DOJ Requests Protective Order After Trump Threat Online

[ThisIsMe]

Lol I'm willing to go on the record stating that I will respect a verdict. You claim I won't, while at the same time acknowledging that whatever happens you won't. Who of us exactly isn't respecting the law?

No, you said you’d respect the verdict, with the caveat that it be within the letter of the law. And I said that that is your “way out”, because if the verdict doesn’t go your way, you’ll claim the judge didn’t adhere to the law.

And you’re right, if a case is tried in a liberal enclave…like DC, I’d have a very hard time trusting any verdict from that trial, simply because of the liberal bias present in those areas, just like most democrats wont trust the verdict of a case that comes out of a Republican area..such as Florida.

Can you blame me?

 

[forkup]

When you say “if you come after me”, meaning, if you try to bring legal action against me…this would indicate the lawyers and the public officials, not the witnesses…”then I will go after you”, meaning, he will respond with lawsuits of his own. What’s wrong with that? If he feels he’s being wronged, he has an absolute right to bring counter suits to those who he feels have wronged him.



That’s because, knowing how the left operates, this whole story was broke because the left wing media wanted to portray it as trump will cause physical harm to those people, or cause his “throngs of followers” to do violence. In that case, there is a difference to a threat, as the left perceives it, and “going after someone” in the manner in which it was intended.

But, in technical terms, you’re right, I don’t “know” what he meant, because only he knows what he meant, but that doesn’t stop the political left from broadcasting their assumptions on the matter, so I’ll broadcast mine as well. It also means that you can’t start taking legal action against someone because you feel your definition of what he meant is the right one.

When you say “if you come after me”, meaning, if you try to bring legal action against me

No that's simply the meaning you gave it. Because somehow you figure a threat is only a threat when it is physical violence.

this would indicate the lawyers and the public officials, not the witnesses

Why would it mean simply that. Vindman was only a witness. Not only was he frog marched out of the White House they did the same to his brother. But now Trump cannot possibly mean witnesses when he threatens "to come after you."

this whole story was broke because the left wing media wanted to portray it as trump will cause physical harm to those people

Nobody on the left figured that Trump will physically go after anyone. He isn't known for that. He is however notorious for retaliating to anyone he perceives as having wronged them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The prosecution hasn't talked at all. The only thing they did is put out their indictment. That's it. They aren't doing the Sunday show tours, they aren't communicating to the press. They do their talking via the courts just like they should. Trump however is doing a whole lot of talking.

Yeah, but it never fails that liberal media always gets “anonymous leaks”, it has been happening ever since trump has been being investigated. Somehow, somewhere, somebody is taking. It won’t surprise me in the least if we start hearing information being leaked about these issues.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No that's simply the meaning you gave it. Because somehow you figure a threat is only a threat when it is physical violence.

Why would it mean simply that. Vindman was only a witness. Not only was he frog marched out of the White House they did the same to his brother. But now Trump cannot possibly mean witnesses when he threatens "to come after you."

Nobody on the left figured that Trump will physically go after anyone. He isn't known for that. He is however notorious for retaliating to anyone he perceives as having wronged them.

No that's simply the meaning you gave it. Because somehow you figure a threat is only a threat when it is physical violence.

That’s because, knowing how the left operates, that’s the implication they were going after.

Why would it mean simply that. Vindman was only a witness. Not only was he frog marched out of the White House they did the same to his brother. But now Trump cannot possibly mean witnesses when he threatens "to come after you."

Because we don’t know what trump really meant? Only he does. Everything else is just speculation.

Nobody on the left figured that Trump will physically go after anyone.

I’m not sure I believe that. The left is notorious for exaggerating things trump has said. I think when they said trump “threatened”, they were trying to get people to believe he meant in some sort of physical way. Just my opinion!

 

[forkup]

No, you said you’d respect the verdict, with the caveat that it be within the letter of the law. And I said that that is your “way out”, because if the verdict doesn’t go your way, you’ll claim the judge didn’t adhere to the law.

And you’re right, if a case is tried in a liberal enclave…like DC, I’d have a very hard time trusting any verdict from that trial, simply because of the liberal bias present in those areas, just like most democrats wont trust the verdict of a case that comes out of a Republican area..such as Florida.

Can you blame me?

It's not " a way out", a way out would me saying that I will decide if something doesn't adhere to the law. I said that if it isn't adhering to the law I expect the government to appeal after which I will respect that verdict. That is the procedure.

As for Florida, I know that Canon did rule in an unprecedented way to protect Trump during the special master procedure. It's absolutely unheard of for a judge to enjoin the government from continuing a criminal investigation until a civil procedure is finished. Completely unprecedented and quickly shot down on appeal. Still having said that, I'm perfectly willing to accept the verdict in this case.

It seems to me I can actual articulate legal reasons to object to Canon. The left doesn't like Trump. Not so much.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's not " a way out", a way out would me saying that I will decide if something doesn't adhere to the law. I said that if it isn't adhering to the law I expect the government to appeal after which I will respect that verdict. That is the procedure.

As for Florida, I know that Canon did rule in an unprecedented way to protect Trump during the special master procedure. It's absolutely unheard of for a judge to enjoin the government from continuing a criminal investigation until a civil procedure is finished. Completely unprecedented and quickly shot down on appeal. Still having said that, I'm perfectly willing to accept the verdict in this case.

It seems to me I can actual articulate legal reasons to object to Canon. The left doesn't like Trump. Not so much.

Well, congratulations then, you are the exception to the rule, because i think I’m pretty confident that most of the left won’t agree with any verdict that is not “guilty”.

What was wrong with trump requesting a special master? There were allegedly personal documents mixed in with those boxes of documents, and with the lefts penchant for wanting any and all information on trump, especially his tax information, which was unrelated to the classified documents, it’s completely reasonable that he would want someone on his side helping to sift through the material to keep his private material private. Do you not agree that that is reasonable?

 

[forkup]

Well, congratulations then, you are the exception to the rule, because i think I’m pretty confident that most of the left won’t agree with any verdict that is not “guilty”.

What was wrong with trump requesting a special master? There were allegedly personal documents mixed in with those boxes of documents, and with the lefts penchant for wanting any and all information on trump, especially his tax information, which was unrelated to the classified documents, it’s completely reasonable that he would want someone on his side helping to sift through the material to keep his private material private. Do you not agree that that is reasonable?

Trump can request everything he likes. A special master in this case wasn't really appropriate. But I wasn't talking about Trump. i was talking about what Canon ruled. It's absolutely unheard of for a judge to tell the government to stop their investigation until a civil proceeding is finished.

There were many other objections that if you squint can be attributed to incompetence but that part of the ruling reeks of bad faith.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Trump can request everything he likes. A special master in this case wasn't really appropriate. But I wasn't talking about Trump. i was talking about what Canon ruled. It's absolutely unheard of for a judge to tell the government to stop their investigation until a civil proceeding is finished.

There were many other objections that if you squint can be attributed to incompetence but that part of the ruling reeks of bad faith.

She orders the halt of the review of seized materials because of potential media leaks that could harm trump. We all know the left seem to be very apt for “leaks”.

With how persistent the left has been at trying to obtain information about trump, I’m not seeing the problem here. All she was wanting to do it prevent information that was not relevant to the classified document seizure from getting out into the public.

Trump still had the right to privacy, and he still had the right to attorney-client privilege. It’s not unreasonable to think that one would believe that unrelated personal details of trumps life would make it into the public sphere. Maybe her decision was unprecedented according to her peers, but we are also talking about an unprecedented situation.

 

[forkup]

She orders the halt of the review of seized materials because of potential media leaks that could harm trump. We all know the left seem to be very apt for “leaks”.

With how persistent the left has been at trying to obtain information about trump, I’m not seeing the problem here. All she was wanting to do it prevent information that was not relevant to the classified document seizure from getting out into the public.

Trump still had the right to privacy, and he still had the right to attorney-client privilege. It’s not unreasonable to think that one would believe that unrelated personal details of trumps life would make it into the public sphere. Maybe her decision was unprecedented according to her peers, but we are also talking about an unprecedented situation.

What kind of ridiculous line of reasoning. The "left" has absolutely NOTHING to do with a federal judge telling the executive branch they can't look let alone investigate documents seized in a search. Until she rules on a civil matter.

Again, NO judge has ever prohibited the government from investigating a criminal case until a civil matter is concluded.

 

[ThisIsMe]

What kind of ridiculous line of reasoning. The "left" has absolutely NOTHING to do with a federal judge telling the executive branch they can't look let alone investigate documents seized in a search. Until she rules on a civil matter.

Again, NO judge has ever prohibited the government from investigating a criminal case until a civil matter is concluded.

Ok, what civil matter are you referring to? The only issue I’m aware of her halting the review of seized material is in relation to the special master and trumps privacy.

And the “left” has everything to do with it because, it never fails that these kinds of things wind up in the hands of “the left” and the next thing you know, it’s all over the news.

 

[forkup]

Ok, what civil matter are you referring to? The only issue I’m aware of her halting the review of seized material is in relation to the special master and trumps privacy.

And the “left” has everything to do with it because, it never fails that these kinds of things wind up in the hands of “the left” and the next thing you know, it’s all over the news.

That was a civil proceeding. And I don't care what you claim about "the left" it's simply a reasoning to get out of trying to justify what happens. Canon was bitch-slapped on appeal, precisely because her ruling was completely out of step with normal judicial process. That was not just "the left" who did that but 2 Republican judges. Which is the point.

I can point to specific rulings regarding Trump that makes me credibly question Canons integrity, and still I'm willing to respect the judgement of a court she's preciding over.

You can't even acknowledge the validity of a verdict in court that has a judge that is perceived as left by you.

In fact, you already said you won't even accept a verdict in Florida.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That was a civil proceeding. And I don't care what you claim about "the left" it's simply a reasoning to get out of trying to justify what happens. Canon was bitch-slapped on appeal, precisely because her ruling was completely out of step with normal judicial process. That was not just "the left" who did that but 2 Republican judges. Which is the point.

I can point to specific rulings regarding Trump that makes me credibly question Canons integrity, and still I'm willing to respect the judgement of a court she's preciding over.

You can't even acknowledge the validity of a verdict in court that has a judge that is perceived as left by you.

In fact, you already said you won't even accept a verdict in Florida.

No, the point I was making when i said “the left” is that, if there was any way that personal information could be leaked from the doj reviewing those boxes, including things not related to the classified documents, it would most certainly be leaked by the left. I’m not referring to who ruled on the decision, I’m talking specifically about the unauthorized release of trumps personal, unrelated information. Again, we are not dealing with a normal situation here. Despite how you feel about trump, he still has rights.

You can't even acknowledge the validity of a verdict in court that has a judge that is perceived as left by you.

you are somewhat correct. I’m more concerned about him having a jury that is in an all liberal venue. The judge doesn’t assign guilt, the jury does. So if I don’t trust a jury in a case in a venue such as..say..DC, who’s fault is that? Maybe it would be the fault of the left because they have been after trump since before he even started his campaign. There were talks of impeachment just shortly after he announced. Then the left has been investigating him non stop for the last…8 years? I even heard in the radio the other day that there has already been some rumblings of impeaching him again, should he win the presidency….

So yeah, I think you can understand my apprehension, just like I’m sure you’ll have apprehension if they ever decide to indict Biden for anything.

In fact, you already said you won't even accept a verdict in Florida

I don’t think I did that. I think I said that I would be unlikely to trust a verdict from a venue that was highly liberal, like DC, or from anyone who claimed to be a never trumper.

I personally think it’s not possible for trump to have a fair trial, one way or another, because there isn’t anyone who would be a prospective juror who isn’t already very familiar with the issue, and it will be hard to find a jury who isn’t biased.

 

[forkup]

No, the point I was making when i said “the left” is that, if there was any way that personal information could be leaked from the doj reviewing those boxes, including things not related to the classified documents, it would most certainly be leaked by the left. I’m not referring to who ruled on the decision, I’m talking specifically about the unauthorized release of trumps personal, unrelated information. Again, we are not dealing with a normal situation here. Despite how you feel about trump, he still has rights.



you are somewhat correct. I’m more concerned about him having a jury that is in an all liberal venue. The judge doesn’t assign guilt, the jury does. So if I don’t trust a jury in a case in a venue such as..say..DC, who’s fault is that? Maybe it would be the fault of the left because they have been after trump since before he even started his campaign. There were talks of impeachment just shortly after he announced. Then the left has been investigating him non stop for the last…8 years? I even heard in the radio the other day that there has already been some rumblings of impeaching him again, should he win the presidency….

So yeah, I think you can understand my apprehension, just like I’m sure you’ll have apprehension if they ever decide to indict Biden for anything.



I don’t think I did that. I think I said that I would be unlikely to trust a verdict from a venue that was highly liberal, like DC, or from anyone who claimed to be a never trumper.

I personally think it’s not possible for trump to have a fair trial, one way or another, because there isn’t anyone who would be a prospective juror who isn’t already very familiar with the issue, and it will be hard to find a jury who isn’t biased.

it would most certainly be leaked by the left. I’m not referring to who ruled on the decision, I’m talking specifically about the unauthorized release of trumps personal, unrelated information. Again, we are not dealing with a normal situation here.

Why do you keep on saying that? Leaking is NOT indicative to the left only.

you are somewhat correct. I’m more concerned about him having a jury that is in an all liberal venue. The judge doesn’t assign guilt, the jury does. So if I don’t trust a jury in a case in a venue such as..say..DC, who’s fault is that?

Yours. I'm sorry but if you don't trust a jury of someone's peers because of political bias that's very much a you problem. The way you talk is like only " the left" has a bias. I'm promise you, so do you. In a criminal proceeding though it doesn't matter. A judge doesn't care who you voted for. The question simply is if you are capable of looking at the available evidence objectively.

I’m sure you’ll have apprehension if they ever decide to indict Biden for anything.

Very much depends on what you present as your evidence. I for instance supported Comey's position to reopen the investigation into Clinton a few days before the election. Not because I believed he would find something, but because the decision in my book was exactly what I would do in his place. The potential. In this case probably fatal damage it would do to her campaign didn't factor in my feelings. I only cared about the expectation that the FBI would investigate any lead in order to assess the damage of her having those emails on a private server.

The same would apply to Biden. If you could establish something that truly would amount to Biden doing something illegal or even counter his oath of office, I would judge an impeachment hearing as justified.

In my book Trump crossed that line on many occasions.

I don’t think I did that. I think I said that I would be unlikely to trust a verdict from a venue that was highly liberal, like DC, or from anyone who claimed to be a never trumper.

You are right you didn't. I apologize for making the claim. I reread exactly what you said, and you are correct.

So, if he is found guilty in Florida will you accept that verdict as justified?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why do you keep on saying that? Leaking is NOT indicative to the left only.

Yours, I'm sorry but if you don't trust a jury of someone's peers because of political bias that's very much a you problem. The way you talk is like only " the left" has a bias. I'm promise you, so do you. In a criminal proceeding though it doesn't matter. A judge doesn't care who you voted for. The question simply is if you are capable of looking at the available evidence objectively.

Very much depends on what you present as your evidence. I for instance supported Comey's position to reopen the investigation into Clinton a few days before the election. Not because I believed he would find something, but because the decision in my book was exactly what I would do, in his place. The potential. In this case probably fatal damage it would do to her campaign didn't factor in my feelings. I only cared about the expectation that the FBI would investigate any lead in order to assess her having those emails on a private server.

The same would apply to Biden. If you could establish something that truly would amount to Biden doing something illegal or even counter his oath of office, I would judge an impeachment hearing as justified.

In my book Trump crossed that line on many occasions.

You are right you didn't. I apologize for making the claim. I reread exactly what you said, and you are correct.

Why do you keep on saying that? Leaking is NOT indicative to the left only.

In the last…8 years…who is most responsible for “leaks”. Seems like the left has new leaks all the time! I really don’t recall the right having leaked information much at all. Seems like a lefty thing.

The question simply is if you are capable of looking at the available evidence objectively.

And I don’t believe anyone in a jury in a majority liberal venue can be objective. Way too much partisanship nowadays. That’s not a “me” problem, it’s the fault of the left for basically telling everyone they want to see trump go down at all costs.

For the rest of it, here’s my thing, maybe *you* personally may not have the same reaction, but “the left” will. They are already rejecting any investigation into Biden because they think he does no wrong. The difference with me is, I’m perfectly willing to accept that trump should be punished for any crimes he may have committed, I just don’t trust in anyplace like DC or New York, that he could get a fair trial.

 

[forkup]

In the last…8 years…who is most responsible for “leaks”. Seems like the left has new leaks all the time! I really don’t recall the right having leaked information much at all. Seems like a lefty thing.



And I don’t believe anyone in a jury in a majority liberal venue can be objective. Way too much partisanship nowadays. That’s not a “me” problem, it’s the fault of the left for basically telling everyone they want to see trump go down at all costs.

For the rest of it, here’s my thing, maybe *you* personally may not have the same reaction, but “the left” will. They are already rejecting any investigation into Biden because they think he does no wrong. The difference with me is, I’m perfectly willing to accept that trump should be punished for any crimes he may have committed, I just don’t trust in anyplace like DC or New York, that he could get a fair trial.

who is most responsible for “leaks”

Considering most of the leaks came out of Trump's own adminstration... Republicans.

 

[forkup]

In the last…8 years…who is most responsible for “leaks”. Seems like the left has new leaks all the time! I really don’t recall the right having leaked information much at all. Seems like a lefty thing.



And I don’t believe anyone in a jury in a majority liberal venue can be objective. Way too much partisanship nowadays. That’s not a “me” problem, it’s the fault of the left for basically telling everyone they want to see trump go down at all costs.

For the rest of it, here’s my thing, maybe *you* personally may not have the same reaction, but “the left” will. They are already rejecting any investigation into Biden because they think he does no wrong. The difference with me is, I’m perfectly willing to accept that trump should be punished for any crimes he may have committed, I just don’t trust in anyplace like DC or New York, that he could get a fair trial.

It's funny by the way how you keep on implying that only "the left" has a bias that prevents objectivity.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Considering most of the leaks came out of Trump's own adminstration... Republicans.

Considering al the leaks that came out of the J6 committee, and to the media about his taxes… leak of the draft opinion…democrats

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's funny by the way how you keep on implying that only "the left" has a bias that prevents objectivity.

No, I’ve stated in the past that I believe ALL media is biased. There is bias on both sides, but we are talking about the trump trials in this case, so, yes, my focus is on left bias, just as the dems will focus on right wing bias should biden ever be indicted.

 

[forkup]

Considering al the leaks that came out of the J6 committee, and to the media about his taxes… democrats

What leaks? They were PUBLIC hearings. And all but 2 witnesses were Republicans. As for his taxes. That's one instance of a leak that most likely came from Democrats. I can probably name about a hundred that have to have originated from his own administration simply because Democrats weren't privy to the information.

 

[forkup]

No, I’ve stated in the past that I believe ALL media is biased. There is bias on both sides, but we are talking about the trump trials in this case, so, yes, my focus is on left bias, just as the dems will focus on right wing bias should biden ever be indicted.

So only Democrats can be biased in the Trump trials? Just curious have you read the indictments?