Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

emulatorloo

(43,979 posts)
1. Thanks for the link, it was very interesting reading. I thought govt case was better than plaintiff
Sat Sep 3, 2022, 03:59 PM
Sep 2022

case, but judge may not agree.

WarGamer

(12,103 posts)
8. FYI, the FBI "Filter Team" really IS on the hot seat.
Sat Sep 3, 2022, 07:42 PM
Sep 2022

The Supreme Court has a case on the docket, United States v Korf seeking to deem "FBI "Filter Teams" unconstitutional under the 6A.

"Filter Teams" have been mentioned negatively in several Court opinions and if the SCOTUS takes the case there's a decent chance that "Filter Teams" may be found unconstitutional.


Here's the 11th Circuit affirming the lower Court...

And here's the SCOTUS appeal.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/korf-v-united-states/

Bev54

(9,958 posts)
9. This is once again an attorney's office which has client attorney privilege
Sat Sep 3, 2022, 08:10 PM
Sep 2022

Not even remotely like this case although Trump's lawyers continue to insert these cases as though they are. Trump's lawyers want a special master to go over not just any attorney privilege, which the team has put aside for both parties to review (DOJ review team says most if not privileged but they put aside, being extra cautious. Trump is still claiming the documents are his and a special master should review, the stolen documents that belong to the archives. This is not even remotely close to being the same thing.

WarGamer

(12,103 posts)
10. Like I said... "FBI Filter Teams" are on the hot seat.
Sat Sep 3, 2022, 08:12 PM
Sep 2022

That's all I said...

I have no problem with a SM because 1) They're not going to indict before the election anyway... 2) It crosses the t's and dots the i's and takes away ALL silly suggestions of bias.

I won't post the whole Emerson quote... but when you "go after the King..."

You know the rest.

If he somehow wriggles out of this, he'll exit 2x stronger.


Take him down so that there is NO question about his guilt.

GreenWave

(6,492 posts)
3. Amazing that Trump' s theft of National Archives documents
Sat Sep 3, 2022, 04:17 PM
Sep 2022

merits such tremendous verbiage. It seems they lose sight of the fact that these documents are purloined and forcibly returned.

I just hope that when Trump gets sentenced to jail we do not have judges ruling ad infinitum on the proper gait to arrive at the prison, etc.

Bev54

(9,958 posts)
4. It amuses me that Trump lawyers are inferring that injury to Trump would
Sat Sep 3, 2022, 04:39 PM
Sep 2022

be that these documents could be used as evidence in a criminal investigation or trial???? Duh yeah, if they read the warrant there are 3 criminal statutes on it. Geez.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
5. Was she scheduled to make another decision today?
Sat Sep 3, 2022, 04:41 PM
Sep 2022

I thought I saw something about that on one of the news channels?

EndlessWire

(6,373 posts)
11. Thank you for posting the link.
Sun Sep 4, 2022, 01:19 AM
Sep 2022

I love the way they stated that this was a preindictment response, and that the plaintiff was really asserting a 41(g) motion, even if they didn't characterize it that way, but that he had no possessory interest in the property, anyway, as required by 41(g).

Also, the Gov said that if they wanted to proceed under the PRA, they should have filed in DC (!) Plaintiff never mentions the Espionage Act under which the search warrant was issued. Gov talks about a "preindictment challenge to a search warrant," which they are expecting.

So, I think the tone of the Judge's remarks favor the Plaintiff, except that she specifically asked for Plaintiff to articulate the "irreparable harm" needed, and they couldn't state it.


I'll be stunned if they don't get the SM.

Added: Also, the Gov. made reference to Trump's "unclean hands" down at the bottom of page 22. He comes to Court with unclean hands, a legal term for being a crook. Hah hah.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Transcripts from the Sept...