Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard

[Uninformed]

Thanks to all for the info and news report.

[andersweinstein]

IANAL. It seems to me that if I am requiring a disclaimer before signing something I have doubts that what I'm signing is accurate/truthful/fully forthcoming. If I have doubts and sign anyway, how on earth is a dislaimer "cover" for maybe/possibly/I'm not sure/whatever lying to the DOJ.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti touches on that question here. Recommend the whole short thread.

[Chilidog]

But if there is independent evidence that she knew it was false, that’s a problem for her.

Like.... Her fingerprints on a recovered document?

[Chilidog]

A comment shamelessly coppued from FB.

Here comes the part where they all turn on each other to save their own asses. It’s gonna be like Highlander for rats.

[Foggy]

I expect the DOJ to file the brief today, before close of business.

I doubt it. No operational reason to finish early, they've got lots of work on their plate, and the layers of internal required in this proceeding are extensive. So no.

Also, it's Indigenous people's day. No clerks in the office.

Never mind.

Actually, I still have half an hour.

Edit: The key to my predictions, I suddenly realize, is to make as many as possible, that way I'm sure to hit on one or two.

[Frater I*I]

Negligence is one. If, for example, I run a sky-diving school, and you sign a waiver acknowledging that you may die by jumping out of a plane, but I negligently pack your parachute incorrectly, I can't tell your heirs to take their lawsuit and go away because you signed a waiver.

This would be the least of your problems, as a parachute rigger is FAA certificated, like my A&P, therefore you would have falsely signed off both the riggers logbook entry and parachute datacard....the DoT will take a two block walk up the street in DC and refer you to the DoJ for prosecution...

[Foggy]

OK, my prediction went for a long walk on a short pier. Bummer, dude.

But I will be interested in a couple things, when the DOJ brief is filed.

And by that I mean, in particular, the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

If you will kindly recall, this is a (partial) appeal of the 11th Circuit ruling that I love and admire so much, which was in itself a partial appeal of Judge Cannon’s order way back in the day, like September.

And if you will also kindly recall, I found Trump's argument before the 11th Circuit to be silly, which is legal jargon meaning they told the court it was just "a document storage dispute that spiraled out of control" but they went WAY out of their way to avoid confusing the 11th Circuit by telling them any facts about it. It was a tantalizing phrase with nothing but sleight-of-hand to back it up. They didn't want to discuss the facts, BUT!

But the 11th Circuit wasn't fooled none, they got the facts from the DOJ. It looked like they actually had a pretty good time reciting the facts about the document storage dispute that spiraled out of control, because they wrote pages about it.

And this is an appeal from that ruling, and how much of the facts will make it into not only the DOJ brief, but the ultimate ruling by the Supremes? I'm guessing that Trump's brief is a little thin on facts.

[humblescribe]

I doubt it. No operational reason to finish early, they've got lots of work on their plate, and the layers of internal required in this proceeding are extensive. So no.

Also, it's Indigenous people's day. No clerks in the office.

Never mind.

Actually, I still have half an hour.

Edit: The key to my predictions, I suddenly realize, is to make as many as possible, that way I'm sure to hit on one or two.

Foogy, we'll never ever ever never confuse you with The Amazing Criswell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_Criswell

[boogiebach]

IANAL. It seems to me that if I am requiring a disclaimer before signing something I have doubts that what I'm signing is accurate/truthful/fully forthcoming. If I have doubts and sign anyway, how on earth is a dislaimer "cover" for maybe/possibly/I'm not sure/whatever lying to the DOJ.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti touches on that question here. Recommend the whole short thread.

Thanks! I appreciated the thread and have noted Renato Mariotti as someone to keep an eye on on the Twitter machine (that is until Elon buys it and lets Trump back on in which case I'm out of there).

[Gregg]

Oh man, see if she gets a nice Christmas card from Mr. and Mrs. Trump this year!

I'm gonna stand over..........................................................................here while she opens it.

[Gregg]

The DOJ has until mañana to file a brief explaining to the Supremes why Trump is a neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie wrong to ask that Judge Dearie look at the classified documents.

But with its track record in this case, I expect the DOJ to file the brief today, before close of business.

I doubt it. No operational reason to finish early, they've got lots of work on their plate, and the layers of internal required in this proceeding are extensive. So no.

Wouldn't it be kind of best practice to wait until the deadline just in case something happens, even if the response is completed early?

[keith]

I pointed out that that disclaimer was going to bite somebody in the ass when it was published.

[Gregg]

I doubt it. No operational reason to finish early, they've got lots of work on their plate, and the layers of internal required in this proceeding are extensive. So no.

Also, it's Indigenous people's day. No clerks in the office.

Never mind.

Actually, I still have half an hour.

Edit: The key to my predictions, I suddenly realize, is to make as many as possible, that way I'm sure to hit on one or two.

An even better pro tip, make them 500 years in advance, in a very obscure dialect of French and very vague. That way, you have centuries of fun predicting everything from the shooting of Kennedy to the "great lunchroom grilled cheese incident". They'll even make a movie!

[chancery]

And if you will also kindly recall, I found Trump's argument before the 11th Circuit to be silly, which is legal jargon meaning they told the court it was just "a document storage dispute that spiraled out of control" but they went WAY out of their way to avoid confusing the 11th Circuit by telling them any facts about it. It was a tantalizing phrase with nothing but sleight-of-hand to back it up. They didn't want to discuss the facts, BUT!

But the 11th Circuit wasn't fooled none, they got the facts from the DOJ. It looked like they actually had a pretty good time reciting the facts about the document storage dispute that spiraled out of control, because they wrote pages about it.

And this is an appeal from that ruling, and how much of the facts will make it into not only the DOJ brief, but the ultimate ruling by the Supremes? I'm guessing that Trump's brief is a little thin on facts.

Yeah, back before Judge Calvinball made it clear that she wasn't following any rules, lots of us remarked how deeply weird it was for Trump's lawyers to be making fact-based arguments based on nothing at all.

In the early stages of emergency litigation seeking injunctive relief, courts will sometimes cut some slack for a party by, in effect, relaxing the rules of evidence and accepting its lawyer's representation that support for factual contentions would be promptly supplied. Frequently -- and again, normally at the preliminary stages of emergency applications -- courts accept lawyer affidavits based on documents and other information supplied to the lawyer by the client (i.e., through conversations).

These indulgences are usually extended only to parties who act quickly and show good faith, whereas Trump ...

It's obvious why Trump's lawyers haven't submitted an affidavit from Trump, and it's telling that they are not even willing to submit their own affidavit based on "information supplied." And it's disgusting that Cannon didn't give Trump the bum's rush on that basis.

[Gregg]

And it's disgusting that Cannon didn't give Trump the bum's rush on that basis.

Maybe she's dumb enough to think she's going to get paid.

[chancery]

Louis Menand has a felicitous phrase, in an article linked to in the Giuliani thread viewtopic.php?p=141905#p141905: There's a "one-way sign on the Trump loyalty street."

[Ben-Prime]

Here's one reason to wait out at least short clocks: The accused might get up on stage and make statements that can be used against them.

https://www.salon.com/2022/10/10/did-ad ... a_partner/

[p0rtia]

[Kriselda Gray]

Here's one reason to wait out at least short clocks: The accused might get up on stage and make statements that can be used against them.

https://www.salon.com/2022/10/10/did-ad ... a_partner/

He's been arguing for a while that the docs are his and should be returned. What makes this statement more of an admission of guilt than the previous ones?

[Foggy]

He lives in two different worlds, that's who.

There's the world where anything he says instantly becomes real to his millions of adoring white supremacists, and he can say absolutely anything, no matter how ludicrous, without any consequences whatsoever. That's what his hate rallies are all about.

Then there's the world of the United States court system, where things are supposed to work a little differently. Until you get a Judge Cannon, then godonlyknows.

Edit: TODAY. I predict the DOJ will file the brief that is due today in the Supreme Court ... today. Do I have a "fingers crossed" smiley?

[realist]

There's the world where anything he says instantly becomes real to his millions of adoring white supremacists, and he can say absolutely anything, no matter how ludicrous, without any consequences whatsoever. That's what his hate rallies are all about.

It's mind-boggling.

[p0rtia]

There's the world where anything he says instantly becomes real to his millions of adoring white supremacists, and he can say absolutely anything, no matter how ludicrous, without any consequences whatsoever. That's what his hate rallies are all about.

It's mind-boggling.

Is it? cf any-old belief system based zero percent on facts/knowledge/critical thinking that results in unquestioned allegiance to a supposedly divine being. I think it's part of the human psyche and is as old as the hills. Quite common.

What I find mind-boggling is that 98 percent of the press never considers pointing out that these folks are the problem--however they got where they are--because their belief system is bringing down democracy, science. The death of expertise, and all that.

[realist]

There's the world where anything he says instantly becomes real to his millions of adoring white supremacists, and he can say absolutely anything, no matter how ludicrous, without any consequences whatsoever. That's what his hate rallies are all about.

It's mind-boggling.

Is it? cf any-old belief system based zero percent on facts/knowledge/critical thinking that results in unquestioned allegiance to a supposedly divine being. I think it's part of the human psyche and is as old as the hills. Quite common.

What I find mind-boggling is that 98 percent of the press never considers pointing out that these folks are the problem--however they got where they are--because their belief system is bringing down democracy, science. The death of expertise, and all that.

It's a vicious circle. Because of their belief system, however they got there, and in this case through Trump, it does not matter one whit what the press says. They don't believe it. Facts mean nothing.

[roadscholar]

Again, to me, believing things that could easily and quickly be researched and disproven is way more disturbing than faith in spiritual matters that can be neither proven or disproven.

That phenomenon is seriously scary; it borders on mass psychosis.

[Ben-Prime]

Also, let's face it, the press pointing this out is "elitist" for one thing -- and more importantly denies them the content and eyeballs of playing the 'both sides' argument. They can't make $$ 'teaching the controversy.'