User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 11:31:37 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION:
Some mini bombshells out of this afternoon's court hearing in Florida classified docs case. First, things continue to get spicy between Judge Cannon and Jack Smith's team. She expressed great frustration at what she called "secrecy" surrounding grand jury materials in DC. Keep in mind--DOJ then Jack Smith conducted nearly the entire investigation in Trump-hating DC then switched to FLA at last minute for indictment. Cannon said there is something "ambiguous going on in the background" and commented that it is "impossible to really know" why grand jury materials remain in DC, some under seal. She pushed Jay Bratt, Smith's lead prosecutor, to explain why records from a closed grand jury matter must remain sealed. Apparently one matter involves Judge Beryl Howell's order that pierced attorney-client privilege between Trump and his lawyer. Defense attorney Stanley Woodward said he has asked DC court to docket his requests for certain GJ materials. They have "declined," he told Cannon.
Second--and stunningly--Jay Bratt basically admitted they do not have proof that Walt Nauta, charged with conspiring with Trump to conceal classified files from Trump's lawyer then the FBI to impede grand jury investigation, moved boxes that actually contained papers with classified markings. He also indicated he did not believe DOJ would have to prove that at trial. HUH? That prompted a heated response by Woodward. "Show us the evidence" he said. If, as Bratt stated, they can't or don't have to prove Nauta moved boxes with records with classified markings "there is no crime." DOJ making "assumptions" that any boxes Nauta moved contained sought-after evidence. And get this: All the boxes retrieved during MAL raid are at the corrupt Washington FBI field office. Agents apparently removed the alleged "classified documents" and put some sort of marking as to where the contraband paper was in the box. Suuuure.
Third, SCOTUS review of 1512c2 with oral arguments set for Tuesday also could impact this case. (It will impact Smith's J6 case in DC). Much debate centered on the proper definition of "corruptly," which is a source of contention in the application of 1512c2 in J6 cases. It's unclear whether SCOTUS will provide a definition to bring some clarity to the vague obstruction of an official proceeding statute. Some discussion about split decisions at DC circuit in both Fischer and Robertson--so SCOTUS ruling on 1512c2 will be consequential for Smith in two cases. (More on this in a weekend column.)
My guess is Cannon will again deny motions to dismiss based on vagueness of 1512 charges. But not sure what she will decide in terms of defense request for a bill of particulars to further elucidate DOJ's evidence. Bratt really struggled to explain how Nauta and DeOlivera knew about the FBI investigation and/or two subpoenas for documents and footage. As I have said, this case is garbage. It always impossible to know which boxes--and Trump apparently uses boxes all the time to transport newspapers, personal items, etc--had classified papers (allegedly) and which did not. I silently laugh at all the ConInc legal experts who insisted this case was legit. But of course those are the same folks who aren't covering these proceedings now so... It's rather disconcerting to see somebody who claims to be a journalist say something like "this case is garbage"... 
|
|
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 11:34:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: It's rather disconcerting to see somebody who claims to be a journalist say something like "this case is garbage"... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 11:51:17 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 11:55:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 8:59:36 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION:
Some mini bombshells out of this afternoon's court hearing in Florida classified docs case. First, things continue to get spicy between Judge Cannon and Jack Smith's team. She expressed great frustration at what she called "secrecy" surrounding grand jury materials in DC. Keep in mind--DOJ then Jack Smith conducted nearly the entire investigation in Trump-hating DC then switched to FLA at last minute for indictment. Cannon said there is something "ambiguous going on in the background" and commented that it is "impossible to really know" why grand jury materials remain in DC, some under seal. She pushed Jay Bratt, Smith's lead prosecutor, to explain why records from a closed grand jury matter must remain sealed. Apparently one matter involves Judge Beryl Howell's order that pierced attorney-client privilege between Trump and his lawyer. Defense attorney Stanley Woodward said he has asked DC court to docket his requests for certain GJ materials. They have "declined," he told Cannon.
Second--and stunningly--Jay Bratt basically admitted they do not have proof that Walt Nauta, charged with conspiring with Trump to conceal classified files from Trump's lawyer then the FBI to impede grand jury investigation, moved boxes that actually contained papers with classified markings. He also indicated he did not believe DOJ would have to prove that at trial. HUH? That prompted a heated response by Woodward. "Show us the evidence" he said. If, as Bratt stated, they can't or don't have to prove Nauta moved boxes with records with classified markings "there is no crime." DOJ making "assumptions" that any boxes Nauta moved contained sought-after evidence. And get this: All the boxes retrieved during MAL raid are at the corrupt Washington FBI field office. Agents apparently removed the alleged "classified documents" and put some sort of marking as to where the contraband paper was in the box. Suuuure.
Third, SCOTUS review of 1512c2 with oral arguments set for Tuesday also could impact this case. (It will impact Smith's J6 case in DC). Much debate centered on the proper definition of "corruptly," which is a source of contention in the application of 1512c2 in J6 cases. It's unclear whether SCOTUS will provide a definition to bring some clarity to the vague obstruction of an official proceeding statute. Some discussion about split decisions at DC circuit in both Fischer and Robertson--so SCOTUS ruling on 1512c2 will be consequential for Smith in two cases. (More on this in a weekend column.)
My guess is Cannon will again deny motions to dismiss based on vagueness of 1512 charges. But not sure what she will decide in terms of defense request for a bill of particulars to further elucidate DOJ's evidence. Bratt really struggled to explain how Nauta and DeOlivera knew about the FBI investigation and/or two subpoenas for documents and footage. As I have said, this case is garbage. It always impossible to know which boxes--and Trump apparently uses boxes all the time to transport newspapers, personal items, etc--had classified papers (allegedly) and which did not. I silently laugh at all the ConInc legal experts who insisted this case was legit. But of course those are the same folks who aren't covering these proceedings now so... Trump has nothing to worry about then. This will be another farce, and he will make the criminal justice system look like a pile of turds. Trump wins. You guys get to say “I told you so.” |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 9:23:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: nu3gawhat]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION:
Some mini bombshells out of this afternoon's court hearing in Florida classified docs case. First, things continue to get spicy between Judge Cannon and Jack Smith's team. She expressed great frustration at what she called "secrecy" surrounding grand jury materials in DC. Keep in mind--DOJ then Jack Smith conducted nearly the entire investigation in Trump-hating DC then switched to FLA at last minute for indictment. Cannon said there is something "ambiguous going on in the background" and commented that it is "impossible to really know" why grand jury materials remain in DC, some under seal. She pushed Jay Bratt, Smith's lead prosecutor, to explain why records from a closed grand jury matter must remain sealed. Apparently one matter involves Judge Beryl Howell's order that pierced attorney-client privilege between Trump and his lawyer. Defense attorney Stanley Woodward said he has asked DC court to docket his requests for certain GJ materials. They have "declined," he told Cannon.
Second--and stunningly--Jay Bratt basically admitted they do not have proof that Walt Nauta, charged with conspiring with Trump to conceal classified files from Trump's lawyer then the FBI to impede grand jury investigation, moved boxes that actually contained papers with classified markings. He also indicated he did not believe DOJ would have to prove that at trial. HUH? That prompted a heated response by Woodward. "Show us the evidence" he said. If, as Bratt stated, they can't or don't have to prove Nauta moved boxes with records with classified markings "there is no crime." DOJ making "assumptions" that any boxes Nauta moved contained sought-after evidence. And get this: All the boxes retrieved during MAL raid are at the corrupt Washington FBI field office. Agents apparently removed the alleged "classified documents" and put some sort of marking as to where the contraband paper was in the box. Suuuure.
Third, SCOTUS review of 1512c2 with oral arguments set for Tuesday also could impact this case. (It will impact Smith's J6 case in DC). Much debate centered on the proper definition of "corruptly," which is a source of contention in the application of 1512c2 in J6 cases. It's unclear whether SCOTUS will provide a definition to bring some clarity to the vague obstruction of an official proceeding statute. Some discussion about split decisions at DC circuit in both Fischer and Robertson--so SCOTUS ruling on 1512c2 will be consequential for Smith in two cases. (More on this in a weekend column.)
My guess is Cannon will again deny motions to dismiss based on vagueness of 1512 charges. But not sure what she will decide in terms of defense request for a bill of particulars to further elucidate DOJ's evidence. Bratt really struggled to explain how Nauta and DeOlivera knew about the FBI investigation and/or two subpoenas for documents and footage. As I have said, this case is garbage. It always impossible to know which boxes--and Trump apparently uses boxes all the time to transport newspapers, personal items, etc--had classified papers (allegedly) and which did not. I silently laugh at all the ConInc legal experts who insisted this case was legit. But of course those are the same folks who aren't covering these proceedings now so... Interesting. Figuers there is shenanigans going on. Doesnt want to have to prove boxes that were moved actually contained classified material. Or that those who were involved even knew anything beyond moving some boxes. Which is the basis for whether or not a crime took place. And I knew there was something more to do with the DC grand jury and this case going on than the Trump Persecution supporters were trying to have us believe. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 9:31:39 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: It's rather disconcerting to see somebody who claims to be a journalist say something like "this case is garbage"... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:18:55 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION:
Some mini bombshells out of this afternoon's court hearing in Florida classified docs case. First, things continue to get spicy between Judge Cannon and Jack Smith's team. She expressed great frustration at what she called "secrecy" surrounding grand jury materials in DC. Keep in mind--DOJ then Jack Smith conducted nearly the entire investigation in Trump-hating DC then switched to FLA at last minute for indictment. Cannon said there is something "ambiguous going on in the background" and commented that it is "impossible to really know" why grand jury materials remain in DC, some under seal. She pushed Jay Bratt, Smith's lead prosecutor, to explain why records from a closed grand jury matter must remain sealed. Apparently one matter involves Judge Beryl Howell's order that pierced attorney-client privilege between Trump and his lawyer. Defense attorney Stanley Woodward said he has asked DC court to docket his requests for certain GJ materials. They have "declined," he told Cannon.
Second--and stunningly--Jay Bratt basically admitted they do not have proof that Walt Nauta, charged with conspiring with Trump to conceal classified files from Trump's lawyer then the FBI to impede grand jury investigation, moved boxes that actually contained papers with classified markings. He also indicated he did not believe DOJ would have to prove that at trial. HUH? That prompted a heated response by Woodward. "Show us the evidence" he said. If, as Bratt stated, they can't or don't have to prove Nauta moved boxes with records with classified markings "there is no crime." DOJ making "assumptions" that any boxes Nauta moved contained sought-after evidence. And get this: All the boxes retrieved during MAL raid are at the corrupt Washington FBI field office. Agents apparently removed the alleged "classified documents" and put some sort of marking as to where the contraband paper was in the box. Suuuure.
Third, SCOTUS review of 1512c2 with oral arguments set for Tuesday also could impact this case. (It will impact Smith's J6 case in DC). Much debate centered on the proper definition of "corruptly," which is a source of contention in the application of 1512c2 in J6 cases. It's unclear whether SCOTUS will provide a definition to bring some clarity to the vague obstruction of an official proceeding statute. Some discussion about split decisions at DC circuit in both Fischer and Robertson--so SCOTUS ruling on 1512c2 will be consequential for Smith in two cases. (More on this in a weekend column.)
My guess is Cannon will again deny motions to dismiss based on vagueness of 1512 charges. But not sure what she will decide in terms of defense request for a bill of particulars to further elucidate DOJ's evidence. Bratt really struggled to explain how Nauta and DeOlivera knew about the FBI investigation and/or two subpoenas for documents and footage. As I have said, this case is garbage. It always impossible to know which boxes--and Trump apparently uses boxes all the time to transport newspapers, personal items, etc--had classified papers (allegedly) and which did not. I silently laugh at all the ConInc legal experts who insisted this case was legit. But of course those are the same folks who aren't covering these proceedings now so...  piles of evidence
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 11:40:21 AM EDT
[#9]
I think this conversation has probably run its course, but I was cleaning up some browser tabs and found a little bit more to add. This is from the appeals court ruling at the beginning of this saga way back in 2022 regarding the appointment of a special master:
  Trump's team could have appealed that to the Supreme Court and we would have a ruling by now. If it was that obvious that Trump could do whatever he wanted regarding declassification and also declaring anything he wants to be personal records, seems like they missed the opportunity for a slam dunk ruling, right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 12:13:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#10]
PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right?
Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 12:41:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Are you a constitutional attorney? No matter the answer I am curious why have you not reached out to Trump personally to defend him at his trials? You seem to have his defense perfectly ironed out and you should be able to walk into the next hearing with a motion to dismiss that cannot be denied. Trump would be a fool not to put you on his defense team. If the judge refuses to dismiss the case after hearing you quote the things you have been coping and pasting because he’s dirty. Then you could put on Trump’s defense to the jury who you could assist Trump’s attorneys choose from the jury pool. They would have to let him go. I mean when the prosecution side puts on their case they don’t even have a valid law to put on the verdict sheet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 12:46:54 PM EDT
[#12]
Here’s and interesting article from the hostile MSM in 2017:
SCOTUS: “The president's] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security … flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the president and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant," Navy v. Egan is quite a read. Consider this… I consider what Snowden did was clearly espionage, and were we at war with Russia or China, Treason. BUT…if Obama had unilaterally decided that the activities of the IC regarding surveillance and collection against Americans and Allies were immoral and needed to end, and disclosed those programs to the world… That would have been within his authority and perfectly lawful. I would have opposed the decision, but not the fact that it was lawful. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 12:48:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Are you a constitutional attorney? No matter the answer I am curious why have you not reached out to Trump personally to defend him at his trials? You seem to have his defense perfectly ironed out and you should be able to walk into the next hearing with a motion to dismiss that cannot be denied. Trump would be a fool not to put you on his defense team. If the judge refuses to dismiss the case after hearing you quote the things you have been coping and pasting because he’s dirty. Then you could put on Trump’s defense to the jury who you could assist Trump’s attorneys choose from the jury pool. They would have to let him go. I mean when the prosecution side puts on their case they don’t even have a valid law to put on the verdict sheet. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Are you a constitutional attorney? No matter the answer I am curious why have you not reached out to Trump personally to defend him at his trials? You seem to have his defense perfectly ironed out and you should be able to walk into the next hearing with a motion to dismiss that cannot be denied. Trump would be a fool not to put you on his defense team. If the judge refuses to dismiss the case after hearing you quote the things you have been coping and pasting because he’s dirty. Then you could put on Trump’s defense to the jury who you could assist Trump’s attorneys choose from the jury pool. They would have to let him go. I mean when the prosecution side puts on their case they don’t even have a valid law to put on the verdict sheet. This will end up before SCOTUS. No one denies this. The defense is building towards that. I think they are doing just fine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 1:02:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: GutWrench]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: This will end up before SCOTUS. No one denies this. The defense is building towards that. I think they are doing just fine. If he lives long enough I believe you are right. However prison life will not be easy for a man who has lived the way Trump has. If he makes it a year in solitary I will be surprised. Probably will be a few more Trump hating commies on the SCOTUS by the time they hear it also. He’s pretty much fucked either way. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 1:11:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nu3gawhat: And I knew there was something more to do with the DC grand jury and this case going on than the Trump Persecution supporters were trying to have us believe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 2:03:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 2:05:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Here’s and interesting article from the hostile MSM in 2017: SCOTUS: “The president's] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security … flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the president and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant," Navy v. Egan is quite a read. Consider this… I consider what Snowden did was clearly espionage, and were we at war with Russia or China, Treason. BUT…if Obama had unilaterally decided that the activities of the IC regarding surveillance and collection against Americans and Allies were immoral and needed to end, and disclosed those programs to the world… That would have been within his authority and perfectly lawful. I would have opposed the decision, but not the fact that it was lawful. A red herring will always be a red herring, no matter how many times you repeat it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 3:17:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: If he lives long enough I believe you are right. However prison life will not be easy for a man who has lived the way Trump has. If he makes it a year in solitary I will be surprised. Probably will be a few more Trump hating commies on the SCOTUS by the time they hear it also. He’s pretty much fucked either way. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: This will end up before SCOTUS. No one denies this. The defense is building towards that. I think they are doing just fine. If he lives long enough I believe you are right. However prison life will not be easy for a man who has lived the way Trump has. If he makes it a year in solitary I will be surprised. Probably will be a few more Trump hating commies on the SCOTUS by the time they hear it also. He’s pretty much fucked either way. You’re very silly |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 3:19:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? You might not be aware of this, but appeals to the SCOTUS happen, because lower courts deny the appeal, first. This WILL end up before the SCOTUS. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 3:21:03 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: A red herring will always be a red herring, no matter how many times you repeat it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Here’s and interesting article from the hostile MSM in 2017: SCOTUS: “The president's] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security … flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the president and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant," Navy v. Egan is quite a read. Consider this… I consider what Snowden did was clearly espionage, and were we at war with Russia or China, Treason. BUT…if Obama had unilaterally decided that the activities of the IC regarding surveillance and collection against Americans and Allies were immoral and needed to end, and disclosed those programs to the world… That would have been within his authority and perfectly lawful. I would have opposed the decision, but not the fact that it was lawful. A red herring will always be a red herring, no matter how many times you repeat it. Name a decision by SCOTUS that would indicate how they would decide about a Presidential power to declassify. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 3:25:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Trump has nothing to worry about then. This will be another farce, and he will make the criminal justice system look like a pile of turds. Trump wins. You guys get to say “I told you so.” I think people would prefer a justice system that is fair and impartial |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 3:34:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You might not be aware of this, but appeals to the SCOTUS happen, because lower courts deny the appeal, first. This WILL end up before the SCOTUS. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? You might not be aware of this, but appeals to the SCOTUS happen, because lower courts deny the appeal, first. This WILL end up before the SCOTUS. Maybe. But if they do take it, it won't be to say that actually the President can declassify in his mind without telling anybody, and he can unilaterally declare anything he wants to be personal records. The idea that Trump's team is playing 4D chess by not appealing yet is silly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 4:01:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: If he lives long enough I believe you are right. However prison life will not be easy for a man who has lived the way Trump has. If he makes it a year in solitary I will be surprised. Probably will be a few more Trump hating commies on the SCOTUS by the time they hear it also. He’s pretty much fucked either way. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: This will end up before SCOTUS. No one denies this. The defense is building towards that. I think they are doing just fine. If he lives long enough I believe you are right. However prison life will not be easy for a man who has lived the way Trump has. If he makes it a year in solitary I will be surprised. Probably will be a few more Trump hating commies on the SCOTUS by the time they hear it also. He’s pretty much fucked either way. He's not going to prison. Putting a President in prison is logistically impossible. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 4:18:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Maybe. But if they do take it, it won't be to say that actually the President can declassify in his mind without telling anybody, and he can unilaterally declare anything he wants to be personal records. The idea that Trump's team is playing 4D chess by not appealing yet is silly. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? You might not be aware of this, but appeals to the SCOTUS happen, because lower courts deny the appeal, first. This WILL end up before the SCOTUS. Maybe. But if they do take it, it won't be to say that actually the President can declassify in his mind without telling anybody, and he can unilaterally declare anything he wants to be personal records. The idea that Trump's team is playing 4D chess by not appealing yet is silly. There is no doubt that this case (and others) will end up at SCOTUS. You know this, and Trump’s lawyers know this. That’s checkers. When Heller lost the initial appeals, your fellow democrats were all cheering for those “losses,” not realizing that they were enabling an ultimate victory for gun owners, and a ruling that would enshrine RKBA as an individual right. “The idea that Heller’s team is playing 4D chess by not appealing yet is silly” |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 4:27:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? They say that because he can't show a need for those documents that he shouldn't have them. That is the same argument that gun grabbers make for wanting to take our AR15s. Either way it shouldn't matter because in both cases we have a right to them under the Constitution. And you again arguing against Constitutional rights this time based off of a lack of need shows again that you are on the wrong website. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 5:19:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You’re very silly If the judge is crooked enough for this to go forward with no crime even committed. You think they are going to delay sentencing while they wait on him to file for appeals? You guys cannot have it both ways. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 5:24:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: GutWrench]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gspointer: I think people would prefer a justice system that is fair and impartial I agree. But these guys are claiming it’s all fake. The judge is going to entertain this in his court and it’s not even real. Trump didn’t even break a law. How do you complete a verdict sheet for the jurors to complete after deliberating if there is no statute to put on the paper. It makes no sense. The prosecutors have to prove Trump broke a law. Cincinnatus is claiming there is no such law for a president to commit a crime. So what the he’ll are they going to put on the verdict sheet? There has to be something or they can’t find him guilty of anything. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 5:31:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: They say that because he can't show a need for those documents that he shouldn't have them. That is the same argument that gun grabbers make for wanting to take our AR15s. Either way it shouldn't matter because in both cases we have a right to them under the Constitution. And you again arguing against Constitutional rights this time based off of a lack of need shows again that you are on the wrong website. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? They say that because he can't show a need for those documents that he shouldn't have them. That is the same argument that gun grabbers make for wanting to take our AR15s. Either way it shouldn't matter because in both cases we have a right to them under the Constitution. And you again arguing against Constitutional rights this time based off of a lack of need shows again that you are on the wrong website. Where in the Constitution does it talk about presidential records vs personal records? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 5:46:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Where in the Constitution does it talk about presidential records vs personal records? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? They say that because he can't show a need for those documents that he shouldn't have them. That is the same argument that gun grabbers make for wanting to take our AR15s. Either way it shouldn't matter because in both cases we have a right to them under the Constitution. And you again arguing against Constitutional rights this time based off of a lack of need shows again that you are on the wrong website. Where in the Constitution does it talk about presidential records vs personal records? Great question. Nowhere. DISMISSED: In the case of CREW v. Trump, the court reasoned that mandamus relief (i.e. a court order) is available only under extraordinary circumstances, and that a President’s record-keeping duties under the PRA are too discretionary to be enforced by court order. In short, the court found that judges may review the classification of existing records, but a court may not direct the President to affirmatively create and preserve particular records under the PRA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 8:25:52 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Great question. Nowhere. DISMISSED: In the case of CREW v. Trump, the court reasoned that mandamus relief (i.e. a court order) is available only under extraordinary circumstances, and that a President’s record-keeping duties under the PRA are too discretionary to be enforced by court order. In short, the court found that judges may review the classification of existing records, but a court may not direct the President to affirmatively create and preserve particular records under the PRA. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? They say that because he can't show a need for those documents that he shouldn't have them. That is the same argument that gun grabbers make for wanting to take our AR15s. Either way it shouldn't matter because in both cases we have a right to them under the Constitution. And you again arguing against Constitutional rights this time based off of a lack of need shows again that you are on the wrong website. Where in the Constitution does it talk about presidential records vs personal records? Great question. Nowhere. DISMISSED: In the case of CREW v. Trump, the court reasoned that mandamus relief (i.e. a court order) is available only under extraordinary circumstances, and that a President’s record-keeping duties under the PRA are too discretionary to be enforced by court order. In short, the court found that judges may review the classification of existing records, but a court may not direct the President to affirmatively create and preserve particular records under the PRA. But he was telling me that I was arguing against constitutional rights...?  Anyway, once again I'm wondering if you read your links before posting. The courts have made it clear that the president alone decides how he keeps records, but not which records to classify as presidential versus personal. It's literally right there in your link. So why do you continue to insist the opposite? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:22:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AdLucem]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: This WILL end up before the SCOTUS. This case will very likely go before a multiple judge panel in the appellate/circuit court. Given that judge Cannon has already been overturned, twice (an amazing feat in a single action that has not yet reached trial), so it would be safe to say that we may likely see more of the same. While there may ultimately be appeals of those higher court decisions to the Supreme Court, the appellate courts have far more capable jurists and there is far less likelihood that those appellate decisions are disturbed. The Supreme Court may as it usually does, decline to hear the case or review the decision of the lower court. If four Justices do not agree to do so, the Court will not hear the case. This is defined as denying certiorari…. Or they may send it back to the district with specific direction or limited instruction. …and yes while there is always a possibility they may do a full court review, they have for the most part declined to disturb, almost all the decisions which were unfavorable to Trump and or his attorneys claims. But You seem confident your legal conclusions, procedural predictions and pronouncements on constitutional law.. can you tell us what constitutional or legal education you possess? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:45:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: But he was telling me that I was arguing against constitutional rights...? Anyway, once again I'm wondering if you read your links before posting. The courts have made it clear that the president alone decides how he keeps records, but not which records to classify as presidential versus personal. It's literally right there in your link. So why do you continue to insist the opposite? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA is irrelevant to the case, because the documents are all classified and this is an espionage case, right? Therefore the attempt to dismiss the case based on the PRA was just plain stupid, given that he’s not be charged under the PRA, right? What were those wacky Trump lawyers thinking? lol Has the President’s power to declassify ever been challenged in court? (Nope) Did you read what I posted? 1. They said without evidence his claim he declassified is irrelevant. 2. Then they said even if they were declassified he still shouldn't have them because he can make no argument for them being personal vs presidential (PRA). They just curtly dismissed everything you have argued. Do you really think a panel of federal appellate judges could be so wrong that something they didn't even think was worth discussing/arguing in detail because it was so obvious would be overturned by the Supreme Court? They say that because he can't show a need for those documents that he shouldn't have them. That is the same argument that gun grabbers make for wanting to take our AR15s. Either way it shouldn't matter because in both cases we have a right to them under the Constitution. And you again arguing against Constitutional rights this time based off of a lack of need shows again that you are on the wrong website. Where in the Constitution does it talk about presidential records vs personal records? Great question. Nowhere. DISMISSED: In the case of CREW v. Trump, the court reasoned that mandamus relief (i.e. a court order) is available only under extraordinary circumstances, and that a President’s record-keeping duties under the PRA are too discretionary to be enforced by court order. In short, the court found that judges may review the classification of existing records, but a court may not direct the President to affirmatively create and preserve particular records under the PRA. But he was telling me that I was arguing against constitutional rights...? Anyway, once again I'm wondering if you read your links before posting. The courts have made it clear that the president alone decides how he keeps records, but not which records to classify as presidential versus personal. It's literally right there in your link. So why do you continue to insist the opposite? You don’t read. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:47:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: This case will very likely go before a multiple judge panel in the appellate/circuit court. Given that judge Cannon has already been overturned, twice (an amazing feat in a single action that has not yet reached trial), so it would be safe to say that we may likely see more of the same. While there may ultimately be appeals of those higher court decisions to the Supreme Court, the appellate courts have far more capable jurists and there is far less likelihood that those appellate decisions are disturbed. The Supreme Court may as it usually does, decline to hear the case or review the decision of the lower court. If four Justices do not agree to do so, the Court will not hear the case. This is defined as denying certiorari…. Or they may send it back to the district with specific direction or limited instruction. …and yes while there is always a possibility they may do a full court review, they have for the most part declined to disturb, almost all the decisions which were unfavorable to Trump and or his attorneys claims. But You seem confident your legal conclusions, procedural predictions and pronouncements on constitutional law.. can you tell us what constitutional or legal education you possess? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: This WILL end up before the SCOTUS. This case will very likely go before a multiple judge panel in the appellate/circuit court. Given that judge Cannon has already been overturned, twice (an amazing feat in a single action that has not yet reached trial), so it would be safe to say that we may likely see more of the same. While there may ultimately be appeals of those higher court decisions to the Supreme Court, the appellate courts have far more capable jurists and there is far less likelihood that those appellate decisions are disturbed. The Supreme Court may as it usually does, decline to hear the case or review the decision of the lower court. If four Justices do not agree to do so, the Court will not hear the case. This is defined as denying certiorari…. Or they may send it back to the district with specific direction or limited instruction. …and yes while there is always a possibility they may do a full court review, they have for the most part declined to disturb, almost all the decisions which were unfavorable to Trump and or his attorneys claims. But You seem confident your legal conclusions, procedural predictions and pronouncements on constitutional law.. can you tell us what constitutional or legal education you possess? lol. This is going to end up before SCOTUS. Do you disagree? I’ll bet you $20. You put up your diploma from law school. I’ll bet $20. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:52:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: lol. This is going to end up before SCOTUS. Do you disagree? I’ll bet you $20. You put up your diploma from law school. I’ll bet $20. So…. You possess no constitutional or legal education? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:57:33 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: So…. You possess no constitutional or legal education? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: lol. This is going to end up before SCOTUS. Do you disagree? I’ll bet you $20. You put up your diploma from law school. I’ll bet $20. So…. You possess no constitutional or legal education? $20 vs your diploma. Do we have a bet. Clearly you have the advantage, so from a bookmaking perspective, the odds are in your favor. How could my uneducated prediction ever trump yours? |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 11:20:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: $20 vs your diploma. Do we have a bet. Clearly you have the advantage, so from a bookmaking perspective, the odds are in your favor. How could my uneducated prediction ever trump yours? I swear I only pop into this site a few times a day yet I see you hyper focused here in this thread with your name in every single last post. Dude take a walk, get laid, take a nap...seriously find a hobby, get a dog?. No idea why you are so fixated, never read this thread, don't care. Just looks weird to an outsider to see someone so emotionally fixated on a single thread. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 8:55:24 AM EDT
[#37]
Anxiously awaiting to hear Cincinnatus’ educational background on constitutional, civil and criminal law.
What is your profession Cincinnatus? |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:08:35 AM EDT
[#38]
All these nevertrumpers are career government employees, there's no need to ask what their profession is
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:09:40 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By David45: All these nevertrumpers are career government employees, there's no need to ask what their profession is Can you point to the scary never Trumpers? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:25:46 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Anxiously awaiting to hear Cincinnatus’ educational background on constitutional, civil and criminal law. What is your profession Cincinnatus? I’m a part time Gardner and dog-walker.  You should try it. It will ease that anxiety problem. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:27:11 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: I’m a part time Gardner and dog-walker. You should try it. It will ease that anxiety problem. That’s pretty awesome. Maybe when I retire. I do plan to grow some fruit trees. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:30:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: That’s pretty awesome. Maybe when I retire. I do plan to grow some fruit trees. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I’m a part time Gardner and dog-walker. You should try it. It will ease that anxiety problem. That’s pretty awesome. Maybe when I retire. I do plan to grow some fruit trees.  Going in the ground today. (Cage keeps the cat from digging). 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:32:49 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/image-3187593.jpg Going in the ground today. (Cage keeps the cat from digging). https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/44617803-9AC8-43D6-849F-4024C9F92E91-3187594.jpg Nice looking gato. Here is one of mine.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:33:50 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smash47: I swear I only pop into this site a few times a day yet I see you hyper focused here in this thread with your name in every single last post. Dude take a walk, get laid, take a nap...seriously find a hobby, get a dog?. No idea why you are so fixated, never read this thread, don't care. Just looks weird to an outsider to see someone so emotionally fixated on a single thread. Hope this helps. He’s countering commie propaganda. It is appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:36:19 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: He’s countering commie propaganda. It is appreciated. It has evolved to sharing cat pictures. We’re all good here. Haha |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:48:36 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: So…. You possess no constitutional or legal education? appeal to authority fallacy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:56:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: LordsOfDiscipline]
[#47]
nvm
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:33:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: GutWrench]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: appeal to authority fallacy I don’t think it is that. I would reckon most of us here are not constitutional scholars. I think it is fair to know each others professions and where we gain our knowledge. I know a little about courtroom procedure as I work in the judicial branch of government and spend some time observing and taking part in both civil and criminal proceedings. I have yet to see a case go to trial where it is completely made up. I suppose the prosecutor and judge could be completely insane and willing to sacrifice it all to “get Trump.” I guess we will get to see. But if it’s as easy as you guys say it is and it is impossible for a president to mishandle, improperly declassify, possess and or refuse to return classified documents then Trumps lawyers should have this in the bag. They should have no problem as it is virtually impossible for the prosecution to even present this case, much less convince a jury to convict Trump. But if he is found to be guilty as charged. His ass is going to prison unless the presiding judge agrees to defer sentencing pending Trump’s appeals. If you think this judge is willing to put it all on the e line to “get Trump” do you not think he’s going to sentence him as quickly as possible so they can perp walk him on TV? |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:38:52 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: I don’t think it is that. I would reckon most of us here are not constitutional scholars. I think it is fair to know each others professions and where we gain our knowledge. I know a little about courtroom procedure as I work in the judicial branch of government and spend some time observing and taking part in both civil and criminal proceedings. I have yet to see a case go to trial where it is completely made up. I suppose the prosecutor and judge could be completely insane and willing to sacrifice it all to “get Trump.” I guess we will get to see. But if it’s as easy as you guys say it is and it is impossible for a president to mishandle, improperly declassify, possess and or refuse to return classified documents then Trumps lawyers should have this in the bag. They should have no problem as it is virtually impossible for the prosecution to even present this case, much less convince a jury to convict Trump. But if he is found to be guilty as charged. His ass is going to prison unless the presiding judge agrees to defer sentencing pending Trump’s appeals. If you think this judge is willing to put it all on the e line to “get Trump” do you not think he’s going to sentence him as quickly as possible so they can perp walk him on TV? The prosecutor doesn't have to convince a jury. Remember, Trump already lost a civil trial for sexual assault where there was literally no evidence. Liberal juries will find him guilty of anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:47:44 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: The prosecutor doesn't have to convince a jury. Remember, Trump already lost a civil trial for sexual assault where there was literally no evidence. Liberal juries will find him guilty of anything. That was a civil trial. This is a criminal trial. “The grand jury indictment brings 40 felony counts against Trump related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents after his presidency, to which he has pleaded not guilty. The case marks the first federal indictment of a former U.S. president.” |
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
