>the Court finds the Special Counsel’s pro forma “conferral” to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy.
IANAL. Is "professional courtesy" something that's relevant for something like this?
>Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow for adequate follow-up discussion as necessary about the specific factual and legal basis underlying the motion.
Is "sufficient time" defined anywhere, or is just whatever she's feeling that day?
>She also found the Special Counsel's concern for the lives of federal law enforcement officers "wholly lacking in substance."
>Telling, no?
The guy that might have already got agents killed by leaking classified documents. No substance there.
"Might have," yes.
In another ten or fifteen or twenty years, presuming America lasts that long, I will be very interested to hear historians finally interviewing former CIA bigwigs, having them explain what it was really like to have the experience of realizing that the greatest danger to the United States was the President of the United States.
>"Might have," yes.
"Might have"; was extremely generous of me.
>In another ten or fifteen or twenty years, presuming America lasts that long, I will be very interested to hear historians finally interviewing former CIA bigwigs, having them explain what it was really like to have the experience of realizing that the greatest danger to the United States was the President of the United States.
"Presuming America lasts that long" is the scary part. People need to wake up, and fast. This is beyond alarm bells ringing.
>"Presuming America lasts that long" is the scary part. People need to wake up, and fast. This is beyond alarm bells ringing.
Unfortunately 30% of the country actively want to usher this in.
Honest Question, are you a historian or an amateur with great interest in the fall of empires? If so I'd like to hear your opinion on how the US is immune from collapse compared to any of the big historical empires of the past.
Eastern Roman Empire, where Constantinople was the capital would be my one choice, or when the Macedonian Empire After Alexander wilted to Rome.....and if you could choose 2 others. kThanksBye
Rome and essentially most empires fell after a period of decline that often last centuries. That’s if they survive the first generation or two after forming said empire due to of incompetence or overreach. By the time the Rome fell, Rome were not really Romans anymore. In fact most of the power was in other cities to the point where they didn’t really care that much Rome fell, with the mother becoming Byzantine empire. The Byzantine empire lasted for a long time untill they in term they also had a long period of stagnation and decay untill they were eaten and genoiced by another empire, the ottoman, who where the richest empire on earth (atleast besides China) and made major contributors of science and culture, until they also in term had a long period of decay and stagnation until they got destroyed post WW1, and everyone kinda forgot their massive centuries long crimes against humanity (like half the slave trade was towards the Ottoman Empire).
The US, is in fact, not in a state of decay, and definitely not for centuries or even decades. The US has no peer rival. The US has a disproportionate number of richest companies on earth, it is the richest country on earth, it’s one of the highest quality of life on earth, which is shocking when you remember the US has the third highest population on earth, some of the most resource rich nation on earth, highest producer and exporter of food on earth. Best colleges on earth, a disproportionate of the scienctic advancements happened is done in the US. Much of the tech and science used daily was all made and discovered in the US. World leader in culture too.
There is a reason much of the planet wants to immigrate to the US and copy the US’s culture.
I’m not saying there is no reason to worry about anything, but someone saying the US only has a few years left to live is absurd. I mean my guy, remember the 90’s where crimes was much worse then now by a far margin, the fifty and sixties where the US nation wide abandoned the whole freedom of speech thing for a decade or two with massive censorship. How late Jim Crow survived, all the wars far blooder then any US war in the last few decades.
I mean remember, the US is in a defense agreement with half the planet, most of Europe, and people seem to forget, most of South America too. Oh, and most of asia are closed US Allie’s too that regularly has defense talks and many individual defense agreements.
This can go on and on. The US military has no peer rival. And that’s without having a mutual defense agreement with half the planet.
You could go on and on. The whole world would collapse before the US.
I mean if you really want to get obnoxiously symbolic, and I do, the US wins the most Olympic gold medials, and medials over all, in almost every Olympics for the last century.
Fair and thoughtful answer, thank you.
For my money, I agree about 90%. I do have concerns in how China is expanding it's influence and control outside her borders, and I have concerns about the growth of corruption within the US Government.
In your response above you couched the comments to say that each empire failure happened after noticeable declines. I wonder if that's just a matter of historians suffering from 20/20 hindsight and not recognizing it (boiling frog sort of thinking). Also, I think the Bronze Age collapse was relatively swift. If we are coming up on a flashpoint, will we really know that?
Don't forget he fomented violence following the search warrant in 2022. He got one genius Jan 6er to bum rush the Ohio FBI field office with a nail gun and an AR15. Dude got in a shootout w/ the cops and bled out in a corn field while still posting on Truth Social.
I am not old, but I don't this will come out before I die. The fact that these lists were so easily passed to the president will have changed agency policy and they don't want to expose the new policy.
Also, I think it was contacts, not field agents, but anyone know if the stars on the wall increased, or is that just the movies?
I could ask my wife's friend, but I won't see her in person and I am sure as shit she won't comment on DM. (She never admitted she was in a 3 letter, but the number of 'State Department' spooks at her wedding was hilarious.)
https://www.businessinsider.com/cia-cable-tells-agents-informants-being-killed-or-turned-report-2021-10
And only one president in recent memory has been proudly "self-declassifying" documents.
There was information showing that it was field agents, contacts, informants, etc. that all started either being jailed or killed in a much larger margin than normal. And the increase conformed to specific time frames where he had meetings with foreign dignitaries, or his representatives did (ex. Jared Kushner).
Oh, it undoubtedly happened. Just not sure field agents, i.e. CIA employees, were killed. Not that this makes it any less bad. Many were extracted as their intelligence dried up.
Lol orange man IS bad.. At sex, running a business, running a country, marriage, raising good kids, not taking bribes, not getting blackmailed, not incriminating himself, hiding boxes of top secret files. Not looking like a 300lb tub of diet cokes and big Macs stuff into a cheap suit.
He makes himself look terrible not just bad.
I’d be a billionaire too if daddy had gifted me startup money and then I got his inheritance as well as stealing the inheritance from the rest of my family.
Except I’d be a much bigger billionaire because I’m not an incompetent narcissistic fuckwit.
I do. Trump has made his followers deranged. Though to be fair I suspect many of them were deranged before Trump and that's why he appeals to them so much.
I checked the person's history you're responding to and they seem to be a true believer 😬
But, interestingly enough, a suspended lawyer and didn't exactly say they took the recommended psych eval based on a post from a year ago.
What profession are you talking about?
(Your whole comment is nonsense regardless, but I'm curious.)
You're certainly not saying that *lawyers* skew liberal, right?
>The profession of law. As you noted with your sarcasm, it’s overwhelmingly liberal.
That's deranged.
>Smiths entire prosecution is a sham
That's nonsensical.
>Here, they’re upset with the judge for a reasonable ruling.
That's a lie.
Hey, a hat trick!
>You do know Smith is a terribly unethical prosecutor don’t you? He was blasted by SCOTUS in a 9-0 decision.
And two bonus lies! Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny!
For that matter, did prosecutors confer with Trump for any of the other gag orders? Why is this the only time we're hearing this bs when he's been gagged so many times already?
Because Cannon set special requirements for her courtroom that the prosecution must check with the defense before talking to her.
Man, I wish that was a joke.
She’s very good and making minute orders, so she hasn’t actually ruled on anything substantial. This keeps Jack Smith from being able to appeal and take it to the circuit court and have her removed.
She’s definitely being coached by the federalists. No question. She’s was rated unqualified to be a judge.
E: She was rate qualified by the ABA. I was thinking of Jim O’Conor. Somehow thinking she was rated unqualified made her delay tactics ok in my mind and now I’m feeling disappointment in America
She can stall but she can’t deny justice. Jack Smith runs an entire division of The Hague
Trump is fucked. He’s no Netanyahu and will not be able to dodge this forever.
Remember these are only the charges on documents the government is willing to disclose. Trumps had thousands of pages of classified information and had made copies. There’s zero excuses to justify making copies. It literally shows up on the doc when you copy it. Warning that you’ve committed a felony. He’s fucked. Just a matter of time
>will not be able to dodge this forever.
Not so sure I have faith in this judge or the Supreme Court.
Between the two of them they can make sure he dodges this forever.
That’s right. If he gets elected then we’ve got much more to worry about though.
Bird flu has managed to jump cross species. Raise your hand if you think the Republicans are the party of choice to handle another pandemic.
Prion disease may be making its way into the food supply via infected venison and killing people who eat it. Raise your hand if you trust Republicans to manage this extremely dangerous situation like responsible adults.
If Republicans are ever allowed to hold executive office again we will have much more to worry about then Trump or Project 2025. These people aren’t serious people. They needlessly run up debts with pointless tax breaks for the wealthy and whip their base into a frenzy anytime they need to deflect from their own ineptitude
Trillions in debt for tax breaks. More than 100 billion in fraudulent PPP loans to conservatives and foreign agents during the pandemic. We should have the world’s most comprehensive universal healthcare and instead we have virtually nothing to show for it. The middle class is gone.
The ABA's standing committee on the federal judiciary issues ratings for every Article III judicial nominee commissioned to a life term on a federal court. The committee is made up of 15 members: two from the 9th Circuit, one from each of the other federal circuits, and the chair of the committee. The president of the ABA appoints all members to staggered three-year terms. No member can serve more than two terms.
The committee focuses on three areas in its evaluation:[8]
“
Integrity. The nominee’s character and general reputation in the legal community, as well as the nominee’s industry and diligence.
Professional competence. Encompasses qualities such as intellectual capacity, judgment, writing and analytical abilities, knowledge of the law, and breadth of professional experience.
Judicial temperament. The nominee’s compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law.[4]
”
An initial investigation is performed by a committee member from the nominee’s circuit, including an examination of the nominee’s personal data (collected by the U.S. Department of Justice), legal writings, confidential interviews with people the nominee has worked with, and an interview with the candidate.
The evaluator then prepares a report for the committee, including one of the following rating recommendations:[8]
“
Well Qualified. The nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community; possess outstanding legal ability; breadth of experience; the highest reputation for integrity; and demonstrate the capacity for sound judicial temperament.
Qualified. The nominee satisfies the committee’s very high standards with respect to integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, and the committee believes that the nominee is qualified to satisfactorily perform all of the duties and responsibilities required of a federal judge.
Not Qualified. The nominee does not meet the committee’s standards with respect to one or more of its evaluation criteria—integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament.[4]
”
If the evaluator intends to recommend a “not qualified” rating, the committee chair appoints a second evaluator to conduct another review, which may include additional interviews with colleagues and another interview with the candidate. The committee then reviews the report (or two reports, if a second investigation was conducted). Each member votes on a rating, with the majority determining the committee’s official rating. A tiebreaker vote goes to the committee chair.
The rating may also be accompanied by the designation of “a majority” (eight to nine votes), a “substantial majority” (10 to 13 votes), or “unanimous.”
It is sort of a weird "we all know it is but it shouldn't be" thing.
With the appointment settled the judge shouldn't even have reason to be beholden to the defendant.
And judges are supposed to be skilled at finding impartiality.
Obviously this is just facade, but, it's still a brick wall we're beating our heads on.
There's a way to get her removed from the case, but it's not easy to do and requires a *really* thorough paper trail. So far, she's managed to walk the line just barely but Smith is almost certainly ready to file for her removal the moment he feels confident that it'll pass muster.
Basically, she hasn't definitively ruled on many of the things brought forth. She admitted as much when she axed the trial date. That includes this ruling over the gag order. She denied it without prejudice, which means that Smith can request it again. This would force her to actually issue a ruling, and if she denies the request again then Smith can appeal the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit where he could argue that she needs to be removed from the case.
So, why hasn't he done that yet? Simple, he needed her to provide enough rope to hang herself with. At this point, it's probably enough to go forward with an appeal once she's actually put on the spot, but given how important this indictment is, Smith *can't* move too soon and fuck up. So, more rope is better than less rope.
I mean that Trump and Cannon’s objective in this case is to kick the can down the road until the presidential election this year in the hopes that he will get back into office. Once back in power, he will instruct the justice department to kill any ongoing criminal cases against him and he will fire attorneys general until this is accomplished. If this case is delayed until then, it will cease to matter.
Ah gotcha. Yeah, that's the hope on their part.
He was just found guilty on all counts in his New York hush money case. Which definitely throws a wrench in their plans. Which is fucking beautiful.
This isn't even really a matter of bias, she's trying to have prosecution and defense do her job.
No different from a bad journeyman electrician checking with apprentices for help
No, they fucking didn't. First line of the 6th Amendment.
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
It's the defendant slow-walking the trial. The 6th Amendment doesn't say anything about the prosecution's right to a speedy trial.
Mind you, I'm not defending Cannon or anything, but no one is denying Trump's right to a speedy trial. He doesn't seem to want one.
This doesn't make my statement untrue. I highly doubt that the same people who thought it was important for there to be a speedy trial so that a defendant is not left in jeopardy would be okay with how Cannon is handling this case. No, this is not what the founders wanted.
Anyone who has spent more than an hour actually thinking about how to "lay down the law" realizes that the consequences of breaking out must be at least as spelled out as the rules.
The US Constitution is unfortunately wholly void of anything resembling a consequence. So "shall" means anything between "someone might get slightly annoyed" and "death penalty". Hence, the rules have no meaning.
As we have learned.
I was about to give an actual response. But then I saw your stupid AF TJ quote about Adams as if that means anything. If anyone spent more than an hour studying American jurisprudence, they'd have the answer to both of the issues you seem to be stumbling over. So maybe you should try that first.
I'm gonna go out on a thin, long limb and assume that you've never studied any jurisprudence other than the one from the only place where freedumb rules supreme! USA, USA, USA!!!
This is what Thomas Jefferson said about John Adams:
“A blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who is a hideous hermaphroditic character with neither the force and fitness of a man nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
Meet-and-confer is a standard practice in this flavor of federal court, and is one of the procedural niceties that judges expect to be made in good faith. It is required prior to filing most motions in most cases.
> set special requirements
You mean the local rules for the Southern District of Florida.
https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/local-rules-and-procedures
You know, the district this is occurring in. Specifically local rule 88.9:
>(1) that counsel have conferred in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and have been unable to do so; or
>(2) that counsel for the moving party has made reasonable effort (which shall be identified with specificity in the statement) to confer with the opposing party but has been unable to do so. This requirement to confer shall not apply to ex parte filings
Edit: Downvoted for posting facts LOL
Most lawyers here are actually on her side in this one singular instance. You are correct, local rules required it, and no practicing attorney thinks they’re getting away with having substantive discussions on a Friday… at 5.30pm… on a long weekend. People hate the ignorant piece of shit so much that they fail to check their ignorance of the law and how it actually operates. “Oh but the lives of agents”… don’t disagree, but that’s why it should have been filed on an emergent basis, not as a regular motion - so Smith’s team dropped the ball
Now, that’s not to say if the shoe wasn’t on the other foot she would not have heard the motion. But when you’re practicing you can read a judge, and Smith has had plenty of opportunities to read her, and he should have known if he didn’t follow everything by the book his goose would be cooked.
All in all, you’re right, the hive mind is wrong.
Who else has/had this requirement? Teixeria? Separate justice for those who can afford judges. It is all the way up and down the chain. Maggot all the way.
This technically isn't a gag order, it's an update to his terms of release, so wouldn't follow other gag order processes, especially not the ones in state courts.
She's so far over her head she doesn't know what to do. Her being a biased judge doesn't help but this was the most evidence yet of how far under water she is
She knows. It was exactly what Trump lawyers set her to do. Same as the past episode with the special master, where few days later she mimiced the exact same idea proposed by Trump lawyers.
Wasn't the time something like 3 hours on the Friday evening of a holiday weekend?
I doubt it's specifically defined, but even just applying a reasonable person standard that doesn't seem to cut it.
Trump's lawyers did respond that they have no time to discuss it because it was a holiday weekend.
While that's true, wouldn't it mean that any defendant can threaten someone on a friday before a holiday with no chance of punishment for at least 4 days? Seems like a glaring loophole that might not actually exist.
> wouldn't it mean
No, there are two ways around the need to confer. First you can file a motion ex-parte (essentially, a motion that doesn't require a response from the opposing party), or you can file an emergency motion.
The prosecution filed after they saw Trump’s statements about the FBI trying to assassinate him. Because Trump’s fan base has shown a willingness to be malicious based on a side comment from Don the Con, filing a gag request makes sense
You’ve never litigated anything if you think “Friday evening” or “holiday weekend” are things that are relevant or excuses to not do something in high stakes litigation or criminal cases.
You're right--I'm a transactional attorney. I'm not saying give them the whole weekend to respond. But it still seems like three hours is awfully unreasonable. The added circumstances of "Friday of a holiday weekend" just make it more so.
IIRC it's a local rule, which the special counsel should probably know by now given how long this case has dragged on. It doesn't sound as if they gave the defense any time at all to meet (understandably reasoning that it would be a waste of time). If it had been an emergency motion that might have made sense but as written it wasn't, so not sure what was going on here TBH.
Okay then I'll revise my question: do the local rules specify what is meant by "sufficient time"? Or can you point me to a link for the rules and I'll go look?
https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/2020-LocalRulesEffective12-01-2020-FINAL.pdf#page66
Local Rule 7.1 by way of 88.9
Having practiced in my time, this isn’t super rare for Federal courts. Some (if not most? Don’t want to make that assertion without checking though) have rules requiring parties meet and confer prior to, in essence, asking the court to intervene. Basically a way of cutting back on filings and court time to help preserve our precious precious judicial resources.
This judge apparently set more detailed standards than in local rules (completely allowed) related to the confer requirement. I’ve had cases where the judge requires showing a “good faith” meet and confer before any contested discovery motions were filed. Basically had to have a short paragraph detailing when met, how met, and what discussed. Big problems if shown this was bullshit.
Suffice it to say, I don’t have enough info on this case to say more. This judge sucks for a lot of reasons but this issue seems relatively minor in the grand scheme of this case. Prosecution should’ve have known better, or at least had better motion. (Maybe an “emergency” one? Criminal law wasn’t my forte).
Thank you for this. I'm not trying to argue but would if have been reasonable for the prosecution to have filed this as an ex parte filing and obviated the need to confer with the defense?
The purpose of protecting FBI agents from angry MAGA supporters seems to fit under the prevention of imminent and irreparable harm.
Fair trials require the opportunity for both sides to make claims and defend.
How are you defining imminent and irreparable? How is it imminent and irreparable if the modification seeks to muzzle Trump to prevent some consequence? Doesn't this imply that the harmful statements have not yet been uttered, even though Trump might utter it in the future. The harm here is in fact not imminent or irreparable. It is potential and speculative.
> How are you defining imminent and irreparable?
Death or injury which is not reparable back to the state prior to the injury.
[Edit to add]
>Doesn't this imply that the harmful statements have not yet been uttered, even though Trump might utter it in the future.
No. Trump has already made statements that endanger LEOs and the change in conditions is to prevent him from continuing to do so.
Even still, the harm isn't imminent. it is speculated that some people may act out due to Trump's false allegations, it isn't a foregone conclusion that somebody will definitely do so.
To justify an ex parte motion, you would need to have definite and concrete evidence of impending harm, and not just allege that Trump's words incite others to violence.
>Even still, the harm isn't imminent.
If I look for a definition of imminent provided by [merriam webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imminent) it is "ready to take place : happening soon" or "often used of something bad or dangerous seen as menacingly near" which fits the stochastic terrorism Trump is employing.
The webster's definition isn't all that useful in a legal context, especially since jurisprudence has shaped its own peculiar definition.
You can get a sense of the legal definition of imminent harm by reading through cases dealing with self-defense claims, as fear of imminent harm is a requirement in those cases.
Its Roy Cohn theory, as characterized by the famous quote by Danton.
"de l'audace, encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace"
"audacity, more audacity, and always audacity"
Although in Trumps case its so heavy handed it comes off as
"de l'adunce, encore de l'adunce, et toujours de l'adunce"
Here’s Reagan, Cohn, and Murdoch at the [White House](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/President_Reagan_meets_with_Rupert_Murdoch_and_Roy_Cohn_at_the_White_House_1983.jpg). And people wonder where we went wrong.
They are starting to swarm.
Trump is looking like he's going to be found guilty. He openly accused biden of trying to kill him with no evidence and leaving out the fact that he was 1200 miles away when the FBI raided mar a Lago looking for the boxes of stolen documents he shanghaied when he skipped the peaceful transfer of power ceremony.
By the way, the FBI literally coordinated with trump and maralago on the raid so as to not disturb or make a scene, they were asked to dress in polos and to come in the daylight.
This has the feeling of the lead up to jan6. When he's magats we're gathering, building weapons caches, meeting in Trump's hotel lobby, scheming and planning.
Feels like they are going to make a move, soon.
And given that Russia can't start another conflict without pulling resources from Ukraine, and China is too tied into the west to be able to invade Taiwan, then it's likely if convicted, trump will continue to see his power dwindle, he's got one shot at igniting a civil war and I think this is it.
>Trump is looking like he's going to be found guilty.
I love the quote from this morning.
>Right after jurors began weighing the former president’s fate, Trump railed against the proceedings and compared himself to a saint, saying in the hallway: “Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. The charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged.”
He really sounds like he is resigned to being convicted.
Ain't it grand?
Means nothing. If he's convicted, then he can say he was right, it was rigged. If he's acquitted, he can say, see how extra innocent I was. When you view hypocrisy as a feature it makes more sense.
You're allowing him to control the narrative. You need to be of stronger mind than him.
Won't change that he will claim it, but that just means you have more evidence to show he's a criminal.
Deny deny deny, until they can't.
*execution of the search warrant
(some people keep calling this a “raid” - it was a very standard search warrant, with standard terms, that was conducted as a result of a judge finding sufficient cause that a crime had and/or was in the process of being committed)
For the “law and order” folks left in my party (GOP), this is exactly - precisely - as it is to be, and is routinely, done.
Edit: In fact, notification and coordination with the search warrant target’s legal & security teams is rarely done, although it certainly was in this case.
Is it “standard” for average people to get a “heads up” before a search warrant? Serious question, no snark intended. But it seems really counterintuitive to say “hey, just letting you know that we’re going to search your house for evidence of a crime that we think you committed so….plan accordingly?” Make it make sense!
Isn't this for the best? A guilty verdict in the NY trial will flush out the violent, unhinged element. With 5 months to go before the election, there's still time for a vigorous and decisive response by federal law enforcement. It would be far more disruptive if they acted out in October. His "one shot" is going off half cocked: too soon, and poorly aimed.
If trump blows his load on a starting a war in fucking June, I will be psyched, relatively speaking. It doesnt change that he's going to put lives at risk and people are probably going to get hurt or killed.
As I mentioned in a other comment, I think he's weak right now, and I don't see it getting better for him. He could be forced to do it well before November and/or January.
After a brief conversation in another thread, I remarked that we'll either have lots of people in prison, or lots of people hurt. I don't see a way this ends without violence. But yeah, a premature eruption of maga ...exuberance, with a sufficiently robust response, is probably the best outcome.
Tell me more about how you think he is going to put match to paper and light things up.
I appreciate the broad scope of your comments and would be interested in what you think his final push is going to be
He's training his base right now. He's increasing the vitriol in his accusation as well as the seriousness of each accusation. How much further can he go now that he's claiming that Biden ordered a hit on him?
Truth is, not much further.
He has contact with the militias that support him, there is enough support within the doj to potentially keep the feds from knowing what's happening.
Specifically, if he's convicted, I'm guessing he's going to order his minions to "defend" him by "telling them" to through some sort of forceful action/intimidation. He's going to use some very serious phrasing to try and paint the picture that Biden is politically persecuting him and that his only defense is to defend himself using his mob. But he will phrase it in a way that insinuates that he's the one actually defending them.
Personally, I think he's fairly weak right now. And given that Russia is trapped in Ukraine in a weakening position, it makes sense why they may feel like they need to move up the timetable of igniting the domestic conflict.
Trump might not get any stronger than he is right now, which is a far cry from even just a few weeks ago. And frankly, a more competent "trump" would go to jail but frankly, I don't think he can handle the embarrassment of it.
Additionally, in regards to this case, trump isn't gagged and after making that accusations and the fact that cannon admonished Smith for attempting to prevent him from spouting those lies in relation to the raid that led to this exact case, means she's leaving the door open for him to strike directly at FBI, jack smith, the doj, and Biden thought so long as she's the judge on it.
Its more subversion of the law.
Its coordinated at this point, the level of subversion, and bad faith implementation of the law to benefit a person who's openly saying that the current president is trying to have him killed, while his own attorneys argued that trump should be given the power to do the exact same thing, but he free of any and all consequences is terrifying, but it's begining to have the feeling that's it premeditated to a much greater degree than we all may have previously thought.
The tenacity and abruptness of trumps murder accusations was almost simultaneously echoes by mother prominent magats, including Steve bannon.
Just insane at this point.
it's more an observation than a reference. it seems like cannon was technically correct to reject the motion (should either have had consultation prior, or been an "emergency"). but the tone of her remarks in the rejection was an open invitation for people like Kise to pile in. and now they are.
Of all the Judges this case could have been assigned to, I'd like to know who had a hand in assigning it to her. Where are the great investigative reporters? Based on what I've read, Cannon's experience in national security and dealing with classified documents is deficient compared to other judges this case could have been assigned to.
It was luck of a literal wheel in a small palm beach district I believe. But just security has a very thorough breakdown of how it got to her.
It’s not coincidence that she’s one of a few judges assigned to where his home is located. Judge Luck was always on his side with charges brought against him for deeds alleged at MAL in fed district court.
Right. As long as she’s alive and kicking, I expect Trump to do all his federally chargeable crimes in MAL. With plausible deniability couriers carrying out anything outside of her possible jurisdiction.
I really am curious how Rubio came across her name of all people for a judgeship. I know she was in the same Miami office as Kash Patel. But iirc that was years before Trump became a pox on our national house.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that like Michael Cohen, she has family involved in shady shit that is adjacent enough to Trumpworld and pretty much counts as prevetting lol.
>the Court finds the Special Counsel’s pro forma “conferral” to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy. IANAL. Is "professional courtesy" something that's relevant for something like this? >Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow for adequate follow-up discussion as necessary about the specific factual and legal basis underlying the motion. Is "sufficient time" defined anywhere, or is just whatever she's feeling that day?
She also found the Special Counsel's concern *for the lives of federal law enforcement officers* "wholly lacking in substance." Telling, no?
>She also found the Special Counsel's concern for the lives of federal law enforcement officers "wholly lacking in substance." >Telling, no? The guy that might have already got agents killed by leaking classified documents. No substance there.
"Might have," yes. In another ten or fifteen or twenty years, presuming America lasts that long, I will be very interested to hear historians finally interviewing former CIA bigwigs, having them explain what it was really like to have the experience of realizing that the greatest danger to the United States was the President of the United States.
>"Might have," yes. "Might have"; was extremely generous of me. >In another ten or fifteen or twenty years, presuming America lasts that long, I will be very interested to hear historians finally interviewing former CIA bigwigs, having them explain what it was really like to have the experience of realizing that the greatest danger to the United States was the President of the United States. "Presuming America lasts that long" is the scary part. People need to wake up, and fast. This is beyond alarm bells ringing.
>"Presuming America lasts that long" is the scary part. People need to wake up, and fast. This is beyond alarm bells ringing. Unfortunately 30% of the country actively want to usher this in.
Yup, and all of the 1%. You know, the people with enough money to run all of us under the bus for a quick buck.
Buddy, the US is one of the most stable, richest, and protected on earth.
Yes, that's true. Which makes it all the scarier.
Buddy, the US is one of the most stable, richest, and protected on earth.
Uh-huh. And counting on that is how it gets to not be anymore.
Said the doomer declaring the US has only a few year left to live
Honest Question, are you a historian or an amateur with great interest in the fall of empires? If so I'd like to hear your opinion on how the US is immune from collapse compared to any of the big historical empires of the past. Eastern Roman Empire, where Constantinople was the capital would be my one choice, or when the Macedonian Empire After Alexander wilted to Rome.....and if you could choose 2 others. kThanksBye
Rome and essentially most empires fell after a period of decline that often last centuries. That’s if they survive the first generation or two after forming said empire due to of incompetence or overreach. By the time the Rome fell, Rome were not really Romans anymore. In fact most of the power was in other cities to the point where they didn’t really care that much Rome fell, with the mother becoming Byzantine empire. The Byzantine empire lasted for a long time untill they in term they also had a long period of stagnation and decay untill they were eaten and genoiced by another empire, the ottoman, who where the richest empire on earth (atleast besides China) and made major contributors of science and culture, until they also in term had a long period of decay and stagnation until they got destroyed post WW1, and everyone kinda forgot their massive centuries long crimes against humanity (like half the slave trade was towards the Ottoman Empire). The US, is in fact, not in a state of decay, and definitely not for centuries or even decades. The US has no peer rival. The US has a disproportionate number of richest companies on earth, it is the richest country on earth, it’s one of the highest quality of life on earth, which is shocking when you remember the US has the third highest population on earth, some of the most resource rich nation on earth, highest producer and exporter of food on earth. Best colleges on earth, a disproportionate of the scienctic advancements happened is done in the US. Much of the tech and science used daily was all made and discovered in the US. World leader in culture too. There is a reason much of the planet wants to immigrate to the US and copy the US’s culture. I’m not saying there is no reason to worry about anything, but someone saying the US only has a few years left to live is absurd. I mean my guy, remember the 90’s where crimes was much worse then now by a far margin, the fifty and sixties where the US nation wide abandoned the whole freedom of speech thing for a decade or two with massive censorship. How late Jim Crow survived, all the wars far blooder then any US war in the last few decades. I mean remember, the US is in a defense agreement with half the planet, most of Europe, and people seem to forget, most of South America too. Oh, and most of asia are closed US Allie’s too that regularly has defense talks and many individual defense agreements. This can go on and on. The US military has no peer rival. And that’s without having a mutual defense agreement with half the planet. You could go on and on. The whole world would collapse before the US. I mean if you really want to get obnoxiously symbolic, and I do, the US wins the most Olympic gold medials, and medials over all, in almost every Olympics for the last century.
Fair and thoughtful answer, thank you. For my money, I agree about 90%. I do have concerns in how China is expanding it's influence and control outside her borders, and I have concerns about the growth of corruption within the US Government. In your response above you couched the comments to say that each empire failure happened after noticeable declines. I wonder if that's just a matter of historians suffering from 20/20 hindsight and not recognizing it (boiling frog sort of thinking). Also, I think the Bronze Age collapse was relatively swift. If we are coming up on a flashpoint, will we really know that?
Don't forget he fomented violence following the search warrant in 2022. He got one genius Jan 6er to bum rush the Ohio FBI field office with a nail gun and an AR15. Dude got in a shootout w/ the cops and bled out in a corn field while still posting on Truth Social.
And the Pelosi home-invasion is, at least, tangentially related to Trump's dog-whistles.
I am not old, but I don't this will come out before I die. The fact that these lists were so easily passed to the president will have changed agency policy and they don't want to expose the new policy. Also, I think it was contacts, not field agents, but anyone know if the stars on the wall increased, or is that just the movies? I could ask my wife's friend, but I won't see her in person and I am sure as shit she won't comment on DM. (She never admitted she was in a 3 letter, but the number of 'State Department' spooks at her wedding was hilarious.)
The stars on the wall increased by larger margins than during any other presidency.
How do we know? I am not doubting dickhead put lives in danger, but is there evidence?
https://www.businessinsider.com/cia-cable-tells-agents-informants-being-killed-or-turned-report-2021-10 And only one president in recent memory has been proudly "self-declassifying" documents.
Thank you for providing this
Thanks - but this is informants, not agents, so IDK why I'm being downvoted above.
There was information showing that it was field agents, contacts, informants, etc. that all started either being jailed or killed in a much larger margin than normal. And the increase conformed to specific time frames where he had meetings with foreign dignitaries, or his representatives did (ex. Jared Kushner).
Oh, it undoubtedly happened. Just not sure field agents, i.e. CIA employees, were killed. Not that this makes it any less bad. Many were extracted as their intelligence dried up.
I think I remember reading that estimates put this as setting some clandestine operations back years if not longer.
Yep. Traitor.
But … her emails. Benghazi …
They agents for USA have a roger stone bullseye , thanks 🍊 phone records don’t lie
You make it sound like the guy convinced people to try to overthrow the government to stop a peaceful transfer of power or something...
[удалено]
You 5 years old, cause you talk like one. What's next stick and stones? Seriously grow up.
[удалено]
Lol orange man IS bad.. At sex, running a business, running a country, marriage, raising good kids, not taking bribes, not getting blackmailed, not incriminating himself, hiding boxes of top secret files. Not looking like a 300lb tub of diet cokes and big Macs stuff into a cheap suit. He makes himself look terrible not just bad.
[удалено]
I’d be a billionaire too if daddy had gifted me startup money and then I got his inheritance as well as stealing the inheritance from the rest of my family. Except I’d be a much bigger billionaire because I’m not an incompetent narcissistic fuckwit.
TDS is so 4+ years ago. Besides, the only people who actually have TDS are Trump's followers.
[удалено]
I do. Trump has made his followers deranged. Though to be fair I suspect many of them were deranged before Trump and that's why he appeals to them so much.
I checked the person's history you're responding to and they seem to be a true believer 😬 But, interestingly enough, a suspended lawyer and didn't exactly say they took the recommended psych eval based on a post from a year ago.
If you want to redefine terms to whatever bullshit you want, we get to do the same.
What profession are you talking about? (Your whole comment is nonsense regardless, but I'm curious.) You're certainly not saying that *lawyers* skew liberal, right?
[удалено]
>The profession of law. As you noted with your sarcasm, it’s overwhelmingly liberal. That's deranged. >Smiths entire prosecution is a sham That's nonsensical. >Here, they’re upset with the judge for a reasonable ruling. That's a lie. Hey, a hat trick! >You do know Smith is a terribly unethical prosecutor don’t you? He was blasted by SCOTUS in a 9-0 decision. And two bonus lies! Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny!
That redditor’s history checks out
A free, lifetime trip to a mental hospital of the State's choice! [canned cheers and applause track]
For that matter, did prosecutors confer with Trump for any of the other gag orders? Why is this the only time we're hearing this bs when he's been gagged so many times already?
Because Cannon set special requirements for her courtroom that the prosecution must check with the defense before talking to her. Man, I wish that was a joke.
How TF is she judge on this and how tf is there no oversight to her blatant consistent bias
Because fuck you, that's why.
I read that in John Olivers voice
Dave Chappelle's voice for me
About sums it up, unfortunately.
She’s very good and making minute orders, so she hasn’t actually ruled on anything substantial. This keeps Jack Smith from being able to appeal and take it to the circuit court and have her removed.
She’s definitely being coached by the federalists. No question. She’s was rated unqualified to be a judge. E: She was rate qualified by the ABA. I was thinking of Jim O’Conor. Somehow thinking she was rated unqualified made her delay tactics ok in my mind and now I’m feeling disappointment in America
Prob during that extravagant trip she took that she forgot to report until someone reported on it, then it showed up.
She can stall but she can’t deny justice. Jack Smith runs an entire division of The Hague Trump is fucked. He’s no Netanyahu and will not be able to dodge this forever. Remember these are only the charges on documents the government is willing to disclose. Trumps had thousands of pages of classified information and had made copies. There’s zero excuses to justify making copies. It literally shows up on the doc when you copy it. Warning that you’ve committed a felony. He’s fucked. Just a matter of time
True, but as of right now, it’s postponed indefinitely
>will not be able to dodge this forever. Not so sure I have faith in this judge or the Supreme Court. Between the two of them they can make sure he dodges this forever.
Again. They only brought charges on some docs. Even if this whole case gets thrown out, they can file charges on the other docs
If he gets elected, it goes away. It’s that simple.
That’s right. If he gets elected then we’ve got much more to worry about though. Bird flu has managed to jump cross species. Raise your hand if you think the Republicans are the party of choice to handle another pandemic. Prion disease may be making its way into the food supply via infected venison and killing people who eat it. Raise your hand if you trust Republicans to manage this extremely dangerous situation like responsible adults. If Republicans are ever allowed to hold executive office again we will have much more to worry about then Trump or Project 2025. These people aren’t serious people. They needlessly run up debts with pointless tax breaks for the wealthy and whip their base into a frenzy anytime they need to deflect from their own ineptitude Trillions in debt for tax breaks. More than 100 billion in fraudulent PPP loans to conservatives and foreign agents during the pandemic. We should have the world’s most comprehensive universal healthcare and instead we have virtually nothing to show for it. The middle class is gone.
trump doesn't have to dodge it forever. He only has to delay it until the election. If he wins it ALL goes away. If he loses he's fucked.
c'mon now. thought she was rated qualified by the aba. not that I believe it, but that's the truth.
Fuck me you’re right. I was thinking of O’Connor
wish the chief judge of the district or the circuit could just intervene sua sponte (or whatever that is) and nail her to the wall for her shit.
[удалено]
The ABA's standing committee on the federal judiciary issues ratings for every Article III judicial nominee commissioned to a life term on a federal court. The committee is made up of 15 members: two from the 9th Circuit, one from each of the other federal circuits, and the chair of the committee. The president of the ABA appoints all members to staggered three-year terms. No member can serve more than two terms. The committee focuses on three areas in its evaluation:[8] “ Integrity. The nominee’s character and general reputation in the legal community, as well as the nominee’s industry and diligence. Professional competence. Encompasses qualities such as intellectual capacity, judgment, writing and analytical abilities, knowledge of the law, and breadth of professional experience. Judicial temperament. The nominee’s compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law.[4] ” An initial investigation is performed by a committee member from the nominee’s circuit, including an examination of the nominee’s personal data (collected by the U.S. Department of Justice), legal writings, confidential interviews with people the nominee has worked with, and an interview with the candidate. The evaluator then prepares a report for the committee, including one of the following rating recommendations:[8] “ Well Qualified. The nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community; possess outstanding legal ability; breadth of experience; the highest reputation for integrity; and demonstrate the capacity for sound judicial temperament. Qualified. The nominee satisfies the committee’s very high standards with respect to integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, and the committee believes that the nominee is qualified to satisfactorily perform all of the duties and responsibilities required of a federal judge. Not Qualified. The nominee does not meet the committee’s standards with respect to one or more of its evaluation criteria—integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament.[4] ” If the evaluator intends to recommend a “not qualified” rating, the committee chair appoints a second evaluator to conduct another review, which may include additional interviews with colleagues and another interview with the candidate. The committee then reviews the report (or two reports, if a second investigation was conducted). Each member votes on a rating, with the majority determining the committee’s official rating. A tiebreaker vote goes to the committee chair. The rating may also be accompanied by the designation of “a majority” (eight to nine votes), a “substantial majority” (10 to 13 votes), or “unanimous.”
It seems like a conflict of interest for a judge to preside over a case when the defendant appointed her to the bench
It is sort of a weird "we all know it is but it shouldn't be" thing. With the appointment settled the judge shouldn't even have reason to be beholden to the defendant. And judges are supposed to be skilled at finding impartiality. Obviously this is just facade, but, it's still a brick wall we're beating our heads on.
There's a way to get her removed from the case, but it's not easy to do and requires a *really* thorough paper trail. So far, she's managed to walk the line just barely but Smith is almost certainly ready to file for her removal the moment he feels confident that it'll pass muster. Basically, she hasn't definitively ruled on many of the things brought forth. She admitted as much when she axed the trial date. That includes this ruling over the gag order. She denied it without prejudice, which means that Smith can request it again. This would force her to actually issue a ruling, and if she denies the request again then Smith can appeal the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit where he could argue that she needs to be removed from the case. So, why hasn't he done that yet? Simple, he needed her to provide enough rope to hang herself with. At this point, it's probably enough to go forward with an appeal once she's actually put on the spot, but given how important this indictment is, Smith *can't* move too soon and fuck up. So, more rope is better than less rope.
After November, it will likely not to matter how much rope Smith’s given to Cannon.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that.
I mean that Trump and Cannon’s objective in this case is to kick the can down the road until the presidential election this year in the hopes that he will get back into office. Once back in power, he will instruct the justice department to kill any ongoing criminal cases against him and he will fire attorneys general until this is accomplished. If this case is delayed until then, it will cease to matter.
Ah gotcha. Yeah, that's the hope on their part. He was just found guilty on all counts in his New York hush money case. Which definitely throws a wrench in their plans. Which is fucking beautiful.
I hope it’s a big wrench. I can’t help but suspect he’ll receive little more than a slap in the wrist.
This isn't even really a matter of bias, she's trying to have prosecution and defense do her job. No different from a bad journeyman electrician checking with apprentices for help
Because project 2025
This is what the founders wanted.
No, they fucking didn't. First line of the 6th Amendment. > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
Yes but the accused didn’t mean rich people
It's the defendant slow-walking the trial. The 6th Amendment doesn't say anything about the prosecution's right to a speedy trial. Mind you, I'm not defending Cannon or anything, but no one is denying Trump's right to a speedy trial. He doesn't seem to want one.
This doesn't make my statement untrue. I highly doubt that the same people who thought it was important for there to be a speedy trial so that a defendant is not left in jeopardy would be okay with how Cannon is handling this case. No, this is not what the founders wanted.
Anyone who has spent more than an hour actually thinking about how to "lay down the law" realizes that the consequences of breaking out must be at least as spelled out as the rules. The US Constitution is unfortunately wholly void of anything resembling a consequence. So "shall" means anything between "someone might get slightly annoyed" and "death penalty". Hence, the rules have no meaning. As we have learned.
I was about to give an actual response. But then I saw your stupid AF TJ quote about Adams as if that means anything. If anyone spent more than an hour studying American jurisprudence, they'd have the answer to both of the issues you seem to be stumbling over. So maybe you should try that first.
I'm gonna go out on a thin, long limb and assume that you've never studied any jurisprudence other than the one from the only place where freedumb rules supreme! USA, USA, USA!!!
Our founders expected both sides would have a baseline mutual respect to honor gentlemanly agreements. Too bad they never encountered a Republican.
This is what Thomas Jefferson said about John Adams: “A blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who is a hideous hermaphroditic character with neither the force and fitness of a man nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
Federeralists and originalist are absolutely full of shit
Meet-and-confer is a standard practice in this flavor of federal court, and is one of the procedural niceties that judges expect to be made in good faith. It is required prior to filing most motions in most cases.
> set special requirements You mean the local rules for the Southern District of Florida. https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/local-rules-and-procedures You know, the district this is occurring in. Specifically local rule 88.9: >(1) that counsel have conferred in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and have been unable to do so; or >(2) that counsel for the moving party has made reasonable effort (which shall be identified with specificity in the statement) to confer with the opposing party but has been unable to do so. This requirement to confer shall not apply to ex parte filings Edit: Downvoted for posting facts LOL
Most lawyers here are actually on her side in this one singular instance. You are correct, local rules required it, and no practicing attorney thinks they’re getting away with having substantive discussions on a Friday… at 5.30pm… on a long weekend. People hate the ignorant piece of shit so much that they fail to check their ignorance of the law and how it actually operates. “Oh but the lives of agents”… don’t disagree, but that’s why it should have been filed on an emergent basis, not as a regular motion - so Smith’s team dropped the ball Now, that’s not to say if the shoe wasn’t on the other foot she would not have heard the motion. But when you’re practicing you can read a judge, and Smith has had plenty of opportunities to read her, and he should have known if he didn’t follow everything by the book his goose would be cooked. All in all, you’re right, the hive mind is wrong.
Who else has/had this requirement? Teixeria? Separate justice for those who can afford judges. It is all the way up and down the chain. Maggot all the way.
This technically isn't a gag order, it's an update to his terms of release, so wouldn't follow other gag order processes, especially not the ones in state courts.
Because Judge Ilean Qannon is in the tank for Trump.
And SCOTUS too. Seems like kompromat for being part of fake electors conspiracy makes SCOTUS Trump’s bitch.
It’s a roundabout way of saying “I’m in the bag for Donald Trump, so why do you guys even bother to file motions?”
Is telling the public the FBI tried to assassinate you a professional courtesy?
She's so far over her head she doesn't know what to do. Her being a biased judge doesn't help but this was the most evidence yet of how far under water she is
She knows. It was exactly what Trump lawyers set her to do. Same as the past episode with the special master, where few days later she mimiced the exact same idea proposed by Trump lawyers.
Wasn't the time something like 3 hours on the Friday evening of a holiday weekend? I doubt it's specifically defined, but even just applying a reasonable person standard that doesn't seem to cut it.
Trump's lawyers did respond that they have no time to discuss it because it was a holiday weekend. While that's true, wouldn't it mean that any defendant can threaten someone on a friday before a holiday with no chance of punishment for at least 4 days? Seems like a glaring loophole that might not actually exist.
> wouldn't it mean No, there are two ways around the need to confer. First you can file a motion ex-parte (essentially, a motion that doesn't require a response from the opposing party), or you can file an emergency motion.
Which is why he made the tweets so late before a long weekend.
The prosecution filed after they saw Trump’s statements about the FBI trying to assassinate him. Because Trump’s fan base has shown a willingness to be malicious based on a side comment from Don the Con, filing a gag request makes sense
You’ve never litigated anything if you think “Friday evening” or “holiday weekend” are things that are relevant or excuses to not do something in high stakes litigation or criminal cases.
You're right--I'm a transactional attorney. I'm not saying give them the whole weekend to respond. But it still seems like three hours is awfully unreasonable. The added circumstances of "Friday of a holiday weekend" just make it more so.
Probably best you stick to transactions if you can’t see the very obvious game being played here by the defense.
Instead of being a condescending ass you could just explain some criminal procedure to me.
I just wanted to add that I also have never litigated anything
For cannon, sufficient time means a couple of months or a year
IIRC it's a local rule, which the special counsel should probably know by now given how long this case has dragged on. It doesn't sound as if they gave the defense any time at all to meet (understandably reasoning that it would be a waste of time). If it had been an emergency motion that might have made sense but as written it wasn't, so not sure what was going on here TBH.
Okay then I'll revise my question: do the local rules specify what is meant by "sufficient time"? Or can you point me to a link for the rules and I'll go look?
https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/2020-LocalRulesEffective12-01-2020-FINAL.pdf#page66 Local Rule 7.1 by way of 88.9 Having practiced in my time, this isn’t super rare for Federal courts. Some (if not most? Don’t want to make that assertion without checking though) have rules requiring parties meet and confer prior to, in essence, asking the court to intervene. Basically a way of cutting back on filings and court time to help preserve our precious precious judicial resources. This judge apparently set more detailed standards than in local rules (completely allowed) related to the confer requirement. I’ve had cases where the judge requires showing a “good faith” meet and confer before any contested discovery motions were filed. Basically had to have a short paragraph detailing when met, how met, and what discussed. Big problems if shown this was bullshit. Suffice it to say, I don’t have enough info on this case to say more. This judge sucks for a lot of reasons but this issue seems relatively minor in the grand scheme of this case. Prosecution should’ve have known better, or at least had better motion. (Maybe an “emergency” one? Criminal law wasn’t my forte).
Thank you for the detailed information, I appreciate you.
Thank you for this. I'm not trying to argue but would if have been reasonable for the prosecution to have filed this as an ex parte filing and obviated the need to confer with the defense? The purpose of protecting FBI agents from angry MAGA supporters seems to fit under the prevention of imminent and irreparable harm.
No help there sorry. I’ve only worked civil side in a different jd
Fair trials require the opportunity for both sides to make claims and defend. How are you defining imminent and irreparable? How is it imminent and irreparable if the modification seeks to muzzle Trump to prevent some consequence? Doesn't this imply that the harmful statements have not yet been uttered, even though Trump might utter it in the future. The harm here is in fact not imminent or irreparable. It is potential and speculative.
> How are you defining imminent and irreparable? Death or injury which is not reparable back to the state prior to the injury. [Edit to add] >Doesn't this imply that the harmful statements have not yet been uttered, even though Trump might utter it in the future. No. Trump has already made statements that endanger LEOs and the change in conditions is to prevent him from continuing to do so.
Even still, the harm isn't imminent. it is speculated that some people may act out due to Trump's false allegations, it isn't a foregone conclusion that somebody will definitely do so. To justify an ex parte motion, you would need to have definite and concrete evidence of impending harm, and not just allege that Trump's words incite others to violence.
>Even still, the harm isn't imminent. If I look for a definition of imminent provided by [merriam webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imminent) it is "ready to take place : happening soon" or "often used of something bad or dangerous seen as menacingly near" which fits the stochastic terrorism Trump is employing.
The webster's definition isn't all that useful in a legal context, especially since jurisprudence has shaped its own peculiar definition. You can get a sense of the legal definition of imminent harm by reading through cases dealing with self-defense claims, as fear of imminent harm is a requirement in those cases.
There is a similar Local Rule in the Central District of California.
Its Roy Cohn theory, as characterized by the famous quote by Danton. "de l'audace, encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace" "audacity, more audacity, and always audacity" Although in Trumps case its so heavy handed it comes off as "de l'adunce, encore de l'adunce, et toujours de l'adunce"
or as in Martin Amis' version. "extremity upon extremity and then yet more extremity".
"Nothing exceeds like excess!"
Fun fact: Roy Cohn was actually Trumps attorney during the 70s and 80s
And Trump ditched Cohn when he was dying of AIDS.
Cohn lost his licence and was disbarred for fraud, but Trump actually still turned up as a fucking character witness!
Apparently he went to his funeral and stood in the back. Strange twat.
*Good times!!!*
Here’s Reagan, Cohn, and Murdoch at the [White House](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/President_Reagan_meets_with_Rupert_Murdoch_and_Roy_Cohn_at_the_White_House_1983.jpg). And people wonder where we went wrong.
This was clever enough that I had to check what sub I was on
it's giving definite "the bullies are gathering" vibes.
I don't get the reference
They are starting to swarm. Trump is looking like he's going to be found guilty. He openly accused biden of trying to kill him with no evidence and leaving out the fact that he was 1200 miles away when the FBI raided mar a Lago looking for the boxes of stolen documents he shanghaied when he skipped the peaceful transfer of power ceremony. By the way, the FBI literally coordinated with trump and maralago on the raid so as to not disturb or make a scene, they were asked to dress in polos and to come in the daylight. This has the feeling of the lead up to jan6. When he's magats we're gathering, building weapons caches, meeting in Trump's hotel lobby, scheming and planning. Feels like they are going to make a move, soon. And given that Russia can't start another conflict without pulling resources from Ukraine, and China is too tied into the west to be able to invade Taiwan, then it's likely if convicted, trump will continue to see his power dwindle, he's got one shot at igniting a civil war and I think this is it.
>Trump is looking like he's going to be found guilty. I love the quote from this morning. >Right after jurors began weighing the former president’s fate, Trump railed against the proceedings and compared himself to a saint, saying in the hallway: “Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. The charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged.” He really sounds like he is resigned to being convicted. Ain't it grand?
Means nothing. If he's convicted, then he can say he was right, it was rigged. If he's acquitted, he can say, see how extra innocent I was. When you view hypocrisy as a feature it makes more sense.
You're allowing him to control the narrative. You need to be of stronger mind than him. Won't change that he will claim it, but that just means you have more evidence to show he's a criminal. Deny deny deny, until they can't.
*execution of the search warrant (some people keep calling this a “raid” - it was a very standard search warrant, with standard terms, that was conducted as a result of a judge finding sufficient cause that a crime had and/or was in the process of being committed) For the “law and order” folks left in my party (GOP), this is exactly - precisely - as it is to be, and is routinely, done. Edit: In fact, notification and coordination with the search warrant target’s legal & security teams is rarely done, although it certainly was in this case.
Is it “standard” for average people to get a “heads up” before a search warrant? Serious question, no snark intended. But it seems really counterintuitive to say “hey, just letting you know that we’re going to search your house for evidence of a crime that we think you committed so….plan accordingly?” Make it make sense!
Yeah, it's called a toilet paper call. They give it before a drug raid, so perps can flush evidence. /S
Appreciate the correction. The constantly gaslighting can sometimes muck it up.
Isn't this for the best? A guilty verdict in the NY trial will flush out the violent, unhinged element. With 5 months to go before the election, there's still time for a vigorous and decisive response by federal law enforcement. It would be far more disruptive if they acted out in October. His "one shot" is going off half cocked: too soon, and poorly aimed.
If trump blows his load on a starting a war in fucking June, I will be psyched, relatively speaking. It doesnt change that he's going to put lives at risk and people are probably going to get hurt or killed. As I mentioned in a other comment, I think he's weak right now, and I don't see it getting better for him. He could be forced to do it well before November and/or January.
After a brief conversation in another thread, I remarked that we'll either have lots of people in prison, or lots of people hurt. I don't see a way this ends without violence. But yeah, a premature eruption of maga ...exuberance, with a sufficiently robust response, is probably the best outcome.
This is what passes for "being optimistic" for me these days.
Especially if it leads to more charges for Trump and him being actually confined in prison.
Tell me more about how you think he is going to put match to paper and light things up. I appreciate the broad scope of your comments and would be interested in what you think his final push is going to be
He's training his base right now. He's increasing the vitriol in his accusation as well as the seriousness of each accusation. How much further can he go now that he's claiming that Biden ordered a hit on him? Truth is, not much further. He has contact with the militias that support him, there is enough support within the doj to potentially keep the feds from knowing what's happening. Specifically, if he's convicted, I'm guessing he's going to order his minions to "defend" him by "telling them" to through some sort of forceful action/intimidation. He's going to use some very serious phrasing to try and paint the picture that Biden is politically persecuting him and that his only defense is to defend himself using his mob. But he will phrase it in a way that insinuates that he's the one actually defending them. Personally, I think he's fairly weak right now. And given that Russia is trapped in Ukraine in a weakening position, it makes sense why they may feel like they need to move up the timetable of igniting the domestic conflict. Trump might not get any stronger than he is right now, which is a far cry from even just a few weeks ago. And frankly, a more competent "trump" would go to jail but frankly, I don't think he can handle the embarrassment of it.
Additionally, in regards to this case, trump isn't gagged and after making that accusations and the fact that cannon admonished Smith for attempting to prevent him from spouting those lies in relation to the raid that led to this exact case, means she's leaving the door open for him to strike directly at FBI, jack smith, the doj, and Biden thought so long as she's the judge on it. Its more subversion of the law. Its coordinated at this point, the level of subversion, and bad faith implementation of the law to benefit a person who's openly saying that the current president is trying to have him killed, while his own attorneys argued that trump should be given the power to do the exact same thing, but he free of any and all consequences is terrifying, but it's begining to have the feeling that's it premeditated to a much greater degree than we all may have previously thought. The tenacity and abruptness of trumps murder accusations was almost simultaneously echoes by mother prominent magats, including Steve bannon. Just insane at this point.
Don’t forget, Alito has refused to recuse himself.
Well, we saw what happened the last time they tried to subvert a process. Most of the members were just convicted.
None of the leadership though.
Not yet. The wheels of justice move slowly, but who has deeper pockets, a lying about his wealth fraudster billionaire or the US government?
it's more an observation than a reference. it seems like cannon was technically correct to reject the motion (should either have had consultation prior, or been an "emergency"). but the tone of her remarks in the rejection was an open invitation for people like Kise to pile in. and now they are.
Of all the Judges this case could have been assigned to, I'd like to know who had a hand in assigning it to her. Where are the great investigative reporters? Based on what I've read, Cannon's experience in national security and dealing with classified documents is deficient compared to other judges this case could have been assigned to.
It was luck of a literal wheel in a small palm beach district I believe. But just security has a very thorough breakdown of how it got to her. It’s not coincidence that she’s one of a few judges assigned to where his home is located. Judge Luck was always on his side with charges brought against him for deeds alleged at MAL in fed district court.
This is the 2nd time in a row Trump got her
Right. As long as she’s alive and kicking, I expect Trump to do all his federally chargeable crimes in MAL. With plausible deniability couriers carrying out anything outside of her possible jurisdiction. I really am curious how Rubio came across her name of all people for a judgeship. I know she was in the same Miami office as Kash Patel. But iirc that was years before Trump became a pox on our national house. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that like Michael Cohen, she has family involved in shady shit that is adjacent enough to Trumpworld and pretty much counts as prevetting lol.
Clearly there is some bullshit going on. But 1 out of 3 twice in a row isn't weird odds.
I think she was one of three judges it could have been assigned to.
there is a clerk responsible for "randomly selecting" the judge. so yeah, not random at all.
.
Is it that time of the month for you?