It was a pretty bitter thread, in the pit no less, so its easy to see how one might be primed to see offense even when none was intended. The accusations of goal post moving were directed at Tripolar rather than you.
It may still be that Trump will be able to wriggle his way out of consequences but it wasn’t because Garland had designated Trump as untouchable.
In any case for now its a happy day, and we’re all on the same side so lets enjoy it together.
Seems like a great pick. Too bad it took the Jan 6th committee pressure to get anything going.
withdrawn
If I recall correctly (which is pretty easy, given I can read what I wrote right there), nobody accused you of moving goal posts or being smug.
However, you jumped up on your high horse VERY quickly to defend the smug goalpost movers, which is exactly what I pointed out in my first reply.
Read better, get less smug replies.
I agree with both posts.
I’m happy, happy, happy that Trump has been federally indicted.
Kudos to Smith for making it happen and to Garland for not objecting publicly to it (as the special counsel statute provides, Garland could have gone to Congress and stated that he believed there were problems with Smith’s process. He chose not to do so).
I’m still convinced that Garland holds a personal imperative to make sure no elected Republican ever serves time for crimes relating either to the documents/espionage case or to the insurrection/election interference case. I’ve believed this all along. But of course if I said ‘Garland will never permit any indictment of any elected Republican, current or former, in these two cases,’ then I have a healthy portion of crow to eat. (I’m not sure I’ve ever asserted that, but: hypothetically, if so, then I’m morally obligated to choke down that mangy bird.)
The fact that DOJ engineered that the documents case would be overseen by Aileen Cannon, would seem to support the ‘Garland doesn’t want convictions’ theory. But on the other hand there were actual plausible reasons for this development:
**to head off almost-certain–and likely successful-- Trump-team delays over venue if DOJ had gone with DC as the location of the trial
**to head off criticisms that DOJ was being political by holding the trial in less-Trumpy DC than in fairly-Trumpy Florida
**to take advantage of Florida’s “rocket docket” system, which might mean the trial could at least start sometime before the 11/24 election.
These are all good reasons; the fact that they come lumbered with Judge Cannon may be…coincidental.
We shall see.
Sorry, but this is dumb.
Mar A Lago is in the Southern District of Florida.
Mar A Lago is where documents were stored.
So they filed in the Southern District.
Cannon is one of the judges in that district. The case was assigned randomly to her, just like all the other cases that get filed in that district.
There was no engineering.
There’s no such system. All cases at the federal level operate under the same federal laws regarding scheduling a case for trial.
A talking head just revealed a reason that it’s unlikely there a trial will result from the Florida indictment in the near future, if ever. Trump is entitled to a lawyer who can see the classified documents involved. He’ll have enough trouble finding any lawyer willing to represent him without certainty of getting paid much less one with the necessary security clearance to see those documents. Who will determine whether Trump has the representation he is entitled to under the law in this case? It’s Aileen Cannon of course.
Not a lawyer (still) but that doesn’t make sense to me. If a guy is charged with stealing money from a digital bank account, you don’t need to bring in the cash equivalent of the stolen money and have the lawyer certify that that’s real, non-counterfeit money. Nor does the lawyer need to bring the bank’s server farm into the court, nor have the ability to personally validate that it contains digital currency.
If Trump wanted to contest the contents of the documents - that they were really classified - then I’d expect that the court would have some expert witness who examines them. The lawyer would only ever deal with a document by the expert saying, “Yes, these are real confidential documents, with high level military secrets in them.” The contents of the documents are, otherwise, irrelevant to the substance of the case. There’s no particular reason for the lawyer to deal with the clear text, original documents.
I mostly just don’t get why people get joy out of being cynical, of “winning” a debate about how horrible the world is, how nothing will change.
I mean, I get pessimism, expecting the worst so anything better is a pleasant surprise. But not the idea that you need to prove the hopeful people wrong.
I had hoped people posting about the current news in this thread would help raise some hopes in those who had been depressed—even if only a little bit.
I was wrong all along!
This is nice!
I am starting to believe stuff will work out OK.
(I’m still deeply worried about the timeline. 2024 seems too close for comfort.)
I think everyone is. It’s far from ideal. 
It’s not about an equivalent. Trump is entitled to have a lawyer and be able to show that lawyer and discuss any evidence with that lawyer. If a guy is charged with stealing digital money then every single record of that money must be made available to him and his lawyer, and he must be able to present it to the jury as well. Do you expect the jury to simply to take the prosecutor’s word that there was some money, that it was stolen, and that the defendant did it?
As opposed to just taking the defense counsels word that it wasn’t? The jury isn’t read into the classified intelligence either way.
Do you think this will ever go to trial under those circumstances? You are suggesting a person be tried for crimes with evidence that the defendants lawyer and the jury cannot see. Luckily Trump is not in charge, I’m sure he’d want it done that way.
It’s not up to the defense to prove anything. The prosecution must prove the elements of the crime and lacking evidence it’s the judges responsibility to dismiss the case, and this judge won’t hesitate to do that.
Are you thinking that the defense will dispute whether the classified material is really classified? That’s the only reason I could see the jury needing to know the (allegedly!) classified information.
Well, optimists do a lot of damage in the world. I’ve never met a smart one and the sooner we can educate the dumbasses, the better.
Look at Trump. Many of us said right out of the gate that he was a real threat to American democracy and the optimists said it would all be fine and America’s institutions would protect us. They also said some nonsense about Kent State, because you know: four dead white college kids is the worst thing that ever happened in America.
Anyway, we’ve been trying to drag these morons into reality for years and until they get there, they are unwitting allies of the fascists.
Wouldn’t you? He’s going to have his lawyers object to every last thing possible, or not, as long as it delays the process. I guarantee this trial will not start until Trump has a lawyer who can see all the evidence, and it may require the judge to appoint one. There aren’t a ton of lawyers with the necessary clearance and there aren’t many lawyer who will work for Trump.
Maybe the state will pare back on the charges so they only need to declassify a limited set of documents. Indications are they have already left the most sensitive material out of the case. But if they are only left with information that could be disclosed at trial then the defense will claim it’s just a political prosecution over unimportant matters and not anything that would have put national security at risk.
This case in Florida could easily be delayed past the next election and every step taken to get it done faster gives Trump further cause to claim he’s being politically persecuted.
Ok, dumb question but is it possible in the US to try someone in a case that involves classified documents? Has anything like this ever been tried before? Is there any precedent? Are Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden walking freely?
This doesn’t appear to be an issue. Someone in the other thread posted details about how trials regarding classified information work. The court appoints a Court Security Officer who facilitates getting the lawyers clearance for the classified information. In other words, you don’t have to find a lawyer who already has the clearance.
Well that was fast!