Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (4 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

SteveSBrickNJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
776
Age
62
Location
New Jersey
Offline
Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads? :unsure:
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*
 
So I know this is unconstitutional. Does it bother anyone else that Trump's judge didn't?


 
So I know this is unconstitutional. Does it bother anyone else that Trump's judge didn't?


this person should never have been a judge. I am all for getting rid of her.
 
So I know this is unconstitutional. Does it bother anyone else that Trump's judge didn't?


Sure, but it's not the least bit surprising!

The sole reason that she's a judge at all is because she is a product of the Heritage Foundation. She meets all of their requirements for the bench: young and loyal to their extremist beliefs. Considering her professional experience, she wouldn't qualify as a lead prosecutor for your local DA office, much less a district court judge and yet, she's a Federal Judge. I'm certain she's very "popular" amongst her peers.
 
Sure, but it's not the least bit surprising!

The sole reason that she's a judge at all is because she is a product of the Heritage Foundation. She meets all of their requirements for the bench: young and loyal to their extremist beliefs. Considering her professional experience, she wouldn't qualify as a lead prosecutor for your local DA office, much less a district court judge and yet, she's a Federal Judge. I'm certain she's very "popular" amongst her peers.
yes that could cause a easy appeal for trump. it would be like trump claiming the judge is incompetent.
 
Chuck, I am reading some of the more reasoned members of Law Twitter, and they seem to think this order from the judge clearly shows she’s not up to the task of handling this case. They are coming down on the side of inexperience rather than bias.

But I would think that what Opening Arguments points to above and a footnote that somebody else pointed out that seems to invite a defense motion to throw the case out (IIRC) might indicate a rooting interest here.

Someone said she has shown her hand too early, and may have given Smith some options to deal with the situation.

What do you think?
 
Weissmann also thinks Cannon is once again effectively acting as a defense lawyer rather than a judge:

 
Weissmann also thinks Cannon is once again effectively acting as a defense lawyer rather than a judge:


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1688888746039562240.html

To understand Judge Cannon latest legal issues, here are some Venue/Grand Jury basics.
Grand Jury:
-you cannot use a grand jury to obtain evidence for a trial; it must be used to investigate new crimes or new people.
-in a widespread scheme, that is easy to satisfy, cont.
1/
-Not all people and crimes are typically indicted at once, so the grand jury can continue to investigate. This is common practice.
Venue:
-a grand jury can investigate crimes over which it may have jurisdiction.
-a grand jury does not always know in advance:
2/
where a crime occurred, if a crime occurred, or who committed it.
-so a grand jury can look at all that for possible crimes/criminals.
-venue is proper for a grand jury investigation in that district if any part of the possible crime occurred in the grand jury's district....
3/

--Or, in the case of the crime of obstruction of justice, if the obstructed investigation took place in the district where the grand jury is sitting.
-So that is why the MAL documents obstruction could be investigated in FLA or DC grand juries.

/end
PS: and this is why Judge Cannon's raising a bogus grand jury issue, without defense asking, is so worrisome (and further to that: the issue had been raised in far right media).

for those of us who have deleted/no accounts
 

@openargs can't be any more direct in how Cannon is ruling to favor Trump. This can't be only incompetence.

But this... .isn't the first time Judge Cannon has swept in, unbidden, to help Team Trump.

Previously, when Trump tried to tie up the documents grand jury, Special Master Raymond Dearie entered a scheduling order that would have been VERY BAD for Trump. Remember, this was at a time Trump was howling that evidence was "planted" and also simultaneously that national security documents were his personal property. (Trump is still making the latter argument, as you know.) So what Special Master Dearie did was... ...order Trump to identify which materials he was arguing were planted. That would have also forced Trump to concede that the other materials seized were NOT in fact his property - which you might recognize as a key element of the 18 USC 793(e) criminal charge he now faces. b. A list of any specific items set forth in the Detailed Property Inventory that Plaintiff asserts were seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022, but as to which Plaintiff asserts that the Detailed Property Inventory’s description of contents or location within the Premises where the item was found is incorrect. c. A detailed list and description of any item that Plaintiff asserts was seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022, but is not listed in the Detailed Property Inventory. This submission shall be Plaintiff’s final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness a..Judge Cannon swept in BEFORE TRUMP HAD TO BRIEF AN OBJECTION and overruled her own Special Master, setting a different schedule that (coincidentally) relived Trump of the burden of actually specifying which documents he had or didn't have.
 
Very coincidental….

Check out this Post at https://post.news/@/gtconway3d/2Tj7AF5axSdQmZmaJyZBDSdvh3k

1691548040538.jpeg
 
Here's the latest story from the NewsMax point of view...
*
*
Here's the latest story from the MSNBC point of view....

I thought that was a reasonable and unbiased article from Newsmax. Now I know why:

"Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission."
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Back
Top Bottom