Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*

Will this case go to trial before the primary elections?

Yes, and it will be a wonderful circus
29
24%
No, Judge Cannon will dismiss the case on a motion to dismiss
6
5%
No, Trump’s attorneys will work out a plea bargain
2
2%
No, the case will be in the appeals court through the 2024 election
24
20%
No, Judge Cannon will grant numerous motions to delay the case
35
28%
No, this case will NEVER go to trial, but I don't know what will happen
10
8%
Some other option, which I will describe in a post.
4
3%
Debilitating brain aneurysm
13
11%
 
Total votes: 123

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#652

Post by RTH10260 »

RTH10260 wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2024 6:17 pm was there a fresh filing by Jack Smith not mentioned yet? (ed. YES - 02/02/2024)

(ed. Kirschner first quotes from Politico article below, then shows and comments on the motion filed in court, skip to 5mins20 for the latter)


User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4915
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#653

Post by p0rtia »

I've been reading Jack Smith's filing regarding fuckhead's complaints about and demands for more more more discovery. Kind of an amazing document, because, among other things, Smith takes the time to lay bare for us, Cannon, and posterity, the defense's plan to try to introduce claims of bias and political motivations (yes the same ones that have popped up in other cases) as a defense. Smith styles it an attempt to introduce a selective prosecution defense and a call to jury nullification.

What I'm sticking in here is the verrrry lengthy section in response to the defense's Requests for “Production of CCTV Footage.” This. Is. Hilarious. In a low key, snowballing, boring legalese way. (Hope it's not only me that enjoys stuff like this.) You might wonder why this verrry long explanation is here at all, because, frankly, it could be summed up in four sentences--and then you realize it is only here because is reveals the defense to be lying fucking idiots. And that is the point.

Using Spoiler Text or whatever, because it is verrrry long. Grab a cup of coffee.
► Show Spoiler
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6552
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#654

Post by Slim Cognito »

You might wonder why this verrry long explanation is here at all, because, frankly, it could be summed up in four sentences--and then you realize it is only here because is reveals the defense to be lying fucking idiots.
And the judge ain’t exactly a Rhodes scholar.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#655

Post by raison de arizona »

p0rtia wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 7:28 pm I've been reading Jack Smith's filing regarding fuckhead's complaints about and demands for more more more discovery. Kind of an amazing document, because, among other things, Smith takes the time to lay bare for us, Cannon, and posterity, the defense's plan to try to introduce claims of bias and political motivations (yes the same ones that have popped up in other cases) as a defense. Smith styles it an attempt to introduce a selective prosecution defense and a call to jury nullification.

What I'm sticking in here is the verrrry lengthy section in response to the defense's Requests for “Production of CCTV Footage.” This. Is. Hilarious. In a low key, snowballing, boring legalese way. (Hope it's not only me that enjoys stuff like this.) You might wonder why this verrry long explanation is here at all, because, frankly, it could be summed up in four sentences--and then you realize it is only here because is reveals the defense to be lying fucking idiots. And that is the point.

Using Spoiler Text or whatever, because it is verrrry long. Grab a cup of coffee.
► Show Spoiler
Jeebus Chreest, they are freaking morons. Morans, even.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
chancery
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#656

Post by chancery »

p0rtia wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 7:28 pm What I'm sticking in here is the verrrry lengthy section in response to the defense's Requests for “Production of CCTV Footage.” This. Is. Hilarious. In a low key, snowballing, boring legalese way. (Hope it's not only me that enjoys stuff like this.) You might wonder why this verrry long explanation is here at all, because, frankly, it could be summed up in four sentences--and then you realize it is only here because is reveals the defense to be lying fucking idiots. And that is the point.
Yes:
simple and easily correctable user error
:faint: :rotflmao:
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#657

Post by RTH10260 »

from P0rtias Spoiler section
During the call, counsel for De Oliveira explained that he did not own or have access to a laptop or desktop computer and was instead attempting to review the entirety of the Government’s discovery on a handheld tablet. Id. The Government then offered to lend him a laptop computer to facilitate his review. Id. Counsel for De Oliveira accepted the offer, and on November 1, 2023, the Government hand-delivered a computer to him
:cantlook: :brickwallsmall: a lawyer working only off a tablet? Though I admit that manufaturers like HP or Microsoft offer top tier products that come near in funtionality but not in power and peripherals. One would a$$ume a lawyer were able to aquire such office hardware without the government subsidiary of a Obamaphone Bidenphone Biden laptop. :think: would that perhaps even be Hunter Bidens laptop :confuzzled: :biggrin:
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#658

Post by noblepa »

RTH10260 wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 9:39 pm from P0rtias Spoiler section
During the call, counsel for De Oliveira explained that he did not own or have access to a laptop or desktop computer and was instead attempting to review the entirety of the Government’s discovery on a handheld tablet. Id. The Government then offered to lend him a laptop computer to facilitate his review. Id. Counsel for De Oliveira accepted the offer, and on November 1, 2023, the Government hand-delivered a computer to him
:cantlook: :brickwallsmall: a lawyer working only off a tablet? Though I admit that manufaturers like HP or Microsoft offer top tier products that come near in funtionality but not in power and peripherals. One would a$$ume a lawyer were able to aquire such office hardware without the government subsidiary of a Obamaphone Bidenphone Biden laptop. :think: would that perhaps even be Hunter Bidens laptop :confuzzled: :biggrin:
I don't know how one can run even a tiny business without a computer in this day and age. I don't know who De Oliveira's lawyer is, but even a one lawyer practice would have enough of a record keeping and word processing requirement that a computer and printer would be imperative. Also, too, how does a lawyer prepare briefs without access to online services such as Lexus/Nexus and online court dockets?
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6552
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#659

Post by Slim Cognito »

Isn't this a trump-provided attorney? Only the best.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#660

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

I mean, there's a lot you can do with a tablet (like access Lexus/Nexis and online dockets), but they don't have near as much storage or processing power.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#661

Post by Dave from down under »

No computer
No ability
Etc

Just pathetic attempts at delay

Of course if they had claimed the dog (or Donnie) had eaten the footage that might have been more believable
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#662

Post by realist »

p0rtia wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 7:28 pm I've been reading Jack Smith's filing regarding fuckhead's complaints about and demands for more more more discovery. Kind of an amazing document, because, among other things, Smith takes the time to lay bare for us, Cannon, and posterity, the defense's plan to try to introduce claims of bias and political motivations (yes the same ones that have popped up in other cases) as a defense. Smith styles it an attempt to introduce a selective prosecution defense and a call to jury nullification.

What I'm sticking in here is the verrrry lengthy section in response to the defense's Requests for “Production of CCTV Footage.” This. Is. Hilarious. In a low key, snowballing, boring legalese way. (Hope it's not only me that enjoys stuff like this.) You might wonder why this verrry long explanation is here at all, because, frankly, it could be summed up in four sentences--and then you realize it is only here because is reveals the defense to be lying fucking idiots. And that is the point.

Using Spoiler Text or whatever, because it is verrrry long. Grab a cup of coffee.
► Show Spoiler
It’s a great filing but unfortunately it’s to Judge Cannon. She won’t care or give it any credence.

This case will never go to trial prior to the election IMO if ever
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#663

Post by Maybenaut »

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 10:19 pm I mean, there's a lot you can do with a tablet (like access Lexus/Nexis and online dockets), but they don't have near as much storage or processing power.
It’s true you can do a lot on a tablet. But I couldn’t imagine drafting pleadings on a tablet (unless the tablet is a Surface Pro, which is really more like a laptop and should be able to do whatever he needs it to do). Nor could I imagine doing many of the other tasks I had to do, like keeping a calendar, keeping track of billing, managing a conflicts database, and this is the big one — maintaining electronic client files, which could be thousands of pages (the last 10 years of my practice was all by .pdf). I guess it’s possible, but I think it’s so unlikely I’m calling bullshit.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 1829
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#664

Post by Sam the Centipede »

realist wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 10:37 pm It’s a great filing but unfortunately it’s to Judge Cannon. She won’t care or give it any credence.

This case will never go to trial prior to the election IMO if ever
Are you being unfair? Remember, Judge Cannon is the Defense Judge in this case, it is the responsibility of the Prosecution Judge to support the prosecution team.

:o Oh wait! That's not how the adversarial system works, is it? :boxing: :biggrin: :biggrin:
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#665

Post by RTH10260 »

:biggrin: someone needs to mention out loud that he read on the interwebs that Judge Engoron will be moving to FL asap and be promoted to Federal Court and so it must be true ... :lol:
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4915
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#666

Post by p0rtia »

Dave from down under wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 10:30 pm No computer
No ability
Etc

Just pathetic attempts at delay

Of course if they had claimed the dog (or Donnie) had eaten the footage that might have been more believable
My favorite is how they accuse the gov't of "altering the raw data" (oh, the horrors of...video file compression...) and then add the genius argument that the purpose of the alteration was to make the videos unviewable. :shrug:

Like many here, I provide a lot of casual computer help to friends and relations. So I (we) can see the utter ineptitude of these various defense lawyers, and their instinct to view their own (impossible!) ignorance as the malfeasance of others. And that's MAGA all over.

OT, just because: I have a friend who is trying to contact Amazon. I explained that yes, they hide the page where you enter your phone number and they call you, but that it is findable, and I explained how to find it. A month passes. No dice. I then sent him bloody screen shots of each page on the Amazon website, with brief, clear instructions to back up the visuals. Another month passes. He can't do it. :brickwallsmall:

At least he admits his inability. Imagine if he said instead that Amazon, or possible The Government, had him on a black list that banned him from accessing Amazon phone help. Oh wait...I've heard that one dozens of times too over the years.
User avatar
Rolodex
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:06 pm

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#667

Post by Rolodex »

Maybe the lawyer doesn't have a computer because it was seized as evidence? LOL

I think even the Lincoln Lawyer has a laptop in the Lincoln.
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest. - Mark Twain
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#668

Post by RTH10260 »

Judge Cannon has made a decision and her intent is to publish court submissions without redaction, eg those names and things Jack Smith wants to keep out of public cause sensitive.

MTN Ben Meiselas stretching it out
► Show Spoiler
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#669

Post by raison de arizona »

Tribe thinks this could be the last straw. I doubt it, but hope springs eternal.
https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1755282847353483396?s=20
Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ @tribelaw wrote: I’m hopeful this will trigger a motion to remove her. The 11th Circuit might well agree this was the last straw. Compromising national security is a bridge too far.
EssenViews @essenviews wrote: Jack Smith could seek to remove Aileen Cannon for granting Trump's request to access unredacted classified papers. https://newsweek.com/jack-smith-could-s ... st-1867665
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 2999
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#670

Post by MN-Skeptic »

Here is a link to Jack Smith's response to Cannon's order to reveal classified documents -

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .294.0.pdf

Mueller, She Wrote's entire tweet thread on Smith's response -


Mueller, She Wrote
@MuellerSheWrote

BREAKING: THREAD: Jack Smith has filed a motion for Judge Cannon to RECONSIDER her recent ruling that would unseal witness names & the substance of their testimony, putting them at significant risk of immediate threats and intimidation. 1/

Smith says that trump attached protected discovery information to court filings to shift the burden to the government to prove sealing is necessary & that Cannon wrongly decided witness safety/grand jury secrecy/integrity of the trial are not good enough reasons to seal. 2/

Smith says Cannon was WRONG in 2 respects & should reconsider. He then cites the 11th circuit, which has bench slapped Cannon before. 3/

"First, the 11th Circuit has held that the compelling-interest standard applied by the Court does NOT apply to “documents filed in connection with motions to compel discovery,” which instead may be sealed or redacted simply upon a showing of “good cause". 4/

I think this citation is important because I think Jack Smith is saying "If I appeal this to the 11th circuit, they're going to reverse your ruling if you don't do it now" because Cannon applied the WRONG LEGAL STANDARD. Then he gives the 2nd reason she's wrong. 5/

Smith says she needs to change her ruling to "prevent manifest injustice." Cannon's erroneous order would ID over two dozen people who would otherwise remain anonymous, or will face threats over their testimony. 6/

"Reconsideration is warranted to correct CLEAR ERROR & prevent MANIFEST INJUSTICE." Basically, trump attached protected discovery (witness names) to a motion to compel so he could ask Cannon to unseal them. A sneaky way to get a list of witnesses against him out to the public. 7/

Some of the things the government wants to remain under seal: witness interviews, including a transcript of one witness that didn't want to be recorded, citing the risks from "trump world", plus information about obstruction and witness intimidation. 8/

Transcripts of interviews detailing the process of finding attorneys for two individuals. I imagine this has to do with trump allies getting lawyers for other trump allies or defendants. 9/

Expert testimony about the Mar a Lago search, including information about the location of trump's son's bedroom. 10/

Jack Smith was allowed to attach an exhibit of threats made online to witnesses - threats that are currently under federal criminal investigation. I don't have the filing yet on court listener to link, but here's PACER link. I'll add it when I get it. END/
(That link is at the top of this post.)

Kyle Cheney also posted a 3-tweet thread on this reply but includes screen shots of the reply which makes it more unwieldy for posting here. It starts here - https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1755845018546221262
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5586
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#671

Post by Luke »

As explained below, the Court applied the wrong legal standard and issued orders that, in practice, will expose witnesses and others to intolerable and needless risk
Outrageous. Isn't this like her first trial? Either she's playing games, knowing the government will have to go back to the 11th, thereby delaying more, or she's clueless. I'm afraid Realist is right. And based on today, I'd expect a selective prosecution motion any minute to delay things further.

It's beyond my understanding why all these people are desperate to put the twice-impeached, disgraced loser back in power. Revenge of the Nerds Misfits Part II.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#672

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

But it's what Trump told her to do!
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Rolodex
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:06 pm

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#673

Post by Rolodex »

I don't know if they can, but it would make sense if some of those witnesses wrote to her to beg to keep their identity secret out of fear of the proven threats that trumpfans cause.
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest. - Mark Twain
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#674

Post by Dr. Ken »



She's really leaving Smith with no choice but to get the 11th circuit to smack her down again.
ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

#675

Post by Dr. Ken »

ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
Post Reply

Return to “The Big Lie & Aftermath of The Former Guy”