danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
Both you AND Ragman have done that already......so go right ahead because your trump derangement syndrome is in full swing.You probably don't want to go there.
Want me to start characterizing your state of mind ?
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
Purloined classified information......how can it be stolen when it was taken to mar largo BEFORE trump left office. If was president at the time then no crime was committed. And he can make almost anything unclassified.
All this is....is to try to stop trump from running for president again and guess what it's just another Russian collusion hoax.
All this is....is to try to stop trump from running for president again and guess what it's just another Russian collusion hoax.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
The more the Democrats try to stop trump the more tv time they give him. If they would just drop the whole trying to charge him with stuff and leave him alone he might just have walked away from all of it and just played king maker.
His endorsement is working too.
His endorsement is working too.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Because the papers belong to the United States of America, not The Orange Demon.
The United States of America asked for them back, The Orange Demon basically refused (in part) and got one of his attorneys (the stupid one) to lie to the government saying they had all been returned when they hadn't.
And The Orange Demon continued to jerk the US of A around about it ... and so he #FAFO'ed.
Now he's whining like a little adolescent schoolgirl ... like he always does.
Wrong.
And yet ... there's no evidence that in this particular case he did ...
Sure Dan ...
Or is it Jan ?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yeah ... but he ain't on there talking.
Unless it's on the Kook Channels like OANN or Newsmax.
Sure ...
In primaries maybe.
We'll see how that works out in the General in November.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
The more you foam at the mouth over trump the more you show your true self.Because the papers belong to the United States of America, not The Orange Demon.
The United States of America asked for them back, The Orange Demon basically refused (in part) and got one of his attorneys (the stupid one) to lie to the government saying they had all been returned when they hadn't.
And The Orange Demon continued to jerk the US of A around about it ... and so he #FAFO'ed.
Now he's whining like a little adolescent schoolgirl ... like he always does.
Wrong.
And yet ... there's no evidence that in this particular case he did ...
Sure Dan ...
Or is it Jan ?
Wait, what? This guy?Because the papers belong to the United States of America, not The Orange Demon.
The United States of America asked for them back, The Orange Demon basically refused (in part) and got one of his attorneys (the stupid one) to lie to the government saying they had all been returned when they hadn't.
And The Orange Demon continued to jerk the US of A around about it ... and so he #FAFO'ed.
Now he's whining like a little adolescent schoolgirl ... like he always does.
Wrong.
And yet ... there's no evidence that in this particular case he did ...
Sure Dan ...
Or is it Jan ?
Last edited:
About This Judge ...
There is a lot of talk in this forum about judges ruling in one way or another because of their partisan views. I've always been uncomfortable with that assumption because I like to think that, for the most part, the constitution and the law itself matters more to judges -- who almost always are competent career professionals learned in the law -- than any partisan views they may happen to hold.
My faith in judges has been upheld by numerous Trump-appointed judges who have ruled against Trump. Yes, they may be Republicans. Yes, they may have strongly held partisan views. Yes, they may be grateful to Trump for nominating them to the bench. But no, where the law is clear, they will not rule in a way the law does not say. Seeing Trump-appointed judges rule against Trump over and over and over again, bolsters the general faith I have in the judicial branch to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That said, I read with interest the comment below about the judge now in the news because of the case now before her. We'll see how things play out. For now, I'm simply noting the comment with interest.
My faith in judges is general, and particular exceptions can be found. Whether or not this judge is an exception, whether or not she is "untethered to the law," will be evident soon enough. And if she is, other judges higher up the line can set her straight via the appeal process.
There is a lot of talk in this forum about judges ruling in one way or another because of their partisan views. I've always been uncomfortable with that assumption because I like to think that, for the most part, the constitution and the law itself matters more to judges -- who almost always are competent career professionals learned in the law -- than any partisan views they may happen to hold.
My faith in judges has been upheld by numerous Trump-appointed judges who have ruled against Trump. Yes, they may be Republicans. Yes, they may have strongly held partisan views. Yes, they may be grateful to Trump for nominating them to the bench. But no, where the law is clear, they will not rule in a way the law does not say. Seeing Trump-appointed judges rule against Trump over and over and over again, bolsters the general faith I have in the judicial branch to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That said, I read with interest the comment below about the judge now in the news because of the case now before her. We'll see how things play out. For now, I'm simply noting the comment with interest.
My faith in judges is general, and particular exceptions can be found. Whether or not this judge is an exception, whether or not she is "untethered to the law," will be evident soon enough. And if she is, other judges higher up the line can set her straight via the appeal process.
Last edited:
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
But how do you feel about Democrat leaning judges? I have only hear of one that followed the constitution out in Arizona that went against the Democrat attorney general over the forensic audit because cyber monkey did that outstanding of a job not just with paperwork but with the level of security and chain of evidence.
The quote from Lawrence Tribe is nothing more than another typical response from a radical liberal to a decision that doesn't go their way - an attack upon the credibility and veracity of the source, which in this case offers no substance other than that he's "studied her". Tribe is a regular mouthpiece on MSNBC and other liberal outlets whose bias reaches the far left limits of the political spectrum. We're talking about a guy who advocated the rights of animals to sue in court, and also believes that the work of supreme courts in India, Israel, South Africa and their counterparts in China should influence the sensitivities of American constitutional scholars. To consider his opinion to have merit or even remotely objective would be very generous.
That said, here's more background on Judge Cannon:
Aileen Cannon – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
39-year-old AUSA Aileen Cannon is President Trump’s fifth nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and would be the first woman to join the court under his tenure as…
vettingroom.org
Trump Misses the Boat
From Fox News "The Justice Department announced in a court filing Monday that they already reviewed documents seized from former President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and that they identified a "limited set" of documents that could include information protected by attorney-client privilege.
"The DOJ said they would provide more information in a separate filing, but said that prior to the court issuing a preliminary order to appoint a special master to go through the documents, a privilege review team went through the documents."
I am not surprised to learn that DOJ was able to quickly isolate the attorney-client privilege documents from the documents seized in the Mar-a-Lago search. The crimes stated in the search warrant are not something that would spill over into attorney-client privilege in a big way. An example of a big-way spillover would be when Trump's attorney Michael Choen's records were seized. The Mar-a-Lago documents are said to be documents relating to national security that were improperly removed from government custody. When you're looking for those, it would be a simple matter for the filter team to separate out attorney letters or other such privileged documents investigators will not be allowed to see.
Given the nature of the laws said to be violated, it seems to me DOJ would have little interest in any attorney-client privileged documents that were in the boxes seized at Mar-a-Lago, and I expect they will quickly and willingly return them to Trump.
Trump missed the boat with this because he waited two weeks to even go to court to request a special master. By the time he did that, the filter team had already completed its work.
From Fox News "The Justice Department announced in a court filing Monday that they already reviewed documents seized from former President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and that they identified a "limited set" of documents that could include information protected by attorney-client privilege.
"The DOJ said they would provide more information in a separate filing, but said that prior to the court issuing a preliminary order to appoint a special master to go through the documents, a privilege review team went through the documents."
I am not surprised to learn that DOJ was able to quickly isolate the attorney-client privilege documents from the documents seized in the Mar-a-Lago search. The crimes stated in the search warrant are not something that would spill over into attorney-client privilege in a big way. An example of a big-way spillover would be when Trump's attorney Michael Choen's records were seized. The Mar-a-Lago documents are said to be documents relating to national security that were improperly removed from government custody. When you're looking for those, it would be a simple matter for the filter team to separate out attorney letters or other such privileged documents investigators will not be allowed to see.
Given the nature of the laws said to be violated, it seems to me DOJ would have little interest in any attorney-client privileged documents that were in the boxes seized at Mar-a-Lago, and I expect they will quickly and willingly return them to Trump.
Trump missed the boat with this because he waited two weeks to even go to court to request a special master. By the time he did that, the filter team had already completed its work.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Very similar here (on judges in general) and I have been pleasantly surprised by Trump-appointed judges upholding the rule of law.
Having said that, there are some problematic ones that have shown up during the Jan 6th cases:
Judge McFadden who has been inclined to make excuses and deliver extremely light, slap-on-the-wrist sentences for a number of cases.
Judge Cooper whose ruling on obstruction of Congress flies in the face of the rest of his judicial colleagues in DC hearing Jan 6th cases.
I tend to share your concern on Judge Cannon though, most notably because her first action in the case was bonkers ... given the fact that she issued an order without even hearing a response from the government, (among other things)
That begs the question whether there has been any behind-the-scenes ex parte communications going that we don't know about, and if so whether she has been promised anything in the future (on the shortlist for SCOTUS ?)
In any event, DOJ has now made it's first filing in the case and acknowledged service:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.31.0_6.pdf
It also seems to imply that the DOJ taint team has pretty much reviewed all the docs for privileged materials (as laid out in the original authorized search warrant) prior to the issuance of her order, so it may be to late to appoint a Special Master ... looks like DOJ has already seen everything:
AG Garland apparently has his foot on the gas ... not the brake.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
It’s Laurence Tribe.
I'd take Tribe any day of the week and twice on Sundays ... particularly as compared to noted MAGA Legal Halfwit and Non-Lawyer Tom Fitton ... or Attorney Boob who signed zee papers.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I do not disagree. As I said, I'm only noting the comment that the judge is "untethered from the law." I'm not saying she is. It's just something to keep an eye on.The quote from Lawrence Tribe is nothing more than another typical response from a radical liberal to a decision that doesn't go their way - an attack upon the credibility and veracity of the source, which in this case offers no substance other than that he's "studied her". Tribe is a regular mouthpiece on MSNBC and other liberal outlets whose bias reaches the far left limits of the political spectrum. We're talking about a guy who advocated the rights of animals to sue in court, and also believes that the work of supreme courts in India, Israel, South Africa and their counterparts in China should influence the sensitivities of American constitutional scholars. To consider his opinion to have merit or even remotely objective would be very generous.
That said, here's more background on Judge Cannon:
Aileen Cannon – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
39-year-old AUSA Aileen Cannon is President Trump’s fifth nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and would be the first woman to join the court under his tenure as…
It was the comment itself that got my attention. Other than your description, I do not know who Lawrence Tribe is. It is probably certain I have seen him on MSNBC, but I do not pay attention to whose who on those political shows. I generally know the principles (Cavouto, Bartiromo, Maddow, etc., but if you showed me a photo of Tribe in an array, I would not be able to match his name with his face. Same for most of the other guests that appear on those shows. The info they share is of some interest to me as I form my views. Their background is of little interest to me.
As professional wrestler Vern Gagne once told me, "I'll listen to anyone. Even an idiot says something intelligent every once in a while."
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Ruh-roh ...
KEY DETAILS ABOUT EVAN CORCORAN THAT EVAN CORCORAN DID NOT DISCLOSE TO JUDGE AILEEN CANNON
Is that bad ?
It sounds like it might be bad ...
KEY DETAILS ABOUT EVAN CORCORAN THAT EVAN CORCORAN DID NOT DISCLOSE TO JUDGE AILEEN CANNON
Is that bad ?
It sounds like it might be bad ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
"...'Tater had the right to remain silent ... he just didn't have the ability ..."
h/t Ron White