Federal Indictment of Donald Trump

#2,226
#2,226
Garland can say what he wants but his department is a political hack. This goes along with what they've done to demonize one side of the political argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#2,228
#2,228
lawgator1 said:
That's a fair point; but I am struggling to come up with even an remotely sensible reason for Trump and his team to have done it from the beginning. You have to admit, its hard to come up with a benign reason.
Click to expand...
If they are inconsequential to national security and it's correspondence he had with other leaders, for example, I can see a situation that isn't nefarious.

But that depends on what the files are. Would you say that if it came to that, that it would have been a silly operation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 865er
#2,229
#2,229
BowlBrother85 said:
LOL.

I really do hope that Trump is the Republican Party nominee again. Just as was the case in 2020, he is the only candidate that the Democrats could even hope to beat. With Trump on the ballot, the focus of the entire campaign changes. Instead of the 2024 presidential election campaign being about inflation, it would be about Trump's illicit conduct. It gives the Democrats a deflection point that they wouldn't have with Ron DeSantis. If you don't think Trump could lose again ... you are kidding yourself.

If Republicans are smart, they will nominate DeSantis, he brings all of the same policies to the table as Trump, but none of the baggage.
Click to expand...
I’m going to echo the other poster.

Trump in 24. Ron D in 28 and 32. Maybe elect one of Trumps kids in 36. Or Hell, maybe just give them all a crack at it.

Future is looking bright!

Don’t worry. Y’all won’t even notice. Too busy celebrating men having babies and dominating female sports. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom and BreatheUT
#2,230
#2,230
hog88 said:
I've never seen a search warrant, do they spell out the potential charge and or reason for the search?
Click to expand...
Yes. The warrant will list crimes, location of search, and items to be searched for. The affidavit of probable cause will list the reason they believe they’re at the location and how they are relevant to the crime and the suspect. The PC is often not left on site and not shared with the suspect until later. It is sometimes kept under seal until the discovery process.
 
#2,231
#2,231
RockyTop85 said:
No. Read the statute. Then read the order.

The judge did not cite an “inability to be impartial,” at all. He made a citation to a statute that sets forth around a dozen different circumstances that prompt a judge to recuse.

Yes, that sratute includes impartiality among the circumstances, arguably twice, but it is not solely about impartiality. Many of the enumerated situations are conflicts that would be resolved by a change in one party, by a change in matter that is the subject of the dispute, or by new lawyers for the parties.

Therefore, it is false to say he recused “citing his inability to be [im]partial.” The statement isn’t an equivocation that may or may not be true, it’s a false statement of certainty about contents of the order.

Alone, that would be understandably erroneous. Obviously, you have made the same mistake, based on the articles. That should be a little embarrassing, given that you claim to have read the statute, but it’s not dishonest. However, the “because of Trump” part didn’t come from the articles, or the order, or the statute. That was completely made up. Which is why I simply asked him for a link to his source.

You, likely still butt hurt from me laughing about Eric Trump making you look like a gullible dipshit, were the one who couldn’t resist being a twat, and jumped in with “Google works.”

I can’t imagine that proving that this simple word matching exercise was too intellectually challenging for you is going to improve your disposition, so maybe try to work through the logic of whether the fact that this judge has already shown a willingness to (seemingly sua sponte) recuse in the civil case makes it more or less likely that he would then unethically sign a warrant that is going to be handed off to Trump or his attorneys?
Click to expand...
20220420_130607.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#2,232
#2,232
lawgator1 said:
As more and more slowly comes out, this is looking far worse for Trump:

1) Agents had to seize archive documents as far back as June, and order that others be sequestered and held there;

2) Informants tell them that there are still classified documents there, causing enough alarm that the DOJ has to seek a search warrant to get them;

3) Search warrant was only option because of fear that Trump or his agents would destroy the documents;

4) Trump has, and could easily release, but for some reason will not release, the warrant itself;

5) A judge had to sign off on the warrant application.


We are rapidly getting to a point where it is clear that Trump took those documents from the WH for the very purposes of hiding them from someone, the feds gave him every opportunity to give them back and he did not, and enough information came out that it became clear that the documents are at risk if left in Trump's hands.

Sorry Trumpsers, but this reeks of disaster for Trump.
Click to expand...

You got him this time !
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, SuzyVol, BreatheUT and 1 other person
#2,236
#2,236
lawgator1 said:
That's a fair point; but I am struggling to come up with even an remotely sensible reason for Trump and his team to have done it from the beginning. You have to admit, its hard to come up with a benign reason.
Click to expand...
I don't know, but maybe his presidential library? I'm pretty certain that whatever was kept wasn't some nuclear bomb codes or submarine design blueprints. Whatever they took when they raided his house, they damn well better have a good explanation for, other than the federal archivist wanted them. This was akin to using a 10 pound sledgehammer to drive in a tack. If Biden lives to the next election, he better look out, because he opened Pandora's box with this raid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#2,237
#2,237
tim said:
Yes. The warrant will list crimes, location of search, and items to be searched for. The affidavit of probable cause will list the reason they believe they’re at the location and how they are relevant to the crime and the suspect. The PC is often not left on site and not shared with the suspect until later. It is sometimes kept under seal until the discovery process.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I forgot that you used to work for the darkside.
 
#2,238
#2,238
lawgator1 said:
You don't think they took the boxes with them or wouldn't turn them over to the archive? Then why didn't they deny it a year ago when this first came up?

See, you and Rand Paul need to learn a little something about advancing conspiracy theories: THEY HAVE TO MAKE SENSE.
Click to expand...
Kind of like the conspiracy theories of the attempted murder and entrapment of the Michigan gov? Oh, wait...
 
#2,240
#2,240
They have until 3 PM tomorrow to appeal it. I like that the ball has now been put in Trumps court. Let’s see how he spins it now.
 
#2,244
#2,244
tnmarktx said:
What specific facts do you have supporting this statement? Or, are you just demonstrating that self proclaimed genius lawyers are extremely stupid regarding law?
Click to expand...

Hello again, Mrs. Dershowitz. I don’t believe I’ve ever proclaimed myself a genius, and I don’t intend to derail this thread.

But yes, there has considerable evidence that Trump and others were involved in several concurrent attempts to thwart the transfer of power in order to have Trump named President even though he didn’t win the election. You can Google the Eastman memo, Jake Wilemchek emails, and also Trump’s and Eastman’s January 6 speeches.

Happy to take your questions in another thread.

I hope your boy, Alan, is well, I saw someone post one of his television hits where he was lying about search warrants the other day. I’m sure you must be proud.

Warmest regards,
Notageniusjustsmarterthanyou lawyer.
 
#2,245
#2,245
If any of you think or thought the DOJ is not or has not been political you are mistaken. It has been and will continue to be. This is just what happens, things always progress. Usually for the worse
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#2,248
#2,248
RockyTop85 said:
Hello again, Mrs. Dershowitz. I don’t believe I’ve ever proclaimed myself a genius, and I don’t intend to derail this thread.

But yes, there has considerable evidence that Trump and others were involved in several concurrent attempts to thwart the transfer of power in order to have Trump named President even though he didn’t win the election. You can Google the Eastman memo, Jake Wilemchek emails, and also Trump’s and Eastman’s January 6 speeches.

Happy to take your questions in another thread.

I hope your boy, Alan, is well, I saw someone post one of his television hits where he was lying about search warrants the other day. I’m sure you must be proud.

Warmest regards,
Notageniusjustsmarterthanyou lawyer.
Click to expand...
You're either lying, scared, or just ignorant of the law I see. I ask you a specific question and you just refused to answer. Jan 6th is not set in stone. State legislatures in the swing states sent letters to Pence requesting more time to investigate their elections that they have full constitutional authority over. That's all that was asked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and BigOrangeTrain
#2,249
#2,249
volgr said:
Pretty sure I did. There will always be those who protest the overthrowing of the current gov't. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Click to expand...
So you think a monarchy and self-determinative governments are of equal value?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top