Judge Dismisses Trump Documents Case.

#28
#28
Wait What? Did the prosecutor determine that Trump was not mentally fit? Did he say that no prosecutor would move forward with a case against a defendant that is old, feeble and has memory issues?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and CagleMtnVol
#29
#29
Ritzwatch said:
I asked in another post, but haven't gotten a response, so I will ask here, just for posterity: (@BowlBrother85, tagging you in on this thread to get it out of the Assassination Attempt thread)

If you contend this ruling is incorrect, please point to where in the opinion the judge's legal reasoning was flawed and tell us why.
Otherwise, you are just complaining to complain. All the while telling the R's to accept the judge's rulings in NY, DC and heck, Alec Baldwin.

Of course, if you are just a partisan, you can wait for the news media clips you can copy and paste and then claim the news reports as your own logic, but by then we will know that you were just making noise without thought.

I have skimmed the 93 page opinion. I don't know enough about this area of the law to have any idea if the reasoning is correct, but for all of you claiming it is flawed, please educate me: How is it flawed? Cite the place in the ruling it is flawed. It is not magic. The opinion is there. If you are going to claim it is flawed, point out where.

Otherwise, just tell us you wish the judge didn't reach this conclusion, because trump, then sit back down and see what else happens like the rest of us. Don't play expert without some level of willingness to back it up, that is a bad look that discredits you.
Click to expand...

I don't think those who are celebrating this decision are doing so based upon levelheaded legal reasoning, either. The situation here, though, is a judge went against decades of precedent by higher courts, including SCOTUS, establishing the constitutionality of a special counsel. This was on top of a swath of puzzling decisions and actions by a judge who was either compromised as a judicial appointee by the defendant or simply over he head. Plus, the case has been in her court for over a year for her to finally make this determination the prosecution can't, well, prosecute.

Regardless, this will no doubt be appealed, which will likely be successful, and it will happen after the election. Smith's team is probably just as much happy this is out of Cannon's court as he is frustrated by the decision.
 
#30
#30
Unimane said:
I don't think those who are celebrating this decision are doing so based upon levelheaded legal reasoning, either. The situation here, though, is a judge went against decades of precedent by higher courts, including SCOTUS, establishing the constitutionality of a special counsel. This was on top of a swath of puzzling decisions and actions by a judge who was either compromised as a judicial appointee by the defendant or simply over he head. Plus, the case has been in her court for over a year for her to finally make this determination the prosecution can't, well, prosecute.

Regardless, this will no doubt be appealed, which will likely be successful, and it will happen after the election. Smith's team is probably just as much happy this is out of Cannon's court as he is frustrated by the decision.
Click to expand...

If appealed to US Supreme Court, I am pretty confident, based on Clarence's Thomas ruling, that it will be upheld.

Now, charges could be brought again outside of a special counsel from the DOJ or by a special counsel setup under Constitutional means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf, StarRaider and LibertyVol
#32
#32
volbound1700 said:
If appealed to US Supreme Court, I am pretty confident, based on Clarence's Thomas ruling, that it will be upheld.

Now, charges could be brought again outside of a special counsel from the DOJ or by a special counsel setup under Constitutional means.
Click to expand...

I think Thomas is about the only one who would possibly support this judgment. I know this court has thrown out a lot of precedent, but this is a pretty out of left field judgment by Cannon and only Thomas questioned its constitutionality. Cannon has been out there on a number of items in this case.
 
#33
#33
Unimane said:
I think Thomas is about the only one who would possibly support this judgment. I know this court has thrown out a lot of precedent, but this is a pretty out of left field judgment by Cannon and only Thomas questioned its constitutionality. Cannon has been out there on a number of items in this case.
Click to expand...

We will see.
 
#35
#35
volbound1700 said:
We will see.
Click to expand...

The 11th Circuit Court has already sharply rebuked her decisions on the case, as noted in the link, and I can't see why this would be any different since she's making a decision here sharply in contrast with precedent.

www.nytimes.com

Appeals Court Scraps Special Master Review in Trump Documents Case (Published 2022)

The panel’s decision removed a major obstacle to the Justice Department’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of sensitive government documents.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
#37
#37
Unimane said:
I don't think those who are celebrating this decision are doing so based upon levelheaded legal reasoning, either. The situation here, though, is a judge went against decades of precedent by higher courts, including SCOTUS, establishing the constitutionality of a special counsel. This was on top of a swath of puzzling decisions and actions by a judge who was either compromised as a judicial appointee by the defendant or simply over he head. Plus, the case has been in her court for over a year for her to finally make this determination the prosecution can't, well, prosecute.

Regardless, this will no doubt be appealed, which will likely be successful, and it will happen after the election. Smith's team is probably just as much happy this is out of Cannon's court as he is frustrated by the decision.
Click to expand...
Did you read the decision? I have not, but the person you responded to clearly stated he had. Not to be a butt about it, but nothing mentioned in this response seems to be from the decision, but instead is generalities obviously being bantered about on cable news.

Seriously, this is not meant to be an attack on you, but trying to point out what appears to be some deficiencies in the analysis.
 
#38
#38
Unimane said:
The 11th Circuit Court has already sharply rebuked her decisions on the case, as noted in the link, and I can't see why this would be any different since she's making a decision here sharply in contrast with precedent.

www.nytimes.com

Appeals Court Scraps Special Master Review in Trump Documents Case (Published 2022)

The panel’s decision removed a major obstacle to the Justice Department’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of sensitive government documents.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
I saw that mentioned as well and it will be interesting to see if the government appeals and, if so, what the 11th Circuit does.
 
#39
#39
GroverCleveland said:
Did you read the decision? I have not, but the person you responded to clearly stated he had. Not to be a butt about it, but nothing mentioned in this response seems to be from the decision, but instead is generalities obviously being bantered about on cable news.

Seriously, this is not meant to be an attack on you, but trying to point out what appears to be some deficiencies in the analysis.
Click to expand...

He said he skimmed the document, as did I. The gist of it is pretty much as I interpreted above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#40
#40
Unimane said:
I don't think those who are celebrating this decision are doing so based upon levelheaded legal reasoning, either. The situation here, though, is a judge went against decades of precedent by higher courts, including SCOTUS, establishing the constitutionality of a special counsel. This was on top of a swath of puzzling decisions and actions by a judge who was either compromised as a judicial appointee by the defendant or simply over he head. Plus, the case has been in her court for over a year for her to finally make this determination the prosecution can't, well, prosecute.

Regardless, this will no doubt be appealed, which will likely be successful, and it will happen after the election. Smith's team is probably just as much happy this is out of Cannon's court as he is frustrated by the decision.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think you are right. Most of the supporters and detractors of this decision are basing their position on the end result, and not the legal reasoning of the decision itself. However, I have to believe the judge in the case has a greater depth of knowledge of the law in this case than I do, so my default position is that the decision is correct until someone can show me where it is wrong.

The judge could be wrong, and those posting that she is wrong may end up correct, I am just seeking some guidance on why they say she is wrong. Is it just partisanship (which it looks to be) or is it a legit, thoughtful anaylsis of her opinion?

I don't see how those claiming it to be wrong even had time to digest the opinion before expressing their contempt for it. That, to me, is reckless. Part of the same recklessness we are being asked to tamp down right now.

Until someone can show me where they say the decision is flawed, I will continue to think those criticizing the opinion are partisan hacks devoid of critical thinking skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL, W.TN.Orange Blood and GroverCleveland
#44
#44
GroverCleveland said:
I saw that mentioned as well and it will be interesting to see if the government appeals and, if so, what the 11th Circuit does.
Click to expand...

Whatever happens, it's not happening for a while, that's for sure. I doubt they see a courtroom to try this case until 2025.

I was moderately interested in this case, while having zero interest in the New York cases. The blatant issues in this case bothered me more - the defendant having a judge he appointed, the unusual delays and rulings of the judge, and so forth, but the substance of document handling affected me little. The real case, as a citizen, has always been the Georgia case (and Arizona one) about a sitting president trying to influence an election. The fact it is the last one of this series of legal issues for Trump is frustrating. It has always been the most important.
 
#45
#45
GroverCleveland said:
I stand corrected. Thank you for catching that. We will see how it plays out.
Click to expand...
@Unimane is correct. I only skimmed it. I saw where the judge assumed the government's position that the appointment was of a lower position, so she evaluated the government's position in a light most favorable to the government (as to the use of the appointment power) when making her decision. I saw where she said her circuit did not have binding precedent on the matter and that references to other circuits was unpersuasive to her. I skimmed her logic on the federal statutes and interpretation. I don't know enough about this area of the law to know if she is correct in her application of the law or not, so I am asked if anyone could point me to where the judge is incorrect in her decision. So far, no one has.

I am o.k. with that. That leaves us right where you have said, seeing how things play out.

It also gives me a better understanding of which posters throw stuff at the board without regard to established facts. I am o.k. with that, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf, BernardKingGOAT and GroverCleveland
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top