Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [Barks&Purrs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Barks&Purrs wrote:
ike wrote:
TheRef65 wrote:
ike wrote:
jmh wrote:
11th Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the DOJ. And made Cannon look like a fool.

Not sure what that means for the Special Master's job duties.

full document: https://www.politico.com/...48-a3e3-e2ff83050000


As for the special master's duties, this means that Dearie will not review the classified documents that were seized via the search warrant, but he can continue with the rest of his responsibilities.


So for the week or two delay, that served their purpose but since the documents Dearie will be reviewing don't really matter he should just pack up and say, "yep, I'm done."


Dearie will do as he was told (and as he agreed), and review all the non-classified stuff to see what is personal to Trump and what is privileged. But, the importance of his review has dropped a great deal, now that he can't deal with the classified stuff. In fact, a lot of what he is now doing is the sort of work that law firms delegate to junior associates.

At this point, Trump's gambit has backfired. He didn't get much delay. He got a bad opinion from a conservative federal appeals court. And, once Dearie completes his review of the non-classified stuff, Trump will have lost much of his ability to complain, since he will get back the personal stuff and any privilege determinations will have the seal of approval from a federal judge (which is way harder to attack in the court of public opinion than the privilege determinations by the Govt).


Trump has a lot of irons in the fire. The cost of tending to his various legal problems will necessarily diminish his resources. He’s paying for this unnecessary review of privileged documents.

And this back-and-forth has given credibility to our legal system to both side. He’s getting some of what he wants. How can he say it’s rigged against him when he’s not being completely denied?

I think this is a fantastic series of events for everyone involved.


The cost of the lawyers is a minor issue to Trump's overall financial situation. He may hate paying lawyers and this surely annoys the hell out of him, but he has ample resources (both of his own and what he can get from supporters) to pay the lawyers. The financial pain of paying lawyers' bills is far exceeded by the risk of being prosecuted and by the enormous diversion of time/energy which has to exact some toll on him.
Last edited by: ike: Sep 22, 22 8:58
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [MOP_Mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MOP_Mike wrote:
rich_m wrote:
Arlene [sic] Cannon is part of Trump's legal team .....and similarly incompetent.


How did Cannon even come to preside over this? Wouldn't the fact that she was a Trump appointee create a clear conflict of interest?

This is discussed earlier in the thread. Short answer: federal judges do not generally recuse themselves from cases involving the person who nominated them. They have lifetime tenure and are not dependent on further favors from their appointer. And, in any case, we indulge the assumption that once you take your oath, you rise above all the politics that got you the job in the first place. One can argue that's all unrealistic, but it's been the basic law in this country. There are ample reasons to criticize Judge Cannon's performance so far, but failing to recuse herself is not one of them. Also, of the three judges on the appeals court who so quickly reversed Judge Cannon, two are Trump appointees.
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ike wrote:
MOP_Mike wrote:
rich_m wrote:
Arlene [sic] Cannon is part of Trump's legal team .....and similarly incompetent.


How did Cannon even come to preside over this? Wouldn't the fact that she was a Trump appointee create a clear conflict of interest?


This is discussed earlier in the thread. Short answer: federal judges do not generally recuse themselves from cases involving the person who nominated them. They have lifetime tenure and are not dependent on further favors from their appointer. And, in any case, we indulge the assumption that once you take your oath, you rise above all the politics that got you the job in the first place. One can argue that's all unrealistic, but it's been the basic law in this country. There are ample reasons to criticize Judge Cannon's performance so far, but failing to recuse herself is not one of them. Also, of the three judges on the appeals court who so quickly reversed Judge Cannon, two are Trump appointees.

Also, of more importance, former Presidents who have appointed judges generally haven't had criminal or civil cases heard by those judges.

So maybe the real important issue is that the system failed and allow a criminal to be elected to be President- and that's because enough of we the people are fucking morons.

Suffer Well.
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jharris, tylertri,



How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dearie now telling Trump to shit or get off the pot.

https://twitter.com/.../1573010332146171908

https://slate.com/...ial-master-fail.html
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is fantastic, and entirely plausible.

Quote:
Which brings us back to the mystery of how Trump’s legal team undermined its own litigation strategy with the Dearie recommendation. A recent Axios article offers a possible explanation that if true, only underscores the problematic nature of their selection analysis. According to Axios sources, the Trump lawyers picked Judge Dearie because years ago, in his FISA Court role, he approved search warrants in the Carter Page investigation unaware that the FBI statements he relied upon were both materially false and incomplete. As a result, per this analysis, they believed Judge Dearie became “a deep skeptic of the FBI” and would perform his special master role with that jaundiced perspective. So, if this information is accurate, these lawyers concluded that a judge known for his integrity, objectivity, and career-long determination to follow the law, who served on the FISA Court for seven years and, thus, regularly came face to face with the enormous task our intelligence services have in keeping the country safe, would be influenced by a years-old grudge he very likely never had, to conduct himself in a manner completely antithetical to experience and, most importantly, to his very core.

"The devil made me do it the first time, the second time I done it on my own" - W
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey, did you know that Presidents can declassify documents just by flushing them down a toilet?

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
This is fantastic, and entirely plausible.

Quote:
Which brings us back to the mystery of how Trump’s legal team undermined its own litigation strategy with the Dearie recommendation. A recent Axios article offers a possible explanation that if true, only underscores the problematic nature of their selection analysis. According to Axios sources, the Trump lawyers picked Judge Dearie because years ago, in his FISA Court role, he approved search warrants in the Carter Page investigation unaware that the FBI statements he relied upon were both materially false and incomplete. As a result, per this analysis, they believed Judge Dearie became “a deep skeptic of the FBI” and would perform his special master role with that jaundiced perspective. So, if this information is accurate, these lawyers concluded that a judge known for his integrity, objectivity, and career-long determination to follow the law, who served on the FISA Court for seven years and, thus, regularly came face to face with the enormous task our intelligence services have in keeping the country safe, would be influenced by a years-old grudge he very likely never had, to conduct himself in a manner completely antithetical to experience and, most importantly, to his very core.


Deep State! What sounds completely insane to normal people sounds totally reasonable to Trump and his groupies.

Trump is the leader of the GQP
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
Hey, did you know that Presidents can declassify documents just by flushing them down a toilet?

Why do you think he has such an irrational hatred of low flow toilets?
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well they are declassified regardless of whether or not they actually get flushed.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Cannon partially reverses Dearie and gives Trump more time. It's not crazy for her to hold that Trump does not need to identify which documents were not actually taken from MAL (and, by implication, perhaps were planted) prior to seeing the documents. But, she relieved Trump of the obligation of identifying such documents even after his team has had a chance to review them.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/...lsd.618763.125.0.pdf
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What a toadie…guess any dumarse can be a judge.
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
why is it not crazy?

if he wants to say some of the documents were planted, then he should state which docs on the list he is referring to or STFU snout docs being planted.

why can't the Feds just bring him in and ask him? He's just a private citizen now.
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [rich_m] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rich_m wrote:
why is it not crazy?

if he wants to say some of the documents were planted, then he should state which docs on the list he is referring to or STFU snout docs being planted.

why can't the Feds just bring him in and ask him? He's just a private citizen now.

Because there is a plausible argument that you need to actually see the documents to tell whether they were originally at MAL. You're talking about 11,000 documents. How is he supposed to remember every single document that was in those boxes? Granted, seeing the document, with all its details, isn't a sure way to clarify your memory, but it's certainly better than just seeing a list of documents. It is quite common that an honest witness will have no memory of a document if you just ask them about it, but when you actually put it in front of them -- with all the visual cues (pictures, layout, specific words, handwritten notes, etc.) that includes -- it jogs their memory. Asking him the question in person won't (or probably won't) help his memory relative to seeing the list (even assuming he does not take the fifth and refuse to answer any questions).
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
honest witness... snerk
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is he gonna use a sharpie?
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ike wrote:

Because there is a plausible argument that you need to actually see the documents to tell whether they were originally at MAL. You're talking about 11,000 documents. How is he supposed to remember every single document that was in those boxes? Granted, seeing the document, with all its details, isn't a sure way to clarify your memory, but it's certainly better than just seeing a list of documents. It is quite common that an honest witness will have no memory of a document if you just ask them about it, but when you actually put it in front of them -- with all the visual cues (pictures, layout, specific words, handwritten notes, etc.) that includes -- it jogs their memory. Asking him the question in person won't (or probably won't) help his memory relative to seeing the list (even assuming he does not take the fifth and refuse to answer any questions).


Sure, it's plausible once you're able to imagine a world in which Trump just didn't reflexively lie about the whole thing in a social media post.
Quote Reply
Re: FBI raids Mar-a-lago [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thought trump had incredible mental skills…. Person, woman, man, camera, TV,
Quote Reply

Prev Next