Will the reporters have a media room with video access so they can live-tweet, or will we have to wait for updates when it's all said and done. Guess we'll have an answer soon enough
Kendra wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 12:27 pmWill the reporters have a media room with video access so they can live-tweet, or will we have to wait for updates when it's all said and done.
I don't know if there will be a video feed in the media room, but there often is. And federal courts generally are pro-live devices in the courtroom. Meaning live tweeting could happen.
So, a typical state courtroom will permit a camera but prohibit live tweeting. While a typical federal courtroom will prohibit a camera but permit live tweeting.
Kendra wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 12:27 pmWill the reporters have a media room with video access so they can live-tweet, or will we have to wait for updates when it's all said and done.
I don't know if there will be a video feed in the media room, but there often is. And federal courts generally are pro-live devices in the courtroom. Meaning live tweeting could happen.
So, a typical state courtroom will permit a camera but prohibit live tweeting. While a typical federal courtroom will prohibit a camera but permit live tweeting.
TY Bob, I haven't been in any court ever in my long life.
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:10 amImho will not happen, a judge does not have to justify his actions. Justification is in the reasons given for the warrant.
The magistrate judge's ruling is reviewable. Judges don't like to be reversed, so they give reasons ("justifications") for their rulings, to explain to the higher courts (and the parties, and the public) how and why the rulings were made.
The judge's ruling, however, likely will be terse and ultimately unilluminating, e.g., "The government opposes unsealing the application to prevent revealing the details of an ongoing investigation; this is a sound reason, and my independent review of the application and its supporting evidence concludes the government's concerns are valid. Denied."
For Jordan and many other MAGAts, anyone who turns their coat was ab initio a spy. It couldn't possibly be that they grew disillusioned and disgusted with what they saw, or thought to protect themselves after witnessing a crime with which they did not wish to be associated; no, they must instead have been a spy and government plant from the beginning.
orlylicious wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 12:19 pm
Is there a call-in number for this hearing? Or will it be televised?
ETA: Won't be televised as per Nicholas.
this is on my spotify list. i played for my son who was unfamiliar with it. he enjoyed it, even though most of the cultural references went over his head.
Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 1:21 pm
For Jordan and many other MAGAts, anyone who turns their coat was ab initio a spy. It couldn't possibly be that they grew disillusioned and disgusted with what they saw, or thought to protect themselves after witnessing a crime with which they did not wish to be associated; no, they must instead have been a spy and government plant from the beginning.
To use terms that Trump would understand... a snitch, a rat.
Due to Twitter's limited characters, "says there’s grand jury material and it would show “nothing of substance”" likely means "because the affidavit contains grand-jury material, a redacted affidavit would show nothing of substance," i.e., so redacted as to be useless.
"Willful* retention of national defense information"
"Obstruction of federal investigation"
* "Willful" is a tell in legal speak; it discounts unintentional possession. "Retention" may also suggest that he was told to no-harm, no-foul return the information, but instead ("willfully") chose to retain the documents. Meaning the feebs believe there's at least probable cause of criminal intent.
Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
So the motherfucker was given multiple chances, and explicitly told that the documents belonged to the government, and warned repeatedly that it might result in criminal charges if he kept them ... and he decided to keep them anyway, in yet another giant fuck-you to the United States of America.
Kinda makes ya wonder why it was so important to steal those particular documents from the government.
Foggy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:08 pm
So the motherfucker was given multiple chances, and explicitly told that the documents belonged to the government, and warned repeatedly that it might result in criminal charges if he kept them ... and he decided to keep them anyway, in yet another giant fuck-you to the United States of America.
Kinda makes ya wonder why it was so important to steal those particular documents from the government.
Foggy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:08 pm
So the motherfucker was given multiple chances, and explicitly told that the documents belonged to the government, and warned repeatedly that it might result in criminal charges if he kept them ... and he decided to keep them anyway, in yet another giant fuck-you to the United States of America.
Kinda makes ya wonder why it was so important to steal those particular documents from the government.
It may not be quite that sinister. It may just be a case of a 75 year toddler throwing a tantrum and screaming "MINE, MINE, MINE!".
I'm sure that he honestly (if that word can be used in conjunction with Donald Trump) believes that the documents were his to take. After all, he was the President! I think he may have refused to return them because that would be admitting that he did not have the right/authority to take them. It wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't even know the contents of the documents.
Will the reporters have a media room with video access so they can live-tweet, or will we have to wait for updates when it's all said and done. Guess we'll have an answer soon enough 
