

'Wrongly'

Confirms to us that they shook!

Shook!

---

Yes, because the right to a speedy trial belongs to the government. (it doesn't)

Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, and Hussein's merry band of miscreants are fascists.

---

All that is really saying Smith doesn't want to go to court with the PRA as an available defense for Trump. Mostly because they know the Clinton sock drawer case sinks them there. They want to play hide the ball calling everything "documents marked with classification information" and pretend it's all nuclear codes Trump stole to give to his bff Putin.

Cannon really needs to be blunt here and ask why PRA doesn't apply then dismiss with prejudice. Then fine Smith for overcharging again citing the last big Supreme Court case for him overcharging and making up the law as he goes.

---

If the PRA applies here, then everyone knows the PRA also applies to a certain someone residing in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who actually broke the laws regarding Presidential records whether classified or unclassified.

You can't get Trump on PRA without going after China Doll as well. Smith doesn't want to go near it. He can't get Trump with PRA. But his paymasters at DoJ would be forced to open an actual investigation into Pedo Pete's handling of Presidential records.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

If this were legitimately about justice, it would have all gone to court well before now.

---

or they'd happily put a pin in it and offer to pick back up in 2025.

---

Rest assured, they have a stack of stuff ready to go for 2025, whether Trump wins or loses. They will make sure no one ever tries to outflank them again.

You can't have single-party rule with two parties. And there a lot of posters here who cheer these fascist tactics.

---

Sure you can.

As long as the two parties are structured like the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals.

JUST IN: Judge CANNON has rejected Trump's effort to dismiss his Florida charges based on the Presidential Records Act -- but also declined Jack Smith's demand that she reveal her legal thinking on the matter quickly, a demand she called "unjust." https://t.co/uQw1QLRDL8 pic.twitter.com/QxyiFBM6VC

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 4, 2024