Trump indicted over classified documents

265,996 Views | 3603 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by HTownAg98
Im Gipper
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 • 3:54p, 6/26/24
Team Trump's actual legal arguments often different from what the Internet experts say the arguments are/should be!


I'm Gipper
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
2:46p, 6/27/24





Reply Quote
1
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:48p, 6/27/24

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 • 2:51p, 6/27/24
Quote:
She's going to make the government unwittingly prove that it was lying.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
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 • 2:57p, 6/27/24
will25u said:
The prosecution are absolute goons. Completely unethical. Attacking the foundation of our Republic.

Reply Quote
9
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:07p, 6/27/24
AG
Quote:
Cannon wants the full record behind Howell's decision and to hold a hearing related to the process. She has made several public comments expressing her frustration that most of the DOJ's investigation in the docs case occurred in DC rather than southern Florida.

Getting favorable rulings by Howell is why.

And the DC court is still concealing the records including GJ transcripts.
FTR: Separate criminal cases falls squarely within Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Evidence exceptions to grand jury secrecy. No reason for those to be withheld.

ETA: Not from the judge, at least.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:36p, 6/27/24
AG
Quote:
The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump's classified documents case said on Thursday that she intended to look anew at a hugely consequential legal victory that prosecutors won last year and that served as a cornerstone of the obstruction charges filed against Mr. Trump.
Quote:
In her ruling, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, said she would hold a hearing to reconsider another judge's decision to allow prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Mr. Trump's lawyers under what is known as the crime-fraud exception. ...

Depending on how Judge Cannon ultimately rules, her decision to redo the fraught and lengthy legal arguments about the crime-fraud exception could deal a serious blow to the obstruction charges in the indictment of Mr. Trump.
Quote:
The NYT coverage here is a bit snotty, but Trump's team has the right to challenge this issue, and it's well within Cannon's authority to hear arguments on it. A number of commentators objected to Beryl Howell's ruling 17 months ago, most notably Alan Dershowitz, as a politically motivated attack on legal representation. Evan Corcoran no longer works for Trump but has also never been indicted for any crime connected to this case either. That may have made Cannon curious enough to take a second look.
Via Hot Air.
Reply Quote
5
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:38p, 6/27/24
It's all a shell game, like Bragg's NY prosecution. There is nothing actually under the shells. Just take their words for it that there is.
Reply Quote
7
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:53p, 6/27/24
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
3:58p, 6/27/24
AG
Rest of tweet:
Quote:
The FL judge has denied the Trump defense request for a Franks hearing, but IS GRANTING the request for an evidentiary hearing on the balance of the motion to suppress.

This is over the "vigorous opposition" of the Special Counsel as described by the Order.

This means to FBI Agents and MAYBE DOJ officials will likely be questioned under oath about the search warrant and the execution of the search.

The Govt NEVER wants there to be such an evidentiary hearing prior to trial because so much info can be developed by the defense prior to trial that would otherwise not be the case.

ANY time you can get Govt witnesses under oath in a transcript, you have more info to work with in preparing for trial or to otherwise challenge the case.

HUGE development -- known to those of us who understand where they path might lead.
Reply Quote
8
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:14p, 6/27/24
Edit: shipwrecked already posted.

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:34a, 7/1/24
Seems important to this case, since the Judge is having hearings in reference to Jack Smith being not appointed correctly.




Reply Quote
8
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:22a, 7/2/24

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
1:22p, 7/2/24
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
1:28p, 7/2/24
AG
As Good Lawgic has said only four words were missing from Thomas' concurrence and those are, "Dear Judge Aileen Cannon," LOL.

BTW, his son Jamal, lives in Florida and is good friends with Steve Gosney. Jamal is visited often by his Dad. Point being, Thomas may very well know Judge Cannon.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:28p, 7/2/24
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:16p, 7/6/24
AG
Judge Cannon granted a temporary stay on two deadlines a July 8 deadline for expert disclosures and a July 10 deadline related to CIPA litigation.

Reply Quote
1
nortex97
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 aggiehawg • 4:45p, 7/6/24
AG
Also related to SCOTUS opinion, and Thomas concurrence re: constitutionality of Smith appointment/office;



Reply Quote
1
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 nortex97 • 4:48p, 7/6/24
AG
LOL. The only four words missing from the Thomas concurring opinion were, "Dear Judge Cannon,"
Reply Quote
3
jt2hunt
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 aggiehawg • 4:53p, 7/6/24
AG
3
Reply Quote
2
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 jt2hunt • 5:00p, 7/6/24
AG
jt2hunt said:
3
Forgot to add "Aileen"
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
5:27p, 7/7/24
Reply Quote
4
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:54a, 7/15/24
102-pages later and the story ends after the defendant is shot in the ear.
Reply Quote
2
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:17a, 7/15/24
This was all an amazing *******ization of our justice system. How far the democrat party has fallen!

Shame.
Reply Quote
6
MiamiHopper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:16p, 7/15/24
For those who were keeping track

Reply Quote
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 MiamiHopper • 1:22p, 7/15/24
AG
And? This was completely about the appointment of special prosecutor Keith. Did those motions have anything to do with that?
Reply Quote
7
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 • 1:26p, 7/15/24
MiamiHopper said:
For those who were keeping track

Good. The whole case was a sham and the prosecutor illegally appointed. He also trampled all over Trump's constitutional rights. Biden failed again.
Reply Quote
7
MiamiHopper
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 • 1:36p, 7/15/24
FYI I am not the Keef/Keith poster that people keep inferring. This is my only account.
Reply Quote
Larry S Ross
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:44p, 7/15/24
Larry S Ross
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 MiamiHopper • 1:46p, 7/15/24
AG
I believe she wrote in her decision all undecided motions were moot.


Edited for spelling
Good Day.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
The Last Cobra Commander
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:48p, 7/15/24
AG
"The leftist is driven by something other than facts and can't be cured."
Reply Quote
4
SwigAg11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Larry S Ross • 1:48p, 7/15/24
AG
Larry S Ross said:
I believe she wrote in her decision all undecided motions were mute.
She did write that. It then makes sense that she would want to rule on Jack Smith's appointment and leave the others unfinished. Otherwise, why waste time on motions that would possibly be rendered moot.
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
2:03p, 7/15/24
AG
Reminder: one the most central inquiries for any court hearing a matter is whether they have jurisdiction to hear it. All initiating pleadings have jurisdiction cited for that court at the very top of their pleadings.

The second inquiry is whether the proper parties are being brought before the court. Sometimes we boo standing issues but they are important. And that's exactly what Cannon was focused on, Smith's authority to come before her court and in which capacity. Was he the proper party to bring this indictment? Did he have that authority?

Answer: No he did not. Thus everything he did was ultra vires and void ab initio.
Reply Quote
3
SwigAg11
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 • 6:32p, 7/15/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
Reminder: one the most central inquiries for any court hearing a matter is whether they have jurisdiction to hear it. All initiating pleadings have jurisdiction cited for that court at the very top of their pleadings.

The second inquiry is whether the proper parties are being brought before the court. Sometimes we boo standing issues but they are important. And that's exactly what Cannon was focused on, Smith's authority to come before her court and in which capacity. Was he the proper party to bring this indictment? Did he have that authority?

Answer: No he did not. Thus everything he did was ultra vires and void ab initio.
If this gets upheld (possibly to SCOTUS), what would be the repercussions for other individuals who were criminally convicted by special counsels that were never confirmed? Would their convictions need to be reexamined? Are there other individuals who fall into this category?
Reply Quote
1
maroonthrunthru
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:39p, 7/15/24
Two down… Two to go…
Reply Quote
3
First Page
Page 102 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.