Jump to content

Trump's classified documents case takes an interesting turn


Recommended Posts

https://www.declassified.live/p/judge-cannon-puts-jack-smith-on-trial?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

A few excerpts.   I highly recommend reading this.  

In officially vacating the existing May 20 trial date—an impossibility considering the defendant will be in a Manhattan courtroom for the foreseeable future—Cannon declined to set another date, calling it “imprudent” at this stage of the process. She noted a “myriad” of unresolved matters in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 42-count indictment against the former president and his two co-defendants, Mar-a-Lago employees Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Olivera, for willfully retaining national defense information and attempting to impede the government’s investigation.

Cannon, however, did schedule a number of proceedings that could be considered a way to put the Department of Justice on trial. In a stunning turn of events, Cannon, appointed by Donald Trump in 2020, is poised to make Smith a defendant of sorts.

Over the next several weeks, prosecutors will be forced to publicly counter defense motions that accuse the DOJ of selective and vindictive prosecution; insist the appointment of Smith is illegal; and claim that several parties, including Joe Biden’s White House, colluded behind the scenes as early as May 2021 to concoct the unprecedented case.

...In other words, the government officials prosecuting Trump with mishandling top-secret files--mishandled top-secret files.

Finally someone, the judge in this case, is taking seriously the weaponization of the DOJ in this effort.    I have never heard this before and like I said above, this is very interesting reading and I highly recommend people read up on this.   The defense has uncovered things that the judge wants clarified by DOJ.   DOJ will have a very hard time justifying what it has done in targeting Trump in this case.   They may be successful but it is an uphill battle.   No wonder Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, wanted to rush this to court.   In my opinion, he knows he has a very weak case based on the defense findings and didn't want that to come out.   It looks like at the very least, the judge is interested in getting all of this out in the open, even if the news media and D's don't want it to and don't want to acknowledge this is happening.    

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/11/judge-aileen-cannon-is-a-heroine/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/whats-holding-up-trumps-florida-case

These are two articles that seems to say similar things as the above.   So not wholly unsubstantiated. 

mspart

 

  • Bob 2
  • Brain 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove you didn’t plant the evidence that you admit you tampered with while arguing with two former U.S. Attorneys General that you are legitimate.  Did Smith miss the second day of law school?

  • Bob 2
  • Brain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove you didn’t plant the evidence that you admit you tampered with while arguing with two former U.S. Attorneys General that you are legitimate.  Did Smith miss the second day of law school?

Trump has admitted many times that he knew the documents were there.

Are people seriously trying to put that rabbit back in the hat? Are we actually pretending he didn’t say it, many times?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

who shipped them to him

Probably Joe's lawyers and his staff. Adam Shiff, Nancy and Micheal Cohen also helped with the boxing of the documents.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much like in the other thread, and other case, the only thing we know about what is going on in those courtrooms is from what we read/watch.....which we all know can be trusted about as far as an alligator can be trusted to chase a sprinter...

Again, the perfect reason why these need to be televised.  This is a nominee for President, voters shouldn't have to rely on 'media' to get (a variety of different angles of) what's going on in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Much like in the other thread, and other case, the only thing we know about what is going on in those courtrooms is from what we read/watch.....which we all know can be trusted about as far as an alligator can be trusted to chase a sprinter...

Again, the perfect reason why these need to be televised.  This is a nominee for President, voters shouldn't have to rely on 'media' to get (a variety of different angles of) what's going on in there.

Shame he’s not a little older and forgetful, then there’d be no case. 

  • Bob 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ha!    Just about everyone had a negative reaction to the prosecutions start witness.   CNN, MSNBC, and the others all said that his time on the hot seat was not good for the prosecution.   Most still say the charges are not clear and that the prosecution did not prove the case at all.   They made Trump out to be not a likeable guy but actually proving the charges they did not do.   That is not just from one side, most agree with this.   

https://www.newsweek.com/michael-cohen-had-his-knees-chopped-out-stand-legal-analyst-1901685

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/moment-of-real-triumph-for-trump-msnbc-legal-analyst-argues-michael-cohens-testimony-today-badly-hurt-the-prosecution/

mspart

Edited by mspart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mspart said:

Ha!    Just about everyone had a negative reaction to the prosecutions start witness.   CNN, MSNBC, and the others all said that his time on the hot seat was not good for the prosecution.   Most still say the charges are not clear and that the prosecution did not prove the case at all.   They made Trump out to be not a likeable guy but actually proving the charges they did not do.   That is not just from one side, most agree with this.   

https://www.newsweek.com/michael-cohen-had-his-knees-chopped-out-stand-legal-analyst-1901685

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/moment-of-real-triumph-for-trump-msnbc-legal-analyst-argues-michael-cohens-testimony-today-badly-hurt-the-prosecution/

mspart

This!  I read all the news sites, and it is pretty much a consensus that the prosecution stunk this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, mspart said:

Ha!    Just about everyone had a negative reaction to the prosecutions start witness.   CNN, MSNBC, and the others all said that his time on the hot seat was not good for the prosecution.   Most still say the charges are not clear and that the prosecution did not prove the case at all.   They made Trump out to be not a likeable guy but actually proving the charges they did not do.   That is not just from one side, most agree with this.   

https://www.newsweek.com/michael-cohen-had-his-knees-chopped-out-stand-legal-analyst-1901685

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/moment-of-real-triumph-for-trump-msnbc-legal-analyst-argues-michael-cohens-testimony-today-badly-hurt-the-prosecution/

mspart

I'm not saying there are not a lot of headlines saying Cohen was a Trump win, what I am saying is there are also  a whole lot of outlets that say Cohen was a Trump disaster, and also a whole lot that are saying Costello was an even bigger Trump disaster.  

So again, public opinion on what is going on in the trial is much more based on who they choose to read, than it is truly knowing what is going on in the trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a conflict of interest perspective, why is Trump's case allowed to be heard by a judge he appointed? How is that supposed to instill trust in the process? 

Not commenting on the specifics of the case. That just seems like a really blatant issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be no connection in a blind justice system on who appointed the judge and their ability to follow the law.   We are certainly getting the idea of biased judges only in the last few years.   Ds make a big deal out of more R appointed judges on the SCOTUS than D appointed.   But the SCOTUS has not always decided in a conservative leaning way.   In some cases, the count is unanimous.   

The judge in the classified documents case does not want to have any issue with Trump's current proceedings, and necessarily needs to have clarified a host of items as noted in the article I posted.    To me that is a judge not jumping to conclusions but deliberating on the efficacy of the evidence as now there have been stories of fabrication that were withheld in the briefs concerning the case as just one of the concerning areas of inquiry in the pretrial motions.  

Should we rush to convict or should we get the underlying story correct first?   If you read the article I posted, you would see that the DOJ has done a shoddy job on this and the judge is calling them out on that. 

mspart

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...