Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Master Thread Dance Your Cares Away/Fraggle/Law Abiding Citizens

Master Threads

BamaRidger

Legendary
Founder
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
14,780

If that fails to happen, NY AG Letitia James will immediately start going after his properties to cover the cost, including Mar-a-lago. She will begin the process of absolutely bankrupting the leading Presidential candidate, who is ahead of her side's leading candidate in the polls. This is the reason the crook Arthur Engoron made the judgment so high. Less than 3,000 people on the entire planet could come up with half a billion dollars without selling off major assets for low returns. If she goes through with this, it will prove once and for all that the democrat party has put an end to democracy.

 

BamaRidger

Legendary
Founder
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
14,780

She drilled down on what she said "struck me as interesting...the timing of the indictment," noting Trump's alleged "unauthorized possession" happened on Jan 21, 2021.Jay Bratt, Jack Smith's lead prosecutor on the case, confirmed the government believes Trump's "unauthorized" possession of national defense information occurred "the moment he left office."Really?So the controversy rests on whether Trump as president (which is why this is different than Biden's unauthorized possession of documents bc he never had the authority to declassify or determine personal v presidential records) had the authority as president before he left office to permit his possession of the records. This is the best Jack Smith could do in defining "unauthorized" to meet language in the Espionage Act. Since no former president has ever been prosecuted for this--another point repeatedly raised by Cannon--DOJ has no historical precedent to argue an outgoing president cannot confer "authority" on himself for possessing NDI papers. So this is partially when Presidential Records Act terms come into play--the basis of her questioning last week and jury instruction order last night:
 

Sgfeer

Legendary
Founder
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
18,427



 

Viking

Legendary
Founder
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
4,344

She drilled down on what she said "struck me as interesting...the timing of the indictment," noting Trump's alleged "unauthorized possession" happened on Jan 21, 2021.Jay Bratt, Jack Smith's lead prosecutor on the case, confirmed the government believes Trump's "unauthorized" possession of national defense information occurred "the moment he left office."Really?So the controversy rests on whether Trump as president (which is why this is different than Biden's unauthorized possession of documents bc he never had the authority to declassify or determine personal v presidential records) had the authority as president before he left office to permit his possession of the records. This is the best Jack Smith could do in defining "unauthorized" to meet language in the Espionage Act. Since no former president has ever been prosecuted for this--another point repeatedly raised by Cannon--DOJ has no historical precedent to argue an outgoing president cannot confer "authority" on himself for possessing NDI papers. So this is partially when Presidential Records Act terms come into play--the basis of her questioning last week and jury instruction order last night:
Trump is still President. Wait till they find that little nugget out. What then? Skol!
 

imprimis

Legendary
Founder
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
9,610
If the Supremes rule it's OK for the gov't to censor social media...and elsewhere, you know they will do it. And the Supremes are hearing/have heard the case about Section 203 of the Communications Decency Act (there is a misnamed act) which protects social media companies from lawsuits.

If the Supremes rule social media cannot be protected from lawsuits via Section 203 but can engage in censorship directed by the govt, doesn't that open a Catch 22 situation for them? And maybe the government based on recent rulings that individuals in govt can be sued personally. Quite a dilemma.
 
Top Bottom