DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald Trump

I don't think that dismissing that trump defied a subpoena to withhold documents after he left office will be upheld upon appeal. You can't have an act by a president considered after he is no longer president.

Turns out you're not allowed to violate the constitution to play the lawfare game.

Weird.

That constitution is pesky and just in the way. (Do I need purple here too?)

So you're denying that he refused to honor a subpoena to return classified documents for months? That they negotiated with him for months to turn those documents over to the point they had to issue a search warrant to get them? Yeah, some catch phrase somehow changes what he did. Weird.

I don't play the Pit goalposts game anymore. Find a new mule to smuggle your b.s.

Facts seem like goal posts to you. The BS here is that you think things he did after he left office qualify as official presidential business. I mean if you're talking about BS. But I understand why you would like to avoid that by blaming someone else for it.

So you are saying you read a headline and know everything that was said in it, plus the actual opinion in the case? I see you have your outrage fix on.

It' has nothing to do with outrage. It has to do with what he did and how illegal it is.

So yer saying you just read the headline got it.

Please explain why this case was just dismissed so that we know you actually have a clue as to what just happened.

Par for the course, really.

It's about the appointment of Jack Smith. And it won't hold water on appeal.

Wow what great detail that involved. Need a nap now?

You still haven't figured out the difference between the word profession and professional. Maybe it's you that is missing out on their beauty sleep.

If Trump is above the law, we all are. OPEN SEASON FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Smfh.

From the quoted article...

Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case under the appointments clause was seen as a long shot, as several special counsels – even during his own presidential administration – were run the same way.

But the fringe argument gained steam when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas threw his support behind the theory, writing in a footnote in the high court’s presidential immunity decision that there are “serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”


So yes, it is weird... I would argue a different kind of weird that you were getting at, but definitely weird.
Does this open the floodgates to appeal/overturn any/all convictions that came out of a special counsel?

What won't hold water? The constitution? What part of "appointment must be confirmed by the senate" are you not understanding?

And yet that same metod of using special counsels had been used in the past with none of them being overturned and this appeal was considered a long shot at best. I get it.

I'm not gonna lie... I'm bummed after reading this.

Here's my opinion on this... looks like Trump is gonna slide past this not because he didn't do what they accused him of, or wasn't aware of what he was doing, or anything like that. He's gonna snake his way past this because of how the special counsel was called up to investigate (which apparently was how it was done in the past and we're only now identifying a problem with this method).

I'll admit... I'm no lawyer or legal scholar, and I don't play one on TV. I know there are some on here that love to dive into the details/minutiae of these cases (FrankZ?), so if I'm off-base, I'd appreciate the correction....

On the surface it seems clear that Trump illegally kept these docs unsecured, then refused to return them. It's alleged that he shared them with people he shouldn't have. This ruling does absolutely nothing to address any of that, but benefits Trump because of an alleged technicality that hasn't been an issue until today. It's hard to appreciate rulings like this that so blatantly run counter to common sense.

Cannon said that the appointment must be confirmed thru the senate. Previous special counsels going back to the Clinton admin have all been run this way. Garland was approved by the senate and Smith is working under him as an appointment.

Jack Smith already has said today that he will appeal to the 11th because Cannons ruling is both fundamentally flawed and legally incorrect

He would I assume to have her dismissed her from the case.

It is my assumption that fairly quickly this will be overturned in the 11th and then trump will take it to SCOTUS. He already had thomas state he didn't think the appointment was correct.

And there are still even other outcomes including refiling the case in DC and having the US Attorneys office file the charges.

I also guess that that the other special counsels are invalid also?

I think you are spot on. And we have posters celebrating this....

We also have a sitting president who as a senator took classified documents from a sciff and shared them with his biographer. He also took classified documents as a vice president and stored theses documents all over in unsecured areas. Charges weren’t filed because he is an old man who doesn’t have his faculties about him. I don’t remember your outrage over that so spare me the “posters celebrating this” outrage. The difference is this will probably be overturned on appeal.

Did he defy a subpoena for months forcing a search warrant to be issued in order to recover them? Spare me a comparison that isn't a comparison.

You're forgetting the part about said person returning those when asked, vs fighting against recovery of those docs the whole time. I'm gonna get flamed for this because Biden is the poster-child for establishment politician behavior, but that same person doesn't have his classified documents issue(s) intersecting/overlapping with suspicious meetings with adversaries (Russia and its proxies and the Saudis).

We can argue the merits of whether these differences matter or not, but there is a big difference.

You're forgetting that 31 of Trump's 37 felony charges are for willful retention.

So, Biden should have a bunch of felony charges for everything but the obstruction charges, correct??

No? Because he's old and senile and can't remember his name?

But he should be president. lol

I’m not forgetting anything. He had no business taking them in the first place. He had them for years and years. This thing about Trump sharing them with Russia and the Saudi’s hasn’t been proven yet that I know of. Trump was also accused of and his campaign spied on by the democrats in charge because they thought he was colluding with Russia. That turned out to be false so I’m a little hesitant to convict him on this.

Trump has disqualified himself from office in my opinion because of Jan 6. What I don’t like is all the double standards for him and the ridiculous prosecutions. People on here seem to think they’re fine because they don’t like him.

I have zero problem with Biden getting charged where he broke the law. You're confusing me with some of the other more argumentative folks on here.

His mental state is probably the best legal defense one would have in this situation.

I never said Biden should be president. I said Trump shouldn't. Unfortunately I have to acknowledge reality and say both of those things can't turn out to be true.

So the other SIX are just no big deal? Wow, the kool-aid runs deep in this one.

No bigger or smaller than the 31 Joe didn't get because he was slobbering all over the table during the interview.

THe only think dismissed was the appointment of Jack Smith. The case can go forward in some fashion but it has to be a different team of lawyers that bring it. If trump wins in November, the case will be gone for good. If he doesn't, he'll still have to deal with it.

If Biden should be charged, then so should Pence, The difference that some people keep forgetting was when alerted to the data being found, both Pence and Biden didn't try to hide anything. He cooperated with the FBI. They agreed to be interviewed by the FBI or was it the DOJ.... They didn't run, they didn't fight, they agreed and understood that they shouldn't have had the items.

Trump on the other hand cried like a baby,...Fought being investigated. Had the documents moved around Mar A Lago in an attempt to hide them.

Funny how people forget that stuff.

Dang !

Hailey Welch was my choice.

Hawk Tuah and just spit on that country that's screwing this country over

yes I'm tired of that as much as I'm tired of stupid people thinking they can run this country.

Politics is a freaking joke in this country.

Did you read any of what I wrote, any of the comment I was responding to, anything at all?

Nevermind. This, like everything else, probably went straight over your head. Besides, you probably won't be able to find this post til after the election.

So you still don't really know what it all means, you hide behind silly spelling error arguments. Did you need some website to tell you what you think using really small words?

He seems to keep forgetting that if trump hadn't defied a subpoena for months forcing them to serve a search warrant, those 31 of Trump's 37 felony charges are for willful retention wouldn't exist and he probably wouldn't have been charged at all. In their world it seems that any citizen, which is what trump was after leaving office, can defy a subpoena for months and not be charged for that. If any of us would have done that exact same thing we would already be behind bars. But trump is "special". Just ask them.

No I didn't. It's all just much easier to understand than you're making it out to be. Naming a special prosecutor by the DOJ has been happening since the Clinton administration and even went on during the trump administration.

So what part of the opinion will be attacked in the appeal request? How will the government show incorrect reasoning in this?

Will it be a 3 judge panel that overturns or do you see this needing en banc before it is?

Since you have designated yourself the Dawgtalkers resident Constitutional attorney I'll let you figure out how best to let trump get away with his crimes.

But you made an assertion and the only thing you can prove is your assertion is you are talking out your hind end.