• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Mar-a-Largo raided by FBI?

Judge Dearie asked lawyers for the plaintiff in their civil suit, Donald Trump, to present his case for ownership of the classified documents. He said that, in the absence of some coherent argument from the plaintiff, he had to go with the prima facie evidence that they were government documents, because they were marked as government classified documents. He didn't need to actually read the documents to determine whether Trump was entitled to them. He just needed some basis for believing that there was a bona fide dispute over ownership. The lawyers said it would be premature to present evidence, so that leaves the judge with no choice but to leave them in government hands. The plaintiff had the burden of proof, but he offered none. The judge is not putting up with Trump's delaying tactics.

 
This is the problem Trump has... his bullshit lying doesn't work in court. Evidence and arguments actually matter. Granted, I think the lawyers will just appeal the appeal of the appeal to delay this as long as possible.

The funny thing is that in asking for a Special Master, they negated the most important ally they had, the ignorant and incompetent District Court Judge, where the bullshit arguments carried enough weight for that judge because they are way over their head on this bench. The Special Master ain't having any of this garbage. Can't wait for Trump's lawyers to argue the Special Master has no standing in his judgement on the documents.
 
He can try to appeal the appeal but the higher court doesn't have to accept it.
 
I think his long standing tactic in courts before going into politics was to delay, drag it out, until the other party gave up or would accept a settlement, so he could deny loosing anything. (not that different from Scientology tactics) Getting elected got him extra options to avoid the law. Plus tons of potentially violent followers and a political party that has his back has intimidated at least one AG from persuing a case against him.

But what happens if one of those cases finally goes to court and gets a conviction? The GOP has already backed off of paying his legal bills for the documents case. If he gets convicted with they pull out of supporting him in all the other ones? Will it be a domino effect where all the other cases will see they can win against him and push forward, giving us one conviction after another? I hope so, and do think it is likely. I think once he faces real consequences Trump will eagerly throw people under the bus to save himself, and they will rat him out first.
 
ZiprHead said:
The Appeals Court just sided with the DOJ.
Click to expand...

Yes, and here is the ruling itself from the Court of Appeals:


It is a complete rejection of the district court's ruling in Trump's favor. Trump's handpicked judge got her ass handed to her on a platter. There was nothing in this ruling that had anything good to say about the district magistrate judge's ruling or Trump's case for stopping the criminal investigation or claiming any kind of ownership of the classified documents that he stole.

I tried to find out what the Fox News site is saying about this story, but, so far, not a peep out of them. They don't have a story on it yet.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Wow. They say Cannon "abused" her discretion.
Click to expand...

And how. The tone of the ruling was matter-of-fact, but they thoroughly detailed the history and went through all of her arguments meticulously. They rejected every one of them. She was given every opportunity to back away from this, but she just doubled down on her interference with the investigation. Two of the three judges that authored the ruling were Trump appointees, but the decision was by all three judges in concert.
 
In a Sean Hannity interview on Fox News tonight, Hannity asked Trump what process he used to declassify the Mar-a-Lago documents. Trump, in his usual motor-mouth mode, explained that the president has an "absolute right" to declassify any document. He said that there didn't need to be a process but there could be a process. Then he said that he was able to declassify any document just by saying that it was declassified. Then, without missing a beat, he said he could declassify documents by thinking them declassified. He didn't even need to say it, if he thought it.

So there you have it--Donald Trump's own explanation of how he declassified all of those Top Secret documents. Of course, the courts have already ruled that everyone, including the president, has to follow published guidelines for declassifying documents, and there doesn't appear to be a provision for just thinking a document declassified. So I guess he'll be explaining to a court at some point that he just didn't know that. :shrug:
 
Ford said:
I used to produce the radio ads for a law firm. They were known primarily for their personal injury cases ("in a wreck? Need a check? Make one call, that's all.") and their phone number is in the jingle. (Lerner and Rowe for those of you in Arizona, Las Vegas, and Chicago). The one partner I worked with was actually a nice guy, and I'd bet money that if someone - even Trump - asked them to handle anything other than injury, bankruptcy, or a low level criminal offense, he'd say "that's way out of my wheelhouse...you need to get a firm that specializes in that sort of thing."

In other words, an ambulance-chasing personal injury lawyer has more integrity that the folks Trump has hired.
Click to expand...
The jingle was familiar but I couldn't place it until you gave the name. I didn't realize they were more than local.
 
I was hoping that if I swore a loyalty oath, Trump would telepathically clean my garage.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Ford said:
I used to produce the radio ads for a law firm. They were known primarily for their personal injury cases ("in a wreck? Need a check? Make one call, that's all.") and their phone number is in the jingle. (Lerner and Rowe for those of you in Arizona, Las Vegas, and Chicago). The one partner I worked with was actually a nice guy, and I'd bet money that if someone - even Trump - asked them to handle anything other than injury, bankruptcy, or a low level criminal offense, he'd say "that's way out of my wheelhouse...you need to get a firm that specializes in that sort of thing."

In other words, an ambulance-chasing personal injury lawyer has more integrity that the folks Trump has hired.
Click to expand...
The jingle was familiar but I couldn't place it until you gave the name. I didn't realize they were more than local.
Click to expand...
Yep. Lerner handles the Vegas and Chicago offices, and Kevin Rowe (the one I know) covers Phoenix. Other attorneys have tried their own catchy jingle, but if I tell anyone I used to do the spots, they know the tune by heart.
 
Copernicus said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Wow. They say Cannon "abused" her discretion.
Click to expand...

And how. The tone of the ruling was matter-of-fact, but they thoroughly detailed the history and went through all of her arguments meticulously. They rejected every one of them. She was given every opportunity to back away from this, but she just doubled down on her interference with the investigation. Two of the three judges that authored the ruling were Trump appointees, but the decision was by all three judges in concert.
Click to expand...
The interesting parts are the whole document, which didn't actually overrule Cannon's ruling... rather it was just staying it. But the overruling was so thorough and professionally blunt, it read like they said Cannon's ruling didn't have a shot in heck of surviving, at least relative to the classified documents.

It is interesting that I don't think Trump's lawyers have any recourse here. I don't think they can appeal this ruling because they didn't bother to make an adequate case in the first place.
 
Angry Floof said:
blastula said:
Indeed he did.

Click to expand...

They put "FMR." Interesting.

But it'll no doubt be whatever the programming dictates in a day or two.
Click to expand...

Nah. His detractors are gonna be all "Hey, Fox aren't so bad, they're recognising that he's no longer President"; While his supporters will be all "See, I told y'all he's one of us. I didn't even know before that he's a farmer".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom