|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Raise A Glass & Salute Jack Smith & The DOJ!
I just saw an interview with Rep. Jim Jordan where Jordan claimed trump had no legal liability in removing government documents from the White House, transporting them to Mar-a-lardo and other locations and clinging to them in defiance of requests for the return of the documents and per a subpoena for the return of the documents. [1] There is no obstruction if trump had the right to retain the documents. Jordan's reasoning is based on the 1988 Egan decision [2] by the Supreme Court. For background, the Presidential Records Act was 1978. [3] The Espionage Act is from 1917. [4] We should also be aware of Jim Jordan's history of knowing about sexual abuse at OSU and asking students to lie. This calls into question the integrity of Jordan, and his history in protecting serial sexual abusers, which trump also appears to be. Therefore, it is prudent to consider the validity of Jim Jordan's claims to this day because of his history of distorting the truth and his continuing actions in distorting the truth. [5][6] "In a 2002 report on leaks of classified information, Attorney General John Ashcroft cited Egan in support of the proposition that “The President has the power under the Constitution to protect national security secrets from unauthorized disclosure. This extends to defining what information constitutes a national security secret and to determining who may have access to that secret.” These statements are true except for the implication that such authority is exclusively the province of the executive. The Attorney General conspicuously neglected to note the qualification in Egan which stated “Unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise….”"[2]. Jim Jordan also seemed to not be aware of the qualifier regarding congress's provisions. The Presidential Records Act "Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President."[3] The incumbent, not the former guy. The Presidential Records Act "Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."[3]. These references also indicate that when trump squeals ""Under the Presidential Records Act, I'm allowed to do all this,""[7] he is lying through his teeth. When trump or his lawyers say, "that outgoing presidents are "supposed to take the next two years after they leave office to go through all these documents to figure out what's personal and what's presidential.""[7], there is no truth to that either. "NARA also refuted Parlatore's [a trump lawyer] assertion, saying that there is "no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office to sort through, such as for a two-year period as described in some reports.""[7] Are there rules regarding declassifying documents? Yes. [8] Lots of them. "Under a system established by presidential executive order in 2009, the president, vice president, and agency heads may designate other executive branch officials to serve as original classification authorities. These officials may classify government information if they determine that its disclosure would harm national security. There are three levels of classification, depending on the severity of the anticipated harm to national security: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. Within the Secret and Top Secret categories, certain information derived from intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes may be further classified as Sensitive Compartmented Information."[9]. Under Egan, the courts have recently held that "“Nothing in Egan recognizes a plenary or exclusive power on the part of the President over classified information.”"[2] And one must consider that if the executive branch implements restrictions on classified documents, then that would be the right of the executive per Egan. To supersede the "system established by presidential executive order in 2009"[9] another executive order would have to be issued to countermand the 2009 executive order. Had trump created such an order, it would seem prudent for him to reference it in his multitude of remarks claiming the documents were declassified. It is important to note that in trump's voluminous claims to be able to declassify documents without notice, approval, or by just thinking of it, he has not pointed to a law or executive order which codifies such a thing. Despite the claims of Jim Jordan and others who misrepresent the truth to the American people, the Egan ruling fails to be attributable. On the other hand, "Information designated as Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data is subject to separate rules. By statute, Restricted Data may only be declassified by authorized Department of Energy officials. Although the statute is less clear on this point, it has consistently been interpreted to give the Departments of Energy and Defense sole authority to declassify Formerly Restricted Data, an interpretation enshrined in agency regulations. Neither category is eligible for “automatic” declassification. As with classification, declassification is a two-step process. First, an authorized official must determine that the information no longer requires protection. Second, that determination must be communicated so that the protections are removed. For the most part, the rules for classification and declassification are set forth in presidential executive orders, along with regulations issued by the Information Security Oversight Office — an office within the National Archives and Records Administration — implementing those orders. Most presidents, dating back to the beginning of the modern classification system in the 1940s, have issued their own executive orders on classification. Trump was an exception, issuing no order on this subject. President Biden has not yet issued an executive order on classification (although there are reports that one is underway), so the order currently in place is the one issued by President Obama in 2009. As noted, though, there are separate rules for the classification and declassification of nuclear information. These rules are established in the Atomic Energy Act and implementing regulations issued by the Department of Energy."[9] Per trump's admission while illegally sharing classified documents at one of his properties, the documents in trump's possession were not declassified and trump is guilty as charged. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJrPi8QwhSI [2] https://fas.org/publication/navy_v_egan/ [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=preside … p;ie=UTF-8 [4] https://www.google.com/search?q=the+esp … p;ie=UTF-8 [5] https://www.si.com/more-sports/2020/02/ … Wednesday. [6] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/politics … index.html [7] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-pres … raignment/ [8] https://www.justice.gov/archives/open/d … cation-faq [9] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ … -documents Jun 13 23 07:11 pm Link Random Image wrote: This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read but then again there are a lot of ignorant people out there in Trampo swamp land. Jun 13 23 11:37 pm Link The latest propaganda that Fox News is feeding their viewers: While showing Trump's "Psychological Warfare" speech, they showed a split screen of Joe Biden also giving a speech. This was the caption that Fox News displayed under the Joe Biden speech: "Wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested" - Fox News Just in case anyone has any doubts about where some of the nutcase ideas are coming from. And yes, there are a percentage of Americans that still actually believe this sh*t. Jun 14 23 09:36 am Link LightDreams wrote: I do not monitor FOXNews, but this seems to be a major escalation in blatant, partisan propagandizing worthy of Joseph Goebbels. A new low for the trump Ministry of Truth. Jun 14 23 09:43 am Link Focuspuller wrote: The astonishing thing is that FOX News has ANY audience, much less an audience that believes their bullcrap after it became public knowledge that behind the scenes all of the on air personalities made it clear that they hate Trump, and that FOX was ordered to pay Dominion $750 million for the blatant lies they broadcasted. Jun 14 23 10:07 am Link SayCheeZ! wrote: Unfortunately, there will always be the idiot hardcore who cannot be rehabilitated. Beyond that, the best example is Germany - in one generation the population swooning for Hitler became a liberal democracy and is now the world standard in not tolerating incipient fascism. It took OVERWHELMING military defeat and near total infrastructure destruction, severe punishment of the prime Nazi leadership and other elites after public trials exposing the inhuman horrors they inflicted on the world, and a collective acceptance of guilt and repentance. We are a looong way from that happening in the United States. Jun 14 23 10:40 am Link Random Image wrote: Are you advocating that all of the people who have been charged under the Espionage Act be exonerated and the open case against Snowden be dropped? Jun 14 23 05:54 pm Link SayCheeZ! wrote: But if the only channel they watch is FOX, where would they learn about any of that? FOX certainly doesn’t talk about it. Jun 15 23 06:48 am Link I wouldn't be so quick to celebrate for several reasons. First we all have heard that a sandwich can be indicted and the Grand Jury does not have to be unanimous . Second the Presidential Records Act is not a criminal statue and my understanding is that the search warrant was based on that law and may well be thrown out by the courts. Also the PRA has itself never been challenged in court and itself may be unconstitutional based on Separations of Powers and past precedent that Presidential records have traditionally been the President's property till the PRA was passed. The Espionage Act was never intended for this type of application as it was passed in time of war by a racist President and used against journalists who opposed his policy and spies. Add in that the prosecutor has a record having unique ways of making laws fit what he wants them to mean until SCOTUS throws it out. The fact that the prosecution wants a speedy trial IMO is proof they have a weak to no case. A speedy trial is to protect the accused from lengthy delays not to aid the government, With over two hundred witnesses to depose the defense need time to interview them and also for all pretrial motions not to mention the long list of other court proceedings the defendant is facing in multiple jurisdictions. Then add in the DOJ policy of not having cases within 90 days or an election ( and the primaries are elections starting in Feb) anyone expecting this to conclude prior to the Nov election is having a Trump Derangement syndrome wet dream. And while off topic it is pertinent that Trump is not my first, or second choice for the Republican nomination. Jun 15 23 08:10 am Link Hi Bob, Just to make you aware, legal experts have been pointing out that the "Obstruction of Justice" charges are by far the most serious ones. It's the age old saying (at least in terms of political legal issues) that "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up". I would also point out that after he fought the NARA for over a year, that he finally (under subpoena) returned a portion of those records, a total of 15 boxes. NOT ONE OF THE CHARGES is in any way related to ANY of the classified documents that he eventually (under legal order) RETURNED. EVERY SINGLE CHARGE is related to the ones that he still kept and, more importantly, all of his efforts to repeatedly hide the rest, obstruct the legal orders, asking his lawyers to "just lie about it and/or just make them disappear", and repeatedly lie about it to the FBI, etc. --- Here are some of the most critical charges SPECIFIC TO OBSTRUCTION AND THE COVER-UP: - Conspiring to Obstruct Justice for allegedly scheming to keep classified documents from the White House and conceal them from a federal jury, - Withholding a document or record for trying to persuade an attorney to conceal documents from a federal grand jury, - Corruptly concealing a document or record for hiding documents from the attorney so they couldn’t turn them over to the grand jury, - Concealing a document in a federal investigation for hiding documents from the FBI, - Scheming to conceal for hiding documents from the FBI and keeping them from the grand jury, - False statements and representations for having his lawyer say they had given the FBI all documents responsive to the subpoena, which the prosecutors say Trump knew was false. (excerpted from the Washington Post's extensive list of charges) Jun 15 23 09:27 am Link Bob Helm Photography wrote: A minor correction. Every Judge in all of his cases so far (after his Presidency), has worked hard to make sure that the cases don't drag on for years. And Trump's lawyers have also been aware of this pending case for a LONG TIME. The Judge's reasons have all been DEAD SIMPLE. Jun 15 23 09:52 am Link Bob Helm Photography wrote: The ham sandwich indictment philosophy works both ways. The prosecutors often seem to phone in the case to the grand jury when the defendant is to be a cop. But both of these extremes require unethical prosecutors. Can you provide evidence that Smith is unethical? Jun 15 23 11:16 am Link Bob Helm Photography wrote: "First we all have heard that a sandwich can be indicted..." Jun 15 23 11:48 am Link Since my previous link is behind a paywall and people may be unwilling to pay a buck to read it, I supply this link as an alternative: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/26/11195883 … ago-search For reference, 18 USC CHAPTER 37—ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP, sections 791 & c. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?pat … formation. Item 6 (mid page 3) under "Introduction and Agent Background" clearly states, "Based upon the following facts, there is probable cause to believe that the locations to be searched at the PREMISES contain evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. [subsection] 793(c). 1519, or 2071." 18 USC 793 says "(c)Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or" and 18 USC 1519 says, "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." and 18 USC 2071 says, "(a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States." I hope that helps anyone that is still listening to unreliable sources. Instead of reading what I wrote, please continue to look at the affidavit and subsequent to what I transcribed from item 6, the affidavit provides more detail information regarding the laws that the government had reason to believe were broken. The PRA and relevance are mention in item 22 and under item 23 legal definitions are given for Federal Records. The description of probable cause is given starting at item 24. Again, I hope that helps anyone that is still listening to unreliable sources, because there is absolutely no reason to be using the information that is deceptive. The real deal is right there. Jun 15 23 02:52 pm Link The reason that we should not be quick to celebrate is that trump could obfuscate his way out of this with delay tactics; there could be a corrupt and unqualified or barely qualified judge that makes bad judicial decisions; and worse, there is an American public that does not care about the facts or the rule of law and are far to willing to believe the propaganda they are spoon feed everyday by unreliable sources trying to disrupt our democratic republic. Jun 15 23 03:14 pm Link There may also be other reasons for our not celebrating too early. In reading the comments following another Washington Post column by Jennifer Rubin (6-13-23) I found the following remarks were made by a retired attorney with specialties including "Federal Practice, Criminal Law, State Government Law, and Election Campaigns & Political Law" –as I found out by looking up his CV. "The sad fact of the matter is: The "Fix" is in with Cannon. The government's case will never reach the jury stage. Mark my words. . . . She has mighty forces behind her which will not only decide what her rulings should be but also author the rulings for her to sign. Do you really think or believe her off-the-wall rulings in the earlier case were of her own doing? She was spoon-fed the rulings, signing off on them as they were presented." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … ndictment/ I predicted a week ago that the Orange Plague would never go to jail, but this is even more dispiriting than I'd considered. I assume he means that all of the Federalist Society crew who put her up for appointment are now the ones telling her what to do, say, and sign. Ah, me! We'll soon see. Jun 16 23 03:07 am Link While I DO have serious doubts about this particular case getting past Judge Cannon (if she is not replaced), I AM much more confident in either of the two Jan 6th investigations (both in Georgia and the Federal investigation). There is also a current question mark over the Bedminster Golf Course part of the document case. Which would have a New York jurisdiction for any trial. However, that and the other various cases (fraud, etc), are really "small potatoes" compared to the fundamental issues around January 6th and his documented efforts to overthrow democratic elections. After all, aren't those his most serious crimes against the United States? Jun 16 23 07:52 am Link The relative import of the current documents case as opposed to the January 6th cases could be a toss-up, given that we don't yet know what the purloined top-secret documents actually contained, and whether or not they were forwarded to or seen by anyone beyond The Great Offender. The riot was stopped, and many miscreants jailed, while the danger from exposed secrets could go on and on, and could potentially end up killing a lot of agents and/or civilians. Both cases are incredibly important. As for the documents in Bedminster (and perhaps at any number of other unknown private locations), I believe that all such Federal cases could be tried either in D.C., or in the relevant venue, just as it was a DOJ choice as to whether to hold the Florida case in D.C. or Florida. The primary reason for having chosen to hold the latter in Florida was to fend off any potential venue/jurisdiction battles, and thereby to speed the case to trial. The downside is of course seeking justice in the Florida political climate. It's going to continue being a wild ride through Constitutional and criminal law, likely for years to come, and most especially if the primary culprit gets reelected. Jun 16 23 12:21 pm Link Hunter GWPB wrote: I'm not sure anyone has ever seen an "interview" of Jim Jordan, since he never answers the questions asked, and seldom lets the interviewer even speak. An "interview of Jim Jordan' is thus an oxymoron of sorts, while Jordon of course is simply a moron. Jun 16 23 12:32 pm Link Modelphilia wrote: To clarify, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically ruled on these type of jurisdictional issues, just YESTERDAY. Jun 16 23 02:06 pm Link LightDreams wrote: I just looked up s short synopsis of that case and am still uncertain if the underlying case was originally in a Federal or a State court. If it was a state court, then the venue question has always been answered as you describe. However, from what I've seen so far, and have also read in comments from many advanced legal minds, in Federal cases the government has (had?) a choice of venues. I am not certain if the case you cite is applicable in the documents cases. Do you have further information on that? Jun 16 23 03:23 pm Link Modelphilia wrote: I had to do some reading to try and figure out the nitty gritty of exactly how yesterday's decision affects Trump's case. Jun 16 23 04:43 pm Link LightDreams wrote: I have always found the crawlers under Faux News hosts to be particularity loathsome, hateful and falsified versions of current events or old news, used to nightly fan the internal flames of bias and resentment of people incapable of rational thoughts Jun 16 23 05:58 pm Link LightDreams wrote: Thanks for your efforts. I am still holding out for more legal analysis of the SC decision vis-a-vis the Florida case. Jun 16 23 08:12 pm Link Modelphilia wrote: Let me be very clear, as this is important. NONE of these charges are for TAKING the documents from the White House (in Washington DC). NONE. Jun 16 23 09:33 pm Link LightDreams wrote: THAT'S EXACTLY WRONG! Jun 16 23 09:51 pm Link I give up. You completely believe that the Special Counsel had no clue what they were doing by filing in Florida. Which was, rather obviously, the LAST thing they would want to do. And yes, you've taken specific facts, and ignored the bigger precedents of the Supreme Court decison details, that the legal experts have been analyzing. Which, curiously enough, seem to back the reasons why the Special Counsel, and the DOJ, felt compelled that they had to do it in Florida. I'm sorry you don't agree. But personally, I'm going to go with the experts. As they certainly know far more about it than me. Jun 16 23 10:04 pm Link Modelphilia wrote: Please get your facts straight. The legally filed false claims provided to both the FBI, and the DOJ, etc, were sworn at Mar-a-Lago. Jun 16 23 10:09 pm Link LightDreams wrote: Where did you get that idea? I've never said or thought that, and have always regarded their decision to file in Florida as a cautious one which they took in order to prevent a prolonged venue fight, and thus any unnecessary lengthening of the trial process. LightDreams wrote: My impression has been that he was also one of Dumpy's advisors before he left office, and that he had been involved back when the Presidential Records were requested. Perhaps I was mistaken. Jun 16 23 10:13 pm Link Aarrgghhh... They knew the Supreme Court was considering the location issue and, based on the Supreme Court questions during the hearing, strongly suspected that the Supreme Court was going to significantly narrow down where such cases could be heard (which turned out to be exactly what they did). And, as the state of the law was AT THAT TIME (before the actual decision), IF they chose the wrong venue (Washington), the case would just be overturned with no ability to retry it. THE PART that surprised everyone, was that they at least now would get a chance to completely retry the case from scratch, all over again, but this time in Florida. So under the circumstances, they had to go with Florida. This was not about "caution", or "possible questions" about "jurisdiction". They KNEW that the Jurisdiction rules were likely to get remarkably tightened once the Supreme Court ruled. And they turned out to be right. I suggest, again, that they actually knew what they were doing. They didn't like the options, but they knew what they had to do. And did it. Funny thing about experts, they're often right. Jun 16 23 10:22 pm Link Modelphilia wrote: The Indictment was VERY clear about when and where the SPECIFIC conversation, the one that was charged in the Indictment, was had (at Mar-a-Lago). And yes, I've read the full Indictment as it's widely available. Jun 16 23 10:26 pm Link The Hill addresses one of the fake political arguments trump is making that Bill Clinton kept records subject to NARA and was not prosecuted. Of course, trump's self inflicted wound is that he lied to the government about not having any more records, which was not the case with the dodge regarding the false claims about the Clinton records. “The crucial legal precedent is laid out in the most important case ever on this subject, known as the ‘Clinton Socks case.’ … After leaving the White House, Bill Clinton kept 79 audio tapes in his sock drawer. … Not only was Bill Clinton never even considered for criminal prosecution based on the tapes he took, but when he was sued for them, he won the case.” — Trump, Bedminster, June 13 Trump’s account is a misleading retelling of what happened in the Clinton case — and one that exaggerates its relevance to his legal troubles. In summary, former President Clinton gave interviews while in office to historian Taylor Branch for a later oral history of his presidency. The tapes were never defined as presidential records, so NARA never sought to take possession of them — exactly the opposite of the facts in Trump’s case. In Clinton’s case, a right-leaning advocacy group, Judicial Watch, sued. In essence, Judicial Watch was seeking to force NARA’s hand, making the agency redefine the Clinton tapes as presidential records and ultimately make them public. There was one part of the story Trump got unambiguously right: Judicial Watch lost the case. In the Clinton case, “The United States government had made a decision not to pursue those tapes and a private organization was trying to force the government to take those records back,” said Renato Mariotti, a trial attorney and former federal prosecutor who ran in the Democratic primary several years ago to become attorney general of Illinois. By contrast, Mariotti added, “The United States has made abundantly clear to Trump that it believes it owned these records and they needed them back. That is a very different situation.” https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … -derision/ The article also discusses some of the other fallacies trump is claiming. The article does not address that trump benefits from a different application of the law, not persecution, as he claims. Anyone else that did what trump did would not be out on bail with a passport. Nor would the government have waited patiently to retrieve them as they did. Jun 17 23 04:28 am Link Trump Classified Documents Trial Scheduled for Aug 14th Trump's favorite Judge, Aileen Cannon, has cleared the court's calendar to start Trump's trial in 5 weeks' time (EDIT: Aug 14th is 7 weeks away, not 5). The trial is scheduled to last for 2 weeks. Now Trump has a decision to make. Do they scrap their previous "Delay, Delay, Delay" strategy and trust that Aileen Cannon has a plan to dispatch the case extremely quickly (she has the power to overrule any jury decisions or considerations in a way that can't be appealed)? I.E. Well before primary season and the Presidential Election? Or, if not, how do they manage to repeatedly delay the case all the way beyond the next Presidential Election? It should be interesting... Jun 20 23 09:12 am Link LightDreams wrote: First of all, what possible ruling could Cannon make which would "overrule any jury decisions or considerations in a way that can't be appealed? That's a puzzler. Do you have any citations to back that up? Jun 20 23 05:38 pm Link Modelphilia wrote: Two fair questions / comments... Jun 20 23 06:40 pm Link I have now read Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal and, while it does support your view to a large extent, it is not quite so sensational as you and the Politico authors have made it sound. There is this: "Rule 29 (d) Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial. (1) Motion for a New Trial. If the court enters a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed. . . . (3) Appeal. (A) Grant of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally grants a motion for a new trial and an appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed with the new trial unless the appellate court orders otherwise. (B) Denial of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally denies a motion for a new trial, an appellee may assert that the denial was erroneous. If the appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed as the appellate court directs."[Emphasis & bolding added.] It would take a lot of researching of case-law to determine how these rules have been interpreted by the courts, It is also worthwhile remembering that TFG faces 37 counts, all supported by masses of very damning and clear evidence. While it is conceivable that some individual charges could be dismissed/acquitted by the judge (say, in the event that Corcoran's evidence is excluded), it is inconceivable that she would or could dismiss them in their entirety. No matter what though, we are in for some very interesting legal work all the way around! Jun 20 23 09:09 pm Link Fact-check. You FORGOT the part about IF she decides to acquit BEFORE the Jury turns in their verdict, then it is NOT reviewable. But I honestly don't care if you agree or not. Anyone can check the "Rule 29 Acquittal" for themselves (see below), as it applies to Trump's pending case, IF DONE BEFORE THE JURY TURNS IN THEIR VERDICT. And, as spelled out by the legal experts as it specifically pertains to Trump's case, how it would NOT be reversible. Under those particular circumstances, which SHE controls, should she decide to do it that way. Everyone else can simply Google "rule 29 acquittal trump documents case" and read the various legal analyses provided by Politico, the New York Times, the Law Dept at Cornell University, the CBC, CBS News, the Washington Post, and many more. While they're at it, I'm sure everyone will wonder why you completely disagree with ALL of those major reputable sources. But hey, it's your reputation. I'm not going to waste my time with anymore of your constant "Dispute Everything, No Matter What the Experts Say" routine. For rather obvious reasons. Jun 20 23 09:37 pm Link LightDreams wrote: No, I didn't forget about the pre-verdict acquittal being non-reviewable" I just accepted that much, and was simply referring to the various ways in which a new trial can come about, and in which a reversal of an after-verdict acquittal is subject to appeal. LightDreams wrote: You and I are now in closer agreement than you seem to think though. Part of our getting off-track was due to the abbreviated information that you first presented. Your first post on this subject sounded as if the whole concept of a "jury trial" was being confounded. Take some credit though for having later disabused me of my previous misconceptions and my misunderstanding of your actual position. Jun 20 23 10:21 pm Link |
