Judge Cannon has blown it.

[WorldWatcher]

I’m sure his lawyers are on top of it…

I’m sure his lawyers are against making the claim as the prosecution will then be able to impeach it with expert testimony, witness testimony, and show that after leaving office FPOTUS#45 still treated/considered them as classified documents.

For example he never challenged the subpoena for the return of classified documents. There he agreed that they were still classified. If he had declassified them prior to leaving office, there would have been no classified documents to return.

Ya, Habba is in the case.

WW

 

[hadit]

What is the law or precedent that requires a judge to accept the prosecution's proposed jury instructions before the trial even begins or a jury is even seated?

There is none, so there is no reason for Cannon to be over-ruled, and her removal is a pipe dream.

Jury instructions will be a key part of this case, because the facts are not in dispute, as far as I know. The facts as known by the participants in the trial, anyway. Many posters on here are very confused as to exactly who did what, believing the TDS media's claims. But Trump had copies of documents with classified markings at his residence long after leaving the White House (as did many other former presidents, and people who were never president).

The question will be whether it was legal for him to have them. He had a security clearance until shortly after he was indicted, he had legit reasons to keep copies of the documents. He was president when he moved the documents to Mar-a-Lago. The jury will have to decide how these facts fit in with the laws.

That is what the Democrats fear: An informed jury deciding for themselves, rather than twelve partisan hacks who already "know" that Trump is guilty regardless of what the law says.

This appears to be the bottom line. They are so invested in trying to destroy TRUMP! that the very idea of an unbiased jury finding him not guilty of anything gives them the vapors. Hence the screeching.

 

[hadit]

God, I hate that woman! It is more than obvious she is pro-Trump. She needs to be recused.

And by "pro-Trump", you mean "insufficiently anti-TRUMP!".

 

[hadit]

Because Struth doesn't know anything about any of this.

He thinks that, if he can poke a hole in something a message board poster says, he has successfully defended his orange god.

Boy, I'm glad we don't have any of those around. They sound scary.

 

[hadit]

MAGA simply can't argue this at all

There's really nothing to argue, except for a few headlines. None of the posters on here are legal experts, they're just quoting articles they found that support their biases. The whole thing reminds me of the gymnastics going on before the Rittenhouse trial, in which we were all assured that Kyle would spend the rest of his life behind bars because he took an illegal gun across state lines to go hunting for black people to shoot. Facts and the law didn't matter.

Parenthetically, it's kind of fun watching the legal jostling going on trying to find a way to kill TRUMP!'s campaign without opening the door for other politicians to get in trouble for keeping classified documents in their garage or on an unsecured email server, etc.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It’s called a Writ of Mandamus where a court orders an official, or a superior court orders and inferior court to take a certain action.

If challenged and the 11th Circuit issues such an order, there is now one of two scenarios:

#1 She refuses, which is then justification for the Circuit to remove her from the case.

#2A She rules according to the law and precedent and the case continues.

#2B She rules and makes an erroneous ruling on the law. Now the prosecution has grounds to file a pre-trial interlockery appeal to resolve the issue before trial.

WW

Yes, I understand the procedure, and you know that wasn't what I asked about.

What law or precedent will the appellate court use to make her decide now?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, I understand the procedure, and you know that wasn't what I asked about.

What law or precedent will the appellate court use to make her decide now?

Go sealion someone else with you question.

There are 250 years of case law concerning trial procedures, judicial Writs of Mandamus, and Interlockery Appeals.

While some would like it to be, this idea that a Judge can be over ruled for making an error in terms of a Question of Law is well established.

WW

 

[DBA]

Your post assumes that all business people are corrupt and dishonest and that's just not the case

Do most people speed? Yeah, it is that common.

A third factor has been that Trump's properties are all owned in different jurisdictions, so the pattern of over-valuing the properties for loan purposes and under-valuing them for tax purposes, hasn't been apparent.

Maybe you aren’t from the US. That is the only explanation I have for your lack of understanding of how this works. Most of my properties are still assessed at less that 1/2 their market value. If they raise the tax assessment on one of my properties, I have the right to protest. If my dispute is even remotely reasonable, they will lower the assessment. Should I go to the tax office and file a dispute that they are far too low? Even dim-witted Democrats don’t do that.

It's bad enough for a big city like New York, but for smaller, rural counties where his golf properties are located, or where he's signed away value to get a big tax break, replacing the lost tax revenues falls on everyone in the county.

You are completely lost in the wilderness on how things work. Maybe you just don’t own any property. You certainly don’t own a business. Lost.

 

[j-mac]

I’m sure his lawyers are against making the claim as the prosecution will then be able to impeach it with expert testimony, witness testimony, and show that after leaving office FPOTUS#45 still treated/considered them as classified documents.

For example he never challenged the subpoena for the return of classified documents. There he agreed that they were still classified. If he had declassified them prior to leaving office, there would have been no classified documents to return.

Ya, Habba is in the case.

WW

So, why have a trial then if it’s already so crystal clear, just bang the gavel, and proceed to the gallows…

 

[westwall]

God, I hate that woman! It is more than obvious she is pro-Trump. She needs to be recused.

As opposed to the anti Trump judges that you have no problems with.

Sheesh, dildo....don't go full retard...

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, why have a trial then if it’s already so crystal clear, just bang the gavel, and proceed to the gallows…

Because for the very fact we ARE NOT a banna republic.

There will be a trial and the evidence will be presented, then it goes to a jury.

(BTW - no gallows in this case.)

WW

 

[j-mac]

Because for the very fact we ARE NOT a banna republic.

There will be a trial and the evidence will be presented, then it goes to a jury.

(BTW - no gallows in this case.)

WW

LOL....You might as well have said, 'We'll put on a show, cross the 't's' and dot the 'I's' as fast as we can, then we'll move toward the "gallows".....

Note: "gallows" is only the metaphor....

But, as we can see here, you sound like you'd be perfectly fine with rubber stamping a conviction, without a trial, and just slapping your hands together and be done with it....

 

[WorldWatcher]

LOL....You might as well have said, 'We'll put on a show, cross the 't's' and dot the 'I's' as fast as we can, then we'll move toward the "gallows".....

Note: "gallows" is only the metaphor....

"But, as we can see here, you sound like you'd be perfectly fine with rubber stamping a conviction, without a trial, and just slapping your hands together and be done with it...."

"But, as we can see here, you sound like you'd be perfectly fine with rubber stamping a conviction, without a trial, and just slapping your hands together and be done with it...."

Come on man, you know this is false.

I support a trial, the presentation of evidence pertenant to the charges, and the jury making a decision. There is not "rubber stamping" a conviction, that is the conviction.

It appears that losing the legal discussion you just know devolve to personal insults. Is that where we are now?

WW

 

[j-mac]

"But, as we can see here, you sound like you'd be perfectly fine with rubber stamping a conviction, without a trial, and just slapping your hands together and be done with it...."

Come on man, you know this is false.

I support a trial, the presentation of evidence pertenant to the charges, and the jury making a decision. There is not "rubber stamping" a conviction, that is the conviction.

It appears that losing the legal discussion you just know devolve to personal insults. Is that where we are now?

WW

No, but do you really think that what's going on here is a totally proper use of our justice system? Really?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, but do you really think that what's going on here is a totally proper use of our justice system? Really?

As someone that held a TS/SBI clearance and handled classified material for 20 years.

Ya, the case against FPOTUS#45 for failure to surrender classified documents is totally justified.

WW

 

[j-mac]

As someone that held a TS/SBI clearance and handled classified material for 20 years.

Ya, the case against FPOTUS#45 for failure to surrender classified documents is totally justified.

WW

I held a clearance in the military as well...And I'll say I don't like the nonsense with our classified info....With that said, if you really believe that this prosecution of Trump is so all important, and justified, then it must royally piss you off that Biden, and former Presidents got away with it?

And, if we are to be critically thinking here, why is it that the timing of this, and the singular case of so heavily going after not only a former POTUS, but the zeal in wanting to make sure that he is imprisoned, forever changing how we as America deal with our internal political divisions...This plan in action right now weakens our ability to tell any other banana republic that their way of jailing political opponents is wrong....I think what is happening is sad.

 

[hadit]

So, why have a trial then if it’s already so crystal clear, just bang the gavel, and proceed to the gallows…

"Sentence first and verdict afterwards".

Of course, we all understand that, should any decision NOT further the agenda, it will immediately be set upon by the ravenous jackals, and God forbid an outright acquittal. The screaming at the sky would be epic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure..... He is guilty of most common offenses known to the political world.

Then you will have no problem naming 3 examples of others doing what he did.

And, go.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Boy, I'm glad we don't have any of those around. They sound scary.

Look, there's another one

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Sentence first and verdict afterwards".

Of course, we all understand that, should any decision NOT further the agenda, it will immediately be set upon by the ravenous jackals, and God forbid an outright acquittal. The screaming at the sky would be epic.

Posturing, self delusion to justify your own poor behavior

How about a jury decides, without the judge rigging it?

That's what scares the cult.