Octopus Overlords

He isn’t the president anymore but he is still the president which means he can’t be charged.

Schrodinger's president.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 7:19 pm I'm guessing we'll be hearing he needs new lawyers tomorrow.

Well that’s that. Trump just confessed to Fox News that he stole and shared classified materials.

Yeah, this interview is just legally insane. His attorney’s must be going crazy. His only real hope is that one juror is a super MAGA and refuses to convict. And I believe he is playing that card by continually putting out in the press that he is being persecuted, hoping to rile up and encourage this line of thinking.

I could totally see him saying ‘and any jurors that help me fight this witch hunt will be national heroes, rewarded like nobody else”

Sort of crazy that Baier lists out many people who've thrown up their hands at his antics and he just sputters on...10 times that loved my policies. And that is actually his best defense. This is actually the convincing argument for conservatives who care about nothing but dunking on libs and enriching the oligarchs. It seems likely that if they can be convinced or see evidence that he can win and deliver, then they will all rally right back around him. I suspect we are only hearing any noise at all because people are uncertain about what the legal issues will bring.

Baier actually hammered him, for whatever that's worth. I guess we'll see.

In other news, the trial date has been set:

Donald Trump’s criminal trial for hoarding military secrets at Mar-a-Lago has a starting date — Aug. 14 — but don’t expect it to hold.

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon bookmarked the last two weeks in August for the historic trial, part of an omnibus order setting some early ground rules and deadlines for the case. That would represent a startlingly rapid pace for a case that is expected to be complicated and require lengthy pretrial wrangling over extraordinarily sensitive classified secrets.

But a review of Cannon’s criminal cases since she took the bench in late 2020 suggests this is standard practice for the Florida-based judge. She typically sets trial dates six to eight weeks from the start of a case, only to allow weeks- or months-long delays as issues arise and the parties demand more time to prepare. While her order on Tuesday starts the clock on a slew of important pretrial matters in the Trump case, it’s not likely to resemble anything close to the timeframe that will ultimately govern the case.

Reminder:

Trump is also under indictment in Manhattan for allegedly falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to a porn star. The trial in that case is scheduled for March 25, 2024.

Grifman wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 7:01 am

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 7:19 pm I'm guessing we'll be hearing he needs new lawyers tomorrow.

Well that’s that. Trump just confessed to Fox News that he stole and shared classified materials.

Yeah, this interview is just legally insane. His attorney’s must be going crazy. His only real hope is that one juror is a super MAGA and refuses to convict. And I believe he is playing that card by continually putting out in the press that he is being persecuted, hoping to rile up and encourage this line of thinking.

Am I missing something or does this clip not include him confessing to stealing and sharing classified materials? The bulk of this is Trump making the completely insane argument that the stuff that he was discussing on the recording, which he describes on the recording as secret & classified, was actually just a bunch of newspaper clippings.

My take is that he's clarifying it was "a document" but instead a series of documents that included newspaper clippings, magazine articles, etc... -- a mix of content. In other words, he's objecting to the idea that he was in possession of a magical classified document and is instead clarifying it was a mix of materials - which is core to his argument that he wouldn't turn the boxes over to NARA because he needed to go through them all and remove his personal documents that were seemingly intermixed with classified information (that he's also simultaneously claimed were his to keep).

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:13 pm

Grifman wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 7:01 am

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 7:19 pm I'm guessing we'll be hearing he needs new lawyers tomorrow.

Well that’s that. Trump just confessed to Fox News that he stole and shared classified materials.

Yeah, this interview is just legally insane. His attorney’s must be going crazy. His only real hope is that one juror is a super MAGA and refuses to convict. And I believe he is playing that card by continually putting out in the press that he is being persecuted, hoping to rile up and encourage this line of thinking.

Am I missing something or does this clip not include him confessing to stealing and sharing classified materials? The bulk of this is Trump making the completely insane argument that the stuff that he was discussing on the recording, which he describes on the recording as secret & classified, was actually just a bunch of newspaper clippings.

Maybe I'm missing something because I didn't hear that in this clip at all (to be clear, I'm talking about the linked clip that runs 2 minutes and 2 seconds).

I also think the argument he is making is the best one he could possibly make. Setting aside whether it's credible (seems highly incredible to me), his best bet is to deny there was any such document, especially since no one has been able to identify what the purported document is or what happened to it. This is his best (only) real defense: Deny the document at issue ever existed.

That obviously does nothing about all the other documents that clearly did exist and were irrefutably in Trump's possession when they shouldn't have been, but as for the Iran attack plan at Bedminster, this seems like it makes a lot of sense from a defense perspective. Again, it's only one document, but it's an important one because (1) no one is going to seriously argue that a plan to attack another country is not a legitimate subject for top secret classification and (2) if he was holding a top secret attack plan at the time the recording was made, that is damning evidence that he knew the document was classified and that he wasn't supposed to have it.

The question is, how does the government prove the document in Trump's hand at the time was a plan to attack Iran and not a bunch of newspaper clippings? Is there witness testimony that can establish that? And, even more important, what happened to that document?

The witnesses would testify, or maybe it was among the recovered documents.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 7:50 pm The witnesses would testify, or maybe it was among the recovered documents.

Also, I'm pretty sure the record of what classified documents were produced and how many copies exist and who saw each one and where they are now is very well established, at least up to the point where POTUS fails to return them.

Well crap. Apparently Trumps trial is taking place in my county. Luckily I don’t find myself going to Fort Pierce often. Hopefully the craziness doesn’t spread too far.

Holman wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:16 pm

Zarathud wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 7:50 pm The witnesses would testify, or maybe it was among the recovered documents.

Also, I'm pretty sure the record of what classified documents were produced and how many copies exist and who saw each one and where they are now is very well established, at least up to the point where POTUS fails to return them.

Hmm. I didn’t understand that to be the case, at least, not with respect to the purported Milley Iran attack plan document. I thought I had read that no one has established what document Trump was actually referring to at the time of the Bedminster recording or what happened to that document.

Kurth wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 10:22 am Hmm. I didn’t understand that to be the case, at least, not with respect to the purported Milley Iran attack plan document. I thought I had read that no one has established what document Trump was actually referring to at the time of the Bedminster recording or what happened to that document.

There was a NYT article at the beginning of the month saying his lawyers couldn't find it. So either it never existed or it has a new owner. I mean, I guess it's possible it's stashed away somewhere else too, but that doesn't exactly help his case either.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 10:27 am

Kurth wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 10:22 am Hmm. I didn’t understand that to be the case, at least, not with respect to the purported Milley Iran attack plan document. I thought I had read that no one has established what document Trump was actually referring to at the time of the Bedminster recording or what happened to that document.

There was a NYT article at the beginning of the month saying his lawyers couldn't find it. So either it never existed or it has a new owner. I mean, I guess it's possible it's stashed away somewhere else too, but that doesn't exactly help his case either.

Well, if it never existed, that would certainly help his case. I mean, it wouldn't really be off-brand for Trump in an interview to be waiving around a bunch of newspaper clippings about potential attack plans while characterizing them as "top secret" documents. Actually feels very on-brand to me.

I'm assuming DOJ is pulling out all the stops to ID that doc and trace its chain of custody. They're going to need more than Trump's recording to nail down what was going on during that Bedminster interview.

A plan (with many variants) to attack Iran certainly does exist. That kind of planning is the Pentagon's job, after all. We have plans filed away to attack *everybody*. (And it's notable that Iran didn't even lodge a token complaint when all this first hit the news.)

That doesn't mean Trump had it in his possession, of course, but I imagine Jack Smith knows by now whether he ever did and if that copy stayed with him after his exposure to it.

Holman wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 5:40 pm A plan (with many variants) to attack Iran certainly does exist. That kind of planning is the Pentagon's job, after all. We have plans filed away to attack *everybody*. (And it's notable that Iran didn't even lodge a token complaint when all this first hit the news.)

That doesn't mean Trump had it in his possession, of course, but I imagine Jack Smith knows by now whether he ever did and if that copy stayed with him after his exposure to it.

I hope Jack Smith both knows it and can prove it. If ever there was a smoking gun, that Bedminster recording paired with an identification of the document Trump was holding at the time would be it.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 10:27 am I guess it's possible it's stashed away somewhere else too

Ivana's coffin?

Ivana wasn’t buried in a coffin. She’s hole 15 at Mar-a-Lago.

New: Special Counsel Jack Smith informs Judge Cannon that the Justice Department has made its first production of unclassified evidence available for review by Trump’s defense team.

Among other things, includes some grand jury testimony, statements by Trump/Nauta, CCTV footage.

Notably, the government will disclose grand jury testimony of anyone “who will testify for the government at the trial of this case.”

In other words: Trump will find out which of his former lawyers, long-time employees, or protective service detail could testify against him…

Is it entirely unrealistic to hope that Jack Smith has a case that no one (Cannon) could defend?

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 9:00 pm Ivana wasn’t buried in a coffin. She’s hole 15 at Mar-a-Lago.

To Donald, I'm sure Ivana will always be hole number fifteen.

Unagi wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 10:14 pm Is it entirely unrealistic to hope that Jack Smith has a case that no one (Cannon) could defend?

It is worth remembering that, among other things, Trump just needs to get one juror on his side.

CBS News

The House voted to censure Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff for his role in congressional investigations of former President Donald Trump, making him the 25th House lawmaker to face the punishment in U.S. history.

The measure passed along party lines by a vote of 213 to 209. Six Republicans voted present.

As the vote closed, Democrats in the chamber shouted "Shame! Shame! Shame!"

When House Speaker Kevin McCarthy asked Schiff to appear in the well after the vote to formally reprimand him, Democrats gathered around Schiff, chanting "Adam! Adam! Adam!"

"To my Republican colleagues who introduced this resolution, I thank you," Schiff said earlier Wednesday after Democrats failed to kill the measure. "You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth-tellers and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy and I am grateful."

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 10:54 pm

Unagi wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 10:14 pm Is it entirely unrealistic to hope that Jack Smith has a case that no one (Cannon) could defend?

It is worth remembering that, among other things, Trump just needs to get one juror on his side.

defeat

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 11:40 pm
"To my Republican colleagues who introduced this resolution, I thank you," Schiff said earlier Wednesday after Democrats failed to kill the measure. "You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth-tellers and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy and I am grateful."

Not bad at all.

I kind of hate this. I know that August trial date was never, ever going to happen, but if I were in Jack Smith’s shoes, there’s no way I would be the one seeking a continuance. I’ve been down this road so many times, and it’s always the same: The first party that seeks to push out the trial date is always the one that gets tagged with dragging its feet. It doesn’t matter how good the reason is. It doesn’t matter how unrealistic the existing trial date is. If you want to get to trial, do not seek a continuance.

Maybe I’m missing something obvious, and my litigation experience is entirely civil (not criminal) and has never been in connection with a case against a former President of the United States, but still . . . I don’t get it.

Especially where it’s a forgone conclusion that Trump would have had to seek a continuance himself. Why not wait for that? Trump would have probably asked for something crazy, like to continue the trial until after the election, but the government could have simply opposed that and proposed a more modest continuance instead.

It’s just optics, but in my experience, those optics are important. I just would hate to see this thrown back at the government when Trump inevitably plays his delay game and the government opposes — especially where we have reason to believe Judge Cannon may not act in good faith.

Kurth wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2023 11:53 am Maybe I’m missing something obvious, and my litigation experience is entirely civil (not criminal) and has never been in connection with a case against a former President of the United States, but still . . . I don’t get it.

I've seen it suggested that they're going out of their way to make sure Trump has nothing complain about (legally) in terms of treatment. First, that none of the normal/expected conditions were applied (bond, taking his passport, domestic travel restrictions, house arrest, etc...) and now in making sure there's enough time for pre-trial preparation. I guess the idea that the DOJ knows that anything they're going to do, he's going to bloviate about on social media, but in this case it's painfully obvious to anyone not wearing a red hat that he's being given special treatment, not being railroaded or treated as a political prisoner. They're not trying to appease him or the MAGA crowd in anyway, but instead making it clear to everyone else (domestic and foreign) that it's all above the boards.

How long could Trump get away with continuously firing attorneys and never having one with a clearance?

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2023 12:29 pm

Kurth wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2023 11:53 am Maybe I’m missing something obvious, and my litigation experience is entirely civil (not criminal) and has never been in connection with a case against a former President of the United States, but still . . . I don’t get it.

I've seen it suggested that they're going out of their way to make sure Trump has nothing complain about (legally) in terms of treatment. First, that none of the normal/expected conditions were applied (bond, taking his passport, domestic travel restrictions, house arrest, etc...) and now in making sure there's enough time for pre-trial preparation. I guess the idea that the DOJ knows that anything they're going to do, he's going to bloviate about on social media, but in this case it's painfully obvious to anyone not wearing a red hat that he's being given special treatment, not being railroaded or treated as a political prisoner. They're not trying to appease him or the MAGA crowd in anyway, but instead making it clear to everyone else (domestic and foreign) that it's all above the boards.

Yeah, I agree that Jack Smith isn’t working to appease Trump or the MAGAts. That’s not my critique or my point.

He’s seeking more time because, realistically, he — and everyone else — knows that there’s no way the trial can happen in August. I imagine the strategy is that he thinks it’s better to get ahead of that and be the one making the initial request for a reasonable continuance rather than letting the Trump clown posse take the lead with a ridiculous extension request. It’s just not the approach I would have taken. I wouldn’t want to be leading on the issue of a delay to the trial schedule because I’d be concerned that a judge would throw that back at me when later I’m complaining that the new schedule is unreasonably long.

Alefroth wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:01 pm How long could Trump get away with continuously firing attorneys and never having one with a clearance?

Before a judge who is a straight shooter, not that long. Once an attorney makes an appearance in a case on behalf of a party, it’s up to the court to grant or deny their motion to withdraw. Usually a judge won’t grant a motion to withdraw unless substitute counsel has been retained and made an appearance or is in the process of doing so. I think a judge who was not attempting to put her fingers on the scale would require any substitute counsel for Trump or Nauta here to have cleared security protocols.

Before Cannon, who knows? This is one of those areas that’s entirely within the court’s discretion. Judges have an immense amount of power to control their own docket. There’s always the possibility of seeking a writ of mandamus from an appellate court ordering a judge who is really off the rails to do something they are refusing to do, but that is exceedingly rare.

Nothing like finding out that your efforts to treat Trump better and demonstrate that we have a 2-tier justice system for the powerful still lead to bad faith attacks. Too bad Garland didn't just do the right thing and truly treat him like any other citizen in the first place.

I had the right to remain silent...But I didn't have the ability

Trump: Whatever documents a President decides to take with him, he has the absolute right to take them. He has the absolute right to keep them or he can give them back.. that’s the law

That’s some classic Ron White.
Bravo.

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2023 8:28 pm I had the right to remain silent...But I didn't have the ability

Trump: Whatever documents a President decides to take with him, he has the absolute right to take them. He has the absolute right to keep them or he can give them back.. that’s the law

To be this guy’s lawyer . . . I can’t imagine.

There is that and I also worry it'll work out for him and just break everything.

Yes, keep talking, you stupid, stupid, motherfucker. PLEASE just keeeeeep it up.

He trying to establish that he in no way did this criminally. Only maybe he was wrong about the law , but intent is important right? ! Just like he really really really thought there was voter fraud , so every effort he made there was (in his mind) not to overthrow a legitimate election, it was to defend democracy.

I’m implying I honestly wonder if he’s been coached to press this angle by a Rudy-like advisory.

Unagi wrote:He trying to establish that he in no way did this criminally. Only maybe he was wrong about the law , but intent is important right? ! Just like he really really really thought there was voter fraud , so every effort he made there was (in his mind) not to overthrow a legitimate election, it was to defend democracy.

I’m implying I honestly wonder if he’s been coached to press this angle by a Rudy-like advisory.

Which kind of ignores the evidence that he tried to have his lawyers lie about the search and was moving the boxes to keep them hidden fun the investigators, but ok...

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk