User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 4:26:03 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Here is why your fellow travelers in this thread have abandoned you. They realize that their arguments have lost. You would do well to understand this and leave as well. Good luck. Jack Smith continues to admit in court filings how far the government went to manipulate the evidence in the Classified Documents case.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0JqJuDm9zslol don’t flatter yourself. Some of us just get bored debating things with people who won’t even take the time to understand the change sheet, won’t read the applicable law, or actually believe Trump maintained an active Q clearance as a former president. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 5:21:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol don’t flatter yourself. Some of us just get bored debating things with people who won’t even take the time to understand the change sheet, won’t read the applicable law, or actually believe Trump maintained an active Q clearance as a former president. Q is the equivalent of a DoD TS w/CNWDI and really only DOE people get it. I have never had a Q, but did have CNWDI and attended Q level events as part of the DoD Surety Committee. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2024 9:56:52 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: What's the mens rea here? Knowingly? How would someone know they had some classified docs intermingled with newspaper articles, golf shirts, copies of official declarations etc? I get that Trump is an all-knowing evil overlord, but man, it seems like the criminal state of mind will be tough if not impossible to prove. This prosecution seems more than a tad capricious and based upon malice, not a fair and equal application of the law. Those photos, to me, engender more questions than they answer. And no, for reasons previously stated in detail, I would not blindly accept the DOJs explanation for any of this. Thank you for the summation. I find it hard to believe that the legal and classification "experts" will not address the missteps of the prosecution and the damage it has done to the DOJ's case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2024 12:24:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Thank you for the summation. I find it hard to believe that the legal and classification "experts" will not address the FIFY |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2024 12:30:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 0002s: FIFY Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 0002s: Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Thank you for the summation. I find it hard to believe that the legal and classification "experts" will not address the FIFY Thank you 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2024 12:55:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol don’t flatter yourself. Some of us just get bored debating things with people who won’t even take the time to understand the change sheet, won’t read the applicable law, or actually believe Trump maintained an active Q clearance as a former president. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Here is why your fellow travelers in this thread have abandoned you. They realize that their arguments have lost. You would do well to understand this and leave as well. Good luck. Jack Smith continues to admit in court filings how far the government went to manipulate the evidence in the Classified Documents case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0JqJuDm9zslol don’t flatter yourself. Some of us just get bored debating things with people who won’t even take the time to understand the change sheet, won’t read the applicable law, or actually believe Trump maintained an active Q clearance as a former president. That clearance would have been granted by himself, to himself. Do you suppose he read himself out as he was leaving? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2024 3:37:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: That clearance would have been granted by himself, to himself. Do you suppose he read himself out as he was leaving? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Here is why your fellow travelers in this thread have abandoned you. They realize that their arguments have lost. You would do well to understand this and leave as well. Good luck. Jack Smith continues to admit in court filings how far the government went to manipulate the evidence in the Classified Documents case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0JqJuDm9zslol don’t flatter yourself. Some of us just get bored debating things with people who won’t even take the time to understand the change sheet, won’t read the applicable law, or actually believe Trump maintained an active Q clearance as a former president. That clearance would have been granted by himself, to himself. Do you suppose he read himself out as he was leaving? Trump is omnipotent. He just thinks things and they become “declassified” for life. No one can prove otherwise because it’s like magic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2024 5:13:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Trump is omnipotent. He just thinks things and they become “declassified” for life. No one can prove otherwise because it’s like magic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Here is why your fellow travelers in this thread have abandoned you. They realize that their arguments have lost. You would do well to understand this and leave as well. Good luck. Jack Smith continues to admit in court filings how far the government went to manipulate the evidence in the Classified Documents case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0JqJuDm9zslol don’t flatter yourself. Some of us just get bored debating things with people who won’t even take the time to understand the change sheet, won’t read the applicable law, or actually believe Trump maintained an active Q clearance as a former president. That clearance would have been granted by himself, to himself. Do you suppose he read himself out as he was leaving? Trump is omnipotent. He just thinks things and they become “declassified” for life. No one can prove otherwise because it’s like magic. It’s not about omnipotence or magic, it’s just the powers granted to Presidents by the US Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2024 5:13:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Trump is omnipotent. He just thinks things and they become “declassified” for life. No one can prove otherwise because it’s like magic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Here is why your fellow travelers in this thread have abandoned you. They realize that their arguments have lost. You would do well to understand this and leave as well. Good luck. Jack Smith continues to admit in court filings how far the government went to manipulate the evidence in the Classified Documents case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0JqJuDm9zslol don’t flatter yourself. Some of us just get bored debating things with people who won’t even take the time to understand the change sheet, won’t read the applicable law, or actually believe Trump maintained an active Q clearance as a former president. That clearance would have been granted by himself, to himself. Do you suppose he read himself out as he was leaving? Trump is omnipotent. He just thinks things and they become “declassified” for life. No one can prove otherwise because it’s like magic. lol don’t flatter yourself. Some of us just get bored debating things with people who won’t even take the time to understand the *charge* sheet, won’t read the applicable law, or actually believe Trump maintained an active Q clearance as a former president. Dontcha know  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2024 5:34:18 PM EDT
[#10]
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2024 6:57:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: lol don’t flatter yourself. Some of us just get bored debating things with people who won’t even take the time to understand the *charge* sheet, won’t read the applicable law, or actually believe Trump maintained an active Q clearance as a former president. Dontcha know  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 11:52:15 AM EDT
[#12]
So what's gonna happen here now?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 12:07:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: dorobuta]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Were these the only copies of this "national defense information"? Are they handwritten? No? then they are copies. National defense information is generated by persons or agencies. This information is disseminated to the proper principals in the chain of command. They are reviewed and revised well before a COPY reaches the President. Copies may also be presented to the appropriate Congressional committees, depending on content. The agencies responsible for the material also have copies secured according to policies. A whole lot of supporting documentation, and supporting materials is also generated. The material is vetted by a whole bunch of people. By the time it gets to the President it is generally a summary of the material. Trumps copies are that, copies and not originals and most certainly not the detail and supporting materials behind those copies. To claim they are the originals is stupid on its face. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 12:20:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: So what's gonna happen here now? Contrary to what people repeat over and over, these charges have nothing to do with anything done while Trump was in office so therefore the ruling today is irrelevant. It's Trump's defense that supposedly involves acts as president (declassifying stuff). Whether or not, or when, that might ever get considered by the courts is very much TBD. It does not seem to be the focus of any of the current motions being considered by the judge. I don't know if that means Trump's defense is saving it for later or if they realize that it has no chance and they are moving on. ETA: My prediction is the Supreme Court will never bother to take up anything related to this case. If the judge had proceeded like a normal judge who knows what they are doing, we probably would have a verdict in this case by now. I just don't see the big constitutional questions that the Supreme Court would want to weigh in on. Anything that Trump's defense wants to raise can easily be addressed by the lower courts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 12:38:56 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Contrary to what people repeat over and over, these charges have nothing to do with anything done while Trump was in office so therefore the ruling today is irrelevant. It's Trump's defense that supposedly involves acts as president (declassifying stuff). Whether or not, or when, that might ever get considered by the courts is very much TBD. It does not seem to be the focus of any of the current motions being considered by the judge. I don't know if that means Trump's defense is saving it for later or if they realize that it has no chance and they are moving on. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By APPARITION: So what's gonna happen here now? Contrary to what people repeat over and over, these charges have nothing to do with anything done while Trump was in office so therefore the ruling today is irrelevant. It's Trump's defense that supposedly involves acts as president (declassifying stuff). Whether or not, or when, that might ever get considered by the courts is very much TBD. It does not seem to be the focus of any of the current motions being considered by the judge. I don't know if that means Trump's defense is saving it for later or if they realize that it has no chance and they are moving on. Not true. Trump took those documents with him AS President. He claims he declassified everything. Declassifying is an official act. The ruling is VERY much relevant. ETA: My prediction is the Supreme Court will never bother to take up anything related to this case. If the judge had proceeded like a normal judge who knows what they are doing, we probably would have a verdict in this case by now. I just don't see the big constitutional questions that the Supreme Court would want to weigh in on. Anything that Trump's defense wants to raise can easily be addressed by the lower courts. If the lower courts don't dismiss the case, then SCOTUS certainly will. ALL of the precedent is in Trump's favor. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 1:03:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: mcculver5]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Contrary to what people repeat over and over, these charges have nothing to do with anything done while Trump was in office so therefore the ruling today is irrelevant. It's Trump's defense that supposedly involves acts as president (declassifying stuff). Whether or not, or when, that might ever get considered by the courts is very much TBD. It does not seem to be the focus of any of the current motions being considered by the judge. I don't know if that means Trump's defense is saving it for later or if they realize that it has no chance and they are moving on. ETA: My prediction is the Supreme Court will never bother to take up anything related to this case. If the judge had proceeded like a normal judge who knows what they are doing, we probably would have a verdict in this case by now. I just don't see the big constitutional questions that the Supreme Court would want to weigh in on. Anything that Trump's defense wants to raise can easily be addressed by the lower courts. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By APPARITION: So what's gonna happen here now? Contrary to what people repeat over and over, these charges have nothing to do with anything done while Trump was in office so therefore the ruling today is irrelevant. It's Trump's defense that supposedly involves acts as president (declassifying stuff). Whether or not, or when, that might ever get considered by the courts is very much TBD. It does not seem to be the focus of any of the current motions being considered by the judge. I don't know if that means Trump's defense is saving it for later or if they realize that it has no chance and they are moving on. ETA: My prediction is the Supreme Court will never bother to take up anything related to this case. If the judge had proceeded like a normal judge who knows what they are doing, we probably would have a verdict in this case by now. I just don't see the big constitutional questions that the Supreme Court would want to weigh in on. Anything that Trump's defense wants to raise can easily be addressed by the lower courts. Obviously a motion to dismiss will be filed in this case based on the new law. The motion is likely to be granted. Also in Thomas's concurrence he suggests that Jack Smith may have been appointed in a way which is not constitutional. So, that's another ground for dismissal. Seems like the case is falling apart to me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 1:09:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Obviously a motion to dismiss will be filed in this case based on the new law. The motion is likely to be granted. Also in Thomas's concurrence he suggests that Jack Smith may not have been appointed in a way which is not constitutional. So, that's another ground for dismissal. Seems like the case is falling apart to me. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By APPARITION: So what's gonna happen here now? Contrary to what people repeat over and over, these charges have nothing to do with anything done while Trump was in office so therefore the ruling today is irrelevant. It's Trump's defense that supposedly involves acts as president (declassifying stuff). Whether or not, or when, that might ever get considered by the courts is very much TBD. It does not seem to be the focus of any of the current motions being considered by the judge. I don't know if that means Trump's defense is saving it for later or if they realize that it has no chance and they are moving on. ETA: My prediction is the Supreme Court will never bother to take up anything related to this case. If the judge had proceeded like a normal judge who knows what they are doing, we probably would have a verdict in this case by now. I just don't see the big constitutional questions that the Supreme Court would want to weigh in on. Anything that Trump's defense wants to raise can easily be addressed by the lower courts. Obviously a motion to dismiss will be filed in this case based on the new law. The motion is likely to be granted. Also in Thomas's concurrence he suggests that Jack Smith may not have been appointed in a way which is not constitutional. So, that's another ground for dismissal. Seems like the case is falling apart to me. Seems like Jack Smith does not have the qualified immunity of a AUSA. Maybe the Florida AG should impanel a Grand Jury. Good for the goose good for the gander and all that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 1:56:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AdLucem]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not true. Trump took those documents with him AS President. He claims he declassified everything. Declassifying is an official act. The ruling is VERY much relevant. If the lower courts don't dismiss the case, then SCOTUS certainly will. ALL of the precedent is in Trump's favor. lol... this was a case of first impression. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 2:02:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: That clearance would have been granted by himself, to himself. Do you suppose he read himself out as he was leaving? lol |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 2:04:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not true. Trump took those documents with him AS President. He claims he declassified everything. Declassifying is an official act. The ruling is VERY much relevant. If the lower courts don't dismiss the case, then SCOTUS certainly will. ALL of the precedent is in Trump's favor. What was trump charged with? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 2:37:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: lol... this was a case of first impression. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not true. Trump took those documents with him AS President. He claims he declassified everything. Declassifying is an official act. The ruling is VERY much relevant. If the lower courts don't dismiss the case, then SCOTUS certainly will. ALL of the precedent is in Trump's favor. lol... this was a case of first impression. I'm referring to the precedent of SCOTUS ever retraining the Presidential powers and how he interprets and exercises those powers that were granted by the Constitution. Hint: NEVER |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 2:40:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: What was trump charged with? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not true. Trump took those documents with him AS President. He claims he declassified everything. Declassifying is an official act. The ruling is VERY much relevant. If the lower courts don't dismiss the case, then SCOTUS certainly will. ALL of the precedent is in Trump's favor. What was trump charged with? Multiple things that fall squarely under the executive branch and within his Constitutionally granted Presidential powers. The case is ending up exactly as predicted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 2:41:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Multiple things that fall squarely under the executive branch and within his Constitutionally granted Presidential powers. The case is ending up exactly as predicted. Everything he was charged with are for his actions after he left office. What constitutionally granted presidential powers apply to ex-presidents? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 2:49:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: xd341]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Everything he was charged with are for his actions after he left office. What constitutionally granted presidential powers apply to ex-presidents? and BTW Jack Smith has no legal authority. Gotta love Thomas, that guy is a national treasure. This case is dead and buried. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 2:51:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Everything he was charged with are for his actions after he left office. What constitutionally granted presidential powers apply to ex-presidents? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Multiple things that fall squarely under the executive branch and within his Constitutionally granted Presidential powers. The case is ending up exactly as predicted. Everything he was charged with are for his actions after he left office. What constitutionally granted presidential powers apply to ex-presidents? Your premise is false. This is why the case will ultimately collapse. Your reasoning is poisoned by TDS. The case is collapsing EXACTLY as we predicted here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 2:54:47 PM EDT
[#26]
“A Private Citizen Cannot Criminally Prosecute Anyone, Let Alone a Former President” – Clarence Thomas Questions Jack Smith’s Authority in Blistering Opinion on Immunity Ruling
Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority because he was a private citizen when he was tapped as a special prosecutor. “I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President — he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Clarence Thomas said. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ons-jack-smiths-authority-blistering-opinion/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:03:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: The case is ending up exactly as predicted. Not exactly... HINT: you predicted total immunity and that was not what the court decided.... immunity for official acts was never in doubt... the court set forth guidelines in determining when and if a president can enjoy the cloak of immunity and sent the case back to the lower court to apply those standards. The court certainly granted deference to a president in power but that has little to do with the facts of the case at bar. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:05:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your premise is false. This is why the case will ultimately collapse. Your reasoning is poisoned by TDS. The case is collapsing EXACTLY as we predicted here. lol nothing Trump did fell under the umbrella of his official duties, as he was out of office. And the scotus ruling provides no immunity for such things. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:07:19 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Not exactly... HINT: you predicted total immunity and that was not what the court decided.... immunity for official acts was never in doubt... the court set forth guidelines in determining when and if a president can enjoy the cloak of immunity and sent the case back to the lower court to apply those standards. The court certainly granted deference to a president in power but that has little to do with the facts of the case at bar. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The case is ending up exactly as predicted. Not exactly... HINT: you predicted total immunity and that was not what the court decided.... immunity for official acts was never in doubt... the court set forth guidelines in determining when and if a president can enjoy the cloak of immunity and sent the case back to the lower court to apply those standards. The court certainly granted deference to a president in power but that has little to do with the facts of the case at bar. I think plenty of folks thought immunity for official acts was, in fact, in doubt and argued that this immunity should not be recognized by the court. Not in doubt by you? OK. Could be. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:16:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: I think plenty of folks thought immunity for official acts was, in fact, in doubt and argued that this immunity should not be recognized by the court. Not in doubt by you? OK. Could be. There seems to be a gross misunderstanding here of what constitutes an official act, and in the majority opinion, Robert’s made it very clear that there is no immunity for unofficial acts. This scotus ruling may help trump in the DC case, but in this one, if anything, it hurts him. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:16:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Not exactly... HINT: you predicted total immunity and that was not what the court decided.... immunity for official acts was never in doubt... the court set forth guidelines in determining when and if a president can enjoy the cloak of immunity and sent the case back to the lower court to apply those standards. The court certainly granted deference to a president in power but that has little to do with the facts of the case at bar. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The case is ending up exactly as predicted. Not exactly... HINT: you predicted total immunity and that was not what the court decided.... immunity for official acts was never in doubt... the court set forth guidelines in determining when and if a president can enjoy the cloak of immunity and sent the case back to the lower court to apply those standards. The court certainly granted deference to a president in power but that has little to do with the facts of the case at bar. I did not predict "total immunity" I predicted that the case would fall apart under its own incompetence, and if it ever made it to SCOTUS, it would be crushed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:19:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol nothing Trump did fell under the umbrella of his official duties, as he was out of office. And the scotus ruling provides no immunity for such things. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your premise is false. This is why the case will ultimately collapse. Your reasoning is poisoned by TDS. The case is collapsing EXACTLY as we predicted here. lol nothing Trump did fell under the umbrella of his official duties, as he was out of office. And the scotus ruling provides no immunity for such things. You think nothing in this ruling will contribute to the collapse of this case? Really?  Read Thomas. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:25:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: There seems to be a gross misunderstanding here of what constitutes an official act, and in the majority opinion, Robert’s made it very clear that there is no immunity for unofficial acts. This scotus ruling may help trump in the DC case, but in this one, if anything, it hurts him. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: I think plenty of folks thought immunity for official acts was, in fact, in doubt and argued that this immunity should not be recognized by the court. Not in doubt by you? OK. Could be. There seems to be a gross misunderstanding here of what constitutes an official act, and in the majority opinion, Robert’s made it very clear that there is no immunity for unofficial acts. This scotus ruling may help trump in the DC case, but in this one, if anything, it hurts him. OK. I would disagree. This should play out over the next few months. The timeliness, mens rea and presumptive immunity for official but not executive acts doesn’t make for a promising prosecution to me. But heck, I'm just a country chicken lawyer. We'll see how it all shakes out. Looks like a limited but presumptive immunity scheme for some official acts, immunity for official executive acts and no immunity for purely private acts. But I'm sure you understand it better than I. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:26:33 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You think nothing in this ruling will contribute to the collapse of this case? Really? Read Thomas. Are we talking about presidential immunity, or the legitimacy of Jack Smith as a prosecutor? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:27:23 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: OK. I would disagree. This should play out over the next few months. The timeliness, mens rea and presumptive immunity for official but not executive acts doesn’t make for a promising prosecution to me. But heck, I'm just a country chicken lawyer. We'll see how it all shakes out. Looks like a limited but presumptive immunity scheme for some official acts, immunity for official executive acts and no immunity for purely private acts. But I'm sure you understand it better than I. How can an act be “official” if the offender is not the president? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:32:01 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: I think plenty of folks thought immunity for official acts was, in fact, in doubt and argued that this immunity should not be recognized by the court. Not in doubt by you? OK. Could be. Perhaps I overstated it.... I find your comments well considered and objective even though we don't always agree. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 3:35:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: How can an act be “official” if the offender is not the president? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: OK. I would disagree. This should play out over the next few months. The timeliness, mens rea and presumptive immunity for official but not executive acts doesn’t make for a promising prosecution to me. But heck, I'm just a country chicken lawyer. We'll see how it all shakes out. Looks like a limited but presumptive immunity scheme for some official acts, immunity for official executive acts and no immunity for purely private acts. But I'm sure you understand it better than I. How can an act be “official” if the offender is not the president? The state still has to prove the premise that the documents being packed into the boxes as part of his presidential archive was not an official act declassifying said documents. You don't agree, and I understand, but that is now on the table and always was. You are staking a lotbon the verity of a complaint. We're going to see timeline and mens rea arguments intermingled with immunity arguments. You get to believe as you like but that's what I see comming down the pike. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 4:23:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Strange that the arguments of the strong conservatives here who have been defending the actions of the DOJ...mirror the findings of the leftist members of the USSC. Purely coincidental I am sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 4:43:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Strange that the arguments of the strong conservatives here who have been defending the actions of the DOJ...mirror the findings of the leftist members of the USSC. Purely coincidental I am sure. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 4:48:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Strange that the arguments of the strong conservatives here who have been defending the actions of the DOJ...mirror the findings of the leftist members of the USSC. Purely coincidental I am sure. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 5:23:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Ryan_Scott]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Seems like Jack Smith does not have the qualified immunity of a AUSA. Maybe the Florida AG should impanel a Grand Jury. Good for the goose good for the gander and all that. He’d get removal to a federal court and probably immediate dismissal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 6:12:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Josh]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You think nothing in this ruling will contribute to the collapse of this case? Really? Read Thomas. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your premise is false. This is why the case will ultimately collapse. Your reasoning is poisoned by TDS. The case is collapsing EXACTLY as we predicted here. lol nothing Trump did fell under the umbrella of his official duties, as he was out of office. And the scotus ruling provides no immunity for such things. You think nothing in this ruling will contribute to the collapse of this case? Really? Read Thomas. Thomas literally took a wrecking ball to Jack Smith. Cannon should just dismiss it tomorrow based solely on that alone and she’d be perfectly within her rights to do so. The 11th circuit probably wouldn’t even take the appeal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 6:16:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Perhaps I overstated it.... I find your comments well considered and objective even though we don't always agree. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By mcculver5: I think plenty of folks thought immunity for official acts was, in fact, in doubt and argued that this immunity should not be recognized by the court. Not in doubt by you? OK. Could be. Perhaps I overstated it.... I find your comments well considered and objective even though we don't always agree. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 6:17:57 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Josh: Thomas literally took a wrecking ball to Jack Smith. Cannon should just dismiss it tomorrow based solely on that alone and she’d be perfectly within her rights to do so. The 11th circuit probably wouldn’t even take the appeal. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Josh: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your premise is false. This is why the case will ultimately collapse. Your reasoning is poisoned by TDS. The case is collapsing EXACTLY as we predicted here. lol nothing Trump did fell under the umbrella of his official duties, as he was out of office. And the scotus ruling provides no immunity for such things. You think nothing in this ruling will contribute to the collapse of this case? Really? Read Thomas. Thomas literally took a wrecking ball to Jack Smith. Cannon should just dismiss it tomorrow based solely on that alone and she’d be perfectly within her rights to do so. The 11th circuit probably wouldn’t even take the appeal. Don't know enough about the 11th to say. But I agree with the rest. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 6:25:50 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Don't know enough about the 11th to say. But I agree with the rest. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Josh: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your premise is false. This is why the case will ultimately collapse. Your reasoning is poisoned by TDS. The case is collapsing EXACTLY as we predicted here. lol nothing Trump did fell under the umbrella of his official duties, as he was out of office. And the scotus ruling provides no immunity for such things. You think nothing in this ruling will contribute to the collapse of this case? Really? Read Thomas. Thomas literally took a wrecking ball to Jack Smith. Cannon should just dismiss it tomorrow based solely on that alone and she’d be perfectly within her rights to do so. The 11th circuit probably wouldn’t even take the appeal. Don't know enough about the 11th to say. But I agree with the rest. I don't know about the 11th either, only it seems it would be a fool's errand for them to take up an appeal of a ruling based directly on the words of a SCOTUS decision. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 6:26:21 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Are we talking about presidential immunity, or the legitimacy of Jack Smith as a prosecutor? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You think nothing in this ruling will contribute to the collapse of this case? Really? Read Thomas. Are we talking about presidential immunity, or the legitimacy of Jack Smith as a prosecutor? Same case, right? Smith is out. And if the document case makes it to SCOTUS, it too will die. Guaranteed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 6:27:54 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: How can an act be “official” if the offender is not the president? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mcculver5: OK. I would disagree. This should play out over the next few months. The timeliness, mens rea and presumptive immunity for official but not executive acts doesn’t make for a promising prosecution to me. But heck, I'm just a country chicken lawyer. We'll see how it all shakes out. Looks like a limited but presumptive immunity scheme for some official acts, immunity for official executive acts and no immunity for purely private acts. But I'm sure you understand it better than I. How can an act be “official” if the offender is not the president? Define “present.” The OCA is always present. Like Jesus. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 6:29:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: He’d get removal to a federal court and probably immediate dismissal. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Seems like Jack Smith does not have the qualified immunity of a AUSA. Maybe the Florida AG should impanel a Grand Jury. Good for the goose good for the gander and all that. He’d get removal to a federal court and probably immediate dismissal. I'm sure the Florida AG could come up with piles of evidence to indict Jack Smith. Then one could only hope a civil suit would follow. Ironic that Jack Smith would soon discover that the process is the punishment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 6:29:56 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Contrary to what people repeat over and over, these charges have nothing to do with anything done while Trump was in office so therefore the ruling today is irrelevant. It's Trump's defense that supposedly involves acts as president (declassifying stuff). Whether or not, or when, that might ever get considered by the courts is very much TBD. It does not seem to be the focus of any of the current motions being considered by the judge. I don't know if that means Trump's defense is saving it for later or if they realize that it has no chance and they are moving on. ETA: My prediction is the Supreme Court will never bother to take up anything related to this case. If the judge had proceeded like a normal judge who knows what they are doing, we probably would have a verdict in this case by now. I just don't see the big constitutional questions that the Supreme Court would want to weigh in on. Anything that Trump's defense wants to raise can easily be addressed by the lower courts. The DOJ has to prove that Trump declaring documents to be unclassified and taking documents with him are NOT a part of regular duties of a president or of a president leaving office. The burden of proof is on the DOJ as per the ruling. Every single POTUS has taken documents with them. Every president has vocally declassified materials. Judge Cannon will now hold a pre-trial hearing based on this decision. The DOJ will have to prove Trump acted out of bounds when he did exactly what every other president has done. Judge Cannon will most likely rule in Trump's favor. The only thing she will allow to go forward is Trump breaking the presidential records act. To which, there is no penalty. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2024 6:30:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#50]
All of this is moot.
It was foolish for ANY of us to argue the merits of this case. It’s Lawfare. The process was supposed to be the punishment. They knew the case would fail. |
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
