Jump to content

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

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89656

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Brandywine said:

If he would have taken the President's job seriously and respected the position, showed some class and empathy, he would have won reelection easily and probably had a statue and a school or highway named for him. But no, he's not built that way because the job was way over his intelligence level and he only knows how to bully people to get his way. 

Greg Abbott in a nutshell.  If he hadn’t gone full asshole, and tried to make lives miserable for certain groups of people, hadn’t acted like a banana republic dictator kowtowing to billionaires and getting pissed off when people didn’t do what he wanted, had shown some class and empathy, and done things like tried to help more handicapped people since that should be a subject near and dear to him, he’d have schools named after him, statues, etc. and an actual legacy.  

Instead, he makes Rick Fuckin Perry look almost like a decent governor, most UT alumni are embarrassed by him, and a whole shitload of the state thinks he’s just a completely irredeemable asshole

30 minutes ago, AnTiM said:

So that means he LIED????   OMFG, what an utter shock.

Nice, very nice.  Little tidbit to throw at the MAGA relatives if they try to claim the election was stolen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CTC2

CTC2 2797

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Being a federal judge in a low volume district *for life* is a uniquely rare and sweet job that thousands of more qualified attorneys would have taken. I think it’s not about ambition but she’s acting out of loyalty- just like our former mob boss in chief wanted 

Trump put her in his home district at the last hour for a reason. She’s in the tank for him. Change my mind. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27660

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:


jack smith is over matched in this one 

cannon knew her assignment 

But I was told that Cannon is a very good judge who would never put her thumb on the scale for trump! Are you telling me that my lying eyes WEREN'T lying to me and cannon was doing exactly what it fucking looked like?? Unpossible!

  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/31/2023 at 9:53 AM, TwiceHorn said:

It's not wrong, at all. 

But I think the most apt explanation for this is the subtle, maybe subconcious racism that still exists in our society.  Prosecutors, sentencing judges, even jurors are apt to believe that black men are more likely to have committed a more serious crime and deserve harsher punishment than a similarly situated white guy, or woman, for that matter.

Then you add in criminal legislation like the VCCLA  with its fairly obviously racially biased crack disparity, among other things, and the economic disadvantage suffered by black men, and you have a recipe for this.

The problem is that it is out of context.  There are a lot of "unpleasant" situations in the legal system (meaning outcomes you don't like because you have a deep interest in the outcome), that have nothing or very little to do with the problems that make the system inequitable.

oh, here comes the Critical Race Theory 

Spoiler

/sarcasm 

 

Edited by TexasEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13511

Posted
Posted (edited)

What a great argument for crooks.  Your honor, I need to push out my trial for a year because I'm dealing with 10 other indictments and trials.

What's unfortunate is that the document case is the one case that I see as a slam dunk and that's the one being pushed back the most. Perhaps never occurring if Trump can get himself back into the WH.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll have to look deeper, but the quoted sections aren't precisely at odds.

One of the things the defense has to show is how relevant classified information is to the defense and what level of disclosure is required.  Which means exposing defense theories and theories that may not be the trial theory.  So, Cannon seems to be permitting an ex parte hearing where the defense can explain their theories, why classified information is needed to support or prove them and thus that it is entitled to some level of disclosure of and use of classified materials at trial.  For fairly obvious reasons, they don't necessarily want the government to be privy to that discussion, and that's legit.

Whereas, Chutkan is saying, in different context, apparently, that there cannot be a non-ex-parte hearing where classified evidence is discussed in detail (ex parte meaning one side or the other, only).

But, if she fucks up CIPA, I'm all for the interlocutory appeal the gubmint gets and maybe a reassignment to a more experienced judge.

But what he is charged with is stealing stuff.  Very dangerous information.  That is the crime.

Cannon is arguing that the Government has to give this dangerous information back to the thief.  How can any sane person argue in good faith that a thief needs the fruits of the crime as a defense?  The fact that his arguments admit having the materials is admission of the crime since it means 1) they admit he took it 2) that he refused to return it.  Jack Smith should ask for directed verdict based on the information in the Trump arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30231

Posted
Posted

I love that Donny, Jr. testified that other than knowing what the acronym  GAAP “generally excepted accounting practices” meant, he had absolutely no idea what they were.   In other words, what you get when you send a Trump to Wharton Business School. 

He blamed any problems on the accountants.  The accountants did not sign off on the stuff, as it was so wack-a-doodle wrong they did not feel comfortable doing so.    

Also, there is no way those fuck sticks did not lie on their depositions, and they are all too stupid to remember what they lied about in the depositions.  So when they lie differently in the trial, it should be interesting. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13584

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Translation: "Aileen you idiot Trump is trying to manipulate you don't fall for it or you're an idiot."

 

Trump tried a similar delay tactic in his own defamation lawsuit against Cohen trying to avoid a deposition by Cohen's lawyers by falsely arguing he had to be in NYC that entire week for his civil trial. After 2 1/2 days of pouting in court he got bored and left which Cohen's lawyers immediately pointed out to the judge prompting Trump to drop his ludicrous 500 million suit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27660

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Translation: "Aileen you idiot Trump is trying to manipulate you don't fall for it or you're an idiot."

 

 

26 minutes ago, Js1 said:

She ain’t smart enough to understand it 

it's remarkable how similar judge cannon in function is to some of the shithousery that russia uses to hide its malfeasance, like with the ship anchor that accidentally snagged a fiber and gas pipeline. They're so shitty at their job, just plain ol' fuckin negligence is a reasonable defense for them.

 

God bless America, we are fucked if we have to keep acting like the judiciary hasn't been meaningfully coopted by trumpists. Nothing the lower courts even do really matters for as long as we have the bought and paid for supreme court either.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted

On the CIPA stuff, here's Cannon's ruling.  I think she did fuck it up, but not 100% sure.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/202/united-states-v-trump/

The problem seems to be this.  Cannon assumes that a defendant is entitled to receive all discoverable information in a criminal case.  That, as a general proposition, is correct.

But CIPA Section 3 says this:

"Upon motion of the United States, the court shall issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States."

The way I read that is that if the government makes a motion to protect against disclosure and the court grants it, a defendant is NOT ENTITLED to classified information.  

Then CIPA Section 4 modifies that:

"The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. If the court enters an order granting relief following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the statement of the United States shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal."

So, a defendant, or the defendant's attorneys alone (not sharing with defendant), may be authorized to receive redacted or summarized versions of classified information, or a substituted statement admitting certain facts about what the classfied information shows.  It's not clear to me who has to make that showing.

CIPA Section 6 seems to describe the procedures to implement the above.

The controversy seems to be this:  The government wants an order, pursuant to Section 4, that certain classified information (it's not clear what) be disclosed only to defense counsel and not to the individual defendants.  

Cannon seems to fuck it up by assuming that defendants are entitled to classified materials and it's the government's burden to show why they are not and why the "substitute" materials are sufficient to satisfy due process/fair trial concerns.  I think that's backwards.  However, Section 6 does seem to contemplate that if the classified material can't be disclosed to the defendant, or to counsel, either verbatim or in one of the substitute fashions, the case should probably be dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32389

Posted
Posted

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/what-2024-election-really-about-trump-supporters/675869/

This essay is adapted from the forthcoming Tired of Winning: Donald Trump and the End of the Grand Old Party.

 

Quote

Twenty‐five years before my first book about Donald Trump was published, I wrote a paperback titled The Right to Bear Arms: The Rise of America’s New Militias. It was written after Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, and tracks the emerging anti-government movement that inspired McVeigh to make war on the federal law-enforcement agencies that he, and many other far‐right activists, believed posed a threat both to America and to themselves.

 

 

Quote

On the cover of the book is a photograph of the Branch Davidians’ Waco, Texas, compound engulfed in flames. Federal law enforcement learned that the group was stockpiling weapons and explosives and, after a disastrous siege in early 1993, attempted to storm the compound. With agents closing in, several Branch Davidians set fire to the building, apparently preferring to die rather than be captured by authorities. The body of the cult’s leader, David Koresh, was found with a gunshot to the head.

 

Quote

The raid was a colossal failure. To some, though, the debacle represented something far more sinister: a deliberate plot by the government to trap and murder the Branch Davidians.

Waco became a rallying cry for right‐wing activists who believed that Washington, D.C., was out to get them. “Citizens’ militias” stockpiled arms and ammunition as well as food and survival gear. Some played weekend war games in vacant parking lots, on farmland, or in remote woodlands. “The ranks of the militias are made up of factory workers, veterans, computer programmers, farmers, housewives, small‐business owners,” I wrote in the book’s introduction. “The most shocking thing about these ‘paramilitary extremists’ is how normal they are. They are your neighbors. But in another sense, many members of America’s new militias live in a parallel universe, where civil war is already being waged by tyrants within the federal government.”

 

 

 

Spoiler

In the run‐up to publication, I planned a small party and decided to spruce up the invitation with some over‐the‐top words of praise from my friends and colleagues. A couple of my colleagues at the New York Post offered up some choice words, and on a whim, I decided to call a famous New Yorker who was both a reliable source and known for making hyperbolic statements to see if he would give me a quote as well. He readily agreed to provide a glowing endorsement—provided I wrote it up myself. So I did:

“What a book! Karl is one of the best in the business—tough, fair and brutally honest.” — Donald J. Trump

Trump signed off on the quote. To this day, I don’t know whether he actually read the advance copy of The Right to Bear Arms I sent him—but more than a quarter of a century later, he announced that the first rally of his 2024 presidential campaign would be held in a familiar location: Waco, Texas.

Largely irrelevant in both the Republican primary and the general election, Texas was an odd choice for the campaign kickoff. A Trump spokesperson would later deny that the venue selection was at all related to the massacre that took place there almost exactly 30 years earlier—he claimed Waco was chosen solely because it was “centrally located” and “close” to big cities such as Dallas and Houston—but plenty of rally attendees drew the connection between the setting and Trump’s central campaign message.

“[Trump’s] making a statement, I believe, by coming to these stomping grounds where the government, the FBI, laid siege on this community just like they laid siege on Mar‐a‐Lago and went in and took his stuff,” Charles Pace, a Branch Davidian pastor who knew Koresh but left the compound several years before the deadly fire, told The Texas Tribune. “He’s not coming right out and saying, ‘Well, I’m doing it because I want you to know what happened there was wrong.’ But he implies it.”

Shortly after the rally was announced, I asked Steve Bannon, who had served as the CEO of Trump’s 2016 campaign and had once again emerged as one of Trump’s most important advisers, why the former president would go to Waco for his big campaign reboot. He wasn’t coy.

“We’re the Trump Davidians,” he told me with a laugh.

Even less subtle than the venue of the rally was how Trump kicked it off, standing silently onstage with his hand on his heart while he waited for “The Star‐Spangled Banner” to play. This wasn’t a traditional version of the national anthem. Trump’s campaign had queued up “Justice for All,” a rendition of the song recorded over a jailhouse phone by a group of about 20 inmates being held in Washington, D.C., for taking part in the assault on the U.S. Capitol. In the song, the so‐called J6 Prison Choir makes its way through Francis Scott Key’s lyrics while Trump’s voice interjects with stray lines from the Pledge of Allegiance, which he recorded at Mar‐a‐Lago. As the recording blared, video footage from the January 6 riot played on the massive screens flanking the stage.

“For seven years, you and I have been taking on the corrupt, rotten, and sinister forces trying to destroy America,” he told the crowd. “They’re not going to do it, but they do get closer and closer with rigged elections.”

“Twenty twenty-four,” Trump declared, “is the final battle.”

This wasn’t a campaign speech in any traditional sense. Trump echoed the themes of paranoia and foreboding that grew out of the Waco massacre. “As far as the eye can see, the abuses of power that we’re currently witnessing at all levels of government will go down as among the most shameful, corrupt, and depraved chapters in all of American history,” he said.

“They’re not coming after me,” he told the crowd. “They’re coming after you.”

The message seemed to resonate, but its brazenness was staggering. The folks cheering Trump had not taken boxes stuffed with classified documents out of the White House—and it’s safe to assume that none of them spent tens of thousands of dollars to cover up an affair with an adult‐film star.

Whatever you think about the investigations, Trump invited the scrutiny. Special Counsel Jack Smith was probing Trump’s role in the January 6 attack and his failure to turn over that classified material. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was investigating his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential-election results in Georgia. And Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was nearing an indictment on charges related to hush‐money payments Trump made weeks before the 2016 election to the porn star Stormy Daniels.

“The DOJ and FBI are destroying the lives of so many Great American Patriots, right before our very eyes,” Trump posted on Truth Social the day after four members of the Proud Boys militia were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in the storming of the Capitol. “GET SMART AMERICA, THEY ARE COMING AFTER YOU!!!”

But “they” weren’t coming after Trump’s law‐abiding supporters—they were coming after Trump. Decades earlier, the presidential candidate Bill Clinton told voters that he felt their pain. Trump was now doing the reverse, trying to persuade his supporters to feel his pain as if it were their own.

Trump was in a dark place when he announced that he was running for president in early 2023. Still reeling from the Republican Party’s disappointing midterm performance the previous November, he barely seemed to be trying. A close confidant of the former president told me that he was trying to get Trump to do more to jump‐start his effort to win back the White House, encouraging him, for example, to go on the attack against President Joe Biden and the Democrats over the federal bailout of Silicon Valley Bank. But the adviser was getting nowhere. “He’s just obsessed with this New York thing.”

he “New York thing,” of course, was Bragg’s grand-jury investigation. The case was long believed to be dead, but on January 30, the Manhattan D.A.’s office had impaneled a new grand jury and begun presenting evidence of Trump’s involvement in the hush-money payments. Over the next few weeks, it became clear that the first presidential indictment in history was imminent—but nobody knew exactly when Bragg would pull the trigger.

Except, apparently, Donald Trump.

“THE FAR & AWAY LEADING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE & FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILL BE ARRESTED ON TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK,” he posted on Truth Social at 7:26 a.m. on March 18.

Political journalists scrambled to find out what Trump was talking about. Why hadn’t anybody tipped them off that such momentous news was coming? Had Bragg officially communicated to the former president’s legal team what to expect? How else could Trump have been so confident about the exact date of his arrest?

One of Trump’s lawyers, Joe Tacopina, would later tell reporters that the former president’s legal team had not been informed of any impending indictment—and he was right. So where did Trump get the idea he was about to be arrested?

A source close to Trump told me that the former president had learned of his pending indictment from an MSNBC show called Morning Joe: Weekend. Not that many people are tuning in to a cable-news program that starts at six on Saturday mornings, but Trump was, and he took particular interest in a segment—a rerun from two days earlier—featuring the legal analyst Andrew Weissmann on the Manhattan D.A.’s investigation. Discussing Bragg’s recent interactions with Trump’s legal team and the grand jury, Weissmann said he couldn’t see the D.A. not indicting the former president, telling the show’s co-host Joe Scarborough that he believed such a move was imminent: “We should be very, very conscious that this is likely to come down very soon.”

Trump, according to my source, interpreted Weissmann’s speculation as fact. “IT’S TIME!!!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “THEY’RE KILLING OUR NATION AS WE SIT BACK & WATCH. WE MUST SAVE AMERICA! PROTEST, PROTEST, PROTEST!!!”

Trump’s rhetoric was reckless—recall what happened the last time he encouraged his supporters to protest—and it prompted a flurry of news coverage and political commentary on his alleged criminality. That might seem problematic for somebody trying to get a presidential campaign off the ground. But everyone seemed to be talking about him again, and Republicans—even his potential 2024 rivals—felt obligated to jump to his defense, or at least condemn the Manhattan D.A. To Trump, that was a win.

In the days following his prediction of a Tuesday arrest, he attacked Bragg, who is Black, as a “Racist in Reverse” and “degenerate psychopath” who was pursuing him while letting “MURDERERS, RAPISTS, AND DRUG DEALERS WALK FREE.” Trump’s most inflammatory comments were about what would happen to the country if Bragg went through with what he was planning. “What kind of person can charge another person,” Trump wrote on March 24, “when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?”

The implication seemed clear: Drop the case against me, or my supporters will get violent. That same day, an envelope—apparently mailed from Florida—was found in the Manhattan D.A.’s office containing a trace amount of white powder and a letter that read, “ALVIN: I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

For a few days at least, Trump believed that his threats had had their intended effect. Tuesday came and went, and he remained a free man. So did Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. By Saturday, Trump was talking as though he had successfully outmaneuvered Bragg. “I think they’ve already dropped the case,” he told reporters on the plane ride back from his campaign rally in Waco. “It’s a fake case—some fake cases. They have absolutely nothing.”

When multiple news outlets reported on March 29 that the grand jury would be taking a month-long hiatus, Trump was ecstatic. “I HAVE GAINED SUCH RESPECT FOR THIS GRAND JURY, & PERHAPS EVEN THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM AS A WHOLE,” he posted on Truth Social. “THE EVIDENCE IS SO OVERWHELMING IN MY FAVOR, & SO RIDICULOUSLY BAD FOR THE HIGHLY PARTISAN & HATEFUL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THAT THE GRAND JURY IS SAYING, HOLD ON, WE ARE NOT A RUBBER STAMP.”

The grand jury voted to indict him the next day.

As Trump prepared to fly to New York the following week, rumors swirled that he was planning to turn his arraignment into a spectacle. One story claimed that his advisers were ready to use his mug shot for campaign merchandise; another reported that he wanted to be handcuffed behind his back as he walked into the courtroom. A confidant, noting that Easter was coming, urged him to lean into the Christ analogy.

Trump didn’t do any of it, opting instead to get in and out of New York as quickly and quietly as possible.

Politically speaking, the former president’s advisers may have been right. His campaign received millions of dollars in donations in the days after the indictment was announced. Arriving in Manhattan with dozens of supportive lawmakers in tow and holding a combative press conference in the gold‐plated lobby of his skyscraper would have been a show of strength. It could have reminded the world that he was still the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination—and sent the message that Bragg hadn’t rattled him.

The problem was that the indictment had rattled him. For all his bluster, Trump desperately wanted to stave off an arrest, and he was embarrassed he hadn’t been able to. When it came time to turn himself in, he slipped out of Trump Tower and got into a black SUV.

Upon arrival at the courthouse, Trump was fingerprinted and processed, just like anybody else facing criminal charges in New York (though no mug shot was taken). Then he was escorted to the room where his lawyers were waiting. Across the hallway from this holding room were several empty jail cells.

“They stood up and saluted,” Trump told his lawyers when he returned from processing, according to a source who witnessed his comments. A week later, he’d tell the then–Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the court employees’ eyes were welling up as they processed him.

“They were actually crying,” he claimed. “They said, ‘I’m sorry.’ They said, ‘Twenty twenty‐four, sir. Twenty twenty‐four.’ And tears were pouring down their eyes.”

The court employees at 100 Centre Street have seen it all. It’s a place packed with every kind of defendant—petty criminals, alleged killers, mobsters, celebrity defendants, and, yes, disgraced politicians. The staff aren’t known for saluting people as they take their fingerprints, and they certainly aren’t known for crying on the job. Shortly after the Carlson interview aired, “a law-enforcement source” familiar with the proceedings told the journalist Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News that Trump’s claims were “absolute BS.”

“There were zero people crying,” the source added. “There were zero people saying, ‘I’m sorry.’”

In their holding room at the courthouse, Trump and his lawyers were given copies of the 34‐count felony indictment that would soon be presented formally upstairs in the courtroom. Trump, however, took more interest in the placement of the television camera he would pass by on his way there. He knew the image of him walking by that camera would be played over and over again on television and social media. But the camera was way down the hallway—separated from the courthouse door by barricades—making it difficult, if not impossible, to be heard if he wanted to say anything. He wasn’t happy, but there was nothing Trump could do about it. This wasn’t his show. Still, he tried. For a few seconds when he was visible on camera, he managed to lock his gaze on the lens, glaring at the world as he walked by.

Inside the courtroom, Trump sat at the defendant’s table, flanked by his lawyers.

He had to wait a full five minutes before the judge came into the room. When the words “All rise!” rang out, everybody in the court, including Trump, had to stand.

D.A. Bragg and Juan Merchan, the presiding judge, were met by a version of Donald Trump that was much quieter, more somber—more timid—than the man he appeared to be on television and social media. The night before, he had said that Bragg should “INDICT HIMSELF.” But finally given a chance to confront them face‐to‐face, Trump was mostly silent. During the 57‐minute proceeding, Trump said just 10 words—“not guilty,” “yes,” “okay, thank you,” “yes,” “I do,” “yes”—and spoke so quietly that reporters had to strain to hear him.

For the first time in years, Donald Trump was not the most powerful person in the room.

As soon as the arraignment was over, Trump raced back to Mar-a-Lago, responding to his first indictment with a speech aimed squarely at the prosecutors closing in on him—not just Bragg, but also Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis, who is also Black (Trump called her the “local racist Democrat district attorney in Atlanta”), and the special counsel leading the Department of Justice’s investigations into January 6 and his handling of classified documents (a “lunatic special prosecutor named Jack Smith”). More than any potential Republican rival for the party’s presidential nomination—more than Biden, even—these were the people he was now running against.

“REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS SHOULD DEFUND THE DOJ AND FBI UNTIL THEY COME TO THEIR SENSES,” he posted on Truth Social the following day. His campaign was selling T‐shirts (for $36) featuring a fake “mug shot” of Trump made to look as if it were a booking photo. Later in the week, his campaign posted a video advertisement featuring dramatic footage from Trump’s arraignment. Apparently, being indicted for paying off your porn‐star mistress was not something to be ashamed of in a Republican primary. “If they can do it to him they can do it to you,” Donald Trump Jr. tweeted. Noticeably absent from Trump’s obsession with his own victimization was any real focus on helping Americans who weren’t under criminal investigation, but his advisers were convinced that the ploy would work. “This week, Trump could lock down the nomination if he played his cards right,” Bannon told me as rumors began to swirl of Bragg’s indictment. “‘They’re crucifying me,’ you know, ‘I’m a martyr.’ All that. You get everybody so riled up that they just say, ‘Fuck it. I hate Trump, but we’ve got to stand up against this.’”

The trial date for the hush‐money case was later set during a hearing with Judge Merchan where Trump appeared via video from a room in Mar‐a‐Lago. For most of the appearance, Trump silently listened, his microphone on mute. But when the judge announced the court date—March 25, 2024—he reacted angrily, waving his hands and shaking his head. No one in the courtroom could hear him, but he appeared to be yelling at the lawyer sitting next to him in Mar-a-Lago, Todd Blanche. According to a source there with Trump, the former president erupted at Blanche because the March 2024 trial would be during a crucial point in the presidential campaign.

“That’s in the middle of the primaries!” Trump yelled. “If I lose the presidency, you are going to be the reason!”

Trump’s tantrum, according to the source, continued for nearly 30 minutes after the court appearance ended and the camera was turned off—a withering attack on perhaps the most highly regarded lawyer on Trump’s troubled legal team.

“You little fucker!” Trump yelled at Blanche. “You are going to cost me the presidency!”

About a month before his first indictment, Trump was about 10 miles south of the White House, addressing attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center, in Maryland. CPAC this year looked like a full‐blown Trump convention. Devotees of the former president such as Representatives Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene were among the warmest-received by the crowd.

Trump had the keynote time slot on Saturday night. After the public‐address system introduced him as the “next president of the United States,” he ambled onto the stage and spoke for nearly two hours.

“The sinister forces trying to kill America have done everything they can to stop me, to silence you, and to turn this nation into a socialist dumping ground for criminals, junkies, Marxists, thugs, radicals, and dangerous refugees that no other country wants,” he said. The speech was ominous, but one rhetorical flourish stood out. “In 2016, I declared I am your voice. Today, I add: I am your warrior; I am your justice,” Trump said. “And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” He repeated the last phrase—“I am your retribution”—and promptly the crowd started chanting: “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

When I spoke with Bannon a few days later, he wouldn’t stop touting Trump’s performance, referring to it as his “Come Retribution” speech. What I didn’t realize was that “Come Retribution,” according to some Civil War historians, served as the code words for the Confederate Secret Service’s plot to take hostage—and eventually assassinate—President Abraham Lincoln.

“The use of the key phrase ‘Come Retribution’ suggests that the Confederate government had made a bitter decision to repay some of the misery that had been inflicted on the South,” William A. Tidwell, James O. Hall, and David Winfred Gaddy wrote in the 1988 book Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln. “Bitterness may well have been directed toward persons held to be particularly responsible for that misery, and Abraham Lincoln certainly headed the list.”

Bannon actually recommended that I read that book, erasing any doubt that he was intentionally using the Confederate code words to describe Trump’s speech.

Trump’s speech was not an overt call for the assassination of his political opponents, but it did advocate their destruction by other means. Success “is within our reach, but only if we have the courage to complete the job, gut the deep state, reclaim our democracy, and banish the tyrants and Marxists into political exile forever,” Trump said. “This is the turning point.”

The “Come Retribution” speech was a turning point for Trump’s campaign. The trial date for the charge of interfering in the 2020 election has been set for March 4; for the hush-money case, it’s March 25; for the classified-documents case, it’s May 20. As Election Day approaches and he faces down these many days in court, he will be waging a campaign of vengeance and martyrdom. He will continue to talk about what is at stake in the election in apocalyptic terms—“the final battle”—knowing how high the stakes are for him personally. He can win and retake the White House. Or he can lose and go to prison.

“Trump’s on offense and talking about real things,” Bannon told me. “The ‘Come Retribution’ speech had 10 or 12 major policies.” But Bannon knew that the speech wasn’t about policies in a traditional sense. Trump spoke about whom he would target once he returned to power. “We will demolish the deep state. We will expel the warmongers,” Trump said. “We will drive out the globalists; we will cast out the communists. We will throw off the political class that hates our country … We will beat the Democrats. We will rout the fake news media. We will expose and appropriately deal with the RINOs. We will evict Joe Biden from the White House. And we will liberate America from these villains and scoundrels once and for all.”

A couple of days after Special Counsel Jack Smith finally indicted him for his actions leading up to January 6, Trump made his threat explicit: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

That, more than anything else, is the beating heart of Trump’s 2024 campaign: Vote for me, and I will punish the people who have wronged you—by wronging me. I am your retribution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

On the CIPA stuff, here's Cannon's ruling.  I think she did fuck it up, but not 100% sure.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/202/united-states-v-trump/

The problem seems to be this.  Cannon assumes that a defendant is entitled to receive all discoverable information in a criminal case.  That, as a general proposition, is correct.

But CIPA Section 3 says this:

"Upon motion of the United States, the court shall issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States."

The way I read that is that if the government makes a motion to protect against disclosure and the court grants it, a defendant is NOT ENTITLED to classified information.  

Then CIPA Section 4 modifies that:

"The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. If the court enters an order granting relief following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the statement of the United States shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal."

So, a defendant, or the defendant's attorneys alone (not sharing with defendant), may be authorized to receive redacted or summarized versions of classified information, or a substituted statement admitting certain facts about what the classfied information shows.  It's not clear to me who has to make that showing.

CIPA Section 6 seems to describe the procedures to implement the above.

The controversy seems to be this:  The government wants an order, pursuant to Section 4, that certain classified information (it's not clear what) be disclosed only to defense counsel and not to the individual defendants.  

Cannon seems to fuck it up by assuming that defendants are entitled to classified materials and it's the government's burden to show why they are not and why the "substitute" materials are sufficient to satisfy due process/fair trial concerns.  I think that's backwards.  However, Section 6 does seem to contemplate that if the classified material can't be disclosed to the defendant, or to counsel, either verbatim or in one of the substitute fashions, the case should probably be dismissed.

Addendum to the foregoing.  This is complicated as shit and I'm not sure anyone has "the answer" on any of it.  And that probably includes anyone and everyone posting on social media, and here.

All along, in a case with 30+ classified documents at the heart of it, I have been worried that a short trial schedule legitimately would not be feasible with all the CIPA issues.  And that's with a strong judge like Chutkan that has a firm grip on her courtroom and the parties, which Cannon clearly is not, other criticisms notwithstanding. 

Even with a strong judge, but lacking experience with CIPA, I think a compressed trial schedule might be a tall order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The contents of the classified documents are completely irrelevant to the crimes charged. 

A defendant should be permitted to challenge the classification/national defense information categorization of the documents.

Even if that defendant is a fuckhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A defendant should be permitted to challenge the classification/national defense information categorization of the documents.

Even if that defendant is a fuckhead.

Says who?

 

The Classification is what it is and is governed by the Original Classification Authority.  I know this stuff because it was my job to know it for over 20 years.  A defendant, even an ex-politician does not have any say over the "defense information classification of the documents".  None.  It is a fact before the court that they are classified.  Not up for debate.

 

Even if copies were leaked to the press or reports of their contents were made public they would still be classified.  The only thing anyone that was ever read into the programs could say is "I can neither confirm or deny those reports."  

 

Edit: Here is a training course on it  https://www.cdse.edu/Portals/124/Documents/student-guides/IF102-guide.pdf?ver=vxs2_YJrkUKDbIexMvvMcw%3D%3D#:~:text=OCA rollover%3A Original Classification Authority,information in the first instance.

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27660

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A defendant should be permitted to challenge the classification/national defense information categorization of the documents.

Even if that defendant is a fuckhead.

Like classification of nuclear secrets? You REALLY think trump is entitled to challenge their classification?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Says who?

 

The Classification is what it is and is governed by the Original Classification Authority.  I know this stuff because it was my job to know it for over 20 years.  An ex-politician does not have any say over the "defense information classification of the documents".  None.  It is a fact before the court that they are classified.  Not up for debate.

 

Even if copies were leaked to the press or reports of their contents were made public they would still be classified.  The only thing anyone that was ever read into the programs could say is "I can neither confirm or deny those reports."  

Says fucking due process.

I'm not talking about whether it was or was not classified. Or by whom or if anyone declassified it, especially the fuckhead himself.  We all know that information is overclassfied in the US and some just isn't.

As a general proposition, when one is accused of a crime based on the possession of a certain kind of document, one should be entitled to examine that document and challenge whether it is, in fact, properly the "certain kind of document."

CIPA modifies that proposition initially by absolving the government of the requirement of disclosing in discovery classified documents, which in any other case would be required by the Constitution to be disclosed.   But it also tempers it by letting the government instead provide "substituted" information, assuming that is consistent with the defendant's due process and confrontation clause rights.  If no such "accomodation" can be reached, CIPA seems to require the case to be dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Like classification of nuclear secrets? You REALLY think trump is entitled to challenge their classification?

Well, in a more general case, I'm not willing to take the government's word for it that it's "nuclear secrets," fuck no I am not.

Put the shoe on the other foot.  Should Reality Winner have been able to challenge whether what she took was in fact classified, or properly classified? Or even information concerning the national defense?

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Redact all classified information.  Leave the information identifying the document in question (subject, filing number, etc.).  Give it to Trump.

I mean, that is literally one solution to the problem contemplated by CIPA.  But it's not the only one and maybe not an adequate one, standing alone.

Even though this involves Trump, there is some nuance here.

Chutkan is having to deal with this shit with a case that on it's face has zero to do with classified information.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Says fucking due process.

I'm not talking about whether it was or was not classified. Or by whom or if anyone declassified it, especially the fuckhead himself.  We all know that information is overclassfied in the US and some just isn't.

As a general proposition, when one is accused of a crime based on the possession of a certain kind of document, one should be entitled to examine that document and challenge whether it is, in fact, properly the "certain kind of document."

CIPA modifies that proposition initially by absolving the government of the requirement of disclosing in discovery classified documents, which in any other case would be required by the Constitution to be disclosed.   But it also tempers it by letting the government instead provide "substituted" information, assuming that is consistent with the defendant's due process and confrontation clause rights.  If no such "accomodation" can be reached, CIPA seems to require the case to be dismissed.

It is still not up to a defendant or a judge to determine that but the ORCON.  In addition, the things that he reportedly took or that have been speculated on are not up for debate like how we would approach an attack on Iran's nuclear research facility, the operational capabilities of our nuclear submarines, lists of foreign intelligence sources/operatives, the extent that we know individuals in the US are compromised by the Russians, the details or sources on Mohammed bin Salman.  All of these are at the highest level.

 

 

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30231

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The contents of the classified documents are completely irrelevant to the crimes charged. 

Well, if they mis-classified his iPhone instructions as top-secret, then that is absolutely pertinent when they accuse him of taking classified documents without authorization and not returning them.   So I get his counsel wanting to know the contents.   If they can point to some error like that he has a defense to one document (and one count) at least.  Of greater worth to Trump is the opportunity to immediately disseminate this on social media and point to the witch-hunt.

I obviously think that Jack and company went through all this shit before they actually charged him. But who knows?  I’ve had experienced paralegals tell me how thoroughly they looked at stuff - only to find that wasn’t the case.   Happens. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25921

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, no one has ever said she was a very good judge.  She hasn't been on the bench long enough, period, to make a decision either way.  She is also fairly underqualified despite the ABA's evaluation.

Oh, I'm sure someone somewhere has said it. No one on THIS message board has, but I'm sure that sentiment escaped Trump's lips at one point.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...