Aileen Cannon begins unredacting filings against Jack Smith's demands

No, and that's what Trump's team is arguing, not the liberal SCOTUS justices. Too many fabrications to keep track of there friend?

 

Nobody is saying that, but what about when a former president has broken the law, in part during the process of trying to subvert an election? Should that man be given a free pass, yes or no?

 

If that former POTUS was a Republican, than yes. Rightists would cheer that person trying to be King and break every law imaginable to do so. If that person was a Democrat, rightists want them hung.

 

The board is replete with false equivalences between the circumstances surrounding Biden's and Trump's docs cases. Yours is no different.

 

This board is replete with hypocritical partisan double standards surrounding the treatment of both presidents. Yours is no different.

 

Repub SC Robert Hur is clearly partisan yet even he detailed the differences between the cases in his report. Your inability to accept the truth was expected and is noted.

 

But that is essentially what every one of these cases are, frauds upon the court. Braggs case hinges upon the nonsensical idea that contracting for an NDA, a legal document, is illegal if you are running for election. In which case when is he going after all the New Your house members that have them? And your accountant calling payments to a lawyer legal fees is fraud. And please how is paying money to Cohen who wasn't running for anything an illegal campaign contribution? There is a reason the feds originally chose not to indite, there is nothing there.

 

Yeah Biden isn't competent to stand trial. And of course the only difference that matters is that Trump being president at the time the Documents were taken had a legal right to them. Biden being senator or vice president depending on the document in question did not. And as has already been noted a half a dozen times, at least, returning the money you stole from the bank at gun point, does not make you less guilty of robbing the bank. Your little attempted tamp dance around that fact not with standing,

 

Bragg's case may be, I honestly haven't been following this one(or the previous civil suit) but the charges regarding documents, his actions on Jan 6th, and his actions in trying to fraudulently overturn the election are legitimate, which is what my comments were about. Sorry, I should have been more specific but it gets hard to keep track of all the ways Trump has managed to get himself in trouble so I tend to focus on the ones that affect the entire country like the cases I mentioned above do. Bragg's case doesn't really meet that standard so I haven't been following it, which is also why you won't see me commenting on that specific case.

 

I would normally call this hyperbole, but unfortunately it isn't. I watch them bend over backwards trying to justify why Trump should be above the law while at the same time saying Biden should be impeached and arrested. The hypocrisy isn't even being hidden, it's right there in the front with blinking neon signs and a cheerleader squad.

 

Your inability to argue facts and only provide your opinionated hubris is noted.

 

Trump tried to legitimately challenge election results. This resulted in an argument among his legal team as to how this should be done. Among which Eastman's opinion was only one. There are rules within the constitution for how to do this. There is this insidious attempt by the powers that be to conflate three separate events that were supposed to take place on J6. 1st the stupid riot that neither Trump nor anyone else in the upper or lower echelons of the Republican party had anything to do with, Then the speech that trump gave that same day at a location forty minutes away and the last one which because of the riot never happened was the challenge to election results that were to happen on the senate floor that the riot preempted. The only one's who gained any thing from the riot were the democrats.

 

Because that's where the FBI and others said they were in the car with the vette. Try again roger dodger.

 

delete

 

They are a pleading from Trump's lawyer making an assertion.

 

No, he didn't. He and his team tried in multiple places across the country to interfere with the legitimate results, at times fabricating evidence entirely. When you have a legitimate case, you don't have to invent evidence. Multiple recounts, investigations, and court cases have occurred and none of these stolen election fantasy groups have ever been able to prove any of their fantastical claims.

The question has never been whether election fraud has occurred. Of course it has, and that's been the case in every election we've ever had(including the one that got Trump elected in 2016). The question has always been, was there enough fraud to actually effect the results in the 2020 election, and that's the part that has never been proven, not even marginally.

What you wrote is the fantasy that Trump and his allies want you to believe, and you've bought it and thrown away the receipt.

 

No my liberal friend...... they are actual court documents
redacted
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.262.0.pdf
unredacted
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.469.0.pdf
redacted
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.262.1.pdf
unredacted
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.469.1.pdf

 

That is the fiction the left is trying to create it is not true.

 

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ in Heaven above give me the strength of character to deal with these foolish and uneducated persons.

That is a document FILED in the case. By the DEFENSE attorney. In it he makes certain assertions. That doesn't make it fact, it means its an assertion he's making.
His 'proof' of a quid pro quo is literal inarticulate hearsay, wherein he freely admits he does not have a quote (something rather important to prove a quid pro quo) and that there is no independent corroborative evidence of his assertion.

Furthermore: I'm not a liberal. Correcting people's mistakes of law is something I do as a public service in my spare time, as a licensed attorney.
The same way a doctor might tell you not to sun your *******.

FFS your first link is DEFENDANTS MOTION. Says so on the first ****ing page for god's sake.

 

Nothing was fabricated.

 

You just confused the liberal justices with Trump's legal team. I suppose we'll just chalk that up to an honest mistake then.

 

No, actually I didn't...lol. Unless you think the Liberal justices argued that Obama can be indicted for murder. Did they?

 

Promptly my ass ! Biden had his for years and told everyone they were his personal notes and documents. He did not give them right, a lie the lefties keep pushing.

 

Biden has those documents for 14 years...lol.

 

@Reality

Did you miss the OP… the documents the judge redacted were Smith’s….