You are correct. I mistakenly linked the proposed order instead of the Louecia’s motion. You have posted the correct link.
The Judge ordered: “The government shall preserve any records or communications having to do with the investigation or prosecution of this case.” So they have to preserve all media communications, which is logging them in my mind, but you are correct, they don’t have to produce any media communications log to the defendant. Just preserve them in the event they are an issue later.
Other than your corrections above, what takes of mine are you disagreeing with?
Also, I’m not sure I’d call court filings “primary sources.” It doesn’t make sense, for example, to call the Constitution a "primary source" on the Constitution. It is what it is, and court filings are what they are. And it’s axiomatic that they contain a better account than anyone's opinion of what they say. But I think I’m doing a decent job of accurately discussing them (subject to mistaken links and misquotes above, etc.). What are you disputing or disagreeing with?
Bathroom Secrets case. Fake Electors case. You're referring to those? Do you want me to repeat what I’ve posted many times before? What’s your knowledge of them before I do?
I disagree that:
* Trump is an autocrat who is exceeding his lawful authority.
* There is no meaningful distinction between original court filings ("primary sources") and media reports on them ("secondary sources").
* We can accurately predict how a judge will rule.
Because:
* Trump's authority will be tested in the courts.
* I like primary sources more than secondary ones, and there are myriad instances where secondary sources manipulate or distort what the primary sources say.
* Our political opinions cloud our predictions. Like that overweight woman who sat on a couch for so long that her skin became intertwined with the couch to the point where you couldn't tell where she ended and the couch began, our opinions blur the line between legal facts and case precedent, which inform judge's rulings more than any layman understanding of the law.
Some possible objections:
* If you don't like Trump's policy, it's easy to convince yourself that said policy is illegitimate. The mere fact that Trump appointed three of the justices that sit on the highest court in the land allows anyone who disagrees with how the Supreme Court rules allows a "ready baked" argument that they are loyal to Trump.
* My preference for primary over secondary sources can easily be dismissed as a form of bias.
* Culture matters and not all judges have the same approach.
I already know that you feel that all the cases against Trump were legitimate, while those against Comey and James are not. My question, to put a finer point in it, is: Why?
If one says the bolded part above in November 2025, one is either:
1) A willful id***.
2) Someone with a vested (and not simply psychological) interest in not aggravating the King.
Donald Trump is a lifelong criminal.
Perhaps more importantly, since January of this year he has shown, beyond a shadow of doubt that he wants to do the following: Exactly whatever the hell he wants.
If you don't see that, you're blind. Or pretend to be.
It's bad enough to watch this happen to our country. I don't care for the added aggravation of watching a JustMe22 STRAINING to see it otherwise. It is not otherwise - and we have a million data points regarding this. Wake up, or grow up, or both.
1. Trump is lying his face off. 2. Someone else is issuing Trumps pardons without his knowledge.
O'DONNELL: Why did you pardon Changpeng Zhao? TRUMP: Are you ready? I don't know who he is O'DONNELL: His crypto exchange Binance helped facilitate a $2b purchase of World Liberty Financial's stablecoin. And they you pardoned him. TRUMP: Here's the thing -- I know nothing about it
Think about how difficult it must be to be a Trump lap dog in these days as his mental health deteriorates. His stooges in Congress are trying to spin a new propaganda campaign that all of Biden's pardons are invalid. Because of the "autopen". It is no doubt that they are doing this to please Trump and allow Trump to expand his retribution tour to Kinzinger, Cheney, Biden and others.
So Trump goes on national TeeVEE and sh!ts all over their efforts by saying he has absolutely no idea who he is pardoning. Kinda hard to spin that Biden narrative when Cheeto is publicly admitting he has no clue.
Answering the question above: If you're in a safe district or State (and/or a Senator not up for re-election in a long time) and have no principles? Very easy.
* Trump is an autocrat who is exceeding his lawful authority.
* There is no meaningful distinction between original court filings ("primary sources") and media reports on them ("secondary sources").
* We can accurately predict how a judge will rule.
Because:
* Trump's authority will be tested in the courts.
* I like primary sources more than secondary ones, and there are myriad instances where secondary sources manipulate or distort what the primary sources say.
* Our political opinions cloud our predictions. Like that overweight woman who sat on a couch for so long that her skin became intertwined with the couch to the point where you couldn't tell where she ended and the couch began, our opinions blur the line between legal facts and case precedent, which inform judge's rulings more than any layman understanding of the law.
Some possible objections:
* If you don't like Trump's policy, it's easy to convince yourself that said policy is illegitimate. The mere fact that Trump appointed three of the justices that sit on the highest court in the land allows anyone who disagrees with how the Supreme Court rules allows a "ready baked" argument that they are loyal to Trump.
* My preference for primary over secondary sources can easily be dismissed as a form of bias.
* Culture matters and not all judges have the same approach.
I already know that you feel that all the cases against Trump were legitimate, while those against Comey and James are not. My question, to put a finer point in it, is: Why?
If one says the bolded part above in November 2025, one is either:
1) A willful id***.
2) Someone with a vested (and not simply psychological) interest in not aggravating the King.
Donald Trump is a lifelong criminal.
Perhaps more importantly, since January of this year he has shown, beyond a shadow of doubt that he wants to do the following: Exactly whatever the hell he wants.
If you don't see that, you're blind. Or pretend to be.
It's bad enough to watch this happen to our country. I don't care for the added aggravation of watching a JustMe22 STRAINING to see it otherwise. It is not otherwise - and we have a million data points regarding this. Wake up, or grow up, or both.
Trump is good enough, Trump is smart enough, and Doggone it, people like him.
Please defend Trump's cases on the Merits. I would love to read it.
Or for simplicity. Just pick one. The bathroom documents case.
Be happy to grant your request...
Trump's defense was that the documents had been declassified and belonged to him. We will never know the answer, as the evidence was never presented in a court of law. Because the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith, which he did not have the authority to do.
Ancillary arguments that you should consider. Trump is not the only one accused of impropriety with classified documents. Hillary Clinton was accused, as was then-President Joe Biden. James Comey announced that he would not prosecute Clinton just before the 2016 election, and many feel that it cost us our first female President.
When Stephen Colbert announced Comey's firing by Trump, many in his Trump-hating audience cheered. Here's an article about it that has the clip, if you don't believe me:
Biden was interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Hur, who concluded that there was enough evidence to charge with him with a crime (not the same as "he is guilty of the crime"...an important distinction for anyone who thinks the evidence against Trump is "overwhelming"), but that a jury was unlikely to convict because he was:
Ben Hur? Oh, *Robert* Hur... wrote:
"...a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" with "diminished faculties in advancing age."
So there you have it. None of these cases went to trial. That's how guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law. A court of public opinion, of course, has a much looser standard.
This is what (completely absurd, indefensible) STRAINING looks like. The case never went to trial, so I'm free from judging Trump negatively. No matter how many times he lied, said untrue things (declassification), obstructed, hid, etc.
My neighbor said that he ran a 3:39 mile. No court case. NOT calling him a liar.
Put your efforts somewhere else, JustMe22. Donald Trump and the "fun" of feeling (falsely) "balanced" is not worth them. Not even close.
Sad and frequent reminder how societies don't necessarily improve. GOP overcame their party allegiance for Nixon. Pretty easily, I think.
~50 years later, not even sniffing meaningful resistance to the worst and far-and-away most dangerous person in U.S. public history.
When did Democrats overcome their party allegiance for a member of their party?
Keeping this at the presidential level, I'm so very sorry that the party that I reflexively voted against until Trump came along hasn't nominated the first (by a million light years) and second most criminal presidential candidates in the modern era.
One can only compare what one is given!!!
Having said that, do I think that the Democrats would nominate someone like Trump? No.
And if they semi-accidentally did, do I think that they'd show a fraction of the cowardice of today's GOP? No.
But they haven't. And the GOP has. The former gets the benefit of the doubt. The latter showed their true colors a LONG time ago.....and continues to do so unabated.
You are correct. I mistakenly linked the proposed order instead of the Louecia’s motion. You have posted the correct link.
The Judge ordered: “The government shall preserve any records or communications having to do with the investigation or prosecution of this case.” So they have to preserve all media communications, which is logging them in my mind, but you are correct, they don’t have to produce any media communications log to the defendant. Just preserve them in the event they are an issue later.
Other than your corrections above, what takes of mine are you disagreeing with?
Also, I’m not sure I’d call court filings “primary sources.” It doesn’t make sense, for example, to call the Constitution a "primary source" on the Constitution. It is what it is, and court filings are what they are. And it’s axiomatic that they contain a better account than anyone's opinion of what they say. But I think I’m doing a decent job of accurately discussing them (subject to mistaken links and misquotes above, etc.). What are you disputing or disagreeing with?
Bathroom Secrets case. Fake Electors case. You're referring to those? Do you want me to repeat what I’ve posted many times before? What’s your knowledge of them before I do?
I disagree that:
* Trump is an autocrat who is exceeding his lawful authority.
I don't think I ever said that. Certainly not in the context of these cases. But I don't think I've ever said Trump is an autocrat anywhere.
I believe I've dug down in significant detail on the facts and legal arguments in these cases. If all you're getting from my probably overly-long posts is that I think "Trump is an autocrat who is exceeding his lawful authority," then I don't think you are reading or understanding much of anything I posted.
* There is no meaningful distinction between original court filings ("primary sources") and media reports on them ("secondary sources").
I don't think you understood what I said about YOUR comment on "primary sources."
* We can accurately predict how a judge will rule.
I've never heard of anyone who says they can predict with 100% accuracy what a judge will rule on a complex issue. Of course we can't "accurately predict" how a judge will rule. Is that really your point here?
* I like primary sources more than secondary ones, and there are myriad instances where secondary sources manipulate or distort what the primary sources say.
Again, you misunderstood what I said. But yes, people who get their ideas of what a court filing says from what the media says the court filing says will very often be misguided, under-informed, misled or completely wrong. It's an idiotic way to proceed, yet many posters on LRC do it constantly (as do tens of millions of Americans, unfortunately).
Some possible objections: * If you don't like Trump's policy, it's easy to convince yourself that said policy is illegitimate. The mere fact that Trump appointed three of the justices that sit on the highest court in the land allows anyone who disagrees with how the Supreme Court rules allows a "ready baked" argument that they are loyal to Trump.
None of that seem to have anything to do with anything I ever said. It certainly has nothing to do with the Comey or James cases (or the Bathroom or Fake Electors cases).
* My preference for primary over secondary sources can easily be dismissed as a form of bias.
You're getting as weird on this "primary source" thing as on your other the New York Times thing.
Again, I don't think you understood what I said about your earlier comments about "primary sources."
* Culture matters and not all judges have the same approach.
You have a tendency to recite truisms as if they were considered opinions and/or meaningful points in this discussion. You do that a lot.
I already know that you feel that all the cases against Trump were legitimate, while those against Comey and James are not. My question, to put a finer point in it, is: Why?
You haven't put a fine point on anything. Your broad question asks me for an unfocused narrative on four different cases, at least two of which are fact intensive and legally complicated. Which is strange, since your only opinions on any of those case seems be (1) nothing or (2) a broad, conclusory, unsupported characterization like "it was political" or "Trump has authority" or "Trump said he has defenses" or "we don't know how the court will rule."
I've read about and discussed Trump's Bathroom case extensively here in this thread (as have others). If you are actually interested in my opinion on the Bathroom Secrets case, then how about you tell me what you know about the facts in that case, the arguments in that case, and explain any opinions you may have about it? Then if I disagree, I can say why.
When did Democrats overcome their party allegiance for a member of their party?
seems that Andew Cuomo is an outcast, as are Senators Menendez and Franken.
You idiots made a literal insurrectionist, felon and career criminal president of the united states.
Exactly. The tally in at least the last 10 years or so is NOT favorable to the GOP.
And hell, on a WEIGHTED scale, the support of Trump would mean that the Democrat side of the ledger would need to be way, way, way longer...... And it's not even close.
CNN’s latest poll shows Trump’s disapproval rating at 63%, the highest of either term and one point above his previous high of 62% as he was leaving office in January 2021.
If one says the bolded part above in November 2025, one is either:
1) A willful id***.
2) Someone with a vested (and not simply psychological) interest in not aggravating the King.
Donald Trump is a lifelong criminal.
Perhaps more importantly, since January of this year he has shown, beyond a shadow of doubt that he wants to do the following: Exactly whatever the hell he wants.
If you don't see that, you're blind. Or pretend to be.
It's bad enough to watch this happen to our country. I don't care for the added aggravation of watching a JustMe22 STRAINING to see it otherwise. It is not otherwise - and we have a million data points regarding this. Wake up, or grow up, or both.
Trump is good enough, Trump is smart enough, and Doggone it, people like him.
Hey, have you ever seen "Stuart Saves His Family?" It's an under-rated SNL film starring future Senator AL Franken, and it has at least one extremely clever joke.
In the film, a young Stuart Smalley writes in a suggestion to a soap company that has a Knight as its mascot and for which they are holding a contest to determine his name. Young Stewart suggests, "Sir Cleanalot." which is a good enough name and a pretty clever one from a child. To underscore how much of a loser Stuart is, even a child, there's a scene where young Stuart watches a commercial where the winner is announced. First he discovers that the winner is an elderly woman, and not him. Then the winning name is announced: a completely pedestrian "Sir Lancelot."
I read somewhere that Franken, before he got into politics, was once approached by a fan at an airport who asked him earnestly, "So when are they going to make a sequel to your "Stuart Smalley" film? Franken told the fan in full candor that it would never be made, because "Stuart Saves His Family" was a box office flop. Still, it's really well done for a low-budget comedy.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Please defend Trump's cases on the Merits. I would love to read it.
Or for simplicity. Just pick one. The bathroom documents case.
Be happy to grant your request...
Trump's defense was that the documents had been declassified and belonged to him.
My turn, I guess:
Whether the documents were classified, declassified, reclassified, or never classified was absolutely irrelevant to the statute in question. THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, regardless of classification status, and should have been returned to their "owner." Instead Trump denied, lied, and tried to re-hide them.