Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

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?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Sendai]

Citation?

In the meantime he'll simply wait for the appeal to play out. There's no need to re-file the case.

I thought it was obvious but ok.

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com

Why bother with the appeal when it’s obvious the case would go forward with a valid District Attorney. And the AG has the authority, through legislation, to hire assistant U.S. Attorneys. So hire Smith as an Assistant to work the case.

 

[Sendai]

No amount of repeating false claims is going to change the fact that Trump violated the Espionage Act by taking, keeping and hiding national security documents that belong only to the US government and obstructed justice to try to hide and perpetuate his crimes. Trump betrayed the trust of we the people of the United States and he put our national security at risk because he's a selfish, thuggish criminal.


A Special Counsel is not a US Attorney and you know that, yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

And there is nothing stopping the AG from appointing a sitting District Attorney and re-filing the case. It’s really that simple. And. You don’t have to go through a time consuming appeal.

 

[MT15]

I thought it was obvious but ok.

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com

Why bother with the appeal when it’s obvious the case would go forward with a valid District Attorney. And the AG has the authority, through legislation, to hire assistant U.S. Attorneys. So hire Smith as an Assistant to work the case.

Because of precedent, that’s why. The way Cannon interpreted the question flies in the face of precedent. And the DOJ obviously thinks she will be overturned, again.

 

[LA - L.A.]

No amount of repeating false claims is going to change the fact that Trump violated the Espionage Act by taking, keeping and hiding national security documents that belong only to the US government and obstructed justice to try to hide and perpetuate his crimes. Trump betrayed the trust of we the people of the United States and he put our national security at risk because he's a selfish, thuggish criminal.

...there is nothing stopping the AG from appointing a sitting District Attorney and re-filing the case.

And there's nothing stopping the AG from creating a Special Counsel, regardless of how many times you repeat false claims saying otherwise.

 

[Maxp]

Come on Sendai, give it up already. It's OK to be wrong.

 

[DaveXA]

I thought it was obvious but ok.

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com

Yeah, no, is there any other actual case consistent with this ruling? If you can't find one, we'll that speaks volumes.

Why bother with the appeal when it’s obvious the case would go forward with a valid District Attorney. And the AG has the authority, through legislation, to hire assistant U.S. Attorneys. So hire Smith as an Assistant to work the case.

There's no need to do all that when Smith is already a valid Special Counsel. I don't agree with Cannon's ruling and I would be surprised to see it hold up under appeal.

 

[Sendai]

Yeah, no, is there any other actual case consistent with this ruling? If you can't find one, we'll that speaks volumes.

There's no need to do all that when Smith is already a valid Special Counsel. I don't agree with Cannon's ruling and I would be surprised to see it hold up under appeal.

And I could see the finicky nature of the current Supreme Court being a real plus to Cannon’s ruling.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I’m saying the exact opposite. Durham was the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut. Properly appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate. Unlike Smith.

what about Mueller?

 

[DaveXA]

And I could see the finicky nature of the current Supreme Court being a real plus to Cannon’s ruling.

Well, at least you admit the court needs to be finicky rather than based on, oh, something like the law to uphold Cannon's ruling.

 

[Sendai]

what about Mueller?

depends on how the appeals play out

 

[Sendai]

Well, at least you admit the court needs to be finicky rather than based on, oh, something like the law to uphold Cannon's ruling.

Appointments clause is law. Constitutional law. And they are finicky about the Constitution.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

depends on how the appeals play out

so there is a precedent, right?
and if i remember correctly, wasn't Danforth also?

 

[LA - L.A.]

If the Heritage Foundation justices on the Supreme Court overturn more long established legal precedence just to bail out Trump, for violating the Espionage Act by taking, keeping and hiding national security documents that belong only to the US government and then obstructing justice to try to hide and perpetuate his crimes, then they will fully expose themselves as being corrupt. There's actually some advantages to that happening.

And I could see the finicky nature of the current Supreme Court being a real plus to Cannon’s ruling.

If the 11th Circuit overturns Canon and reaches the same decision the DC Circuit did by finding the AG does have the power to appoint a Special Counsel, it's plausible that the Supreme Court would refuse an appeal and leave the DC Circuit's and 11th Circuit's ruling stand. The Heritage Foundation justices on the Supreme Court are under a lot of scrutiny, so I could see them avoiding this case.

They would probably drag their feet on it just long enough to keep the trial from resuming before the election. That's all Trump and his minions want. They just want Trump's crimes swept under the rug until after the election.

 

[Nebaghead]

Appointments clause is law. Constitutional law. And they are finicky about the Constitution.

They aren’t finicky, they are conservative hacks.

 

[MT15]

Appointments clause is law. Constitutional law. And they are finicky about the Constitution.

No, they’re really not. They ignore it when it suits them and just make shirt up.

 

[FullMonte]

I know why special counsels are appointed. And what I stated is a valid special counsel because they are presidentially appointed and senate confirmed.

Ok, so you know why a special counsel is appointed. So, let me ask you this question (and see if you'll answer it). When Donald Trump's campaign was being investigated for illegal and/or improper contacts with Russians, and the sitting attorney general had been a member of that campaign (so was likely to be, at the very least, a witness), would that have been an appropriate time for a Special Counsel to be appointed?

And now a federal district court is saying the CFR doesn’t cut it, that it requires specific legislative power or presidential appointment plus senate confirmation.

Just for clarification, that IS the same federal district court judge who has now TWICE been brutally pimpslapped by the appellate court for her ridiculously incorrect interpretations of the law, correct? As a reminder, the first time, they explained that in the particular instance, there was a three pronged test that needed to occur, and all three prongs needed to be met for her ruling...and after explaining how the first prong miserably failed, and overturning her ruling.....they went ahead and explained how she completely got the other two prongs MORE wrong.

and, that is the same judge who issued a ruling saying that the special counsel was not correctly appointed, which is the exact opposite of EVERY OTHER ruling by EVERY OTHER court facing this EXACT SAME claim, right?

Oh, and is there a reason you keep avoiding the question I asked you?

 

[Sendai]

Ok, so you know why a special counsel is appointed. So, let me ask you this question (and see if you'll answer it). When Donald Trump's campaign was being investigated for illegal and/or improper contacts with Russians, and the sitting attorney general had been a member of that campaign (so was likely to be, at the very least, a witness), would that have been an appropriate time for a Special Counsel to be appointed?



Just for clarification, that IS the same federal district court judge who has now TWICE been brutally pimpslapped by the appellate court for her ridiculously incorrect interpretations of the law, correct? As a reminder, the first time, they explained that in the particular instance, there was a three pronged test that needed to occur, and all three prongs needed to be met for her ruling...and after explaining how the first prong miserably failed, and overturning her ruling.....they went ahead and explained how she completely got the other two prongs MORE wrong.

and, that is the same judge who issued a ruling saying that the special counsel was not correctly appointed, which is the exact opposite of EVERY OTHER ruling by EVERY OTHER court facing this EXACT SAME claim, right?

Oh, and is there a reason you keep avoiding the question I asked you?

Yes, If the special counsel was a properly appointed United States Attorney, i.e. a current District Attorney.

The answer is obvious and the question lacks relevance.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Yes, If the special counsel was a properly appointed United States Attorney, i.e. a current District Attorney.

The answer is obvious and the question lacks relevance.

but it doesn't lack precedent. there have been special councils that haven't been appointed by President/Congress.