Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

So it was all a lazy lawyers fault?

that seems like nonsense spouted in a bid to make this seem like less of an issue.

Oh I don't think Trump wants to take out the US. He has property there. He wanted them either to feel important or to use them to make money.

I doubt he knew every line on every document but he knew he shouldn't have them and therefore wanted them hidden.

Honestly what would it take at this point for you to believe that Trump intentionally committed a criminal act. He is on tape stating he knew it was wrong.

Stupidity or ignorance are not excuses for committing crimes, especially for national security crimes.

Has anyone a comment on the appointment of Eileen Cannon on the case?

She'll sit on the bench with her sister Aileen.

Like they stopped her special master to look at seized documents, as to add some independency . DOJ is out of control. Now they want the judge out, so basically they're calling her corrupt.

She's a judge, independent, but DOJ want someone corrupt to do their bidding

The first thing to note about Trump's saying that Hilary should be in jail is that he began saying that before he was elected, with his campaign calls for her to be locked up. He didn't succeed in going after her when he was elected because he was legally blocked from doing so, not because he knew it was not the thing to do.

The content of the taped conversation between him and at least one member of his staff about the classified documents is clear on when the conversation took place. It took place after he left office and he made it clear that he knew he had not declassified the documents in his possession. That is a de facto admission that he knew he had classified documents in his possession with no legal authority. That's the case being brought against him. He even has the neck to continue telling that lie still.

The GOP elected persons had their chance to call a halt to his rampage through the liberties of the the US people by voting to impeach him twice when they had the chance and they chose not to do so on party lines. If they had impeached him, he would have been barred from running for the office a second time, and now this third time, freeing them and the US public from the millstone around their necks.

But it will be okay to appoint a far left judge, that's some logic, and I guess the jurors too will have to be radially left, or the DOJ will protest that too.

The basic requirement applies to all judges. As for appointing of federal judges of all colours of opinion, that's OK. The president nominates and the senate decides on appointment of new judges to sit in existing vacant seats at federal circuit and district level. I assume on appointment, the judge will be located only at that judicial area.

It's usual to believe a judge will use legal and common sense when reaching judgements and, when it's necessary, for the judge to step aside in the interests of justice to allow another federal judge appointed to that particular area to hear the case.

AFAIK [and I may be wrong here] the USSC decided NOT TO hear a case stated by a certain defence team against DOJ appeals over the particular judges decisions in respect of the case of a certain defence team's client as sending a subtle signal that the teams application was not of interest to the USSC. The point was accented when the master the judge appointed made legal argument against some of the judges court decisions interfering with his ability to do his job.

In any case, if the case/s go to trial, it will be juries of his peers that Trump will answer to in court [ if his lawyers allow him to open his mouth to speak except for short one-syllable replies]. We all know he has a thin skin where it comes to people standing in judgement of him.