|
Ynglaur posted:Maga has already set the precedent of using violence to achieve its political goals. Using legal means to remove outright corruption seems reasonable to the times. How would this backfire given that armed rebellion is already been used? The judicial corrective measure is an appeal. The political corrective measure is impeachment. Theoretically.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Clarste posted:The judicial corrective measure is an appeal. The political corrective measure is impeachment. Theoretically. That's a fair response. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 12:13
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Incredible. I thought the previous ruling was nuts but going "who knows if the documents are classified" when Trump didn't even argue that he declassified anything is Not only hasn’t he argued that he declassified them, he hasn’t even argued that they aren’t classified documents. Let that sink in. DoJ asserts they are classified government documents and Trump hasn’t disputed that. The most I saw them say was that they aren’t classified in perpetuity, which while true is irrelevant. It’s literally not in dispute that they are classified government documents whose exposure risks grave public harm. His lawyers never made the claim that that the documents marked with “property of US government” and a government property number and a notice about who classified them and when they would be declassified and what government program owns them were just being used for Trump to LARP still being president or something. Yet, she’s still like, “well how can I know? Lol. Just asking questions”
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 13:25
|
|
|
A good rundown of how this ruling is nonsense bullshit https://twitter.com/akivamcohen/status/1570742482157309952
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 13:29
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever seen a news broadcast talk about a federal judge like this before. I have no words. https://youtu.be/xK-z8eraNXM
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Incredible. I thought the previous ruling was nuts but going "who knows if the documents are classified" when Trump didn't even argue that he declassified anything is The judge's reasoning seems to be that the feds scooped up a lot of papers and there were probably some non-government documents accidentally included in what they confiscated (a reasonable assumption), that the federal government cannot be trusted to reliably separate out the government documents from the non-government documents (lol), and that the federal government cannot be trusted to avoid using the non-government documents they may have scooped up (lmao). Her ruling is based on the theory that the DoJ cannot be trusted to handle things legally and reliably, especially in a case of such importance, and therefore the documents should be sorted out by an independent third party that has no risk of being biased toward the prosecution. Which is an absurd enough premise that I don't really fault so many lawyers for failing to grasp it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
Her theory starts and stops with "trump wins" everything else is very flimsy motivated reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The judge's reasoning seems to be that the feds scooped up a lot of papers and there were probably some non-government documents accidentally included in what they confiscated (a reasonable assumption), that the federal government cannot be trusted to reliably separate out the government documents from the non-government documents (lol), and that the federal government cannot be trusted to avoid using the non-government documents they may have scooped up (lmao). Except that anything not government documents grabbed during the seizure were 1) authorized to be seized by the warrant and 2) evidence of criminal thought by commingling personal items with illegally possessed items (I knew about them and I expect to use them along with my personal items like passports) In normal people world trump has no claim to get any items back except medical records and privileged attorney-client documents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The judge's reasoning seems to be that the feds scooped up a lot of papers and there were probably some non-government documents accidentally included in what they confiscated (a reasonable assumption), that the federal government cannot be trusted to reliably separate out the government documents from the non-government documents (lol), and that the federal government cannot be trusted to avoid using the non-government documents they may have scooped up (lmao). The other laughable part about it, as pointed out in the Opening Arguments podcast, is that the co-mingled personal papers aren’t just private possessions anymore, they are direct evidence of a crime, and this exact kind of thing has been used in previous classified document cases to send people to prison
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
I'd love for Bush, Clinton, and Obama to file an amicus brief that says, "As former Presidents, actually the law does apply to us equally. Call us if you find this confusing."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Except that anything not government documents grabbed during the seizure were 1) authorized to be seized by the warrant and 2) evidence of criminal thought by commingling personal items with illegally possessed items (I knew about them and I expect to use them along with my personal items like passports) According to Popehat (aka Ken White, a former Assistant US Attorney), it's not uncommon for the officers on the ground to seize stuff that isn't really covered under the warrant, no matter how clearly they're instructed about what should and shouldn't be taken. He tells stories about it from time to time, and brought them up again when Trump was first talking about passports being seized and poo poo like that. https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1097924909500555264 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/672860791083696129 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/672861781321060352 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/672864224704512000 Given this kind of stuff, it's fairly plausible that some of Trump's personal papers were seized... ...and the DoJ expected as much, which is why they put together their own separate taint team to go through the documents and determine which ones they were actually allowed to have, so that there would be no risk of the investigators and prosecutors seeing something they weren't allowed to. Because this kind of thing is so routine, they made sure to account for it upfront. The judge here is ruling that the DoJ's taint team can't be trusted to be reliable, and that an independent third-party is needed to do the sorting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I'd love for Bush, Clinton, and Obama to file an amicus brief that says, "As former Presidents, actually the law does apply to us equally. Call us if you find this confusing." Why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
I dunno: restore my faith that justice has a chance?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
I suspect the hypothetical amicus brief that exists solely to erode fatalism would only give rise to more, perhaps slightly different fatalism
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:"That was document A, this is document B with classification level C" isn't a different set of facts? I'm not sure I know what lawyers actually mean when they talk about the facts of a case I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather see him in prison and on trial for 375 sequential years, versus waiting 150yr for a trial that carries a 375yr sentence. But I rarely get what I want so  -Blackadder- posted:Her entire ruling is clown poo poo. Clarste posted:The judicial corrective measure is an appeal. The political corrective measure is impeachment. Theoretically. "Politics" permeates all three branches, rules, procedures, and processes. I'd say the "political correction" is to vote out the person, or file a referendum for removal, or vote in people who will effect sufficient change that the person leaves on their own.  ?ps Seriously how did they not have the appeal prepared? Are they accepting a 7wk delay just to look "politically unbiased"? pps Can we all petition Bennie to give us a hearing every other week until then? 
PhantomOfTheCopier fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Sep 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
They do have an appeal filed. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:ps Seriously how did they not have the appeal prepared? Are they accepting a 7wk delay just to look "politically unbiased"? From what I understand, I think they procedurally had to ask the chudge to reconsider before appealing her order. That said, the DOJ did say "whatever on the non-classified stuff, but we need an answer from you on these secret documents by this date, anything longer than that is an unreasonable delay which we will interpret as a denial and we will appeal". The chudge gave her answer at pretty much the absolute last second. Now they can appeal, but I assume it takes time to adjust the appeal they had likely written up to include the bullshit that this chudge actually wrote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
From my very, very limited understanding of the process their appeal filing also has a page limit, which is somewhat difficult when apparently every single part of the judge’s ruling is wrong in incredibly dumb ways Oh, and they have to choose which of those incredibly dumb things the super conservative 11th Circuit will disagree with and not just rubber stamp
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Apparently Cannon's order to Dearie includes starting with the 100 classified documents. Dearie is thorough ("slow"), so the DOJ might wait to see if those are handled quickly, but decide to appeal in a couple weeks if there's still no progress. There's no present reason to believe that Dearie would wait until November to get started, unless he happened to be at a Virginia golf course recently... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
I don't think there's any reason to believe the DOJ will wait, but for what its worth, that retired NY judge was the only guy on the list which Trump's team put up where the DOJ said "ok if we actually did have to go through this bullshit, Dearie is fine".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:That's definitely what I was targeting. "Oh u see in previous lawsuit the charge was withholding documents from the national archives; this one is about possession of nuclear secrets under 18.3.4.cb5. The next one will be about possession of spy lists violating 18.4.3.bc5. The one after that..." But there will be a bunch of common facts in the handling of all those documents that can only be litigated once. It doesn't really make sense to try them separately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I don't think there's any reason to believe the DOJ will wait, but for what its worth, that retired NY judge was the only guy on the list which Trump's team put up where the DOJ said "ok if we actually did have to go through this bullshit, Dearie is fine". He's also the judge that heard the Carter Page case. He's have to recuse if there were any Page-related docs, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
DOJ already said they would appeal this week if Cannon didn't relax her injunction barring them from using at least those hundred classified documents in their ongoing criminal investigation. Why are people assuming they're not going to do the thing they said they would do if she didn't grant any of their request by that deadline, now that she didn't grant any of their request by that deadline?mdemone posted:He's also the judge that heard the Carter Page case. He's have to recuse if there were any Page-related docs, I believe. I believe the only legal requirement to recuse is if the judge has a financial stake in the trial's outcome, or there is proven or extremely likely bias on the judge's part. In 2009, SCOTUS ruled that a judge had to recuse from a case in which the defendant had spent $3 million to get the judge elected, despite a lack of proof of bias, under the Due Process clause. Pretty sure "I adjudicated a case involving a third party mentioned in one of these thousand documents" is nowhere near that; basically anything below that 14th Amendment standard is at the judge's discretion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Well that's good news, it's the only possible reason I could think of that Trumpworld would have nominated him to begin with
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Well that's good news, it's the only possible reason I could think of that Trumpworld would have nominated him to begin with Here’s a possibility, his lawyers don’t know what is in the documents even though they were in his possession. If this does happen they get to find out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
Piell posted:A good rundown of how this ruling is nonsense bullshit This is a very encouraging (and maddening) read
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Apparently Cannon's order to Dearie includes starting with the 100 classified documents. Dearie is thorough ("slow"), so the DOJ might wait to see if those are handled quickly, but decide to appeal in a couple weeks if there's still no progress. It would be laughable if Dearie comes back Monday and is like, “Okay first parts done. Classified documents with control numbers go to FBI and Presidential Records are off to NARA, law was pretty clear on those. now let’s look at these supposed attorney client privilege docs.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
Cannon also gave herself the power to dismiss the SM for any reason and the final say on any disputes. Lol that the DOJ played along with her nonsense at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Cannon also gave herself the power to dismiss the SM for any reason and the final say on any disputes. Lol that the DOJ played along with her nonsense at all I can't possibly decide on this stuff, I haven't seen everything yet! Unless I have to. Then I will. Because as a judge, not trusting the government is my job!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
DoJs appeal,to the 11th circuit is up. It’s about as polite a version of “she made up stuff that makes no sense” as it’s possible to make. The bit where they point out that judge cannon is violating the constitutional authority of the president by effectively telling them who they can prosecute is good though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 04:05
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Cannon also gave herself the power to dismiss the SM for any reason and the final say on any disputes. Lol that the DOJ played along with her nonsense at all Assuming the appeal is successful, what happens next? Does this all get kicked back to Cannon for the next round of Calvinball, does it get moved to another justice, or does the 11th take over? Or is that going to be part of the 11th's decision?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
Murgos posted:DoJs appeal,to the 11th circuit is up. Here's a solid thread on it. She's also got a decent faq later in the thread. Most of the legalheads seem fairly certain that the 11th will overturn Cannon in the quickness. Guess we'll have to see. https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield/status/1570967096842153984 Also Republicans having their own Star Trek Mirror Universe version of LegalTwitter is hilarious. https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1570950438828277760 -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Sep 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 09:53
|
|
|
Did Trump finally get scammed by a lawyer instead of the other way around? https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1571065645076283394
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 11:09
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:
I don’t get it. Your interpretation simply can’t be that the government doesn’t get to use its own records of decision making to inform current decisions because a civilian with no constitutional authority wills it. It’s willful absurdity, chaos, just an absolute admission that this is a game where there just is no other answer than my side wins, drat the consequences. Edit: Teri’s faq is pretty good as a brief summary of where we are at and has some reasonable explanations for a lot of the common ‘why…’ questions that keep coming up. https://terikanefield.com/all-new-doj-investigation-faqs/ Murgos fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Sep 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 13:41
|
|
|
IANAL and haven't even read the Presidential Records Act but I feel like that guy is shamelessly lying. There's no way the PRA says "former president gets to personally keep any records he wants, no matter how secret, in his closet"
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:IANAL and haven't even read the Presidential Records Act but I feel like that guy is shamelessly lying. There's no way the PRA says "former president gets to personally keep any records he wants, no matter how secret, in his closet" It specifically says he has to hand them over upon leaving office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 14:29
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:IANAL and haven't even read the Presidential Records Act but I feel like that guy is shamelessly lying. There's no way the PRA says "former president gets to personally keep any records he wants, no matter how secret, in his closet" The entire government would screech to a halt as each president has to endlessly petition former presidents for permission to use materials generated from when they were in office. The constitution is actually clear on this, a presidents term of office is 4 years. Period. All constitutional authority ends at the end of the term. That’s it. There is no lingering powers. The only possible prerogative that may exist but hasn’t been fully analyzed is that maybe a former president can prevent congress from looking at the direct communications between them and their closest advisors. Like meeting transcripts and emails and decision analysis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I don’t get it. Your interpretation simply can’t be that the government doesn’t get to use its own records of decision making to inform current decisions because a civilian with no constitutional authority wills it. Seems like you do get it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Seems like you do get it? Yeah, I guess I just find the full mask off, out in the open, “we’re ending constitutional government” strategy so unbelievable that I forget to take it into account.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Yeah, I guess I just find the full mask off, out in the open, “we’re ending constitutional government” strategy so unbelievable that I forget to take it into account. Hasn’t it been decades since Mitch McConnell decided that Democratic presidents categorically shouldn’t get to appoint judges?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 15:15
|
|
