There is a First Amendment right to peddle frivolous claims to your heart’s content. Not to take criminal steps.
Clinton and Gore didn’t take action after the SCOTUS ruling to get state officials to change electoral certifications. Gore didn’t try to refuse the count. Clinton
The distinction between those who still peddle the 2000 conspiracies (it took me a while to accept the results) and Trump’s criminal actions are night and day.
I remember fringe leftists trying
to persuade me in 2004 that machines were switching Kerry votes to Bush.
I remember the lunatic 2008 theories about how one ballot precinct issue in Philly with a bunch of idiots meant somehow Obama’s victory was suspect.
I remember Romney refusing to take up Trump’s call for
This is it? This is the grand PRA legal theory they’ve been previewing for 18 months?
What a joke. Their argument is that Trump designated all the records as personal, he did so while President, no one can scrutinize how he did so, and therefore his possession can’t
What a crock. First, this is a motion to dismiss. You can’t introduce facts, and that alone is fatal to this motion. Trump is stuck with the facts of the indictment, no matter how much this motion pretends otherwise.
Second, his entire theory
Is based on turning the Clinton case into something it was not. Trump has taken the view that Clinton’s case means presidents can RECLASSIFY agency records as personal presidential records without scrutiny under the PRA. That’s not what that case was about. Clinton designated
What Dan detailed is stuff from the 60s and 80s. The 80s issues were particularly known for decades now. Voters in Delaware did not care. The American public voted for him as VP in 2008 and 2012. And then they voted for him as POTUS in 2020.
from the last 7 years, including one while Trump was in the WH.
And for the love of everything that is holy, complaining about Biden's issues from 40 years ago when the GOP is marching in step with a man who has paid out tens of millions in civil fraud? Whose company was just
convicted of tax fraud? Whose company is separately already been found to have committed civil fraud and is facing possible dissolution?
In the midst of all that, you're trying to lump Biden in with Claudine Gay? Are you kidding me? Trump and his band of dumpster fire aides
A bunch of folks in my Mentions are asking why I’m incessantly trashing Aaron Rodgers, who no doubt is hurt.
Why? Because when COVID hit, two of my closest and oldest friends - expertly trained doctors - were on the front lines in hospitals responding to it. When we all were
safely cocooned in our homes for months, they were at work, in the eye of the storm, wearing insane amounts of PPE just to perform regular duties. They put their lives at risk to help others as we faced down a one-in-a-century pandemic.
Then vaccines arrived. Restrictions
loosened. And suddenly some people who had previously been begging medical experts for help were now publicly trashing them, accusing them of “expert” arrogance and being medical Nazis. You see, these people watched a YouTube video or read a blog somewhere. They did their
I have had a chance to look over this, as well as the original motion, in more detail now and ... to be fair ... I kind of understand Judge Cannon's position here.
First, she asks why the court even needs to be provided with a copy of this list, at least at the present time.
I am not a trial lawyer, as my type of civil litigation is usually resolved in summary judgment motions, so I can't attest to the procedure on *when* the court has to be notified of expected witnesses but I doubt it's this early in the process. So fair point from Cannon.
Second, and more importantly, Cannon states that the Government hasn't sufficiently explained its rationale for seeking the filing to be under seal. And she is right. The government didn't really say much of *anything* about its rationale. It just said "we want one".
This piece is an exhaustive look into how cautious the FBI and DOJ have been in investigating J6, including even the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Internal checks worked: plans to just blow past the First Amendment were rejected. Doing the politically-controversial thing of going
after Trump was something the Department avoided for over a year. Why? Not because the evidence was not there, but because they were all so traumatized from four years of Trump's assaults on the Department and conservative media's assaults on individual officials that no one
wanted to be the one signing off on the initial "yes, we have enough evidence to move forward" determination.
Maybe that caution is for the best. The one lesson from Crossfire Hurricane that I felt was legitimate was how certain officials, with the benefit of hindsight, jumped