Didn’t I just say “delays”?
Judge Approves Trump's 'Special Master' Request
- Thread starter Lakhota
- Start date
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,842
- 34,766
- 2,180
FunnyDidn’t I just say “delays”?
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
I'm not so sure that is true. The part about that they have to agree, not the part about it being a Trump loyalist. Although it would be more than a little ironic for the DNC/DOJ/FBI to object to someone for being loyal to the DNC's opponent.
A special master is basically a delegate of the judge for specific actions. Since the DNC/DOJ/FBI do not want a special master in the first place, it would be illogical to give them the power to simply veto every master the judge proposes.
I'm sure that they have the right to object for cause to any that seem particularly inappropriate, but the judge will rule on their objection.
Last edited:
Silly libtard.
We do, of course.
We the People paid for them, therefore We the People own them.
Any more stupid questions?
WEATHER53
Diamond Member
- Apr 13, 2017
- 34,870
- 23,411
- 1,915
Those black pens so many former employees have is going to land them all in jail
Your hysterical wussing is fun to watch
Mac1958
Diamond Member
No, I try to keep everything simple for you folks.
I'm glad you agree with the search and seizure.
Clipper
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2018
- 18,426
- 12,270
- 1,290
DOJ should let the decision by that idiot judge ride. An appeal will take months which is what Trump wants. The sooner that Trump is indicted & slapped with a gag order to shut his big mouth, put on trial & locked up as a traitor the better off this Country will be. His cult can eat shit if they don't like it.
MAGA Macho Man
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #149
Mac1958
Diamond Member
A little delay won't hurt. This is just one case, as well. The rubes are getting more feral and angry by the day, so just observing them will keep us occupied as we wait.
Meathead
Diamond Member
Given how compromised the DOJ, FBI and the Democrat party are, justice demands this.
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,409
- 21,375
- 2,320
It is, of course, nothing of the kind. Your Pavlovian response is noted.
Here's a summary of a part of the government's case.
Jay Bratt trudges to the podium to respond for the government. He begins by reminding the court that this is a pre-indictment challenge to a search warrant and that, at this stage, the plaintiff thus has relatively limited rights. There are only two bases for the court’s jurisdiction at this point, he explains. First, there’s Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property [to] move for the property's return.” But 41(g) doesn’t apply here, he argues. A second basis for jurisdiction, he continues, is found in the court’s “equitable” or “anomalous” jurisdiction. But that would trigger certain burdens that the Trump team simply has not put forward sufficient evidence to overcome.
Delving deeper into the jurisdictional issues at play, Bratt argues that Trump’s motion is “really a 41(g) motion.” But a key factor under 41(g) is a possessory property interest, he says. And because former presidents don’t have a possessory interest in presidential records, “that ends the analysis under 41(g).” In other words, as the government put it in its brief, “Plaintiff has no property interest in any Presidential records (including classified records) seized from the Premises. The PRA provides—under a heading entitled “Ownership of Presidential records”—that “[t]he United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession and control of Presidential records.”
Cannon interrupts to ask whether Bratt is “putting the cart before the horse.” She wonders why, as a matter of Fourth Amendment law, a possessory interest must be established at this stage. In reply, Bratt first reminds the court that Trump had no “reasonable expectation of privacy” because the search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant based on judicial finding of probable cause. He again emphasizes that this proceeding is pre-indictment. If a Fourth Amendment claim needs to be made, then the appropriate time to make it is later in the process—with a motion to suppress evidence or some similar motion.
A Mar-a-Lago Showdown in Federal Court
At least one judge seems to be taking former President Trump’s motion for a special master pretty seriously.
In her order, issued on the Labor Day holiday, Judge Cannon said she made her decisions “to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances.”
Judge Grants Trump’s Request for Special Master to Review Mar-a-Lago Documents (Published 2022)
The ruling also effectively barred federal prosecutors from using key pieces of evidence as they continue to investigate whether Mr. Trump illegally retained national defense documents at his estate.
Despite having no legal ground to stand on the judge Trump appointed, persuaded by theatrics,
"With housekeeping matters behind her, Cannon now has Kise rise to argue the merits of Trump’s “Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief.” He begins by observing that there is a “lack of trust” between the parties, a “lack of transparency” in the investigation, and a resulting “lack of faith” in the administration of justice. He implores Cannon to “help restore public confidence” by acceding to Trump’s “modest” request for a special master."
rather than precedent and the government's legally compelling arguments, granted Trump's meaningless notion.
Simply a stall tactic....
yeah the judge tossed the xiden regime silly arguments…what’s your point? and the judge correctly highlighted the lack of transparency and lack of trust in the regime and begged them to try and help restore those basic things that the public demands on our republicIt is, of course, nothing of the kind. Your Pavlovian response is noted.
Here's a summary of a part of the government's case.
Jay Bratt trudges to the podium to respond for the government. He begins by reminding the court that this is a pre-indictment challenge to a search warrant and that, at this stage, the plaintiff thus has relatively limited rights. There are only two bases for the court’s jurisdiction at this point, he explains. First, there’s Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property [to] move for the property's return.” But 41(g) doesn’t apply here, he argues. A second basis for jurisdiction, he continues, is found in the court’s “equitable” or “anomalous” jurisdiction. But that would trigger certain burdens that the Trump team simply has not put forward sufficient evidence to overcome.
Delving deeper into the jurisdictional issues at play, Bratt argues that Trump’s motion is “really a 41(g) motion.” But a key factor under 41(g) is a possessory property interest, he says. And because former presidents don’t have a possessory interest in presidential records, “that ends the analysis under 41(g).” In other words, as the government put it in its brief, “Plaintiff has no property interest in any Presidential records (including classified records) seized from the Premises. The PRA provides—under a heading entitled “Ownership of Presidential records”—that “[t]he United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession and control of Presidential records.”
Cannon interrupts to ask whether Bratt is “putting the cart before the horse.” She wonders why, as a matter of Fourth Amendment law, a possessory interest must be established at this stage. In reply, Bratt first reminds the court that Trump had no “reasonable expectation of privacy” because the search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant based on judicial finding of probable cause. He again emphasizes that this proceeding is pre-indictment. If a Fourth Amendment claim needs to be made, then the appropriate time to make it is later in the process—with a motion to suppress evidence or some similar motion.
A Mar-a-Lago Showdown in Federal Court
At least one judge seems to be taking former President Trump’s motion for a special master pretty seriously.www.lawfareblog.com
In her order, issued on the Labor Day holiday, Judge Cannon said she made her decisions “to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances.”
Judge Grants Trump’s Request for Special Master to Review Mar-a-Lago Documents (Published 2022)
The ruling also effectively barred federal prosecutors from using key pieces of evidence as they continue to investigate whether Mr. Trump illegally retained national defense documents at his estate.www.nytimes.com
Despite having no legal ground to stand on the judge Trump appointed, persuaded by theatrics,
"With housekeeping matters behind her, Cannon now has Kise rise to argue the merits of Trump’s “Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief.” He begins by observing that there is a “lack of trust” between the parties, a “lack of transparency” in the investigation, and a resulting “lack of faith” in the administration of justice. He implores Cannon to “help restore public confidence” by acceding to Trump’s “modest” request for a special master."
rather than precedent and the government's legally compelling arguments, granted Trump's meaningless notion.
we shall see.
I think it is a good idea in that it will eliminate questions of bias or claims of violating privelege.
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,409
- 21,375
- 2,320
Anyone interesting can read the government's total dismantling of Team Trump's argument here.
www.lawfareblog.com
Cannon's ruling being the most recent example of the price the country is paying for Don bending over while blindly accepting Leonard Leo's list of appointees to the Federal bench.
Justice Department Files 40-Page Opposition to Mar-a-Lago Special Master Request
The 40-page response outlined the government's position as to why a special master should not be appointed, though outlining limitations that should apply should the request be granted.
Cannon's ruling being the most recent example of the price the country is paying for Don bending over while blindly accepting Leonard Leo's list of appointees to the Federal bench.
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,409
- 21,375
- 2,320
I'm impressed that you were able to read them so quickly before you rendered your expert legal opinion. (wink)
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,409
- 21,375
- 2,320
Nope.
In her order, issued on the Labor Day holiday, Judge Cannon said she made her decisions “to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances.” Her order would not, however, affect a separate review of the documents being led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Judge Grants Trump’s Request for Special Master to Review Mar-a-Lago Documents (Published 2022)
The ruling also effectively barred federal prosecutors from using key pieces of evidence as they continue to investigate whether Mr. Trump illegally retained national defense documents at his estate.
you thought that was quick?
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,409
- 21,375
- 2,320
Trump always had a tendency to chose form over function.The nice looking judge. Great jawline features. Nice skin tone.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Democrats propaganda explained in simple sentences.- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
Make a Sentence from the Last Word of the Previous Sentence
- Latest: SaxonJackson
