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

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

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

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

#3301

Post by RTH10260 »

I had a small laugh as the DOJ lawyer Joshi got into a discussion with the Judge Pryor about the requested result of the appeal. Joshi asked for "reverse and remand to district court with instructions to dismiss". Pryor said they likely will "vacate" the district courts ruling cause "lack of equitable jurisdiction".


eta fighting tyops
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

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

#3302

Post by p0rtia »

Thanks, all.

I particularly liked the DOJ lawyer's rebuttal, wherein he listed the shifting purpose of the suit from filing to filing. What a bunch of crap from TFG's team.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

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

#3303

Post by Maybenaut »

RTH10260 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 6:42 am I had a small laugh as the DOJ lawyer Joshi got into a discussion with the Judge Pryor about the requested result of the appeal. Joshi asked for "reverse and remand to district court with instructions to dismiss". Pryor said they likely will "vacate" the district courts ruling cause "lack of equitable jurisdiction".


eta fighting tyops
To clarify, Judge Pryor said that if they find a lack of equitable jurisdiction the language in the decretal paragraph would be “vacate and remand” rather than “reverse and remand.”
"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
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

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

#3304

Post by Maybenaut »

Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”

Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
"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
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

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

#3305

Post by sugar magnolia »

Maybenaut wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”

Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
Is Biden even the one who authorized it?
It wasn't a "raid."
He wasn't a candidate.
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

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

#3306

Post by Phoenix520 »

IAALs, is there a chance that jurisprudence will be trump-proofed in the future?

They could combine this with their experience with organized crime to add non-verbal orders that don’t and never will point a finger directly at the Boss but nevertheless are crystal clear in intent. A rule for Dons, as it were. For example, raise your hand if you think Weisselberg just added the apartment and other, er, salary enhancements on his own, no nod from the Don? Me neither.
Reddog
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:29 pm

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

#3307

Post by Reddog »

sugar magnolia wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:34 am
Maybenaut wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”

Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
Is Biden even the one who authorized it?
It wasn't a "raid."
He wasn't a candidate.
Also one of the justices made Trusty recharacterize the wording from “raid” to “lawfully executed warrant “, I think.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

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

#3308

Post by Maybenaut »

sugar magnolia wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:34 am
Maybenaut wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”

Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
Is Biden even the one who authorized it?
It wasn't a "raid."
He wasn't a candidate.
Not personally, but the buck stops with the Executive. But as the DOJ attorney argued, that’s why we have neutral and detached magistrates - to protect the citizenry from rogue cops and biased prosecutors.
"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
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3000
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

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

#3309

Post by MN-Skeptic »

Maybenaut wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:07 pm
sugar magnolia wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:34 am
Maybenaut wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”

Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
Is Biden even the one who authorized it?
It wasn't a "raid."
He wasn't a candidate.
Not personally, but the buck stops with the Executive. But as the DOJ attorney argued, that’s why we have neutral and detached magistrates - to protect the citizenry from rogue cops and biased prosecutors.
Remember, when Trump was president he wanted the IRS to audit his "enemies" and, sure enough, McCabe and Comey were "randomly" selected for highly detailed IRS audits. Trump wanted the government to do his bidding and he totally believes that Biden must be the same way.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

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

#3310

Post by noblepa »

Maybenaut wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:14 am Also, Trusty was asked about precedent and he said the Court had to review this in context, stating “There’s also never been a situation in the history of this country where a sitting president authorized a raid of a presidential candidate’s home.”

Neither the Court nor the DOJ commented on that, but Trump wasn’t a “presidential candidate” at the time the search occurred. And even if he was, so what?
A little while ago, I was watching a YouTube clip of Lawrence O'Donnell, speaking about the 11th's ruling. He played a clip of that part of the hearing. When Trusty referred to the "Raid" on Mar a Lago, the judge interrupted and questioned whether that was the proper term to use for serving a lawfully issued warrant. Trusty immediately backed down, apologizing and replacing it with "execution of a warrant".

See 8:22 for the judge's question.
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

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

#3311

Post by Suranis »

Mason.jpg
Mason.jpg (72.3 KiB) Viewed 972 times
Hic sunt dracones
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

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

#3312

Post by humblescribe »

northland10 wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:44 pm
:snippity:

The 1st Richey factor is callous disregard (emphasis below is mine):
11th Circuit in Trump v USA wrote: We begin, as the district court did, with “callous disregard,” which is the “foremost consideration” in determining whether a court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction. United States v. Chapman, 559 F.2d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 1977). Indeed, our precedent emphasizes the “indispensability of an accurate allegation of callous disregard.” Id. (alteration accepted and quotation omitted).

Here, the district court concluded that Plaintiff did not show that the United States acted in callous disregard of his constitutional rights. Doc. No. 64 at 9. No party contests the district court’s finding in this regard. The absence of this “indispensab[le]” factor in the Richey analysis is reason enough to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction here. Chapman, 559 F.2d at 406.
Yet, Trump's lawyers failed to argue a key point from the earlier opinion. They telegraphed that if you can't get past this, you are dead in the water. They still did not argue it?

Yes, I know. They're stuck because their client demands they do something, but the law gives them nothing.

They laid out the other Richey factors for completeness, but it is quite clear that if they cannot get through the first one, they have nothing, despite the apparently thinking of Loose Cannon, who avoids actual things like law and precedence.
So, I haz a question:

In my field, if I feel like a client is being unreasonable, untruthful, pulling the same crap year after year, I can tell him and the horse he rode in on to F off. Makes no difference in my ethics. I can just walk away and let him hang himself out to dry.

So, the legal field says that lawyers have to stick with their client on any issue? They must argue that the Earth is flat or that corresponding parts of congruent triangles are NOT equal if their client so demands? And the judges and opposing counsel have to sit through and respond to all this crap? To me this is a colossal waste of resources.

It is bad enough at the trial level. I sorta get it. See if you can pull the wool over the judge's eyes or hope that opposing counsel is 25 years old and graduated from Miskatonic a la Dr. C. :mrgreen:

But once it is determined that the entire argument/complaint/ruling is nothing more than Swiss cheese, lawyers should be permitted to fold their tent and tell their client adieu.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6555
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

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

#3313

Post by Slim Cognito »

Is it just me or was O'Donnell suppressing, mostly successfully, a smirk throughout that entire segment?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
Reddog
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:29 pm

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

#3314

Post by Reddog »

This is what I’ve always understood. Lawyers do have constraints. He could go self representing and not be constrained. Isn’t this raison d’etre for sovcits i.e. they’re smarter than common lawyer/folk. Consequently clogging courts.


d) Defense counsel is the client’s professional representative, not the client’s alter-ego. Defense counsel should act zealously within the bounds of the law and standards on behalf of their clients, but have no duty to, and may not, execute any directive of the client which violates the law or such standards. In representing a client, defense counsel may engage in a good faith challenge to the validity of such laws or standards if done openly.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

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

#3315

Post by Maybenaut »

humblescribe wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:37 pm [

So, I haz a question:

In my field, if I feel like a client is being unreasonable, untruthful, pulling the same crap year after year, I can tell him and the horse he rode in on to F off. Makes no difference in my ethics. I can just walk away and let him hang himself out to dry.

So, the legal field says that lawyers have to stick with their client on any issue? They must argue that the Earth is flat or that corresponding parts of congruent triangles are NOT equal if their client so demands? And the judges and opposing counsel have to sit through and respond to all this crap? To me this is a colossal waste of resources.

It is bad enough at the trial level. I sorta get it. See if you can pull the wool over the judge's eyes or hope that opposing counsel is 25 years old and graduated from Miskatonic a la Dr. C. :mrgreen:

But once it is determined that the entire argument/complaint/ruling is nothing more than Swiss cheese, lawyers should be permitted to fold their tent and tell their client adieu.
It’s pretty complicated. Some decisions are the lawyer’s and some are the client’s. The lawyer decides what issues to raise and what evidence to present. The client can’t force a lawyer to litigate an issue the lawyer knows to be frivolous. The client cannot force the lawyer to present evidence the lawyer knows to be false (what the lawyer “knows” (or ought to know) about the relative falsity of evidence isn’t always easy to pinpoint.

The client gets to decide how he pleads and whether he testifies. You hear a lot of crap on TV where the lawyer says, “Don’t tell me that you did it because then I can’t put to on the stand to say you did it.” That’s bullshit. Just because the client tells the lawyer something doesn’t mean it’s true. But if the lawyer *knows* the story the client is about to testify to is false, then all the lawyer can do it tell the judge that the client wishes to make a statement.

But the lawyer can’t always just walk away. Courts really don’t want unrepresented people appearing before them, so they’re reluctant to let a lawyer out of a case. And the lawyer is extremely limited in what they can tell the court if they’re trying to get off of a case. They can say things like, “the client and I have an irreconcilable difference of opinion about how to proceed.” The court would understand that to mean that the client is insisting that the lawyer do something unethical. The judge might have a come-to-Jesus session with the client and then require the lawyer to stay on the case. Or he might let the lawyer out.

But no, as a general matter, the lawyers aren’t required to do unethical shit just because the client wants it. Trumps lawyers are doing it because they want to.
"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
keith
Posts: 3706
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

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

#3316

Post by keith »

Maybenaut wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:53 pm
But no, as a general matter, the lawyers aren’t required to do unethical shit just because the client wants it. Trumps lawyers are doing it because they ⁸[strike]want to[/strike] can'tget paid otherwise
.
Fify
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

WHY NOT BOTH?

#3317

Post by Foggy »

keith wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:27 am
Maybenaut wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:53 pm But no, as a general matter, the lawyers aren’t required to do unethical shit just because the client wants it. Trumps lawyers are doing it because they ⁸want to can't get paid otherwise.
Fify
Why not both? They want to AND they can't get paid otherwise, if they are getting paid at all.
Out from under. :thumbsup:
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

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

#3318

Post by andersweinstein »

Maybenaut wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:40 am
RTH10260 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 6:42 am I had a small laugh as the DOJ lawyer Joshi got into a discussion with the Judge Pryor about the requested result of the appeal. Joshi asked for "reverse and remand to district court with instructions to dismiss". Pryor said they likely will "vacate" the district courts ruling cause "lack of equitable jurisdiction".
To clarify, Judge Pryor said that if they find a lack of equitable jurisdiction the language in the decretal paragraph would be “vacate and remand” rather than “reverse and remand.”
Curious, can someone explain for us non-lawyers what difference this would make? ("Vacate" vs "reverse")
User avatar
bill_g
Posts: 5342
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:52 pm
Location: Portland OR
Occupation: Retired (kind of)
Verified: ✅ Checked Republic ✓ ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

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

#3319

Post by bill_g »

Vacate annuls a decision.
Reversal favors the opposition.
chancery
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

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

#3320

Post by chancery »

andersweinstein wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:36 am Curious, can someone explain for us non-lawyers what difference this would make? ("Vacate" vs "reverse")
I'm tempted to answer "no." ;)

The discussion between Judge Pryor and the DOJ lawyer turned on issues of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction and the nature and extent of the appeals court's appellate jurisdiction. It involved a number of technical issues, made confusing by the fact that in some contexts the terms "vacate" and "reverse" ... let's just say that they are overlapping venn circles.

The question was whether the appeals court should restrict itself to vacating the injunction against the government's use of the unclassified recovered documents or whether it could, and should, go further and direct Judge Cannon to dismiss the entire equitable proceeding, thus "reversing" the entirety of the judge's exercise of judicial power (including the appointment of the special master).

If the court limited itself to vacating the injunction against use of the documents, Trump could argue that the appointment of the special master had not been disturbed, and also that the equitable proceeding remained open for other purposes and remedies that Judge Cannon might think up, e.g., unsealing the search warrant affidavit.

One curious conundrum that might follow from a ruling directing Judge Cannon to dismiss the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would be the continuing validity of the orders that required Trump to pay the expenses of the special master proceeding.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

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

#3321

Post by andersweinstein »

chancery wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:02 am ...
The question was whether the appeals court should restrict itself to vacating the injunction against the government's use of the unclassified recovered documents or whether it could, and should, go further and direct Judge Cannon to dismiss the entire equitable proceeding, thus "reversing" the entirety of the judge's exercise of judicial power (including the appointment of the special master).

If the court limited itself to vacating the injunction against use of the documents, Trump could argue that the appointment of the special master had not been disturbed, and also that the equitable proceeding remained open for other purposes and remedies that Judge Cannon might think up, e.g., unsealing the search warrant affidavit.
...
Thanks for trying! I relistened to that section, and Joshi for DOJ made an argument based on some Supreme Court case [ETA: Munaf v. Geren (2008)] that even if they chose to vacate the injunction for lack of equitable jurisdiction, they still had appellate jurisdiction to dismiss the whole case. It sounded like Pryor was happy to have that position:

Pryor: I will look at that case and it would seem to me that if you are right, what we are really talking about is a middle position. I was right about vacate but you are right about the authority for instructions to dismiss. Ordinarily if the district court lacks jurisdiction, that is what we do, we vacate with instructions to dismiss.

Joshi: Fair enough, and I'm not going to fight you too hard on it. If what the language says is vacate with instructions to remand and dismiss the case. I think we would be perfectly happy with that. [AW: DUH]
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

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

#3322

Post by noblepa »

Reddog wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:54 pm This is what I’ve always understood. Lawyers do have constraints. He could go self representing and not be constrained. Isn’t this raison d’etre for sovcits i.e. they’re smarter than common lawyer/folk. Consequently clogging courts.


d) Defense counsel is the client’s professional representative, not the client’s alter-ego. Defense counsel should act zealously within the bounds of the law and standards on behalf of their clients, but have no duty to, and may not, execute any directive of the client which violates the law or such standards. In representing a client, defense counsel may engage in a good faith challenge to the validity of such laws or standards if done openly.
That's right. This is why it is not uncommon for a sovcit defendant to fire his/her court-appointed public defender; because the PD won't argue in court that the defendant is the "living man, John Smith, not the legal fiction, JOHN SMITH" or that the defendant does not consent to the law(s) he is accused of violating and therefore can not be charged. All of these arguments are legal nonsence and any lawyer who argues them in court, risks his license to practice law.
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

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

#3323

Post by Foggy »

Yeah, if'n I could accurately predict what courts are gonna do, I could make a lot of money.

Sometimes predictions are really flimsy. Uncertain, ill-considered, and often, in my case, half-baked.

A good prediction must be fully baked, or it collapses when you pull it out of the oven.

Some predictions cause you to go WAY out on a limb.

Which can be a little bit daunting, carrying an oven with a half-baked prediction in it way out on a limb, so don't fall and break your neck.

On the other hand, I predict that the 11th Circuit will rule next week and will vacate, dismiss, flush, deny, dismiss and stomp on the case, on the basis that Judge Cannon is a neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie.

You can't see my prediction if you cover your eyebones. :cantlook:
Edit: .
Narrator: You said dismiss twice.
Me: I like dismissals.

Hahaha from Blazing Saddles
Out from under. :thumbsup:
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

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

#3324

Post by humblescribe »

You know, Foggy, that baking on Earth falls within very closely determined parameters.

But when a feller is exoplanetary, that sorta throws everything way out of whack. You're way out beyond the normal planet range. It's gotta be about 5 degrees Kelvin or whatever. Everything slo-o-o-o-w-s way down to a near stand still. Baking at any level is problematic.

But if anyone can surmount those exoplanetary nuances, it is our doggedly determined master of mirth, Supreme Dick Tater.

(I find your mood changes quite amusing; I look forward to them!) :biggrin:
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

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

#3325

Post by Kendra »


New special counsel & US attorney (SDFL) hard at work on this Thanksgiving, rebutting arguments from Trump lawyers in Mar-a-Lago docs case. (May look like 1st public special counsel stationery but we had stmt last week. Letterhead looked improvised)
Post Reply

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