The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

Amicus Brief Filed in the Donald J. Trump v. The United States

As Judge Cannon does her homework and crafts her ruling regarding Trump's request for a special master, she will have this amicus brief to use as a resource.

"An amicus curiae is an individual or organization who is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court." (Wikipedia)

An amicus brief is also known as a friend of the court brief. I do not know the rules well but I believe such a brief can only be submitted with the court's permission. Since permission was granted in this case, it stands to reason that the Judge will read the brief with great interest.

News Story:

"Prominent establishment Republicans filed an amicus brief on Tuesday urging federal Judge Aileen Cannon to reject Donald Trump's efforts to appoint a special master to review the documents recovered at Mar-a-Lago after the FBI executed a search warrant.

"'The friend of the court filing was submitted by Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who was assistant attorney general for the criminal division in the Reagan administration and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman,' Reuters justice correspondent Sarah Lynch reported. 'It was also signed by former New Jersey Attorney General John Farmer, Jr., who spent 90 minutes as acting governor in 2002.'

"'Amici all served in Republican administrations and collectively have decades of experience prosecuting cases involving sensitive materials or advising on matters regarding the proper scope of executive power and executive privilege,' the group wrote.

"'It is clear that there is no legal support for the relief requested by the former President," the group argued.'" (Source)

Link to the brief:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.41.1_1.pdf

Excerpt:

"[The group submitting this brief] all served in Republican administrations and collectively have decades of experience prosecuting cases involving sensitive materials or advising on matters regarding the proper scope of executive power and executive privilege."

 

[muttly]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565771785773223937

Barr has determined Trump is a millstone around the GOP's neck and is tossing him overboard.

And I am so here for it.

How long do they wait? The DOJ doesn’t need the be involved . It’s a dispute with the woke archivist over an overdue library book. He could wait up to 12 years.

 

[muttly]

Amicus Brief Filed in the Donald J. Trump v. The United States

As Judge Cannon does her homework and crafts her ruling regarding Trump's request for a special master, she will have this amicus brief to use as a resource.

"An amicus curiae is an individual or organization who is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court." (Wikipedia)

An amicus brief is also known as a friend of the court brief. I do not know the rules well but I believe such a brief can only be submitted with the court's permission. Since permission was granted in this case, it stands to reason that the Judge will read the brief with great interest.

News Story:

"Prominent establishment Republicans filed an amicus brief on Tuesday urging federal Judge Aileen Cannon to reject Donald Trump's efforts to appoint a special master to review the documents recovered at Mar-a-Lago after the FBI executed a search warrant.

"'The friend of the court filing was submitted by Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who was assistant attorney general for the criminal division in the Reagan administration and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman,' Reuters justice correspondent Sarah Lynch reported. 'It was also signed by former New Jersey Attorney General John Farmer, Jr., who spent 90 minutes as acting governor in 2002.'

"'Amici all served in Republican administrations and collectively have decades of experience prosecuting cases involving sensitive materials or advising on matters regarding the proper scope of executive power and executive privilege,' the group wrote.

"'It is clear that there is no legal support for the relief requested by the former President," the group argued.'" (Source)

Link to the brief:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.41.1_1.pdf

A couple of antI Trumpers. What about that bias thing we are all concerned about?

 

[ATeam]

A couple of antI Trumpers. What about that bias thing we are all concerned about?

And that, my friend, is why I so love the courts.

A good judge will consider the law and the facts, not the biases of the person submitting the brief. It is obvious the "anti-Trumpers," as you call them, have a point of view; a bias in a certain direction. They flat-out state it in their brief. To a good judge, the bias is irrelevant. The facts and points of law raised are. The judge will consider not the biases. He or she will consider how the law applies in this particular case.

Trump has a bias too. If you prohibited participation in the courts because of bias, no human being could submit anything ever.

 

[muttly]

And that, my friend, is why I so love the courts.

A good judge will consider the law and the facts, not the biases of the person submitting the brief. It is obvious the "anti-Trumpers," as you call them, have a point of view; a bias in a certain direction. They flat-out state it in their brief. To a good judge, the bias is irrelevant. The facts and points of law raised are. The judge will consider not the biases. He or she will consider how the law applies in this particular case.

Trump has a bias too. If you prohibited participation in the courts because of bias, no human being could submit anything ever.

But the DC courts let their biases control their decisions. You'll see once it gets to the appeal, if it does.

 

[danthewolf00]

choose wisely.....

 

[RLENT]

Declassification truth hurt:

View attachment 21916

Memorandum on Declassification of Certain Materials Related to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation – The White House

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

Trump Says He Declassified FBI Crossfire Hurricane Materials in January 2021

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday posted on social media that he declassified materials in late 2020 relating to the FBI’s controversial Crossfire Hurricane investigation into his 2016 campaign. The former president noted in two Truth Social posts that in October 2020, he wrote on his...

mb.ntd.com

Yeah ... that's "declassification truth hurt" alright ...



There is already sworn testimony - under the penalty of perjury in a federal court case - possibly by CoS Meadows (a-yup - it was Flapjack Meadows) - that those tweets did NOT in fact declassify the documents mentioned.

Mark Meadows: Trump didn’t declassify Russia docs in tweets

It seems like this is not going well.

Perhaps a career change with some other new line of work is in order ?

 

[RLENT]

But the DC courts let their biases control their decisions. You'll see once it gets to the appeal, if it does.

BIASSSSSESSSSS !!!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565725580208885761

 

[RLENT]

How long do they wait? The DOJ doesn’t need the be involved.

Evidently the Archivist thought otherwise ... and under the law it's her call on whether or not to refer it to DOJ.

Unless you think the law doesn't apply to Trumpy Bear or he is somehow above the law ... possibly by virtue of being our reigning Godking and Monarch.

It’s a dispute with the woke archivist over an overdue library book. He could wait up to 12 years.

The Archivist is a "she" ... try harder to "be better" at this.

 

[Turtle]

But the DC courts let their biases control their decisions. You'll see once it gets to the appeal, if it does.

It's not just the DC courts, it's also SCOTUS Justices and many other judges around the country. It's all about judicial philosophy, and the two main philosophies are Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint.

You can see it in black and white for every SCOTUS decision, where the conservative judges defer to the law in interpretations, including Originalism (what did the legislators mean when they wrote the law in the first place), Textualism (Instead of attempting to determine statutory purpose or legislative intent, textualists adhere to the objective meaning of the legal text), and Strict Constructionism, (limiting interpretation of legal and constitutional language to the literal meaning of this language at the time of passage, i.e., Constructionists look at the Constitution as more or less static, and the meaning of any passage can be ascertained by thorough study of the written words of the Framers, while Judicial Activists view the Constitution as a "living document" that is open to the Interpretation du Jour)), whereas liberal justices set aside the law and argue emotions and feelings.

 

[RLENT]

choose wisely.....

The American people did ... the second time.

 

[danthewolf00]

The American people did ... the second time.

And many don't like what they got out of the cracker jack box.....

 

[ATeam]

It's not just the DC courts, it's also SCOTUS Justices and many other judges around the country. It's all about judicial philosophy, and the two main philosophies are Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint.

You can see it in black and white for every SCOTUS decision, where the conservative judges defer to the law in interpretations, including Originalism (what did the legislators mean when they wrote the law in the first place), Textualism (Instead of attempting to determine statutory purpose or legislative intent, textualists adhere to the objective meaning of the legal text), and Strict Constructionism, (limiting interpretation of legal and constitutional language to the literal meaning of this language at the time of passage, i.e., Constructionists look at the Constitution as more or less static, and the meaning of any passage can be ascertained by thorough study of the written words of the Framers, while Judicial Activists view the Constitution as a "living document" that is open to the Interpretation du Jour)), whereas liberal justices set aside the law and argue emotions and feelings.

Yes. Every higher-court ruling that is not unanimous has dissenting opinions in which conflicting views are stated. But in all of them, the judges do their best to base their views on the law.

The reason we have courts in the first place is the application of the law is not always clear. The man should pay a fine because he ran a stop sign and that's the law. But this was an emergency and his daughter would have bled to death if not rushed to the hospital. Guilty, not guilty? Case dismissed? We have courts for such things.

Through American history, the courts have made numerous rulings that helped the country evolve past things like slavery and denying women the right to vote. Biases to retain those were present on the bench but over time as the courts ebbed and flowed, certain things came to be law and other things were law no more.

One of the beauties of the U.S. Constitution is it perpetually provides the people with a way to change the system. Don't like how things are? Elect new office holders. Don't like the laws they pass, go to court. Don't like how the court rules, elect new judges or new office holders who will confirm judges more to your liking. Don't like a court ruling? Appeal it. Further don't like what the courts are ruling? Change the law so they can't rule that way any more.

In recent years, we've seen the U.S Supreme court shift from a liberal majority to a conservative majority. The present court recently made a ruling on abortion that the majority of America does not like. In response, we're now seeing people get active in elections who were not active before. Their goal, at least for some of them is to shift the court back to one more of their liking, or maybe even to amend the Constitution to provide permanent abortion rights and place them out of easy reach of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches.

Yes. Absolutely. The courts ebb and flow. The founders designed it that way, I think, so the people will always have a legal way to at least try to change laws and rulings they do not like.

It seems fair to say that a question brought before the appeals court in California may produce a different ruling than the very same question brought before an appeals court in Texas. There's a process for responding to that too that is available to everyone today. The fact that the courts are not consistent does not diminish their validity because they can be said to be biased. The courts are valid because our Constitution says they are and the people have the power to change them if they wish to put in that effort.

There are several ways to do that. One way is shown by the Federalist Society which is working within the system to put conservative judges on the bench. They are not trying to make the courts bias-free. They are trying to inject a distinctly conservative bias into the courts.

My points above made at a general level. When a particular case and/or judge comes into view, things get more specific. In Donald J. Trump v. The United States, a very particular question is now before a certain judge. As she develops her ruling, I presume she is carefully considering the facts and the law. And I presume one side of the other will appeal the ruling if it does not go its way.

That's not because there is something wrong with the system. It's because there is something right with the system.

There is talk on the news tonight by left-leaning commentators who are concerned that Trump will appeal and appeal and appeal until he gets to the Supreme Court where Trump-friendly judges are said to enjoy the majority. I have no such concern. The Supreme Court ... these very judges have ruled against Trump several times.

If courts ruled only from a place of bias, Trump would win at the Supreme Court because of a pro-Trump bias. But that is not happening, is it?

 

[muttly]

Yeah ... that's "declassification truth hurt" alright ...



There is already sworn testimony - under the penalty of perjury in a federal court case - possibly by CoS Meadows (a-yup - it was Flapjack Meadows) - that those tweets did NOT in fact declassify the documents mentioned.

Mark Meadows: Trump didn’t declassify Russia docs in tweets

It seems like this is not going well.

Perhaps a career change with some other new line of work is in order ?

So what? The tweets were making public that he was declassifying the documents. Months before he left office.

 

[ATeam]

About This Judge Cannon

I said earlier that I had an open mind about this judge who is hearing and about to rule in Donald J. Trump v. The United States. When she signaled her "preliminary intent" to give Trump what he wants (a special master to screen documents seized in the Mar-a-Lago search), before she even heard from the other side, I became concerned. She is a very young judge, experience-wise, only recently appointed. And the fact that she was appointed by plaintiff Trump himself, led some to worry about her fairness too.

Now that the trial is over and she is considering her ruling in chambers, I'm beginning to think this judge is doing exactly what Pilgrim suggested above; namely, "... making a careful, well constructed ruling knowing it's going to be appealed."

It is interesting to note that she did not tell DOJ to cease work pending her ruling. It is also interesting to see she did not rule immediately from the bench. She may have had a "preliminary intent" to grant Trump's motion, but the fact that she is taking her time with this suggests Pilgrim has it right.

She no doubt learned a lot from the briefs that were submitted; briefs she did not have the benefit of before she signaled her "preliminary intent."

She may yet grant Trump's motion, in which case DOJ will likely appeal. But my concerns about this judge's willingness to fully consider all the facts and the law in this case have abated. Whatever she decides, we'll have the ruling in writing and her reasoning will be there explained. We won't have to wonder ahead of time what she was thinking, like we did when she announced her preliminary intent. We'll know from her written ruling exactly what she is thinking and why.

 

[ATeam]

So what? The tweets were making public that he was declassifying the documents. Months before he left office.

The "so what" is the tweets had no legal effect. They were tweets, not official actions.

Another "so what" is those tweets may come back to bite Trump. They indicate his knowledge that there is a distinct process for declassifying documents. So far, at least, he has been unable to produce any evidence he followed that process regarding the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago.

In a future courtroom, Trump may well be asked, "If you knew the process for declassifying documents, as your tweets show you did, why did you not use that process on the documents in question?"

 

[danthewolf00]

Biden: maga Republicans are a threat to democracy.......
we are the new Jews to be persecuted by our very own Hitler.....
I wonder how soon detainment camps and the ovens will be built.

 

[muttly]

Evidently the Archivist thought otherwise ... and under the law it's her call on whether or not to refer it to DOJ.

Unless you think the law doesn't apply to Trumpy Bear or he is somehow above the law ... possibly by virtue of being our reigning Godking and Monarch.





The Archivist is a "she" ... try harder to "be better" at this.

Oh, that’s right. The woke librarian retired back in April and after whining about Trump.

 

[muttly]

The "so what" is the tweets had no legal effect. They were tweets, not official actions.

Another "so what" is those tweets may come back to bite Trump. They indicate his knowledge that there is a distinct process for declassifying documents. So far, at least, he has been unable to produce any evidence he followed that process regarding the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago.

In a future courtroom, Trump may well be asked, "If you knew the process for declassifying documents, as your tweets show you did, why did you not use that process on the documents in question?"

The distinct process of a President is merely saying these documents are declassified . He was just stating publicly in his tweets what he was doing to declassify the documents. Not that the tweets were his official declaration.
Notice the image of the wording in his tweet. It says “I have”, meaning he already did.

 

[RLENT]

And many don't like what they got out of the cracker jack box.....

Apparently they're liking it a little better than what they got with the Orange Menace:

​

So both Obama and Old Uncle Joe beat the Orange Moron ...