Apply Now!

The Trump Card...

muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
As I understand it, that isn't a claim that Zuckerberg made ... just that the warning from the FBI was general in nature but not specific to a particular story..

The tweet you posted even says exactly that.

Maybe try harder ?

:tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...
Let’s not be totally gullible. Try harder to be intellectually honest, ok?
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and danthewolf00
D

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
RLENT said:
Did Judge Reinhart offer any reason for his recusal in the previous case Trump mentions ?

If he did not, how does the Orange (False) God know what the basis for recusal was.

Asking for a friend ...

:tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...
If it can be proven that a judge might be prejudiced he or she has to recluse themselves from the case otherwise trump's attorneys can use it to get the case thrown out.
The previous case trump's attorneys found a twitter post of the judge ranting about trump.....that is prejudiced.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and muttly
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
danthewolf00 said:
If it can be proven that a judge might be prejudiced he or she has to recluse themselves from the case otherwise trump's attorneys can use it to get the case thrown out.
The previous case trump's attorneys found a twitter post of the judge ranting about trump.....that is prejudiced.
Click to expand...
It is why the DOJ sought out this magistrate.
Easy approval for a dirty affidavit.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT
ATeam

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
danthewolf00 said:
If it can be proven that a judge might be prejudiced he or she has to recluse themselves from the case otherwise trump's attorneys can use it to get the case thrown out.
Click to expand...
If it can be proven that Trump is guilty of the crimes named in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant and supporting affidavit, attorneys can use it to get The Donald thrown in (to jail).
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT, danthewolf00 and Ragman
ATeam

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Two Predictions

1. Donald Trump will run for President in 2024, likely declaring his candidacy a year earlier.

There was never any doubt about this. People who talk about something making it more likely or less likely that hey will run have it wrong. It is 100% likely he will run. It always has been.

2. Trump himself will be prosecuted for the crimes alleged in the Mar-a-Largo warrant.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: muttly, RLENT and danthewolf00
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
danthewolf00 said:
If it can be proven that a judge might be prejudiced he or she has to recluse themselves from the case otherwise trump's attorneys can use it to get the case thrown out.
Click to expand...

At this moment, there is no "case" - no one has been charged.

It was just an application for a search warrant.

But I suspect charges are coming.

Question then becomes venue, if it goes to trial.

Pretty sure the matter is being heard by a Grand Jury in DC.

Would assume it would be tried in DC on that basis.

danthewolf00 said:
The previous case trump's attorneys found a twitter post of the judge ranting about trump.....that is prejudiced.
Click to expand...

When did they find it - before or after he recused himself ?

Wu said if Reinhart were to be more detailed and specific about why he recused himself in the Clinton suit, it would stop a lot of speculations, but he noted that it is very uncommon for judges to offer additional reasoning for a recusal from a case.
Click to expand...

Wu added that while it would be better for the country as a whole if judges were more transparent in their dealings regardless of politics, Trump's lawyers don't have basis to claim that Reinhart needs to disclose why he recused himself based on impartiality.

He said it was important to note that the legal proceeding surrounding the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago is not a case yet. Because there is only a search warrant and no criminal charges, Reinhart's role as a magistrate reviewing the warrant is "much more administrative."

"Something like reviewing a search warrant, even though this was a very high-profile search warrant, is very matter of fact. You look at this probable cause then 'yay' or 'nay' on it," Wu said. "So, it makes sense that as a judge, you'd be more concerned about possible appearances of impartiality or actual bias if it's the case where you're really presiding over it, versus simply reviewing a search warrant."
Click to expand...

Should prosecutors move forward and file charges against the former president, and create a case, Rahmini said Trump's lawyers would be able to file a motion to disqualify Reinhart from the potential case, which would force more of a response from the judge.

"Only when the disqualification motion is filed will all that be explained, because there has to be a ruling," Rahmini said.

Wu said if the motion is filed, the judge would have to respond on the record, but would basically acknowledge the concerns and argue that those factors do not affect their impartiality. He added those motions rarely succeed and that such filings run up against their own hurdles, like running the risk of upsetting a judge.
Click to expand...

Judge in Trump Raid Should Explain Recusal in Clinton Case: Ex-Prosecutors
 
  • Haha
Reactions: danthewolf00
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Presiding over an application for a search warrant is still a big deal even though there isn’t a “case” yet. This is about personal documents that are being seized, rights potentially violated, and a decision should be done without bias against the target, which he previously shown to have by his derogatory FB post about Trump. An obvious recusal by the magistrate was in order. Notwithstanding the DOJ’s dimwitted move to apply for a search warrant in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danthewolf00
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top