The article says that some documents were moved within boxes, not that any documents were added or removed. Seems like a nothingburder.This is a 'documents' case, not a 'boxes' case. Also that is 'The Western Journal' not MSN.
The article says that some documents were moved within boxes, not that any documents were added or removed. Seems like a nothingburder.This is a 'documents' case, not a 'boxes' case. Also that is 'The Western Journal' not MSN.
The article says that some documents were moved within boxes, not that any documents were added or removed. Seems like a nothingburder.This is a 'documents' case, not a 'boxes' case. Also that is 'The Western Journal' not MSN.
You mean the "business built on disinformation"?
I had never heard of it. Looking it up, The Western Journal does have a deplorable record of printing lies, doesn't it.
Is that what she is doing? She never said that. I can't imagine her saying anything like that. She'd be in a lot of trouble if she ever admitted to delaying a trial for a criminal defendant for any reason like that.
How do you know that's what she's doing? Are you just guessing that's her motive for failing to even issue a scheduling order? I'm not saying you are wrong. A lot of people are speculating the same as you as to Judge Cannon's motives in sandbagging this case.
Currently all she's doing is making the case as transparent as possible.
It says everything that the more transparent the case gets the worse the prosecution looks.
Whaaa? Where did you dig up that idea? What does it even mean to make a case transparent? They're all "transparent." We don't have any ex parte cases behind closed doors that I know of. What do you think was being hidden, who was trying to hide it, who were the trying to hide it from, and how did the judge stop them and "make it transparent"? How does failing to enter a schedule, in a case filed a year ago, make a case "transparent"?
Are you talking about some evidentiary ruling she made? Which one? It's usually criminal defendants that try to exclude evidence. Is that what you're trying to say when you talk about making a case transparent? I'm not aware of any big evidentiary rulings in the case.
You make no sense. Your post probably sounded like something cool to say in your head, but it's meaningless when applied to a case in federal court. You don't seem to know what the fvck you are talking about, yet again. I'm just being transparent with you when I say that.
The classified documents case against Trump is falling apart. Jack Smith tampered with the evidence & admitted to misleading the judge. Wow! This case should be dismissed
It's hard to piece this all stuff together, but Manlet Nauta filed a motion asking for an open ended extension for his CIPA disclosures -- i.e., deadline for stating what classified documents Nauta needs to disclose at trial. Nauta says he can't meet the deadline because he doesn't know for sure where in some Trump boxes that classified documents were located.
As the prosecution points out, Nauta is full of sh!t because none of the charges against him have anything to do with where in a box any classified documents is or even whether the documents were classified at all.
But to as to Nauta's point, it appears that the FBI scanned documents in the boxes soon after they were when seized and initially reviewed for privilege, except with coded placeholders for classified documents that were removed. So, it appears that the exact order of documents in each box can be determined by the scans and coded placeholders. But in the time since that scan took place, at least two boxes (of 77) were found on inspection by Nauta lawyers to be out of order according to the cross-index provided by the prosecution of the original scan of the Trump boxes with the boxes in their current state. The prosecution appears to say that any current out-of-order condition may have resulted from (1) having to remove classified documents from the box and replace with the with placeholders, (2) transporting of the boxes some of which were not full and contained small items, (3) FBI investigators having to access the boxes and copy documents multiple times for investigative reasons and (4) the defense attorney reviews. But, the prosecution appears to say, the original document order within any box can always be determined from the scans and coded placeholders, and there has been no mixing of documents from different boxes.
Who knows what Cannon will do about this, if it ever comes up. Probably make the prosecution re-do the cross-index, which I'm sure they are already doing, and then provide some certification that it's correct. Maybe. I don't even think the prosecution is obligated to help the defense out this much with cross-indexes. In any other case, they'd probably be telling the defense to go figure it out themselves.
The only interesting thing I learned from these briefs is that Nauta had two images of classified documents ON HIS PHONE. WTF? The house boy is snapping photos of America's secrets. Not exactly secured storage down at the Mar-A-Bango nightclub. That's just awful news for the country that classified info is floating around on some idiot's phone. Strangely, he hasn't been charged with this. At least I don't think he has.
Here are the briefs. Again, it is hard to piece it all together.
We finally get to the sleaze America really wants to hear about -- the former president of the United State of America (Donald J. Trump) romping with hookers! Not even Bill Clinton in his prime lowered himself to this level of degeneracy.
Stormy is recounting it all. Every detail of their filthy encounter is being recorded by a stenographer and the transcript will stored in the Manhattan Court House, with a courtesy copy sent to the Library of Congress and the Trump Presidential Library. The Russian FSB has also ordered a copy from the clerk.
It's sordid. America will love this stuff. Trump put on the moves! He showed Stormy magazines with his face on the cover. In a particularly creepy move, he told Stormey that she reminded him of his daughter. That got him in the mood apparently. They proceeded to "missionary position" according to Stormy. But at that point in the testimony, this Puritan-like Judge (Mechan) told the prosecution to skip some of the sex details because he was getting uncomfortable. Goddam prude. Just when things were getting good. Anyway, Trump's lawyers took the Judge's cue and started objecting to all the descriptions of their client boffing away on Stormy. So some of the good stuff isn't coming into evidence. But we still have Trump in his underwear, then buck azz naked and going at it with America's most famous hooker. God bless America.
But I agree, Don Snoreleone did the sordid act of dangling the mushroom prize of a spot on The Apprentice to sex Daniels just after his wife had just given birth to his child.
But I agree, Don Snoreleone did the sordid act of dangling the mushroom prize of a spot on The Apprentice to sex Daniels just after his wife had just given birth to his child.
Stormy is unethical at best. If you take the hush money you better stay quiet.
Stormy testified she asked Trump: "Isn't your wife going to care?" And testified that Trump answered "We don't sleep in the same bedroom, it won't matter".
That is testimony speaking to Donald's motives in trying to 'hush' this up later. Will Donald testify to deny this? Does he dare to take the stand?
As Trump's trial picks up steam and threatens to imperil his 2024 campaign, DailyMail.com reveals new insights into the prosecutor leading the Democratic establishment's anti-Trump resistance.
What are you even talking about? You have to lie about Biden to square away your undying support for Trump.
There's a huge difference between the two. Trump's transgressions are proven in court. Your statements about Biden are your looney speculations, nothing more.
Stormy testified she asked Trump: "Isn't your wife going to care?" And testified that Trump answered "We don't sleep in the same bedroom, it won't matter".
That is testimony speaking to Donald's motives in trying to 'hush' this up later. Will Donald testify to deny this? Does he dare to take the stand?
On cross-exam, we will get a good sense of whether Trump is going to deny he ever had sex with Storm Drain or whether he will admit it and argue it's irrelevant. It's a tough legal and personal call for Trump either way. I think it really impacts whether he takes the stand and testifies or not (gag order notwithstanding). If Trump's lawyers go after Stormy on cross and suggest that this disgusting, filthy encounter never happened, then it seems like Trump will have to take the stand and affirmatively deny it. But if they just focus on the hush agreement and that it was all lawyers handling it, then I think it means they are essentially admitting the sex happened, but saying it's irrelevant (which it kind of is). Trump would have no need to take the stand in that case. That would seem to be the safest route for Trump, although he'd be essentially admitting he's been lying publicly for years about not romping with hookers. But Trump getting caught in lies never seems to bother the MAG@ faithful, so that probably doesn't matter at all.
Trump's lawyers are scrambling out of their fvcking heads over the lunch break, trying to get a sense of how credible and empathetic Stormy came off and how best to cross-examine her. And then they have their lying, whacko client in there yelling crazy conspiracy sh!t at them while they try to plan out their cross. The pressure on Trump's lawyers is freaking enormous.
Anyway, as a Steelers fan, all I can really say for sure is that I'm just glad Roethlisberger turned down Trump's invite to have a threesome with Stormy.
What are you even talking about? You have to lie about Biden to square away your undying support for Trump.
There's a huge difference between the two. Trump's transgressions are proven in court. Your statements about Biden are your looney speculations, nothing more.
You've lost your mind.
You live in a bubble.
Ashley Biden's diary is real. This is a fact that has been confirmed by the FBI, the courts, and Ashley Biden herself.
Tara Reade says Trump raped her according to E Jean Carroll's definition. Believe all women. You can't have it both ways.
Trump lawyers moving for a mistrial because they didn't like Stormy's testimony (which isn't even over)! HAHAHHAAA!
Every time I think these guys are competent, they show up like amateurs again. Forget what I said about their planning a good cross of Stormy during lunch. They were wanking around on this mistrial bullsh!t the whole time. What a bunch of clowns.
Trump lawyers moving for a mistrial because they didn't like Stormy's testimony (which isn't even over)! HAHAHHAAA!
SOP for the Trump team in every legal fight. They have one attorney assigned to make the motion on nearly a daily basis.
You're right that the cross should not debate whether the encounter happened but just how the NDA was handled. Without admitting so directly, they'll be admitting that Trump's been lying but it's better than putting him in a position where they can be proven completely wrong which is a likely outcome.
Susan McDougal may be a better witness within this case because very few know about her or what went on.
