Arrest the judge

[kyzr]

uh-huh. i'm not a (D) , so you fail outa the gate, alphabet.
besides every legal constitutional expert saying a collective 'wtf ' re: her decisions.... starting with her 'inclination' to get a special master for donny - she declared her propensity before even hearing what the FBI's reply would be ... per protocol.
so there is that... BUT since she decided to go ahead & show how she's bought off - her 'reason' is due to executive priviledge (that donny lost the day HE lost) ...
BUT if it IS due to an 'executive branch' reason ... then THAT DECISION needs be made in DC, from a DC circuit federal judge.
alan dooshewitz ?
lol ...

1. So you're a communist, my bad. Your politics still sucks.
2. LIAR. You didn't post ANY real constitutional expert opinions, you just type lies.
3. Alan D was a Harvard LAW Professor, a real "legal constitutional expert", not the unnamed liars in the MSM.
4. The judge's order stands, sucks to whine about it, maybe the DOJ should just appeal it?
5. LOL! You can't keep having bullshit "DC Grand Juries" made up of low-IQ democrats who do whatever they're told. Trump can appeal all the way up to the USSC if he needs to. That should take a good long time. Way past when the GOP takes the House back.
6. Donny skates again! LOL!!

 

[Marener]

Alan D was a Harvard LAW Professor, a real "legal constitutional expert", not the unnamed liars in the MSM.

Trump special master ruling ‘troubling,’ legal experts say

A federal judge’s ruling granting former President Trump’s request for a special master has generated a range of intense reactions from legal experts, who have called it unusual, lacking in legal r…

thehill.com

Dershowitz is saying there should be a special master for every search because the DoJ can’t be trusted.

It’s pretty lame.

 

[kyzr]

Dershowitz is saying there should be a special master for every search because the DoJ can’t be trusted.
It’s pretty lame.

What part of "the DOJ can't be trusted" don't you understand? That's not lame, its protecting our rights.

I don't trust the DOJ or the FBI. I'm sure all the Republican lawmakers in DC don't trust the DOJ or FBI either.

What harm could occur if a "special master" reviews the documents and separates out the documents that the DOJ is NOT allowed to see? The search warrant was illegal anyway. It was way too broad. Warrants are supposed to be narrow and specific, not "grab every paper in the house".

 

[mudwhistle]

hope so. this all just a stalling tactic per donny's M.O.

No....it's a way to make sure that he has a fair trial instead of those two impeachments and the Soviet style Jan 6th hearings that the Democraps have subjected us to.

 

[Marener]

What part of "the DOJ can't be trusted" don't you understand? That's not lame, its protecting our rights.

I don't trust the DOJ or the FBI. I'm sure all the Republican lawmakers in DC don't trust the DOJ or FBI either.

What harm could occur if a "special master" reviews the documents and separates out the documents that the DOJ is NOT allowed to see? The search warrant was illegal anyway. It was way too broad. Warrants are supposed to be narrow and specific, not "grab every paper in the house".

The warrant isn’t too broad. It didn’t say “grab every paper in the house”. You needn’t lie about it.

You don’t have to trust the DoJ. When it goes to trial you can move to suppress any evidence the DoJ is not allowed to have. It happens frequently.

Dershowitz is a defense attorney. Of course he’s going to be arguing to protect his clients. That doesn’t make him right.

The real problem is the bullshit executive privilege claims that Cannon danced around.

 

[berg80]

uh-huh. i'm not a (D) , so you fail outa the gate, alphabet.




besides every legal constitutional expert saying a collective 'wtf ' re: her decisions.... starting with her 'inclination' to get a special master for donny - she declared her propensity before even hearing what the FBI's reply would be ... per protocol.

so there is that... BUT since she decided to go ahead & show how she's bought off - her 'reason' is due to executive priviledge (that donny lost the day HE lost) ...

BUT if it IS due to an 'executive branch' reason ... then THAT DECISION needs be made in DC, from a DC circuit federal judge.




alan dooshewitz ?

lol ...

Her unprecedented decision to stop the investigation over a small number of documents the DoJ team has already tagged for segregation, while courts have consistently ruled Trump has no legit EP claims as a former prez, EP claims being the purview of the current prez, makes her ruling transparently biased and outside the law.

A Ruling Untethered to the Law

By appointing a special master to review the Mar-a-Lago documents, Judge Aileen Cannon gave Trump the special treatment he asked for—and undermined the values of her profession.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[kyzr]

The warrant isn’t too broad. It didn’t say “grab every paper in the house”. You needn’t lie about it.
You don’t have to trust the DoJ. When it goes to trial you can move to suppress any evidence the DoJ is not allowed to have. It happens frequently.
Dershowitz is a defense attorney. Of course he’s going to be arguing to protect his clients. That doesn’t make him right.
The real problem is the bullshit executive privilege claims that Cannon danced around.

1. You didn't answer the question as to what harm could happen if the "special master" reviews the documents and separates them legally?

2. What specific documents was the warrant supposed to collect? There were zero specific documents described as "evidence" of a crime. The FBI was to collect all documents. If you don't believe me, tell me which documents were excluded from the warrant.

3. Yes it makes Alan right. Protecting our rights from a partisan DOJ/FBI, who already confessed to falsifying evidence in FISA warrant applications, "essential".

 

[Marener]

1. You didn't answer the question as to what harm could happen if the "special master" reviews the documents and separates them legally?

2. What specific documents was the warrant supposed to collect? There were zero specific documents described as "evidence" of a crime. The FBI was to collect all documents. If you don't believe me, tell me which documents were excluded from the warrant.

3. Yes it makes Alan right. Protecting our rights from a partisan DOJ/FBI, who already confessed to falsifying evidence in FISA warrant applications, "essential".

1. Probably not much more to an unnecessary delay. The bigger problem is allowing such a bizarre decision stand uncontested.

2. The warrant was supposed to collect any presidential records and the containers they are located in. It’s evidence of crimes specific in the warrant itself. Everything else was excluded from the warrant.

3. Alan’s job is making sure rich criminals don’t have any consequences.

 

[kyzr]

Her unprecedented decision to stop the investigation over a small number of documents the DoJ team has already tagged for segregation, while courts have consistently ruled Trump has no legit EP claims as a former prez, EP claims being the purview of the current prez, makes her ruling transparently biased and outside the law.

1. The FBI/DOJ can't be trusted. They already falsified evidence for FISA warrants.

2. What harm would happen if a "special master" separates the documents legally? (as per accepted practice)

3. If her ruling is outside the LAW, appeal it.

Special master

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[berg80]

1. You didn't answer the question as to what harm could happen if the "special master" reviews the documents and separates them legally?

Since when is "what harm will it do" a legal standard on which to make a ruling? Secondly, her ruling opens the door for other people under criminal investigation having the probe stopped based on the standard Cannon used, reputational harm.
Not to mention the order to stop the investigation unnecessarily delays the pursuit of justice in a criminal act that puts the nation's security at risk.

 

[kyzr]

1. Probably not much more to an unnecessary delay. The bigger problem is allowing such a bizarre decision stand uncontested.
2. The warrant was supposed to collect any presidential records and the containers they are located in. It’s evidence of crimes specific in the warrant itself. Everything else was excluded from the warrant.
3. Alan’s job is making sure rich criminals don’t have any consequences.

1. OK, then appeal it. I'm fine working it up thru the appeal process.

2. Since when are having personal presidential records a crime. Its not. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Presidential records found right in Clinton’s drawer

A 2012 court case denying access to White House audiotapes kept in former President Bill Clinton’s sock drawer after he left office could help the Trump legal team in its battle to retrieve records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago this month.

www.washingtontimes.com

Judge Jackson ruled that the tapes belonged to Mr. Clinton, even though the discussions included a broad range of presidential matters. The court ruled that the National Archives and Records Administration had no power to “seize control of them” because Mr. Clinton had used his authority under the Presidential Records Act to declare the recordings part of his personal records.

3. So being a very good defense attorney is a bad thing?

 

[kyzr]

Since when is "what harm will it do" a legal standard on which to make a ruling? Secondly, her ruling opens the door for other people under criminal investigation having the probe stopped based on the standard Cannon used, reputational harm.

1. The special master ruling is completely legal, period.
2. If you think its illegal appeal it.
3. see #2 about "reputational harm".

 

[berg80]

1. The FBI/DOJ can't be trusted. They already falsified evidence for FISA warrants.

Using an anecdotal case that would not have altered whether a warrant was issued as an analogy to this case is as disingenuous as it gets.

 

[berg80]

The special master ruling is completely legal, period.

The issue is not the technical legality of the order. It's whether it shows bias on the part of the judge Trump shopped for and whether the decision is far outside of legal precedent with no legal foundation.

 

[Marener]

1. OK, then appeal it. I'm fine working it up thru the appeal process.

2. Since when are having personal presidential records a crime. Its not. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Presidential records found right in Clinton’s drawer

A 2012 court case denying access to White House audiotapes kept in former President Bill Clinton’s sock drawer after he left office could help the Trump legal team in its battle to retrieve records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago this month.

www.washingtontimes.com

Judge Jackson ruled that the tapes belonged to Mr. Clinton, even though the discussions included a broad range of presidential matters. The court ruled that the National Archives and Records Administration had no power to “seize control of them” because Mr. Clinton had used his authority under the Presidential Records Act to declare the recordings part of his personal records.

3. So being a very good defense attorney is a bad thing?

1. We will see. Not my decision.

2. There’s no such thing as personal presidential records. There’s personal records. There’s presidential records. Trump was keeping presidential records that he had no legal right to retain.

3. It’s just indicating his bias. It doesn’t make him right. Unbiased legal experts come to far different conclusions.

 

[MarathonMike]

As opposed to threatening her and her children.

Denial of reality is dangerous. Open your eyes and you shall see.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It doesn't matter what the FBI really found. The raid was just show. It gives the excuse to leak a bunch of made up bullshit. Hundreds of documents were found. Leak hundreds of documents, consisting of 40 years of Trump medical records. They might lead to something else to leak.

The nonsense

It Sure Seems the Biden DOJ Is Leaking Fake News Stories to the Liberal Media

townhall.com

 

[MarathonMike]

The issue is not the technical legality of the order. It's whether it shows bias on the part of the judge Trump shopped for and whether the decision is far outside of legal precedent with no legal foundation.

Like most Liberals you have no sense of humor, but you are unintentionally hilarious at times.

 

[kyzr]

Using an anecdotal case that would not have altered whether a warrant was issued as an analogy to this case is as disingenuous as it gets.

Clinesmith PROVED that the DOJ/FBI can't be trusted. PERIOD.
A "special master" is essential to protect us from the unscrupulous DOJ/FBI.

 

[kyzr]

The issue is not the technical legality of the order. It's whether it shows bias on the part of the judge Trump shopped for and whether the decision is far outside of legal precedent with no legal foundation.

THEN APPEAL IT!