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

[TwiceHorn 32079]

12 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Well, to be 100% fair, the documents are not before her.

She really only has the government's assertion that they are marked classified.  That's probably at least in a declaration/affidavit somewhere, and a photo of some folders.  I'd take anyone's word over some mealy-mouthed shit from Trump's lawyers.  But those are the actual facts.

[Foosters 18280]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, to be 100% fair, the documents are not before her.

She really only has the government's assertion that they are marked classified.  That's probably at least in a declaration/affidavit somewhere, and a photo of some folders.  I'd take anyone's word over some mealy-mouthed shit from Trump's lawyers.  But those are the actual facts.

The documents will also presumably not be in front of the 11th circuit, or SCOTUS, when it goes there after the 11th upholds the ruling, right? 

So, as many have predicted, this is going to take a long time before the government can proceed with the investigation?

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

5 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

Like that's not going to happen anyway

I recall Trump taking awhile before his staff convinced him to lower the flags after McCain’s death (and Trump not being welcome at the funeral). I also recall that time they wanted to relocate the USS John McCain so Trump couldn’t see the ship during his visit to Japan.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uss-john-mccain-during-president-trump-japan-visit-officers-were-told-to-keep-warship-from-trumps-view/

The man is a petulant child.

[wildcat09 29579]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, to be 100% fair, the documents are not before her.

She really only has the government's assertion that they are marked classified.  That's probably at least in a declaration/affidavit somewhere, and a photo of some folders.  I'd take anyone's word over some mealy-mouthed shit from Trump's lawyers.  But those are the actual facts.

The actual fact is that Trump has not disputed the claim that they are classified in court.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

12 minutes ago, Foosters said:

The documents will also presumably not be in front of the 11th circuit, or SCOTUS, when it goes there after the 11th upholds the ruling, right? 

So, as many have predicted, this is going to take a long time before the government can proceed with the investigation?

Good question.  If they actually have to go to trial, the documents will have to at least be inspected in camera.

She's definitely over-deferential to the "assertions" of Trump.

I'm a bit scared of the 11th Circuit.  I don't know what they're going to do.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

15 minutes ago, Foosters said:

The documents will also presumably not be in front of the 11th circuit, or SCOTUS, when it goes there after the 11th upholds the ruling, right? 

So, as many have predicted, this is going to take a long time before the government can proceed with the investigation?

Unless stayed wholly or in part by the 11th Circuit, it appears that the Special Master proceeding proceeds.

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

Btw, I’m not particularly a fan of Meghan McCain but her eulogy for her father was strong.

 

[HenryJames 67368]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She really only has the government's assertion that they are marked classified.

You realize how stupid this sounds, right?

[Willfully Horn 8264]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, to be 100% fair, the documents are not before her.

The government, which has classification authority, told her the document’s status. 
 

I apologize for my part in making you feel obliged to play devil’s advocate, because this one post of yours is a stinker.

[wildcat09 29579]

To the extent she’s crediting Trump’s non-sworn statements on Twitter and in interviews that he declassified them, I have no fucking idea how that’s not a clear violation of the ethical prohibition against considering ex parte communications.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

10 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

You realize how stupid this sounds, right?

You also realize that I am a lawyer, and, while not a criminal defense lawyer, have a general tendency to be at least somewhat skeptical of the government's claims.

I actually "litigate" with the federal government on a daily basis.  They're frequently wrong or full of shit.

I'm not saying she SHOULD be skeptical of the government's claims, particularly in these circumstances, but as a general judge characteristic, it's one I tend to favor.

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[RomaVicta 30593]

34 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I recall Trump taking awhile before his staff convinced him to lower the flags after McCain’s death (and Trump not being welcome at the funeral). I also recall that time they wanted to relocate the USS John McCain so Trump couldn’t see the ship during his visit to Japan.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uss-john-mccain-during-president-trump-japan-visit-officers-were-told-to-keep-warship-from-trumps-view/

The man is a petulant child.

Trump should be keel-hauled on the McCain for what he's done to this country. Summary keel-hauling as far as I'm concerned. 

[lemonlime 5503]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

To the extent she’s crediting Trump’s non-sworn statements on Twitter and in interviews that he declassified them, I have no fucking idea how that’s not a clear violation of the ethical prohibition against considering ex parte communications.

Even if he somehow magically declassified, an absurdity that even his own lawyers don't argue, it doesn't matter. There is zero rationale to have a special master review documents that executive branch of the government wants back for national security reasons, regardless of their classification status.  The former executive doesn't have the right to hide national security documents from the current executive.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[HenryJames 67368]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You also realize that I am a lawyer, and, while not a criminal defense lawyer, have a general tendency to be at least somewhat skeptical of the government's claims.

Trump has not claimed in court that they are declassified and has submitted no evidence that they are declassified. So why are they in dispute?

[TwiceHorn 32079]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

Even if he somehow magically declassified, an absurdity that even his own lawyers don't argue, it doesn't matter. There is zero rationale to have a special master review documents that executive branch of the government wants back for national security reasons, regardless of their classification status.  The former executive doesn't have the right to hide national security documents from the current executive.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I think that's ultimately correct.

I don't think you can come up with a case cite for it, though.

Pretty sure there will be one after all this.

[Party_Taco 3890]

From Reddit…

“This is the more serious part:

Make available for inspection by Plaintiff’s counsel, with controlled access conditions (including necessary clearance requirements) and under the supervision of the Special Master, the documents marked as classified and the papers attached to such documents

A former FISA judge may be able to obtain the necessary clearances quickly. There's no reason to expect Trump's lawyers have any business near those documents.”

If Trump’s lawyers get to see the documents I literally have no idea WTF is going on here…

[lemonlime 5503]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that's ultimately correct.

I don't think you can come up with a case cite for it, though.

Pretty sure there will be one after all this.

I'm sure there's no case cite, because noone has been stupid enough to argue this before.  But the government's point in their stay motion isn't that the 100 documents (or whatever the number is) are classified.  It's that there were hundreds (thousands?) of pages taken from mar a lago, some of which the executive before Biden occupied that office stamped as "classified."   Trump took documents with this stamp, which we know by virtue of the stamp belong to the executive branch, and which the current executive wants back, and which the current executive, the owner of the documents, says have national security implications.  And not that I'm giving Trump's idiotic declassification argument any weight, but it wouldn't matter at all if it were true.   These are still documents belonging to the executive.  And we know they are because the executive branch put markings on them, marking them as "classified."  And the marking signifies that they contain national security information. And now the executive wants the documents it marked back.

The documents don't belong to trump.  He isn't king, despite his and Cannon's delusions.

Edited September 16, 2022 by lemonlime

[TwiceHorn 32079]

19 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The government, which has classification authority, told her the document’s status. 
 

I apologize for my part in making you feel obliged to play devil’s advocate, because this one post of yours is a stinker.

In any other circumstance, with any other defendant, a judge who refuses to accept "the government/prosecution told me so" should receive a standing ovation.

[HenryJames 67368]

What other defendant gets the benefit of the doubt on an argument they’re not even making?

[Willfully Horn 8264]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In any other circumstance, with any other defendant, a judge who refuses to accept "the government/prosecution told me so" should receive a standing ovation.

Okay, fine. I am glad we agree national security implications make this case all but unique. Tell me, were Trump indicted would he not have opportunity at trial to challenge the documents’ classification? 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Puncted

[Born to Run 6601]

So if I was to ask the editor, "Who did your author to go for this source material?", the editor would say, "He went to Jared!"  
This simulation is painful, but not without a playful sense of humor.  

Doo doo doo dah, that's Jared!

I can only be Jared!


Shitty radio jingle, if you heard it, you are now mad at me.

[Born to Run 6601]

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.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

It's like a ref grabbing a challenge flag from a coach and throwing it on the field so they can review the outcome of a play.

[TexasHooch 5199]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In any other circumstance, with any other defendant, a judge who refuses to accept "the government/prosecution told me so" should receive a standing ovation.

Well, yeah, I suppose.  But in this case the government's assertions- specifically related to documents marked classified- aren't even being disputed.  It's one thing if the point is contested.  She's inferring that it's contested without having been told as much.  Unless Trump's "truths" were a part of the legal response.  If so, I missed it.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

22 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I'm sure there's no case cite, because noone has been stupid enough to argue this before.  But the government's point in their stay motion isn't that the 100 documents (or whatever the number is) are classified.  It's that there were hundreds (thousands?) of pages taken from mar a lago, some of which the executive before Biden occupied that office stamped as "classified."   Trump took documents with this stamp, which we know by virtue of the stamp belong to the executive branch, and which the current executive wants back, and which the current executive, the owner of the documents, says have national security implications.  And not that I'm giving Trump's idiotic declassification argument any weight, but it wouldn't matter at all if it were true.   These are still documents belonging to the executive.  And we know they are because the executive branch put markings on them, marking them as "classified."  And now the executive wants the documents it marked back.

The documents don't belong to trump.  He isn't king, despite his and Cannon's delusions.

Well, no one has argued it before because it hasn't come up before. Not because it's a dumb argument, but because we've never had a dumber or more criminal president.

The closest analogy is the Nixon tapes and they didn't reach this sort of "state."  In US v. Nixon, the tapes were subpoenaed by Jaworski for use in the trial of non-Nixon defendants.  Nixon objected to the subpoena on executive privilege grounds, as a judicial violation of separation of powers.  The case didn't reach what executive officials, i.e. prosecutors, could or could not do with the subpoenae'd material, because that's not what Nixon argued.

In Nixon v. GSA, Nixon argued that a predecessor to NARA could not take custody of executive privileged records under a predecessor to the PRA.  The Supreme Court disagreed, mostly because executive-to-executive.  But, the executive agency there was not trying to use executive privileged documents against him.

Trump v. Thompson permitted Congress, specifically the 1/6 committee, to use executive privileged documents against Trump.

The issue of whether executive law enforcement and prosecution agencies can use executive privileged documents to investigate and prosecute a former President has not been decided.

So, it's an issue of first impression.  I don't think it is a particularly tough one to resolve given the Nixon precedents and Trump v. Thompson.

Whether she's actually in the bag for Trump or not, she clearly does not want to make a call on this one.  And, arguably, the executive privilege stuff isn't even ripe for decision until we're talking about specific documents.

As I think Tuco raised, some of the classified documents, by the government's admission, carry Trump's handwriting.  That could be argued to be executive privileged, even though the classified document itself is not subject to such a claim.

Edited September 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32079]

7 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Okay, fine. I am glad we agree national security implications make this case all but unique. Tell me, were Trump indicted would he not have opportunity at trial to challenge the documents classification? 

The case is very unique indeed.

Boiled to its fundamentals, the judge doesn't want to just accept any of the governments' assertions about the documents until someone other than the government gets to look at them.

When I extract Trump from the equation, I can't much argue with that.

And that is my fundamental point.

[hobbes2702 13478]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

The case is very unique indeed.

Boiled to its fundamentals, the judge doesn't want to just accept any of the governments' assertions about the documents until someone other than the government gets to look at them.

When I extract Trump from the equation, I can't much argue with that.

And that is my fundamental point.

But there’s no actual dispute. I don’t get why she shouldn’t accept the governments assertion when no one has claimed anything else

[Willfully Horn 8264]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The case is very unique indeed.

Boiled to its fundamentals, the judge doesn't want to just accept any of the governments' assertions about the documents until someone other than the government gets to look at them.

When I extract Trump from the equation, I can't much argue with that.

And that is my fundamental point.

Our courts are backed up as it is, counselor. Proving the veracity of each claim to the judge prior to the trial seems like it would not help. My point is that proving the facts is one function of the trial.

[Fudge Nuggets 19455]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, to be 100% fair, the documents are not before her.

She really only has the government's assertion that they are marked classified.  That's probably at least in a declaration/affidavit somewhere, and a photo of some folders.  I'd take anyone's word over some mealy-mouthed shit from Trump's lawyers.  But those are the actual facts.

imma needs to rig up some way to send an electric shock through your keyboard every time you start a post with "Well, to be fair..." or "Well, actually..."

Nothing good comes from those posts and you must be re-programmed to resist temptation to make more of them.

 

[TexEx15 17951]

8 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

But there’s no actual dispute. I don’t get why she shouldn’t accept the governments assertion when no one has claimed anything else

She doing Trump’s legal team work for them. It’s bullshit.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

But there’s no actual dispute. I don’t get why she shouldn’t accept the governments assertion when no one has claimed anything else

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."

 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

imma needs to rig up some way to send an electric shock through your keyboard every time you start a post with "Well, to be fair..." or "Well, actually..."

Nothing good comes from those posts and you must be re-programmed to resist temptation to make more of them.

 

Nothing bad comes of them either, except people like you get your panties further in a twist.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6597]

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?

[Born to Run 6601]

Trump should be keel-hauled on the McCain for what he's done to this country. Summary keel-hauling as far as I'm concerned. 

That method would rupture him like popping an overdue pustule or pimple.

The remoras would probably even bail after the first bite. Taste like hades.

[hobbes2702 13478]

1 minute 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."

 

I wasn’t really trying to make a point just asking. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t really understand how that ruling could even come about. I appreciate your perspective.

[immamac 44354]

Just now, 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."

 

So if i had access to top secret documents that needed SCI and alll kinds of shit, then I took those home and put them in my pool cabana. The FBI comes and takes them after telling me they know specifically which documents I have and to return them and I didn’t then they come and take them. 
 

I can just be like lol wtf those aren’t classified cuz you say they are? 
are you fucking retarded? There is no way that this has anything to do with “trusting the governments assertion” it’s THE FUCKING PROPERTY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT THEY KNEW WAS TAKEN

[Fudge Nuggets 19455]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nothing bad comes of them either, except people like you get your panties further in a twist.

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.

[hobbes2702 13478]

1 minute 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?

Also not a lawyer but I think that’s correct. 
I think @wildcat09 mentioned ex parte communication or something  which I would like to hear more about.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Our courts are backed up as it is, counselor. Proving the veracity of each claim to the judge prior to the trial seems like it would not help. My point is that proving the facts is one function of the trial.

As a broad proposition, you don't alter judicial rulings just because "the courts are backed up."

This gets back to the original point that, if it is later found that the government improperly used the documents to investigate and/or indict Trump, the whole thing has huge potential to go poof.  And our fervent wish that Trump be convicted goes poof along with it.

If this provides a forum to clear the government to use it all against Trump, in a way that cannot be effectively contested in a criminal trial, then I like it.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6597]

1 minute 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.

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.

[HenryJames 67368]

5 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?

Yes. It’s not complicated at all unless you’re a lawyer.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

5 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?

I thought you were a non-practicing lawdog.

But to answer your question, not explicitly, no.

The government basically argues that a) under no circumstances can documents bearing classification markings be subject to executive or any other privilege that prevents their use in criminal or national security investigations, or any combination thereof and b) the delay associated with reviewing the documents to conclusively insure that a) is true will irreparably harm the government and national security.

Trump kicked some dirt on a), not very conclusively, and partially by implying that they may not even be classified because he waved his magic want and declassified them.  He also muddled around some other arguments casting doubt on proposition a). They also argued that the irreparable harm was not that irreparable.

She didn't buy it, for various stated reasons, and some no doubt unstated reasons.

[Satchel 6982]

46 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

6 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.

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.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

What I'm trying to puzzle out now is whether the appeal will cause any further delays in and of itself.

Because they only asked for a stay of the "classified document" part of the order, I think that's all they can ask for from the 11th Circuit (the rules say you gotta ask the district court first).  So the 11th will rule on that in the next week or so.  I don't think they can stay the entire special master order pending appeal because the government didn't ask for that initially.

Beyond that, I think the Special Master proceeding proceeds, and should conclude by 11/30 as ordered, which will almost undoubtedly beat the ruling on appeal on the "merits" of the case. I don't know if that would "moot" the appeal or not.

The government could take the stay to SCOTUS.  

I have read in credible places that Dearie is a serious, no-bullshit judge with the right kind of credentials, so I am not expecting him to tolerate a lot of fuckery or further delay.  He's a 1986 Reagan appointee, so has been out of partisan politics for 36 years, to the extent he ever was.  Still, that Trump nominated him gives me pause. I expect him to be far less of a chickenshit than Cannon on making "tough" legal calls.  Oddly enough, he granted the Carter Page FISA warrants, so he's probably going to be appropriately rough on the government.

On the appeal, setting aside any bias, the standard of review for injunctive type relief is "abuse of discretion," which is generally pretty deferential to the trial judge.  One way to establish abuse of discretion is a "clear legal error."  I'm not sure the law is clear enough on any of this shit to make that a slam dunk.

On the merits of the thing, I don't think SCOTUS would take the case, other than ruling on a stay pending appeal, because the issues aren't "teed up" properly.

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

Trump will get away with everything 

[Satchel 6982]

Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

Trump will get away with everything 

Don’t think so. Doesn’t mean he won’t try to get by, but he won’t get away.

[Brisketexan 106900]

Trump will get away with everything 

Diggler understands this timeline.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

Just now, Satchel said:

Don’t think so. Doesn’t mean he won’t try to get by, but he won’t get away.

To this end, I saw it reported today that Trump has offered to settle the Letitia James inquiry, that hasn't even turned into a civil suit yet.  That's not a power move, at all, but it is consistent with his civil case approach of delay delay settle.  Probably would prefer to conclude that before the Trump Org trial next month.

As I have mentioned, you can delay a criminal case for a while, and hope that witnesses die or whatever, but you can't generally settle them except by plea bargain and conviction.

Trump is in a new world these days and his old tactics aren't going to work.

[Dahobbs 18324]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

You also realize that I am a lawyer, and, while not a criminal defense lawyer, have a general tendency to be at least somewhat skeptical of the government's claims.

I actually "litigate" with the federal government on a daily basis.  They're frequently wrong or full of shit.

I'm not saying she SHOULD be skeptical of the government's claims, particularly in these circumstances, but as a general judge characteristic, it's one I tend to favor.

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. 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

37 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Also not a lawyer but I think that’s correct. 
I think @wildcat09 mentioned ex parte communication or something  which I would like to hear more about.

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.