Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[tx 3 putt 78731]

14 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not saying it's a winning story, but it's by far the best defense he's farted out his mouth. 

 

[TwiceHorn 32096]

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

His bias has been clear from the start when he tried to equate Biden’s possession of documents to Trump’s while not addressing Pence’s possession of documents at all. 

Nah, he's been pretty clearly anti Trump for quite some time.

He has also demonstrated a less than firm grasp on the legal system and the fine points thereof.

[Gatorubet 30769]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nah, he's been pretty clearly anti Trump for quite some time.

He has also demonstrated a less than firm grasp on the legal system and the fine points thereof.

Yeah, my take is that he’s not a bad guy inherently, he just doesn’t understand what we’re talking about and he gets really mad because he thinks we’re supporting inequity in the rule of law.  Annoying, but I have to respect his motive.

[The Dog 44862]

 

[scottsins 2047]

Are you unable to read or do you simply not want to read?

Yeah. My exchange with him was telling:

“How were they able to prove it against these folks?”

“Well, they plead guilty and submitted a sworn confession.”

“Oh, so they got screwed over because they didn’t have the means to fight it so the rich get the better treatment like Biden, etc!”
(Paraphrased).

This is typical “just asking questions”.

He already “knows” the answer. He just wants to get someone else to say it. When they don’t, he’s fucking lost and just ignores the information as presented BY A BUNCH OF PRETTY GOOD FUCKING LAWYERS trying to patiently explain the shit to him.

[henrygandorf 29228]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32607]

 

 

[Chewbacca 7830]

51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nah, he's been pretty clearly anti Trump for quite some time.

He has also demonstrated a less than firm grasp on the legal system and the fine points thereof.

Then he's just an idiot.

[Rimbo 27075]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

 

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Rimbo

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13635]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Rebuttal: False

Your move, Fitton.

[TwiceHorn 32096]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Yeah, my take is that he’s not a bad guy inherently, he just doesn’t understand what we’re talking about and he gets really mad because he thinks we’re supporting inequity in the rule of law.  Annoying, but I have to respect his motive.

He was thinking "it's bad to have classified documents," period.  And, that's true as far as it goes, but it's not necessarily criminal.

[jimmyjazz 47268]

I think it's time to put @Hermanator's antics behind us, it's not relevant to the actual accusations and tacit admissions of guilt by Trump.  Ultimately, I don't really care what one guy whatabouts (even if he's ignoring the other whatabout).  It's like picking on the kid who sucks at kickball.

[TwiceHorn 32096]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Their reading of that case is so facile.

Here's where the rubber hits the road in that case:

Even if the Court agreed with plaintiff that the PRA authorizes the Archivist to assume control of materials that fall within the definition of Presidential records regardless of how the President classified them [here the issue is whether NARA can just "take back" or assume control of things it believes are Presidential Records], and it agreed with plaintiff's questionable characterization of the materials [here the court questions whether the Branch tapes fit the statutory defintion of Presidential Records], the Court still could not order the relief plaintiff seeks because the only enforcement tools provided to the defendant under the PRA are committed to the agency's sole discretion [under the statuory scheme, only NARA can challenge the categorization of documents as "personal" or "presidential," no court or other authority can force them to do anything]. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) (holding that “an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether though civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion”). The PRA authorizes NARA to invoke the same enforcement mechanism embodied in the Federal Records Act, which begins with a request to the Attorney General to institute an action for the recovery of missing records. [whoops, oh, fuck, here the decision says that the statute says that NARA can ask the DOJ to get records back, whoops, let's just ignore this] Compare 44 U.S.C. § 2112(c) with 44 U.S.C. § 3106. The statute does not mandate that NARA invoke this enforcement scheme but rather vests complete discretion with the agency to utilize that mechanism. 44 U.S.C. § 2112(c) (“When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest, he may ....” (emphasis added)). The Archivist has chosen to invoke the mechanism in the past when it deemed such action appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. McElvenny, No. 02–3027, 2003 WL 1741422 (S.D.N.Y. April 1, 2003) (seeking recovery of a map of Cuba annotated by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Fitton and Trump's reading of this case is like the "common law trust" assholes.  Fifth grader stuff.

The upshot of the case is yes, initially, the President/his staff make the first call on Presidential vs. Personal.  No one can make them reconsider the decision, while the President remains in office.  But once the President leaves office, and NARA takes control, it can get the AG/DOJ to sue or invoke other process to return documents that are Presidential Records.  Implicit in that, of course, would be satisfying a court that the documents fit the statutory definition.

And none of it has jack shit to do with classified documents, which are NEVER personal records. EVER.  And you don't have any goddamn right to the goddamn boxes either.  NARA is empowered, at any time, to employ its discretion to have DOJ sue your fucking fat orange syphilitic ass, or serve a subpoena, or maybe even a search warrant, to take back your goddamn boxes, even if they don't have classified information in them.

Edited June 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 78731]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/theusasingers/status/1670935470249738240?s=46&t=cH-LvFrUDSIxqTdoyXUTxg

[YGIFS 19458]

Fitton to get fucked.  Amirite?  

I get the nuances of the NARA laws because they were basically codified with the understanding that a former U.S. President wouldn't show war plans to strangers just because they couldn't conceive of that.  I mean, we write new laws every day because of technology and occurrences that would never have been on the radar of lawmakers just a few years ago.  But the guy still says "I used my mind to declassify the papers, so they were declassified."  And we just jump back into legal banter and act like that's not the most insane fucking thing a U.S. President has ever said and one of them said we were going to invade the dark side of the moon.  

[atomheartbevo 90665]

28 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think it's time to put @Hermanator's antics behind us,

Yeah, we need to get back to discussion of jalapenos, chili, and why every generation except generation x really does suck ass.

Edit: nevermind, wrong thread.

Edited June 20, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1279]

Still no one has answered my original question and explained how low level government employees and contractors willfully taking home classified information to work at home and keeping it unsecured should be multiple years in federal prison while the Vice President of the US willfully taking classified information to his personal home to work on it and keeping there unsecured should be just no big deal give it back and we're all cool. 
Classified information was jeopardized either way. 
Y'all are either obtuse or gaslighting cunts. You've become what you claim to hate here. Instead of striving for unbiased treatment and application of government you're making excuses for when your team commits a crime just like the idiot maga fucks do. 
I will not do that. If you don't maintain proper principles of fairness and justice in your heart and mind you're not much better than the maga shits. A lot of you need to evaluate your lives and beliefs for your own good. 

HE’S JUST ASKING QUESTIONS, GUYS

[pyrohornIII 4846]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

....and it makes his supporters like him MORE.

These fuckers swear he is some kind of Robin Hood and Biden is the Sheriff of Nottingham

[Hookah Horns 3089]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Their reading of that case is so facile.

Here's where the rubber hits the road in that case:

Even if the Court agreed with plaintiff that the PRA authorizes the Archivist to assume control of materials that fall within the definition of Presidential records regardless of how the President classified them [here the issue is whether NARA can just "take back" or assume control of things it believes are Presidential Records], and it agreed with plaintiff's questionable characterization of the materials [here the court questions whether the Branch tapes fit the statutory defintion of Presidential Records], the Court still could not order the relief plaintiff seeks because the only enforcement tools provided to the defendant under the PRA are committed to the agency's sole discretion [under the statuory scheme, only NARA can challenge the categorization of documents as "personal" or "presidential," no court or other authority can force them to do anything]. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) (holding that “an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether though civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion”). The PRA authorizes NARA to invoke the same enforcement mechanism embodied in the Federal Records Act, which begins with a request to the Attorney General to institute an action for the recovery of missing records. [whoops, oh, fuck, here the decision says that the statute says that NARA can ask the DOJ to get records back, whoops, let's just ignore this] Compare 44 U.S.C. § 2112(c) with 44 U.S.C. § 3106. The statute does not mandate that NARA invoke this enforcement scheme but rather vests complete discretion with the agency to utilize that mechanism. 44 U.S.C. § 2112(c) (“When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest, he may ....” (emphasis added)). The Archivist has chosen to invoke the mechanism in the past when it deemed such action appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. McElvenny, No. 02–3027, 2003 WL 1741422 (S.D.N.Y. April 1, 2003) (seeking recovery of a map of Cuba annotated by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Fitton and Trump's reading of this case is like the "common law trust" assholes.  Fifth grader stuff.

The upshot of the case is yes, initially, the President/his staff make the first call on Presidential vs. Personal.  No one can make them reconsider the decision, while the President remains in office.  But once the President leaves office, and NARA takes control, it can get the AG/DOJ to sue or invoke other process to return documents that are Presidential Records.  Implicit in that, of course, would be satisfying a court that the documents fit the statutory definition.

And none of it has jack shit to do with classified documents, which are NEVER personal records. EVER.  And you don't have any goddamn right to the goddamn boxes either.  NARA is empowered, at any time, to employ its discretion to have DOJ sue your fucking fat orange syphilitic ass, or serve a subpoena, or maybe even a search warrant, to take back your goddamn boxes, even if they don't have classified information in them.

The PRA argument is way too dumb for anyone to take the time to explain why it's dumb. It's not unlike arguing that the Anti-Money Laundering Act says I have every right to launder money. Not the best analogy but it's equally nonsensical. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

2 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Fitton to get fucked.  Amirite?  

I get the nuances of the NARA laws because they were basically codified with the understanding that a former U.S. President wouldn't show war plans to strangers just because they couldn't conceive of that.  I mean, we write new laws every day because of technology and occurrences that would never have been on the radar of lawmakers just a few years ago.  But the guy still says "I used my mind to declassify the papers, so they were declassified."  And we just jump back into legal banter and act like that's not the most insane fucking thing a U.S. President has ever said and one of them said we were going to invade the dark side of the moon.  

The PRA and NARA have nothing to do with things like war plans and it's not because Dotard's conduct was unimaginable, it's because the Espionage Act already covered it. 

[SydneyCarton 49523]

7 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think it's time to put @Hermanator's antics behind us, it's not relevant to the actual accusations and tacit admissions of guilt by Trump.  Ultimately, I don't really care what one guy whatabouts (even if he's ignoring the other whatabout).  It's like picking on the kid who sucks at kickball.

If the kid in question keeps interrupting every pitch and shits all over home plate repeatedly then maybe he deserves to get picked on. 

[TwiceHorn 32096]

4 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

The PRA argument is way too dumb for anyone to take the time to explain why it's dumb. It's not unlike arguing that the Anti-Money Laundering Act says I have every right to launder money. Not the best analogy but it's equally nonsensical. 

I doubt that it even gets raised in court.  But they keep talking about it, and it's not just the moron-in-chief, there are actually licensed attorneys that incant that bullshit too (Bobb and Habba, not the two good ones).

[Francisco 2.0 32607]

 

 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I doubt that it even gets raised in court.  But they keep talking about it, and it's not just the moron-in-chief, there are actually licensed attorneys that incant that bullshit too (Bobb and Habba, not the two good ones).

I'm fascinated by what the defense's case is going to be. As far as I can tell there are no major questions of fact; pretty much all the facts of the case can be stipulated except for the Corcoran based evidence that they'll try to suppress. That leaves us with the legal arguments, and nobody seems to have any idea what theory has a chance in hell of succeeding. It seems to me his only hope is suppressing the fruits of the search warrant and other crucial evidence. In that case, pretrial proceedings will be the main event. 

[AnTiM 1695]

Amazing how many people do not realize that the only thing donald JAIL trump excels at is conning people.  In all other matters, he is a total fkn moron.

[TwiceHorn 32096]

37 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I'm fascinated by what the defense's case is going to be. As far as I can tell there are no major questions of fact; pretty much all the facts of the case can be stipulated except for the Corcoran based evidence that they'll try to suppress. That leaves us with the legal arguments, and nobody seems to have any idea what theory has a chance in hell of succeeding. It seems to me his only hope is suppressing the fruits of the search warrant and other crucial evidence. In that case, pretrial proceedings will be the main event. 

I think they've signaled that they want to quash the indictment based on "grand jury misconduct," but I have only seen vague hints of what that might be, i.e. bullshit.

I still don't know how they exclude the Corcoran evidence.  I have never actually seen this in action, but it seems that once a court of competent jurisdiction finds the privilege waived or vitiated, it's gone forever.  I'm not sure that even if it is excluded, it's a killer.

In the special master proceeding, they didn't make any competent arguments against the validity of the search.  Not that they necessarily had to, but probably would have if they'd had em, given the miscellaneous nature of their complaints.

But, I agree, they got nothing on the facts.  In theory, they could have teh donald take the stand and explain himself, but we know that ain't gonna happen.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

I agree that they don't really need the Corcoran stuff. 

[The Dog 44862]

 

[DigglerontheHoof 21561]

Damn, that's pretty quick, no?

[Hookah Horns 3089]

I just hope the awesome "it wasn't a document, it was a massive amount of papers" argument makes it to court. That is beautiful. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

2 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Damn, that's pretty quick, no?

Shockingly so. I was thinking early spring at the earliest. 

[TwiceHorn 32096]

From what I read, SD Fla is regarded as a "rocket docket" for criminal cases.

The Speedy Trial Act actually requires trial within 70 days of indictment (or arraignment), but can be waived and how that 70 days is calculated gets tricky as hell.

So, it's probably standard practice there to set a "speedy trial" initial trial date.

But, by setting this trial date, she is underscoring any continuances and delays she's granting.  And this may be a first sign that she's going to play this pretty straight.

[WBT 20996]

12 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not saying it's a winning story, but it's by far the best defense he's farted out his mouth. 

The "who has time to unpack" defense?  Bold strategy.

[cactusflinthead 27628]

 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

Just now, WBT said:

The "who has time to unpack" defense?  Bold strategy.

Well he's very, very busy. A lot of people are saying he's the busiest person in the country. Just the other day someone came up to him out of nowhere and said "Mr. President, I would never believe someone as busy as you could ever have time to sort through boxes."

[WBT 20996]

1 hour ago, Hookah Horns said:

I'm fascinated by what the defense's case is going to be.

Pray for jury nullification?

[Red Five 41771]

3 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Well he's very, very busy. A lot of people are saying he's the busiest person in the country. Just the other day someone came up to him out of nowhere and said "Mr. President, I would never believe someone as busy as you could ever have time to sort through boxes."

And that was a big strong man with tears in his eyes. He said "Sir,...."

[YGIFS 19458]

6 minutes ago, WBT said:

The "who has time to unpack" defense?  Bold strategy.

I tried this with my wife once when I left out my garment bag from an NYC business trip for a week out of laziness.  And she wasn't having it.  Apparently all my time calling into cable news shows and making unrequested appearances at weddings outside my home consumed all my free time.  

Also, I love that he keeps claiming they were just boxes that nobody had any idea what to do with.  And I think of Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and now literally...Big Box

[TwiceHorn 32096]

10 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

As Ms. Vance alludes, there can be some inherently sticky issues with regard to the classified documents, their availability to the defense counsel, the defendant, and the jury.  They are classified, so you can't just show them to anyone.  But any defendant has the right to examine the evidence used against him and presenting the jury with something less than the actual document can be problematic, as well.

Often, the prosecution will select documents that can be declassified, or at least used more easily at trial than the most super-secret stuff.  But they have to balance that against using innocuous documents.

I'm relatively certain Smithco has a plan for this.

Also, that's a good blog, or good entry on criminal discovery.  Probably a good resource for following the case. https://joycevance.substack.com/

Edited June 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Hookah Horns 3089]

1 minute ago, WBT said:

Pray for jury nullification?

That and trying to get him to take a plea deal is what my strategy would boil down to if I was unfortunate enough to be his lawyer. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

And that was a big strong man with tears in his eyes. He said "Sir,...."

Lol I can't believe I forgot to include that part. It's uncanny how often the dude is approached by blubbering beefcakes who say helpful things. 

[Horndog 2301]

11 minutes ago, WBT said:

Pray for jury nullification?

Or the "friendly judge" fallback defense.

[RomaVicta 30616]

Mr. President, when you were president you stated that you would strictly prosecute violations of security.

Yes, I was president. Listen, we had the greatest economy ever in the history of the world. I personally destroyed ISIS.

The point, sir, is you had classified information in boxes at Mar a Lago that you hid from NARA.

Have you been to Mar a Lago? It's beautiful. It's also the most secure place in the world. I was protecting those boxes better than the CIA could. Presidential Records Act. Wilmott Proviso. It's up to the thugs in DOJ to- Listen, I know more about security than all of those losers. The national secrets were better off in Mar a Lago.

So, you knew you had secret materials that needed to be protected?

I have boxes. My boxes. They're mine. Listen, Joe Biden didn't even have boxes. He had several tons of secrets in the backseat of his Corvette. His ugly wife, nasty woman, hid them in her quack doctor's office. But nothing happens to him. Same with Pence. Listen, there's now another reason to hang Mike Pence.

Again, you seem to be saying you were hiding secret documents--

"Seem." See, listen, look, it doesn't matter what seems to be. They build their whole hoax sham witchhunt on "seems." Do you have a source instead of saying how something seems?

You. You just said it yourself.

No, I did not. 

You did, sir.

Clippings. Copies of clippings. No secrets. Scam. Listen, the Hatch Act says these things are mine. The government can beg for them back, but I can ignore them and keep the classified stuff--

There you go again, sir--

No! I declassified them by putting them in a bag with a live chicken. Ivanka! I want Ivanka! 

Sir.

You're fired. Everybody's fired. There.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by RomaVicta

[The Dog 44862]

 

[RomaVicta 30616]

You've got to figure Trump will insist on taking the stand because he knows he can outfox any two-bit loser government worker lawyer. 

Your honor, I would like to take the stand myself.

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 In theory, they could have teh donald take the stand and explain himself,

 

stop I can only get so hard

 

[Underdog 29210]

 

[TwiceHorn 32096]

I guess we should say right now, before anyone freaks the fuck out.

The August 14 trial date is almost sure to move.  Even if everything was on the "up and up," that would probably move because of the hassles of CIPA and dealing with the classified information, alone.

The first continuance of the trial date will almost undoubtedly be unopposed by the government and is nothing to be concerned about.

The question becomes how many times does it move and for how long.

[RomaVicta 30616]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I guess we should say right now, before anyone freaks the fuck out.

The August 14 trial date is almost sure to move.  Even if everything was on the "up and up," that would probably move because of the hassles of CIPA and dealing with the classified information, alone.

The first continuance of the trial date will almost undoubtedly be unopposed by the government and is nothing to be concerned about.

The question becomes how many times does it move and for how long.

I hate you! I hate you! I hate you! Because of you nothing will ever happen! Shatterer of dreams. Upholder of evil.

Get thee behind me, lawyer!

[Red Five 41771]

I listened to some more of that interview from last night. Wow. "Wisconsin has basically admitted that the election was rigged. And many other states are doing the same." 

The nonsense and lies were coming so fast and furious, poor Bret Baier could barely keep up. If we were living on planet Earth, 99% of the people who watched that interview would find him insane and would never in a million years consider voting for him for anything.