Smith's patience has expired.

[SavannahMann]

She needs to hold him in contempt and toss him off the case.

Actually, with nearly all her rulings being overturned on appeal it is getting likely that she will be removed from the case, not Smith.

 

[Rawley]

He won't appeal just yet, next he will file a motion in limine, then a petition for a writ of mandamus. +

Motion in limine for what? Write of mandamus for her to do what?

If she answers wrongly, she'll be reprimanded by the 11th circuit, maybe taken off the case.

 

[Rawley]

Actually, with nearly all her rulings being overturned on appeal it is getting likely that she will be removed from the case, not Smith.

Let me guess, you've been watching the legal "experts" on MSDNC

 

[kyzr]

Let me guess, you've been watching the legal "experts" on MSDNC

Exactly. Those clowns never heard of the Presidential Records Act, according to them every scrap of paper belongs to the archives.
In the Bill Clinton case the judge ruled that whatever the president says is his personal property is his personal property.
Does precedent stand or not?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Exactly. Those clowns never heard of the Presidential Records Act, according to them every scrap of paper belongs to the archives.
In the Bill Clinton case the judge ruled that whatever the president says is his personal property is his personal property.
Does precedent stand or not?

The court in the judicial watch case over Clinton’s memoir documents didn’t rule that every scrap of paper was his personal property. They ruled the historians notes and audio recordings were notes for a book.

WW

 

[SavannahMann]

Let me guess, you've been watching the legal "experts" on MSDNC

No. I’ve been reading the news. And I notice patterns.

And I think for myself. Trump is charged under the Espionage Act.

Let’s think for a minute. Let’s say you are watching the man who murdered your child going through pre trial motions. You see the judge agree that the focus of the case should be on his use of a stolen car. You would lose your mind in rage.

That is what Trump is doing. Arguing that something totally unrelated is the real issue, and the Judge is agreeing. That is yet another decision that is certainly going to be appealed. And so far the Appeals court has not upheld one of her decisions.

So what do we expect with this? Will the murderer be allowed to define the case as to if he was driving a stolen car? Or will the murder be the focus of the trial?

 

[SavannahMann]

Exactly. Those clowns never heard of the Presidential Records Act, according to them every scrap of paper belongs to the archives.
In the Bill Clinton case the judge ruled that whatever the president says is his personal property is his personal property.
Does precedent stand or not?

In the Clinton case the recordings were for the express purpose of researching a book. Was Trump planning on publishing nuclear secrets?

 

[kyzr]

The court in the judicial watch case over Clinton’s memoir documents didn’t rule that every scrap of paper was his personal property. They ruled the historians notes and audio recordings were notes for a book.

WW

Judicial Watch sued for the tapes and papers under FOIA, and were told that whatever the president says is his personal, is his personal property. (I can hunt the link if needed, I think you're more than capable)

I saw the Leftist legal experts on CNN/MSDNC say that every scrap of paper belongs to the National Archives.

The "Clinton precedent" and the current interpretation of the PRA are miles apart.
I can see how Judge Cannon needs time to figure the PRA out.

 

[Rawley]

No. I’ve been reading the news. And I notice patterns.

Really? How many rulings has she made and how many have been overturned?

And I think for myself. Trump is charged under the Espionage Act.

Let’s think for a minute. Let’s say you are watching the man who murdered your child going through pre trial motions. You see the judge agree that the focus of the case should be on his use of a stolen car. You would lose your mind in rage.

What you are talking about. How is she "focusing" the case on a "stolen car?"

That is what Trump is doing. Arguing that something totally unrelated is the real issue, and the Judge is agreeing.

??? Trump isn't arguing anything

That is yet another decision that is certainly going to be appealed. And so far the Appeals court has not upheld one of her decisions.

What decision? what are you talking about?

So what do we expect with this? Will the murderer be allowed to define the case as to if he was driving a stolen car? Or will the murder be the focus of the trial?

 

[kyzr]

In the Clinton case the recordings were for the express purpose of researching a book. Was Trump planning on publishing nuclear secrets?

Not the point.
Does the PRA give the president the power to say what is his personal property or not?
As far as nuclear secrets, I'm sure Biden had them all over, his garage, the Chinese place, the shore, etc. (I forget all the places he had them)

 

[Rumpole]

Really?

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

Strawman

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.

It takes courage to prosecute a maiden voyage prosecution. Do you know what that is? It's a 'first', this prosecution is history in the making, and the world spotlight is burning down Smith's backside. This is a prosecution lesser prosecutors would have shied away from. There are frew prosecutions in the world where the stakes are higher than this one. It's the kind of prosecution that can make or break careers, and Smith is still a young man. So, the gamble he is taking with his own career is incredible. One cannot doubt he has gone out of his way to amass a ton of incontrovertible evidence, evidence that despite that fact, could still result in a hung jury given the politics that is hanging in the air, given the "I don't give a damn what the facts are" attitude of his ardent followers, and all it takes is one to hang a jury.

I'm sorry, this idea that this is some kind if willy nilly cavalier prosecution defies credulity. Smith is known for taking difficult cases. Do some research on his history.

COPILOT:
Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing classified documents and 2020 election cases against former President Donald Trump, has a decades-long prosecution record, including high-profile public corruption cases. Let’s delve into his background and notable achievements:

1. Career Beginnings:
   
   • Smith began his career in the 1990s as a prosecutor in the New York County district attorney’s office.
   • Later, he served as chief of criminal litigation and held other roles at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York123.
2. Prosecution Record:
   
   • Robert McDonnell Case:
     
     • Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican.
     • Although he secured a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision4.
     • The Court emphasized concerns about the government’s broad interpretation of the federal bribery statute4.
   • John Edwards Case:
     
     • Smith also prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards.
     • Edwards won a significant legal victory, with a mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one4.
   • Bob Menendez Case:
     
     • Smith handled the public corruption charges against Democrat Bob Menendez.
     • The case ended in a mistrial, with Menendez criticizing the investigation and prosecution4.
   • Rick Renzi Case:
     
     • Smith prosecuted Arizona congressman Rick Renzi on corruption charges.
     • The Supreme Court upheld the charges, but Renzi was later pardoned by former President Trump4.
   • Other Notable Cases:
     
     • Smith oversaw the investigation into former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (a Republican) without bringing charges.
     • He also served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee5.
3. International Experience:
   
   • Smith’s career includes serving as an investigation coordinator at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
   • There, he supervised investigations of foreign government officials and militia for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide1.
4. Appointment as Special Counsel:
   
   • U.S. Attorney Merrick Garlandappointed Smith as special counsel to lead two investigations:
     
     • Handling of classified documents found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
     • Interference with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election1.
   • Garland’s decision stemmed from Trump’s announcement that he was running for president and Joe Biden’s expected re-election campaign1.

In summary, Jack Smith’s legal background spans various high-profile cases, and his appointment as special counsel reflects his experience and expertise in handling complex matters15. His role in the Trump indictments underscores the gravity of the investigations and their potential impact on American democracy6.

​

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

That isn't my 'logic', that is your strawman.

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.

That isn't the basis by which this case was chosen, it was assigned by Garland, offered to Smith, and Smith, not afraid of a challenge, accepted it, challenges for which he is noted for.

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.

Defrauding the electorate victimizes democracy, dilutes the value of each vote, and, indeed, therefore, has a 'victim'.

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

Horseshit.

I said it was one or the other, or both.

So, Smith is responsible for the death threats?

No, Trump is.

That would be TTC.

No, 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is a right wing construct, a thought-terminating cliche. It's purpose is to kill the debate, and TTC's are designed to curb critical thinking skills. These are devices implanted in the minds of followers by demagogues. Righties would have us believe it is some kind of valid mental state, but no medical journal or academic treatises upholds it. It's merely a rhetorical device used by right wingers and has no actual 'syndrome' validity other than in the fevered minds of the right.

 

[SavannahMann]

Not the point.
Does the PRA give the president the power to say what is his personal property or not?
As far as nuclear secrets, I'm sure Biden had them all over, his garage, the Chinese place, the shore, etc. (I forget all the places he had them)

The PRA does not apply to classified documents. Those are completely different laws.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Strawman

I think you mean Reductio ad absurdum

It takes courage to prosecute a maiden voyage prosecution. Do you know what that is? It's a 'first', this prosecution is history in the making, and the world spotlight is burning down Smith's backside. This is a prosecution lesser prosecutors would have shied away from. There are frew prosecutions in the world where the stakes are higher than this one. It's the kind of prosecution that can make or break careers, and Smith is still a young man. So, the gamble he is taking with his own career is incredible. One cannot doubt he has gone out of his way to amass a ton of incontrovertible evidence, evidence that despite that fact, could still result in a hung jury given the politics that is hanging in the air, given the "I don't give a damn what the facts are" attitude of his ardent followers, and all it takes is one to hang a jury.

You know why this is a first? Because the Justice Department's refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton for stealing, refusing to return, and destroying classified documents that she had no reason to possess. The reason given by head of the FBI team investigating her: Because she was likely the next president

.

I'm sorry, this idea that this is some kind if willy nilly cavalier prosecution defies credulity. Smith is known for taking difficult cases. Do some research on his history.

COPILOT:
Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing classified documents and 2020 election cases against former President Donald Trump, has a decades-long prosecution record, including high-profile public corruption cases. Let’s delve into his background and notable achievements:

1. Career Beginnings:
   
   • Smith began his career in the 1990s as a prosecutor in the New York County district attorney’s office.
   • Later, he served as chief of criminal litigation and held other roles at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York123.
2. Prosecution Record:
   
   • Robert McDonnell Case:
     
     • Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican.
     • Although he secured a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision4.
     • The Court emphasized concerns about the government’s broad interpretation of the federal bribery statute4.
   • John Edwards Case:
     
     • Smith also prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards.
     • Edwards won a significant legal victory, with a mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one4.
   • Bob Menendez Case:
     
     • Smith handled the public corruption charges against Democrat Bob Menendez.
     • The case ended in a mistrial, with Menendez criticizing the investigation and prosecution4.
   • Rick Renzi Case:
     
     • Smith prosecuted Arizona congressman Rick Renzi on corruption charges.
     • The Supreme Court upheld the charges, but Renzi was later pardoned by former President Trump4.
   • Other Notable Cases:
     
     • Smith oversaw the investigation into former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (a Republican) without bringing charges.
     • He also served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee5.
3. International Experience:
   
   • Smith’s career includes serving as an investigation coordinator at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
   • There, he supervised investigations of foreign government officials and militia for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide1.
4. Appointment as Special Counsel:
   
   • U.S. Attorney Merrick Garlandappointed Smith as special counsel to lead two investigations:
     
     • Handling of classified documents found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
     • Interference with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election1.
   • Garland’s decision stemmed from Trump’s announcement that he was running for president and Joe Biden’s expected re-election campaign1.

In summary, Jack Smith’s legal background spans various high-profile cases, and his appointment as special counsel reflects his experience and expertise in handling complex matters15. His role in the Trump indictments underscores the gravity of the investigations and their potential impact on American democracy6.

​

Those are a list of failed efforts and collosal wastes of money. Unless . . . the purpose of the prosecution was not to get convictions, but some other political motivation.

How did Smith prosecute and convict John Edwards, if his trial inded in hung jury on five counts and acquital on one?

From your link:

Conviction of former Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction in 2016. Chief Justice John Roberts said the government used a "boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."

Prosecutors said that Edwards, during his 2008 presidential campaign, conspired with other people to receive campaign contributions that exceeded federal limits to avoid disclosing an extramarital affair and a resulting pregnancy.

In 2012, a jury found him not guilty on one count related to accepting illegal contributions and deadlocked on the other five charges, resulting in a mistrial. The Justice Department declined to retry the case.

Indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.: In 2015, Menendez was indicted for allegedly accepting gifts from Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist, in exchange for using his Senate office’s power to benefit Melgen’s financial and personal interests. Melgen also was indicted. An 11-week trial in 2017 ended in a hung jury, and the Justice Department declined to retry the case.


nviction of former Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.: Renzi, an Arizona congressman from 2003 to 2009, was convicted in 2013 by a federal jury of 17 felony offenses related to conspiring to extort and bribe people seeking a federal land exchange. Renzi was sentenced to three years in prison. Trump pardoned Renzi. The pardon doesn’t mean the prosecution was flawed.

Other than being a complete waste of time, I suppose.

Maybe this will explain why Smith was picked for this case:

Suppose you owned a company and you had five salesmen. One of them is outstanding and has a strong record of sales success. Three of them are adequate. One of them never seems able to close, but he is doggedly determined and always tries his hardest, even when it should be obvious that he has picked a bad prospect. You pay him a small salary since he could not live on his rare commissions, and . . . well . . . he's your brother in law.

You hear of a really tough lead, a prospective customer that would make your year if you landed him, but you know it is a piple dream, cause that guy ain't buyin'. This case has no chance and is only going to make whoever you assign it to angry because he'll put a lot of effort into a sure dead end.

Who would you give it to? Your best man, so he can waste his time that he could be making you and himself money, or your pathetic loser, because he'll feel honored to be put on such an important client, and won't mind being the Washington Generals.

Or maybe that isn't the reason they assigned Smith. Maybe its a matter of knowing it would be a case that required the prosecutor to abandon integrity to keep it active, and they knew who would do that.

That isn't my 'logic', that is your strawman.

That isn't the basis by which this case was chosen, it was assigned by Garland, offered to Smith, and Smith, not afraid of a challenge, accepted it, challenges for which he is noted for.

But why Smith? What's your theory? Why not a proven winner instead of a consisten loser?

Oh! Now I get it.

All the winner were afraid of the challenge. That's how they got to be winners. The Red Baron said many times that he won so many dogfights but not getting into one with a pilot anywhere near his skill.

Defrauding the electorate victimizes democracy, dilutes the value of each vote, and, indeed, therefore, has a 'victim'.

Smith's case is about "defrauding the electorate?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Y'all realize that all of Smith's anger at Cannon is because she wants to let the jury - not Smith - decide what relevancy to assign the Presidential Records Act. His serious rebuttal to that is "but . . . but . . . if they acquit him, I don't get to try him again!"

With his record of losses, if he gets this mad every time a ruling doesn't go his way, no wonder he looks like a freaking maniac.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

It deals with presidential records like Nixon's tape recordings. It makes those records public. It does not give a president the authority to designate classified or sensitive documents as his personal or private records to do with as he will. Nor does it give him a get out of jail free card.

 

[Rawley]

It deals with presidential records like Nixon's tape recordings. It makes those records public. It does not give a president the authority to designate classified or sensitive documents as his personal or private records to do with as he will. Nor does it give him a get out of jail free card.

That wasn't the question. I asked if the law defines who can designate a document as a personal. You said it can't be the President and I was asking if you pulled it out anyplace other than Rachel Maddow's vagina.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Judicial Watch sued for the tapes and papers under FOIA, and were told that whatever the president says is his personal, is his personal property. (I can hunt the link if needed, I think you're more than capable)

I’ve read the decision and it didn’t say what you’re trying to imply.

The case was about personal memoir materials NOT “every scrap of paper”.

I saw the Leftist legal experts on CNN/MSDNC say that every scrap of paper belongs to the National Archives.

I don’t base my opinions on any networks talking heads. I’ve read the source material which is the decision by the court.

The "Clinton precedent" and the current interpretation of the PRA are miles apart.
I can see how Judge Cannon needs time to figure the PRA out.

#1 The Clinton ruling was fully in line with the governments position on the PRA.

#2 Cannon is wrong about entertaining FPOTUS#45’s ramblings about the PRA. He’s trying to use the PRA for CYA. That’s all. The PRA as civil law has no being on handling NDI under criminal law.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not the point.
Does the PRA give the president the power to say what is his personal property or not?

No.

The PRA clearly defines the difference between Presidential Records and Personal Records.

WW

 

[Billiejeens]

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

“What she has asked the parties to do is very, very troubling,” Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge in Massachusetts, said of Cannon. “She is giving credence to arguments that are on their face absurd. She is ignoring a raft of other motions, equally absurd, that are unreasonably delaying the case.”

“The PRA is just not relevant here in any way it all; it provides no defense. To even allow it to be argued at trial would create confusion for the jury,” said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former U.S. attorney.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati.../20/trump-cannon-judge-pra-jury-instructions/

In response, Smith said Cannon was pursuing a “fundamentally flawed legal premise” that the law somehow overrides Section 793 of the Espionage Act, which Trump is accused of violating by stashing hundreds of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home and private club, after his presidency ended.
“That legal premise is wrong, and a jury instruction for Section 793 that reflects that premise would distort the trial,” Smith wrote. The Presidential Records Act, he said, “should not play any role at trial at all.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/03/trump-documents-case-cannon-jack-smith/

Cult media does you a disservice.

 

[Rumpole]

I think you mean Reductio ad absurdum

You know why this is a first? Because the Justice Department's refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton for stealing, refusing to return, and destroying classified documents that she had no reason to possess. The reason given by head of the FBI team investigating her: Because she was likely the next president

.

Those are a list of failed efforts and collosal wastes of money. Unless . . . the purpose of the prosecution was not to get convictions, but some other political motivation.

How did Smith prosecute and convict John Edwards, if his trial inded in hung jury on five counts and acquital on one?

From your link:

Conviction of former Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction in 2016. Chief Justice John Roberts said the government used a "boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."

Prosecutors said that Edwards, during his 2008 presidential campaign, conspired with other people to receive campaign contributions that exceeded federal limits to avoid disclosing an extramarital affair and a resulting pregnancy.

In 2012, a jury found him not guilty on one count related to accepting illegal contributions and deadlocked on the other five charges, resulting in a mistrial. The Justice Department declined to retry the case.

Indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.: In 2015, Menendez was indicted for allegedly accepting gifts from Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist, in exchange for using his Senate office’s power to benefit Melgen’s financial and personal interests. Melgen also was indicted. An 11-week trial in 2017 ended in a hung jury, and the Justice Department declined to retry the case.


nviction of former Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.: Renzi, an Arizona congressman from 2003 to 2009, was convicted in 2013 by a federal jury of 17 felony offenses related to conspiring to extort and bribe people seeking a federal land exchange. Renzi was sentenced to three years in prison. Trump pardoned Renzi. The pardon doesn’t mean the prosecution was flawed.

Other than being a complete waste of time, I suppose.

Maybe this will explain why Smith was picked for this case:

Suppose you owned a company and you had five salesmen. One of them is outstanding and has a strong record of sales success. Three of them are adequate. One of them never seems able to close, but he is doggedly determined and always tries his hardest, even when it should be obvious that he has picked a bad prospect. You pay him a small salary since he could not live on his rare commissions, and . . . well . . . he's your brother in law.

You hear of a really tough lead, a prospective customer that would make your year if you landed him, but you know it is a piple dream, cause that guy ain't buyin'. This case has no chance and is only going to make whoever you assign it to angry because he'll put a lot of effort into a sure dead end.

Who would you give it to? Your best man, so he can waste his time that he could be making you and himself money, or your pathetic loser, because he'll feel honored to be put on such an important client, and won't mind being the Washington Generals.

I don't buy your spin, nor the right's spin on Smith.

Or maybe that isn't the reason they assigned Smith. Maybe its a matter of knowing it would be a case that required the prosecutor to abandon integrity to keep it active, and they knew who would do that.

But why Smith? What's your theory? Why not a proven winner instead of a consisten loser?

Oh! Now I get it.

All the winner were afraid of the challenge. That's how they got to be winners. The Red Baron said many times that he won so many dogfights but not getting into one with a pilot anywhere near his skill.

Smith's case is about "defrauding the electorate?

My theory is that he doesn't flinch from high profile hard to win cases.He's got guts. Not many prosecutors would prosecute Trump. there's a of rich and powerful people out there, vbut the only one with 65 million hard core believers is Trump, and that's power on a scale America has never experienced before. He's a demagogue who must be stopped, and for me, Smith is one hope in that direction.

I say his chances of winning are 50/50 but Trump won't be acquitted, the best he'll get is a hung jury. And of those 91 charges, some of them are going to be convictions.