Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Never Been A Case In American History Where A Former President Has Engaged In Conduct Remotely Similar To Trump’s
- Thread starter Procrustes Stretched
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
You may have read things, but as we all know your ability to fully comprehend things is nilBackatcha. What is the motion regarding?
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.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 35,755
- 20,433
- 2,945
You big poopyhead. I win.You may have read things, but as we all know your ability to fully comprehend things is nil
Have a blessed day
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,563
- 58,362
- 2,645
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
- Thread starter
- #27
- Thread starter
- #28
2020Briben aint doing so great in the Mich primary tonight !
Biden 50.6% - 2,804,040
Trump 47.8% - 2,649,852
2016
Trump was the first Republican to win Michigan since 1988, defeating Hillary Clinton by fewer than 11,000 votes. In 2016, both Democratic support and turnout were down in Detroit and its suburbs.
2024 results: Initial vote tallies from Dearborn, the city with the highest percentage of Arab American voters in the state, have been posted. ‘‘Uncommited” is leading there by far, with more than 73 percent of the total vote reported so far — 1,828 votes to President Biden’s 599.
Most likely more registered voters than last election. Trump would need to exceed expectations and Biden would have to have the protest votes stay home.. we know they will not add numbers to the Trump column.
pay attention, cupcake
- Thread starter
- #29
Backatcha. What is the motion regarding?
read 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.”
read it
Last edited:
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 35,755
- 20,433
- 2,945
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
- Thread starter
- #31
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
Trump's team asked for stuff that doesn't exist.
good gawd, you're easy to fool.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 35,755
- 20,433
- 2,945
HA!
Trump's team asked for stuff that doesn't exist.
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.
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.”
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.
- Thread starter
- #34
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #35
The reason why presidents can't keep their White House records dates back to Nixon
Congress changed the law in the 1970s when President Nixon prepared to leave with his documents — and infamous tape recordings.
www.npr.org
National Security
The reason why presidents can't keep their White House records dates back to Nixon
- Thread starter
- #36
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.
I don't take you seriously. All you do is regurgitate political arguments posing as legal ones.
And Trump has asked for stuff that doesn't exist.
Blaster
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2022
- 19,065
- 18,870
- 2,288
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.
John Edgar Slow Horses
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2023
- 22,539
- 12,046
- 1,288
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.
- Thread starter
- #39
This Rawley is claiming Jack Smith is hiding documents.
Where did he get this nugget of wisdom? From political arguments of the right, posing as legal arguments.
He and his kind swallow what they believe is warm diarrhea in a dixie cup, when in reality it's plain old bullshit.
Where did he get this nugget of wisdom? From political arguments of the right, posing as legal arguments.
He and his kind swallow what they believe is warm diarrhea in a dixie cup, when in reality it's plain old bullshit.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 35,755
- 20,433
- 2,945
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.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 343
- Replies
- 69
- Views
- 796
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 238
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 93
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 167
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8051
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-