Trump Documents Case Dismissed

[E'Town4Bama 170]

I have wondered why it took so long.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/breaking-huge-news-judge-cannon-dismisses-classified-documents/

[Cardin Drake 2,074]

Huge news. IMO, this is the only case against Trump that wasn't complete bs.  There was some real legal jeopardy there. He was being accused of an actual crime, for starters.  Obviously, the DOJ will appeal, but this case will never be tried now before the election. 

[Cardin Drake 2,074]

I assume this guts the Jan. 6th case as well.  That case is ridiculous, but if presented to a DC jury, the conviction is automatic regardless of the facts. 

[AU9377 5,922]

56 minutes ago, E'Town4Bama said:

I have wondered why it took so long.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/breaking-huge-news-judge-cannon-dismisses-classified-documents/

So you believe that there is no case there?  That is hilarious.  The 11th circuit is almost certain to overturn her dismissal.  Think about it this way, if the Special Prosecutor was unlawfully appointed, then no Special Prosecutor could ever be appointed.

This is a judge that just threw her credibility on the federal bench under a bus and backed over it a few times.

Edited July 15 by AU9377

[AU9377 5,922]

48 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Huge news. IMO, this is the only case against Trump that wasn't complete bs.  There was some real legal jeopardy there. He was being accused of an actual crime, for starters.  Obviously, the DOJ will appeal, but this case will never be tried now before the election. 

This case and the Georgia case presented the most legal jeopardy. 

[alanevans 232]

9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

So you believe that there is no case there?  That is hilarious.  The 11th circuit is almost certain to overturn her dismissal.  Think about it this way, if the Special Prosecutor was unlawfully appointed, then no Special Prosecutor could ever be appointed.

This is a judge that just threw her credibility on the federal bench under a bus and backed over it a few times.

Back when the points re: legitimacy of the special counsel were raised by Trump’s lawyers, prediction was that if Cannon dismissed on that basis it could form a basis for appeal and request for her to be dismissed from the case. Of course, she still manages to delay things and rile up the MAGAs going into the convention 

[Cardin Drake 2,074]

The Georgia case has the least substance of all of them.  I would actually like to see that one go to trial. (it won't) There was plenty of cases of fraud in the Georgia that can be substantiated, and I would love to see the particulars litigated in court.  Regardless, to suggest that it was criminal for Trump to contest an election that is still being argued about today... well I have no words.    

[AU9377 5,922]

8 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

The Georgia case has the least substance of all of them.  I would actually like to see that one go to trial. (it won't) There was plenty of cases of fraud in the Georgia that can be substantiated, and I would love to see the particulars litigated in court.  Regardless, to suggest that it was criminal for Trump to contest an election that is still being argued about today... well I have no words.    

You are wrong about that.  There was no fraud found after careful audits that would have changed the outcome of the election.  PERIOD.  You can contest in court, which he did and LOST every time.  What you cannot do is pressure the Sec of State and Governor to find you around 12,000 votes.  When have you ever heard someone do that other than Trump?  His lawyer, Giuliani, even went to the extreme of alleging poll workers threw away votes and other things, for which he was sued and is now in bankruptcy.  Fox "news" paid nearly a billion dollars for falsely claiming that voting machines were rigged.  Come on...

I'm not a huge fan of the way the RICO act was used, but nonetheless, that kind of behavior cannot be considered legitimate in this country. 

Edited July 15 by AU9377

[Cardin Drake 2,074]

7 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You are wrong about that.  There was no fraud found after careful audits that would have changed the outcome of the election.  PERIOD.  You can contest in court, which he did and LOST every time.  What you cannot do is pressure the Sec of State and Governor to find you around 12,000 votes.  When have you ever heard someone do that other than Trump?  His lawyer, Giuliani, even went to the extreme of alleging poll workers threw away votes and other things, for which he was sued and is now in bankruptcy.  Fox "news" paid nearly a billion dollars for falsely claiming that voting machines were rigged.  Come on...

I'm not a huge fan of the way the RICO act was used, but nonetheless, that kind of behavior cannot be considered legitimate in this country. 

First of all, what you are describing is not a crime.  He did not ask the Secretary of State to manufacture 12,000 votes.  But more importantly, there was plenty of reason to suspect fraud after the election. We had just witnessed Fulton county inventing a water leak as an excuse to claim they had to quit counting for the evening, then drag out the ballots and resume counting after sending all the observers home, among many other reason to suspect fraud. So the criminal theory assumes that Trump was able to determine between the election and January 6th that there was in fact no fraud, and then start a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election that he knew to be legitimate,  when there are plenty of people still fighting over this election today.  Plenty of fraud has been found and proven.  I'd love to see this one go to trial.   

[AU9377 5,922]

4 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

First of all, what you are describing is not a crime.  He did not ask the Secretary of State to manufacture 12,000 votes.  But more importantly, there was plenty of reason to suspect fraud after the election. We had just witnessed Fulton county inventing a water leak as an excuse to claim they had to quit counting for the evening, then drag out the ballots and resume counting after sending all the observers home, among many other reason to suspect fraud. So the criminal theory assumes that Trump was able to determine between the election and January 6th that there was in fact no fraud, and then start a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election that he knew to be legitimate,  when there are plenty of people still fighting over this election today.  Plenty of fraud has been found and proven.  I'd love to see this one go to trial.   

You can believe whatever you want. That seems to make something fact these days.  Your assertion that plenty of fraud has been found and proven is simply not accurate.  There is no other way to say it.  I don't doubt that you still hear that from time to time on Fox or some talk radio, but there is no evidence of that whatsoever.

[aubearcat 2,153]

44 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

So you believe that there is no case there?  That is hilarious.  The 11th circuit is almost certain to overturn her dismissal.  Think about it this way, if the Special Prosecutor was unlawfully appointed, then no Special Prosecutor could ever be appointed.

This is a judge that just threw her credibility on the federal bench under a bus and backed over it a few times.

The 11th Circuit is quite conservative. There’s still several Reagan appointees there. 

[AU9377 5,922]

2 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

The 11th Circuit is quite conservative. There’s still several Reagan appointees there. 

This is not about left or right conservative or whatever...... this is an issue involving legal precedent and the appointment of a special counsel.

Under this judge's reasoning, Hunter Biden's case would also be thrown out.

Edited July 15 by AU9377

[Didba 5,437]

2 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

The 11th Circuit is quite conservative. There’s still several Reagan appointees there. 

That will have no bearing on this appeal. 

Edited July 15 by Didba

[IronMan70 3,321]

54 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

So you believe that there is no case there?  That is hilarious.  The 11th circuit is almost certain to overturn her dismissal.  Think about it this way, if the Special Prosecutor was unlawfully appointed, then no Special Prosecutor could ever be appointed.

This is a judge that just threw her credibility on the federal bench under a bus and backed over it a few times.

This would only effect a special counsel that was NOT confirmed by the Senate, ie. Jack Smith. 

[homersapien 12,172]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

Regardless, to suggest that it was criminal for Trump to contest an election that is still being argued about today... well I have no words.    

Are you serious???  That's your perspective on this??   Good grief.

What an extreme attempt to beg the question.

No one suggested it was criminal for Trump to "contest" the election. He did so 63 times in various states and lost each time.

This was about his conspiring to change the (verified) results.

[Cardin Drake 2,074]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Are you serious???  That's your perspective on this??   Good grief.

What an extreme attempt to beg the question.

No one suggested it was criminal for Trump to "contest" the election. He did so 63 times in various states and lost each time.

This was about his conspiring to change the (verified) results.

Lol, yeah. Talking to your lawyers and campaign staff and attempting to overturn an election is called "contesting" it. Except in Fulton County where is is called "conspiring to change the results".   Unfortunately, it is going no where.  Would have loved to see it in court. 

[Cardin Drake 2,074]

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

So you believe that there is no case there?  That is hilarious.  The 11th circuit is almost certain to overturn her dismissal.  Think about it this way, if the Special Prosecutor was unlawfully appointed, then no Special Prosecutor could ever be appointed.

This is a judge that just threw her credibility on the federal bench under a bus and backed over it a few times.

I think you should read up on the legal issues in question. That is just wrong.

[HAYinthemiddleoftheBARN 277]

Reminds me of 2010 when Cam was poked and prodded and accused of taking money from Auburn. Nothing illegal found but the NCAA & media sent Cam through hell. He overcame! 

[arein0 1,101]

1 minute ago, HAYinthemiddleoftheBARN said:

Reminds me of 2010 when Cam was poked and prodded and accused of taking money from Auburn. Nothing illegal found but the NCAA & media sent Cam through hell. He overcame! 

I didnt know Cam was found guilty in a jury...twice

[AUFAN78 4,130]

35 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I didnt know Cam was found guilty in a jury...twice

I wonder his odds if the case had been handled in Ttown? You hopefully get the point.

[HAYinthemiddleoftheBARN 277]

15 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I didnt know Cam was found guilty in a jury...twice

No bro (or "bruh" whatever your generation says) his dad took the fall. Cam didn't know about the conversation. Cam was guilty of the laptop incident before 2010 and overcame that. He was forgiven. Bammers still accuse him of taking money from AU over MS State in 2010.

Cam's no saint, Trump ain't either.

Look at our country now compared to 2008. The worst thing for our country is another 4 years of a Democratic presidency. 

Trump's a gangsta! He's a survivor. So is Cam!

[AU9377 5,922]

1 hour ago, HAYinthemiddleoftheBARN said:

Reminds me of 2010 when Cam was poked and prodded and accused of taking money from Auburn. Nothing illegal found but the NCAA & media sent Cam through hell. He overcame! 

So you see Trump as a victim?  Was he simply entitled to keep whatever he wanted when he left the White House? 

[AU9377 5,922]

31 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I wonder his odds if the case had been handled in Ttown? You hopefully get the point.

There was never a case.  That is more on point.  In Trump's situation, there were hundreds of documents illegally kept by him that he refused to return.  You all are all about classified documents if it relates to Hillary or Biden, but God forbid that Trump be required to abide by the law.

[AU9377 5,922]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

I think you should read up on the legal issues in question. That is just wrong.

This kind of appointment has been approved by the courts going back to Nixon.  I get it.  You don't have any issue with not holding Trump to the same set of rules others are expected to abide by.

[AU9377 5,922]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

Lol, yeah. Talking to your lawyers and campaign staff and attempting to overturn an election is called "contesting" it. Except in Fulton County where is is called "conspiring to change the results".   Unfortunately, it is going no where.  Would have loved to see it in court. 

Contesting the election is filing a legal challenge.  Attempting to overturn the valid results of an election happens when a President demands that his Vice President not certify the results, even though the VP was bound to do so by the Constitution.  Attempting to overturn is also shown when you angrily demand that your Attorney General announce that he is investigating the results and has found fraud in Georgia and Arizona.  That AG then told him to go F himself and resigned because he had no intention to lie in order to further the mission.  When you impanel FAKE ELECTORS that you plan to substitute for the slate already certified by the Republican governor of Georgia, that is attempting to do more than simply contest results.

How you cannot see that is beyond me.