|
Article states it'll be in the coming weeks. Fake edit: likely her testimony, if relevant, shows up in the hearing on the 28th. https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1572725366170558467 Meanwhile, in Florida... https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1572727110380453889
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Mirotic posted:Article states it'll be in the coming weeks. Fake edit: likely her testimony, if relevant, shows up in the hearing on the 28th. Just  all around here
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
Mirotic posted:Article states it'll be in the coming weeks. Fake edit: likely her testimony, if relevant, shows up in the hearing on the 28th. Guess the 11th panel didn’t think, “doj has to prove the lawfully seized documents aren’t trumps personal property first” was a very compelling argument since that took less than a day to decide. Note that they agree that DoJ is substantially likely to win on the merits. Edit: Juicy quote:Here, the district court concluded that Plaintiff did not show that the United States acted in callous disregard of his constitu- tional rights. Doc. No. 64 at 9. No party contests the district court’s finding in this regard. The absence of this “indispensab[le]” factor in the Richey analysis is reason enough to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction here. So, pretty likely that the whole thing gets tossed on appeal because Chudge Cannon doesn’t have jurisdiction. Murgos fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Sep 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Guess the 11th panel didn’t think, “doj has to prove the lawfully seized documents aren’t trumps personal property first” was a very compelling argument since that took less than a day to decide. This also included a very quick schedule for response by Trump then rebuttal by DOJ, during which time those three judges probably thought "we already know what we are going to do with this chudge's stupid loving order, but we need at least a day to write all this poo poo out anyway, so may as well ask the two sides to do some work too."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 01:46
|
|
|
They dunked on him pretty hard too https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1572731063784599552?s=20&t=FQ8piV2KxBc09usyd9gNeA
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
The full stay opinion has some nuggets of pure strain gold.quote:For our part, we cannot discern why Plaintiff would have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred docu- ments with classification markings. Classified documents are marked to show they are classified, for instance, with their classifi- cation level. Classified National Security Information, Exec. Order No. 13,526, § 1.6, 3 C.F.R. 298, 301 (2009 Comp.), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 3161 app. at 290–301. They are “owned by, produced by or for, or . . . under the control of the United States Government.” Id. § 1.1. And they include information the “unauthorized disclo- sure [of which] could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security.” Id. § 1.4. For this reason, a person may have access to classified information only if, among other requirements, he “has a need-to-know the infor- mation.” Id. § 4.1(a)(3). This requirement pertains equally to for- mer Presidents, unless the current administration, in its discretion, chooses to waive that requirement. Id. § 4.4(3). Oh god quote:In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it per- sonal. Oh god I’m dying. An appellate court just said the declassification argument is nonsense. And then, since there seems to be some questions they go into a brief history and explanation of classified national security documents. I think this is specifically for cannon. Murgos fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Sep 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Lol, and additionally, lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
Murgos posted:
Don't worry, Trump's lawyers will file for an emergency en banc appeal to the full 11th circuit, which very well may hear this case since it has major implications. That will take a few weeks at least, then one party or the other will go up to the supremes, and I'm sure we know how that will go. I can think of at least 4 judges who would side with Trump no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Lol, and additionally, lmao Essentially the panel just told DoJ to go ahead and file its appeal and don’t over think it since they agree in essence on all the major points. Between this and James’ announcement of proceeding to trial seeking the end of Trump Org as an entity doing real estate in NYC this has been a pretty good day for the finding out part of FAFO even if it’s taken years longer than reasonable (and will take years more). With how leveraged Trumps properties are him having to fire sale all his prime NY stuff if he loses will probably end him and his families wealth. That she also referred her complaint to SDNY and Treasury (and NYC but eh) for criminal investigation is just the cherry on top.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Don't worry, Trump's lawyers will file for an emergency en banc appeal to the full 11th circuit, which very well may hear this case since it has major implications. That will take a few weeks at least, then one party or the other will go up to the supremes, and I'm sure we know how that will go. I can think of at least 4 judges who would side with Trump no matter what. In this case he can’t appeal en banc, at least according to Preet. All Trump can do is appeal directly to SCOTUS so that cuts out at least one step. Just one of the local rules of the 11th circuit for this type of appeal. I kind of think this isn’t where the court wants to spend what capital it has left. I think they wait for an actual criminal indictment and just deny cert in a one paragraph order here. Also, the supremes denied cert for a lot of Trumps election appeals so it’s not so clear how far the life appointments want to risk some kind of congressional meddling. Murgos fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Sep 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 03:38
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I can think of at least 4 judges who would side with Trump no matter what. I can't think of any supreme court justices who would side with Trump "no matter what". I do agree that there are an alarming number (which is anything more than zero) of partisan political hacks on the court who start with a desired political outcome and work backward to cobble together horseshit into an opinion, but they are NOT Trump sycophants. They care about ideology, not about the stupid fat orange man. Especially after the abject failure of Trump's election challenges, there's really no reason to think they will lift a finger to help Trump with anything. His continued existence and relevance probably harms their objectives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I can't think of any supreme court justices who would side with Trump "no matter what". I do agree that there are an alarming number (which is anything more than zero) of partisan political hacks on the court who start with a desired political outcome and work backward to cobble together horseshit into an opinion, but they are NOT Trump sycophants. Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
I kind of think that the conservatives (eesh, even that term is too liberal for them) on the Supreme Court won't abject themselves to Trump. If they did, they would risk Congress and the President going, "Okay, play times over, here are 6 more Supreme Court justices. Enough of this charade." Which would not be good, but would be appropriate if Thomas leads other justices to start kneeling at the foot of their Orange Calf.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Sure, Thomas would likely rule for Trump. But these people see their jobs as eroding privacy rights, changing the landscape of the US the way they did with the Roe decision. Chipping away at democracy one ruling at a time. They do not see themselves as being there to work for Trump, to throw the presidency to him after he lost the election, or to save his rear end when he inevitably does stupid things, as he has done here. It might be 7-2 or 6-3 but they are going to rule against him if he appeals it up there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
The hits just keep coming: My Pillow CEO, Trump ally faces probe for plot to target 2020 election computers quote:Mike Lindell, the My Pillow Inc chief executive and ally to former President Donald Trump, is under U.S. federal investigation for identity theft and for conspiring to damage a protected computer connected to a suspected voting equipment security breach in Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 05:18
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd love to see Alito's dissent in this case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
The supreme court repeatedly telling a presidential candidate they can't challenge the states is a different matter than an individual with a grievance against the federal government. I'll bet some/many of them would be all too happy to hear a case about government overreach because that specifically helps destroy the institutions that could challenge them. IE, more restrictions on DOJ and FBI means no one will be left to challenge state governments that violate federal laws. On the other hand there haven't even been any charges here, just some petty dispute because of a judge that doesn't know their job. Given there has been no rational argument filed by team T, it does seem unlikely that the SC would bother --- sigh, which means they loving will dammit just to grub their faces all over the news --- because there's little point in replying to "But (the rat) stole my documents!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:I'll bet some/many of them would be all too happy to hear a case about government overreach because that specifically helps destroy the institutions that could challenge them. IE, more restrictions on DOJ and FBI means no one will be left to challenge state governments that violate federal laws. I may be totally misunderstanding you here, but what kind of government overreach are you seeing here? In what way could what the government is doing to Trump, and is going to do in future, be considered overreach, by a SC justice? I will concede that Thomas is probably in the tank, and might see it that way. But the others? This ruling today by the appeals court basically demolished everything Chudge Cannon said, in a clear, succinct manner, and it’s really difficult for me to imagine even todays SC going against that logic. And I am no defender of this SC. As I have said, the Trump appointees are there for a specific purpose. It’s just not the one Trump and his worshippers think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 07:23
|
|
|
As an addendum, I will say that I can definitely see them ruling 5-4 or 6-3 for this disastrous states’ rights case coming up in the next couple of months. The one that says basically “states can send electors for whichever candidates they choose regardless of how the populace of that state actually votes,” the one that says nobody’s vote in a presidential election matters. Because THAT’s what these people were put there to do. Not defending Trump on his stupidity (though Trump would undoubtably disagree)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 07:34
|
|
|
Just to clarify, these aren't my legal arguments; I'm merely speculating. I'm certainly not gonna stand in court and make these arguments, but I bet I can name a few people that would. There will be some type of appeal and it will be even more devoid of reality than anything yet seen. It helps to work in reverse and ask What manner of stupidity would the SC agree to hear because they want to establish their platform? "The federal government doesn't have this power". 500 years ago the sovereign state of Florida would have investigated one of their citizens suspected of being a spy. It's up to the local magistrate with the help of the militia as needed to hold their citizen accountable. After all the 14th amendment is invalid and not original and the constitution doesn't grant the federal executive branch the power to investigate citizens of the states. "This should have proceeded through national archives". You asked, you should have asked again. NARA should have filed a lawsuit. Oh and they're a federal agency which has no power anyway. "This should be handled by impeachment". Because this was about Ts time as president, the correct procedure is for the current president to have a nice little meeting to obtain the needed information from this all important advisor. But you know a president can't just order a private citizen to hand over their property, so if the citizen says no then there's nothing you can do. It's just a matter of office theft, eg he stole some dinnerware, if you ask nicely... and if that doesn't work, the constitution says you can impeach. "It was a conspiracy". They waited until the private citizen was away from their residence and thereby unable to defend their property. For example, if John Doe was at home that day, he could have pulled out his Mark 3 blunderbuss and defended his home from the evil invaders. Instead they talked him into being somewhere else / waited and slipped in during the night. Pick any amendment. You'll probably be able to find a way to weasel it into some Trumpist mess that the SC "just has to stop the process to remain impartial because look at how unbiased and trustworthy we can be, and we have to make sure we're adhering to the 16th century christian tradition at the roots of our sacred book, I mean constitutional documents". I wouldn't even put it past them to invoke the monarchy. (You'd never do this to the queen of England!) Well I guess we'll see. Obstruct. Obstruct! Destruct!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 08:13
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Well I guess we'll see. Obstruct. Obstruct! Destruct! I do understand how things seem so wrong that it’s very tempting to see everything through a negative lens, but with all due respect and courtesy, this is all doomer fanfiction. Dernald J. Trunt is arguably in more legal jeopardy than any single individual in the history of this country has ever been in. It’s not just the James thing yesterday. It’s that plus the Federal deep poo poo he’s in for possibly espionage, it’s Georgia, where he wanted to “find” just 11,780 votes, and also it’s possible J6 charges coming at some point later on. Have some faith and don’t assume everything is always hosed. Just my two cents. e: I didn’t mean this to come off sounding as harsh as it does. I am sorry. MrMojok fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Sep 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 08:51
|
|
|
Just read the entire 29 page opinion. Unanimous with two of the three judges being Trump appointees. They just completely take Cannon to school. And then go above and beyond that. They only needed one Richey factor to weigh against equitable jurisdiction, which they got in one, but they went ahead and continued to evaluate all four, and found all four failed, lol. By the end they were basically just standing over Cannon, screaming into her face what a moron she is. 11th Circuit posted:The remaining potential injury identified by the district court is “the threat of future prosecution and the serious, often indelible stigma associated therewith.” Doc. No. 64 at 10. No doubt the threat of prosecution can weigh heavily on the mind of someone under investigation. But without diminishing the seriousness of that burden, “if the mere threat of prosecution were allowed to constitute irreparable harm . . . every potential defendant could point to the same harm and invoke the equitable powers of the district court.” United States v. Search of Law Office, Residence, and Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341 F.3d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). If this concern were sufficient to constitute irreparable harm, courts’ “exercise of [their] equitable jurisdiction would not be extraordinary, but instead quite ordinary.” Id. And that's really the thing, not sure people realize this, but outside of his base of sad swamp people and upper middle-class lifted pick-up owners, insecure about their wounded masculinity, no one actually likes Trump. He's the kid that always tried to tag along with your high school group but kept being told to meet behind the school at the exact time the sprinklers came on. East Coast Old Money new phone, who dis'd him for decades. The entire D.C. political establishment hates him, the only reason the GOP protects him is because of the votes he wields. Trump may have snuck a few twitch streamers cosplaying judges onto the courts, but based on his 60+ lost cases and the above 11th Circuit opinion, the few sycophants he has will be unlikely to do little more than add slight delays to the inexorable process and the fact that, just like winter, Garland is coming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 11:03
|
|
|
V-Men posted:Honestly, I'd love to see Alito's dissent in this case. "Holding an ex-president responsible for their crimes has no historical basis in our country."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 12:18
|
|
|
The howler monkey contingent of the courts are bent on making the US into a Christian ethno nationalist hell hole, and ‘rules for thee and not for me’ is a part of that agenda. But here, where no evidence supports a 4th amendment violation, Trump never provided an affidavit, the Supreme Court is pretty much tied to the record. They cannot introduce new evidence and just rule on the legal questions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
Meatball posted:"Holding an ex-president responsible for their crimes has no historical basis in our country." More over, the constitution at no place specifies that one Donald J. Trump can be prosecuted.Therefore, to charge him with a criminal offense would be unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
One thing I don't see being talked much about is the fact that Trump is declassifying incredibly dangerous documents for his own personal benefit and use. Some of these documents are about foreign nation's nuclear programs, other documents were marked as being obtained through human intelligence sources, IE spies. Does the GOP really want to go down the road of saying that Trump can declassify intelligence agent's information as a 'get out of jail' card? At best the agent would be deported from the country immediately if it was in fact declassified, but they would far more likely be arrested and put up against the wall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 14:30
|
|
|
The GOP doesn't give a poo poo about that lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
The GOP isn't going down any roads, they are driving in random directions full speed over wild landscapes in a raised truck rolling coal on the justice system. If they decide this doesn't apply to Trump it sure will if someone they don't like ever does a similar thing. As long as they can get it to someone who can make a judgement call in their favor they will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Honestly loving over some rando is like a pleasant bonus to these people
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Cimber posted:
Hang on lemme ask Valerie Plame
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
Special Master says they are all without privilege unless explicitly claimed:quote:Plaintiff shall provide the Special Master and the government with an annotated copy of the spreadsheet described above that specifies, for each document, whether Plaintiff asserts any of the following: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/106/trump-v-united-states/
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:They just completely take Cannon to school. And then go above and beyond that. They only needed one Richey factor to weigh against equitable jurisdiction, which they got in one, but they went ahead and continued to evaluate all four, and found all four failed, lol. By the end they were basically just standing over Cannon, screaming into her face what a moron she is. I think at one point the appellate judges even go into a sort of a “classified documents for dummies” kind of lesson, lecturing directly to Cannon as though she’s a student in a middle-school class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Well I think it's safe to say that the special master ploy hilariously backfired on Trump, good lord
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Well I think it's safe to say that the special master ploy hilariously backfired on Trump, good lord Got him a couple of weeks and a ton of media. On to the next tactic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Special Master says they are all without privilege unless explicitly claimed: Am I reading the linked document correctly that they've instructed Trump's team that they need to provide these designations for all of the documents that the DOJ's filter team already took out? Like they've basically just put everything back on the table as "you need to assert that it's privileged and why"? filthy regex fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Sep 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Got him a couple of weeks and a ton of media. Maybe Mr Peach can follow in the footsteps of his Russian friends. (It wouldn't make me happy because it's not justice, but) How many flights of steps are in MadAtLardo and TTower?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
filthy regex posted:Am I reading the linked document correctly that they've instructed Trump's team that they need to provide these designations for all of the documents that the DOJ's filter team already took out? Like they've basically just put everything back on the table as "you need to assert that it's privileged and why"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Simplex posted:Yeah that looks like what it says. I wonder how common that is, or if it's a special "do your homework" to Trump's legal team. That may sound like good news but think like Double Peach for a moment: He will claim that every single document is c+d+e+f (and half of those are also a)!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Got him a couple of weeks and a ton of media. what's the next tactic other than trying to get the supreme court to take it up
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
The executive branch (although not necessarily the congressional) is treating the deletion of Jan. 6 USSS texts as if it happened because people did not understand policies and the law, and did not understand their responsibilities as records custodians. But is that even plausible? It seems like it has to be a cover for willful deletion...right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2022 00:12
|
|
