FBI searches former president Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate - Page 12

Pierre · 16-09-2022, 12:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99

The Judge, appointed by Trump, seems to have a bizarre perception on what Classified documents are and who is allowed to hold them.

She just wants them reviewed by an independent unbiased 3rd party. She's not prepared to take the governments word on it and, given this government, nor would I if I was her.

1andrew1 · 16-09-2022, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

She just wants them reviewed by an independent unbiased 3rd party. She's not prepared to take the governments word on it and, given this government, nor would I if I was her.

It's the Department of Justice not the government.

**Mick** · 16-09-2022, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

She just wants them reviewed by an independent unbiased 3rd party. She's not prepared to take the governments word on it and, given this government, nor would I if I was her.

Isn’t it funny how when Judges who ruled against Trump in prior cases, including when he was President, the left proclaimed, they ruled with honour and integrity & legitimacy yelled at him and others not to attack the judiciary.

They rule in his favour, get labelled corrupt blah blah yawn. You couldn’t make this shit up with these liberal lefty folk.

---------- Post added at 12:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's the Department of Justice not the government.

Um, the Department of Justice is a major Government Agency of the USA LOL.

BenMcr · 16-09-2022, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

She just wants them reviewed by an independent unbiased 3rd party. She's not prepared to take the governments word on it and, given this government, nor would I if I was her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

They rule in his favour, get labelled corrupt blah blah yawn. You couldn’t make this shit up with these liberal lefty folk.

From comments I've seen from American lawyers, the issue is that there is no clear legal basis for her ruling, not that it's specifically in favour of Trump.

**Damien** · 16-09-2022, 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

Isn’t it funny how when Judges who ruled against Trump in prior cases, including when he was President, the left proclaimed, they ruled with honour and integrity & legitimacy yelled at him and others not to attack the judiciary.

They rule in his favour, get labelled corrupt blah blah yawn. You couldn’t make this shit up with these liberal lefty folk.

It's the same with Trump fans on the right when judges rule against him.

Anyway everyone should just less the process play out. The Justice Department can appeal higher up if the problem is really with the Judge as some claim or just leave it to the 3rd party. If it's true that there was information about a foreign country's nuclear weapons program in those documents then no way is a 3rd party going to deem that valid for personal use.

**Mick** · 16-09-2022, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

From comments I've seen from American lawyers, the issue is that there is no clear legal basis for her ruling, not that it's specifically in favour of Trump.

She’s made a clear legal basis, appointed a Special master to oversee documents seized, while temporarily halting DoJ investigation on this matter. She has the power to do that and I think it is right and proper that an independent assessor checks stuff appropriately, Trump claims his most recent medical records were seized, DoJ has no right to that information, nor do the public. It’s right and proper that this gets done but again, because it’s Trump, all rights to a fair case, get waived and armchair judges and jurors want to instantly insist his guilt.

---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

It's the same with Trump fans on the right when judges rule against him.

Anyway everyone should just less the process play out. The Justice Department can appeal higher up if the problem is really with the Judge as some claim or just leave it to the 3rd party. If it's true that there was information about a foreign country's nuclear weapons program in those documents then no way is a 3rd party going to deem that valid for personal use.

I said similar, but inverted. You liberals foamed at the mouth when Judges ruled against Trump, but when it’s in his favour, background of Judge is called in to question.

Equally, I’m not a Trump fan, I’m a fan of a fair and balanced legal system, that treats people the same. Surely this is a true liberal way.

1andrew1 · 16-09-2022, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

I said similar, but inverted. You liberals foamed at the mouth when Judges ruled against Trump, but when it’s in his favour, background of Judge is called in to question.

Equally, I’m not a Trump fan, I’m a fan of a fair and balanced legal system, that treats people the same. Surely this is a true liberal way.

To be fair to Damien, I think Republicans would term most Brits liberals with regard to this country's belief in a healthcare system free at the point of delivery, maternity pay and women's right to abortion.

**Damien** · 16-09-2022, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

I said similar, but inverted. You liberals foamed at the mouth when Judges ruled against Trump, but when it’s in his favour, background of Judge is called in to question.

Equally, I’m not a Trump fan, I’m a fan of a fair and balanced legal system, that treats people the same. Surely this is a true liberal way.

I am not making any comment on the judge. Just pointing out the hypocrisy you allege of 'liberals' exists in Trump supporters as well, if we're generalising that is. They even send death threats to judges that rule against Trump.

I wouldn't bucket myself under the term 'liberals' either since that seems more of a U.S divide than one that reflects this country here. Plenty of people who would not describe themselves as liberals in this country would be labelled as such by the Republicans. I think there is a going trend of people letting US political terms and issues creep into British politics because of how much of this stuff plays out online.

**Mick** · 16-09-2022, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not making any comment on the judge. Just pointing out the hypocrisy you allege of 'liberals' exists in Trump supporters as well, if we're generalising that is. They even send death threats to judges that rule against Trump.

I wouldn't bucket myself under the term 'liberals' either since that seems more of a U.S divide than one that reflects this country here. Plenty of people who would not describe themselves as liberals in this country would be labelled as such by the Republicans. I think there is a going trend of people letting US political terms and issues creep into British politics because of how much of this stuff plays out online.

Those who threaten anyone aren’t even worthy of discussion.

pip08456 · 21-09-2022, 17:22

BREAKING: New York AG Letitia James has just filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey McConney, The Trump Organization, Inc., and others.

joglynne · 21-09-2022, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

BREAKING: New York AG Letitia James has just filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey McConney, The Trump Organization, Inc., and others.

You just know this will end in either tears or a massive tantrum.

**Mick** · 21-09-2022, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

BREAKING: New York AG Letitia James has just filed a civilfraud lawsuit against Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey McConney, The Trump Organization, Inc., and others.

How brave is she, for an Attorney General of NY, going down a civil route and not a “criminality” one.

BenMcr · 21-09-2022, 20:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

How brave is she, for an Attorney General of NY, going down a civil route and not a “criminality” one.

She can't unless she gets approval

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...charging-cuomo

Quote:

Under New York’s executive law, the attorney general can’t open criminal investigations or bring charges without a green light from the governor or one of his department heads. James never got such approval.

The law is so quirky that James needed a hard-fought referral from Cuomo’s office in March simply to open her limited civil inquiry, which culminated in a damning 165-page report. Her role ended there, though local district attorneys still have the ability to prosecute Cuomo if they choose.

GrimUpNorth · 21-09-2022, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

How brave is she, for an Attorney General of NY, going down a civil route and not a “criminality” one.

I wasn't listening properly but I'm sure in the Q&A afterwards someone said something along the lines of this civil action was running in parallel with a criminal investigation being progressed by the Manhattan AG.

BenMcr · 21-09-2022, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

I wasn't listening properly but I'm sure in the Q&A afterwards someone said something along the lines of this civil action was running in parallel with a criminal investigation being progressed by the Manhattan AG.

Yes, she's referred it on for potential criminal action by those who can do so.