Smith's patience has expired.

[berg80]

You know that you are delusional
You have to know.

Furthermore, even though resolution of the threshold legal question is purely a matter of law, the Court should be aware at the outset that Trump’s entire effort to rely on the PRA is not based on any facts. It is a post hoc justification that was concocted more than a year after he left the White House, and his invocation in this Court of the PRA is not grounded in any decision he actually made during his presidency to designate as personal any of the records charged in the Superseding Indictment. Accordingly, before turning to the jury instructions, the Government below provides the Court with the factual context surrounding Trump’s attempt to inject the PRA into these proceedings. Importantly, Trump has never represented to this Court that he in fact designated the classified documents as personal. He made no such claim in his motion to dismiss, in his reply, or at the hearing on March 14, 2024, despite every opportunity and every incentive to do so. As discussed below, the reason is simple: he never did so. Instead, he has attempted to fashion out of whole cloth a legal presumption that would operate untethered to any facts—without regard to his actual decisions, his actual intent, the unambiguous definition of what constitutes personal records under the PRA, or the plainly non-personal content of the highly classified documents that he retained. There is no basis in law or fact for that legal presumption, and the Court should reject Trump’s effort to invent one as a vehicle to inject the PRA into this case.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/r...d.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.428.0_1.pdf

Mic drop.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Failed prosecutions isn't a valid measure of a prosecutor. It just means he's willing to take on tough cases, so naturally his failed stats are going to be higher than the wimps who only take slam dunks.

But no right wing rag is going to tell you the truth.

Really?

So if he never convicted anyone, he’d be the best prosecutor in history?

Slam dunk cases are easy, because the defendant is obviously guilty. That is who prosecutors are supposed to prosecute. They’re not like defense attorneys. Defense attorneys are supposed to vigorously, defend their client no matter how seemingly guilty. Prosecutors are supposed to prosecute cases they can win, cases, which defendant is actually guilty.

By your logic, a completely innocent person is the most difficult to prosecute of all, and therefore Smith is right to go after Trump.

Picking clients on the basis of how hard it will be to convict them is not only grossly unfair to the defendants, but grossly wasteful of taxpayer dollars.

Violent crimes with victims crimes are rampant, and the prisons are already full. It serves no non-political purpose to try to convict Trump for victimless crimes.

The fact that they picked such a consistent loser for the job, makes me believe they know that.

 

[berg80]

Really?

So if he never convicted anyone, he’d be the best prosecutor in history?

Slam dunk cases are easy, because the defendant is obviously guilty. That is who prosecutors are supposed to prosecute. They’re not like defense attorneys. Defense attorneys are supposed to vigorously, defend their client no matter how seemingly guilty. Prosecutors are supposed to prosecute cases they can win, cases, which defendant is actually guilty.

By your logic, a completely innocent person is the most difficult to prosecute of all, and therefore Smith is right to go after Trump.

Picking clients on the basis of how hard it will be to convict them is not only grossly unfair to the defendants, but grossly wasteful of taxpayer dollars.

Violent crimes with victims crimes are rampant, and the prisons are already full. It serves no non-political purpose to try to convict Trump for victimless crimes.

The fact that they picked such a consistent loser for the job, makes me believe they know that.

You should send a note to Trump's defense team so they make sure they bring up Smith's past while trying to get Trump acquitted. Each time Smith's team introduces irrefutable evidence of Trump's guilt they should object by saying something mean about Jack. No doubt the jury will be impressed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

She asked for jury instructions regarding each side's interpretation of the PRA. There is no place for the PRA in this case.

Really?

It has been Democrats on here constantly citing the Presidential records Act as the reason that the national archivist a very minorfunctionary, had the power to order a former president to return the copies of the document he kept for personal reference.

If I quote their posts on this thread, you will quickly tell them they’re wrong?

 

[Seymour Flops]

You should send a note to Trump's defense team so they make sure they bring up Smith's past while trying to get Trump acquitted. Each time Smith's team introduces irrefutable evidence of Trump's guilt they should object by saying something mean about Jack. No doubt the jury will be impressed.

Jack Smith does not try cases with irrefutable evidence. If he did, he wouldn’t keep losing.

 

[WEATHER53]

Really?

So if he never convicted anyone, he’d be the best prosecutor in history?

Slam dunk cases are easy, because the defendant is obviously guilty. That is who prosecutors are supposed to prosecute. They’re not like defense attorneys. Defense attorneys are supposed to vigorously, defend their client no matter how seemingly guilty. Prosecutors are supposed to prosecute cases they can win, cases, which defendant is actually guilty.

By your logic, a completely innocent person is the most difficult to prosecute of all, and therefore Smith is right to go after Trump.

Picking clients on the basis of how hard it will be to convict them is not only grossly unfair to the defendants, but grossly wasteful of taxpayer dollars.

Violent crimes with victims crimes are rampant, and the prisons are already full. It serves no non-political purpose to try to convict Trump for victimless crimes.

The fact that they picked such a consistent loser for the job, makes me believe they know that.

It’s hard to prove you didn’t do that which was never done
Witch hunters are apprised.

 

[kyzr]

I'm familiar with Turley. He has succeeded in becoming the "go to" conservative when RWM needs an opinion from someone willing to prostitute himself for a little fame. He's become a caricature of a unscrupulous ambulance chaser eager to sell his services for a buck.

The caricatures are democrat "legal experts" Tribe, Weissman, and Luttig.
Turley is generally right, those partisan clowns are usually wrong.

91 counts and counting down, so far no score...

 

[Rawley]

Not really. It means he knows the judge has shown herself to be a highly partisan jurist and is setting her up to have her removed from the case for her misapplication of the PRA.

How did she misapply the PRA?

 

[Rawley]

Jack Smith files appeals to a higher court who are far more competent on the law than Cannon is. She's a novice. He will have the upper hand, and the reason is she is in egregious violation of the law.

What is he appealing?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[berg80]

Really?

It has been Democrats on here constantly citing the Presidential records Act as the reason that the national archivist a very minorfunctionary, had the power to order a former president to return the copies of the document he kept for personal reference.

If I quote their posts on this thread, you will quickly tell them they’re wrong?

As in any case, the Court may defer ruling on certain aspects of jury instructions where the applicability or non-applicability of the instructions turns on the evidence that is presented at trial. For example, whether the jury should be instructed on how to evaluate law enforcement testimony or how to evaluate expert witness testimony will turn on whether such witnesses actually testify at trial. Such decisions can obviously be deferred. But the question of whether the PRA has an impact on the element of unauthorized possession under Section 793(e) does not turn on any evidentiary issue, and it cannot be deferred. It is purely a question of law that must be decided promptly. If the Court were to defer a decision on that fundamental legal question it would inject substantial delay into the trial and, worse, prevent the Government from seeking review before jeopardy attaches. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d). (“The court must not defer ruling on a pretrial motion if the deferral will adversely affect a party’s right to appeal.”). As instructed by the Court, the Government below provides a clear and well-supported jury instruction for the elements of Section 793(e). The proposed instruction correctly instructs the jury that the element of unauthorized possession depends on the plain language of the statute, Executive Order 13526, and the executive order’s implementing regulations, and it makes no mention of purported designations under the PRA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/04655061-54c7-40f2-9e39-f6c6c89cdc92.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_9&itid=lk_inline_manual_18

 

[BlindBoo]

How did she misapply the PRA?

Presidents are not allowed to designate official records as personal ones, so there is no factual issue for a jury to resolve. It was passed in the wake on Nixon's attempt.

 

[Rawley]

Presidents are not allowed to designate official records as personal ones, so there is no factual issue for a jury to resolve. It was passed in the wake on Nixon's attempt.

Does it say so in the law? Or are you citing Comrade Smith's opinion?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Its not Smith's court, its Cannon's. Smith does not run the show.

He has gotten her overturned twice already.

This will make 3.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s hard to prove you didn’t do that which was never done
Witch hunters are apprised.

Except Trump already admitted all of it publicly.

Yes, that's how stupid he is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fake

 

[Seymour Flops]

Really?

It has been Democrats on here constantly citing the Presidential records Act as the reason that the national archivist a very minorfunctionary, had the power to order a former president to return the copies of the document he kept for personal reference.

If I quote their posts on this thread, you will quickly tell them they’re wrong?

As in any case, the Court may defer ruling on certain aspects of jury instructions where the applicability or non-applicability of the instructions turns on the evidence that is presented at trial. For example, whether the jury should be instructed on how to evaluate law enforcement testimony or how to evaluate expert witness testimony will turn on whether such witnesses actually testify at trial. Such decisions can obviously be deferred. But the question of whether the PRA has an impact on the element of unauthorized possession under Section 793(e) does not turn on any evidentiary issue, and it cannot be deferred. It is purely a question of law that must be decided promptly. If the Court were to defer a decision on that fundamental legal question it would inject substantial delay into the trial and, worse, prevent the Government from seeking review before jeopardy attaches. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d). (“The court must not defer ruling on a pretrial motion if the deferral will adversely affect a party’s right to appeal.”). As instructed by the Court, the Government below provides a clear and well-supported jury instruction for the elements of Section 793(e). The proposed instruction correctly instructs the jury that the element of unauthorized possession depends on the plain language of the statute, Executive Order 13526, and the executive order’s implementing regulations, and it makes no mention of purported designations under the PRA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/04655061-54c7-40f2-9e39-f6c6c89cdc92.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_9&itid=lk_inline_manual_18

I'll take that for a yes.

Start with WorldWatcher

Then this "lady:"

Lastly, this poster you may recognize:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't let the sealions derail the thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jack Smith isn't like the moron Trump. Trump's hyperbole and superlatives are not based in reality, but are based in a lifetime of being a liar and a conman.

When Smith uses such severe and damning language in a court filing, its not "for show", as with the low IQ carnival barker Trump. It means he has forceful arguments backed by fact and will happily put them to the test in a courtroom.

 

[Rumpole]

What is he appealing?

He won't appeal just yet, next he will file a motion in limine, then a petition for a writ of mandamus. If she answers wrongly, she'll be reprimanded by the 11th circuit, maybe taken off the case.