Liberal Forum

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 10:00 pm

They don't have to agree to not bother with a case, *******. 
You really aren't very bright, are you?

So you are suggesting that the GOP majority SCOTUS does not care if the Batson rule is violated?  They're all racists as well???

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:26 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:26 pm

Petition denied, just like most petitions sent to the court.   There was no review of any argument. 
Search - Supreme Court of the United States

You're just a **** liar who has no honor, and a room temperature IQ.

and just to set the record a little straighter.

The time line:

1. Appeal Denied in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals on 4/19/22
2. Defense Attorney filed his 30+ page petition (with 50+  pages of appendices) with SCOTUS on 7/13/22.
3. At LEAST one Justice felt the case should be heard because it made it out of the Cert Pool and was placed on the docket on 8/17/22 (which was also the date that the State of Maine declined to drag the process out any further and was willing to let the transcripts of previous proceedings speak for the State)
4. Eight days after the case was placed on the SCOTUS docket,  (on 8/23/22) the case package including petitions, motions, and supporting filings was delivered to all the justices and their staffs for review, and was placed on the agenda for the Judicial Conference scheduled  9/28/22
5.  At that 9/28/22 Judicial Conference, a least five of the nine SCOTUS justices decided to deny the Defense Attorney's petition.

So.... in summary, the trial judge, an appellate judge, the Maine State Supreme Court, and the US First Circuit Court of Appeals ALL agreed that the prosecutor in the case did NOT violate the Batson rule... and then, after having had more than a month for them and their staffs of clerks to review the case, SCOTUS declined to waste their time on a case that clearly had no merit.   The prosecutor was fully and forever vindicated.  Case closed.

 

 
 

golfboy » 09 Jun 2023, 6:54 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023, 6:54 pm

Yea, because you're a now a legal expert too. 

Madcow is already floating the idea that this was done so they could offer Trump a deal:  Dropping case in exchange for him dropping out of the race. 
Liberals are scared **** of Trump because they know they can't beat him.

Tell Maineman that the indictment lacks any attachments or specific references to documents.  So, basically, the indictment is a pack of lies and is hiding behind a claim that the documents are "classified" and can't be attached.  LOL, they didn't even attach the freaking documents, @maineman !  More Democrat Rat Court.
 

Skans » 13 Jun 2023, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:38 am

Tell Maineman that the indictment lacks any attachments or specific references to documents.  So, basically, the indictment is a pack of lies and is hiding behind a claim that the documents are "classified" and can't be attached.  LOL, they didn't even attach the freaking documents, @maineman !  More Democrat Rat Court.

And Jack Smith has been DENUTTED on BOGUS PROSECUTIONS numerous times.

The Gov. McDonnell "conviction" was TOTALLY overturned in a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling. The John Edwards **** resulted in NOT GUILTY and a hung jury on the rest of the charges he never retried.

That's just to name couple HE LOST ON MASSIVELY!!

He's about to add ANOTHER one to his LOSS COLUMN as soon as this JUDGE dismisses the MAJOR BULK of his indictment on TONS of legal grounds that there should have NEVER BEEN any indictment.
 

Skans » 13 Jun 2023, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:38 am

Tell Maineman that the indictment lacks any attachments or specific references to documents.  So, basically, the indictment is a pack of lies and is hiding behind a claim that the documents are "classified" and can't be attached.  LOL, they didn't even attach the freaking documents, @maineman !  More Democrat Rat Court.

As a former certified Nuclear Weapons Handling Officer, I am quite pleased that Jack Smith did NOT attach America's nuclear secrets to the indictment that was released to the public.  Aren't you too?

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:23 am

As a former certified Nuclear Weapons Handling Officer, I am quite pleased that Jack Smith did NOT attach America's nuclear secrets to the indictment that was released to the public.  Aren't you too?

No.  If you are going to prosecute someone, attach what you've got.  Or, go home.  As for secrets involving nuclear weapons - not likely.  Most everything is already out there in the public domain:


 
 

Skans » 13 Jun 2023, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:27 am

No.  If you are going to prosecute someone, attach what you've got.  Or, go home.

not if it's a top secret document.  It will undoubtedly be displayed in closed court.

Skans » 13 Jun 2023, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:27 am

No.  If you are going to prosecute someone, attach what you've got.  Or, go home.

and clearly, Jack attached the evidentiary documents in his filing to the court.  Just not in the public version.

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:28 am

not if it's a top secret document.  It will undoubtedly be displayed in closed court.

Closed courts are unconstitutional. Our system is based upon public trials. The People own the "secrets", not the FBI, CIA or DOJ.
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:29 am

and clearly, Jack attached the evidentiary documents in his filing to the court.  Just not in the public version.

Actually, if you had been following this, you would have known that Jack did not attach any of the alleged classified documents.
 

Skans » 13 Jun 2023, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:33 am

Actually, if you had been following this, you would have known that Jack did not attach any of the alleged classified documents.

how would you know?

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 9:37 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:37 am

how would you know?

Because I listened to a long discussion about this exact topic this morning.  The prosecutor failed to attach any so-called classified documents.  He just makes broad-sweeping claims against Trump.  Yes, this is more Democrat Rat Court.  Open your eyes, you are supporting the wrong side on this.  You can hate Trump's politics all you want, but you can still try and think for yourself and see that this is an abuse of our justice system for another Democrat political hit-job.
 

Skans » 13 Jun 2023, 9:40 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:40 am

Because I listened to a long discussion about this exact topic this morning.  The prosecutor failed to attach any so-called classified documents.  He just makes broad-sweeping claims against Trump.  Yes, this is more Democrat Rat Court.  Open your eyes, you are supporting the wrong side on this.  You can hate Trump's politics all you want, but you can still try and think for yourself and see that this is an abuse of our justice system for another Democrat political hit-job.

In fact, the indictment lists 31 documents, their dates of origin, their classification and their subjects....

the retention of any one of them is a violation of Title 18 USC sec 793e.

I guess you must have missed that.

I didn't.... BECAUSE I TOOK THE TIME TO READ THE **** INDICTMENT AND NOT JUST LET SOME RWNJ TALKING HEAD TELL ME WHAT WAS IN IT LIKE YOU DID.  

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:47 am

In fact, the indictment lists 31 documents, their dates of origin, their classification and their subjects....

the retention of any one of them is a violation of Title 18 USC sec 793e.

I guess you must have missed that.

I didn't.... BECAUSE I TOOK THE TIME TO READ THE **** INDICTMENT AND NOT JUST LET SOME RWNJ TALKING HEAD TELL ME WHAT WAS IN IT LIKE YOU DID.

What did I say?  I said that they did not attach even one of the claimed documents.  And, what did you just confirm?  That I was dead-to-nuts correct.
 

Skans » 13 Jun 2023, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:52 am

What did I say?  I said that they did not attach even one of the claimed documents.  And, what did you just confirm?  That I was dead-to-nuts correct.

AND YOU WANT THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO SEE 31 HIGHLY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS?  

WTF????

The documents will all be presented at trial, no doubt in a closed courtroom and no doubt highly redacted.

They've got him on tape laughing about how he should have declassified something but now he can't anymore... they've got him talking to one of his PAC fundraisers and showing him top secret battle plans/maps.  WTF?

Skans » 13 Jun 2023, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:52 am

What did I say?  I said that they did not attach even one of the claimed documents.  And, what did you just confirm?  That I was dead-to-nuts correct.

and what else you said was:   "He just makes broad-sweeping claims against Trump" which, if you had read the indictment, LIKE I DID, you'd know the claims are not broad sweeping at all, but very specific and detailed as to who what when and where.

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 10:16 am

AND YOU WANT THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO SEE 31 HIGHLY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS?

I am a Constitutionalist.  The constitution demands that trials and accusations be open to the public. Anything the FBI has belongs to WE, THE PEOPLE.  Show us what you've got, or lose.

The documents will all be presented at trial, no doubt in a closed courtroom and no doubt highly redacted.

Closed courtrooms are illegal.  So, you admit, this will be an illegal trial.

They've got him on tape laughing about how he should have declassified something but now he can't anymore... they've got him talking to one of his PAC fundraisers and showing him top secret battle plans/maps.  WTF?

These documents had no business ever being classified.  They were the President's work records.  He has a right to retain them.  Trump secured the documents and did not divulge any to America's enemies or for gain. He needed them to be able to defend himself against these senseless prosecutions.  The FBI is corrupt and cannot be counted on to disclose any documents.  So, Trump had no alternative.

Just want until Trump's legal team subpoenas thousands of FBI documents and they get none.   That will prove that Trump had no choice other than to keep the documents for his defense against a political persecution.
 
 

Skans » 13 Jun 2023, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 10:23 am

1. I am a Constitutionalist.  The constitution demands that trials and accusations be open to the public. Anything the FBI has belongs to WE, THE PEOPLE.  Show us what you've got, or lose.

2. Closed courtrooms are illegal.  So, you admit, this will be an illegal trial.

3. These documents had no business ever being classified.  They were the President's work records.  He has a right to retain them.  Trump secured the documents and did not divulge any to America's enemies or for gain. He needed them to be able to defend himself against these senseless prosecutions.  The FBI is corrupt and cannot be counted on to disclose any documents.  So, Trump had no alternative.

4. Just want until Trump's legal team subpoenas thousands of FBI documents and they get none.   That will prove that Trump had no choice other than to keep the documents for his defense against a political persecution.

1.  you are an idiot.  Nowhere does the Constitution demand that government secrets be put on public display just because they are evidence in a criminal trial
2.  Closed courtrooms are NOT illegal.  The Jury will be there.  https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/ ... context=lf
3.  Clearly, you did not take the time to read the descriptions of the 31 records listed in the indictment.
4.  Try and be a big boy and take the time to read forty pages of double-spaced words.  Read the indictment for yourself.  I dare you.

https://twitter.com/damonimani/status/1 ... KL5Fw&s=19
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:47 am

In fact, the indictment lists 31 documents, their dates of origin, their classification and their subjects....

the retention of any one of them is a violation of Title 18 USC sec 793e.

I guess you must have missed that.

I didn't.... BECAUSE I TOOK THE TIME TO READ THE **** INDICTMENT AND NOT JUST LET SOME RWNJ TALKING HEAD TELL ME WHAT WAS IN IT LIKE YOU DID.

Psssst., ****, I hate to tell you but READ THE DAMN STATUTE in it's ENTIRETY!! The PRESIDENT is the one making the DETERMINATIONS of whether there is a "Crime" involved so HE CAN'T COMMIT ANY "crime" under your citation!!

§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense

You ain't much of an effing "lawyer" NOR are you much of anything OTHER THAN A **** PIECE OF **** YELLOW BELLY COWARD!! Now RUN from this one ASSHOLE!!