Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You may have read things, but as we all know your ability to fully comprehend things is nilBackatcha. What is the motion regarding?
You big poopyhead. I win.You may have read things, but as we all know your ability to fully comprehend things is nil
There has. Donald trump attempted to do that very thing.theres never been a POTUS that used the justice dept in an attempt to imprison a political opponent thats beating the shit out of him in the polls .
There has. Donald trump attempted to do that very thing.
Briben aint doing so great in the Mich primary tonight !More bs.
can't argue or address a fact
bye bye
loser
2020Briben aint doing so great in the Mich primary tonight !
Backatcha. What is the motion regarding?
I did. You clearly haven't. It is a Motion to Compel Discovery. Do you even know what discovery is? Comrade Smith told Trump to go fuck himself when he asked the Government to produce documents they have been hiding from him. And you don't see the irony, even when it hits you in the face with a 2x4. LOLread it
read it
Prosecutors Reject Claims of Unfairness in Trump Classified Documents Case
Jack Smith, the special counsel, said in a court filing that never before had a former official “engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s.”www.nytimes.com
read it
HA!I did. You clearly haven't. It is a Motion to Compel Discovery. Do you even know what discovery is? Comrade Smith told Trump to go fuck himself when he asked the Government to produce documents they have been hiding from him. And you don't see the irony, even when it hits you in the face with a 2x4. LOL
HA!
Trump's team asked for stuff that doesn't exist.
LOL You didn't even know it was a Motion to Compel Discovery, what a motion to compel is, or what discovery is.
good gawd, you're easy to fool.
Unfortunately, Trump has that **** judge in his pocket.I confess that I can see where people could be a bit confused with the thread title: "Never Been A Case In American History Where A Former President Has Engaging In Conduct Remotely Similar To Trump’s." Seeing as Mr. Trump himself has prided himself on not following traditions, breaking rules, ignoring the norms. But this is about his actions in a serious national security case:
In their 12 page filing:
Prosecutors Reject Claims of Unfairness in Trump Classified Documents Case
Jack Smith, the special counsel, said in a court filing that never before had a former official “engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s.”www.nytimes.com
Did Mr. Trump defy attempts by the National Archives to get the records back?
Did he engage in deceptions giving officials at the archives “only a fraction of the documents in his possession while claiming that his production was complete?”
Did Mr. Trump ask one of his lawyers M. Evan Corcoran, to “hide or destroy documents rather than produce them to the government?”
What about Mr. Trump's dealings with his personal aides, Walt Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira,? We know for a fact that both Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira have been charged as Mr. Trump’s co-defendants in the case.
It says it -- so...Wow Who is feeding you that bullshit?
LOL You didn't even know it was a Motion to Compel Discovery, what a motion to compel is, or what discovery is.
He is being prosecuted because he is a threat to the Democrats. It is all purely political.He is being prosecuted for lying and obstruction of justice.
Only to MAGA. Mr. Trump is a criminally who is being righteously and rightfully prosecuted.He is being prosecuted because he is a threat to the Democrats. It is all purely political.
LOL "For the reasons set forth above ... the defendants’ requests for discovery on this topic should be denied." 'Go fuck yourself, we're still going to hide these documents from you.'Rawley
quote:
In their 12-page filing, the prosecutors dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” a separate claim that Mr. Trump has raised in his own defense — that Mr. Biden had “secretly directed” the classified documents case and used the special counsel who filed the indictment, Jack Smith, as a “puppet” and a “stalking horse.”
BACKGROUND
On January 16, 2024, the defendants filed (ECF No. 262) a motion to compel discovery
under Rule 16 and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), seeking an array of materials that, they
speculated, could help substantiate their baseless theories of political animus and bias. In response,
the Government explained (ECF No. 277 at 21-23, 31-38) that a request for this sort of discovery
falls outside the scope of Rule 16 and Brady and is instead governed by the rigorous requirements
set forth in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996), and cases applying Armstrong,
including United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 810 (11th Cir. 2000). The defendants did not cite
Armstrong or Smith in their motion to compel, let alone attempt to satisfy the requisite standard.
In their reply (ECF No. 300), the defendants, for the first time, cited Armstrong and
attempted to make the showing required by Armstrong/Smith. The Government objected on
procedural grounds, arguing that it was improper for the defendants to use a reply brief to raise
these new arguments and evidence, and asked the Court either to defer consideration of whether
the defendants could make the Armstrong/Smith showing until pretrial motions were filed (since
the defendants had already indicated that they intended to file a motion for dismissal based on
selective and vindictive prosecution at that time), or, alternatively, to grant the Government leave
to file a surreply. ECF No. 305. The Court granted the motion in part and authorized the
Government to file a surreply on or before February 26, 2024. ECF No. 319.