Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's an absurd, lopsided miscarriage of justice since Biden is permitted to get away with document retention even when he wasn't the president under the pretence of him having a 'poor memory'.
If anyone wants to make the argument that there's a two tiered system, the comparison between Trump and Biden's legal challenges is a case in point.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,468 posts, read 12,487,658 times
Reputation: 10439
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
That is such a silly retort by the so-called legal "experts" that I wonder if they are being deliberately obtuse or if something else is up.
Firstly, judges regularly require briefing on issues raised at trial by the parties in order to get their positions on them. Contrary to what some might have you believe, judges are far from experts in every aspect of the law coming before them; that's not why they were chosen to be judges. Rather, they rely on briefs, etc., supplied by parties to help shape their legal understanding and positions.
Moreover, the notion that discussion of a civil statute is not appropriate or has no place in a criminal trial is likewise uncommonly silly and shortsighted. The civil statute here is relevant here precisely because it calls into question whether the alleged criminal statute at issue here is actually being appropriately applied here. Consider the following hypothetical to illustrate the point: if a civil law allows for people to claim a $5k deduction on their taxes, but another criminal law separately criminalizes "excess deductions," it is nonsensical to argue that the criminal law would prevent someone from deducting $5 as a prosecutor thinks it is in "excess." That's where the civil law comes into question here . . . precisely on the issue of whether the criminal statute is meant to cover the activities complained of here. This is why Judge Cannon--despite denying the Trump team initial motion on the PRA--has left open the possibility of the issue being used as a defense.
^This!
Both Cannon and Smith know that if the PRA is used then the jury will have no choice but to find Trump not guilty (as long as the jury isn't filled with braindead leftist sheep). Smith is terrified and had lashed out, and for good reason since he knows his case is going off a cliff.
This is a very good explanation of Cannon's response filing done by a criminal defense lawyer, who's not some far left talking head:
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,468 posts, read 12,487,658 times
Reputation: 10439
Even rabid Trump hater Glenn Kirschner sees the writing on the wall if the PRA is used.
On Thursday, however, Cannon ruled against a motion from Trump's legal team requesting that his Espionage Act charges be dismissed, arguing that he was allowed to retain the documents under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), a notion the Department of Justice's (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith's team dismissed as "pure fiction." In denying the motion, Cannon did leave open the possibility that the argument could be raised at a later date in the case.
In a Friday post to his official YouTube channel, Kirschner, a former assistant U.S. attorney and frequent critic of the former president, argued that this decision from Cannon is laying the groundwork for something that will be "even better" for Trump.
"She's orchestrating something even better for Donald Trump," he said. "If she had granted this motion and dismissed those charges, guess what? Special counsel Jack Smith would have been able to appeal. But what she said is, 'I'm not going to dismiss them...now, but I might dismiss them later, when we're in trial, after a jury has been sworn, after jeopardy has attached.' Why? Because then, Jack Smith can't appeal the dismissal and Donald Trump will never be held accountable for those crimes."
If Trump thought the PRA makes these documents his then why was he obstructing the court order to turn those documents over. He had his employees hiding them from his own attorneys doesn't sound like he thought they were legally his.
Cannon wants the jury to be seated so she can dismiss based on the civil PRA law has nothing to do with espionage act. Clinton's sock case had nothing to do with top secret classified records. Bill Clinton had recordings he made between himself and a historian Taylor Branch. The video from the right wing DUI attorney Robert Gouveia forgot to mention. He just brings up Clinton gives no detail on the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
