Jump to content

Update: 11th Circuit Appeals Court "sacks" MAL Special Master

b_m_b_m_b_m
 Share

Recommended Posts

Signifyin(g)Monkey

Signifyin(g)Monkey

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

Have Trump, Elvis, JFK, and Hitler do a Real World Argentina reality show.

 

When conspiracies stop being polite and start being real.


If we want to be real about our conspiracies, there is only one conclusion that any respectable conspiracy theorist can come to, which is that this was all orchestrated by Trump.

 

The guy was in the process of fading into irrelevancy because he couldn’t do anything other than relitigate the 2020 election, while Biden finally had a string of policy victories and positive economic news this week.  Then all of a sudden they raid his house and revivify his re-election campaign and give Republicans an issue to rally around and distract from Biden’s positive accomplishments?

 

Clearly Garland, McCabe and Trump are all colluding behind the scenes.  They’ll wind up as guests on the show, standing alongside Elvis, glancing at Trump and saying “TCB baby.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Signifyin(g)Monkey

Signifyin(g)Monkey

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, silentbob said:

Can I have or try whatever-the fuck strain you’re on @Signifyin(g)Monkey

Sorry, couldn’t tell ya.  Don’t live in a dispensary state, and the secondary market (okay, *black market*) is unreliable.  No way to know what you’re getting.

 

Also haven’t had any time lately.  Too busy.  So I’m dry.

 

But I do wish I still had some of the stuff I tried in Colorado.  Holy shit.

 

Also wish I was younger and had more time to juggle green indulgence with responsible living.  My thirties have made me lame AF.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarSolo

MarSolo

Posted
Posted

Because with everything with Trump that happens ends up being a “break from the norm”, watch everything happen with Trump in regards to the Espionage Act play out like it would in a feel good movie, and Trump somehow still wins the Presidency from behind bars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
silentbob

silentbob

Posted
Posted
220413110452-philbin-cipollone-split.jpg

Former White House lawyers -- Cipollone and Philbin -- interviewed by FBI over Mar-a-Lago documents | CNN Politics

WWW.CNN.COM
The FBI interviewed former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his former deputy Patrick Philbin earlier this year as part of the investigation into federal records taken to Donald Trump's Palm Beach home, two people briefed on the matter said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chairslinger

Chairslinger

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

I hear they might even drag Hillary in front of Congress and subject her to questioning nonstop for 12 hours.

 

Truly the consequences will be horrible:silly:

 

I like how they say this like any of us would give two shits that Hillary or fucking James Comey were subject to increased legal scrutiny. That only works when your political party is a personality cult, guys.

 

I care in that it would harm democracy in general to go after political opponents, but if they can prove Hillary actually broke the law I ain't losing sleep, much less bombing an FBI field office, over her paying the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Signifyin(g)Monkey

Signifyin(g)Monkey

Posted
Posted

I would recommend anyone interested in an even-handed, lawyerly analysis of the situation amidst the media hysteria to check out the latest posts on Lawfare.

 

My sense is that there needs to be much more than what we’ve seen so far to successfully indict and prosecute Trump.  And if the DOJ doesn’t, this was probably a mistake.

 

Quote

I am far from convinced, based on the public evidence to date, that Trump has committed convictable crimes. (Recall that the standard to bring a case against Trump is that his acts constitute a federal offense and “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”)

 

A lot could turn on whether Trump was tampering with or illicitly in possession of records while president, or after he left office. (The latter presents a lower legal bar to clear)

 

If a clear instance of bribery was involved, however, things become simpler.

 

Quote

As for the “evidence that Trump [after he left office] personally contacted potential witnesses against him and tried to ensure their silence with a mix of inducements and threats,” if the evidence ends up supporting that description, the Department of Justice should face none of the legal hurdles to prosecution identified above. We will see.

 

Let’s hope Garland knows what he’s doing.

 

He’s at least gotta do better than he did in FF1, when he couldn’t even stop four kids with halfway decent gear at level 50.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost_MH

Ghost_MH

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

I would recommend anyone interested in an even-handed, lawyerly analysis of the situation amidst the media hysteria to check out the latest posts on Lawfare.

 

My sense is that there needs to be much more than what we’ve seen so far to successfully indict and prosecute Trump.  And if the DOJ doesn’t, this was probably a mistake.

 

A lot could turn on whether Trump was tampering with or illicitly in possession of records while president, or after he left office. (The latter presents a lower legal bar to clear)

 

If a clear instance of bribery was involved, however, things become simpler.

 

Let’s hope Garland knows what he’s doing.

 

He’s at least gotta do better than he did in FF1, when he couldn’t even stop four kids with halfway decent gear at level 50.

 

This cannot be a mistake. Maybe politically, but national security-wise, no. Even if, in the end, the DOJ refuses to press charges, Trump was still in possession of classified documents outside of any controls and lacking any type of documentation and tracking. Just getting those back in enough because, even if Trump was a good boy and just had them locked up in a safe tied to his ankle,  we have no way of knowing who else has or could have access to those documents without his knowledge or even after his death.

  • True 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greatoneshere

Greatoneshere

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

I would recommend anyone interested in an even-handed, lawyerly analysis of the situation amidst the media hysteria to check out the latest posts on Lawfare.

 

My sense is that there needs to be much more than what we’ve seen so far to successfully indict and prosecute Trump.  And if the DOJ doesn’t, this was probably a mistake.

 

As an ex-attorney at least, I'd say we simply don't know enough yet to make a determination. Saying: "based on the public evidence to date". Well, yeah, we don't know much. It's quite clear the DOJ and the FBI knows more than we do. 

 

And, adding political analysis to this, Merrick Garland is a very moderate lawyer and now attorney general. And Democrats, on top of that, are loathe typically to go so hard after an ex-president. The fact that Merrick Garland pulled the trigger on this, after already giving Trump a chance earlier this year in February/March (this is when Trump returned 15 "boxes" but kept 11 "boxes" of stuff). That means what Trump kept, and refused to return after March, was important enough for all this shit to go down. A federal judge signed off on a search warrant, and not just of anyone, but an ex-president of the United States, confirming probable cause. That's no small deal, so it must have been very highly sensitive information. Does this mean it's some slam dunk that Trump gets indicted and either a) can't run for office and/or b) goes to jail? Absolutely not. But something is up for sure. 

 

Additionally, this is the DOJ and a Trump-appointed head of the FBI (Christopher Wray) and his department working together to do this. This could have very easily been stopped at numerous points between two federal departments working together on something so high level, but everything went through. That tells me this is serious business. 

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

As an ex-attorney at least, I'd say we simply don't know enough yet to make a determination. Saying: "based on the public evidence to date". Well, yeah, we don't know much. It's quite clear the DOJ and the FBI knows more than we do. 

 

And, adding political analysis to this, Merrick Garland is a very moderate lawyer and now attorney general. And Democrats, on top of that, are loathe typically to go so hard after an ex-president. The fact that Merrick Garland pulled the trigger on this, after already giving Trump a chance earlier this year in February/March (this is when Trump returned 15 "boxes" but kept 11 "boxes" of stuff). That means what Trump kept, and refused to return after March, was important enough for all this shit to go down. A federal judge signed off on a search warrant, and not just of anyone, but an ex-president of the United States, confirming probable cause. That's no small deal, so it must have been very highly sensitive information. Does this mean it's some slam dunk that Trump gets indicted and either a) can't run for office and/or b) goes to jail? Absolutely not. But something is up for sure. 

 

Additionally, this is the DOJ and a Trump-appointed head of the FBI (Christopher Wray) and his department working together to do this. This could have very easily been stopped at numerous points between two federal departments working together on something so high level, but everything went through. That tells me this is serious business. 

Also we don’t know what doj saw on the surveillance footage which was apparently the impetus for the warrant for search

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost_MH

Ghost_MH

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Also we don’t know what doj saw on the surveillance footage which was apparently the impetus for the warrant for search

 

Wasn't it reported that what they saw were the documents being moved out of the storage room that was under surveillance and to another part of the building that was not?

 

image.jpg?width=2000&height=2000

Feds obtained surveillance footage showing boxes being moved after discussions with DOJ: report - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

WWW.RAWSTORY.COM
Feds obtained surveillance footage showing boxes being moved after discussions with DOJ: report

 

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commissar SFLUFAN

Commissar SFLUFAN

Posted
Posted
220809-mar-a-lago-ew-701p-72301d.jpg

Judge says he's inclined to unseal portions of Mar-a-Lago search affidavit, orders government to submit redactions

WWW.NBCNEWS.COM
The Justice Department argued that releasing the justification for the search could jeopardize the investigation and put witnesses in the case at risk.

 

Quote

 

A federal judge on Thursday said he is inclined to unseal at least some of the probable cause affidavit used to secure a search of former President Donald Trump's Florida estate and ordered the government to submit proposed redactions.

 

“On my initial careful review ... there are portions of it that can be unsealed,” Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said after a hearing where a top government lawyer contended the document's release could jeopardize an investigation that is still in its "early stages."

 

In a written ruling after the hearing, Reinhart said, "I find that on the present record the Government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed."

 

The judge said he would "give the government a full and fair opportunity” to make redactions to the document, and ordered them to turn in the redacted version by next Thursday, along with a legal memo justifying the proposed redactions. He said he would then review the document and either order its release if he agrees with the redaction or hold a closed-door hearing with the government if he disagrees.

 

The judge added that if they can't agree, "obviously I'd win" that argument, but he'd allow the government time to appeal his ruling.

 

During a hearing that lasted just over an hour, Jay Bratt, a top counterintelligence and national security official at DOJ, argued the  “very detailed and lengthy" document needed to be kept completely under wraps because it contains “substantial grand jury” information in a "unique" case with "national security overtones."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chairslinger

Chairslinger

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:
220809-mar-a-lago-ew-701p-72301d.jpg

Judge says he's inclined to unseal portions of Mar-a-Lago search affidavit, orders government to submit redactions

WWW.NBCNEWS.COM
The Justice Department argued that releasing the justification for the search could jeopardize the investigation and put witnesses in the case at risk.

 

 

 

 

I am conflicted, I obviously have no sympathy for Trump's side in this. But I think the government in general over classifies and redacts stuff in these situations. It's just their natural inclination.

 

Allowing them to redact what they feel they need to and be prepared to defend each redaction on a case by case basis seems fair to me since this judge so far seems to have no horse in this race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...