A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Dahobbs 17677]

Was the November 30th deadline agreed to or was that her independent selection?

[TwiceHorn 31534]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

There is literally no evidence, in any form, that the documents are not classified. She has no basis for doubting the government's evidence (presumably at least an affidavit). Trump didn't even provide an affidavit of his own that says the documents are his and were declassified. Her ruling is asinine. I am now convinced she is in Trump's pocket. 

The ruling is a bit more nuanced than classified/unclassified.  I shouldn't have taken that bait.

 

[TwiceHorn 31534]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Was the November 30th deadline agreed to or was that her independent selection?

The government asked for 30 days, I believe.  Trump asked for 90 plus.

[lemonlime 5503]

54 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Can someone help me (a non lawyer) understand what is really happening.  Technically the government (The current President of the US, DOJ, FBI) says a person (forget for a second that this is Trump) has classified documents and this judge is saying to the government, "I don't believe you when you say they are classified".  Am I understanding this correctly?

Sort of correctly.  The classification argument is largely a red herring.  That the documents are stamped "classified" is only important because it's obvious without any additional information needed that those documents belong to the federal government.  Whether the documents actually were classified, or trump could have somehow declassified them, or they were misclassified doesn't really matter much.  Trump is arguing he has a personal interest in the documents taken from his home.  He couldn't possibly have a personal interest in something the government has labeled classified.  

Essentially, trump is arguing he has a personal interest in keeping government documents secret from the government, and the judge is saying that someone needs to look over the documents to figure out if trump somehow has a made up personal interest in keeping government documents from the government. 

And, yeah, it makes zero sense.

Edited September 16, 2022 by lemonlime

[TwiceHorn 31534]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

We are talking about appeals up to the Supreme Court to, essentially, consider whether the FBI can even INVESTIGATE him for crimes.   He hasn’t been even been indicted and this isn’t a trial.  We are literally arguing over whether he’s above the law even possibly applying to him, whether it’s even permissible for law enforcement to consider if he committed a crime simply because he used to be President, and this is somehow given credence.

That’s the consequence of establishing he was above the law while he was President.  Now the next step is he’s above the law because he used to be President or because he might run for President again.  

The idea that he’s untouchable has already been normalized and the right mix of judges might feel like they have enough cover to continue that at each level.  I’m not confident in the 11th Circuit on this at all.  I think the Supreme Court probably ultimately decides we don’t, in fact, have a king immune to being investigated for crimes, but I’m not nearly as confident in that as I’d like and could see it being a close call given the current composition. 

This is an overstatement.

He can still be investigated, and indicted.  For now, at least, the seized documents can't be used in the investigation.

Kind of humorously, no one has raised any arguments about the 100 plus classified documents and 15-16 boxes of documents previously obtained by the government.

[Dahobbs 17677]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The government asked for 30 days, I believe.  Trump asked for 90 plus.

So... she selected the date. I don't understand how you can continue to give her the benefit of the doubt. I think there are serious issues with her stopping a criminal investigation. I think there are serious issues with her outright ignoring the only evidence before her. These don't look like they should be close questions to me. Her rulings scream of political motive and are disconnected from any precedent I can find. 

[Dahobbs 17677]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is an overstatement.

He can still be investigated, and indicted.  For now, at least, the seized documents can't be used in the investigation.

Kind of humorously, no one has raised any arguments about the 100 plus classified documents and 15-16 boxes of documents previously obtained by the government.

Sure, he can still be investigated so long as we don't look at the evidence of his crimes. Come on man. 

[hobbes2702 13061]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He tried to say that she was crediting his tweets for the notion that he declassified everything, even though he has not explicitly said that he did in court.

That would be improper as considering evidence outside the record.

The ruling does not explicitly rely on the classification or declassification status of the documents.  

It lies mostly in her refusal to accept the argument from the government that, under no circumstances can a document marked classified be subject to any privilege, executive, attorney client, work product, spousal communication, priest-penitent and so on, that would prevent it from being used in a criminal investigation against the former President.

And, her concomitant refusal to accept that a 30- or 60-day delay in the investigation constitutes irreparable harm.

Did Trump lawyers make the privilege argument in court? 

[TwiceHorn 31534]

2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Sort of correctly.  The classification argument is largely a red herring.  That the documents are stamped "classified" is only important because it's obvious without any additional information needed that those documents were stolen from the federal government.  Whether the documents actually were classified, or trump could have somehow declassified them, or they were misclassified doesn't really matter much.  Trump is arguing he has a personal interest in the documents taken from his home.  He couldn't possibly have a personal interest in something the government has labeled classified.  

Essentially, trump is arguing he has a personal interest in keeping government documents secret from the government, and the judge is saying that someone needs to look over the documents to figure out if trump somehow has a made up personal interest in keeping government documents from the government. 

And, yeah, it makes zero sense.

That's fairly accurate, but, it's not merely a "personal interest."

Some of the documents seized, by the government's own admission, appear to be attorney-client privileged.  I don't think anyone wants to argue that the government should be free to investigate on the basis of attorney-client privileged materials.

Some of the documents may be subject to claims of executive privilege.  Maybe even classified documents that bear Trump's notes, as admitted by the government.

We agree that ultimately that executive privilege cannot prevent a criminal investigation based on those documents.  But that is not exactly settled law.  In fact, it's not even decided law.  It's the way the law should and probably ultimately will go, but it is an "extension or modification of existing law."

The judge is unwilling to make any of those calls until someone other than the government looks at the documents.

Because privilege claims always have to be evaluated based on the documents themselves and can't be made in a vacuum based on "meta" information about the documents, it's not an entirely unreasonable position.

 

[Dahobbs 17677]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Her rulings scream of political motive and are disconnected from any precedent I can find. 

Just as an example of this, go look at the cases she cited in her initial order granting Trump's motion. She cited case after case dealing with requests for return of property after criminal proceedings had ended. There appears to be no recognition on her part that returning property that was obtained by a lawfully authorized warrant during the middle of an investigation may require more judicial restraint (something emphasized in the precedent if she bothered to read it). 

[SizzleChest 8284]

 

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Some of the documents seized, by the government's own admission, appear to be attorney-client privileged.  I don't think anyone wants to argue that the government should be free to investigate on the basis of attorney-client privileged materials.

 

 

The documents marked "classified" couldn't possibly be subject to attorney client privilege.

I think the executive privilege argument is off the wall too, but don't want to rehash again.

[Dahobbs 17677]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's fairly accurate, but, it's not merely a "personal interest."

Some of the documents seized, by the government's own admission, appear to be attorney-client privileged.  I don't think anyone wants to argue that the government should be free to investigate on the basis of attorney-client privileged materials.

Some of the documents may be subject to claims of executive privilege.  Maybe even classified documents that bear Trump's notes, as admitted by the government.

We agree that ultimately that executive privilege cannot prevent a criminal investigation based on those documents.  But that is not exactly settled law.  In fact, it's not even decided law.  It's the way the law should and probably ultimately will go, but it is an "extension or modification of existing law."

The judge is unwilling to make any of those calls until someone other than the government looks at the documents.

Because privilege claims always have to be evaluated based on the documents themselves and can't be made in a vacuum based on "meta" information about the documents, it's not an entirely unreasonable position.

 

Privilege isn't strictly relevant to the mechanism Trump is attempting to use. The question is really about ownership. He has to own the documents. And the government has to have them wrongfully or be permanently depriving them from him. She hasn't required Trump to make this showing at all. Any other case, any other person under investigation, and there is no doubt how this turns out. This isn't law. It is politics. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19218]

30 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

We are literally arguing over whether he’s above the law even possibly applying to him, whether it’s even permissible for law enforcement to consider if he committed a crime simply because he used to be President

If they set that precedent then Bill and Obama should have a rock, paper, scissors match to see who gets to pump a slug into dotard’s face.  Since ex-presidents can’t be subjected to stupid shit like laws.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Privilege isn't strictly relevant to the mechanism Trump is attempting to use. The question is really about ownership. He has to own the documents. And the government has to have them wrongfully or be permanently depriving them from him. She hasn't required Trump to make this showing at all. Any other case, any other person under investigation, and there is no doubt how this turns out. This isn't law. It is politics. 

The motion/complaint thingy is not limited to return of property.

It's a fucking mess, but it specifically asked for appointment of a special master to evaluate privilege claims and a temporary injunction against use of those documents pending resolution of those claims.  The motion/complaint thingy is not super-clear about the disposition of the documents after the privilege review, whether it is return of documents to Trump, or a permanent injunction against their use, or what.

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Gil Bang 26000]

As most of you know, I'm not a lawyer.  

But fucking Trump's stall tactics are exactly what I'd expect.  

"Cool Story Bro" alert:  About 1992 or so, my then wife's brother was murdered.  Maybe some of you will remember me mentioning it. 

Anyway, he was fucking the wrong woman, her estranged scumbag boyfriend drove past and saw BIL's motorcycle in the apartment complex carport, got a gun, returned, and shot BIL in the face. 

There was never a question as to who committed the murder.  He was located and arrested in 48 hours or so.  He was on trial, and convicted in short order; 2 or three days IIRC.  Once convicted, the judges sets the sentencing for 45 days or so after the conviction...probation reports, psych reports, bla bla bla.   Hell, it may have been 90 days, it's been a long time and it's all a bit foggy. 

So anyway, the day finally arrives.  Me, the wife, and my son head up I-5 to the Norwalk courthouse.   Los Angeles County Superior Court Department SE-J; the Honorable John Torribio presiding.   Court is in session.  The convicted murderer, a shitstain known as "Danny Louis Silva", already found guilty of Murder 1 a couple of months back, and still in custody in L.A County Jail, is to be sentenced. 

The Public Defender comes out (a decent guy against whom I hold no ill will) and asks for a continuance, because the convicted killer isn't "feeling well".   The judge, a real fucking prick, glances his way and says "meh, he looks OK to me, let's get on with it" and sentences him to 27 years to life. 

 

My point?  Even a guy that's totally fucked with no way out will try to buy a little time to put off the inevitable. 

[Dahobbs 17677]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The motion/complaint thingy is not limited to return of property.

It's a fucking mess, but it specifically asked for appointment of a special master to evaluate privilege claims and a temporary injunction against use of those documents pending resolution of those claims.  The motion/complaint thingy is not super-clear about the disposition of the documents after the privilege review, whether it is return of documents to Trump, or a permanent injunction against their use, or what.

Great, tell me the procedural basis for that latter motion. Under other cases, it's all wrapped up under the former. Again, this isn't law. It is politics. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31534]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

You're the one for the last week or so said "Oh, this special master thing is nothing and will be resolved in no time.  Don't worry."

Do you not understand why we fucking worry?  Wake the fuck up already.

I'm fully awake and as or more aware of the inherent and provoked delays of our justice system than anyone.

I am also fairly confident that the usual delay delay settle strategy of Trump isn't going to work here in a criminal case.

So, I'm not that worried and I'm trying to explain why you shouldn't be that worried either.

The bigger worry is that, if we were somehow able to convict Trump tomorrow of all of his offenses, real and imagined, and sentenced him to effectively life (anything more than 10 years) it still wouldn't prevent him for running for President.  And that renders all of this worry about the court cases and delays and alleged biased judges pretty fucking secondary.

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31534]

15 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

As most of you know, I'm not a lawyer.  

But fucking Trump's stall tactics are exactly what I'd expect.  

"Cool Story Bro" alert:  About 1992 or so, my then wife's brother was murdered.  Maybe some of you will remember me mentioning it. 

Anyway, he was fucking the wrong woman, her estranged scumbag boyfriend drove past and saw BIL's motorcycle in the apartment complex carport, got a gun, returned, and shot BIL in the face. 

There was never a question as to who committed the murder.  He was located and arrested in 48 hours or so.  He was on trial, and convicted in short order; 2 or three days IIRC.  Once convicted, the judges sets the sentencing for 45 days or so after the conviction...probation reports, psych reports, bla bla bla.   Hell, it may have been 90 days, it's been a long time and it's all a bit foggy. 

So anyway, the day finally arrives.  Me, the wife, and my son head up I-5 to the Norwalk courthouse.   Los Angeles County Superior Court Department SE-J; the Honorable John Torribio presiding.   Court is in session.  The convicted murderer, a shitstain known as "Danny Louis Silva", already found guilty of Murder 1 a couple of months back, and still in custody in L.A County Jail, is to be sentenced. 

The Public Defender comes out (a decent guy against whom I hold no ill will) and asks for a continuance, because the convicted killer isn't "feeling well".   The judge, a real fucking prick, glances his way and says "meh, he looks OK to me, let's get on with it" and sentences him to 27 years to life. 

 

My point?  Even a guy that's totally fucked with no way out will try to buy a little time to put off the inevitable. 

True.  You never know what the future brings.

There is a notion in criminal practice that delay favors the defendant.  Witnesses and cops die, or get got, documents go missing, the prosecution loses their enthusiasm for the case, and so on and so forth.  It is, broadly, true.  

I think you'd find that most federal practitioners would say that maxim doesn't hold true in federal court.  First, a federal judge mostly won't tolerate that much delay and second, US Attorneys are fucking relentless, as is the FBI.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

47 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

 

I'm not sure I'm that worried about this.  Being a judge is among the most hideous multitask jobs one can possibly imagine if the judge makes any attempt to be diligent as to the matters before him or her.  So many types of cases and matters day in and day out and wildly divergent subject matter.

Some judges are lazy and slow.  Others are extremely diligent and slow (because they want to give "equal time" to the matters before them).  Some are fast and people get fucked because of it.

This guy will be focused on this matter alone until it's finished.  He's already subject to the deadline established by the court and isn't going to want to fuck around too much.

[Gil Bang 26000]

How is Dearie being paid?  Who's footing the bill?  Is he billing the court?  Is there a prescribed hourly rate?

[TwiceHorn 31534]

22 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Great, tell me the procedural basis for that latter motion. Under other cases, it's all wrapped up under the former. Again, this isn't law. It is politics. 

I'm not sure what you're saying. The motion was never limited to a Rule 41 return of property.  That was alluded to as a basis for relief, but not solely.

It inartfully invoked the "anomalous equity" jurisdiction of the court by analogy to the special master appointments and injunctions fairly common in criminal cases.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

How is Dearie being paid?  Who's footing the bill?  Is he billing the court?  Is there a prescribed hourly rate?

100% Trump.  The billings will be subject to approval by the court.

[safe sex 11746]

3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

How is Dearie being paid?  Who's footing the bill?  Is he billing the court?  Is there a prescribed hourly rate?

I believe Trump is responsible for the entire cost.

[wildcat09 29377]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fair point.  Very fair.

But, if you are bending over backward not to appear to favor either the government or Trump, or the defendant was not this particular lying piece of shit, but a random lying piece of shit, it would be fair to say, "well, the defendant doesn't have access to the documents in question, and neither do I, so I am not going to fault the defendant for being unable to make specific allegations about particular documents.  At the same time, I am not going to blindly accept the government's assertions."

 

At this point, the only rational explanation for your behavior is that you're boning Aileen Cannon, she's the best lay on earth, and she's told you that she's monitoring your posts here and will cut you off if you stop giving her extraordinarily unreasonable benefits of the doubt.

[Gil Bang 26000]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

100% Trump.  The billings will be subject to approval by the court.

 

4 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I believe Trump is responsible for the entire cost.

So Dearie needs to prepare his anus.

[tx 3 putt 77369]

So trump is 50% to getting off scot free ?

11th will put him at 75% ?

scotus / ginni thomas 100 % free !!!

[TwiceHorn 31534]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

At this point, the only rational explanation for your behavior is that you're boning Aileen Cannon, she's the best lay on earth, and she's told you that she's monitoring your posts here and will cut you off if you stop giving her extraordinarily unreasonable benefits of the doubt.

All untrue.

I don't think this is quite as easy a case to resolve as people want to make it out to be.

Would I have decided it differently? Bet your fur.  But I fucking hate Trump, and would be exactly what you accuse Cannon of being.  A biased judge.

But, I have also studied executive privilege pretty closely for a pretty good while and would look favorably on the government's position for the most part, even without Trump involved.  At the same time, if I couldn't verify for myself what the documents were, I'd be inclined to be a bit skeptical of the government's assertions.  These are personal biases unrelated to Trump.

And, if I really got even-handed about it, and thinking long game, given that a large chunk of the public is going to hate me no matter what I do, I might give Trump his relief in order to foreclose further effective contest of the search warrant and use of the seized materials.

[wildcat09 29377]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Privilege isn't strictly relevant to the mechanism Trump is attempting to use. The question is really about ownership. He has to own the documents. And the government has to have them wrongfully or be permanently depriving them from him. She hasn't required Trump to make this showing at all. Any other case, any other person under investigation, and there is no doubt how this turns out. This isn't law. It is politics. 

Not only does he not own them, he can't even facially assert a possessory interest in them. They weren't even actually taken from him or from his property. They were removed from the property of a fucking club that I'm not sure he even legally directly controls.  The idea that we need to spend months dragging out litigation over whether he has a possessory interest in any of this shit (and freezing a criminal investigation in the interim), until right after the midterms are over, is beyond absurd and Twice should know better.

[wildcat09 29377]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

All untrue.

I don't think this is quite as easy a case to resolve as people want to make it out to be.

Would I have decided it differently? Bet your fur.  But I fucking hate Trump, and would be exactly what you accuse Cannon of being.  A biased judge.

But, I have also studied executive privilege pretty closely for a pretty good while and would look favorably on the government's position for the most part, even without Trump involved.  At the same time, if I couldn't verify for myself what the documents were, I'd be inclined to be a bit skeptical of the government's assertions.  These are personal biases unrelated to Trump.

And, if I really got even-handed about it, and thinking long game, given that a large chunk of the public is going to hate me no matter what I do, I might give Trump his relief in order to foreclose further effective contest of the search warrant and use of the seized materials.

Man, at this point she has specifically said she's doing what she's doing specifically because Donald Trump is the party requesting the relief she's granting. You don't need to keep bending over backward trying to pretend she's not a complete hack. You do know she won't let this shit go at the end of November right? That she'll find some excuse to give Trump another delay and further order DOJ to stand down?

[TwiceHorn 31534]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, at this point she has specifically said she's doing what she's doing specifically because Donald Trump is the party requesting the relief she's granting. You don't need to keep bending over backward trying to pretend she's not a complete hack. You do know she won't let this shit go at the end of November right? That she'll find some excuse to give Trump another delay and further order DOJ to stand down?

What she actually said was "the former President."

Only Presidents and former Presidents have any ability to claim executive privilege.

Whether that President is Barack Obama, GW Bush, or Donald Trump, it do tend to change the character of things.

Where I think she most fundamentally fucked up is an unwillingness to take on the executive privilege argument.  But at the same time, because she can't look at the documents, there's risk that taking it on in a vacuum produces errors.

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[CTC2 2798]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, at this point she has specifically said she's doing what she's doing specifically because Donald Trump is the party requesting the relief she's granting. You don't need to keep bending over backward trying to pretend she's not a complete hack. You do know she won't let this shit go at the end of November right? That she'll find some excuse to give Trump another delay and further order DOJ to stand down?

The plain fact is that Trump is being treated differently from any other defendant in the same or similar circumstances.  She justifies it by stating concern for Trumps reputation.  You really think any judge would rule that way for any of us?

[safe sex 11746]

I really do appreciate all of your explanations and analyses, Twice, even though most of the time I want to scream while reading them.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

2 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I really do appreciate all of your explanations and analyses, Twice, even though most of the time I want to scream while reading them.

Sorry, friend.  It's gonna be ok.  As ok as it can possibly be, given this shitgibbon running around as a former POTUS with the support of some sizable chunk of the population.  This probably isn't going to change that, either way.

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31534]

4 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

The plain fact is that Trump is being treated differently from any other defendant in the same or similar circumstances.  She justifies it by stating concern for Trumps reputation.  You really think any judge would rule that way for any of us?

How many of those defendants have the colorable ability to assert executive privilege?

[wildcat09 29377]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What she actually said was "the former President."

Only Presidents and former Presidents have any ability to claim executive privilege.

Whether that President is Barack Obama, GW Bush, or Donald Trump, it do tend to change the character of things.

 

Stop it man. This is ridiculous. DOJ even offered to return the shit that is actually personal (e.g. his medical records) and she refused to let them do so so that she could use their possession of a few personal records to justify this nonsense. 
 

I understand the desire to see this level of due process for any investigation, but I refuse to believe that you sincerely think she’d afford this treatment to any other potential criminal defendant, whether he was a former president or not. I’ve talked to drunken flat earthers who sounded less ridiculous than you do right now.

[Dahobbs 17677]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

How many of those defendants have the colorable ability to assert executive privilege?

But he hasn't really done that. He has made no effort to show the privilege would apply to any of those documents. And even if it did apply, that it actually fucking matters (because we all know that it doesn't). I understand you're just explaining and trying to fit this into a legal framework. But it doesn't. 

[lemonlime 5503]

12 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

The plain fact is that Trump is being treated differently from any other defendant in the same or similar circumstances.  She justifies it by stating concern for Trumps reputation.  You really think any judge would rule that way for any of us?

Hell, do you think any judge would rule that way for any other former president.  You think if Obama stole hundreds of classified documents on his way out the door, any judge would've bent the law in this way?

[TwiceHorn 31534]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Stop it man. This is ridiculous. DOJ even offered to return the shit that is actually personal (e.g. his medical records) and she refused to let them do so so that she could use their possession of a few personal records to justify this nonsense. 
 

I understand the desire to see this level of due process for any investigation, but I refuse to believe that you sincerely think she’d afford this treatment to any other potential criminal defendant, whether he was a former president or not. I’ve talked to drunken flat earthers who sounded less ridiculous than you do right now.

You're going to need a cite for the bolded.  The government admitted to seizing 500 pages of potentially attorney-client privileged information.  That's significant.  There would appear to be some fairly sizable percentage of the seized materials subject to some fairly legitimate basis for return or non-use.

I really have no idea why she's doing what she's doing.  Favoring Trump is certainly one possibility, and a likely one.  That she's a dumbass baby judge overawed by the case is another.

It would be something indeed if she turned out to be a pro-defendant judge as a general proposition.  It's possible though.

I certainly haven't said that she would do this for any defendant.  Not every defendant can colorably raise these kind of issues. But you can't deny that this case is unusual, or special, legally and every other way because a former President is the party in interest.  There's never been anything like it.

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31534]

4 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

It’s unique and special as a political story and a news story.  The only unique thing from a legal perspective is the executive privilege claim, which is farcical on its face for a multitude of reasons and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to serve as a basis to hinder the investigation. 

As I have said repeatedly, I think the executive privilege claim ultimately fails.

But you can't call it completely farcical based on existing law.  Someone's gonna have to make some law on this.

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[safe sex 11746]

I don't think Obama would have been afforded the same decision, even by a judge that he appointed. Of course, he wouldn't (and obviously didn't) do anything remotely like it.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

I’d propose that “someone” should perhaps be a federal judge, and that in making said law they shouldn’t do things like grant relief which wasn’t requested, consider arguments not actually made by the parties, etc.   I know you allude to these criticisms of her on occasion, too, but it’s kind of missing the forest for the trees to act like this is how things could work in good faith. 

Like I said, I'd have made the executive privilege call, more than likely.  Although the fact that I couldn't even look at the documents might give me pause.

I've been a lawyer twice as long as she has and studied this shit in law school.

She hasn't even been on the bench 18 months.

How often have you had a judicial decision turn on a point barely argued by the parties?

I don't love the idea of basing decisions on things not pled/argued etc. by the parties.  At the same time, I don't really like judges that are over formal about pleadings.  Both happen in real life.  All the time.

[Born to Run 6569]

Trump can't be hurt politically like impeachment because the congress won't go against him.  He can't be hurt criminally because he has the judicial in his back pocket apparently.  The only way for this to end is the hopefully inevitable stroke and or heart attack that takes him out.

Maybe fix institutional problems associated with Trump that were previously contained by norms with codified fucking law. Why is this not done? The next populist asshole needs to be stopped 12 months ago.

[Born to Run 6569]

The Republican National Committee is not paying former President Donald Trump's legal fees connected to the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, Politico reported.

It signals another move away from the committee's previous willingness to support Trump's personal legal battles.

Yes RNC isn't; who in the party is paying tho?

[Born to Run 6569]

This is an overstatement.
He can still be investigated, and indicted.  For now, at least, the seized documents can't be used in the investigation.
Kind of humorously, no one has raised any arguments about the 100 plus classified documents and 15-16 boxes of documents previously obtained by the government.

It Would be humorous if he wasn't actively committing more crimes and in complete control of one of our two political parties and trying to install himself as dictator catered by Mc Donalds solely because his name is also Donald and perhaps daddy told him he owned Mc Donalds or it was nsmed after him and they sold " billions and billions"

[C-Man 27256]

3 hours ago, Born to Run said:

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That Trump actually paid it is pretty good evidence that he's filling his depends at a high rate.

The GOP party is paying it.

 

3 hours ago, Satchel said:

The Republican National Committee is not paying former President Donald Trump's legal fees connected to the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, Politico reported.

It signals another move away from the committee's previous willingness to support Trump's personal legal battles.

 

13 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

 

 

Yes RNC isn't; who in the party is paying tho?

 

Trump's Save America PAC is paying his attorney -- and probably paying for the special master too.

[High Plains Drifter 11051]

10 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

 

  Now the next step is he’s above the law because he used to be President or because he might run for President again.  

 

 

i am hereby officially announcing my intention to run for president. I am now above the law!

 

[TwiceHorn 31534]

A fairly detailed article on Dearie.  https://www.npr.org/2022/09/16/1122725989/judge-raymond-dearie-mar-a-lago-special-master-trump

I think I like this guy.

Quote

"If society relies on the jail cell alone to bring relief to the streets of New York or Chicago, or to fight the heroin epidemic that has invaded our communities, little will change," he said, adding that he wondered "how we as a society would fare if we took a fraction of the money we spend on warehousing people and invested it in programs to reach those vulnerable to the hollow call of the streets."

He's inactive senior status, so this is the only matter he will work on.  "Senior status" judges take cases in the "ordinary rotation" of district judges, but less often.  Inactive senior status take no cases at all or none in the ordinary rotation.

Weissman, the bulldog of the Mueller team, speaks well of him.  The mystery is how Trumpco managed to nominate him.

He also presided over the "Corrado Soprano" trial.

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TexasEd 8075]

All this indicates to me that Biden needs to create two new district judge positions in the one where Cannon sits and fill them so she isn't the only one.

[DDD Dad 14347]

15 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

All this indicates to me that Biden needs to create two new district judge positions in the one where Cannon sits and fill them so she isn't the only one.

Per WaPo:

Quote

Cannon now sits on the bench in Fort Pierce but was assigned to Trump’s case through the court’s random lottery system in the Southern District of Florida, whose five divisions include courthouses in both Fort Pierce and West Palm Beach. Judges from all five divisions can be assigned to cases in any of the courthouses. In this case, court documents show Trump’s lawsuit was filed in West Palm Beach, the same courthouse where a magistrate judge approved the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. But it was then assigned to Cannon, who traveled to the West Palm Beach courthouse last week to hear arguments in the case.