'Without Merit' Judge Shuts Down Trump's Latest Trial Requent.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did I not say I wasn’t sure on the legality?

Is there another issue, in a court of law?

Sometimes?

So, okay, you don't like it. Unsure of its legality.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Is there another issue, in a court of law?

Sometimes?

So, okay, you don't like it. Unsure of its legality.

Uh..yeah..that’s what my argument has been this whole time. YOU made it something more than that, and now we’ve been on a 3 day multi page goose chase to finally come back to my original point. Thanks for the tour lol

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Uh..yeah..that’s what my argument has been this whole time. YOU made it something more than that, and now we’ve been on a 3 day multi page goose chase to finally come back to my original point. Thanks for the tour lol

But you saw what I posted, right? What would be disclosed? There appears to be no problem there.

So why don't you like it?

 

[Care4all]

But free to run his own investigation and not directly supervised by AG. To be an independent counsel, he would have to be free from being under the AG.

Also, house rule do have a section about special counsel requiring advice and consent but I’m not 100% sure it applies here or not.

Are you sure about that?

Robert Mueller was set up the same as Jack Smith....why would Mueller investigating and bringing charges and reporting to the AG, be independent and Jack Smith not?

That special prosecutor rule on advice and consent doesn't apply here.

And the AG could fire Mueller or Smith under the Doj rules, but because Smith and Mueller did not rely on these special prosecutor appointments as their CAREERS but only for one gig... temporary....the AG can't really have pressure to influence their results.

 

[struth]

These are of course not conclusions drawn from facts. They are first premises insisted upon, to prop up a coping narrative.

Haha not based on fact? Silly dembot still can’t accept Clinton got beat and Xiden was forced to withdraw! Haha

 

[ThisIsMe]

But you saw what I posted, right? What would be disclosed? There appears to be no problem there.

So why don't you like it?

Because I think it’s unethical and it was done to sway opinion. It wasn’t about justice, that happens INSIDE court, this was a “elections are coming fast and we need to release this information in a hurry to damage Trump”

The way this will play out is probably something like this: now trumps lawyers will have to release statements trying to debunk this information and the left will be right there with the “fake news” claims, and social media companies will censor their statements claiming them to be “disinformation”

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, the damage will be done

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because I think it’s unethical and it was done to sway opinion.

Could you please read the list I posted and incorporate some factual information and argument into why its release is unethical?

Because I don't think anyone seeing that list would easily come to such a conclusion.

I also think you don't really understand what is being released. Like, at all. Maybe your mind will change, if you are in possession of some factual information, as opposed to none.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Could you please read the list I posted and incorporate some factual information and argument into why its release is unethical?

Because I don't think anyone seeing that list would easily come to such a conclusion.

I also think you don't really understand what is being released. Like, at all. Maybe your mind will change, if you are in possession of some factual information, as opposed to none.

Judge Chutkan's new Trump case decision "comes with a catch"—Legal analyst

Chutkan unsealed the appendix of special counsel Jack Smith's new filing against Trump but gave him a week to try to block it.

www.newsweek.com

On Thursday, Chutkan agreed to publicly release redacted source documents from Smith's brief which supported his argument that Trump's alleged offenses in his federal election subversion case are private, rather than official acts of office, and can therefore remain in his indictment following the U.S. Supreme Court's July 1 immunity ruling.

and Judge Chutkan said, 'Um, yeah, I reject those and I am ordering the appendix, all of the evidence, unsealed.

Jack Smith's evidence against Donald Trump to be unsealed, judge rules

Judge Chutkan's order was stayed for a week to let Trump's team "evaluate litigation options" before evidence is made public.

www.newsweek.com

District Judge Tanya Chutkan has agreed to release additional evidence related to Jack Smith's opening brief in Donald Trump's federal election subversion case.

I’m this word all over about evidence. My point isn’t about what that evidence is, it’s about why she’s releasing it

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’m this word all over about evidence

Right, and you're misguided. That's why I posted the list.

I don't think you understand what is being released.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Right, and you're misguided. That's why I posted the list.

I don't think you understand what is being released.

If you reply to my whole post instead of chopping it off, I literally just explained that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Prosecutors said the appendix could include information and quotations from public material — such as congressional Jan. 6 witness transcripts — but that information from nonpublic sources such as grand jury transcripts, witness interview reports and sealed search warrant returns would remain redacted." - WaPo

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you reply to my whole post instead of chopping it off, I literally just explained that.

You didn't have to do so. And I read your post.

I already knew the explanation.

You just didn't have all the information.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You didn't have to do so. And I read your post.

I already knew the explanation.

You just didn't have all the information.

You obviously didn’t because I showed you where they are taking about evidence released and WHAT they are releasing, but that it wasn’t about the what, but the why.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You obviously didn’t because I showed you where they are taking about evidence released and WHAT they are releasing, but that it wasn’t about the what, but the why.

Okay, but I don't see how that applies to what is being released. It's not even really "evidence".

Team Trump found no good argument, either.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Okay, but I don't see how that applies to what is being released. It's not even really "evidence".

Team Trump found no good argument, either.

One of the articles I linked sanding the judge released information on the case that included evidence that smith had that showed trump was acting as a private citizen.

I don’t care what the evidence is, I just think it’s wrong to release it to the public, I think it was wrong of her to do this at all, because it was purely political.