- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Help explain this new filing by Trump on the DC case posted by Julie Kelly.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:15 am
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:15 am
12
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:17 am to GumboPot
38D Intergalactic Chess. He's about to overturn the 2020 election with this move. 
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:20 am to GumboPot
Obviously there was a very good reason for his Executive Order 13848.
We knew discovery was gonna be his BEEYOTCH!!
We knew discovery was gonna be his BEEYOTCH!!
This post was edited on 10/27/23 at 10:22 am
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:22 am to GumboPot
They want redactions in certain documents removed, I believe. I'm not in this field, but "redaction" may mean a limitation on use at trial, which they want lifted.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:25 am to GumboPot
Trump’s defense is- “everything I said about the election being rigged was supported by intelligence.”
Trump’s lawyers argument is essentially that - you can’t prevent Trump from raising his defense by contending that information he knew about was classified. He still knew about it. So how can you say his statements were false and had no basis in reality? When there is a basis in reality, you’re just saying he can’t discuss it.
That hack Chutkan will deny the motion. But he is making the argument to provide grounds for appeal.
Trump’s lawyers argument is essentially that - you can’t prevent Trump from raising his defense by contending that information he knew about was classified. He still knew about it. So how can you say his statements were false and had no basis in reality? When there is a basis in reality, you’re just saying he can’t discuss it.
That hack Chutkan will deny the motion. But he is making the argument to provide grounds for appeal.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:26 am to Wednesday
quote:
That hack Chutkan will deny the motion
Was there a motion?
quote:
Trump’s lawyers argument is essentially that - you can’t prevent Trump from raising his defense by contending that information he knew about was classified. He still knew about it. So how can you say his statements were false and had no basis in reality? When there is a basis in reality, you’re just saying he can’t discuss it.
CIPA sec. 5
quote:
If a defendant reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classified information in any manner in connection with any trial or pretrial proceeding involving the criminal prosecution of such defendant, the defendant shall, within the time specified by the court or, where no time is specified, within thirty days prior to trial, notify the attorney for the United States and the court in writing.
This post was edited on 10/27/23 at 10:28 am
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:26 am to Timeoday
quote:
We knew discovery was gonna be his BEEYOTCH!!
I hope this is sarcasm.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:27 am to GumboPot
Defense: Broaden Scope
Prosecution: Narrow scope
That's about as simple as it gets.
Prosecution: Narrow scope
That's about as simple as it gets.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:48 am to SlowFlowPro
You are incorrect, sir. Redaction, as used by Trump’s lawyers, means that some words are marked over, making them indecipherable and, therefore, hidden from the view of the trial judge, the public record, and, arguably, from the appellate courts. In effect, the prosecution is attempting to hide the truth because the truth favors Trump. The limitation you refer to speaks of relevancy and materiality, which is probably how the trial judge will rule if he views the documents, without redactions, in private.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:50 am to GumboPot
Trump thread and some of the usual suspects already Reeeeee’ing as usual
Posted on 10/27/23 at 10:51 am to Wednesday
quote:
Trump’s defense is- “everything I said about the election being rigged was supported by intelligence.”
Trump’s lawyers argument is essentially that - you can’t prevent Trump from raising his defense by contending that information he knew about was classified. He still knew about it. So how can you say his statements were false and had no basis in reality? When there is a basis in reality, you’re just saying he can’t discuss it.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 11:11 am to Wednesday
quote:
That hack Chutkan will deny the motion. But he is making the argument to provide grounds for appeal.
Yes, most likely. It may not be 3D Galactic Chess like a wag posted earlier, but it’s a strong move that Chutkan cannot easily dismiss without exposing her biases.
This post was edited on 10/28/23 at 1:01 am
Posted on 10/27/23 at 11:15 am to GumboPot
Leftists want to hide the actual truth in order to replace it with their own twisted version.
Because let’s face it. This was the most secure election in history. Leftists said so. But what they really did was to replace free and fair elections with their own twisted versions.
You think that’s rain falling on you? Nevermind that it looks and smells of piss you golden shower deniers.
Because let’s face it. This was the most secure election in history. Leftists said so. But what they really did was to replace free and fair elections with their own twisted versions.
You think that’s rain falling on you? Nevermind that it looks and smells of piss you golden shower deniers.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 11:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Was there a motion?
There was notice.
Which DOJ will presumably oppose.
And she will side with DOJ.
Because she’s a hack, and on the same team as DOJ. She rubber stamps their fantasies.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 11:56 am to GumboPot
It’s nonsense and more than likely intended to do nothing more than delay. It won’t work, ultimately.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 11:57 am to BugAC
quote:Lol let me guess you're wearing a mask as you typed that?
38D Intergalactic Chess. He's about to overturn the 2020 election with this move.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 12:03 pm to ninthward
quote:
Lol let me guess you're wearing a mask as you typed that?
No, 99 out of 100 topics he is on our side. For some reason, Trump makes him crazy. There are several like that here.
Posted on 10/27/23 at 2:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Was there a motion?
What distinction are you trying to make? A section 5 notice requires the court to initiate a 6(a) hearing on admissibility.
A 6a hearing is pretty broad on the issue. It removes most all motions in limine or trial motions related to admissibility. The government can still make 6c requests for redaction, summation, or other ways to protect the classified info
Thus, I’m not sure what you would think would be substantively different than a motion. This filing initiates a hearing and also shows objections to 6(c) requests. It’s subject to interlocutory appeal. Would titling as a motion have any meaningful additional effect (other than perhaps technically not complying with the rule and risking preclusion)?
This post was edited on 10/27/23 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 10/27/23 at 2:42 pm to dukkbill
quote:
dukkbill
Don't lower yourself to trying to get into minute legal arguments with SloMo.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News