• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

[Split Thread] Trump Document indictment (as opposed to other indictments)

This whole shebang may be the most insane thing that has ever happened in the history of the world part I.

- Mr. Trump, did you take these government documents, countless of which were marked Confidential or Classified or Sooper Sekrit?

- Yes.

- And when the National Archives, the legal guardians of such records, asked for them back, and, it should be added, did so numerous times, is it true you did not comply?

- That’s right.

- The prosecution rests, your honor.

- All right, court will take a 10-minute recess, and will reconvene at 9:15 for the sentencing phase.

This isn’t just an open and shut case, it’s a case that wouldn’t even rise to the level of being put in a slot on Judge Judy because for that they have to be at minimum seven minutes long, and JJ is not one to pad for time.
 
ah, but just like Jan 6th was entrapment by the FBI, letting Trump take the Documents was clearly just a trick by the Deep State to have Trump send to prison.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
This whole shebang may be the most insane thing that has ever happened in the history of the world part I.

- Mr. Trump, did you take these government documents, countless of which were marked Confidential or Classified or Sooper Sekrit?

- Yes.

- And when the National Archives, the legal guardians of such records, asked for them back, and, it should be added, did so numerous times, is it true you did not comply?

- That’s right.

- The prosecution rests, your honor.

- All right, court will take a 10-minute recess, and will reconvene at 9:15 for the sentencing phase.

This isn’t just an open and shut case, it’s a case that wouldn’t even rise to the level of being put in a slot on Judge Judy because for that they have to be at minimum seven minutes long, and JJ is not one to pad for time.
Click to expand...

This is why the Documents case is the most dangerous to Trump IMO. The hush money case is weird, the 1/6 case is big and complicated, and the Georgia case plays to Trumps strength of talking like a mob boss. Trump has a non zero chance of winning any of them in a court of law.

But the Documents case is simple, easy to understand, and every defense he has tried out in the media is easily shot down in a ten second sound bite. He really has no leg to stand on in that one. That is why the Trump legal strategy in this case is, delay trial till after election, win election, use power of Presidency to kill the case.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's worse than that; Cannon is still reserving the impossible date in May, which means that Trump can't be tried for anything else in that timeframe. She's not just delaying this one case, but putting up a roadblock for the whole justice system.
Click to expand...
Her 'reserving' a trial date in May certainly is stinking up the place like a dead woodchuck under the porch.

Fortunately, Trump (probably) will already have gone through 2 criminal trials by then (The hush money payments and Jan 6 cases are both slated to begin in March, and the judges in those cases seem to be a lot more competent than Cannon, so chances of extensive delays are minimal.) So with any luck he will already be convicted and incarcerated by the time of the (scheduled) May documents trial date.

And the prosecutors in the Georgia case have proposed an August Trial date. So in theory Judge Cannon can only interfere with that one other trial, and even then I'm not sure how much she could mess it up. (I have heard that federal cases are usually given priority over state cases when there is a conflict. But, if it is a case of "Federal trial date moved because judge allowed delays vs. state trial scheduled long ago", I suspect that they will let the state level case play out.)

So, she could (in theory) use conflicting trial dates to push the Documents case trial out past the general election in the hopes a republican presidential victory could "fix" the problem, but the other cases will probably have already been played out by then. (It sucks, because it was perhaps the most solid of all cases, but it won't necessarily sink the other cases.)
 
Trump's lawyers apparently have found a Dept. of Energy document that included Trump in a 2023 list of people who have 'Q' clearances, so they're now claiming that Trump thought that he had a security clearance. The only problem is that in order to legally store classified documents in their bathroom, a person needs to have a 'P' clearance.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-documents-q-clearance/
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
Trump's lawyers apparently have found a Dept. of Energy document that included Trump in a 2023 list of people who have 'Q' clearances, so they're now claiming that Trump thought that he had a security clearance.
Click to expand...

No, a Q clearance doesn't let you remove and mishandle documents. In fact, it means you to go jail harder if you do.

The only problem is that in order to legally store classified documents in their bathroom, a person needs to have a 'P' clearance.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Looks like the search of Mar a Lago was not as through as it should have been.

From: ABC News
Special counsel Jack Smith's team has questioned several witnesses about a closet and a so-called "hidden room" inside former President Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago that the FBI didn't check while searching the estate in August 2022...

A bit embarrassing for the FBI, considering that we still think there may be outstanding documents in Trump's possession.

Supposedly the closet had the locks changed while Trump had his lawyers on site, almost like he was trying to keep something hidden from him.
 
JayUtah said:
Here's the filing. It's a typical response to a motion to compel discovery.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.277.0.pdf
Click to expand...

Some parts of that are actually pretty funny. For example:
E. The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for “Production of CCTV Footage.”

....In an email on October 24, 2023, months after the materials were made available to the defense, counsel for De Oliveira for the first time mentioned problems that he had encountered when attempting to access specific CCTV files that the Government had obtained from the Trump Organization and produced in discovery. The Government immediately arranged a call with counsel and technical personnel from the FBI to help resolve the reported issues. Exhibit E at 2- 3. During the call, counsel for De Oliveira explained that he did not own or have access to a laptop or desktop computer and was instead attempting to review the entirety of the Government’s discovery on a handheld tablet. Id. The Government then offered to lend him a laptop computer to facilitate his review. Id. Counsel for De Oliveira accepted the offer, and on November 1, 2023, the Government hand-delivered a computer to him. Since then, whenever De Oliveira’s counsel has raised technical issues with viewing specific Trump Organization CCTV files, the Government has promptly assisted with resolving these inquiries, providing tips and examples, and offering to set up calls as needed. See ECF No. 252 at 2 n.1.

Counsel for Nauta was copied on the October 24, 2023 email and reported “having the same issues” as counsel for De Oliveira. Exhibit E at 3. The Government extended the same laptop offer to Nauta’s counsel....
Click to expand...
The defense lawyers also complained that the government “first alter[ed] the raw data it received and then knowingly produc[ed] it in a way that rendered [it] unviewable”. That complaint was based upon (1) the fact that Trump's people had recorded the CCTV footage using a proprietary format, (2) the defense lawyers were unable to figure out how to use the relevant proprietary software, even though that software had been given to them by the prosecution, (3) the defense lawyers couldn't figure out how to use standard compression/decompression software, (4) the defense lawyers waited more than two months before they even tried to view the CCTV footage, (5) filed their complaint without giving the prosecution enough time to help them overcome their cluelessness, but (6) they were able to view it immediately after filing their complaint because the prosecution once again stepped in to show them how to use the software.

The prosecution therefore says that entire section of the defendants' demand for discovery is now moot.
 
Last edited:
also they don’t even have a computer or laptop? so they borrowed one from the fbi lol
 
dirtywick said:
also they don’t even have a computer or laptop? so they borrowed one from the fbi lol
Click to expand...

Of course they have, but they used it as an excuse, like "my dog ate my homework", and FBI said "No worries! You can borrow this one!". :D


Hans
 
It's a running joke that so many lawyers seem to be borderline Luddites.

Discovery can be really messy from a document- and data-handling perspective. It's not uncommon for there to be a lot of back-and-forth, which is usually handled professionally. But there's a sort of dirty trick lawyers will sometimes do when there's excess animosity between the legal teams: you produce your discovery in the least convenience form that is still acceptable under the procedural and evidence rules. "Here's the surveillance footage in Betamax."

The humor of this exchange really comes home, then. Trump's lawyers are accusing the government of discovery shenanigans when in fact the record shows how inept they are and how the prosecutors have bent over backwards to solve routine discovery issues.

Prosecutors need to be thorough and pedantic here. The last thing they want is an excuse for Trump's go-to girl Judge Cannon to rule a Brady violation against them even if Trump's requests are bogus.
 
I'm deleting this post. slyjoe is right, wrong case.

There's so many! ;)
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
The US Appeals Court hearing donald trump's appeal that he has immunity in the documents case based on having been president has rejected that claim 3-0. ABC News reports the three-judge panel categorically denied trump's claim.


The pundits are warning that this does not mean the immunity gambit is over. Where do we go from here, SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

I think that was the election interference case, not the documents case (no?).

Anyway, it must really frost Trump's ass that the 3 judges were all women.

ETA: The judges gave him until next Monday to appeal to the SC.
 
newyorkguy said:
I'm deleting this post. slyjoe is right, wrong case.

There's so many! ;)
Click to expand...


Many years ago Marvel had a parody of Andy Rooney talking about how dangerous Manhattan had become due to heroes and villains, saying that if you asked someone where they were during the big disaster, they would have to ask "which one?"

What's the status of Trump's criminal indictment?
Which one?
 
newyorkguy said:
I'm deleting this post. slyjoe is right, wrong case.

There's so many! ;)
Click to expand...

This in itself has become a MAGA talking point. They cite as evidence of how wrong these prosecutions are that there are so many of them. Never before in history has a former President been the target of so much "interference" and "persecution" from the judiciary. It's so out of the ordinary that it has to be Trump Derangement Syndrome and not the fact that their candidate has so badly misbehaved.
 
slyjoe said:
I think that was the election interference case, not the documents case (no?).

Anyway, it must really frost Trump's ass that the 3 judges were all women.

ETA: The judges gave him until next Monday to appeal to the SC.
Click to expand...

It was the election interference case. But the ruling applies to all the cases as Trump has argued that he has absolute immunity in all the cases.
 
acbytesla said:
It was the election interference case. But the ruling applies to all the cases as Trump has argued that he has absolute immunity in all the cases.
Click to expand...

No. A ruling from a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is binding only on the courts in the circuit. Trump's documents case is in the 11th Circuit, not the D.C. Circuit where the ruling on immunity has been handed down. Circuit splits (i.e., different circuits ruling in different ways on the same issue) is a common method of attracting the Supreme Court's attention. That said, it is likely the appeal to the Supreme Court will occur before any other circuit rules, and it is likely that such an important interlocutory matter will be granted cert and expedited.
 
JayUtah said:
No. A ruling from a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is binding only on the courts in the circuit. Trump's documents case is in the 11th Circuit, not the D.C. Circuit where the ruling on immunity has been handed down. Circuit splits (i.e., different circuits ruling in different ways on the same issue) is a common method of attracting the Supreme Court's attention. That said, it is likely the appeal to the Supreme Court will occur before any other circuit rules, and it is likely that such an important interlocutory matter will be granted cert and expedited.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. That said, it is my understanding that this would be the prevailing case law on the argument. Judge Cannon, I believe would be obligated to follow it. Trump would have to appeal to the 11th Circuit. And if SCOTUS denies cert, the 11th Court is unlikely to grant the appeal based on this argument. They could, but that seems unlikely to me.
 
acbytesla said:
Fair enough. That said, it is my understanding that this would be the prevailing case law on the argument.
Click to expand...

Only for the D.C. Circuit.

Judge Cannon, I believe would be obligated to follow it.
Click to expand...

No. The only circuit court of appeals that has nationwide jurisdiction is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Trump would have to appeal to the 11th Circuit.
Click to expand...

As would the prosecution.

And if SCOTUS denies cert, the 11th Court is unlikely to grant the appeal based on this argument. They could, but that seems unlikely to me.
Click to expand...

A circuit court of appeals must hear all appeals. If the Supreme Court denies cert on the D.C. Circuit Case, it's quite possible that the 11th Circuit could find differently than the D.C. Circuit and decide Trump is immune from criminal prosecution. But this would hold only for the 11th Circuit.

This is why circuit splits are bad and why the Supreme Court generally steps in to resolve serious splits. It's also why being a circuit court of appeals justice is, in some ways, more powerful than being a Supreme Court justice. Only a small fraction of circuit court cases are granted cert in the Supreme Court, and so most of the decisions of circuit courts of appeal are effectively final.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And all of that simply adds to the calculated delay.
Click to expand...

Cannon is clearly in Trump's pocket and is delaying every step of the way.

This really was the simplest most cut and dried easy to decide case of them all and Cannon simply isn't interested in holding the trial. This should have gone to trial weeks ago.

Cannon is playing games. Because of her shenanigans and stupid rulings there is probably no chance of this case making it to trial before the election.
 
acbytesla said:
Cannon is clearly in Trump's pocket and is delaying every step of the way.

This really was the simplest most cut and dried easy to decide case of them all and Cannon simply isn't interested in holding the trial. This should have gone to trial weeks ago.

Cannon is playing games. Because of her shenanigans and stupid rulings there is probably no chance of this case making it to trial before the election.
Click to expand...

Cannon or Cannon’s owners?
 
acbytesla said:
Cannon is clearly in Trump's pocket and is delaying every step of the way.

This really was the simplest most cut and dried easy to decide case of them all and Cannon simply isn't interested in holding the trial. This should have gone to trial weeks ago.

Cannon is playing games. Because of her shenanigans and stupid rulings there is probably no chance of this case making it to trial before the election.
Click to expand...

Cannon should have been brought in for questioning under caution and to surrender her passport a long time ago. There are enough grounds to suspect corruption in office that she should hold suspected offender status.
 
Umm. From this rather outraged and hopeful for Cannon's removal link, here's a short version of what Cannon just did in some mildly amusing language.

Like most corrupt politicos in Trump’s greasy ass pocket, Aileen Cannon asked Trump, “How high, Massah Suh,” after he snapped his fingers and told her to reveal names of protected witnesses and secret agents to the public.

The request came after a disingenuous docket filing by Trump’s legal team, who attached protected information given to them as part of discovery to a recent motion to compel.

Trump Co.'s public filing was, yah now public, and since it was, yah know, public, there could be little difficulty in asking the Judge to make all the redacted names of protected witnesses and agents open to the world too. I mean, Trump has already done half the work by attaching the secret stuff to the public stuff.

*Nudge, nudge, wink, wink* Take us all the way there, Aileen—since the docket filing is now all public and everything.

Ever the sycophantic yes girl, Miss Aileen granted the motion, finger poised and hovering over the SEND TO on her potentially deadly ruling—a ruling that placed Grand Jury secret testimonies, witnesses, and undercover agents at risk of harassment or death threats—when Jack sailed into the courtroom and yelled, “Not so fast, Loose Cannon!”
Click to expand...

There's more specifics, of course, but well... ugh. Revealing protected witnesses and secret agents to the public? That certainly does seem to be a bit mindbogglingly irresponsible and dangerous, especially in a case like this.
 
Last edited:
Looks like Smith is taking Judge Cannon to task:

Jack Smith fires a shot across Aileen Cannon's bow over 'clear error'

Special counsel Jack Smith is apparently still not happy that Judge Aileen Cannon ruled against his plea for secrecy when it comes to the identities of witnesses in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

Law and Crime reports that Smith's team delivered a court filing late on Wednesday in which it warned Cannon it would seek an appeal if she did not reverse her earlier order that would mandate the disclosure of witness names in the case.

Smith argued that Cannon's earlier ruling was a "clear error" that risked subjecting witnesses in the case to harassment and intimidation campaigns.

Smith took special exception to Cannon's claims in her earlier ruling that "discovery material subject to a protective order cannot be shielded from public disclosure absent a heightened First Amendment showing of a compelling interest and narrow tailoring," which he called flat-out incorrect and which he said would result in a "manifest injustice" to the witnesses.

“Those procedural and substantive missteps contributed to the Court’s conclusion that the Government was required, but failed, to satisfy a heightened First Amendment standard to safeguard from public disclosure materials under a protective order,” Smith argued. “Regardless of how the Court arrived here, that conclusion was clear error, and nothing in the defendants’ response demonstrates otherwise.”

Smith concluded his filing by imploring Cannon to approve his "proposed redactions and sealing" — and he warned that he would file an appeal if she did not.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom