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
51 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If you missed it, FG response to Dearie (Original Post) Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 OP
Bwaaa haaaaa! Solomon Sep 2022 #1
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 lisa58 Sep 2022 #2
Is this the $3mil lawyer? rubbersole Sep 2022 #3
If he was hired to obfuscate, actually worth it to a traitor:) Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #4
HAHA Dorian Gray Sep 2022 #22
No inthewind21 Sep 2022 #34
Just to be clear, 200,000 pages is a pallet of paper: Gaugamela Sep 2022 #5
Yikes. Have to say, if it wasn't so freaking obvious Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #7
Holy cow, I had no idea! ShazzieB Sep 2022 #18
images from tweet ... Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2022 #6
Thank you!!! Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #8
Welcome. :) Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2022 #11
I got one thing from this bag of sh-t response. usonian Sep 2022 #9
Lawrence O'Donnell loves to point out the name of that case! ShazzieB Sep 2022 #20
I don't Delphinus Sep 2022 #23
Oh, don't worry. Ligyron Sep 2022 #26
Because inthewind21 Sep 2022 #35
tangerine twatt waffle spanone Sep 2022 #46
I thought Dearie set up the original timeline? EndlessWire Sep 2022 #10
Link to new NYT article was good refresher of the case for me Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #15
Dearie doesn't have the authority to declare anyone in contempt or issue a bench warrant onenote Sep 2022 #37
Yes, I see that. EndlessWire Sep 2022 #43
The Government never said it would pay the vendor. onenote Sep 2022 #44
Anticipating Judge Dearie's Cha Sep 2022 #12
I'm thinking the Judge's smackdown is going to be friggin' epic Hugh_Lebowski Sep 2022 #13
Yes, We've seen his work! Cha Sep 2022 #16
It ought to be interesting, that's for sure! ShazzieB Sep 2022 #21
Yes! Good article on it all from NYT Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #14
Ouch and Dead On! Cha Sep 2022 #17
Judge Dearie won't be making a response onenote Sep 2022 #38
Ohh.. I'm really sorry to Cha Sep 2022 #42
That is one helluva an admission: 200,000 pages Hekate Sep 2022 #19
I know! Delphinus Sep 2022 #24
Insane! Johnny2X2X Sep 2022 #25
Best I understand, these are non-classfied. FG argued that Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #27
I believe I heard the same, PRETZEL Sep 2022 #28
Most of those documents weren't his Johnny2X2X Sep 2022 #29
Curious what an example might be of a non-classified Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #32
Any official government document he took belongs to the national archives Johnny2X2X Sep 2022 #33
Thank you for that explanation. So say a prez wants Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #39
This may answer a lot of your questions onenote Sep 2022 #45
Thanks. Anxious to read. Although have heard the whole Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #47
So why are they even looking for privilege issues? Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #48
Becasue inthewind21 Sep 2022 #36
Thank u! So if trump team certifies that inventory taken Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #40
I think you've got it Johnny2X2X Sep 2022 #49
If he had some of the things I think he had, 100 pages is extremely low jmowreader Oct 2022 #51
We had a guy at Fort Campbell who was kinda like that jmowreader Sep 2022 #30
That's interesting. Was the punishment the same for both amounts? Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2022 #41
Yes. Same punishment. jmowreader Oct 2022 #50
Is it time to indict the FG's attorneys yet? nt Samrob Sep 2022 #31

Dorian Gray

(13,469 posts)
22. HAHA
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 05:22 AM
Sep 2022

No. Kiss was sidelined! $3 million dollar for a respected lawyer and now he's sitting on the side, probably because he gave trump actual legal advice that he didn't want to hear.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-attorney-sidelined-documents-twitter_n_63334800e4b0b7f89f3a6b63

 

inthewind21

(4,616 posts)
34. No
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 04:47 PM
Sep 2022

The 3 mil attorney, Chris Kise has been benched. These are the original three stooges from the strip mall.

Gaugamela

(2,485 posts)
5. Just to be clear, 200,000 pages is a pallet of paper:
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 12:41 AM
Sep 2022

When you print on paper it expands roughly to double its volume. This is not something you inadvertently overlook and pack with your things.

This is one pallet of paper before it’s been printed on (printed on would be nearly twice this volume):

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
7. Yikes. Have to say, if it wasn't so freaking obvious
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 12:47 AM
Sep 2022

What he was doing, it actually would be unfeasible, even at half huh

usonian

(9,415 posts)
9. I got one thing from this bag of sh-t response.
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 01:18 AM
Sep 2022
Donald J Trump v United States of America.

Kind of says it all. And get used to it.

That is all.

ShazzieB

(15,952 posts)
20. Lawrence O'Donnell loves to point out the name of that case!
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 03:12 AM
Sep 2022

When he introduces a segment about it, he'll say something like "There's been a new development in the very aptly named case, The United States of America v. Donald J. Trump." I always chuckle when he does it.

Delphinus

(11,808 posts)
23. I don't
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 07:48 AM
Sep 2022

understand this - definitely not a lawyer and never worked in a law office. But why would their letter state: Donald J Trump v United States of America?

I thought it would be the other way around ... ?

 

inthewind21

(4,616 posts)
35. Because
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 04:49 PM
Sep 2022

Trump is the one who brought this civil case. The DOJ hasn't charged the tangerine twatt waffle with anything so there is no U.S. vs Trump. Yet.

EndlessWire

(6,373 posts)
10. I thought Dearie set up the original timeline?
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 01:32 AM
Sep 2022

And, there is a difference between 11,000 documents and 200,000 pages of those documents.

I believe what the Gov said, that none of the vendors would work with Trump. It makes no sense to have the Gov pay up front on Trump's behalf, although I am sure that Trump loves the concept. I didn't see where he offered to pay his legal bill for the vendor, which Dearie told Trump he would have to pay.

This may sink the whole concept of SM, but I don't see how you backtrack. I think Trump's got money and just doesn't want to fork over. But, this is more in line with obstructing the case flow.

I wonder what Trump would do if Dearie declared him in contempt of Court and had a bench warrant issued for his arrest.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
37. Dearie doesn't have the authority to declare anyone in contempt or issue a bench warrant
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 04:54 PM
Sep 2022

Despite what some of the posts here suggest, he doesn't even get to decide issues relating to his case management plan. That authority rests with Judge Cannon and she just issued an order granting some of Trump's objections and rejecting others and pushing the timeline for the review out several weeks into December.

EndlessWire

(6,373 posts)
43. Yes, I see that.
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 07:25 PM
Sep 2022

Apparently, she was impressed by the new number of 200,000.

I am eagerly awaiting for the Gov to withdraw the offer to pay Trump's bill with the Vendor they need. They should tell Trump to dance on a street corner and save up for it. He has plenty enough time now to liquidate something.

What is more troubling is the fact that she is allowing Trump to state that the FBI planted stuff without proving it in any way. Now, the DOJ can't identify what in heck he is talking about, and it will impact the criminal indictment. Interesting that she thinks that you can make a case without proving it. Kind of flies in the face of basic practices. Who picked her? Oh yeah, Trump...

onenote

(42,374 posts)
44. The Government never said it would pay the vendor.
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 10:47 PM
Sep 2022

In fact, it said exactly the opposite (from its filing with the court ): "Based on applicable procurement regulations, the government is not able to select and engage a vendor before tomorrow (Wednesday, September 28, 2022). Consistent with the Appointment Order (ECF 91 ¶ 14), the government expects Plaintiff to pay the vendor’s invoices promptly when rendered."

And while I disagree with Cannon's rejection of the requirement that Trump state any objections to the inventory pre-review, the order still provides that "Should any additional matters surface during the Special Master’s review process that require reconsideration of the Inventory or the need to object to its contents, the parties shall make those matters known to the Special Master for appropriate resolution and recommendation to this Court." So if Trump doesn't object later in the process, he will effectively have conceded the accuracy of the inventory.


 

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)
13. I'm thinking the Judge's smackdown is going to be friggin' epic
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 02:25 AM
Sep 2022

Definitely looking forward to it

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
14. Yes! Good article on it all from NYT
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 02:26 AM
Sep 2022

Suspect this behind a lot of it..

For example, the judge has ordered Mr. Trump to submit by Friday a declaration or affidavit verifying the inventory or listing any items on it “that plaintiff asserts were not seized” in the search.

But if Mr. Trump acknowledges that the F.B.I. took any documents marked as classified from his personal office and a storage room at Mar-a-Lago, as the inventory says, that would become evidence that could be used against him if he were later charged with defying a subpoena.

Requiring Mr. Trump’s lawyers to verify or object to the inventory also effectively means making them either affirm in court or disavow a claim Mr. Trump has made in public: his accusation that the F.B.I. planted fake evidence. While it is not a crime to lie to Fox News viewers or on social media, there are consequences to lying to a court

Cha

(295,899 posts)
17. Ouch and Dead On!
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 02:50 AM
Sep 2022
While it is not a crime to lie to Fox News viewers or on social media, there are consequences to lying to a court

Thank you for that!

onenote

(42,374 posts)
38. Judge Dearie won't be making a response
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 04:55 PM
Sep 2022

The response comes from Judge Cannon and she just granted some of Trump's objections and rejected others and pushed the timeline for completing the review out a few weeks to December.

Johnny2X2X

(18,738 posts)
25. Insane!
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 08:15 AM
Sep 2022

11,000 documents at 18 pages each on average.

I'd be interested to know the count on the classified pages. Some of those classified documents could be 100 pages of intelligence.

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
27. Best I understand, these are non-classfied. FG argued that
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 10:25 AM
Sep 2022

they couldn't attest to an inventory accuracy (Dearie request) of what the FBI took, unless they could see the classified documents. All getting very murky and complicated - just what makes FG happy.

PRETZEL

(3,245 posts)
28. I believe I heard the same,
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 10:56 AM
Sep 2022

that the 100 or so documents with classification markings were excluded from the inventory list.

But that doesn't mean that Trump would have to affirm that within that inventory were documents subject to the PRA, which in and of itself is a problem for him.

Any affirmation to the DOJ's inventory list, at least to me, would automatically implicate him in other crimes.

Johnny2X2X

(18,738 posts)
29. Most of those documents weren't his
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 11:27 AM
Sep 2022

Verifying that he had stolen documents, even if not classified, is admitting a crime. Especially when he's planning a defense of, "The FBI planted all the evidence."

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
32. Curious what an example might be of a non-classified
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 03:25 PM
Sep 2022

Document that doesn't belong to trump but to US

And I'm confused about presidential libraries. Now we know trump won't have a LIEbrary, but imagine he did. Imagine he wanted say a list of attendees at a peace summit conference. Non classified. Guess my point is... The presidents can put a lot of non-classified stuff into their libraries, why can't they actually have the stuff until the library opens?

Johnny2X2X

(18,738 posts)
33. Any official government document he took belongs to the national archives
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 03:47 PM
Sep 2022

Anything. He wasn't entitled to take anything with him save for maybe press clippings he had stored. The case is built around theft of documents, classified status is irrelevant to those crimes.

Most of what happens at the White House isn't classified. Most of the documents a President reads and signs, or is presented aren't classified. So he'd have budgets, plans for different departments, short legal briefs, and a whole bunch of documents.

Presidents can't ever have these types of documents, period. The national archive, controls, and owns these documents even when they are in Presidential library. Taking them is theft of government property.

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
39. Thank you for that explanation. So say a prez wants
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 05:15 PM
Sep 2022

100 govt docs for library. How do they see those 100 docs? For example. Are they all at NARA and a prez works with them to have them transported to a library? Or copies.

BTW, is a definition of what docs are deemed belonging to govt/public documented somewhere? I read a long analysis by Cornell and how the classified documents worked. Honestly it's so convoluted and decentralized it gave me a headache.

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
47. Thanks. Anxious to read. Although have heard the whole
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 11:12 PM
Sep 2022

system is janky. Docs missing. Docs misfiled. Volunteers there hunting for stuff. Lol. It will be interesting to read how it's supposed to work .

 

inthewind21

(4,616 posts)
36. Becasue
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 04:53 PM
Sep 2022

it's the property of the US Government per the PRA. ALL presidential records are. When Obama and other Past Presidents wanted stuff for a book or their library, they had to request digitized copies from the National Archives. Hell, you and I can request the same. But the actual documents, those stay with the federal government. Forever!

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
40. Thank u! So if trump team certifies that inventory taken
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 05:50 PM
Sep 2022

from MAL was correct, it is in essence an admission of guilt. And there are witnesses in WH who said he packed docs. Although not all docs.

Trying to sort all this out in my head.

Just don't get why he's not throwing anyone in WH under bus. Must be too many witnesses.

Johnny2X2X

(18,738 posts)
49. I think you've got it
Fri Sep 30, 2022, 08:39 AM
Sep 2022

They are refusing to agree to the documents that were there because that is an admission of guilt. Akin to saying to the police that the cocaine they found in your car is in fact yours.

It's smart of Trump's lawyers not to certify what was seized in the raid. But I don't think it will help their case much in the end.

There's kind of a catch-22 involved in investigating an ex President. In any normal case, there already would have been charges and arrests, but because this is Trump, the justice department wants to go to the nth degree to do everything by the book and have an ironclad case. So a defense will be that the DOJ went to unusual lengths in this case.

I think he will be indicted, that is certain now, but I think it could take a while and how it all turns out is anyone's guess because this is truly uncharted territory.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
51. If he had some of the things I think he had, 100 pages is extremely low
Sat Oct 1, 2022, 03:40 AM
Oct 2022

When I was still in the business, I had several documents that were each six inches thick. Books that big get updated on a regular basis and no binder is strong enough to hold these, so they were - this is no shit - BOLTED TOGETHER.

There’s also a set of books Trump probably got ordered to get for his controllers because they’ve changed since the last time a spy stole one. Its title is the National SIGINT Requirements List. (NSA has released the name so the name itself isn’t classified.) This thing is the crown jewel of the NSA. It is classified highly enough that NO ONE ever gets to see the whole thing. It also requires its own bookcase. You remember the Monty Python sketch about the joke so funny it killed everyone who read it, and the people translating it into German were only allowed to see one word each. The NSRL is like that. If you work Freedonian Army traffic you’re not allowed to see the NSRL book covering the Freedonian Navy. Trump probably stole one and sold it, and if he did they need to just skip the middleman and stand him up against the wall right then and there.

On the other hand, there are a lot of classified documents on one sheet of paper.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
30. We had a guy at Fort Campbell who was kinda like that
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 11:50 AM
Sep 2022

We used to have these barracks searches called Health and Welfare Inspections in the 101st Airborne. This one turned into the most epic Article 15 ever handed down in the history of the division.

I was in the 311th Military Intelligence Battalion which had four companies: Headquarters, Headquarters and Operations Company which had the signals intelligence analysis center, the Operations Security Platoon (I was in this one), the Image Interpretation Platoon, a couple other platoons I don't remember, and the battalion headquarters. Alpha Company was the signals intercept company. Bravo Company was the Ground Surveillance Radar company, which was basically infantry with radars. Charlie Company was our service company and held the motor pool, the electronics maintenance platoon and the mess hall. This guy was a GSR operator in Bravo Company.

This guy had some marijuana in his room. The Army was less strict with marijuana than it is now, so he was looking at loss of a week's pay and restriction to post for two weeks. Not a huge punishment. His squad leader did the search, the squad leader found the weed, the squad leader turned in weed and referred him to the CO for disciplinary action.

Comes the day of the Article 15 hearing. His squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon leader and the first sergeant were all in the CO's office when this guy reports for his hearing. The CO picks up the form and begins to read.

"Private so-and-so, I am considering punishing you under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for the offense of possessing two marijuana cigarettes in violation of Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Oh shit.

This guy just went the fuck off. "Sir, I had a whole lid of weed. That motherfucker stole my dope!"

I don't know how many years that motherfucker got, but false official statements and tampering with evidence are far more serious offenses in the military than possessing either two joints or a whole lid of weed was.

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
41. That's interesting. Was the punishment the same for both amounts?
Thu Sep 29, 2022, 06:05 PM
Sep 2022

It reminds me of when my brother-in-law hated being in the service because he couldn't stand being constantly told what to do all the time. All he did was lay a joint on his commander's desk and he got an honorable discharge . Guessing that was early 90s?

Anyway.... Get the point. I guess that's an advantage of having a well-known criminal in the White House. We have seen this behavior for so long no one trusts him so hopefully the FBI went overboard to do it by the book at Mar-A-Lago.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
50. Yes. Same punishment.
Sat Oct 1, 2022, 03:19 AM
Oct 2022

If you were dealing they’d have come down on you really hard, but owning an ounce of marijuana for personal use was no big thing.

True and frightening department: after the Army got into drug testing they did a study to find the unit with the most potheads in it. It turned out that The Highest Unit In The Army was the company in the 82nd Airborne that packs the parachutes. Like TS Eliot’s cats, every Army unit has three different names: its official name, the fancy name it bestows on itself and the vulgar name the rest of the Army hangs around its neck. After the results of that study came out, the 82nd was the Jumpin’ Junkies for a really long time.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If you missed it, FG resp...