chancery wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:50 pm
Based on this very limited research, it appears that Trump is probably not entitled to review by a special master, because he is neither a criminal defense lawyer with federal clients nor currently the President. In addition, he's probably waived any right to such a review by not filing a motion immediately.
Of course, Judge Cannon surprised me and not a few others. I'm hoping that the 11th Circuit will shortly vindicate our initial analysis.
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)
So Smith is gonna fact check ShitGibbon real time. Approved!
New special counsel & US attorney (SDFL) hard at work on this Thanksgiving, rebutting arguments from Trump lawyers in Mar-a-Lago docs case. ...
If you're wondering what this is responding to, it was this letter Trusty sent the day after oral argument. I gather it purports to be submitting a "supplemental authority" on the question he couldn't answer in the oral argument.
You know, i get that former presidents are still called "President" as in "President Carter." HOWEVER, usually the first instance (at least that I've seen) is "Former President Carter gave a talk today...President Carter said..." I'm exhausted with the fiction he's the current president with all the privileges appertaining thereto.
Truly, the downfall of this country began when people started eating those awful Idaho "potatoes" instead proper real potatoes from the North Fork of Long Island.
Since I am too lazy to look it up does someone know if the 3 judge panel who heard oral argument on the appeal of Loose Cannon's entire abominable ruling are the same ones who granted the DoJ an injunction on classified documents?
Reality Check wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:42 pm
Since I am too lazy to look it up does someone know if the 3 judge panel who heard oral argument on the appeal of Loose Cannon's entire abominable ruling are the same ones who granted the DoJ an injunction on classified documents?
They were not.***
Update: I got curious, and checked. It was a random panel both times, as I understand it, BUT in fact two of the judges were the same for each hearing: Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher. Both Trump appointees. Pryor, a Bush appointee, made up the third in last weeks hearing. In the December hearing, the third was Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee.
SuzieC wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:47 pm
I think two of them were the same though--Chief Judge Pryor and Judge Grant, IIRC.
You are right that two judges were the same (Grant and Basher). Pryor is new this time around. I knew it was a different draw, but didn't consider that the same judges might be picked.
Obviously that went waaaay over my head, which reminded me of a clip from Absolutely Fabulous (if you're familiar with the show, great, if not, sorry too much to explain and would go off-topic). Anyhoo, Patsy, one of the drunken neer-do-wells that stars in the show was sitting at a table with her eternal glass of wine when her friend says something something "has to be done at 7 a.m." Patsy stared blankly into space and says "Those words mean nothing to me."
Imagine Trump's lawyers may not love the final line of his latest Truth Social post. "When will you invade the other Presidents’ homes in search of documents, which are voluminous, which they took with them, but not nearly so openly and transparently as I did?"
