ADVERTISEMENT

Docs case dismissed!!!

The bottom line is I believe the entire dispute could have and should have been handled through negotiations.
My understanding was that negotiations were attempted many, many, MANY times. The response from the Trump side was always either "we don't have any of that" or "pound sand". After 3-4 rounds of this, the FBI had to get involved, if there was ever any hope in recovering the stolen and willfully hidden documents
 
Not being a smartass, but isn’t this the one case you said was an absolute slam dunk?
The case is solid but the Judge dismissed it on a technicality which no other Judge has agreed with in the past. It’ll likely be overturned but it may not matter.
 
I'll answer that question for Hickory......

giphy.gif
Is that your motto?... given that is what every MAGA poster practices whenever trump is the subject.

Interesting to see you're no better than stoll though.
 
Last edited:
I haven't followed everything closely but my opinion has always been that if Trump is prosecuted then Biden and Pence should be prosecuted also. I know, i know they voluntarily gave their illegal documents back but if I recall correctly Trump just wouldn't give them back voluntarily but didn't put up any resistance. If you rob a bank and get caught then giving the money back voluntarily doesn't make you less guilty of robbing a bank.
Trump actively obstructed. HRC’s case was gross negligence, that’s probably all they could charge Pence and Biden for too, deliberate would be difficult to prove, but it’s no question Trump’s mishandling case was deliberate. He knew he had them, then returned some and directed his lawyer to say he returned all of them when he hadn’t. That’s a false official statement to the FBI and he continued obstructing the return of what he had. Then he had some moved to hide them. His accomplice pled guilty. It’s all in the indictment. There is a huge difference between the cases. It’s like the difference between being stopped for speeding and cooperating and a guy driving 50 over, refusing to pull over for police and then resisting arrest when they finally get him corned and pulled over.
 
Last edited:
That is all great, but if a president can walk into the top secret vault (metaphor) and empty it out on their way out of office is an important question to get answered. If yes, I suspect congress would want to tighten that? Maybe not, who knows with congress. It is possible congress will decide if the court says it is illegal to open it up to make it legal.

A large part of my job has been computer security. On occasion, for various reasons, I have had to temporarily look the other way at a vulnerability. I always hate that. Vulnerabilities need to be patched immediately is my mindset.
They take classified documents to the President for briefings and for him to read. He decided to keep more than a 100 of them.
 
I have no idea what any of this means, other then it's going to be appealed. Why? To much legal for me to understand.

What I took from this whole thing is it was great timing for the release for Trump. She didn't just write this, 93 pages I read, so releasing it the Monday after him being shot at is pretty good press for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
I have no idea what any of this means, other then it's going to be appealed. Why? To much legal for me to understand.

What I took from this whole thing is it was great timing for the release for Trump. She didn't just write this, 93 pages I read, so releasing it the Monday after him being shot at is pretty good press for him.
Yeah, the Left never does this…ever
 
  • Like
Reactions: ulrey
It’s like the difference between being stopped for speeding and cooperating and a guy driving 50 over, refusing to pull over for police and then resisting arrest when they finally get him corned and pulled over.

Your argument is analogous to complaining that a cop should not give a guy a speeding ticket for going 100 mph in a 70 mph zone, since the same cop did not give to other guys speeding tickets for going 72 mph in a 70 mph zone.
Great minds think alike
 
I have no idea what any of this means, other then it's going to be appealed. Why? To much legal for me to understand.

What I took from this whole thing is it was great timing for the release for Trump. She didn't just write this, 93 pages I read, so releasing it the Monday after him being shot at is pretty good press for him.

Are we saying Judge Cannon knew about the shooting in advance? :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bill4411 and Noodle
They take classified documents to the President for briefings and for him to read. He decided to keep more than a 100 of them.
What I get from that is that the people in charge of classified documents are very sloppy and don't have enough controls in place. I can't understand why they didn't ask Trump, Pence, and Biden for the documents once they were out of office.
 
What I get from that is that the people in charge of classified documents are very sloppy and don't have enough controls in place. I can't understand why they didn't ask Trump, Pence, and Biden for the documents once they were out of office.
Of course. I’ve been saying this for years. Civilian government officials are super sloppy with handling classified information. I’d have been discharged if I did what HRC did. Same for Pence and Biden plus a conviction. Prison for what Trump did. These are no doubters. It’s a disgrace and needs fixed. I hope they’ve tightened up drastically after these incidents.
 
I would have no issue with all being prosecuted, except it would deter people from reporting themselves if they find they accidentally had classified documents.
That points out the problem with the system... the people in charge should know where all classified documents. It's amazing that if I check out a book at the library they start sending me notices that it's overdue if I wait too long but you can check out classified documents and never return them and nothing happens.
 
That points out the problem with the system... the people in charge should know where all classified documents. It's amazing that if I check out a book at the library they start sending me notices that it's overdue if I wait too long but you can check out classified documents and never return them and nothing happens.

Yea, there is likely a problem with the system but I'd guess it is much harder than keeping tabs on library books.

What if it is a staffing issue? Would republicans go against their nature and actually fix that because more fed govt is awful after all.

Regardless of the likely problem with keeping tabs on classified info, it doesn't negate that Trump's actions were 100x worse than Biden or Pence's actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
That points out the problem with the system... the people in charge should know where all classified documents. It's amazing that if I check out a book at the library they start sending me notices that it's overdue if I wait too long but you can check out classified documents and never return them and nothing happens.
They have procedures for maintaining records from generation to declassification and/or destruction. Don’t know how it failed but somehow it did.
 
The default rule under the Constitution is that even inferior officers must go through advice and consent from the Senate, unless Congress "by law" states otherwise:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

From there, it turns into a statutory interpretation issue of 28 U.S.C. § 515(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 533. Do they provide for such appointments of someone with Smith's powers and responsibilities and just how clear and precise does the language need to be? The first statute appears to be Smith's strongest argument. She obviously rejects both, see pgs. 26-52, and then throws in separation of powers concerns on top of that. Pg. 52-57.
And the statutory interpretation you describe is what Hickory Head calls “corruption” - as he has been programmed by his handlers.

Like Shooter Flatch, he wuz robbed.
 
So are we going to go back and throw out all past prosecutions done by people that were appointed by the AG?

Lets not pretend that Smith was the first ever prosecutor that was appointed by an AG.

I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but a glance at the summary suggests Garland's fatal error was tapping someone outside the department for the assignment.

Under Cannon's reasoning, Mueller's appointment would have been invalid too, no?

SIAP: I believe Smith was the only appointed counsel who had never, in his entire career, been approved by the Senate. Mueller was a US attorney that had been confirmed by the Senate years ago.

I may be wrong, but I think that was crux of the argument. Smith never had to face Senate approval.
 
SIAP: I believe Smith was the only appointed counsel who had never, in his entire career, been approved by the Senate. Mueller was a US attorney that had been confirmed by the Senate years ago.

I may be wrong, but I think that was crux of the argument. Smith never had to face Senate approval.
Prior Senate approval is irrelevant. The Senate needs to advise and consent on each posting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
I have no idea what any of this means, other then it's going to be appealed. Why? To much legal for me to understand.

What I took from this whole thing is it was great timing for the release for Trump. She didn't just write this, 93 pages I read, so releasing it the Monday after him being shot at is pretty good press for him.
I think better timing would have been just before the dem convention as all the speeches would have had to do last minute rewrites.
 
I'm not questioning you but is that a law? Where did you find that? Only trying to educate myself.
Past practice. I'm not sure there is a case on it since it's so obvious if you think about it.

Bill Barr might be the most recent example?


Hypo: imagine confirming candidate A for a spot as Secretary of Defense. He then goes on a drunken spree, banging prostitutes on the desk of the President, and taking pictures of it for his insta. 10 years later, a new President who is buds with our party bro. wants to appoint him as Secretary of Defense again. Or to another spot that requires Senate approval. Think the Senate needs to advise and consent on that?
 
Past practice. I'm not sure there is a case on it since it's so obvious if you think about it.

Bill Barr might be the most recent example?


Hypo: imagine confirming candidate A for a spot as Secretary of Defense. He then goes on a drunken spree, banging prostitutes on the desk of the President, and taking pictures of it for his insta. 10 years later, a new President who is buds with our party bro. wants to appoint him as Secretary of Defense again. Or to another spot that requires Senate approval. Think the Senate needs to advise and consent on that?

Pics you say...
 
Past practice. I'm not sure there is a case on it since it's so obvious if you think about it.

Bill Barr might be the most recent example?


Hypo: imagine confirming candidate A for a spot as Secretary of Defense. He then goes on a drunken spree, banging prostitutes on the desk of the President, and taking pictures of it for his insta. 10 years later, a new President who is buds with our party bro. wants to appoint him as Secretary of Defense again. Or to another spot that requires Senate approval. Think the Senate needs to advise and consent on that?

What I think and what the law says can be 2 different things.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT