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

[HenryJames 66048]

 

[tx 3 putt 76933]

BUT HILLARY'S EMAILS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[speed817 19268]

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

BUT HILLARY'S EMAILS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's gonna get that tattooed on his chest when he's in prison

[Satchel 6938]

3 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds as though this panel delivered a pretty firm bitchslap to Trump. 

 

Yep. Looks like they slapped the Trump trial judge around pretty good.

[Gil Bang 25951]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2022/09/21/how-forbes-exposed-trumps-lies-about-the-size-of-his-penthouse/?sh=3325d30858ec

 

[YGIFS 19450]

Did he really refer to NARA as a bunch of "extreme liberals"?  Or did his senile ass mean to say "extreme librarians"?  

Other than the thing about sleep and poker and dagger tattoos, the other rule I like by is I don't label acronyms as extremist groups unless I know what at least 50% of the letters in their name stand for.  No fucking way he knows who NARA is until somebody fed him some shit right before the interview.  

[Satchel 6938]

I don’t care how many times I see the actual pics, it’s hard to imagine anybody living in a place as gaudy and tacky as Trump’s 

[NAVY 6740]

 

[tx 3 putt 76933]

3 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I don’t care how many times I see the actual pics, it’s hard to imagine anybody living in a place as gaudy and tacky as Trump’s 

 

it'll soon be all the rage in Hungary 

[YGIFS 19450]

Yeah, I watched that interview clip a second time just to notice background and body language.  Other than Trump wearing some kind of Spanx for Men...his "resort" or "condo" or whatever the fuck he lives in where you can get a deconstructed burger and Israeli nuclear manifest before tee-time...............but the place looks like Liberace fucked his hair piece in a Cheesecake Factory.  

[henrygandorf 29190]

dude didn’t care about the contents while he was president, of course he doesn’t care now. 

[Radical Larry 28589]

[The Dog 44042]

45 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

lol did that dumb motherfucker really pull a "but hilary's emails"? buahahahahahaha

yeah that interview was rough.

[Beau Vine 54219]

48 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Good, GTFO!

[tx 3 putt 76933]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

Good, GTFO!

 

he needs to take MAGA with him 

[Biff Tannen 45679]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

dude didn’t care about the contents while he was president, of course he doesn’t care now. 

Moar of this.  Twice, this is what needs to happen.  Call them out for the idiots they are.  No kid gloves and pretending like they are acting in good faith.  I want a judge to literally say "what the fuck are you doing and how do you think this is a cogent argument?  Get the fuck out of my court room!" 

[Beau Vine 54219]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

yeah that interview was rough.

At times, I actually feel kinda bad for his lawyers.

[The Dog 44042]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

At times, I actually feel kinda bad for his lawyers.

NAH (but I sure hope they were paid in advance)

[Homercles 10205]

Jesus, my hatred for that ‘man’ and his grossness on Hannity is causing my meme memory to recall the classics from a decade ago…

[Beau Vine 54219]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

he needs to take MAGA with him 

He'll rebrand some third-world airline company as Trump Airlines and put together some specially priced UltraMAGAPatriot vacation package!

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

noticed that FN had "FMR PRESIDENT TRUMP" in their chyron. Guess they're part of the lamestream media now too, eh?

[Pods 7552]

19 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Everyday he is free under these charges discredits our legal system. He deserves his fair trial. He doesn't (okay, shouldn't) get a free pass from pre-trial jail for such serious charges. Remand. No bail. Isolate him for safety. But jail. Three channels of TV: (CNN, MSNBC, and the Hallmark channel.

Let him have HGTV too. Maybe he'll learn something about real estate. 

[Beau Vine 54219]

 

[YGIFS 19450]

Welp, time to dust off my old idea that'll garner us multiple suites at DKR for Surly Shenanigans.  

Documents he wanted to keep from NARA so as to preserve them for the most fantastic, most tremendous, bigly Presidential Library ever conceived. 

If the documents, no matter their classification, are part of the "historical record"...even tax and business documents...then they should be protected and preserved for future generations of tremendous patriots to read and be inspired by.  Forget the FBI raid, the NYAG investigation, the Georgia fraud inquiries, NARA, DoJ, all of that.  Forget it America, it's a hoax, a witch hunt.  What's important is we maintain these records to show our children and grandchildren the magnificent work we did together.  And we'll do it again in 2024, but for now...we need to control this history and these beautiful records.  So I am proposing, a fantastic proposal.  We will collect and save and secure all of these papers and tremendous records for all of our beautiful patriots and friends.  We love you by the way.  We are starting the Florida Archives of Trump Scholars, or FATS.  For a $2,000 contribution...you can help us build this magnificent facility to house these wonderful papers which will eventually be the bedrock of my Presidential Library.  Tremendous work we're going to do together.  Let's get back these de-classified documents, these tax papers, these private items, and let's secure them in Florida for you to see and study in years to come.  Fantastic work we'll do together.  We love you, send money.  Thank you   

[TexasEd 8066]

 

Wow.  Just Wow.  Completely demolished Cannon's logic and then tore into "the Plaintiff" for the bullshit two-step of claiming shit in public they refuse to argue in front of the court like the "unprecedented raid of a suspected criminal's house after failed to comply with subpoena" and the declassification crap Trump is on tv perpetuating at this moment.  Good thing for Trump MAGA only talks about doing their own research and doesn't actually read anything.

Quote

Whether a court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction in this context “is subject to the sound discretion of the district court.” [snip] The factors a court should consider when deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction include (1) whether the government “displayed a callous disregard for . . . constitutional rights” in seizing the items at issue; (2) “whether the plaintiff has an individual interest in and need for the material whose return he seeks;” (3) “whether the plaintiff would be irreparably injured by denial of the return of the property;” and (4) “whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance.” Id. at 1243–44 (footnotes and quotation omitted). We consider each in turn.

We begin, as the district court did, with “callous disregard,” which is the “foremost consideration” in determining whether a court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction. United States v. Chapman, 559 F.2d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 1977). Indeed, our precedent emphasizes the “indispensability of an accurate allegation of callous disregard.” Id. (alteration accepted and quotation omitted). Here, the district court concluded that Plaintiff did not show that the United States acted in callous disregard of his constitutional rights. Doc. No. 64 at 9. No party contests the district court’s finding in this regard. The absence of this “indispensab[le]” factor in the Richey analysis is reason enough to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction here. Chapman, 559 F.2d at 406.

But for the sake of completeness, we consider the remaining factors. The second Richey factor considers “whether the plaintiff has an individual interest in and need for the material whose return he seeks.” 515 F.2d at 1243. The district court concluded that Plaintiff had an interest in some of the seized material because it included “medical documents, correspondence related to taxes, and accounting information.” Doc. No. 64 at 9. But none of those concerns apply to the roughly one-hundred classified documents at issue here. And the district court made no mention in its analysis of this factor as to why or how Plaintiff might have an individual interest in or need for the classified documents. For our part, we cannot discern why Plaintiff would have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred documents with classification markings. Classified documents are marked to show they are classified, for instance, with their classification level. Classified National Security Information, Exec. Order No. 13,526, § 1.6, 3 C.F.R. 298, 301 (2009 Comp.), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 3161 app. at 290–301. They are “owned by, produced by or for, or . . . under the control of the United States Government.” Id. § 1.1. And they include information the “unauthorized disclosure [of which] could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security.” Id. § 1.4. For this reason, a person may have access to classified information only if, among other requirements, he “has a need-to-know the information.” Id. § 4.1(a)(3). This requirement pertains equally to former Presidents, unless the current administration, in its discretion, chooses to waive that requirement. Id. § 4.4(3). Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. Nor has he established that the current administration has waived that requirement for these documents. And even if he had, that, in and of itself, would not explain why Plaintiff has an individual interest in the classified documents. Plaintiff suggests that he may have declassified these documents when he was President. But the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified. And before the special master, Plaintiff resisted providing any evidence that he had declassified any of these documents. See Doc. No. 97 at 2–3., Sept. 19, 2022, letter from James M. Trusty, et al., to Special Master Raymond J. Dearie, at 2–3. In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal. So even if we assumed that Plaintiff did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them. This factor—the Plaintiff’s personal interest (or lack thereof) in the documents—also weighs against exercising jurisdiction. Third, Richey asks “whether the plaintiff would be irreparably injured by denial of the return of the property.” 515 F.2d at 1243. The district court identified potential harm that could arise based on (1) improper disclosure of “sensitive information” to the public; (2) the United States’s retention and use of privileged materials; and (3) the stigma associated with future prosecution. See Doc. No. 64 at 9–10. We cannot conclude that Plaintiff would be irreparably injured by a stay regarding the documents marked classified. Plaintiff suggests that he could be harmed by the disclosure of sensitive information. Doc. No. 84 at 8. But permitting the United States to retain the documents does not suggest that they will be released; indeed, a purpose of the United States’s efforts in investigating the recovered classified documents is to limit unauthorized disclosure of the information they contain. Not only that, but any authorized official who makes an improper disclosure risks her own criminal liability. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 798. We also doubt that Plaintiff risks irreparable injury in the form of disclosure of privileged information; he has not, for example, asserted attorney-client privilege over any of the classified documents. The remaining potential injury identified by the district court is “the threat of future prosecution and the serious, often indelible stigma associated therewith.” Doc. No. 64 at 10. No doubt the threat of prosecution can weigh heavily on the mind of someone under investigation. But without diminishing the seriousness of that burden, “if the mere threat of prosecution were allowed to constitute irreparable harm . . . every potential defendant could point to the same harm and invoke the equitable powers of the district court.” United States v. Search of Law Office, Residence, and Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341 F.3d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). If this concern were sufficient to constitute irreparable harm, courts’ “exercise of [their] equitable jurisdiction would not be extraordinary, but instead quite ordinary.” Id. “It is a familiar rule that courts of equity do not ordinarily restrain criminal prosecutions.” Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 163 (1943); see also Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66, 71 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Silberman, J.) (rejecting civil suit to enjoin government from indicting plaintiff and explaining that “[p]rospective defendants cannot, by bringing ancillary equitable proceedings, circumvent federal criminal procedure.”); United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2016) (“In almost all federal criminal prosecutions, injunctive relief . . . will not be appropriate. Federal courts traditionally have refused, except in rare instances, to enjoin federal criminal prosecutions.”).4 In sum, the third Richey factor also weighs against exercising equitable jurisdiction. Finally, Richey asks “whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance.” 515 F.2d at 1243– 44. The district court found that this factor weighed in favor of Plaintiff because otherwise, “Plaintiff would have no legal means of seeking the return of his property for the time being.” Doc. No. 64 at 10. But Plaintiff has been clear that he is not seeking the return of the classified documents. See Doc. No. 58 at 6 (“In general, the Government’s argument is premature. Movant has not yet filed a Rule 41(g) motion, and the standard for relief under that rule is not relevant to the issue of whether the Court should appoint a Special Master.”). And even if he were, he has not identified any reason that he is entitled to them. This factor then, also weighs against exercising equitable jurisdiction. In sum, none of the Richey factors favor exercising equitable jurisdiction over this case. Consequently, the United States is substantially likely to succeed in showing that the district court abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s motion as it concerns the classified documents.5

Edited September 22, 2022 by TexasEd

[Beau Vine 54219]

I just watched the Hannity clips.  

I've seen this gif several times before in this thread and thought it was kinda stupid, but gotdam if Trump didn't just literally re-enact it.

[Biff Tannen 45679]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

I just watched the Hannity clips.  

I've seen this gif several times before in this thread and thought it was kinda stupid, but gotdam if Trump didn't just literally re-enact it.

I just hope this all ends with this gif being appropriate.

[Beau Vine 54219]

 

[Beau Vine 54219]

[Willfully Horn 8014]

2 hours ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

His lower half is a bean bag. Odd shape for a piece of shit

I don’t agree.

 

💩

[YGIFS 19450]

“There is a very good chance a lot Of those documents will never be seen again.”

  There’s two ways to interpret that sentence.  Neither of them is good for MAGA nation.  
 

also that interview with hannity,…….Trump’s ‘physique’ reminds me of DuMont in Tron.  Or Dumass if you will.  But seriously that three foot front to back wet wipe?   Come on.  

Edited September 22, 2022 by YGIFS

[tx 3 putt 76933]

36 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I just hope this all ends with this gif being appropriate.

 

 

he has no clue how to use a pistol 

Edited September 22, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[Cairn Horn88 8262]

58 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

No, Jenna…you are full of it.

[RDCanecutter 26426]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

he has no clue how to use a pistol 

Yeah right? For one thing you never point the damn thing at yourself, which he found out the hard way.

[Gatorubet 30233]

6 hours ago, Captainant said:

Except it's not a crime to simply possess a $100 bill. There's a reasonable reason for you to have that. Ain't no reason for you to have a kilo of coke, and just like it's easy to separate the legal docs from the pile of coke, so too is it easy to separate things with classification markings from those without. 

But what if I communicated to my lawyer via lines of coke set up like cuneiform letters? You never thought of that, did you, huh?

[Gatorubet 30233]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

noticed that FN had "FMR PRESIDENT TRUMP" in their chyron. Guess they're part of the lamestream media now too, eh?

Thet thar Venissuealien voting booth compney is suin’ anybody thet won’t admit the ‘lection were stolens.   Fox gotta placate the libs.  Or theys gone agin’ us…

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

He'll rebrand some third-world airline company as Trump Airlines and put together some specially priced UltraMAGAPatriot vacation package!

This would be great and all but when do we get the Trumptown Kool-Aid moment with these MAGA pieces of shit?  I want to see this on the news with MAGA flags everywhere.  

 

 

[tx 3 putt 76933]

6 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

This would be great and all but when do we get the Trumptown Kool-Aid moment with these MAGA pieces of shit?  I want to see this on the news with MAGA flags everywhere.  

 

 

 

this can't happen soon enough. only true maga warriors will obey their king !

[atomheartbevo 89659]

4 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Trumpcoin. 

Makes perfect sense, actually.  Totally worthless and based on nothing but still overvalued.  Used by crooks.

.

http://trumpcoin.com

Edited September 22, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[tx 3 putt 76933]

[AnTiM 1666]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

The trump degrees, BS, MS, PhD.  What are Bullshit, More Of The Same, Piled High And Deep

[Woland 733]

 

MAGA will watch it and still believe Trump is a genius and Biden is the one who is senile.

[956 Worldwide 34710]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

the man is a complete idiot, and more importantly he's surrounded by idiots / yes people ...

 

 

I’ve posted this before, but declassifying by thinking about it and not telling anyone is like Schroedinger’s top secret documents. They’re classified and not classified at the same time, and when the FBI opens your closet at Mar-a-Lago the alternate realties collapse into each other. 
 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by 956 Worldwide

[Constant 6732]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

the man is a complete idiot, and more importantly he's surrounded by idiots / yes people ...

 

 

From a defense standpoint, isn’t this interview pretty high on the ‘don’t do stupid shit’ scale? Fox News is going to exploit his downfall at every turn for eyeballs and clicks. They certainly aren’t doing him any favors here. 

[956 Worldwide 34710]

The appellate ruling is heartening. I’m no legal scholar and I know overturns on appeals happen. I also know judges don’t generally like them to happen.  
 

It strikes me that a slap down of this extent doesn’t build confidence in our judiciary.  It wasn’t really a fine point of law, this reads to me as the legal equivalent of “Judge Cannon is wrong about everything and should feel bad.”  So my choices on Cannon are either that she’s really bad at law stuff or she decided to show extreme deference to a former POTUS out of either fear or loyalty. 
 

And I wonder what kind of law people without the resources of the US DOJ are getting when they go into her courtroom. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The appellate ruling is heartening. I’m no legal scholar and I know overturns on appeals happen. I also know judges don’t generally like them to happen.  
 

It strikes me that a slap down of this extent doesn’t build confidence in our judiciary.  It wasn’t really a fine point of law, this reads to me as the legal equivalent of “Judge Cannon is wrong about everything and should feel bad.”  So my choices on Cannon are either that she’s really bad at law stuff or she decided to show extreme deference to a former POTUS out of either fear or loyalty. 
 

And I wonder what kind of law people without the resources of the US DOJ are getting when they go into her courtroom. 

It just shows how people of money and influence can and always have been able to get preferential rulings. Johnny Bank Robber isn’t getting that ruling when he writes correspondence to his attorney on the money he stole. Because anyone with common sense can see how insane that sounds. But people with money can hire smart lawyers to paper the system to death. It was an absurd ruling based on fealty, not actual law. 

[TwiceHorn 31457]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The appellate ruling is heartening. I’m no legal scholar and I know overturns on appeals happen. I also know judges don’t generally like them to happen.  
 

It strikes me that a slap down of this extent doesn’t build confidence in our judiciary.  It wasn’t really a fine point of law, this reads to me as the legal equivalent of “Judge Cannon is wrong about everything and should feel bad.”  So my choices on Cannon are either that she’s really bad at law stuff or she decided to show extreme deference to a former POTUS out of either fear or loyalty. 
 

And I wonder what kind of law people without the resources of the US DOJ are getting when they go into her courtroom. 

One curious thing. What stood out to me about  the 11th circuit opinion was if the lower court didn't find callous disregard for Trump's rights, that was pretty much the end of the inquiry.

The government never really argued that as a dispositive factor, and Trump didn't have to wriggle away from it.  So, yet another instance of a judicial decision turning on a "surprise" factor. 

Edit:  digging a little deeper, the 5th Circuit case from which callous disregard comes, Richey v. Smith, doesn't seem really to give that factor quite the dispositive weight:

First, and perhaps foremost, is the question whether the motion for return of property accurately alleges that government agents — in this case agents of the IRS — in seizing the property displayed "`a callous disregard for the constitutional rights of the taxpayer.'" 497 F.2d at 34. Other factors to be considered are:

Richey v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1239, 1243 (5th Cir. 1975).  "First, and perhaps foremost" doesn't exactly suggest that if there's not callous disregard you can just stop right there.

It will be interesting to see what the merits panel decides as to the whole order.  It sure looks like they're going to trash it altogether, but stranger things can happen. 

The order was certainly furthest out on a limb when dealing with the classified documents.  But it raised an oddball issue:  other than just saying so,  probably under oath (I have reviewed these documents and on the first page of every single one, it says "Top Secret") how the hell do you prove something is classified if you don't submit a document for inspection?

In any event, I am glad the 11th Circuit did what it did.  I was worried about it primarily because of the nature of appellate review, but also due to "Trumpy" judges.  I'm not convinced that some or even most Trump appointees are in the bag for Donald Trump, but it will always be a lingering concern.

Edited September 22, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Dnaguy 11952]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

It just shows how people of money and influence can and always have been able to get preferential rulings. Johnny Bank Robber isn’t getting that ruling when he writes correspondence to his attorney on the money he stole. Because anyone with common sense can see how insane that sounds. But people with money can hire smart lawyers to paper the system to death. It was an absurd ruling based on fealty, not actual law. 

Wait. Are you saying rich / monied people get better treatment in the criminal justice system?

What about jobs or schools? Do they get better ones of those too?

IDK man. Something So systemically and structurally wrong with our system of government, economy, and justice would have been dealt with by Congressional action, no?. It seems kind of antithetical to the values of the republic that rich people get more rights than those with less.

you better check your facts before you start impugning the shining city on the hill like that.

[Homercles 10205]

30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

But people with money can hire smart lawyers to paper the system to death. It was an absurd ruling based on fealty, not actual law. 

I’ve always loved the book The Rainmaker (never seen the movie), given its first-person narrative from Rudy’s point of view and insight into the insurance industry…and generally more relaxed, humorous atmosphere from the other Grisham novels I’ve read.  
 

When he takes on the Black’s case, during discovery he gets his first giant ream of paperwork from the high powered defense team and his professor makes a poignant remark about the insurance company being able to afford a gaggle of lawyers to confuse and overwhelm the plaintiffs.  It sure seems to help folks like Trump, Musk, etc. 

[TwiceHorn 31457]

Here's the thing.  While it is generally true that good lawyers tend to make better results and good lawyers tend to cost big money, those of us in the business see the "big money" party fail sufficiently often that it doesn't cause despair.

One reality there is that even if you aren't talking big money lawyers, the non-big-money lawyers are still hideously expensive.

That is probably not so true on the criminal end of things, where you pit the "resources of the DOJ" against a little guy.