Trump's Documents Trial

[Belsnickel]

So, I know there have been threads about all of these, but I can't find them. The case in Florida has been slow walking for a number of reasons. One of the most recent developments has been a response from the Special Counsel's Office to Judge Cannon's order to the parties in the case. In this response, Smith and his team call out the legally fallacious order and essentially tell the judge they are tired of her shit and are ready to take this to the 11th Circuit.

I have been watching the case in Florida with some confusion. I really can't tell whether Cannon's ruling are based in incompetence or she is that much in the bag for Trump. It of course could be a bit of both, but it's hard to say. What we do know is that she has had three law clerks quit on her, which is...unusual. Clerkships are prestigious appointments, great resume builders, and leaving before your year is up is absolutely not a good look to future employers. One of them was due to health problems, which is understandable. The other two we don't have much information on other than one of the clerks that quit being told by their employer and the circuit court specifically that their decision would not be held against them. That is a flippin' garrison sized red flag if I ever saw one. There are theories abound in all of this, and plenty of rumors. One of the things mentioned is that her work environment isn't great which, not going to lie, doesn't surprise me for a judge dealing with this type of case, seasoned or not. I'm still stuck on the one being told that it wouldn't be held against them, though, which is very unusual.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

This case has been curiously off the radar of the media, especially since it's now, IMO, the strongest case they have against Trump after Willis scorched earth the GA case. As for this judge, everything you said is correct. Her ruling was puzzling, and that's the kindest word I can use for it. And having more than one law clerk quit, even if one is for health reasons, is an enormous red flag. She must be an absolute nightmare to work for. There is a superior court judge here that is infamous for being bad tempered and directing their venom at random people. They can't keep a court clerk or court officer in their courtroom, no one wants to work for them.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2024, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This case has been curiously off the radar of the media, especially since it's now, IMO, the strongest case they have against Trump after Willis scorched earth the GA case. As for this judge, everything you said is correct. Her ruling was puzzling, and that's the kindest word I can use for it. And having more than one law clerk quit, even if one is for health reasons, is an enormous red flag. She must be an absolute nightmare to work for. There is a superior court judge here that is infamous for being bad tempered and directing their venom at random people. They can't keep a court clerk or court officer in their courtroom, no one wants to work for them.

Honestly, from the onset, the documents case was the strongest. It really is as clear cut as you can get with all of these cases. All of the other cases against Trump are much more intangible, but the documents case has so much evidence supporting it. However, because of the judge it has been assigned to there has been a lot of...questionable activity surrounding it. The assumption has pretty much been that while this is the strongest case, it has the lowest likelihood of being heard before the election because of Cannon's actions in it. It definitely hasn't been in the typical media, much, but the legal stuff I listen to talks a lot about it. I just haven't posted much about it because so much of what I would have to say would be getting into the weeds and anything beyond just an inflammatory headline doesn't get much traction around here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2024, 04:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, from the onset, the documents case was the strongest. It really is as clear cut as you can get with all of these cases. All of the other cases against Trump are much more intangible, but the documents case has so much evidence supporting it. However, because of the judge it has been assigned to there has been a lot of...questionable activity surrounding it. The assumption has pretty much been that while this is the strongest case, it has the lowest likelihood of being heard before the election because of Cannon's actions in it. It definitely hasn't been in the typical media, much, but the legal stuff I listen to talks a lot about it. I just haven't posted much about it because so much of what I would have to say would be getting into the weeds and anything beyond just an inflammatory headline doesn't get much traction around here.

You are sadly correct, if it's not inflammatory it gets almost zero interaction.  The documents case interests me as well as I'd very much like to know the contents of said documents.  We've heard nuclear secrets and the like, but never any confirmation.  I'm not asking for line to line specifics, but it would be interesting to see exactly what topics these documents covered and why Trump wanted to keep them.  Honestly, if I'm POTUS the minute I leave office I'm never looking at a government document again in my life.

[Luvnit2]

The documents case hinges on continuing on the Supreme court ruling to be heard in June.

Is a former POTUS permitted to have classified documents in their possession. If the Supreme Court rules yes, this case and the DC case likely die and are thrown out.

Trump's legal team is arguing Trump, and any US President can have classified documents in their possession.

I know liberals want every judge (like two in NYC who donated to Biden) in their hip pocket. It appears this judge will oversee the case fairly and force both sides to use legal arguments to win their case.

[*pally*]

(04-04-2024, 01:08 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The documents case hinges on continuing on the Supreme court ruling to be heard in June.

Is a former POTUS permitted to have classified documents in their possession. If the Supreme Court rules yes, this case and the DC case likely die and are thrown out.

Trump's legal team is arguing Trump, and any US President can have classified documents in their possession.

I know liberals want every judge (like two in NYC who donated to Biden) in their hip pocket. It appears this judge will oversee the case fairly and force both sides to use legal arguments to win their case.

I know it is difficult keeping all his illegal actions straight but the Florida case is not part of the SCOTUS case.  

Trump vs the United States concerns his immunity claims for his post-election shenanigans.  He claims he is not prosecutable because his illegal actions fall under Presidential powers.  If the SCOTUS ruled in Trump's favor it would void the DC federal case and GA state case.  His problem is that Presidents must operate under the Constitution and illegal acts do not qualify

While he has tried to claim partial immunity for the Florida cases, his charges stem from post-presidency activities and thus could not be covered by a claim of presidential immunity.  He wasn't President when he obstructed justice, conspired to hide the documents, and of course lied about possessing them in the first place.
He is claiming his actions were allowed under the Presidential Records Act.  The DOJ though has filed charges that are covered by the Espionage Act/

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2024, 03:17 PM)pally Wrote: I know it is difficult keeping all his illegal actions straight but the Florida case is not part of the SCOTUS case.  

Trump vs the United States concerns his immunity claims for his post-election shenanigans.  He claims he is not prosecutable because his illegal actions fall under Presidential powers.  If the SCOTUS ruled in Trump's favor it would void the DC federal case and GA state case.  His problem is that Presidents must operate under the Constitution and illegal acts do not qualify

While he has tried to claim partial immunity for the Florida cases, his charges stem from post-presidency activities and thus could not be covered by a claim of presidential immunity.  He wasn't President when he obstructed justice, conspired to hide the documents, and of course lied about possessing them in the first place.
He is claiming his actions were allowed under the Presidential Records Act.  The DOJ though has filed charges that are covered by the Espionage Act/

Man, the post you responded to was just the most misinformed drivel I have read in a while. I am glad that I utilize the ignore list.

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2024, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are sadly correct, if it's not inflammatory it gets almost zero interaction.  The documents case interests me as well as I'd very much like to know the contents of said documents.  We've heard nuclear secrets and the like, but never any confirmation.  I'm not asking for line to line specifics, but it would be interesting to see exactly what topics these documents covered and why Trump wanted to keep them.  Honestly, if I'm POTUS the minute I leave office I'm never looking at a government document again in my life.

Curiosity does cause me to want to know the contents, but I doubt we will know for years, and that's likely a good thing. We do know one of them, though, those Iranian battle plans.

As for documents after leaving, I don't know. It would depend on how old I was as to how willing I would be to hang up my life of civil service. But there is a difference there. I would be interested in advising my successors rather than the reason for Trump's retention of documents which was based purely on the status and power that waving them around afforded him. The way he talked about those battle plans alone highlights his lack of understanding of what he was looking at anyway.

[*pally*]

Judge Cannon denied Trump's request for dismissal based on the Presidential Records Act.

[Luvnit2]

(04-04-2024, 05:54 PM)pally Wrote: Judge Cannon denied Trump's request for dismissal based on the Presidential Records Act.

 I guess now she is a great liberal judge in your eyes since she dismissed Trump's request?????

[*Nately120*]

(04-04-2024, 07:07 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote:  I guess now she is a great liberal judge in your eyes since she dismissed Trump's request?????

That sounds more like something Trump supporters are about to say, actually. 

[*pally*]

(04-04-2024, 07:07 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote:  I guess now she is a great liberal judge in your eyes since she dismissed Trump's request?????

Personally, I don’t give a damn about a judges’s political leanings as long as they make timely, law based decisions.

I realize you have been told differently, but Donald Trump can receive a fair trial from non MAGA judges

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 07:48 AM)pally Wrote: Personally, I don’t give a damn about a judges’s political leanings as long as they make timely, law based decisions.  

I realize you have been told differently, but Donald Trump can receive a fair trial from non MAGA judges

Sadly it's all getting messy and definitely looks like he's not getting a fair trial(s). 

[GMDino]

(04-05-2024, 09:29 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sadly it's all getting messy and definitely looks like he's not getting a fair trial(s). 

What do you base that judgment on?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: What do you base that judgment on?

Obvious affiliations of the judges, donations, family members, workers and so on. 
Trump has played that part well in making sure that everyone knows they are Liberal leaning and playing politics, no matter if they aren't trying to, they've been painted that way. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2024, 12:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Obvious affiliations of the judges, donations, family members, workers and so on. 
Trump has played that part well in making sure that everyone knows they are Liberal leaning and playing politics, no matter if they aren't trying to, they've been painted that way. 

I feel like the family members thing should be taken off the table given how common political differences are within families.  Though I will admit it's funny to know there are a bunch of adult children out there attempting in vain to convince their MAGA parents that a kid having a negative view of Trump doesn't automatically mean his/her parents share that same view.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2024, 12:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I feel like the family members thing should be taken off the table given how common political differences are within families.  Though I will admit it's funny to know there are a bunch of adult children out there attempting in vain to convince their MAGA parents that a kid having a negative view of Trump doesn't automatically mean his/her parents share that same view.

You're absolutely correct in this. I just wish people would shut up about all of that. Everyone has biases, but judges are in their professions because they are supposed to look past those and apply the law. It's why the elected judges model is horse shit. The problem is that the Federalist Society has worked so hard to politicize the judiciary that it has disrupted the way it all works and there is no faith in the system even when judges are actually following the law and applying it fairly. Trump, of course, being one of those that has manifested this image uses this to his advantage.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 12:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I feel like the family members thing should be taken off the table given how common political differences are within families.  Though I will admit it's funny to know there are a bunch of adult children out there attempting in vain to convince their MAGA parents that a kid having a negative view of Trump doesn't automatically mean his/her parents share that same view.

Should be, but when you lead a public life, nothing is off the table. Let's ask Rosie how Barron Trump's Autism is coming along?

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2024, 01:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Should be, but when you lead a public life, nothing is off the table. Let's ask Rosie how Barron Trump's Autism is coming along?

Well, like I said before Trump can't even get out of his own immediate family without running into anti-Trumpers, so doesn't that set an unrealistic standard for anyone who is legally allowed to judge him?  

[*pally*]

(04-05-2024, 12:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Obvious affiliations of the judges, donations, family members, workers and so on. 
Trump has played that part well in making sure that everyone knows they are Liberal leaning and playing politics, no matter if they aren't trying to, they've been painted that way. 

So why aren't you concerned that a judge appointed to the bench by the man whose trial she is supposed to rule over isn't equally if not more conflicted than a judge whose adult family members are politically active?

Or if the political activities of family members prevent a Judge from ruling without bias why aren't you concerned about Clarence Thomas and his insurrectionist wife Ginn