Trump indicted over classified documents

263,231 Views | 3594 Replies | Last: 11 days ago by aggiehawg
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 12:41p, 5/28/24
Quote:
The request followed a distorted claim by Trump last week that the FBI agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022 were "authorized to shoot me" and were "locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger."
Quote:

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was referring to the disclosure in a court document that the FBI, during the search in Palm Beach, Florida, followed a standard use-of-force policy that prohibits the use of deadly force except when the officer conducting the search has a reasonable belief that the "subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person."
Quote:
Prosecutors said in court papers late Friday that Trump's statements falsely suggesting that federal agents "were complicit in a plot to assassinate him" expose law enforcement officers some of whom prosecutors noted will be called as witnesses at his trial "to the risk of threats, violence, and harassment."
LINK
The first statement is true. They were absolutely authorized to put him and his family in danger.

The second refers to unidentified LEOs. How are they receiving threats? Jack Smith is lying again.
Reply Quote
6
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:08p, 5/28/24
Reply Quote
4
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 1:11p, 5/28/24
will25u said:
Jay Bratt needs to be disbarred and prosecuted for sedition.
Reply Quote
3
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:20p, 5/28/24
Reply Quote
2
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:50p, 6/2/24

Reply Quote
5
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:48p, 6/3/24
AG
Quote:
The chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has blocked complaints against the judge overseeing one of former President Donald Trump's criminal cases.
Chief Judge William Pryor Jr., in a newly released order dated May 22, instructed the circuit court's clerk to stop accepting new complaints against U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon after the clerk was flooded with complaints.
"Since May 16, 2024, the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has received over 1,000 judicial complaints against Judge Cannon that raise allegations that are substantially similar to the allegations raised in previous complaints," Judge Pryor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote in the order. "These complaints appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign."
Judiciary rules enable each judicial council to act when a series of "many essentially identical complaints" from different people flood into the circuit in which the council is based. The council can instruct the circuit clerk "to accept only a certain number of such complaints for filing and to refuse to accept additional complaints."
LINK
Reply Quote
6
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:00p, 6/3/24
It is amazing how hard the left is working to completely destroy our justice system. They want control of every single lever of power. "Justice" is not in their vocabulary.

They are just like all the oppressive political cabals in world history. This kind of evil only ends in death and destruction, yet even on here, people cheer it on.
Reply Quote
7
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:30p, 6/3/24
AG
will25u said:

that cracked me up. 11th Cir. telling leftists not only to pound sand but to stop calling because you're wasting our time.
Reply Quote
5
MiamiHopper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:30a, 6/4/24
Does anyone have a running list of all of the matters that Judge Cannon has held hearings on but has not yet issued rulings?
Reply Quote
1
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MiamiHopper • 10:11a, 6/4/24
MiamiHopper said:
Does anyone have a running list of all of the matters that Judge Cannon has held hearings on but has not yet issued rulings?
No, but I'm thankful there is at least one judge in this country who is actually following the Constitution.
Reply Quote
10
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MiamiHopper • 12:04p, 6/4/24
AG
MiamiHopper said:
Does anyone have a running list of all of the matters that Judge Cannon has held hearings on but has not yet issued rulings?
probably not because of the CIPA related issues.

That said, I assume she's going to keep most stuff that would be appealable or subject to mandamus relief under advisement until after the election and then take a large, corn-laced **** all over the special counsel's office.
Reply Quote
3
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MiamiHopper • 2:52p, 6/4/24
AG
MiamiHopper said:
Does anyone have a running list of all of the matters that Judge Cannon has held hearings on but has not yet issued rulings?
I'd have to look as to how many she's held hearings for, but at one point she had at least 12 pending motions and was saying due to the number of pending motions she couldn't decide some of them.


Her backlog isn't because of CIPA, its because (1) she deviated from the special rules to require everything be filed sealed before they could be docketed, (2) it was taking weeks to docket the sealed filings (See below), and (3) she's just taking her time.

Reply Quote
2 edits
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:05p, 6/4/24
Good.
Reply Quote
2
backintexas2013
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:15p, 6/4/24
AG
Judge in New York did everything correctly and the court system worked republicans are just mad. Respect the process/Liberals

Judge in floruda is a hack and a Trump supporter/ Liberals.

Reply Quote
3
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to backintexas2013 • 4:25p, 6/4/24
backintexas2013 said:
Judge in New York did everything correctly and the court system worked republicans are just mad. Respect the process/Liberals

Judge in floruda is a hack and a Trump supporter/ Liberals.

Never mind that this was all coordinated by the DOJ to happen during election season and as a barrage at Trump. 3 years+ after he left office.

Also, the right to a speedy trial belongs to the defendant, not a fascist prosecutor.
Reply Quote
8
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 10:16p, 6/4/24
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
MiamiHopper said:
Does anyone have a running list of all of the matters that Judge Cannon has held hearings on but has not yet issued rulings?
I'd have to look as to how many she's held hearings for, but at one point she had at least 12 pending motions and was saying due to the number of pending motions she couldn't decide some of them.


Her backlog isn't because of CIPA, its because (1) she deviated from the special rules to require everything be filed sealed before they could be docketed, (2) it was taking weeks to docket the sealed filings (See below), and (3) she's just taking her time.

Oh...so, she's not working overtime to get Smith's case pushed through just because it's been demanded?

Damn. God forbid she actually take time to look through everything.

Question: Are you connected to Lawfare? The organization?
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 10:19p, 6/4/24
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
MiamiHopper said:
Does anyone have a running list of all of the matters that Judge Cannon has held hearings on but has not yet issued rulings?
I'd have to look as to how many she's held hearings for, but at one point she had at least 12 pending motions and was saying due to the number of pending motions she couldn't decide some of them.


Her backlog isn't because of CIPA, its because (1) she deviated from the special rules to require everything be filed sealed before they could be docketed, (2) it was taking weeks to docket the sealed filings (See below), and (3) she's just taking her time.


You libs think you have the answers for everything. Your bias is blinding.
Reply Quote
5
backintexas2013
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rockdoc • 7:25a, 6/5/24
AG
I believe he was one of the lawyers who just knew Fani and her boy toy did nothing wrong. I think he also then said the judge was wrong. Maybe I am confusing him with the other "legal expert"
Reply Quote
4
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:26a, 6/5/24
AG
Quote:
The federal judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's Florida classified documents case will allow legal scholars to participate in oral arguments for and against the constitutionality of Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon said in an order Tuesday that she would allow 30 minutes for each legal scholar to present their arguments at a June 21 hearing about why Smith may or may not have been legally appointed by the Justice Department. The hearing is part of Trump's broader effort to dismiss the 40-count indictment accusing him of willful retention of classified records and efforts to obstruct the federal government's retrieval.
Quote:
Experts arguing in favor of and against Trump's position include South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman; attorney Gene Schaerr, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia representing ex-Bush and Reagan administration U.S. Attorneys General Michael Mukasey and Edwin Meese; and Matthew Seligman, an attorney representing an anti-Trump coalition of constitutional attorneys and former ranking government officials.

Cannon previously allowed the experts to file amicus or "friend of the court" briefs for and against Trump's motions to dismiss. In May, she allowed nonparties to the case to request access to participate in oral argument at the hearing so long as they made requests by Monday.

Blackman will represent Landmark Legal Foundation and law professor Seth Barrett Tillman to argue Smith is not an "officer of the United States" but rather an "employee" whose "appointment is inconsistent with the separation of powers and political accountability."

Schaerr will provide the argument that the special counsel is a "principal officer" whose appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland should require a Senate confirmation.

"Smith does not have authority to prosecute this case," according to a brief submitted by a coalition of law professors and the group Citizens United, on which Schaerr will be basing his argument. "Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices."

Finally, Seligman will be the one dissenting voice arguing in favor of Smith, contending his "appointment Congress may vest in the Attorney General," and who still answers to, and may be removed by, Garland despite his independent role. Several prominent legal minds are behind this argument, including Watergate-era prosecutor Philip Lacovara, Harvard Law School professor emeritus Laurence Tribe, and lawyer and Trump critic George Conway, among others.
LOL. Conway?

LINK
Reply Quote
2
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:31a, 6/5/24
AG
Just a little sightseeing detour on the long road to the Hamptons.

This case never ceases to amaze me.
Reply Quote
4
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird • 11:36a, 6/5/24
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Just a little sightseeing detour on the long road to the Hamptons.

This case never ceases to amaze me.
There were efforts to get Mueller tossed along the same lines but Rosenstein was a Senate confirmed guy and he was still in control of Mueller (in theory anyway.)

Here, Garland has said he has no control over Smith.
Reply Quote
2
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird • 11:57a, 6/5/24
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Just a little sightseeing detour on the long road to the Hamptons.

This case never ceases to amaze me.
It's extra-extra-extraordinary to see a district court judge allow an amici to have oral argument (I've never seen it), but now we get to see 3 in one day! What a time.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 12:10p, 6/5/24
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Just a little sightseeing detour on the long road to the Hamptons.

This case never ceases to amaze me.
It's extra-extra-extraordinary to see a district court judge allow an amici to have oral argument (I've never seen it), but now we get to see 3 in one day! What a time.
Where were you during the Michael Flynn case? Judge Sullivan openly begged anyone who wanted to chime in.
Reply Quote
5
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 12:19p, 6/5/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
TXAggie2011 said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Just a little sightseeing detour on the long road to the Hamptons.

This case never ceases to amaze me.
It's extra-extra-extraordinary to see a district court judge allow an amici to have oral argument (I've never seen it), but now we get to see 3 in one day! What a time.
Where were you during the Michael Flynn case? Judge Sullivan openly begged anyone who wanted to chime in.
Judge Sullivan appointed an amici (John Gleeson) to argue against the government on a specific motion (Rule 48(a) motion).

Otherwise, he denied some and allowed some amici to file briefs. I don't recall ever seeing him allow any of them to argue in front of the court. Can you point to where he allowed an amici time for oral argument, outside of the court-appointed lawyer?


https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=asc
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:26p, 6/5/24
AG
Quote:
General Flynn's counsel, Sidney Powell, has filed petition for a writ of mandamus in the D.C. Circuit, seeking to have the appeals court instruct District judge Emmet Sullivan end his tantrum over the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the case. Judge Sullivan's antics include inviting a torrent of amicus briefs to help him figure out a way to deny the motion, which he must know he has no authority to do under the circumstances.
Quote:
There are many things about the submission that are worth discussing, but I just want to highlight my favorite part: Ms. Powell quotes in full Judge Sullivan's own order, dated December 20, 2017, explaining why it would be improper for a judge to allow third parties to file amicus briefs in Flynn's criminal case something he reportedly refused to permit some two dozen times before the dizzying U-turn he took a few days ago (my italics):
Quote:
MINUTE ORDER. This Court has received several motions to intervene/file an amicus brief along with letters in support from a private individual who is neither a party to this case nor counsel of record for any party. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. The Court recognizes that the movant sincerely believes that he has information to share that bears on this case, and that, understandably, he wishes to be heard. Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court's docket is not an available option. The docket is the record of official proceedings related to criminal charges brought by the United States against an individual who has pled guilty to a criminal offense. For the benefit of the parties in this case and the public, the docket must be maintained in an orderly fashion and in accordance with court rules. The movant states that he disagrees with the similar Minute Order issued by Judge Berman Jackson in Criminal Case Number 17-201, but the contrary legal authority on which he relies is neither persuasive nor applicable. Therefore, the Clerk is directed not to docket additional filings submitted by the would-be intervenor. If the individual seeks relief from this Court's rulings, he must appeal the rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/20/2017. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/20/2017).
As Flynn's mandamus petition explains, the court rules to which Sullivan refers (i.e., the rules of the court on which he sits as a judge) expressly authorize amicus brief in civil cases, but do not authorize them in criminal cases. Those are rules Sullivan used to apply . . . until he decided to stop being Flynn's judge and start being Flynn's prosecutor.
Andy McCarthy LINK
Reply Quote
3
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 12:28p, 6/5/24
AG
He allowed the filing of some amicus briefs. We're talking about allowing amicus time for oral argument.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 12:30p, 6/5/24
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Just a little sightseeing detour on the long road to the Hamptons.

This case never ceases to amaze me.
It's extra-extra-extraordinary to see a district court judge allow an amici to have oral argument (I've never seen it), but now we get to see 3 in one day! What a time.
to be fair, it's also extra-extra-extraordinary to see district court judge preside over an indictment of a former president. Even more so where the grand jury process was run out-of-venue.

Given the circumstances, I don't think anyone could possibly fault a judge for being thorough, thoughtful, and analytical throughout the process. What credible objection really exists?
Reply Quote
4
MarkTwain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 12:32p, 6/5/24
TXAggie2011 said:
He allowed the filing of some amicus briefs. We're talking about allowing amicus time for oral argument.


You're probably a pretty good lawyer because you're full of crap more than a little bit
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Reply Quote
7
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird • 12:32p, 6/5/24
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
TXAggie2011 said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Just a little sightseeing detour on the long road to the Hamptons.

This case never ceases to amaze me.
It's extra-extra-extraordinary to see a district court judge allow an amici to have oral argument (I've never seen it), but now we get to see 3 in one day! What a time.
to be fair, it's also extra-extra-extraordinary to see district court judge preside over an indictment of a former president. Even more so where the grand jury process was run out-of-venue.

Given the circumstances, I don't think anyone could possibly fault a judge for being thorough, thoughtful, and analytical throughout the process. What credible objection really exists?
I'm not saying its fair or unfair. I'm just agreeing this case never fails to amaze
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 12:33p, 6/5/24
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
He allowed the filing of some amicus briefs. We're talking about allowing amicus time for oral argument.
Because Sullivan was slapped down by the DC Circuit Court, twice.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 12:39p, 6/5/24
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
He allowed the filing of some amicus briefs. We're talking about allowing amicus time for oral argument.
They've got a rule for it, so I assume the concept is not completely foreign...
Reply Quote
2
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird • 12:42p, 6/5/24
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
TXAggie2011 said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Just a little sightseeing detour on the long road to the Hamptons.

This case never ceases to amaze me.
It's extra-extra-extraordinary to see a district court judge allow an amici to have oral argument (I've never seen it), but now we get to see 3 in one day! What a time.
to be fair, it's also extra-extra-extraordinary to see district court judge preside over an indictment of a former president. Even more so where the grand jury process was run out-of-venue.

Given the circumstances, I don't think anyone could possibly fault a judge for being thorough, thoughtful, and analytical throughout the process. What credible objection really exists?
Orange Men are always guilty so this is wasting time?
Reply Quote
1
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 12:44p, 6/5/24
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
TXAggie2011 said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Just a little sightseeing detour on the long road to the Hamptons.

This case never ceases to amaze me.
It's extra-extra-extraordinary to see a district court judge allow an amici to have oral argument (I've never seen it), but now we get to see 3 in one day! What a time.
to be fair, it's also extra-extra-extraordinary to see district court judge preside over an indictment of a former president. Even more so where the grand jury process was run out-of-venue.

Given the circumstances, I don't think anyone could possibly fault a judge for being thorough, thoughtful, and analytical throughout the process. What credible objection really exists?
I'm not saying its fair or unfair. I'm just agreeing this case never fails to amaze
Was your first bit of amazement when they brought this first of its kind case against a former POTUS in the first place?
Reply Quote
6
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 12:48p, 6/5/24
AG
Reply Quote
1 edit
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 12:52p, 6/5/24
AG
Ag with kids said:
TXAggie2011 said:
He allowed the filing of some amicus briefs. We're talking about allowing amicus time for oral argument.
They've got a rule for it, so I assume the concept is not completely foreign...
There is no rule for it in the criminal rules.


There is indeed a rule in the appellate rules. There is one rule, which says amici only get time to argue if the Appellate Court allows it.

The commentary to the rule says its only permitted "in extraordinary circumstances" or when one of the parties grants some of their allotted time to an amicus. Neither party asked for anything, so this would be "extraordinary" by definition.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
First Page Last Page
Page 99 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.