TXAggie2011 said:

---

He allowed begged for the filing of some amicus briefs. We're talking about allowing amicus time for oral argument.

---

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

---

the fact that they went forward with this case amazes me given the constitutional and statutory venue confines that were inevitable shows astonishingly bad judgment.

This should be on the front page of every newspaper.

Jack Smith was illegally appointed, which make all his cases null and void pic.twitter.com/OmyzpFFKjb

— JOSH DUNLAP (@JDunlap1974) June 6, 2024

BadMoonRisin said:

---

This should be on the front page of every newspaper.

Jack Smith was illegally appointed, which make all his cases null and void pic.twitter.com/OmyzpFFKjb

— JOSH DUNLAP (@JDunlap1974) June 6, 2024

---

It has always been the case. They do not care. They will do anything they're allowed to get away with.

And clowns equate complaining about this with prosecuting fascists like Garland, Weissmann, Comey, Wray, Merchan, Chutkan, Jack Smith, Strzok, Alvin Bragg, and others who are illegally using their positions to twist the law and jail opponents. All of these and more should rot in prison for sedition.

Quote:

---

Right now, it's just a formal invitation via letter, not a subpoena, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has demanded that Jay Bratt, a top prosecutor on Special Counsel Jack Smith's team regarding the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, produce documents and appear for a transcribed interview before the committee

---

Quote:

---

Here's how The Hill frames it:

Quote:

---

A Thursday letter to Jay Bratt accused the prosecutor of raising the specter of impropriety by taking meetings at the White House.
The inquiry gets at the heart of a favored but unsubstantiated GOP claim: that there may have been coordination between the Biden White House and those working on Trump's prosecution.

---

(Given how those "favored by unsubstantiated GOP claims" have played out repeatedly, you'll pardon my skepticism as to The Hill's skepticism.)

---

#NEWS: @Jim_Jordan demands interview with top prosecutor on Trump Mar-a-Lago case.

Excerpts: pic.twitter.com/tmWTIMfUhA

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 6, 2024

Quote:

---

Below are some of the key points from the five-page letter:

Quote:

---

As Counselor to Special Counsel Jack Smith, you have been closely involved with the investigation and prosecution of President Trump. As indicated by defense lawyers and unsealed documents, you have engaged in a series of improper actions and unethical conduct that violate the Department's duty to impartial justice. We have raised these concerns with the Department of Justice, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and the Office of Professional Responsibility to no avail. Accordingly, we are compelled to write to you directly to request your voluntary cooperation with our Constitutional oversight.
On August 8, 2022, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents conducted an unprecedented raid on the private residence of President Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Despite numerous presidents and vice presidents leaving the White House with documents that have been marked classified, including then-Vice President Biden, no Justice Department attorney or law enforcement agent had ever previously authorized a search of a former president's or vice president's home. Information obtained by the Committee suggests that this raid departed from the standard Department practices. Former Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office Steven D'Antuono informed the Committee in a transcribed interview last year that he had serious reservations with the Department's pursuit of the raid and observed several unusual features in the Department's handling of the case. Specifically, D'Antuono was concerned that (1) the FBI's Miami Field Office did not conduct the search of the president's home, which had jurisdiction by policy and practice over Mar-a-Lago; (2) the Department did not assign a U.S. Attorney's Office to the investigation, but, rather, assigned you as "the lead prosecutor on the case"; (3) the FBI never sought President Trump's consent to search his residence; and (4) the FBI did not wait for President Trump's attorney to be present before searching the president's home. As the then-lead prosecutor, you were responsible for the unprecedented and unusual features associated with the raid on President Trump's home.
According to other reports, you also met with Biden White House officials numerous times before the Special Counsel's Office indicted President Trump. In September 2021, you reportedly met with an advisor to the White House Chief of Staff. In November 2021, you again went to the White House to meet with Administration officials. Finally, on March 31, 2023, only nine weeks prior to Special Counsel Smith's indictment of President Trump, you met with the White House Counsel's Office Deputy Chief of Staff Caroline Saba for a "case-related interview." The timing and circumstances of these meetings raises, at the least, a perception of improper coordination between you and the Biden White House to investigate and prosecute President Trump.
In addition, Stanley Woodward, a lawyer representing Walt Nauta, a co-defendant in your classified documents case against President Trump, accused you of improperly pressuring him by implying that the Biden Administration would look more favorably on Mr. Woodward's candidacy for a judgeship if his client cooperated with the Office of the Special Counsel. According to Mr. Woodward, you advised him that you "wouldn't want [him] to do anything to mess that up," in reference to Mr. Woodward's judgeship application, and your desire to turn his client into a government cooperator.

---

---

Quote:

---

Jordan's letter closes by requesting a broad swath of documents pertaining to the case against Trump, including communication between Bratt, the DOJ, and the White House, communications pertaining to and drafts of the motion to modify the conditions of Trump's release, and communications with the Office of Professional Responsibility.

Additionally, the letter requests Bratt contact committee staff by June 20 to arrange a time to sit for an interview. The interview may eventually happen, but I wouldn't advise anyone holding their breath over it.

---

LINK

Quote:

---

former President Donald Trump's legal team has filed another motion to dismiss the classified documents case against him. Just Monday, we reported on Judge Aileen Cannon's ruling denying a motion to dismiss on the pleadings (which I was careful to point out is only one of several pending motions to dismiss on various grounds).

Several more motions are set for hearing the week of June 21st, including motions challenging Jack Smith's appointment as Special Counsel and seeking relief on the basis of the Mar-a-Lago raid and unlawful piercing of the attorney-client privilege.

---

Quote:

---

Now, a month after it was revealed that Smith's office mishandled some of the very documents over which they are prosecuting the former president, Trump has filed a "Motion to Dismiss Based on Spoliation of Evidence in Violation of Due Process."

---

Quote:

---

The motion asks the court to "dismiss the Superseding Indictment, and suppress all evidence seized in connection with the August 2022 raid at Mar-a-Lago, based on destruction of exculpatory evidence."

No word yet on when the latest motion will be taken up for hearing. The court already has a packed schedule the week of June 21, and the prosecution will likely need time to respond to the motion, so it is doubtful the matter will be taken up then. When it does, we will, of course, report on the developments.

---

The motion is included at the LINK

BadMoonRisin said:

---

This should be on the front page of every newspaper.

Jack Smith was illegally appointed, which make all his cases null and void pic.twitter.com/OmyzpFFKjb

— JOSH DUNLAP (@JDunlap1974) June 6, 2024

---

Not going to happen. However, if Cannon is ready to be overturned again on appeal and removed from the case, she will do so.

I think Roger Parloff is right. She'd have to work around Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of Trump, and she won't do so.

How will Cannon rule? I’ll hazard a guess. She’ll extol the force & rigor of Trump/Calabresi’s textualist or originalist arguments. Then she’ll rule against them, expressing regret that her hands are shackled by SCOTUS rulings, however flawed.
/30

— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) June 9, 2024

I guess people have forgotten about this case?

Was a in person hearing today about Jack Smith being appointed legally/illegally. More hearings on Monday/Tuesday.

Just filed today in classified docs case.

Jack Smith only yesterday gave to the defense records related to the "placeholder" cover sheets ostensibly used to indicate within a box where a classified/govt paper was found.

So they brought the scary looking TOP SECRET cover sheets… pic.twitter.com/pjKm8QaZDA

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 21, 2024

And more than a year post-indictment, Jack Smith gave the defense more scans of the unclassified materials taken during MAL raid. pic.twitter.com/PIEhzs4pO8

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 21, 2024

This is a critical issue, so Judge Cannon is right to press on it. It’s also a paradigmatic example of how Democrats like to talk out of both sides of their mouths.

On the one hand, to defeat criticism that Jack Smith works for Garland who works for Biden, ergo Smith works for… https://t.co/K06PDN1Xlk

— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) June 21, 2024

In advance of Monday’s hearing on Jack Smith’s latest proposed partial gag order on Trump, the special counsel last night filed another hyperbolic brief filled with unsubstantiated claims of bodily threats to law enforcement in docs case.

Note how Smith says “this Court.” He… pic.twitter.com/fA1DQCihVV

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 22, 2024

will25u said:

---

In advance of Monday’s hearing on Jack Smith’s latest proposed partial gag order on Trump, the special counsel last night filed another hyperbolic brief filled with unsubstantiated claims of bodily threats to law enforcement in docs case.

Note how Smith says “this Court.” He… pic.twitter.com/fA1DQCihVV

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 22, 2024

---

So having no legal background, my interpretation is this is whining about Trump loudly fighting back against what he claims are bogus charges?

Can't be having that in our Banana Republic, dissenters must be silenced.

Quote:

---

So having no legal background, my interpretation is this is whining about Trump loudly fighting back against what he claims are bogus charges?

Can't be having that in our Banana Republic, dissenters must be silenced.

---

It is.

Fascists cannot be questioned. Everything about this case violates the rule of law. The case was a setup from the start. Jack Smith is an illegal prosecutor. The DOJ has coordinated this and all of the cases. They conducted an armed raid of a former president with orders to kill if necessary. CNN knew about the raid ahead of time.

Once again, crimes have been made up, but we just have to take Joe Biden's word that there were actual crimes. The grand jury used was in DC, while the fake crimes were in Florida. The prosecution has repeatedly leaked (and lied) to the press to damage Trump, and now they want to muzzle him so they can say anything and he can't defend himself.

There is much more that I am leaving out . But this is a travesty. This is a mockery of justice. People who have voted for this should be outraged, but they're proud to vote for The Party. They are demented.

They're democrats

You would think Parloff is right since you both suffer from the same ailment

NEW: Per an order by Judge Cannon, Jack Smith just filed supplemental brief to answer 2 questions she raised during last week's hearing.

One related to the special counsels appointed by Bill Barr during GB administration.

All 3 had been Senate-confirmed federal judges: pic.twitter.com/MgT7NbyNYl

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 23, 2024

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

However, if Cannon is ready to be overturned again on appeal and removed from the case, she will do so.

I think Roger Parloff is right. She'd have to work around Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of Trump, and she won't do so.

---

Smith was absolutely illegally appointed. Not that your side cares at all. Setting all sorts of precedents

Woe be to men who call good evil and evil good. Instead, you cheerlead.

---

It boils down to a simple fact and Trump's arguments are right on point against Smith's appointment because Jack Smith needed Senate approval at some point. All others, including Robert Hur, received Senate approval albeit for different federal government positions. Smith never did. So despite what the Lawfare fanboy spews the facts are clear.

This case is still just George Costanza driving to the Hamptons.

No significant rulings until after the election. Then the judge will open fire on Biden//Smith in the worst way and not care.

Ellis Wyatt 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?

---

No, but I'm thankful there is at least one judge in this country who is actually following the Constitution.

---

I was thinking the same thing and equated it to Diogenes seeking an honest person. Maybe we found one in the judiciary. A small ray of hope.

Back in court this afternoon @ 3:00p(EDT) for a hearing about the gag order the Smith is trying to put on Trump. No word on that hearing yet.

Here is what Julie Kelly had to say about the hearing this morning about the constitutionality of Smiths appointment.

Here’s his last report

Flagging @JudiciaryGOP https://t.co/ZXiXhR8iit

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 24, 2024

Evidently the prosecutor is getting a little mouthy with the Judge because Cannon told Harbach at the today's second hearing that one of his colleagues with the prosecution could take over if he was not able to adjust his tone or act within the decorum of the court.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Evidently the prosecutor is getting a little mouthy with the Judge because Cannon told Harbach at the today's second hearing that one of his colleagues with the prosecution could take over if he was not able to adjust his tone or act within the decorum of the court.

---

Smith and his brownshirts aren't afraid of the judge. Their party is in power and they're doing the bidding of our lawless, corrupt President.

Watermelon Man said:

---

E said:

---

... our lawless, corrupt President.

---

Yet Trump is the one who tried to overthrow the US government,

---

He did? He didn't try very hard, then. All that firepower at his fingertips, and not one gun was used? Crazy!

Quote:

---

declared that the US constitution didn't have to be followed if he didn't want to

---

Oh? Yet it's Joe Biden and his goons who continue to violate Americans' First Amendment rights and censor Americans.

Quote:

---

is a convicted felon, liable for sexual assault, and he and his family members have be found to liable for fraud.

---

This is all hilarious. May you be repaid like for like.

From FLA courthouse: Gag order hearing just ended. Will have details shortly.

Overall, the bad behavior by Jack Smith's team continues. David Harbach, one of the lead prosecutors, almost got himself tossed out of court this afternoon.

After several minutes of Harbach's…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 24, 2024

will25u said:

---

From FLA courthouse: Gag order hearing just ended. Will have details shortly.

Overall, the bad behavior by Jack Smith's team continues. David Harbach, one of the lead prosecutors, almost got himself tossed out of court this afternoon.

After several minutes of Harbach's…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 24, 2024

---

The full tweet

From FLA courthouse: Gag order hearing just ended. Will have details shortly.

Overall, the bad behavior by Jack Smith's team continues. David Harbach, one of the lead prosecutors, almost got himself tossed out of court this afternoon.

After several minutes of Harbach's condescending tone--uptalking and slowly speaking as if he were addressing a child--Judge Cannon had had enough.

Cannon: "Mr. Harbach, I don't appreciate your tone. I expect decorum in my courtroom at all times. If you cannot [act appropriately], one of your colleagues can."

{Keep in mind there are no electronic devices allowed so I must rely on my scribbled notes but this is very close to what was said.)

He only got marginally better. At the end of his exchange with Cannon, he apologized to her. "I didn't mean to be unprofessional."

Ah but he did. He is not just demeaning to her, it's almost like he's tempting her to excuse him from the proceedings.

Keep in mind, during the last hearing, Cannon had to ask Harbach to "just calm down" as he was pounding on the podium and have a temper tantrum.

Aren't you all so glad we are paying these clowns?

Pearce: Special Counsel is independent counsel that can access Congressionally-enacted permanent, indefinite funding.

Cannon: So it's limitless appropriations?
Pearce: Yes, consistent with the idea of "permanent, indefinite appropriations."

Cannon: Can you provide some examples of limitless appropriations?
Pearce: Yes, I can think of two. And it means that they are not limited by time or by amount.

Cannon then started to ask Pearce about the Special Counsel's website that showed the latest expenditure report. She even drilled down on specific line items, including the total amount of expenditures for November 2022-March 2023.

Cannon: Is it $5.4 million or really $9 million?
Pearce: I'm not sure, but we can supplement w/the Court.
Cannon: That would be helpful because these are public documents.
Pearce: I understand, but your Honor, there is no case where any court has suggested that the total amount of expenditures is relevant.
Cannon: But when it's limitless, there is a separation of powers concern...
Pearce: In fact the caselaw says only to focus on the source [of funding] and the purpose [of the funding].
Cannon: Don't interrupt me.

Cannon: What about other funding sources?
Pearce: The DOJ has over a billion dollars that can be used as appropriations to fund the Special Counsel's Office.

Cannon: What happens to prior expenditures (in the event the court rules that SCO isn't allowed to use this funding)?
Pearce: SCOTUS says that you don't look to undo acts that have already happened. So there is no change or effect at all retrospectively.

Pearce: There is "sufficient independence" and the special counsel "strikes that balance of independence and accountability." Pearce furthers that the special counsel can and should be able to operate outside of the DOJ.

Cannon: Are there any examples that you can think of when an Attorney General rescinds or modifies order of appointment of SC?
Pearce: I can't think of any examples where regulations were rescinded midstream, other than perhaps the Saturday Night Massacre.
Cannon: So this idea of rescission is illusory?
Pearce: That is not in the least correct.

Pearce: So it's not really a question of whether the rescission happened or not, it's how is the power structured.
Cannon: Janet Reno said it's too much political pressure to yank a special prosecutor.
Pearce: There is a presumption of regularity. As far as our SC are concerned, SC have complied with specific framework, complying with DOJ policies, etc. The test of what makes someone a "principal officer" is not whether they are President-nominated and Senate-confirmed.

Cannon: I beg to differ that's exactly what the test is. I suggest you try harder next time.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Pearce: Special Counsel is independent counsel that can access Congressionally-enacted permanent, indefinite funding.

Cannon: So it's limitless appropriations?
Pearce: Yes, consistent with the idea of "permanent, indefinite appropriations."

Cannon: Can you provide some examples of limitless appropriations?
Pearce: Yes, I can think of two. And it means that they are not limited by time or by amount.

Cannon then started to ask Pearce about the Special Counsel's website that showed the latest expenditure report. She even drilled down on specific line items, including the total amount of expenditures for November 2022-March 2023.

Cannon: Is it $5.4 million or really $9 million?
Pearce: I'm not sure, but we can supplement w/the Court.
Cannon: That would be helpful because these are public documents.
Pearce: I understand, but your Honor, there is no case where any court has suggested that the total amount of expenditures is relevant.
Cannon: But when it's limitless, there is a separation of powers concern...
Pearce: In fact the caselaw says only to focus on the source [of funding] and the purpose [of the funding].
Cannon: Don't interrupt me.

Cannon: What about other funding sources?
Pearce: The DOJ has over a billion dollars that can be used as appropriations to fund the Special Counsel's Office.

Cannon: What happens to prior expenditures (in the event the court rules that SCO isn't allowed to use this funding)?
Pearce: SCOTUS says that you don't look to undo acts that have already happened. So there is no change or effect at all retrospectively.

Pearce: There is "sufficient independence" and the special counsel "strikes that balance of independence and accountability." Pearce furthers that the special counsel can and should be able to operate outside of the DOJ.

Cannon: Are there any examples that you can think of when an Attorney General rescinds or modifies order of appointment of SC?
Pearce: I can't think of any examples where regulations were rescinded midstream, other than perhaps the Saturday Night Massacre.
Cannon: So this idea of rescission is illusory?
Pearce: That is not in the least correct.

Pearce: So it's not really a question of whether the rescission happened or not, it's how is the power structured.
Cannon: Janet Reno said it's too much political pressure to yank a special prosecutor.
Pearce: There is a presumption of regularity. As far as our SC are concerned, SC have complied with specific framework, complying with DOJ policies, etc. The test of what makes someone a "principal officer" is not whether they are President-nominated and Senate-confirmed.

Cannon: I beg to differ that's exactly what the test is. I suggest you try harder next time.

---

Haven't gotten into the weeds on it yet, but something from the DC opinion on mueller was interesting. Probably discussed here but not sure. Very likely part of briefing on it. Independent counsels use to be provided for "by law." Then that law expired. And the AG just made their own "regulation" to keep that power right before the law expired. More giving up power to the executive branch that congress hasn't fought. our congress has really failed us in allowing the executive branch to have so much power and never even attempt to suppress that power (and the judiciary through chevron).

So my notes from today's afternoon hearing on Jack Smith's proposed gag order making Donald Trump's comments that allegedly pose a "significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger" to law enforcement in the case an arrestable offense.

David Harbach, one of Smith's lead…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 25, 2024

will25u said:

---

So my notes from today's afternoon hearing on Jack Smith's proposed gag order making Donald Trump's comments that allegedly pose a "significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger" to law enforcement in the case an arrestable offense.

David Harbach, one of Smith's lead…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 25, 2024

---

Quote:

---

Harbach: You want to say how unfair the MAL raid was? "Knock yourself out." But it is "over the line" for Trump to use his TS account to promote "false lies" about the FBI coming "to do violence against him and his family."

"That is out of bounds and should not be tolerated" says unelected unaccountable David Harbach.

Even more telling. Harbach urged Cannon to do something proactively "before something terrible happens."

Bookmark this.

---

False flag incoming...

captkirk said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

E said:

---

... our lawless, corrupt President.

---

Yet Trump is the one who tried to overthrow the US government, declared that the US constitution didn't have to be followed if he didn't want to, is a convicted felon, liable for sexual assault, and he and his family members have be found to liable for fraud.

But, Biden is the lawless, corrupt one. Yeah, sure. Lots of evidence to back that up, I'm sure.

Oh, I guess I forgot. Hunter! Hunter! Hunter! Laptop!!!

---

You really kind of have to marvel at and admire this level of gaslighting

---

Nuh uh!

You're not the boss of me!!!1